4 ms·
> The regulations would allow vehicles to operate autonomously, but a licensed driver would still need to sit behind the wheel to serve as a backup operator in
by jwb119 14y ago
> The regulations would allow vehicles to operate autonomously, but a licensed driver would still need to sit behind the wheel to serve as a backup operator in case of emergency.
That alone limits the potential "disruptiveness" quite a bit.
- khuey 14y agoFor now. That will change eventually.
- tobyjsullivan 14y agoI'm very annoyed by this requirement. It doesn't hold up to the slightest scrutiny as being necessary yet completely hinders most opportunities for true disruptiveness.
- DannoHung 14y agoYou don't think the novelty and risk associated with a fully automated system that's still in the experimental stages warrants any immediate caution? Commercial planes have had autopilot for years, but they still require at least the pilot or co-pilot to sit behind the yoke. When driverless cars have had a few million or billion hours without statistically significant incidents, I think we'll see the laws adapt to not even requiring a human fail-safe.
- neurotech1 14y agoActually, for commercial airliners its "worse". They require both a pilot and co-pilot behind the yoke, even in autopilot. If an airliner is flown with less than two crew in the cockpit, even for a short period of time, the remaining pilot/co-pilot must wear a mask when flying above 25,000ft.
- waterlesscloud 14y agoAirliners used to have a third crew member, the Flight Engineer, but that job has been automated into oblivion.
- neurotech1 14y agoA friend mentioned that non-scheduled (no passengers or commercial freight) flights in large aircraft (eg. 737) can still operate with a single-pilot and a rated flight engineer only. The pilot had to have her mask on (or clipped to the helmet) for the entire flight. This option is rarely done commercially, obviously.
- waterlesscloud 14y agoI think the slightest scrutiny shows its complete necessity. No licensed driver, car encounters situation it's not programmed for. Now what?
- percentcer 14y agoCar pulls over, unlicensed driver calls a cab.
- keeperofdakeys 14y agoUnfortunately there is a very, very, large set of possible situations a car may find itself in that requires 'user intervention'. Especially without much context-aware systems, or AI, the best error handler a driver-less car has is "stop, inform driver". Is there a curb to pull over to? What if the system is unable to determine if the path is clear because something like a branch is in the way?
- tobyjsullivan 14y agoWell, my line of argument is that any driver in a self-driving car is going to be completely inattentive (think available-to-public, not a test-phase car). For any self-driving car to be considered safe enough for public use, the car will need to be proven absolutely safe in "emergency" situations (i.e., auto-shutoff, etc.). So, if the car is proven to be absolutely safe, then why do we need a driver? To pull it off the road after it shuts off or stops?
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- neurotech1 14y agoThe whole purpose of the new autonomous vehicle law is to allow development of the systems in real-world conditions, before they can get to the next level of driving without a driver behind the wheel as a backup.
- tzs 14y agoTake professor Thrun's course on building self driving robots at Udacity, and then you'll see why this requirement is necessary at this stage of the development of this technology.
- jlgreco 14y agoWhat kind of license do they need? Would a regularly licensed teenager now be able to "drive" taxis and other commercial vehicles?
- veemjeem 14y agoLaw makers are uncertain about the technology right now. When they're the ones sitting behind the wheel in one of these cars, reading a book while it drives, then we'll probably see new legislation removing the necessity of the driver.
- dwiel 14y agoDo law makers drive cars still? (not counting for fun)
- SilasX 14y agoIt reminds me of the "Red Flag" laws, passed in the early days of the automobile, that basically made cars useless, so you'd have to defeat their very purpose in order to obey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_laws
- sillysaurus 14y agoIn the United States, the state of Vermont passed a similar flurry of Red Flag Laws in 1894. The most infamous of the Red Flag Laws was enacted in Pennsylvania circa 1896, when Quaker legislators unanimously passed a bill through both houses of the state legislature, which would require all motorists piloting their "horseless carriages", upon chance encounters with cattle or livestock to (1) immediately stop the vehicle, (2) "immediately and as rapidly as possible... disassemble the automobile," and (3) "conceal the various components out of sight, behind nearby bushes" until equestrian or livestock is sufficiently pacified.
- ricardobeat 14y agoIs that real? O_o
- zachalexander 14y agoI strongly suspect the "Quaker legislators" part is untrue, because I'm pretty sure Quaker dominance of Pennsylvania government had ended long before 1896. (I couldn't find a reference on this point though, so I might be wrong.) I don't know if the rest of the quote is accurate.
- nandemo 14y agoThat's true, but it's probably a temporary measure (a decade or so?). And even with a backup driver, automated cars have the potential of vastly decreasing traffic jams.