Federal regulators says car makers “cannot wait for perfect” on automation

“Pre-market approval steps” could clarify responsibility in the future.


Read the whole story

 

[new2mac]

There is no public transport. It's over. With UberPool I can get around Philly for $3. Fast and on-demand. With UberPool-Driverless it'll be $1-2. Toss in Tesla ride-share. End game for public transport.

 

[Alfonse]

JustQuestions[/url]":36cq13xw]

SixDegrees[/url]":36cq13xw]

JustQuestions[/url]":36cq13xw]Nobody expects them to wait for "perfect."

We expect them to wait for "better than the current state of affairs," and that state of affairs is humans driving around on the road.

What we don't want to see is driving becoming more riskier than it already is, due to poor security, aggressive experimentation in the public space, and otherwise reckless endangerment.

"Do it on a computer" isn't automatically better or safer than a human.

There needs to be layers of accountability, with rigorous and extensive testing, and they need to be ready and willing to immediately recall and disable features that are deemed dangerous and hazardous. And believe me, some of them will be. I'm already highly skeptical of Tesla's driver assist.

Then we're already there. Every deployment of automated driving technology has reduced accident, injury, and death rates significantly.

Welcome to the future.

If you're talking about traditional car manufacturers, you are absolutely correct. We have what amounts to miracle technology in the form of ABS, as a cornerstone example.

No disagreements on this point.

What I'm trying to emphasize is that I don't trust a lot of these new players, such as Tesla, Google, Uber, Lyft, and the like. Newer tech companies and ones that specialize in software and algorithms and applying them to novel areas have a reputation for thinking that "do it on a computer" or "do it with an algorithm" gives them a license to ignore existing regulation.

So, what I would like to see as a consumer is more federal regulation and with more teeth. Language that specifically targets players like Tesla, Uber, and Google and holds them to the same standards that traditional automakers are held to, where a handful of deaths can cause the recall of 5.5 million replaced units.

If some algorithm fails, the failure needs to be acknowledged, fixed, and even disabled if they cannot implement a fix. What I don't want to see is some argument that "well, ultimately the driver was responsible anyways, so the algorithm isn't at fault!"

If that argument is allowed to pass them we're about to see a shitstorm of horrible driving and horrible accidents.

Basically, there's a real risk of people dying unnecessarily if tech companies continue to invent excuses rather than adopt traditional engineering principles. If your part fails, that failure needs to be acknowledged.

An algorithm is just another part. It's no different in this sense than an airbag inflater. If you implement a new part on a car, it needs to be reliable, because people are going to count on that part operating reliably while they are driving around the roads at deadly speeds.

Because God knows that the "traditional engineering principles" that the traditional automobile manufacturers have followed have never led to them inventing excuses rather than acknowledging faults in their designs. We certainly have never had occasions where those manufacturers tried to avoid regulation, buy legislation to get regulations changed, or just flat-out lie about their vehicles.

No, the big auto manufactures are bastions of ethics and morality. They care very much about the consumer, while those sleazy tech companies are the ones willing to cut corners.

 

[Green RT]

new2mac[/url]":12lpbvvz]There is no public transport. It's over. With UberPool I can get around Philly for $3. Fast and on-demand. With UberPool-Driverless it'll be $1-2. Toss in Tesla ride-share. End game for public transport.

UberPool –is– public transit.

 

[JustQuestions]

Alfonse[/url]":1if9xdbw]

JustQuestions[/url]":1if9xdbw]

SixDegrees[/url]":1if9xdbw]

JustQuestions[/url]":1if9xdbw]Nobody expects them to wait for "perfect."

We expect them to wait for "better than the current state of affairs," and that state of affairs is humans driving around on the road.

What we don't want to see is driving becoming more riskier than it already is, due to poor security, aggressive experimentation in the public space, and otherwise reckless endangerment.

"Do it on a computer" isn't automatically better or safer than a human.

There needs to be layers of accountability, with rigorous and extensive testing, and they need to be ready and willing to immediately recall and disable features that are deemed dangerous and hazardous. And believe me, some of them will be. I'm already highly skeptical of Tesla's driver assist.

Then we're already there. Every deployment of automated driving technology has reduced accident, injury, and death rates significantly.

Welcome to the future.

If you're talking about traditional car manufacturers, you are absolutely correct. We have what amounts to miracle technology in the form of ABS, as a cornerstone example.

No disagreements on this point.

What I'm trying to emphasize is that I don't trust a lot of these new players, such as Tesla, Google, Uber, Lyft, and the like. Newer tech companies and ones that specialize in software and algorithms and applying them to novel areas have a reputation for thinking that "do it on a computer" or "do it with an algorithm" gives them a license to ignore existing regulation.

So, what I would like to see as a consumer is more federal regulation and with more teeth. Language that specifically targets players like Tesla, Uber, and Google and holds them to the same standards that traditional automakers are held to, where a handful of deaths can cause the recall of 5.5 million replaced units.

If some algorithm fails, the failure needs to be acknowledged, fixed, and even disabled if they cannot implement a fix. What I don't want to see is some argument that "well, ultimately the driver was responsible anyways, so the algorithm isn't at fault!"

If that argument is allowed to pass them we're about to see a shitstorm of horrible driving and horrible accidents.

Basically, there's a real risk of people dying unnecessarily if tech companies continue to invent excuses rather than adopt traditional engineering principles. If your part fails, that failure needs to be acknowledged.

An algorithm is just another part. It's no different in this sense than an airbag inflater. If you implement a new part on a car, it needs to be reliable, because people are going to count on that part operating reliably while they are driving around the roads at deadly speeds.

Because God knows that the "traditional engineering principles" that the traditional automobile manufacturers have followed have never led to them inventing excuses rather than acknowledging faults in their designs. We certainly have never had occasions where those manufacturers tried to avoid regulation, buy legislation to get regulations changed, or just flat-out lie about their vehicles.

