4 ms·

Reading the article, this doesn't strike me as inappropriate. "Self-driving vehicle technology is not yet at the stage of sophistication or demonstrated safety

Reading the article, this doesn't strike me as inappropriate. "Self-driving vehicle technology is not yet at the stage of sophistication or demonstrated safety capability that it should be authorized for use by members of the public for general driving purposes" is probably true. The cars are good at what they do, but that doesn't mean they can handle all sorts of bizarre detour, road construction, rural roads, faded/incorrect markings, conflicting markings, control from officers/construction workers on the roadway, etc. It's a huge, promising field, but still under significant development. They also say, "as self-driving cars improve, they will reconsider." Seems fair.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
cracell 13y ago
Which seems to be the same conclusion as those working on autonomous vehicles right now since no one has announced when they plan to make consumer models available. The only real take away I got from this article is that the NHTSA is actively monitoring autonomous vehicles as they should be.
akmiller 13y ago
They also say, "as self-driving cars improve, they will reconsider." Seems fair. It would seem fair if they pointed to any actual data regarding the safety of such vehicles versus the safety of cars driven by humans but I see no such information provided. Or, it might seem fair if there was any company trying to actively sell self-driving cars to the general public right now. I think this is a problem that would likely work itself out without legislation surrounding it. Companies, for the most part, would probably like to provide products that don't endanger the lives of their customers. Along with that, insurance companies I'm sure would love to reduce the risk of driving while maintaining the current cost of insurance. Therefore, I'm guessing they will be heavily involved in testing self-driving cars. If the findings aren't good I'm sure insurance costs would be extreme or not available at all.
- steven777400 13y ago
  Just to address your first point, data is not actually too beneficial when it comes to general public policy making. Many people make decisions based on emotion rather than data. For example, some people have a tremendous fear of flying. Yet flying commercially is one of the safest modes of travel: a person is far more likely to be injured on the way to the airport than to be injured in a commercial aviation accident in this country. Likewise, the first time one of these cars misreads a signal or marking and plows into a farmer's market, the panic will be significantly greater than when an impaired driver causes the same damage; even if we have data to show that for each self-driving car injury there are 100 human-driven car injuries, it will be tough to override the "I don't have control of it, I don't understand it, I'm scared of it" emotional gut response of people.
- rayiner 13y ago
  The onus is on the people who want to change the status quo to show that self-driving cars are safe, not the other way around. "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't."

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

cracell 13y ago

Which seems to be the same conclusion as those working on autonomous vehicles right now since no one has announced when they plan to make consumer models available. The only real take away I got from this article is that the NHTSA is actively monitoring autonomous vehicles as they should be.

akmiller 13y ago

They also say, "as self-driving cars improve, they will reconsider." Seems fair. It would seem fair if they pointed to any actual data regarding the safety of such vehicles versus the safety of cars driven by humans but I see no such information provided. Or, it might seem fair if there was any company trying to actively sell self-driving cars to the general public right now. I think this is a problem that would likely work itself out without legislation surrounding it. Companies, for the most part, would probably like to provide products that don't endanger the lives of their customers. Along with that, insurance companies I'm sure would love to reduce the risk of driving while maintaining the current cost of insurance. Therefore, I'm guessing they will be heavily involved in testing self-driving cars. If the findings aren't good I'm sure insurance costs would be extreme or not available at all.

steven777400 13y ago
Just to address your first point, data is not actually too beneficial when it comes to general public policy making. Many people make decisions based on emotion rather than data. For example, some people have a tremendous fear of flying. Yet flying commercially is one of the safest modes of travel: a person is far more likely to be injured on the way to the airport than to be injured in a commercial aviation accident in this country. Likewise, the first time one of these cars misreads a signal or marking and plows into a farmer's market, the panic will be significantly greater than when an impaired driver causes the same damage; even if we have data to show that for each self-driving car injury there are 100 human-driven car injuries, it will be tough to override the "I don't have control of it, I don't understand it, I'm scared of it" emotional gut response of people.
rayiner 13y ago
The onus is on the people who want to change the status quo to show that self-driving cars are safe, not the other way around. "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't."