
U.S. urges states not to allow general use of self-driving cars - greenyoda
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130530/AUTO01/305300045/U-S-urges-states-not-allow-general-use-self-driving-cars
======
thesash
I'd like to see the data that the NHTSA used to conclude that the risk of a
malfunction is higher than the risk of human error. Millions of crashes each
year result in tens of thousands of deaths [1]. Humans drive while tired,
drunk, or simply distracted, and of course, tend to have slower reflexes than
computers.

Even if the technology isn't ready for mainstream adoption today, I bet we'll
look back in horror at the period in our history during which humans careened
unaided down highways at breakneck speeds, certified in their driving ability
by nothing more than a test easily passed by your average teenager.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year)

~~~
DougWebb
It's rare for all of the human drivers on a road to make the same mistake at
the same time under the same conditions, but that's a likely failure condition
for automated driving software if the software and sensors are standardized.
This could lead to much worse accidents then you'd get with human drivers,
because all of the cars will do the same thing.

An all-human example: driving too fast in foggy/whiteout conditions and not
having time to stop when the road is blocked. When this happens today, you get
100 car pileups because everyone is doing the same thing: driving along until
they suddenly come upon the pileup, and smashing into it because they don't
have time to stop.

What if a software error causes this same kind of behavior in more common
conditions? Google's testing wouldn't expose this kind of failure mode,
because (afaik) they haven't done extensive tests driving fleets of automated
cars together. All of their cars have been surrounded by human drivers, and
for all we know the varied reactions of the human drivers have prevented them
from hitting the Google car when it does something odd.

------
roguecoder
Given how bad humans are at driving cars safely, it is unfortunate that we are
holding self-driving cars to a higher standard than we hold humans. It will
cause needless loss of life.

~~~
tokenizer
Regardless of how bad I or someone driving around me is, I would rather have
complete control. If I'm going to relinquish that control, then the
alternative better be superb. This is one of those paradigms where we need
software engineering to be flawless, which history can tell us, is never the
case.

Not disagreeing with you just offering an opinion which is more centered and
cautious.

~~~
usea
If you have ever been a passenger in a car, you have given up that control to
an entity which is likely far less safe than the software option. (still need
to see the data this was based on)

~~~
3JPLW
Yes, you've given up control. But you've traded it for _trust_. While Google's
cars may have a flawless record, trust is an emotional thing. It's a long slow
road for self-driving cars to earn our trust, even if they should already
deserve it.

~~~
tokenizer
Thanks for understanding what I was trying to say.

------
steven777400
Reading the article, this doesn't strike me as inappropriate. "Self-driving
vehicle technology is not yet at the stage of sophistication or demonstrated
safety capability that it should be authorized for use by members of the
public for general driving purposes" is probably true. The cars are good at
what they do, but that doesn't mean they can handle all sorts of bizarre
detour, road construction, rural roads, faded/incorrect markings, conflicting
markings, control from officers/construction workers on the roadway, etc. It's
a huge, promising field, but still under significant development.

They also say, "as self-driving cars improve, they will reconsider."

Seems fair.

~~~
akmiller
_They also say, "as self-driving cars improve, they will reconsider." Seems
fair._

It would seem fair if they pointed to any actual data regarding the safety of
such vehicles versus the safety of cars driven by humans but I see no such
information provided. Or, it might seem fair if there was any company trying
to actively sell self-driving cars to the general public right now.

I think this is a problem that would likely work itself out without
legislation surrounding it. Companies, for the most part, would probably like
to provide products that don't endanger the lives of their customers. Along
with that, insurance companies I'm sure would love to reduce the risk of
driving while maintaining the current cost of insurance. Therefore, I'm
guessing they will be heavily involved in testing self-driving cars. If the
findings aren't good I'm sure insurance costs would be extreme or not
available at all.

~~~
steven777400
Just to address your first point, data is not actually too beneficial when it
comes to general public policy making. Many people make decisions based on
emotion rather than data.

For example, some people have a tremendous fear of flying. Yet flying
commercially is one of the safest modes of travel: a person is far more likely
to be injured on the way to the airport than to be injured in a commercial
aviation accident in this country.

Likewise, the first time one of these cars misreads a signal or marking and
plows into a farmer's market, the panic will be significantly greater than
when an impaired driver causes the same damage; even if we have data to show
that for each self-driving car injury there are 100 human-driven car injuries,
it will be tough to override the "I don't have control of it, I don't
understand it, I'm scared of it" emotional gut response of people.

------
w1ntermute
I can imagine that there will be a _very_ bloody political fight over self-
driving vehicles as they become more mainstream, particularly when it comes to
taxis and trucks, because of the vested interests of professional drivers.

