Hacker News Reader

> This is called achieving a minimal risk condition

so pulling over after a collision, which resulted in dragging the human 20 feet is an interpretation of this regulation.

sounds like California and Federal AVs regulations are equally not safe for the public's operations

which is a good enough reason to revoke permits too, until they fix this together with the private industry

View on HN

I don't think it's the job of the regulation to cover every possible corner case and to codify the exact behavior of AVs in law.

in the universe of possibilities from my post, that also means removing the minimal risk regulation since it created more danger

until they figure that out, this is a not-intolerable course of action. it doesn't need to be interpreted as punitive.

I wonder how the "minimal risk regulation" is worded right now.

From my limited understanding, web browsers were improved drastically by the creation of cross-vendor testing (e.g. Acid tests). I wonder if there is a way to do some sort of AV simulator testing that would allow us to test the different manufacturers on data collected from the others.

AVs seem to all have different "mental models" of the external world, so it seems like we've got a lot of work before we can pipe data collected from this Cruise incident into a simulator and test Waymo, Uber, Tesla, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com