California DMV Changes Rules To Allow Testing and Use of Fully Autonomous Vehicles (techcrunch.com) 120
The California Department of Motor Vehicles is changing its rules to allow companies to test autonomous vehicles without a driver behind the wheel -- and to let the public use autonomous vehicles. From a report: The DMV released a revised version of its regulations and has started a 15-day public comment period, ending October 25, 2017. California law requires the DMV to work on regulations to cover testing and public use of autonomous vehicles, and the regulator said that this is the first step. "We are excited to take the next step in furthering the development of this potentially life-saving technology in California," the state's Transportation Secretary, Brian Kelly, said in a statement. California's DMV took pains in its announcement to highlight that it wasn't trying to overstep the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which has the final say on developing and enforcing compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Rather, the California regulations, are going to require manufacturers to certify that they've met federal safety standards before their cars become (driverlessly) street legal. And manufacturers still have to obey the state traffic laws written for California.
Just when you thought it was safe to drive... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly neither your nor the other morons commenting here live in CA. It isn't like that here. People are generally calm and not irate. It probably has to do with the weather and the avocados.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd actually rate California drivers about average, though it varies a lot from place to place. They are certainly better than the drivers I remember from Japan about 40 years ago. But they aren't as courteous as the drivers I remember from Madera, CA about 45 years ago.
My guess is that the denser the traffic, the less courteous the drivers are...with idiotic exceptions. For example, while I was living in Madera I was waiting for the school bus in a fog so dense you couldn't see your hand in front of your
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they better test that in 2017!
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he should cash in some of his stock or build a portfolio with dividends so that he doesn't have to shitpost in the stupidest conversation thread of a dying forum in order to put blini on the table.
I wonder if looking like a dipshit gets him a bad quarterly evaluation at ShillCo. He's going to get transferred back to the elderly telephone scam department. :(
Do it while you can! (Score:2)
Of all the places I've driven, Los Angeles was the most fun. Hills, twisty highway ramps, and long stretches of road to gun it and relax on. Once driverless takes hold it'll be sad to see that excitement fade away, but great helping the traffic problem.
Re:Do it while you can! (Score:5, Insightful)
Once driverless takes hold it'll be sad to see that excitement fade away...
When I'm being driven around, I prefer as little excitement as possible. Let's see what these deliver.
Liability (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes! To equalize brown and black deaths at the hands of racist cops, the cars will preferentially veer towards blonde blue eyed whites.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. I didn't realize there was such a group of people. Are you in the group? Did they form a Reddit?
Are you mad because there isn't a fully automated forklift mentioned in the write-ups to get your cheetos eating fat-ass into the car?
I'll bet you're the kind of racist piece of shit that thinks cops are heroes.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What's the matter snowflake? Can't generate an actual argument so right away you resort to name-calling?
I can do that too: *Pee-Wee Herman voice* I know you are but what am I?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Snowflake, dRumptist, victim, pussy, all pretty well describe you, you bootlicker.
Also, you're right you're sorry, you're a sorry excuse for a human. But you do make a great sheep.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Liability (Score:2)
That was original /sarcasm
I'm pretty tired, but your definitely out of gas cause that was lame even for a fat dotard like you.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I won bigly!
The corporation operating the cars has liability (Score:3)
Re:Liability (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The practice of charging a driver according to their past driving history no longer has any logic.
How do you figure that? The insurance company can simply track the accident stats for the specific software, and version of it, over all vehicles running it -- i.e. "Tesla Firmware 17.36.1b27c6d" = one "driver". Then set rates accordingly. That would give far more driving historical data than tracking a single human that would mainly be limited to a specific geographic area.
An interesting side effect is people might see a change in their insurance rates if they update their car's software.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine, as long as Sally Smith doesn't personally have to pay more because her automated car didn't see a cyclist one day when the sun was shining a certain way. Everyone should pay equally.