~~~
rayiner
Why do people on HN always jump to "vested interests?" The NHTSA is conducting
a study to determine whether a new kind of vehicle should be allowed on public
roads. This is the prudent course of action, whether or not anyone stands to
benefit from it.

I worked at a company that does what you'd call today whitespace wireless
technologies. I remember when I was young and naive, my reaction was: "why
doesn't the FCC just get out of our way and let us put this stuff on the
public airwaves?" And I distinctly remember when Microsoft did the test with
their whitespace technology, where it couldn't handle, of all things,
unlicensed wireless microphones (commonly used by churches and sporting
events). And my thought was: "who the fuck cares about churches? They're
standing in the way of progress!"

Then I worked for a summer at the FCC and realized: "shit, the world is really
complicated." There are tons of stakeholders who use the public airwaves and
it's imprudent do anything without first being sure what the impact will be
(measure twice, cut once, as they say).

Self-driving cars will happen, and have to happen, the same way. The
governments of the country spend $160 billion a year on the public roads, and
the people of the country are absolutely dependent on them, and before they
let a bunch of yahoos run computerized cars everywhere they are going to have
to be convinced of what impact they will have on the system.

~~~
w1ntermute
> Why do people on HN always jump to "vested interests?" The NHTSA is
> conducting a study to determine whether a new kind of vehicle should be
> allowed on public roads. This is the prudent course of action, whether or
> not anyone stands to benefit from it.

Why do people on HN always make assumptions about other people's comments? I
wasn't criticizing this particular NHTSA study, I was just saying that there
will likely be a bloody political fight over allowing a technology that will
take away a lot of blue collar jobs that can't be outsourced.

~~~
rayiner
Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I was more using your post as
a jumping-off point for my rant.

------
DannyBee
"NHTSHA urges that cars have the capability of detecting that their automated
vehicle technologies have malfunctioned 'and informing the driver in a way
that enables the driver to regain proper control of the vehicle'"

Yes, unless the system to detect that has malfunctioned.

Past the car screaming "shit's broke, take the wheel", i'm not sure what other
ways they have of informing the driver.

~~~
wwweston
> Yes, unless the system to detect that has malfunctioned.

Are the systems that detect malfunction right now single-overseer systems that
do sanity checks, or are they redundant driving systems that check to see if
they agree?

You'd probably want both, but it seems some arrangement of the latter (maybe
3-5 systems) would be likely to provide a better failover scenario: the
driving systems constantly check if they agree, if they don't, there's a
majority vote for short-term action and an alert to the driver that they
should take over and get the car serviced.

I'm sure there's still scenarios where that wouldn't work -- car-wide problems
or outside interference impacting all systems at once, or even just improbable
simultaneous failures that would happen with enough time -- but maybe it's
what they have in mind.

------
bloaf
It sounds like the regulators think that manufacturers are eager to sell
unsafe self-driving cars to consumers. I highly doubt that is the case. Bad
press and reactionary legislation early on in the life of self-driving cars
could significantly slow their adoption and therefore manufacturers profits.

------
tokenadult
It was good to read all the comments here before I decided to write this one.
There is some good nuance in the back-and-forth among the comments on this
interesting article. I especially like BorgHunter's second-level comment

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5794159>

with its link to the official document related to this story.

Here in Minnesota, human driving is sufficiently lousy that I can't wait for
self-driving cars to get on the roads here. I see people neglecting being
aware of traffic to engage in cell phone conversations or texting
conversations on every drive I take here, and even though we get snow every
winter, the first few snowfalls of each winter always result in lots of
crashes as people drive like they drive in summer on slippery roads until they
adapt their driving habits. Bring on the self-driving cars here, I say. I'm
glad that the government regulators are attempting to do empirical safety
studies, but I urge them to be bold in rolling out self-driving technology as
rapidly as it can come to market.

------
figbucket
I'm wondering is anyone researching self driving larger vehicles and would
future legislation require someone being present in the vehicle?

According to <http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm> as of 2010 over 4
million people work in transport and warehousing. A lot of which will be
drivers. Self driving vehicles could mean then end for a lot of jobs
especially if someone developed a retrofit kit for current vehicles.

------
forgottenpaswrd
Well, it does not talk about the main problem that sef-driving cars have
today:

One cars works ok, as it uses an active super expensive light(Lidar) and radar
sensors.

Put two cars together using the same LIDAR light or the same frequencies and
you have a terrible problem.

Also using Lasers will be dangerous when people look at the thing and the
thing is working near you as the power of the light could do bad things to
your eyes and you don't see it.