No, the big auto manufactures are bastions of ethics and morality. They care very much about the consumer, while those sleazy tech companies are the ones willing to cut corners.

Nice straw man. I never said they were perfect.

The idea is, again, things not getting worse. That's the problem. And, by and large, tech companies are worse about following regulation. They just are. Look at Uber. They make "do it on a computer" and "ignore regulations" a core principle of their entire business model. Uber also wants autonomous cars. Badly.

So, yes, I think it's totally reasonable to want regulations targeting algorithms and software specifically.

I would like to point out that you didn't respond to anything I said with substance, either, just a straw man. You completely ignored all my core points.

Algorithms are parts, just like physical parts. I would argue that an algorithm on a chip is a physical part the same way a strut or a brake pad is. As such, an algorithm can have flaws and those flaws need to be fixed if they are present.

We cannot use the driver as a liability crutch in driver assist technologies. The driver ultimately being responsible for driving is not an excuse for algorithms failing, sensors failing, and unpredictable performance.

 

[mycroftxxx]

MrMickS[/url]":38r1emsy]Reducing fatalities... hmmm

Perhaps make wearing seatbelt mandatory. I know that the choice of whether to allow yourself to be propelled around the vehicle, or out through the windshield, is probably protected under some amendment of the US constitution, and that this is a communist idea, it does work though. It would also reduce airbag injuries as they wouldn't need to try and protect and unrestrained occupant.

On the boring commute front. Wasn't one of the supposed benefits of the IT revolution that people could work more remotely. That the commute was something that could be consigned to the past? I manage to travel into the office a couple of days every 3-4 weeks or so. It should be possible to work in a more remote manner for most office bound people for at least a portion of the week.

Most states in the US have mandatory seatbelt laws; they work reasonably well, and IMHO manage to skate just inside the "acceptable encroachment on civil liberties" line. Same for helmet laws, although there is a lot more vocal opposition to those.

Telecommuting is not a panacea. It just doesn't work well for some people because they need the face-to-face interaction with co-workers to be productive; families at home can be very distracting to a telecommuter and de facto require you to have a dedicated room; proprietary and/or security requirements may make it impossible to do (e.g., getting your house and VPN certified as a SCIF may be possible but would be very expensive and negate any cost benefit), etc.

 

[brionl]

mycroftxxx[/url]":1gpqowsb]

MrMickS[/url]":1gpqowsb]Reducing fatalities... hmmm

Perhaps make wearing seatbelt mandatory. I know that the choice of whether to allow yourself to be propelled around the vehicle, or out through the windshield, is probably protected under some amendment of the US constitution, and that this is a communist idea, it does work though. It would also reduce airbag injuries as they wouldn't need to try and protect and unrestrained occupant.

On the boring commute front. Wasn't one of the supposed benefits of the IT revolution that people could work more remotely. That the commute was something that could be consigned to the past? I manage to travel into the office a couple of days every 3-4 weeks or so. It should be possible to work in a more remote manner for most office bound people for at least a portion of the week.

Most states in the US have mandatory seatbelt laws; they work reasonably well, and IMHO manage to skate just inside the "acceptable encroachment on civil liberties" line. Same for helmet laws, although there is a lot more vocal opposition to those.

Telecommuting is not a panacea. It just doesn't work well for some people because they need the face-to-face interaction with co-workers to be productive; families at home can be very distracting to a telecommuter and de facto require you to have a dedicated room; proprietary and/or security requirements may make it impossible to do (e.g., getting your house and VPN certified as a SCIF may be possible but would be very expensive and negate any cost benefit), etc.

I suppose your barber or stylist could telecommute by sending a drone to wherever you are. Problem is you only get buzz-cuts that way.

 

[charles222]

Alfonse[/url]":221n1a48]

pr0t0[/url]":221n1a48]You know who's probably paying very close attention to this? The airline industry. Imagine if you could hop in your car at 10pm, go to sleep, and be at your destination when you wake up. You and several passengers, and your luggage, will be able to travel (over land, anyway) pretty comfortably:

People have said a lot of things about sleeping in cars. "Comfortable" is probably not one of them.

Granted, neither is an airplane trip.

Also, you're going to have to wake up a couple of times to fill it up with gas.

That being said, I could see companies buying a few autonomous cars that have more legroom and so forth, so that they could send executives relatively short distances overnight without having to pay airfare. Though they'd still need a quick hotel stay to shower and so forth before their meetings.

If you put the seat down it's not bad.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

Alfonse[/url]":da5gmphu]

pr0t0[/url]":da5gmphu]You know who's probably paying very close attention to this? The airline industry. Imagine if you could hop in your car at 10pm, go to sleep, and be at your destination when you wake up. You and several passengers, and your luggage, will be able to travel (over land, anyway) pretty comfortably:

People have said a lot of things about sleeping in cars. "Comfortable" is probably not one of them.

Car seats are one of the most comfortable seats - for sitting. Way better than almost any office chair. If redesigned for sleeping Im sure they would come out better.

 

[foxyshadis]

Green RT[/url]":1ts7vfgh]

new2mac[/url]":1ts7vfgh]There is no public transport. It's over. With UberPool I can get around Philly for $3. Fast and on-demand. With UberPool-Driverless it'll be $1-2. Toss in Tesla ride-share. End game for public transport.

UberPool –is– public transit.

Not only that, it's public transit with a gamble: If no one else is going that way, you pay the full cost of the ride. That's not a huge risk in a big city, but it's always a risk.

 

[Thucydides411]

Boskone[/url]":1xc4055t]

Hot Jupiter[/url]":1xc4055t]

Boskone[/url]":1xc4055t]

Statistical[/url]":1xc4055t]

Steveha7[/url]":1xc4055t]Is there really a demand for a driverless car? Driving is the fun part and is why I got a license. This may help handicapped people and if kids can ride in them without an adult. Other than that, I don't see much demand.