Everyone running the specific version of the software would pay equally is my thinking. That also means that accidents for other vehicles running the same software might impact your rates -- which would only be correct, because the same "person" is operating all these vehicles. The behavior of those other cars would give insights into the abilities of the autodrive software that were not observable in your car because you had not been in the same exact situation (yet).
They might take the car the software is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure insurance prices go up, but in a controlled way. Drivers shouldn't be expected to pay for bungs in software. One year you are paying $1000, and then a trailer crossing the road event happens and the next year you are paying $2500? How can anyone budget that way
The driver is the owner of the car. Tesla is not going to agree to any insurance setup where they are on the hook in perpetuity for a vehicle they only get to profit from once. So ether the owner pays for the insurance, or the owner only gets to lease their vehicle, and you'll see that lease rate adjust with the insurance rating -- either way, the driver will be paying something on an ongoing basis because of the insurance.
The driver decided to buy the car, and had control over the make and model choice. Ju
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know ... the new update wouldn't have any track record.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know ... the new update wouldn't have any track record.
True, but it could start at the same insurance rating as the previous version and be adjusted as the data is collected and a more unique risk profile is developed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hopefully the public votes this down (Score:5, Insightful)
The thought of a 3000+ pound hunk of steel driven by an unpredictable person near people on sidewalks is even more insanity. The person could be drunk, texting, having a heart attack, or simply crazy.
Very soon people will realize that having a robot drive is much safer and predictable. Just like they're much better at driving planes, rockets going to space, ...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I am, I know I my software is fallible - but that is because I am. So the bar for AI is quite low.
Plus humans don't come with unit tests!
(their programming just adapts however the hell it wants with no set goal in mind)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously he's a pirate.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like they're much better at driving planes, rockets going to space, ...
Which we generally keep far out of harm's way from the people that are
drunk, texting, having a heart attack, or simply crazy
Well maybe not the heart attack guy. But people walk by on the sidewalk literally centimeters from cars. Most of our threat assessment is not whether they physically could jump out into the street, but whether they seem drunk, high, distracted, mentally impaired, a child or otherwise likely to do something silly. Like the difference between a dog on a leash and a street dog, they may be equally physically capable but I assume an owner wil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is less of a problem with safety but with energy expense. It's hard enough to get the super-heavy super-dense spent fuel into orbit, but even then what? You cut the invisible leash attached to it so it falls right into the sun? If you think it works like that, I happento own a nice bridge you might want to consider purchasing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still not sure you understand your own proposal.
Assuming you get the stuff into orbit, how do you get it from there to the sun?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's usually at least two reasons to get into Earth orbit first:
- maintaining an abort window, having some time to verify everything is as it's supposed to be.
- because it doesn't matter much, delta-v vise. The energy it takes to reach the moon is pretty much the same, regardless of whether you directly go for earth escape velocity, or suspend your acceleration for a while at orbital velocity. The image in your link that says "falling to the moon" I find misleading, because while in orbit, you're exact
Re: (Score:2)
I think I have the solution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The thought of a 3000+ pound hunk of steel hurtling mere feet away from people on sidewalks while a human is at the controls is insanity!!
FTFY.
At least computers are predictable. Software is guaranteed to have bugs. Humans are too. At least with computers, you can fix the bugs when you find them.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just that but the bug fixes are cumulative. Find a bug with someones' winter driving and they can take a winter driving course to fix it. It doesn't magically update the firmware in all the other humans.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I think New Mexico already ok'd it and I'd have a hard time believing Texas isn't already on board or will be soon. Texas doesn't give a shit about humans, it cares about corporations, it proves that by being a "Right to Work" state. This generally means a right-to-abuse-workers state.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least computers are predictable. [...] At least with computers, you can fix the bugs when you find them.
That holds true for classical software, but not for things like neural nets, or anything approaching A.I.
