News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on 'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010). Parent comment

Re:'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010) by enraged_camel on Sunday December 25, 2016 @06:01PM (#13255870)
>>It's the same thing that Uber was doing with the self-driving car permit, if you actually pay attention to the details. Neither are less safe, it's just that both didn't kiss the ring of the bureaucracy and the civil servants didn't like it.

This is ridiculous. Uber's self-driving cars have run red lights on at least one occasion[1]. Their technology is quite far behind that of Google and others.

Furthermore, the permit in question is both very easy and cheap to attain. We aren't talking about years of bureaucratic process.

The most likely reason Uber has refused to attain permits is because doing so would require disclosing accidents.

[1]http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/14/13960836/uber-self-drivin...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010) by aianus on Sunday December 25, 2016 @06:56PM (#13256100)
> Furthermore, the permit in question is both very easy and cheap to attain. We aren't talking about years of bureaucratic process.

If true, then the permits are worthless.

> The most likely reason Uber has refused to attain permits is because doing so would require disclosing accidents.

Don't accidents (self-driving or otherwise) already need to be reported to the police in California? They sure do in my jurisdiction.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010) by EdHominem on Sunday December 25, 2016 @07:27PM (#13256219)
... disclosed as self-driving car accidents.

They're pursuing self-driving tech in a shifty way - paying a driver to perform backup (in a way that Google has shown can't be done) and otherwise letting an unfinished AI have full-control of the vehicle at road speeds. When the cars make a mistake (run a red) they blame the driver so they can claim a flawless self-driving record.

If they said they were self-driving, and got the permit, they'd be required to log activations so we'd know who was supposed to be in control at the time.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010) by stale2002 on Sunday December 25, 2016 @08:02PM (#13256324)
They aren't self driving though.

The law is clear.

If you have a human at the wheel, it is lane assist, and automated cruise control.

If you don't like it, then change the law.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010) by EdHominem on Monday December 26, 2016 @04:42AM (#13257650)
Right, that's not self-driving at all, but they claim that it is. Shifty.

The problem is that they've put drivers in the car as backup; they're not supposed to drive or it ruins the experiment. So they won't be ready to take over when needed. One already missed their cue and the car ran a red light...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010) by angersock on Sunday December 25, 2016 @08:51PM (#13256458)
Jesus fuck stop shilling for Uber. They don't need your help.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010) by stale2002 on Sunday December 25, 2016 @08:53PM (#13256467)
I want my lane assist and automatic cruise control cars now, please.

And I am sick of people who don't understand the law trying to stop this perfectly legal technology from entering the market.

Read the law, and get educated please.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010) by enraged_camel on Monday December 26, 2016 @12:48AM (#13257149)
If that's the law, why did Tesla and every other company actually applied for and got the permit? Are you suggesting that you know better than their teams of lawyers?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010) by stale2002 on Monday December 26, 2016 @01:34AM (#13257251)
You are misinformed. Tesla does not have a permit for every single "self driving" car they have on the road.

There are 10s of thousands of self driving Teslas on the road right now, in the hands of customers. You can buy one! You don't have to get a permit for them.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010) by enraged_camel on Monday December 26, 2016 @05:21AM (#13257747)
California Vehicle Code 38750 covers the testing of autonomous vehicles by the manufacturer. It does not cover the usage of those vehicles by customers.

http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/vehicle-code/veh-sect-38750.html

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010) by employee8000 on Sunday December 25, 2016 @10:29PM (#13256776)
You didn't bother reading the article. It was a human driver, not the car, that ran the red light.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010) by kylec on Sunday December 25, 2016 @10:48PM (#13256830)
Has this been confirmed? John Gruber has speculated that the "human error" was that the person sitting in the driver's seat failed to stop the self-driving system from driving through the red light:

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/12/19/hazards-of-autop...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010) by employee8000 on Sunday December 25, 2016 @10:57PM (#13256854)
I don't know how much more confirmation you can get than an official statement. If you want to believe speculation over an official statement that's entirely up to you.

But if you stand at that particular intersection for an hour, I'm pretty sure it's the one on 3rd street by the MOMA, you'll probably see half a dozen people blow by that light. It's entirely reasonable to think that a human driver would drive through, but it seems rather standard for software to detect the redlight. But you are free to believe what you want.

[ Parent | on HN ]