3 ms·

I thought they were supposed to investigate crimes? Not decide what cars can and cannot do because of their speculative thinking...

krapp 12y ago
Why would it not also be their job to speculate on the way new technologies might affect their ability to investigate crimes?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Zikes 12y ago
> I thought they were supposed to investigate crimes? When someone manages to figure out how to send a driverless car through a crowd of people in a mall somewhere, do you want the lead investigator to show up and say "What do you mean there was no driver?!" Some of investigatory science comes from analyzing crimes that have taken place, and some of it comes from imagining potential new crimes. By having imagined the above scenario and being familiar with the type of car in question, they might know to look for computer logs on the car that could lead them to the perpetrator, or that autonomous vehicles rely on GPS which might have left a trail. The purpose of the research and report is not to determine whether or not driverless cars should be legal, rather to determine what the potential risks are and how they might be mitigated with regulations and/or cooperation with the manufacturers.
- wavefunction 12y ago
  That's where the forensic team would come in, examine the evidence and determine the culpability and likely perpetrator. Pre-crime isn't a thing except in a P. K. Dick novel or a Ghost In the Shell OVA. I expect private vehicle ownership to become mostly a thing of the past once autonomous vehicles are available, and I also expect there to be a phase-change analog where one day most cars are driven by humans and then none are. I can't wait for that day observing the jackasses around me in their cars driving while they: eat, drink, apply make-up, text, talk on the phone, eat, read (!) or watch video on their in-car displays. I lost my brother to a distracted driver and I can't wait until the option to drive becomes obsolete. And I love driving.

krapp 12y ago

Why would it not also be their job to speculate on the way new technologies might affect their ability to investigate crimes?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Zikes 12y ago

> I thought they were supposed to investigate crimes? When someone manages to figure out how to send a driverless car through a crowd of people in a mall somewhere, do you want the lead investigator to show up and say "What do you mean there was no driver?!" Some of investigatory science comes from analyzing crimes that have taken place, and some of it comes from imagining potential new crimes. By having imagined the above scenario and being familiar with the type of car in question, they might know to look for computer logs on the car that could lead them to the perpetrator, or that autonomous vehicles rely on GPS which might have left a trail. The purpose of the research and report is not to determine whether or not driverless cars should be legal, rather to determine what the potential risks are and how they might be mitigated with regulations and/or cooperation with the manufacturers.

wavefunction 12y ago
That's where the forensic team would come in, examine the evidence and determine the culpability and likely perpetrator. Pre-crime isn't a thing except in a P. K. Dick novel or a Ghost In the Shell OVA. I expect private vehicle ownership to become mostly a thing of the past once autonomous vehicles are available, and I also expect there to be a phase-change analog where one day most cars are driven by humans and then none are. I can't wait for that day observing the jackasses around me in their cars driving while they: eat, drink, apply make-up, text, talk on the phone, eat, read (!) or watch video on their in-car displays. I lost my brother to a distracted driver and I can't wait until the option to drive becomes obsolete. And I love driving.