Nothing fun about a commute or I would say any fun wears thin after the first 1000 times. I would gladly pay $20K extra for a self driving car today even if it was limited to only self driving on the highway (user took over at on/off ramps).

I wouldn't go $20k extra for an autonomous car, but semiautonomy and a $30k pricetag is why the Tesla 3 is tempting.

I can't readily afford a second car, though, so I won't buy one. :|

Why would anyone buy a fully autonomous car?!?

They would be in a fleet and dispatched as needed.

Why would I want a fleet car shared with random joes? Rentals are bad enough, and they get cleaned after every use. A "just in time fleet" would have cars going directly from one user to the next, complete with puddles of vomit or whatever other nastiness.

I'd rather have my own vehicle who's condition I can guarantee.

Owning your own autonomous car will be an expensive luxury. Cars in a fleet will get much more usage per day, and won't have to spend as much time in parking lots. The costs associated with each fleet car will be spread over multiple users. By owning your own car, you'll have to not only pay full price for the car, but personally make sure the car is in good condition and rent parking for it. You have greater responsibility and greater costs. That sounds like something only a small percentage of people will go for.

 

[Thucydides411]

halse[/url]":3ultugq1]If the preliminary assessment of a Phase 3 drug trial shows that X reduces fatalities by a factor of 2 relative to the current Y the trial is stopped as it is unethical to continue giving patients Y.

That is about where Tesla's autopilot currently is.

Tesla's autopilot actually is not known to increase safety. It might increase safety, but there's simply not enough evidence to demonstrate that with even marginal confidence.

One fatal accident in 130 million miles of driving on the highway is very similar to what unaided humans achieve. It's actually significantly worse than what other luxury sedans achieve. But this is just one accident, so the statistics are extremely uncertain. For all we know, Tesla's autopilot could double or halve the rate of fatal accidents. It would take more than an order of magnitude more road testing to know which is more likely.

 

[Jim Z]

Thucydides411[/url]":uth8uzjm]

halse[/url]":uth8uzjm]If the preliminary assessment of a Phase 3 drug trial shows that X reduces fatalities by a factor of 2 relative to the current Y the trial is stopped as it is unethical to continue giving patients Y.

That is about where Tesla's autopilot currently is.

Tesla's autopilot actually is not known to increase safety. It might increase safety, but there's simply not enough evidence to demonstrate that with even marginal confidence.

One fatal accident in 130 million miles of driving on the highway is very similar to what unaided humans achieve. It's actually significantly worse than what other luxury sedans achieve. But this is just one accident, so the statistics are extremely uncertain. For all we know, Tesla's autopilot could double or halve the rate of fatal accidents. It would take more than an order of magnitude more road testing to know which is more likely.

very good point- according to NHTSA for 2014 (the most recent year they show) the rate was 1.08 fatalities per 100 million miles driven. but in fairness, that number in 2014 was a record low. Estimates say it went up for 2015.

 

[SixDegrees]

Thucydides411[/url]":1thm095b]

Boskone[/url]":1thm095b]

Hot Jupiter[/url]":1thm095b]

Boskone[/url]":1thm095b]

Statistical[/url]":1thm095b]

Steveha7[/url]":1thm095b]Is there really a demand for a driverless car? Driving is the fun part and is why I got a license. This may help handicapped people and if kids can ride in them without an adult. Other than that, I don't see much demand.

Nothing fun about a commute or I would say any fun wears thin after the first 1000 times. I would gladly pay $20K extra for a self driving car today even if it was limited to only self driving on the highway (user took over at on/off ramps).

I wouldn't go $20k extra for an autonomous car, but semiautonomy and a $30k pricetag is why the Tesla 3 is tempting.

I can't readily afford a second car, though, so I won't buy one. :|

Why would anyone buy a fully autonomous car?!?

They would be in a fleet and dispatched as needed.

Why would I want a fleet car shared with random joes? Rentals are bad enough, and they get cleaned after every use. A "just in time fleet" would have cars going directly from one user to the next, complete with puddles of vomit or whatever other nastiness.

I'd rather have my own vehicle who's condition I can guarantee.

Owning your own autonomous car will be an expensive luxury. Cars in a fleet will get much more usage per day, and won't have to spend as much time in parking lots. The costs associated with each fleet car will be spread over multiple users. By owning your own car, you'll have to not only pay full price for the car, but personally make sure the car is in good condition and rent parking for it. You have greater responsibility and greater costs. That sounds like something only a small percentage of people will go for.

So they'll be like expensive cabs.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

brionl[/url]":2wzq6tbn]

mycroftxxx[/url]":2wzq6tbn]

MrMickS[/url]":2wzq6tbn]Reducing fatalities... hmmm

Perhaps make wearing seatbelt mandatory. I know that the choice of whether to allow yourself to be propelled around the vehicle, or out through the windshield, is probably protected under some amendment of the US constitution, and that this is a communist idea, it does work though. It would also reduce airbag injuries as they wouldn't need to try and protect and unrestrained occupant.

On the boring commute front. Wasn't one of the supposed benefits of the IT revolution that people could work more remotely. That the commute was something that could be consigned to the past? I manage to travel into the office a couple of days every 3-4 weeks or so. It should be possible to work in a more remote manner for most office bound people for at least a portion of the week.

Most states in the US have mandatory seatbelt laws; they work reasonably well, and IMHO manage to skate just inside the "acceptable encroachment on civil liberties" line. Same for helmet laws, although there is a lot more vocal opposition to those.

Telecommuting is not a panacea. It just doesn't work well for some people because they need the face-to-face interaction with co-workers to be productive; families at home can be very distracting to a telecommuter and de facto require you to have a dedicated room; proprietary and/or security requirements may make it impossible to do (e.g., getting your house and VPN certified as a SCIF may be possible but would be very expensive and negate any cost benefit), etc.

