Re:Driverless Cars Get Green Light in California
by tobyjsullivan on Tuesday September 25, 2012 @07:21PM
(#4573305)
I'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.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Driverless Cars Get Green Light in California
by DannoHung on Tuesday September 25, 2012 @07:47PM
(#4573405)
You 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.
Re:Driverless Cars Get Green Light in California
by neurotech1 on Tuesday September 25, 2012 @08:33PM
(#4573579)
Actually, 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.
Re:Driverless Cars Get Green Light in California
by waterlesscloud on Tuesday September 25, 2012 @09:00PM
(#4573673)
Airliners used to have a third crew member, the Flight Engineer, but that job has been automated into oblivion.
Re:Driverless Cars Get Green Light in California
by neurotech1 on Tuesday September 25, 2012 @10:15PM
(#4573899)
A 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.
Re:Driverless Cars Get Green Light in California
by waterlesscloud on Tuesday September 25, 2012 @08:08PM
(#4573499)
I think the slightest scrutiny shows its complete necessity.
No licensed driver, car encounters situation it's not programmed for.
Now what?
Re:Driverless Cars Get Green Light in California
by percentcer on Tuesday September 25, 2012 @09:24PM
(#4573753)
Car pulls over, unlicensed driver calls a cab.
Re:Driverless Cars Get Green Light in California
by keeperofdakeys on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @04:11AM
(#4574658)
Unfortunately 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?
Re:Driverless Cars Get Green Light in California
by tobyjsullivan on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @07:34PM
(#4578579)
Well, 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?
Re:Driverless Cars Get Green Light in California
by tzs on Tuesday September 25, 2012 @09:33PM
(#4573784)
Take 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.
Re:Driverless Cars Get Green Light in California
by neurotech1 on Tuesday September 25, 2012 @08:35PM
(#4573588)
The 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.