6 ms·

How is it that Tesla (and other companies developing self-driving capabilities) are allowed to deploy their products in the real world? We make people take a te

How is it that Tesla (and other companies developing self-driving capabilities) are allowed to deploy their products in the real world? We make people take a test to get a drivers license -- why don't we have requirements for self-driving systems? We require that cars pass routine mechanical inspections -- why isn't the software controlling these cars regulated?

dboreham 5y ago
Because in the context of regulations, they don't claim it to be self-driving.
- FireBeyond 5y ago
  Exactly. Marketing: "Self driving!" "The driver is only in the seat for legal purposes. The car is driving itself." Legal: "Maintain control of the vehicle at all times." Same with Summon. Marketing: "Bring your vehicle to you while dealing with a fussy child!" Legal: "Maintain attention and focus on vehicle at all times. Do not use while distracted."
  - osipov 5y ago
- WA 5y ago
  Which I don't understand. Marketing is part of what makes the product. You can't simply promise stuff on your website and then put something else in the fine print. If you market the thing as (almost) self-driving, then the fine-print doesn't really matter. It is about customer expectations. Most regulated products require post market surveillance. You have to actively monitor the market and how consumers behave. If they have a misunderstanding about the intended use of your product, you're overpromising. Which is clearly the case here if Tesla did their post market surveillance correctly.
  - tim333 5y ago
    I've yet to hear anyone who bought a Tesla say they didn't realise what they are getting. Searching HN there are 600 linked articles on Tesla self driving. It's not really a secret.
kevingadd 5y ago
Regulation hasn't caught up with the technology, and even when regulation exists regulators are very slow to enforce it. Uber and Lyft were various degrees of blatantly illegal in many places they operated, but it took regulators years to actually do anything about it and at that point they were so well-established that it rarely made sense to actually punish them. It's a reliable bet to make if you've got investor millions to spend on lawyers and lobbyists.
bob1029 5y ago
This is the point that bothers me the most. Everyone is so fixated on the things they can see and talk about (i.e. regulate). The complex mountain of software running on these cars is the entire bucket of liability. How do you mandate software quality? I don't think testing alone is enough if you seriously care about safety. Any test can be gamed as tesla has aptly demonstrated so far.
- tim333 5y ago
  Dunno - what Musk says that you can judge it on whether it's safer or not compared to humans seems ok to me. There's no practical way really to go through the mountain of code and conclude much. But maybe the judging should be done by someone independent rather than Tesla judging themselves.
heavyset_go 5y ago
Regulators are asleep at the wheel.
- ActorNightly 5y ago
  Its kinda amazing to see the cognitive dissonance that people have when it comes to "regulators". When these regulators get swayed by the car industry into stupid stuff like 25 year import rule, or how they still keep speed limits around which have nothing to do with safety as they are based on outdated MPG savings initiative and end up disproportionally affecting lower income people, they rightfully are criticized. However, as soon as some manufacturer pops up and does something that the public doesn't like, even for silly reasons like not protecting people from themselves, people immediately jump to wanting the "regulators" to do something about it. Kinda makes it easy to see who has irrational hate for Tesla/Musk versus those who actually care about technology. The correct thing for the "regulators" to do is to make it mandatory that every car has the same set of cameras and instruments that Tesla cars do, and that data is streamed to a publicly funded data warehouse where its open source and available for anyone to use.
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    People with different opinions than yours are not a monolithic entity, so please don't paint me with the same brush as others just because my opinion has more similarities with theirs than with yours. Similarly, regulators are not a monolithic entity, and it is completely possible to want regulators to do one thing while also criticizing them about other things. Otherwise, your post has big "You criticize regulators, yet you want them to do something? Curious!" energy. > Kinda makes it easy to see who has irrational hate for Tesla/Musk versus those who actually care about technology. Another broad brush stroke and false dichotomy. It's entirely possible to care about safety before caring about TSLA's shareholder value, which has nothing to do with "irrational hate" or not "caring about technology". For example, you won't see me complaining about Waymo's self-driving cars, because their program prioritizes safety instead of moving fast and breaking things/bodies. Does that sound like not caring about technology, or can you only care about technology as long as you're completely uncritical of Tesla's blatant disregard for safety? > The correct thing for the "regulators" to do is to make it mandatory that every car has the same set of cameras and instruments that Tesla cars do, and that data is streamed to a publicly funded data warehouse where its open source and available for anyone to use. That's just your opinion, and it's certainly convenient for Tesla. The "correct" and ethical thing for Tesla to have done is to keep their beta testing to closed tracks where all participants agree to be experimented only after giving their informed consent and just compensation for the risks involved. Instead, the entire public is being experimented on without their consent, and they're being experimented on by untrained non-professionals. The "correct" and ethical thing for regulators to do is ensure that Tesla ceases experimentation that can get the public killed and maimed, that the public never consented to. Similarly, the "correct" and ethical thing for Tesla to do is to not try to portray their Level 2 autonomous system as being Level 4 or greater. Regulators, ideally, would handle that issue, too.
Dylan16807 5y ago
There are requirements in some places, and maybe there should be more. But on the other hand, even the most pessimistic examination of this data doesn't seem to suggest that these cars are below the "can get a drivers license" threshold.
_ea1k 5y ago
Because based upon this data it is at least as safe as not deploying it. This data actually suggests that it is marginally safer.
- _ea1k 5y ago
  LOL at this getting downvoted when its literally what the report says. Bandwagoning?
kwhitefoot 5y ago
Autopilot (called Autosteer in the UI of my Model S) is not full self driving. That licensing issue is a different discussion altogether and doesn't really have much to do with the issue at hand..

dboreham 5y ago

Because in the context of regulations, they don't claim it to be self-driving.