I suppose your barber or stylist could telecommute by sending a drone to wherever you are. Problem is you only get buzz-cuts that way.

And doctors use to make house calls. We've given up so much.

 

[tbone43068]

I guess i'm a dinosaur. I drive 50K miles a year in a manual transmission car and love it even in heavy traffic conditions. I have no plans to change and will hopefully be long dead before boring automated cars take over.

 

[nom3ramy]

Thucydides411[/url]":2aepn8z2]
Tesla's autopilot actually is not known to increase safety. It might increase safety, but there's simply not enough evidence to demonstrate that with even marginal confidence.

One fatal accident in 130 million miles of driving on the highway is very similar to what unaided humans achieve. It's actually significantly worse than what other luxury sedans achieve. But this is just one accident, so the statistics are extremely uncertain. For all we know, Tesla's autopilot could double or halve the rate of fatal accidents. It would take more than an order of magnitude more road testing to know which is more likely.

The rate of human errors is unlikely to improve much, while the rate of automotive computer errors due to oversights and lack of features will continuously improve.

Consider the death because an inattentive Tesla driver was driving 20 mph over the speed limit and hit a truck crossing the road. If he had been driving a standard car and fell asleep at the wheel, which does happen for short intervals, all we could do is shrug because it will happen again. There is not much we can do about it.

Whatever the actual fatality rate for Tesla, there is something that can and will be done to prevent a repetition of that accident by enhancing safety features. Not only Tesla, but every car company has learned from this one tragedy. As a result, the death rate due to this or similar situations will significantly drop in the future.

The only offset to this steadily-declining accident rate as assisted driving develops will be the lulling effect causing the driver to withdraw continued attention. It will be necessary to eliminate this created danger as soon as possible by automated safety features to avoid all avoidable accidents long before fully autonomous cars. Once the driver senses that his attention is rarely needed, we can no longer safely rely on him as an alert quickly-reacting participant.

 

[jstephe6361]

There also needs to be incentives for Apartment and Condo Building Owners\Managers to invest in Charging Posts in Parking spots otherwise Electric is not an option for Millions.

 

[isparavanje]

Ostracus[/url]":2gttxkl2]

brionl[/url]":2gttxkl2]

mycroftxxx[/url]":2gttxkl2]

MrMickS[/url]":2gttxkl2]Reducing fatalities... hmmm

Perhaps make wearing seatbelt mandatory. I know that the choice of whether to allow yourself to be propelled around the vehicle, or out through the windshield, is probably protected under some amendment of the US constitution, and that this is a communist idea, it does work though. It would also reduce airbag injuries as they wouldn't need to try and protect and unrestrained occupant.

On the boring commute front. Wasn't one of the supposed benefits of the IT revolution that people could work more remotely. That the commute was something that could be consigned to the past? I manage to travel into the office a couple of days every 3-4 weeks or so. It should be possible to work in a more remote manner for most office bound people for at least a portion of the week.

Most states in the US have mandatory seatbelt laws; they work reasonably well, and IMHO manage to skate just inside the "acceptable encroachment on civil liberties" line. Same for helmet laws, although there is a lot more vocal opposition to those.

Telecommuting is not a panacea. It just doesn't work well for some people because they need the face-to-face interaction with co-workers to be productive; families at home can be very distracting to a telecommuter and de facto require you to have a dedicated room; proprietary and/or security requirements may make it impossible to do (e.g., getting your house and VPN certified as a SCIF may be possible but would be very expensive and negate any cost benefit), etc.

I suppose your barber or stylist could telecommute by sending a drone to wherever you are. Problem is you only get buzz-cuts that way.

And doctors use to make house calls. We've given up so much.

Doctors still make house calls, you just can't afford it.

 

[Thucydides411]

nom3ramy[/url]":2yqih87z]

Thucydides411[/url]":2yqih87z]
Tesla's autopilot actually is not known to increase safety. It might increase safety, but there's simply not enough evidence to demonstrate that with even marginal confidence.

One fatal accident in 130 million miles of driving on the highway is very similar to what unaided humans achieve. It's actually significantly worse than what other luxury sedans achieve. But this is just one accident, so the statistics are extremely uncertain. For all we know, Tesla's autopilot could double or halve the rate of fatal accidents. It would take more than an order of magnitude more road testing to know which is more likely.

The rate of human errors is unlikely to improve much, while the rate of automotive computer errors due to oversights and lack of features will continuously improve.

Consider the death because an inattentive Tesla driver was driving 20 mph over the speed limit and hit a truck crossing the road. If he had been driving a standard car and fell asleep at the wheel, which does happen for short intervals, all we could do is shrug because it will happen again. There is not much we can do about it.

Whatever the actual fatality rate for Tesla, there is something that can and will be done to prevent a repetition of that accident by enhancing safety features. Not only Tesla, but every car company has learned from this one tragedy. As a result, the death rate due to this or similar situations will significantly drop in the future.

The only offset to this steadily-declining accident rate as assisted driving develops will be the lulling effect causing the driver to withdraw continued attention. It will be necessary to eliminate this created danger as soon as possible by automated safety features to avoid all avoidable accidents long before fully autonomous cars. Once the driver senses that his attention is rarely needed, we can no longer safely rely on him as an alert quickly-reacting participant.

Most accidents without assisted driving features also involve special circumstances or driver error. If we were to disregard crashes in which a driver were drunk, going over the speed limit, or where visibility were poor, the rate of fatal crashes would also go down considerably.

That's why we have to compare crash statistics in the real world, not in a world where people don't drive over the speed limit, don't drink and drive, don't fall asleep at the wheel, etc.

