4 ms·

We just need better regulation. Why is it not clearly defined and communicated how, say, a firefighter can take control of a vehicle without having to call the

We just need better regulation. Why is it not clearly defined and communicated how, say, a firefighter can take control of a vehicle without having to call the company or break the window to do so? Also, how is it not required that x number of remote operators are ready to take over a car at any second when a car encounters an uncommon situation that makes the car pause or otherwise cause traffic problems?

systemvoltage 3y ago
Writing optimal regulation requires hard work and talking to experts, leaving behind cult-like religious ideological echo-chambers. Regulation will be written in such a way that it will neuter the entire industry unless we have good oversight.
- appplication 3y ago
  We’re not at all at risk of self-driving cars being neutered forever. It makes more sense to start broadly, restrictively and aggressively regulating at this junction and slowly back it off as tolerated. In the above example with firefighters, it would be simple enough to say “autonomous vehicles must have some way to be overridden and controlled by emergency services in <60s or less”. The specifics can be figured out by the companies. Once we have a better understanding of who is doing it well and how that works well, it can be expanded to a more detailed standard. We don’t need perfect to be the enemy of good, just just need to start regulating and be proactive about modifying it.
  - systemvoltage 3y ago
    "Starting broadly", it's so over man. We're done. Repealing regulations is doubly harder than instilling them.
- willio58 3y ago
  > Regulation will be written in such a way that it will neuter the entire industry unless we have good oversight. We're only in this position because self driving car companies are failing to regulate themselves. It's not that far-fetched for large corporations to come together and participate in self-regulation so the government doesn't have to. Look at the MPAA or really any number of trade organizations out there today. If cruise fucks it up, that's on them and not us. SF is more lax than most cities in allowing this sort of stuff in the first place, but there are no guarantees, especially if people start dying.
syndicatedjelly 3y ago
Christ, enough with the goddamn Regulation-as-a-Service solution. What we need is companies to not intentionally be a public nuisance, just to make a quick buck.
- ehvatum 3y ago
  The purpose of regulation and regulatory enforcement is to make what would be lucrative nuisance behavior highly unprofitable for the offender. For example, in the cases of shoplifting or selling fentanyl on the street, lack of enforcement-coupled-regulation leads to a wholly predictable rise in shoplifting and fentanyl street vending. To say otherwise is just another kind of public nuisance for personal gain.
- willio58 3y ago
  > What we need is companies to not intentionally be a public nuisance, just to make a quick buck Unless you think companies will make this switch themselves (they will not), this is exactly what regulation is for. It's almost like you said: "Christ, enough Regulation. What we need is regulation."
  - syndicatedjelly 3y ago
    No I'm sick of the "What we need is better regulation" solution that's excreted as the first idea from this community. Except when it applies to whatever niche field they happen to work in, then it's "GET OUTTA MY WAY GOVUHMENT, I'm HERE TO INNOVATE"
pauldenton 3y ago
How has regulation worked at fixing the rest of San Franciscos problems? If only we could pass a regulation that required them to work... That will solve the problem
- willio58 3y ago
  I was in SF last weekend for the first time in years and honestly, the city seemed to be doing great. Less homeless and parks cleaner than I remember, transportation fast and easy to pay for as ever.. I'm sure there are huge problems still in SF, but by in large I can still understand why so many people still choose to live there.

systemvoltage 3y ago

Writing optimal regulation requires hard work and talking to experts, leaving behind cult-like religious ideological echo-chambers. Regulation will be written in such a way that it will neuter the entire industry unless we have good oversight.

appplication 3y ago
We’re not at all at risk of self-driving cars being neutered forever. It makes more sense to start broadly, restrictively and aggressively regulating at this junction and slowly back it off as tolerated. In the above example with firefighters, it would be simple enough to say “autonomous vehicles must have some way to be overridden and controlled by emergency services in <60s or less”. The specifics can be figured out by the companies. Once we have a better understanding of who is doing it well and how that works well, it can be expanded to a more detailed standard. We don’t need perfect to be the enemy of good, just just need to start regulating and be proactive about modifying it.
- systemvoltage 3y ago
  "Starting broadly", it's so over man. We're done. Repealing regulations is doubly harder than instilling them.
willio58 3y ago
> Regulation will be written in such a way that it will neuter the entire industry unless we have good oversight. We're only in this position because self driving car companies are failing to regulate themselves. It's not that far-fetched for large corporations to come together and participate in self-regulation so the government doesn't have to. Look at the MPAA or really any number of trade organizations out there today. If cruise fucks it up, that's on them and not us. SF is more lax than most cities in allowing this sort of stuff in the first place, but there are no guarantees, especially if people start dying.

syndicatedjelly 3y ago

Christ, enough with the goddamn Regulation-as-a-Service solution. What we need is companies to not intentionally be a public nuisance, just to make a quick buck.

ehvatum 3y ago
The purpose of regulation and regulatory enforcement is to make what would be lucrative nuisance behavior highly unprofitable for the offender. For example, in the cases of shoplifting or selling fentanyl on the street, lack of enforcement-coupled-regulation leads to a wholly predictable rise in shoplifting and fentanyl street vending. To say otherwise is just another kind of public nuisance for personal gain.
willio58 3y ago
> What we need is companies to not intentionally be a public nuisance, just to make a quick buck Unless you think companies will make this switch themselves (they will not), this is exactly what regulation is for. It's almost like you said: "Christ, enough Regulation. What we need is regulation."
- syndicatedjelly 3y ago
  No I'm sick of the "What we need is better regulation" solution that's excreted as the first idea from this community. Except when it applies to whatever niche field they happen to work in, then it's "GET OUTTA MY WAY GOVUHMENT, I'm HERE TO INNOVATE"

pauldenton 3y ago

How has regulation worked at fixing the rest of San Franciscos problems? If only we could pass a regulation that required them to work... That will solve the problem

willio58 3y ago
I was in SF last weekend for the first time in years and honestly, the city seemed to be doing great. Less homeless and parks cleaner than I remember, transportation fast and easy to pay for as ever.. I'm sure there are huge problems still in SF, but by in large I can still understand why so many people still choose to live there.