4 ms·

also chosen because chandler az has essentially ideal driving conditions. they have been for years now operating in ca which does require them to disclose safet

by jtmcmc 9y ago

also chosen because chandler az has essentially ideal driving conditions. they have been for years now operating in ca which does require them to disclose safety statistics

762236 9y ago
Does CA require reporting handoffs to remote drivers?
- jtmcmc 9y ago
  I believe they require a disengagement rate. I am not sure if that would extend to remote drivers or not.
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  I don't believe CA allows remote drivers at all. That said, Waymo did test the fireflies (the little bubble cars) pretty extensively in the MTV area, and I believe those had no driver at all, either safety or remote. But they also weren't classified as (basically) golf carts and not motor vehicles.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    My understanding was that Google was required to retrofit the fireflies with driving controls: https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/08/21/a-car-without-a-steering-wheel-or-pedals-not-so-fast-california-says/ https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/08/21/a-car-without-a-stee... Here's Google's own statement about them having safety drivers [2015]: https://plus.google.com/+SelfDrivingCar/posts/3NuRpigxp4e https://plus.google.com/+SelfDrivingCar/posts/3NuRpigxp4e I do not believe what Waymo is launching in Arizona is legal in California.
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      You may indeed be right about the fireflies. And yeah, it's very clear that waymo is interested in moving towards full autonomy faster than the California legislature is, and so it's making advances in areas where such things are allowed. Elsewhere you said the move to AZ was because of the difference in reporting required. While I guess technically true, I think that the real answer is broader. What waymo wants to do isn't legal at all in CA. The looser reporting required is just gravy on the ability to actually test the cars.
      - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        AFAIK, Google lobbied for that lack of reporting requirements, so removing vital safety protections was a big part of this. Similarly, it isn't "testing" cars to put passengers in them, that's putting people's lives in the hands of beta hardware. Some description of how your employer does business in this space can be found here: http://googletransparencyproject.org/articles/google-enlisted-obama-officials-lobby-states-driverless-cars http://googletransparencyproject.org/articles/google-enliste... The fact that a significant amount of California politicians have been bought and paid for by Google and are still resistant to adopting Google's preferred legislation on self-driving cars shows some level of how reckless Google has been here.
        joshuamorton 9y ago
        What vital safety protections do you believe are missing? >The fact that a significant amount of California politicians have been bought and paid for by Google and are still resistant to adopting Google's preferred legislation on self-driving cars shows some level of how reckless Google has been here. Erm, there are about 30 conjectures in this statement. I don't know how I can have a good faith conversation with you when you say stuff like this that I can best describe as made up nonsense. Its tautological and impossible to even imagine a counterargument. Just to be clear, here's what you're assuming: - Google's vehicles are unsafe (if they weren't what they are doing wouldn't be reckless, by definition) - Google has significant control of the CA legislature - Google is resistant to this regulation for safety reasons, and not some other reason (for example: competative advantage) - California's regulations don't harm Google's advances in areas unrelated to safety Just as a simple counterexample: Waymo wants to beta test the infrastructure for scaling out its fleet without safety drivers. There have been 0 disengagements in the last N,000 miles (where, say, N is suitably large), and the cars appear able to drive themselves in all circumstances they encounter in Phoenix. In such a case, continuing to require safety drivers (as in CA) would be harmful to their goals, and wouldn't actually have an impact on safety. To summarize: your entire argument that Google is being reckless is predicated on their vehicles being unsafe. If they arne't unsafe, nothing else follows. You don't trust Google. But I don't understand where "don't trust" becomes "actively assume malice at every point". That seems, strange.
ocdtrekkie 9y ago
But again: Any operation in California has been with trained test drivers. So the likelihood of accidents is significantly lower than without them, as in the program launched in Arizona. They had to disclose disengagement statistics, but drivers definitely could (and did) disengage the system to prevent accidents.

by jtmcmc 9y ago

also chosen because chandler az has essentially ideal driving conditions. they have been for years now operating in ca which does require them to disclose safety statistics

762236 9y ago

Does CA require reporting handoffs to remote drivers?

jtmcmc 9y ago
I believe they require a disengagement rate. I am not sure if that would extend to remote drivers or not.
joshuamorton 9y ago
I don't believe CA allows remote drivers at all. That said, Waymo did test the fireflies (the little bubble cars) pretty extensively in the MTV area, and I believe those had no driver at all, either safety or remote. But they also weren't classified as (basically) golf carts and not motor vehicles.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  My understanding was that Google was required to retrofit the fireflies with driving controls: https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/08/21/a-car-without-a-steering-wheel-or-pedals-not-so-fast-california-says/ https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/08/21/a-car-without-a-stee... Here's Google's own statement about them having safety drivers [2015]: https://plus.google.com/+SelfDrivingCar/posts/3NuRpigxp4e https://plus.google.com/+SelfDrivingCar/posts/3NuRpigxp4e I do not believe what Waymo is launching in Arizona is legal in California.
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    You may indeed be right about the fireflies. And yeah, it's very clear that waymo is interested in moving towards full autonomy faster than the California legislature is, and so it's making advances in areas where such things are allowed. Elsewhere you said the move to AZ was because of the difference in reporting required. While I guess technically true, I think that the real answer is broader. What waymo wants to do isn't legal at all in CA. The looser reporting required is just gravy on the ability to actually test the cars.
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      AFAIK, Google lobbied for that lack of reporting requirements, so removing vital safety protections was a big part of this. Similarly, it isn't "testing" cars to put passengers in them, that's putting people's lives in the hands of beta hardware. Some description of how your employer does business in this space can be found here: http://googletransparencyproject.org/articles/google-enlisted-obama-officials-lobby-states-driverless-cars http://googletransparencyproject.org/articles/google-enliste... The fact that a significant amount of California politicians have been bought and paid for by Google and are still resistant to adopting Google's preferred legislation on self-driving cars shows some level of how reckless Google has been here.
      - joshuamorton 9y ago
        What vital safety protections do you believe are missing? >The fact that a significant amount of California politicians have been bought and paid for by Google and are still resistant to adopting Google's preferred legislation on self-driving cars shows some level of how reckless Google has been here. Erm, there are about 30 conjectures in this statement. I don't know how I can have a good faith conversation with you when you say stuff like this that I can best describe as made up nonsense. Its tautological and impossible to even imagine a counterargument. Just to be clear, here's what you're assuming: - Google's vehicles are unsafe (if they weren't what they are doing wouldn't be reckless, by definition) - Google has significant control of the CA legislature - Google is resistant to this regulation for safety reasons, and not some other reason (for example: competative advantage) - California's regulations don't harm Google's advances in areas unrelated to safety Just as a simple counterexample: Waymo wants to beta test the infrastructure for scaling out its fleet without safety drivers. There have been 0 disengagements in the last N,000 miles (where, say, N is suitably large), and the cars appear able to drive themselves in all circumstances they encounter in Phoenix. In such a case, continuing to require safety drivers (as in CA) would be harmful to their goals, and wouldn't actually have an impact on safety. To summarize: your entire argument that Google is being reckless is predicated on their vehicles being unsafe. If they arne't unsafe, nothing else follows. You don't trust Google. But I don't understand where "don't trust" becomes "actively assume malice at every point". That seems, strange.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

But again: Any operation in California has been with trained test drivers. So the likelihood of accidents is significantly lower than without them, as in the program launched in Arizona. They had to disclose disengagement statistics, but drivers definitely could (and did) disengage the system to prevent accidents.