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.
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.
Still not sure how they get away with beta testing safety features on public roads. Or, how drivers who choose to participate get to decide for the rest of us that we must participate too.
The idea that you're going to give a vehicle complete control, but constantly monitor for errors and make a split second decision to manually correct is flawed. As long as this is required, the feature shouldn't be allowed on public roads.
And endanger others who have decided to opt-out of the beta test. Keep in mind that in any accident all bets are off with respect to the traffic around you, even if you ram into a stationary barrier you could easily rebound into other traffic.
Are they testing it in private 'beta' streets, with 'beta' people who won't be killed? Or is this person going to be in opposing traffic on my nearby freeway?
As another driver or cyclist on the road, I don't receive those emails nor did I agree to any terms, yet I am still being put at risk in this "beta." Lucky me, I guess? Where are regulators?
I can't withdraw my consent to share the road with intoxicated or distracted drivers. That's just a fact of life. That doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to withdraw my consent to share the road with Beta software.
Plenty of businesses are able to build very effective safety mechanisms for motor vehicles without subjecting the general public to Beta software. To me this is a case where the ends do not justify the means.
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.
For now they still have trouble staying in their lane, I don't see any lack of reasons to pull them over, in fact I'd love to see them taken off the roads entirely until such bugs have been ironed out. Public roads are not the place to beta test software.
I'd happily pay some money to help test something that I've hoped and dreamed would be possible in my lifetime.
Driving sucks and is dangerous as hell. Anything that 1) makes me need to drive less often, or 2) makes driving safer is a worthwhile financial & time investment for me.
This does not excite me. Honestly, it amounts to another dummy I have to look out for while driving.
I appreciate the tech and do look forward to a day when it's widely implemented but I'm not near convinced it's ready and lives are on the line here. "Insurance" can't fix that problem.
But... I don't live in California anymore so I can still easily avoid them :D
I don't consider driving through stop lights a beta feature. Even if only happens one time out of a thousand it's still a threat to life, and a possible class action suit.
There isn't room for a threat-to-life feature to improve incrementally, and it's very curious to see anyone suggest that it's somehow tolerable to risk the lives of customers with not-quite-there-yet-but-we'll-get-back-to-you-soon features.
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.
Something like this should be up for a referendum.
We have seriously a lot more major and pressing problems. No one is picking and choosing representatives based on how they feel about beta testing software with the general public.
Anyway, I wouldn’t be surprised if the NHTSA rightfully bans large scale operations of this software until overwhelming evidence of it being “safer than humans” have been given.
This also includes fully disclosing the source and training material used to the NHTSA.
From recent headlines, it sounds like people are protesting the fact their city is being used as an alpha testing site and causing a nuisance.
I don't think its necessarily in protest of the technology in general, but the irresponsible way these things are let loose on the road without a person there to get it out of the way when it gridlocks.
Its an issue that can be solved by spending relatively little money on a test driver's salary that they're purposefully avoiding to save money and avoid responsibility.
reply