I'm not sure that really jives with the statement in the article and really just boils down to "people can test what they want just don't drive then" and I don't think that is workable.
In addition to the fact that we shouldn't be testing this stuff on public roads, it's baffling to me that anyone wants to use this in it's current state. To me this seems so much more stressful than driving the car myself. Having to maintain constant vigilance of what's going on around me as with normal driving, but with the additional complexity of having to keep second guessing what that car is going to do about it as well seems so much worse to me than just driving the car.
They specifically said test track. Once it's proven then put it on the roads. But in it's current state it should be severely restricted. They may need training data but then they can pay for it or pay to construct suitable tests
Disagree. If you screen your test drivers, you no longer have adequate testing. Your test drivers need to be representative (as much as possible) of the general population.
-One problem with that approach is that it would make testing for compliance much, much more expensive.
One thing would be all the equipment and manpower every test facility would need to invest in (as DonHopkins points out below) - but also, in order to gain initial approval, you couldn't just rely on one or even a few random drives - in order for the numbers to make any sense, you'd need a large sample size - lots of different drivers, driving the cars under different conditions - until you had enough data points to come up with a meaningful figure.
This was my first thought when I read the article. There ought to be some test track qualification before allowing a new system to be tested on the public road.
It's really strange to me, that we allow this sort of beta testing on public roads. The car is doing multiple things in this video that is problematic with the driver being slow to react in order to see what it ends up doing.
This should not be something that is allowed on public roads by end-users, but rather on closed tracks by specialists. If they want to test it out on public roads, run the analysis and look at whenever it diverges from the drivers decisionmaking instead.
No, require data to be public, require a billion km simulated driving test for every software version that's released to a car without a safety driver.
If effectively enforcing the ban on impaired driving was a viable option that was truly on the table then yes, I would 100% be in favor of requiring this testing to happen privately. Breathalyzer for engine start, eye tracking to prevent phone usage (which Tesla has btw), more frequent vision/driving tests, etc would improve road safety significantly. But that's just never going to happen, it's a completely unrealistic scenario that requires a huge culture shift, and would be incredibly unpopular policy. Not to mention the public transport infrastructure that needs to be built to support all of these folks who suddenly are no longer allowed to drive but live in areas where driving is a necessity of everyday life. The demographics who'd be affected hardest by these kinds of changes are also vocal voters with high turnout.
Given the state of the public roads now, full of dangerously impaired driver's as it is, we've clearly decided as a society that it's worth the risk to allow this behavior to continue. So in that light, I think it's worth allowing these public tests of autonomous systems under some strict set of rules. I agree these rules shouldn't be exclusively self-enforced by Tesla and co., and there should be some more stringent open transparent reporting requirements around how many systems are active, miles driven, incident reports etc. But with the right controls and oversight in place I think it's a worthwhile endeavor to allow the testing to continue in the spirit of accelerating autonomous driving becoming a reality. It's the impaired drivers that _make_ it more urgent for this system to exist in the first place.
>"passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected"
The second part of this is straightforward but can be disabled by the car's owner. The first part may well be completely impossible.
We can't even instruct humans in how to definitively determine impairment except in limited circumstances, and even then it's only a diagnostic test that has to be confirmed by an invasive medical test.
I don't like this law at all or how it made its way into the bill so quietly... but in reality this isn't going to happen in practical terms for a few decades, because it's going to take that long to develop an AI that can do this.
The "test" in the US is already a joke. We absolutely don't need to be making it any simpler.
If you're unable to meet the current standard, you probably shouldn't be allowed to walk down the street unescorted.. let alone drive a car, regardless of the "cleverness" of that vehicle.
Attempts to prohibit repairing things is stupid and it is stupid on regulators part to not seeing it progresses.
But allowing live-testing auto-drive technology on public roads is beyound that. Police should just pull over anyone who turn this on and is on the move and revoke driver driving license. Simple as that.
"Oh, but it works for me..." is not how public security standards are created.
I commend them for doing the test; this is an excellent idea.
Sadly, the test is no good in an environment where most drivers are very undisciplined and also confused about the tests (e.g., mistaking "minimum" for "maximum"), and there is insufficient time for retraining and habituation.
I'm sure it could work, but it probably requires a far more educated and disciplined approach to driving.
Seems like you are pointing out one obvious challenge to any company that wants to develope such technology.
Maybe it is my european upbringing, but this is not my problem, but the problem of said company. I don't see why they should be allowed to test on public streets.
I think it may be theoretically possible, but I don't think it will be implemented in a way that will work when it's mandated by law. Betting against regulations fulfilling their advertised purpose is usually a good bet. I think the most likely outcome of this is that it will make no difference to any driver, but that cars will be a little more expensive and collect more data that can be used for harmful purposes. Regardless, if we shouldn't assume that it will be harmful, we also shouldn't assume that it will be helpful.
EDIT: I have now read the article and would like to retract my guess that it will make no difference. It says that this will "require that the system be 'open' to remote access by 'authorized' third parties at any time". That's absolutely catastrophic and will almost certainly kill people.
reply