I raise this because Elon Musk had made a number of public statements claiming that the Tesla autopilot significantly reduces the rate of fatal crashes. He's used sloppy statistics to back these claims up. I really don't like the way he seems more interested in marketing his product and than making accurate statements about the safety of his product.

 

[SixDegrees]

jstephe6361[/url]":1omi7hbi]There also needs to be incentives for Apartment and Condo Building Owners\Managers to invest in Charging Posts in Parking spots otherwise Electric is not an option for Millions.

The incentive will be free market forces that make adding such charging posts financially attractive to landlords. This isn't one of those things that needs public domain support; it'll happen on its own. It already is in many places.

 

[SLee]

foxyshadis[/url]":2ek8745h]

Green RT[/url]":2ek8745h]

new2mac[/url]":2ek8745h]There is no public transport. It's over. With UberPool I can get around Philly for $3. Fast and on-demand. With UberPool-Driverless it'll be $1-2. Toss in Tesla ride-share. End game for public transport.

UberPool –is– public transit.

Not only that, it's public transit with a gamble: If no one else is going that way, you pay the full cost of the ride. That's not a huge risk in a big city, but it's always a risk.

Actually you don't, you always pay the Pool rate.

The risk with Pool is that you get matched, in which case your trip takes a lot longer and you may end up with strangers you may not want to sit next to.

 

[SLee]

new2mac[/url]":29zc43qk]There is no public transport. It's over. With UberPool I can get around Philly for $3. Fast and on-demand. With UberPool-Driverless it'll be $1-2. Toss in Tesla ride-share. End game for public transport.

That rate is highly subsidized, by Uber spending VC money and drivers who don't realize they're doing more work for less pay.

If Uber had to pay for brand new cars and had to show a profit, they would never be able to set rates as low as they have now.

 

[andolini]

new2mac[/url]":119jfjg3]There is no public transport. It's over. With UberPool I can get around Philly for $3. Fast and on-demand. With UberPool-Driverless it'll be $1-2. Toss in Tesla ride-share. End game for public transport.

Uber is a Ponzi scam, billionaires using humans as loss leaders subsidizing unprofitable rides to monopolize & put an industry out of business. Smart drivers do not accept pool rides. Only those desperate or very bad at math do. We see first hand what happens when algorithms make decisions, yes in 2016 a "60 billion" dollar company that makes no profits fancy algorithm cant figure out in 2016 that it costs more than $3.20 to drive 1-5 miles to pick someone up & then another 1-5 to drop them off OR the CEO is the evilest person on the planet it's one if the 2.

Not owning a vehicle says you are either a slave or desire to be one. I cant comprehend being an adult confined to my zip code unless I have a cell phone, internet, app, electricity......what a sad sorry existence not having the freedom to go somewhere anytime you want. Maybe I like the opposite sex more than you cuz I don't know too many women who would even look at a "man" who didn't own a car.

1 uber ride a day you can afford a car. If you can't afford a car you can't afford uber. If you can't tip your uber driver you can't afford uber. If you have a full time job & can't afford a car QUIT or stop being an alcoholic or drug addict.

That $3 ride really costs $7 & the billionaires didn't even pick up the difference. They ran fraudulent bait & switch ads aimed at desperate out of work HUMANS & made them pay the difference. Haha thinking a self driving Tesla is gonna be cheaper I'm sure you ask for aux cables, mints, & water on your pool ride. Let's see trick dumb people into driving at .90 a mile(1980 cab rates) or a $50-100,000 self driving car that will need to be maintained, cleaned out, fueled, monitored 24/7? What happens when your self driving car has vomit or bodily fluids in it from last rider? What if you placed pin in wrong spot which lots of riders do, what happens with the drunks that can't figure out how to open door? These things can't speed how you gonna enjoy your 25mph commute & your full 3 seconds at every stop?

There is no possible way a self driving fleet would be cheaper than paying a Walmart greeter or immigrant $3.20 and no company thinking about their share price is gonna tell anyone the truth that these things won't be close to road worthy till the 2030s. Of course they are gonna say 2020 they have to prop up the other Ponzi scam which is the stock market/ us economy.

Welcome to the new world no profits needed.

 

[andolini]

SixDegrees[/url]":z2vkagtm]

jstephe6361[/url]":z2vkagtm]There also needs to be incentives for Apartment and Condo Building Owners\Managers to invest in Charging Posts in Parking spots otherwise Electric is not an option for Millions.

The incentive will be free market forces that make adding such charging posts financially attractive to landlords. This isn't one of those things that needs public domain support; it'll happen on its own. It already is in many places.

woohoo no car ownership no home ownership the new slaves American dream. App required don't forget to share your couch too

 

[peppeddu]

Maybe Takata should have done the same, instead of replacing all those faulty airbags they should have said that statistically the failure rate is low.

I drive way better that any autopilot ever does today and I am smart enough to see people's faces and behavior as I drive. I can see a toddler about to follow a ball down the street and break well in advance, I can see a guy fumbling inside his car and stay away from it, I can see a woman putting makeup on and avoid her, I can see a dude changing lane into the blind spot of another vehicle and stay away from it, when there's glare I always reduce my speed and move to the left lane, etc etc.

The Tesla (or Google)'s autopilot is unable to do any of these, and I don't wanna have my life in the hands of a dumb software that "statistically" may be safer, but in my case is it NOT.

We need a clear chain of responsibility that we have in any mission critical software where it's failure implies that lives will be lost (i.e. the aviation industry, the Nuclear Power Plant operation industry, the retired Space Shuttle, etc)

 

[RoninX]

Steveha7[/url]":1yh1ihcj]Is there really a demand for a driverless car? Driving is the fun part and is why I got a license. This may help handicapped people and if kids can ride in them without an adult. Other than that, I don't see much demand.

It's like cooking your own meals vs. restaurants/fast food/microwave dinners. Some people enjoy cooking, and others would rather not have to spend the time and effort.