Re: Hopefully the public votes this down (Score:1)
Man. Has it really gotten this bad? Anything wrong with the world, blame the liberals. I don't get it. As if every single liberal is the cause of your problems. NO you are the cause of your problems. Same applies to the conservatives.
Re: (Score:2)
snowflake.
Antifa means AntiFascist, if you are against it, you are pro-fascism, which is about right if you are dRumpft supporter. Enjoying your big orange baby and his tantrums?
Re: (Score:2)
Antifa means AntiFascist, if you are against it, you are pro-fascism,
So if I call myself AntiPoor, that makes me rich?
Neat.
or bullshit, whichever seems more logical (hint: the second thing).
Re: (Score:2)
hmm, I guess logic isn't your strong point, I'll correct that for you:
If you are AntiPoor then you are ProRich (which you probably are)
You're probably also poor which would make you a typical tRumpft supporter, voting against your own interests. SAD!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
hmm, I guess logic isn't your strong point:
... Says the person who stated their belief that if a group names themselves something, they are that thing regardless of their actions.
If you are AntiPoor then you are ProRich (which you probably are)
So, then, by your own "logic," if Antifa is Anti-Fascist, then they're pro-something? Communist, maybe? National Socialist (the 1936 Germany kind)? Help me out here, O One Who Believes Themselves Wise.
You're probably also poor which would make you a typical tRumpft supporter, voting against your own interests. SAD!
Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. But I guess that's par for the course at this point.
Keep on digging, I'll keep tossing you fresh shovels.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, as I recall it is you racist white terrorists who have been killing people concerned about social justice.
The violence might come and you just have to choose, will you do violence to increase racism and inequality or will you contribute your violence to promoting social justice. The ends sometimes/often/usually do justify the means. This, btw is the logic that is used by the US Empire to invade countries, depose their leaders, and kill millions of non-'muricans, because brown people!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like a true dRumptist/white supremacist/xenophobe.
You on the other hand are a worthless being and a traitor by licking the boots of the orange tyrant currently desecrating the White House by his very presence. It boggles the mind that anyone with even a slightly working brain would support that orangutan.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot believe the level of complement you have just paid me. I'm picturing you just called me this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Danke!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Hopefully the public votes this down (Score:2)
The decline and fall off the Roman empire? Read it, what's your point?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I won bigly! Again! I'm winning so much I'm getting tired of winning!
Re: (Score:2)
snowflake. Antifa means AntiFascist, if you are against it, you are pro-fascism, which is about right if you are dRumpft supporter. Enjoying your big orange baby and his tantrums?
Being a member of Antifa and calling yourself anti-fascist, is like being a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and calling yourself a socialist.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you figure tsqr? I myself disagree with the comparison.
Antifa means exactly that and is what it stands for, you might not agree with a violent approach (to each his own), nonetheless, their goals are clear and well aligned with their name. Violence against fascism does not equate to fascism, violence against equality and social justice is fascism.
Re: (Score:3)
This is how I figure:
Applying the label Fascist to a group you don't like, then using violence and suppression of ideas and speech to fight the agenda of that group doesn't make you anti-fascist; it makes you a violent suppressor of ideas and speech. It boils down to embracing the moral framework of your enemy in the name of fighting them; aka, the end justifies the means. People who view Antifa in a negative light aren't generally fans of Fascist principles, they just have problems with the behavior they o
Re: (Score:2)
I hear you, I disagree.
I approve of their goals. I don't necessarily condone the violence but I feel that the left needs to bring some violence, because I don't fall in line with the peaceful protest approach. If the kkk and the other white supremacists are bringing bats, and riot masks and shields to a protest, then the left also needs to have some folks there, to equalize things. This is more important when local authorities align with the racists. I also have not problem with violently suppressing ra
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know whether it's more dangerous than human drivers or not. The news coverage is extremely biased, and doesn't provide much way to judge. I'm certainly not going to take the word of a manager at GM when talking about his competition.
