This is like removing human control on an autonomous Russian roulette revolver that shoots to the side if it detects a person in front of the barrel, then praying for the best.
If there is a fully driverless (not driving itself with a human still in it) truck - as companies tell us is their goal - it does not increase or decrease safety to have or not have a seat and a steering wheel in it.
The argument here is that building an autonomous Russian roulette revolver is a stupid thing to do, which is orthogonal.
I have some experience in navigating NHTSA when bringing new automotive tech to market. The following reflects my experience.
When working on cutting edge tech that have associated hazards (cars hurt people) what companies want is a clear set of standards to meet, as this goes a long way to showing due-diligence when things go wrong and lawsuits start showing up. But with new tech there are no standards, no generally accepted way of doing things. So how do you know if the system is capable/safe-enough to deploy in volume on our roads? How do you know you've done enough due diligence to confidently launch new tech without putting your company at financial risk? Let's face it, a big enough software bug (and associated liability) could potentially put Tesla completely out of business. When dealing with hazardous new tech, the threat of recalls and lawsuits weighs heavily on a company's decision making process.
When it comes to new tech, NHTSA is in no position to answer these questions. And they know it. If they knew better then they'd be the ones driving innovation. As it stands under capitalism the innovators are all working for private companies hoping for the big pay out. Knowing this, it would be counterproductive for NHTSA to say "we know better than to let a self driving car on the road". They don't know better and they don't want to get in the way of innovation.
So instead NHTSAs job is to setup a regulatory framework and set of rules to help these companies bring tech to market, while helping identify/limit bad actors. When lessons are learned (ex. ABS systems provide a clear benefit, and should generally do X Y and Z) these lessons get integrated back into the regulations as a guide to all players in the space. The regulations and standards improve over time as more-and-more millions-of-miles are driven and the tech/algorithms mature.
In my experience, NHTSAs attitude seems to be best summarized as: Innovation is good for America and the last thing we want to do is stop you from developing cool new things. But we have no idea what your new tech should/shouldn't do. The risk is all on you, your company ultimately bears the legal responsibility for your products. You'll have to determine if your product is ready for market all on your own -- and failure carries a high price tag. Now... if/when the tech matures, and the industry seems to generally agree that "new tech X" should include "X Y and Z" as part of the safety/risk equation, then we'll add that to the regulatory framework. But until the tech matures and the clear path forward is known we don't want to stifle innovation.
This is about the best you can do in this situation. ADAS is new, and no one knows where we'll end up. No one, including you and me, knows if these systems can be deployed safely. Personally I don't trust ADAS systems, and believe the financial risk would be too high to risk my company. But what do I know?
It seems that the message being sent here is: "We're ready to start dealing with cars that don't have human controls. Best of luck to all those who dare play in the space."
Regulatory capture means it wont be high and the potential profits to be realized from first mover advantage here means there will be a significant incentive to "move fast and break things".
So to speak.
I'd feel safe if an executive who OKs a software update that kills someone risks significant jail time. If that means no self driving cars for 20 more years then I am totally fine with that. That would simply mean that they werent safer as promised.
If executives were jailed for car accidents people we would have trains and trams in every corner.
When it comes to AI droving, noone has a fucking clue what it will do in next 50 milliseconds. Teslas literally mis-classified a semi trailer for an underpass
The opportunity for shenanighans is endless
It doesn't make sense to have universal product liability in that way: there are too many creative idiots.
It's very disingenuous to compare it to a knife.
I don't object at all to holding manufacturers accountable for defective products; but it makes no sense to say "if your product is involved in an accident, you go to jail", which was the premise of the comment to which I responded.
Citation needed.
> was the premise of the comment to which I responded.
It clearly wasn't.
The status quo is 139 people dying every day in the US in traffic accidents.
If we replaced all cars with self-driving ones, an executive could approve a software update every single day that kills only 100 and it could very well still be a net benefit to society.
These discussions always seem to implicitly presume that we're currently at zero deaths. We're not--we just don't hear about them. Every year we delay self driving cars is more people dying, not fewer.
I never presumed that and never would.
I do presume that if we watered down criminal liability for reckless driving then we'd get way, way more than 139.
