7 ms·

Probably should have waited a little longer - I know they're trying to catch the glow around Waymo's supposed safety in light of the Uber incident, but probably

Probably should have waited a little longer - I know they're trying to catch the glow around Waymo's supposed safety in light of the Uber incident, but probably should hold off - the general public isn't on top of this like HN is. I mean - I think all this talk of going live in 2018 should be stopped by officials until they create a TEST for SDVs. Also, it wouldn't be a bad thing for SDVs to run an internal offline unit test given a fake lidar scenario and make sure it doesn't kill people (every time before the car leaves the parking spot).

agumonkey 9y ago
On the other hand, I don't think the general public is targetted by this.
maxerickson 9y ago
It seems pretty unlikely that the timing of this has anything to do with the Uber crash. Why do you think it is obvious that it is related?
- lawlessone 9y ago
  >It seems pretty unlikely that the timing of this has anything to do with the Uber crash. He/She is not saying that. They're saying that the bad PR around Ubers accident means they should have moved this event to a later date.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    I know they're trying to catch the glow around Waymo's supposed safety in light of the Uber incident ???
treis 9y ago
The problem is that as soon as you define a test then these companies will put an emphasis on making sure their cars work for the test instead of the real world. Then, when something happens in the real world they say well it passed the driving test. It's one of the perpetual problems of regulation. As soon as you define a test or requirement companies will start gaming the system to meet them instead of addressing the purpose behind the regulation.
- simion314 9y ago
  You can have some required tests but those tests will be a part of the approval process, not all that pass the test get the approval but anyone that fails the test goes hope in shame. The test could have basic things like a car stopped in the middle of the road, a fake person that is fallen on the ground, a tree on the road, a big stone on the road, a big hole in the road and other similar tests. You can change the obstacle types and sizes so tests differ. The company will not be allowed to use a different software fort this tests so at least you can test that the sensors are good enough and that the software can handle basic things. This tests would be like the medical tests a driver must pass before starting the driving school, we can trust Uber like companies to perform this tests inside before putting the cars on the road for public road testing. If the tests are too basic I am sure clever people can find even better tests to stress the sensors and software before allowing the dangerous tests on public roads.
- coding123 9y ago
  It still makes sense to have a test. We put every citizen through a driving test. Those are gamed too, but at least they learned a lot of basics... and they are probably better drivers than people not required to take a test. After that, market forces will hopefully go the rest of the mile. I mean heck, this latest incident wouldn't have passed the original Darpa challenge that got us here.
  - s17n 9y ago
    Pretty sure that driving tests for humans do absolutely nothing - if you eliminated the whole process (and replaced it with a simple age requirement) it wouldn't show up in safety stats at all On the other hand, any self driving company is running an extremely complicated and extensive test suite on their code. Developing these tests is a core engineering challenge to making a sdv and any test developed by a regulator will be a joke by comparison (unless we give the regulator billions of dollars to essentially replicate the work.)
    - namibj 9y ago
      While I understand that could apply to north america, I doubt it would apply to Germany. You only get a license here if you need a car in the near future, as it is no longer a 3-digit cost.
ComradeTaco 9y ago
At the very least states should have a threshhold of X number of miles driven without an accident, x number of miles without a fatality, out of tens to hundreds of millions of miles of testing. Move fast and break things works fine when the at risk subject is someone's vacation photos from 2015 rather than a kid in a crosswalk.
- aaronblohowiak 9y ago
  America has a lot of long wide open stretches of road; the point is that things can still be gamed
- astrodust 9y ago
  Or, you know, democracy and Western society as a whole, but hey, cat photos!
zerostar07 9y ago
These cars can't come soon enough for some people - the disabled, the old etc. Even if they are slow and have cheap plastics, for some categories of people they are life-changing.
akgerber 9y ago
We should have a program to report dangerous driving by AVs, as there is a system to report dangerous driving by NYC cabs: http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/passenger/sub_consumer_compl.shtml http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/passenger/sub_consumer_comp... http://reported.cab http://reported.cab

agumonkey 9y ago

On the other hand, I don't think the general public is targetted by this.

maxerickson 9y ago

It seems pretty unlikely that the timing of this has anything to do with the Uber crash. Why do you think it is obvious that it is related?

lawlessone 9y ago
>It seems pretty unlikely that the timing of this has anything to do with the Uber crash. He/She is not saying that. They're saying that the bad PR around Ubers accident means they should have moved this event to a later date.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  I know they're trying to catch the glow around Waymo's supposed safety in light of the Uber incident ???

treis 9y ago

The problem is that as soon as you define a test then these companies will put an emphasis on making sure their cars work for the test instead of the real world. Then, when something happens in the real world they say well it passed the driving test. It's one of the perpetual problems of regulation. As soon as you define a test or requirement companies will start gaming the system to meet them instead of addressing the purpose behind the regulation.

simion314 9y ago
You can have some required tests but those tests will be a part of the approval process, not all that pass the test get the approval but anyone that fails the test goes hope in shame. The test could have basic things like a car stopped in the middle of the road, a fake person that is fallen on the ground, a tree on the road, a big stone on the road, a big hole in the road and other similar tests. You can change the obstacle types and sizes so tests differ. The company will not be allowed to use a different software fort this tests so at least you can test that the sensors are good enough and that the software can handle basic things. This tests would be like the medical tests a driver must pass before starting the driving school, we can trust Uber like companies to perform this tests inside before putting the cars on the road for public road testing. If the tests are too basic I am sure clever people can find even better tests to stress the sensors and software before allowing the dangerous tests on public roads.
coding123 9y ago
It still makes sense to have a test. We put every citizen through a driving test. Those are gamed too, but at least they learned a lot of basics... and they are probably better drivers than people not required to take a test. After that, market forces will hopefully go the rest of the mile. I mean heck, this latest incident wouldn't have passed the original Darpa challenge that got us here.
- s17n 9y ago
  Pretty sure that driving tests for humans do absolutely nothing - if you eliminated the whole process (and replaced it with a simple age requirement) it wouldn't show up in safety stats at all On the other hand, any self driving company is running an extremely complicated and extensive test suite on their code. Developing these tests is a core engineering challenge to making a sdv and any test developed by a regulator will be a joke by comparison (unless we give the regulator billions of dollars to essentially replicate the work.)
  - namibj 9y ago
    While I understand that could apply to north america, I doubt it would apply to Germany. You only get a license here if you need a car in the near future, as it is no longer a 3-digit cost.

ComradeTaco 9y ago

At the very least states should have a threshhold of X number of miles driven without an accident, x number of miles without a fatality, out of tens to hundreds of millions of miles of testing. Move fast and break things works fine when the at risk subject is someone's vacation photos from 2015 rather than a kid in a crosswalk.

aaronblohowiak 9y ago
America has a lot of long wide open stretches of road; the point is that things can still be gamed
astrodust 9y ago
Or, you know, democracy and Western society as a whole, but hey, cat photos!

zerostar07 9y ago

These cars can't come soon enough for some people - the disabled, the old etc. Even if they are slow and have cheap plastics, for some categories of people they are life-changing.

akgerber 9y ago

We should have a program to report dangerous driving by AVs, as there is a system to report dangerous driving by NYC cabs: http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/passenger/sub_consumer_compl.shtml http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/passenger/sub_consumer_comp... http://reported.cab http://reported.cab