Personally, I love driving and would never give it up, but there are plenty of other people who don't enjoy driving, for whom autonomous cars would be perfect. As long as there's freedom of choice, I don't have any problem with it.

 

[betam4x]

Fritzr[/url]":32w210ns]

SixDegrees[/url]":32w210ns]

engdlyzp[/url]":32w210ns]I am one of those that love driving, even if it is on bumper to bumper traffic. Of course, I am a car enthusiast and have the car of my dreams so that may help..

That's OK. There are people who still like to ride horses, too.

We just adopted the sane approach of not letting them do so on public roads.

Maybe where you live, but around here horses do use the public roads.

Also anywhere the Plain Folk (Amish, Mennonites, etc.) have settled you will find horse traffic sharing the highway with motor vehicles.

It is mostly equestrians in this area, but ordinary commuter and work horses still use the public roadways in many places.

Just an FYI, horses aren't allowed on any interstate highways in all 50 states. It's illegal (the feds would pull highway funding from any state attempting to change that). Just thought you should know before you unfairly make a comparison. For anyone that thinks they will be openly allowed to drive on a road once automation is standard...keep smoking that crack pipe...although it probably won't be in our lifetimes at any rate, and I for one welcome our new driving overlords.

 

[betam4x]

peppeddu[/url]":208cj31g]Maybe Takata should have done the same, instead of replacing all those faulty airbags they should have said that statistically the failure rate is low.

I drive way better that any autopilot ever does today and I am smart enough to see people's faces and behavior as I drive. I can see a toddler about to follow a ball down the street and break well in advance, I can see a guy fumbling inside his car and stay away from it, I can see a woman putting makeup on and avoid her, I can see a dude changing lane into the blind spot of another vehicle and stay away from it, when there's glare I always reduce my speed and move to the left lane, etc etc.

The Tesla (or Google)'s autopilot is unable to do any of these, and I don't wanna have my life in the hands of a dumb software that "statistically" may be safer, but in my case is it NOT.

We need a clear chain of responsibility that we have in any mission critical software where it's failure implies that lives will be lost (i.e. the aviation industry, the Nuclear Power Plant operation industry, the retired Space Shuttle, etc)

You reduce speed and move to the left lane? The left lane is the fast lane you idiot! If you can't even articulate your thoughts, how can we trust you to drive...?

 

[betam4x]

andolini[/url]":3i7lqqh7]

new2mac[/url]":3i7lqqh7]There is no public transport. It's over. With UberPool I can get around Philly for $3. Fast and on-demand. With UberPool-Driverless it'll be $1-2. Toss in Tesla ride-share. End game for public transport.

Uber is a Ponzi scam, billionaires using humans as loss leaders subsidizing unprofitable rides to monopolize & put an industry out of business. Smart drivers do not accept pool rides. Only those desperate or very bad at math do. We see first hand what happens when algorithms make decisions, yes in 2016 a "60 billion" dollar company that makes no profits fancy algorithm cant figure out in 2016 that it costs more than $3.20 to drive 1-5 miles to pick someone up & then another 1-5 to drop them off OR the CEO is the evilest person on the planet it's one if the 2.

Not owning a vehicle says you are either a slave or desire to be one. I cant comprehend being an adult confined to my zip code unless I have a cell phone, internet, app, electricity......what a sad sorry existence not having the freedom to go somewhere anytime you want. Maybe I like the opposite sex more than you cuz I don't know too many women who would even look at a "man" who didn't own a car.

1 uber ride a day you can afford a car. If you can't afford a car you can't afford uber. If you can't tip your uber driver you can't afford uber. If you have a full time job & can't afford a car QUIT or stop being an alcoholic or drug addict.

That $3 ride really costs $7 & the billionaires didn't even pick up the difference. They ran fraudulent bait & switch ads aimed at desperate out of work HUMANS & made them pay the difference. Haha thinking a self driving Tesla is gonna be cheaper I'm sure you ask for aux cables, mints, & water on your pool ride. Let's see trick dumb people into driving at .90 a mile(1980 cab rates) or a $50-100,000 self driving car that will need to be maintained, cleaned out, fueled, monitored 24/7? What happens when your self driving car has vomit or bodily fluids in it from last rider? What if you placed pin in wrong spot which lots of riders do, what happens with the drunks that can't figure out how to open door? These things can't speed how you gonna enjoy your 25mph commute & your full 3 seconds at every stop?

There is no possible way a self driving fleet would be cheaper than paying a Walmart greeter or immigrant $3.20 and no company thinking about their share price is gonna tell anyone the truth that these things won't be close to road worthy till the 2030s. Of course they are gonna say 2020 they have to prop up the other Ponzi scam which is the stock market/ us economy.

Welcome to the new world no profits needed.

Honestly? Are you on welfare or something? I know multiple people that drive for Uber...some of them went from welfare checks and food stamps to 4 and 5 figure a month salaries. They actually have financial issues due to making too much money. No joke. Despite what the media claims, uber/lyft drivers are doing just fine.

 

[betam4x]

SLee[/url]":b4ncozoq]

new2mac[/url]":b4ncozoq]There is no public transport. It's over. With UberPool I can get around Philly for $3. Fast and on-demand. With UberPool-Driverless it'll be $1-2. Toss in Tesla ride-share. End game for public transport.

That rate is highly subsidized, by Uber spending VC money and drivers who don't realize they're doing more work for less pay.

If Uber had to pay for brand new cars and had to show a profit, they would never be able to set rates as low as they have now.

UberPool != uber FYI. Also, both uber and uberpool have set profits so high that private companies have been able to jump in and offer financed cars (at absurd interest rates) to drivers...while still leaving enough room to make money. Note that I am NOT an Uber driver, but I know those that are.

