3 ms·

Because then we would never have autonomous cars

by 83457 9y ago

mc32 9y ago
I would contend that. Dissemination (even distribution) might be slower, but it could evolve in specialized local areas (large campuses, special transit corridors, etc.) and slowly but safely expand outside those areas.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  Given that you don't have any idea if autopilot was involved in this accident, why are you calling for anything to change? Shouldn't you wait until a few more facts are known?
  - mc32 9y ago
    That's true with regard to this incident. But there are the incidents by other developers of the technologies where the systems have proven at fault. What I'm saying is that given that the technology has not yet proven itself in demanding scenarios, we may ask for more rigorous requirements if this is to become the default navigation mode of the future (no human intervention). Do we have data on how many times people have had to avert an incident that wasn't reported (my autonav almost crashed me, but I took over)? If we had public data, we could make some kind of assessment but even then, if they proved good, we could make them even better yet with the additional support/failsafe systems.
CamperBob2 9y ago
Actually there's some merit behind the suggestion, based on recent work with ground-penetrating radar tech: http://news.mit.edu/2017/lincoln-laboratory-enters-licensing-agreement-to-produce-localizing-ground-penetrating-radar-0718 http://news.mit.edu/2017/lincoln-laboratory-enters-licensing... What absolutely cannot work safely is any sort of system that relies on lane markings. Anyone who's driven around the Seattle area can tell you that much. State DOTs simply DGAF about compliance with road-marking practices, especially with respect to visibility in bad weather. And then there's the question of snow. Additional fail-safe mechanisms of one type or another are definitely going to be necessary.
Bromskloss 9y ago
Is it obvious that the people who would be in power to decide about such a requirement want autonomous cars to exist?

Because then we would never have autonomous cars

by 83457 9y ago

Because then we would never have autonomous cars

mc32 9y ago

I would contend that. Dissemination (even distribution) might be slower, but it could evolve in specialized local areas (large campuses, special transit corridors, etc.) and slowly but safely expand outside those areas.

greglindahl 9y ago
Given that you don't have any idea if autopilot was involved in this accident, why are you calling for anything to change? Shouldn't you wait until a few more facts are known?
- mc32 9y ago
  That's true with regard to this incident. But there are the incidents by other developers of the technologies where the systems have proven at fault. What I'm saying is that given that the technology has not yet proven itself in demanding scenarios, we may ask for more rigorous requirements if this is to become the default navigation mode of the future (no human intervention). Do we have data on how many times people have had to avert an incident that wasn't reported (my autonav almost crashed me, but I took over)? If we had public data, we could make some kind of assessment but even then, if they proved good, we could make them even better yet with the additional support/failsafe systems.

CamperBob2 9y ago

Actually there's some merit behind the suggestion, based on recent work with ground-penetrating radar tech: http://news.mit.edu/2017/lincoln-laboratory-enters-licensing-agreement-to-produce-localizing-ground-penetrating-radar-0718 http://news.mit.edu/2017/lincoln-laboratory-enters-licensing... What absolutely cannot work safely is any sort of system that relies on lane markings. Anyone who's driven around the Seattle area can tell you that much. State DOTs simply DGAF about compliance with road-marking practices, especially with respect to visibility in bad weather. And then there's the question of snow. Additional fail-safe mechanisms of one type or another are definitely going to be necessary.

Bromskloss 9y ago

Is it obvious that the people who would be in power to decide about such a requirement want autonomous cars to exist?