~~~
danielweber
Different vendors' autonomous cars have encountered each other in the wild,
there has been nothing tragic happening. They wave to each other.

------
DerekAlia
What will insurance companies do if people aren't crashing cars?

------
sjg007
sponsored by the us taxi association. little do they know that it will be more
profitable to have self driving taxis.

------
maeon3
Also, driving in the snow and ice safety is about 3 orders of magnitude more
difficult to do than driving on dry pavement.

There also needs to be an indicator: "It's snowing, please wait until the road
is warm and dry, or have the carbon unit take over".

But that's no good, we have to get to where we are going, so tens of thousands
of people, who havn't been practicing driving AT ALL for about 8 months now
dust off their glasses and try to remember what these symbols on the dashboard
mean and which petal is the "make go faster" one.

Either humans must be required to drive 20% of the time, or else the humans
will be stranded when ice is encountered.

~~~
Goronmon
Automated vehicles also potentially means automated plowing/sanding vehicles.
Roombas for the roads basically.

~~~
protomyth
Not unless sensors get a lot better, as starring into white and finding the
road is a rather large problem[1]. Nevermind the actual skill of those
drivers, it is not an easy job.

1) GPS + Maps is not the answer as it wrong sometimes.

~~~
Aloisius
Since roads where it snows are always getting torn up and repaved, if
automated cars do become widespread, it seems entirely feasible and realistic
to line major roads on each side with radio reflectors or some other cheap
system that can keep automated plows from driving off the road.

The real problem is the cost of the automated plow itself. A 10-wheel plow
with salt feeder isn't exactly cheap to run with or without a driver.

~~~
protomyth
Since they haven't been real successful at automating a combine (a bit of a
simpler problem), I figure the plow and the expertise needed to drive one is a
ways off.

------
Blockhead
As a motorcyclist, I look forward to the advent/proliferation of self-driving
cars more than almost anything else.

You don't quite appreciate how dangerously most people drive until you're a
split second from being killed by any one of them.

------
youngerdryas
Industry standard is to drive 10mph over the speed limit so unless self-
driving cars are allowed to break the law they may make traffic even worse.
Maybe they would be good for drunk drivers and emergencies but I can barely
stand letting my wife drive so self-driving cars may be too agitating for me.

~~~
pyoung
I'm pretty sure self-driving cars will make traffic better, because it has
been shown that most traffic jams are caused by and exacerbated by poor
driving habits.

~~~
youngerdryas
Traffic jams are caused by volume. If fewer cars pass per minute, due to
driverless cars obeying the speed limit traffic will be worse. What are you
citing?

~~~
dtparr
The number of vehicles and the max speed at which they're willing to travel
aren't the only factors that affect throughput. As the GP mentions, bad
driving habits can lead to things like the Accordion effect.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accordion_effect>

~~~
youngerdryas
That may be marginally helpful but only if all the cars are self-driving and
if there is no traffic have fun going the speed limit the whole way. A good
way to foster adoption of self-driving cars may be to let them go faster when
on auto.

------
whiddershins
this is an agency trying desperately to seem relevant