The current regulatory framework surrounding self driving cars is rather like making drink driving subject to a $30 fine. I would be surprised if it starts out safer than humans.
If you have not paid your taxes, get in to your car, and it drives you to the local court-house or police station, this is a new risk, no?
More specifically, what IF or rather WHEN there is an incident that could've been prevented by human interjection, but wasn't?
Other aspect is, why are we only ever discussing these separately? What is the safety of a automation-assisted human? Can we get to the point where safety is better than either system alone?
But for far more individuals there will be a net increase in safety, moreover, since traffic accidents don't only imperil drivers, pedestrians and safe drivers will also experience an increase in safety due to average drivers using just-above-average automation.
> What is the safety of a automation-assisted human?
That's where we're at today with systems like Tesla's Autopilot.
I don't really know how to think about it. Accident rate, on a per-mile basis, falls out of some combination of "hardness of the driving problem" (freeways have many fewer accidents than city streets, I think) as well as propensity to take risks (driving at night; in bad weather; at higher speeds; while distracted) as well as driving skill.
What, by definition, people will accept is an accident rate similar to that for professional drivers; e.g. taxi/rideshare/livery. According to a report by Uber, that's about half the number of fatal accidents on a VMT basis versus the general population in their case.
Reduction of average statistical risk is what really matters and will be what is primarily responsible for driving down real world fatalities and life altering injuries.
I for one am not going to stand back and let fear of new technology and unfounded preference for human driven action over automation stand in the way of making a statistical impact on reducing the 1.35 million auto fatalities that happen globally every year. To propose that possibly reducing that number to 1.30 million is not good enough and we have to hold back rollout until the tech is better than the "best driver" is disgustingly sociopathic.
Just don't stand in the way of people who choose to use self driving cars because you're more afraid of it that of extremely lethal and incompetent human drivers.
Anyone claiming they're safer now is either selling something or doesn't know what they're talking about.
I figure deaths per million miles is a good stat
In most of the US (not where I live, thankfully) the "choice" is use a car or stay home.
Not much of a choice.
Go and move to West Memphis, TN (or, as I said, with most places in the US) and try to live without a car.
Not really a choice. Which is why I live in a place with halfway-decent (well, the best in the US anyway) public transport.
What's the choice? I don't have any idea what you mean
Absolutely. At least until you're fired from your job because you don't show up. Then you'll (depending on where you live) a few months to maintain that "choice" before the landlord throws you out on your ass because you "chose" not to go to work.
Please.
Interstate highway? I'd absolutely trust it to cross the country while I napped.
Downtown urban cores where I can expect bicyclists in the road and delivery trucks parked in a lane? Not a chance.
Anywhere that involves making an unprotected left turn? Gambling with your life, there.
1. isn't a steering wheel the only plausible failsafe control for somebody supervising these experimental machines? Not sure what other control interface would be better in life-or-death instants/moments, plus any driver can carry over their preexisting skills in that situation. If better emergency controls than steering wheels exist, fine, I guess.
2. Isn't the question not
safety(autonomous vehicle) > safety(human driver)
safety(autonomous vehicle + human control fail-safe) > safety(autonomous vehicle alone)
The market will still decide if these vehicles sell. I wouldn't buy one, would you?
Plus, it's never too late to crack down. If there are a lot of accidents, you can bet members of Congress will thrive on the outrage.
So, there's really nothing to see here. Just the government getting out of the way, a little bit, for now.
Absolutely! In a heartbeat. Because I know it's a tool to enhance my driving, not replace me, and I still need to pay attention.
I already have an add-on for my car that gives me level 3 on the freeway (no hands on the wheel needed). I still keep my hand on the wheel though and I still pay attention, but it definitely helps because I don't have to use brain power staying in the lane or maintaining speed. I can give 100% of my brain power to looking for danger.
But the point is, no manufacturer would sell one without a wheel either because they know it wouldn't sell. This is just a change to not require one to pass safety tests. The car still has to actually pass the safety tests though.
This Wikipedia article kind of shows the mishmash of automated/half-measures/full measures situation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automation_of_the_London_Under...