News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings by JoshTriplett on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @01:58PM (#12167520)
> Completely unattended driving (enter destination and taking a nap) is still up for debate. Requiring a machine to be watched seems like a pretty easy-to-pass regulation.

Requiring a human to watch implies a means for the human to intervene and take over. Having a human second-guess the machine will increase accidents. And having the controls available for the human to do so will increase complexity and decrease reliability.

Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings by dexwiz on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @02:24PM (#12167715)
Many regulations are of questionable validity, but do you really want to be in a machine that you have no control over? Would robotic drivers be better at things like merging, keeping distance, not over correcting? Yes. But people will still want to intervene when it doing something dumb like driving into a pond, or gets stuck on a median and cannot figure out how to get off.

Driverless cars will probably not be magic pods that whisk you around. It's still a vehicle that needs to navigate terrain. And roads are not perfect everywhere.

Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings by JoshTriplett on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @03:10PM (#12168063)
> do you really want to be in a machine that you have no control over

Yes. I regularly fly in planes, which I have no control over, and which spend most of their time on autopilot. I also regularly deal with machines that do their jobs far better than I could, and I feel no desire to take over and do those jobs worse. Why should that answer change when the stakes get higher and the cost of a mistake goes up?

(That doesn't mean I want to beta-test an experimental driverless car; it does mean I'm eager for a non-experimental one.)

> But people will still want to intervene when it doing something dumb like driving into a pond, or gets stuck on a median and cannot figure out how to get off.

A vehicle that did any of those things would be considered broken in a deadly way. The solution isn't to hand people broken vehicles that they sometimes need to take over from; the solution is to not call a car driverless until it handles those situations (generally by not getting into such situations in the first place).

> Driverless cars will probably not be magic pods that whisk you around.

Yet.

Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings by erobbins on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @06:30PM (#12169229)
I really hate this association of aircraft and car autopilots.

Aircraft operate in essentially empty space, and barring major mechanical failure the pilots typically have tens of seconds up to many minutes to act to avoid disaster. In a car you often have less than a second to react, and certainly never more than 4-5.

Aircraft hardware and software is tested, retested, tested again, and certified. Auto hardware and software is pushed out the door with reckless disregard for reliability.

There is really no comparison.

Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings by mc32 on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @07:13PM (#12169415)
People forget planes, the kinds with sophisticated autopilot, don't come out with a new model revision every two to three years. Their cycles are very long, decades long.
Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings by icebraining on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @07:38PM (#12169550)
Autolanding doesn't have the empty space, yet the first autolanding of a commercial flight with passengers aboard was done in '65.
Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings by jerf on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @07:52PM (#12169623)
Errr... yes it does. A runway is empty space. There are no other planes on it, it's a straight, well-maintained stretch of pavement, kept clear of ice and snow, with clear markings. Those are conditions so easy that non-self-driving cars can manage to navigate them for non-trivial periods of time without hitting anything! The Mythbusters have had a couple of cars go entirely out of control a couple times under those circumstances and the damage was a fence, once, IIRC.
Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings by icebraining on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @07:58PM (#12169647)
There's more to landing than taxiing on the runway, like approaching the ground at a minimum of 250 km/h while getting hit by winds, often with very little visibility.
Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings by jerf on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @09:26AM (#12172509)
Hike dem goalposts!
Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings by mentat on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @12:23PM (#12174147)
They're just talking about reality of every day landings. If you don't like it, don't make up counterfactual claims in the first place.
Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings by icebraining on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @09:39AM (#12172619)
?
Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings by pyre on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @05:42PM (#12168927)
> Yes. I regularly fly in planes, which I have no control over, and which spend most of their time on autopilot.

Those planes with their auto-pilot system still have a means for the pilots to intervene. That's not quite the same as being in a vehicle for which no human has the possibility of intervening. (It's also a bit disingenuous to imply that it is.)

Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings by JoshTriplett on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @06:38PM (#12169264)
First, those pilots are heavily trained and certified, far more than car drivers. And second, far more accidents occur due to humans than due to mechanical failure (and of "mechanical failure", only a subset of those involve incorrect autopilot, though I haven't found that broken out). http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm puts total human causes at 67% (53% of which is pilot error), and mechanical failure at 20%.

Some accidents also occur specifically when pilots ignore/override the automatic systems; I'd be interested to see statistics on that, too, but I haven't found any.

Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings by pyre on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @06:53PM (#12169324)
Do you have statistics on the number of times that the pilot has to take control because the auto-pilot is unable to cope or is doing the wrong thing? Focusing just human-caused accidents vs. machine-caused accidents ignores this.
Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings by sokoloff on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @07:06PM (#12169384)
I don't have the stats, but I have a bit over 1000 hours as a pilot of light aircraft.

"What's it doing now?" is a common question in the industry, and the subject of this excellent American Airlines training seminar video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN41LvuSz10&t=21m41s

(The whole video is good, but that's the specific automation confusion question.)

Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings by fwefeefew on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @06:37PM (#12169256)
> but do you really want to be in a machine that you have no control over?

Yes, it would almost definitely be safer than a lot of drivers I've been in the car with, if not all of them. And it's be far less nerve-wracking than with some drivers.

Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings by raldi on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @07:43PM (#12169573)
> do you really want to be in a machine that you have no control over?

Do you ever ride in taxis? Or as a passenger in any car? How is that situation any different?

Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings by CaptSpify on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @02:41PM (#12167850)
Some traffic systems, such as red light timing, actually have been shown to increase accidents. But they also increase revenue

edit: source that I haven't read, but there are numerous sources from a simple web-search: http://www.illinoisherald.com/articles/2014/q4/chicago-red-l...

Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings by JBReefer on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @02:54PM (#12167955)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02...

They also save pedestrian and motorist lives.