 

[fishbait]

whoisit[/url]":27t41jy8]

Steveha7[/url]":27t41jy8]Is there really a demand for a driverless car? Driving is the fun part and is why I got a license. This may help handicapped people and if kids can ride in them without an adult. Other than that, I don't see much demand.

Driving can be fun, if you are on an open road, and there's no traffic. But, sitting in stop and go for 2 hours just to make a 10 mile trip is mind numbing. Add to that drivers, who are angry, tailgating, distracted, changing lanes without signaling, or chemically impaired, and it's down right dangerous. I really think automated cars would help out a lot in congested cities, especially since they can communicate to each other, and use GPS and route around traffic slowdowns and accidents*.

*Routing to other main arterials/roads designed for higher traffic volumes. Not residential streets.

O.O 2 hours to go 10 miles, i smell someone who lives in LA

 

[fishbait]

i wonder what impact self driving tech would have on RVs.

i could totally imagine a reitred lifestyle of living in an RV traveling the world letting the RV drive for you on long stretches of nothing and while you sleep living out of the RV with internet via a multi-sim mobile hotspot.

 

[fishbait]

Thucydides411[/url]":1130llu6]

halse[/url]":1130llu6]If the preliminary assessment of a Phase 3 drug trial shows that X reduces fatalities by a factor of 2 relative to the current Y the trial is stopped as it is unethical to continue giving patients Y.

That is about where Tesla's autopilot currently is.

Tesla's autopilot actually is not known to increase safety. It might increase safety, but there's simply not enough evidence to demonstrate that with even marginal confidence.

One fatal accident in 130 million miles of driving on the highway is very similar to what unaided humans achieve. It's actually significantly worse than what other luxury sedans achieve. But this is just one accident, so the statistics are extremely uncertain. For all we know, Tesla's autopilot could double or halve the rate of fatal accidents. It would take more than an order of magnitude more road testing to know which is more likely.

as there are less autonomous vehicle than people the per so many miles driven argument is kinda weak since those 130 millions miles are spread differently and thus differently prone to the margin of error.
would be better to say how many accidents per miles on vehcile averaged over the all the vehilces

eg: 1 accident per 130,000 miles per vehicle average.
but thats confusing and less catchy than ONLY 1 ACCIDENT PER 130,000,000 MILES!

edit: also as you pointed out not enough data to confidently assert such figures

 

[peppeddu]

betam4x[/url]":2jb4302y]

You reduce speed and move to the left lane? The left lane is the fast lane you idiot! If you can't even articulate your thoughts, how can we trust you to drive...?

Maybe you didn't consider that not everyone lives in the same country that you do and that perhaps someone (hint hint) drove in more countries that you may have visited.
But I do apologize, I didn't consider that some people can't get past the basic spell check.

 

[Fritzr]

Thucydides411[/url]":231vedhx]

nom3ramy[/url]":231vedhx]

Thucydides411[/url]":231vedhx]
Tesla's autopilot actually is not known to increase safety. It might increase safety, but there's simply not enough evidence to demonstrate that with even marginal confidence.

One fatal accident in 130 million miles of driving on the highway is very similar to what unaided humans achieve. It's actually significantly worse than what other luxury sedans achieve. But this is just one accident, so the statistics are extremely uncertain. For all we know, Tesla's autopilot could double or halve the rate of fatal accidents. It would take more than an order of magnitude more road testing to know which is more likely.

The rate of human errors is unlikely to improve much, while the rate of automotive computer errors due to oversights and lack of features will continuously improve.

Consider the death because an inattentive Tesla driver was driving 20 mph over the speed limit and hit a truck crossing the road. If he had been driving a standard car and fell asleep at the wheel, which does happen for short intervals, all we could do is shrug because it will happen again. There is not much we can do about it.

Whatever the actual fatality rate for Tesla, there is something that can and will be done to prevent a repetition of that accident by enhancing safety features. Not only Tesla, but every car company has learned from this one tragedy. As a result, the death rate due to this or similar situations will significantly drop in the future.

The only offset to this steadily-declining accident rate as assisted driving develops will be the lulling effect causing the driver to withdraw continued attention. It will be necessary to eliminate this created danger as soon as possible by automated safety features to avoid all avoidable accidents long before fully autonomous cars. Once the driver senses that his attention is rarely needed, we can no longer safely rely on him as an alert quickly-reacting participant.

Most accidents without assisted driving features also involve special circumstances or driver error. If we were to disregard crashes in which a driver were drunk, going over the speed limit, or where visibility were poor, the rate of fatal crashes would also go down considerably.

That's why we have to compare crash statistics in the real world, not in a world where people don't drive over the speed limit, don't drink and drive, don't fall asleep at the wheel, etc.

I raise this because Elon Musk had made a number of public statements claiming that the Tesla autopilot significantly reduces the rate of fatal crashes. He's used sloppy statistics to back these claims up. I really don't like the way he seems more interested in marketing his product and than making accurate statements about the safety of his product.

Well lets see...
Autopilot driving while drunk? Nope ... alcohol related accidents reduced
Autopilot falling asleep while driving? Nope ... tired driver accidents reduced
Autopilot speeding? Only if not aware of the reduced speed zone ... some reduction of this behavior, possibly fewer speed related accidents
Autopilot engaging in risky behavior to impress friends? Nope ... far fewer risky behavior accidents
Autopilot changing the CD instead of watching the road? Nope ... far few distracted driver accidents (also includes looking in the back seat to yell at the kids, checking text messages, talking on the phone [hands free is a known distraction], dog climbing in your lap, putting on makeup, checking the sports scores, etc.)

Yep you're right, Elon Musk is correct in saying that Autopilot will reduce the number of accidents. Taking driver error out of the manual drive statistics puts the lie to the claim, but as I am sure you will agree, it does not change the number of accidents.