FireBeyond 5y ago
Exactly. Marketing: "Self driving!" "The driver is only in the seat for legal purposes. The car is driving itself." Legal: "Maintain control of the vehicle at all times." Same with Summon. Marketing: "Bring your vehicle to you while dealing with a fussy child!" Legal: "Maintain attention and focus on vehicle at all times. Do not use while distracted."
- osipov 5y ago
WA 5y ago
Which I don't understand. Marketing is part of what makes the product. You can't simply promise stuff on your website and then put something else in the fine print. If you market the thing as (almost) self-driving, then the fine-print doesn't really matter. It is about customer expectations. Most regulated products require post market surveillance. You have to actively monitor the market and how consumers behave. If they have a misunderstanding about the intended use of your product, you're overpromising. Which is clearly the case here if Tesla did their post market surveillance correctly.
- tim333 5y ago
  I've yet to hear anyone who bought a Tesla say they didn't realise what they are getting. Searching HN there are 600 linked articles on Tesla self driving. It's not really a secret.

kevingadd 5y ago

Regulation hasn't caught up with the technology, and even when regulation exists regulators are very slow to enforce it. Uber and Lyft were various degrees of blatantly illegal in many places they operated, but it took regulators years to actually do anything about it and at that point they were so well-established that it rarely made sense to actually punish them. It's a reliable bet to make if you've got investor millions to spend on lawyers and lobbyists.

bob1029 5y ago

This is the point that bothers me the most. Everyone is so fixated on the things they can see and talk about (i.e. regulate). The complex mountain of software running on these cars is the entire bucket of liability. How do you mandate software quality? I don't think testing alone is enough if you seriously care about safety. Any test can be gamed as tesla has aptly demonstrated so far.

tim333 5y ago
Dunno - what Musk says that you can judge it on whether it's safer or not compared to humans seems ok to me. There's no practical way really to go through the mountain of code and conclude much. But maybe the judging should be done by someone independent rather than Tesla judging themselves.

heavyset_go 5y ago

Regulators are asleep at the wheel.

ActorNightly 5y ago
Its kinda amazing to see the cognitive dissonance that people have when it comes to "regulators". When these regulators get swayed by the car industry into stupid stuff like 25 year import rule, or how they still keep speed limits around which have nothing to do with safety as they are based on outdated MPG savings initiative and end up disproportionally affecting lower income people, they rightfully are criticized. However, as soon as some manufacturer pops up and does something that the public doesn't like, even for silly reasons like not protecting people from themselves, people immediately jump to wanting the "regulators" to do something about it. Kinda makes it easy to see who has irrational hate for Tesla/Musk versus those who actually care about technology. The correct thing for the "regulators" to do is to make it mandatory that every car has the same set of cameras and instruments that Tesla cars do, and that data is streamed to a publicly funded data warehouse where its open source and available for anyone to use.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  People with different opinions than yours are not a monolithic entity, so please don't paint me with the same brush as others just because my opinion has more similarities with theirs than with yours. Similarly, regulators are not a monolithic entity, and it is completely possible to want regulators to do one thing while also criticizing them about other things. Otherwise, your post has big "You criticize regulators, yet you want them to do something? Curious!" energy. > Kinda makes it easy to see who has irrational hate for Tesla/Musk versus those who actually care about technology. Another broad brush stroke and false dichotomy. It's entirely possible to care about safety before caring about TSLA's shareholder value, which has nothing to do with "irrational hate" or not "caring about technology". For example, you won't see me complaining about Waymo's self-driving cars, because their program prioritizes safety instead of moving fast and breaking things/bodies. Does that sound like not caring about technology, or can you only care about technology as long as you're completely uncritical of Tesla's blatant disregard for safety? > The correct thing for the "regulators" to do is to make it mandatory that every car has the same set of cameras and instruments that Tesla cars do, and that data is streamed to a publicly funded data warehouse where its open source and available for anyone to use. That's just your opinion, and it's certainly convenient for Tesla. The "correct" and ethical thing for Tesla to have done is to keep their beta testing to closed tracks where all participants agree to be experimented only after giving their informed consent and just compensation for the risks involved. Instead, the entire public is being experimented on without their consent, and they're being experimented on by untrained non-professionals. The "correct" and ethical thing for regulators to do is ensure that Tesla ceases experimentation that can get the public killed and maimed, that the public never consented to. Similarly, the "correct" and ethical thing for Tesla to do is to not try to portray their Level 2 autonomous system as being Level 4 or greater. Regulators, ideally, would handle that issue, too.

Dylan16807 5y ago

There are requirements in some places, and maybe there should be more. But on the other hand, even the most pessimistic examination of this data doesn't seem to suggest that these cars are below the "can get a drivers license" threshold.

_ea1k 5y ago

Because based upon this data it is at least as safe as not deploying it. This data actually suggests that it is marginally safer.

_ea1k 5y ago
LOL at this getting downvoted when its literally what the report says. Bandwagoning?

kwhitefoot 5y ago

Autopilot (called Autosteer in the UI of my Model S) is not full self driving. That licensing issue is a different discussion altogether and doesn't really have much to do with the issue at hand..