It would really be nice if this could be done on a county by county basis, so that people could make decisions based on real evidence rather than gut feelings.
NHTSA has final say? (Score:1, Funny)
Well that'd be a first for California. They've been doing their own thing for years especially with automotive regulations.
And why bother? Just call the car "Undocumented" and then none of the rules apply.
Re: (Score:2)
They're working on your demand now as I type this. There will of course be a "Tank Tax" which will start at $1,000,000 per mile driven. Your right to a safe driving experience will be respected and you will be assigned a road crew to assess and repair roads as you destroy them. Insurance might be a bit difficult but, hey, its a lightly regulated market, just the way you like.
Re: (Score:2)
Your right to a safe driving experience
Which Constitutional Amendment guarantees that? Or is that a California thing? I can imagine the state might have passed a law, after the LAPD mistook a white kid and two asian ladies for Chris Dorner, and opened fire on their vehicles.
Personally, I prefer dangerous liberty to peaceful slavery. YMMV.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither, I think. I was just trying to make the AC snowflake happy. LAPD opens fire on anything that moves which might be non-white, they have a strong fear-culture.
In today's 'murica! you have dangerous slavery. Yay! We're #1! We're # 1! We're #1!
Re: (Score:2)
Neither, I think. I was just trying to make the AC snowflake happy.
Ah, well, good show then!
LAPD opens fire on anything that moves which might be non-white, they have a strong fear-culture.
Now, now, they're just as apt to unload on Caucasians as well - remember the Chris Dorner scandal? You know, how the LAPD "mistook" a short, scrawny, white surfer dude for a 6' 4", 260 lb black man?
In today's 'murica! you have dangerous slavery.
I think that's the saddest truth I'll read this year :(
Re: (Score:2)
Which Constitutional Amendment guarantees that?
Oh look - another person who thinks that if a right isn't enumerated in the Constitution, it doesn't exist. Read some history. The Federalist Papers would be a good place to start.
Re: (Score:2)
Which Constitutional Amendment guarantees that?
Oh look - another person who thinks that if a right isn't enumerated in the Constitution, it doesn't exist. Read some history. The Federalist Papers would be a good place to start.
Or, maybe try the 10th Amendment, which provides that any power not specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution is a power given to the state, and if the state doesn't take it, the people.
So, if your state has a law that guarantees a "right to a safe driving experience," then it's legit. Otherwise, it's a power granted to the people, i.e. it is only a "right" when we all agree to accept it as such.
And as such, there is no right to perfectly safe anything; much to the contrary, liberty
random thoughts (Score:2)
So, presumably a human will not need a driver license for such a vehicle. Thus we can expect children, drunks, and senile seniors to travel freely. Somehow that seems worrisome for reasons other than traffic safety.
But, again, the first buyers will likely be 'ride hail' companies, and rent-a-car businesses. Children without an approved account will be stuck at home. Legislation is likely to manage their use as well.
The security of the rented vehicle will be a concern. Cameras will be on to record (and charg
Re: (Score:2)
Thus we can expect children, drunks, and senile seniors to travel freely.
If they have the permission of the vehicle's owner, why not?
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of children, it's already illegal in many places to leave them at home unattended, let alone traveling in a vehicle.
Nanny-state hypocrisy, lmao
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you say you lived again?
Re: (Score:2)
Ok. Just be aware that those cars will have camera footage of your actions...
You make find the case a bit difficult to make.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok. Just be aware that those cars will have camera footage of your actions...
Will the camera be able to detect the radar jammer I have that tells the car it is about to hit a brick wall?
With all the ads for "brake assist" cars where they stop all by themselves when about to hit something or someone, I'm truly surprised I haven't see DIY projects for such a jammer. Imagine the fun on a superhighway when someone ahead of you points it back towards your car and it decides to stop right now in the middle of the highway. Or stands on the street corner on a busy city street with one of t