
Why testing self-driving cars in SF is challenging but necessary - snowmaker
https://medium.com/kylevogt/why-testing-self-driving-cars-in-sf-is-challenging-but-necessary-1f3f7ccd08db
======
masonic

      Pass using opposing lane: 422
    

This disturbs me, given that this is _illegal_ everywhere but Residence
Districts (except in the rare cases where the lane divider specifically allows
it, like the #2 image... but they proceeded to drive _over the hashed
markings_ indicating a solid barrier _anyway_ , which is seriously illegal),
and I can't imagine that a very high percentage of meaningful test driving
would be in Residence Districts (given that there isn't much difference
between driving in SF RDs vs. RDs elsewhere in the Bay Area.

~~~
Eridrus
Not sure why this disturbs you; people regularly violate traffic laws when
they decide it isn't risky. Our laws are not written with enough precision to
deal with all scenarios, so we let people applying the law to decide if what
you did was reasonable even if it was illegal.

~~~
masonic

      people regularly violate traffic laws when they decide it isn't risky
    

_People_ doing so take on the responsibility for their actions and can take
situational assessment of risk to drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, etc. They
also _accept the risk_ of a traffic stop, citation, summons, search, fine, and
effects on insurance rates. What can a traffic officer even _do_ to an
algorithm or its company? There isn't even statute law (in CA, anyway)
empowering them to hold the "driver" accountable on any level.

When you program an _algorithm_ to disregard law in non-emergency situations,
there are _so many edge conditions_ that come into play that go untested in
advance.

I'm afraid these issues will go ignored until there is a body count to throw
into the media narrative.