 

[Fritzr]

betam4x[/url]":s67rhe9l]

Fritzr[/url]":s67rhe9l]

SixDegrees[/url]":s67rhe9l]

engdlyzp[/url]":s67rhe9l]I am one of those that love driving, even if it is on bumper to bumper traffic. Of course, I am a car enthusiast and have the car of my dreams so that may help..

That's OK. There are people who still like to ride horses, too.

We just adopted the sane approach of not letting them do so on public roads.

Maybe where you live, but around here horses do use the public roads.

Also anywhere the Plain Folk (Amish, Mennonites, etc.) have settled you will find horse traffic sharing the highway with motor vehicles.

It is mostly equestrians in this area, but ordinary commuter and work horses still use the public roadways in many places.

Just an FYI, horses aren't allowed on any interstate highways in all 50 states. It's illegal (the feds would pull highway funding from any state attempting to change that). Just thought you should know before you unfairly make a comparison. For anyone that thinks they will be openly allowed to drive on a road once automation is standard...keep smoking that crack pipe...although it probably won't be in our lifetimes at any rate, and I for one welcome our new driving overlords.

Who said anything about Limited Access highways which ban ALL transportation unable to maintain the legal minimum speed?

You might be surprised at how many public roads are not Limited Access highway. The Interstates (M roads if you're British) are not the only Limited Access highways, but they are the best known. There are also public roads that permit horses, but ban trucks...does banning access to trucks cause them to no longer be public roads?

If you pay attention to the roadside signs, you will find many access restrictions on public roads banning various classes of transport.

One of the reasons there will never be a blanket ban on manual driving is cycles...both pedal & motor forms. The problems with autonomous cars are difficult ... care to imagine the difficulty of developing an autonomous bicycle?

Americans may be in love with their cars, but there is a large enough cycling community that banning bikes would have serious political repercussions. (Harley fans would definitely have an opinion)

Then there are the Plain Folk who would be barred from using public roads due to the fact that they decline to use motorized transport. For their needs horses work just fine.

When you have figured out how to close the public roads to manual vehicles without banning motorcycles, bicycles, horse drawn transport and farm vehicles then you can revisit your plan to ban all manually controlled vehicles.

 

[peppeddu]

Fritzr[/url]":ul20mtyu]
Well lets see...
Autopilot driving while drunk? Nope ... alcohol related accidents reduced
Autopilot falling asleep while driving? Nope ... tired driver accidents reduced
Autopilot speeding? Only if not aware of the reduced speed zone ... some reduction of this behavior, possibly fewer speed related accidents
Autopilot engaging in risky behavior to impress friends? Nope ... far fewer risky behavior accidents
Autopilot changing the CD instead of watching the road? Nope ... far few distracted driver accidents (also includes looking in the back seat to yell at the kids, checking text messages, talking on the phone [hands free is a known distraction], dog climbing in your lap, putting on makeup, checking the sports scores, etc.)

Yep you're right, Elon Musk is correct in saying that Autopilot will reduce the number of accidents. Taking driver error out of the manual drive statistics puts the lie to the claim, but as I am sure you will agree, it does not change the number of accidents.

If you drive worst than the average person the autopilot will improve your chance of survival.
If you drive better than the average person the autopilot will reduce your chance of survival.

There is no general solution that fits everyone, you (as in general "you") need to decide what kind of driver you are, I do care about statistics but I do know my individual case comes first.

 

[Fritzr]

peppeddu[/url]":m4bl7n39]

Fritzr[/url]":m4bl7n39]
Well lets see...
Autopilot driving while drunk? Nope ... alcohol related accidents reduced
Autopilot falling asleep while driving? Nope ... tired driver accidents reduced
Autopilot speeding? Only if not aware of the reduced speed zone ... some reduction of this behavior, possibly fewer speed related accidents
Autopilot engaging in risky behavior to impress friends? Nope ... far fewer risky behavior accidents
Autopilot changing the CD instead of watching the road? Nope ... far few distracted driver accidents (also includes looking in the back seat to yell at the kids, checking text messages, talking on the phone [hands free is a known distraction], dog climbing in your lap, putting on makeup, checking the sports scores, etc.)

Yep you're right, Elon Musk is correct in saying that Autopilot will reduce the number of accidents. Taking driver error out of the manual drive statistics puts the lie to the claim, but as I am sure you will agree, it does not change the number of accidents.

If you drive worst than the average person the autopilot will improve your chance of survival.
If you drive better than the average person the autopilot will reduce your chance of survival.

There is no general solution that fits everyone, you (as in general "you") need to decide what kind of driver you are, I do care about statistics but I do know my individual case comes first.

You are the entire driving population of the US?

For general estimates you use the general average, not your personal performance which as you note may be better or worse than the general average.

Now if Musk had been talking about Bob Donaldson who lives round the corner on Coronation Street, then your insistence on personal driving ability would apply (actually Bob's driving ability, but I'm sure you understood that)

When using your estimate of your personal skills to guesstimate the skills of all US drivers, or even just saying that drivers will judge the benefit based on their self-assessment of their driving skill, consider Dunning-Kruger

Your self-assessment *may* be accurate, but is Matt's self-assessment as a perfectly safe driver correct? You really want safety to be based on "But I really am a better driver than any automatic control...if you want a second opinion, just ask and I will tell you again"?

 

[wvmikep]

The grammar nazi in me is unnerved by a problem with your headline.

Federal regulators says car makers “cannot wait for perfect” on automation

That should be either:

Federal regulator says car makers “cannot wait for perfect” on automation

or

Federal regulators say car makers “cannot wait for perfect” on automation

.

 

[odikweos]

Even if statistically "people" will be safer in autonomous cars, I will need to be *a lot* safer before I'll be willing to surrender control, as statistics don't measure individual reaction times and skill. I think a lot of people will feel similarly (whether we are right or not). That is likely to be the big bar to (near) universal adoption.