CA DMV Releases Draft Requirements For Autonomous Vehicles On Public Streets 139
kheldan writes: The California DMV will be allowing so-called 'autonomous cars' on the roads — with some restrictions. Namely: There must be a licensed driver behind the wheel at all times, alert and ready to take over on a moments notice, who additionally will be requried to obtain special training in the operation of the 'autonomous' vehicle they'll be driving; there must be extensive certification of the vehicle itself, subject to a three-year 'deployment permit', and re-evaluation of the vehicles' performance after that time; and there must be proof from the manufacturer that the vehicle is safe from cyber-attack. Those are the highlights; the full text of the press release is here, on the Calfornia DMV website, and the DMV is encouraging the public to attend workshops in January to discuss the draft regulations.
Really??? (Score:4, Insightful)
... and there must be proof from the manufacturer that the vehicle is safe from cyber-attack...
Good luck with that one....
Re: (Score:1)
GeoHotz coming to a car near you!! Who wouldn't trust a hacker with car computer security over a general car corporation....
Re: (Score:2)
Ok no proof then the manufacturer is liable and maybe even the Licensed Professional engineer that said ok to roll out.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok no proof ... Licensed Professional engineer that said ok to roll out.
My guess is that "there must be extensive certification of the vehicle itself" is taking that into consideration. Nowhere does it say that car companies themselves can just decide on their own that a car is ready for the road.
PE is not used in automotive field. (Score:2)
No PEs at car companies (Score:2)
Car companies don't use PEs, at two I have worked at we were discouraged from putting it on our business cards. Industry exemption and all that.
Re: (Score:3)
Agree entirely, but at least they are *trying* to get ahead of the problem.
That's better than the designers of IoT stuff and medical implants who seem to be completely oblivious to the real dangers of cyber attacks.
Re: (Score:2)
With at least a quarter of the employees of every company in that space probably having watched at least one of the Terminator movies, could any of them really be completely oblivious to the dangers of robotic attacks?
Re: (Score:2)
Easy. Only accessible through a wired connections. DONE!
Couldn't they just put that in the requirements?
Re: (Score:2)
Easy. Only accessible through a wired connections. DONE!
Couldn't they just put that in the requirements?
Chances are the cars will have a way to communicate between themselves to coordinate maneuvers and keep out of one another's way. Which means wireless and a place to get into them.
Re: (Score:2)
Chances are the cars will have a way to communicate between themselves to coordinate maneuvers and keep out of one another's way. Which means wireless and a place to get into them.
Google's prototype is 100% independent from any networks. I'm suspecting the competition will follow their lead on that.
Re: (Score:3)
The actual requirement from TFpressRelease is "Autonomous vehicles will be equipped with self-diagnostic capabilities that detect and respond to cyber-attacks or other unauthorized intrusions, alert the operator, and allow for an operator override", which sounds easier (but probably isn't).
I suppose this is how we'll transition (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I suppose this is how we'll transition (Score:5, Insightful)
During the day and in fair weather, google's cars are already safer than humans.
Given that truck driving accounts for like 5% of the American workforce, I think we're going to have to accept at some point that truck driving and a lot of other skilled professions are eventually going to be automated away, and adjust our economy accordingly, and that includes not punishing the unemployed with the threat of starvation and homelessness.
Re: (Score:3)
I think we're going to have to accept at some point that truck driving and a lot of other skilled professions are eventually going to be automated away, and adjust our economy accordingly, and that includes not punishing the unemployed with the threat of starvation and homelessness.
I know this is a discussion of driverless cars, but I wasn't expecting such wild science fiction.
Re: (Score:2)
okay, maybe I'm dense. But if we take the 5% of the workforce at face value, where exactly do you think losing that many jobs will be absorbed? And, if they aren't employed, there are serious limits to how much social support they can receive. Which leads to starvation and homelessness.
If you disagree with the 5% of the workforce, or the assertion that autonomous driving will eliminate truckers, then say so. But in the US longterm unemployment leads to starvation (lack of income to buy food, limits on how m
Re: (Score:2)
okay, maybe I'm dense. But if we take the 5% of the workforce at face value, where exactly do you think losing that many jobs will be absorbed? And, if they aren't employed, there are serious limits to how much social support they can receive. Which leads to starvation and homelessness.
I'm not denying that autonomous trucks will put a bunch of truck drivers out of work, I'm laughing at the idea of Capitalist America not throwing the former truckers out on the street when their skills are suddenly made unmarketable. You got no job? Not our problem!" is exactly what will happen.
See, that's what the bolding I added means, I'm in disbelief the second part will happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Norway is looking to introduce a universal income. That's where we are headed long term. It's not sci fi, just a long way off for many less progressive countries.
Re: (Score:1)
Given the track record of government and unions in protecting the working class over the past few decades, call me pessimistic.
Re: (Score:2)
> During the day and in fair weather, google's cars are already safer than humans.
On a closed course?
Re: (Score:2)
Public Roads (albeit, they're restricted to 25 MPH).
Re: (Score:2)
That's the company line... blaming humans for all the accidents... But Google self-driving cars have had a higher-than-average accident rate for the number of miles driven, which suggests *something* is going wrong.
In addition, Google self-driving cars are limited to 25MPH, max, like NEVs/golf-carts. Obviously this isn't comparable to just about any human driver's duty-cycle, and means self-driving cars are only being tested i
Re: (Score:2)
Bull:
The national rate for reported "property-damage-only crashes" is about 0.3 per 100,000 miles driven, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Google's 11 accidents over 1.7 million miles would work out to 0.6 per 100,000
http://www.chicagotribune.com/... [chicagotribune.com]
Yes, yes, fine... MOST of the cars, and MOST of the miles driven are very low speed, at or below 25MPH.
I'm just worried (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"They'll be a driver with the minimal amount of training needed to handle an emergency ..."
Handling emergencies is usually where the greatest skill and training is required.
Re: (Score:3)
"Handling emergencies is usually where the greatest skill and training is required."
Yes, if the emergency is black ice, or a gaping hole is opening in the road ahead, or logs are falling off a truck in front of you. But in those cases, the computer is probably going to have to deal with the emergency because there isn't time to switch control over to the driver.
I think maybe an "emergency" from the computer's point of view is a situation it has no clear guidelines to deal with. e.g. the map says there is
Re: (Score:2)
I hope this is the case, because Tesla's current offering tends to throw you in at the deep end by first steering towards imminent death and then beeping to alert you that you must now save yourself before it's too late. It seems like a massive oversight to me - surely the computer should know that roads never bend that sharply if they are designed to be used at 50+ MPH, and that swerving out of lane is rarely ever the right move.
Stuff like things falling off other vehicles should be okay because the comput
Re: (Score:2)
I can only imagine how will this will actually work. First of all, I would imagine most "drivers" of autonomous cars aren't going to be paying as much attention to what is happening on the road as someone who is actively driving the car, so they are not likely to be prepared to be suddenly dumped into an emergency situation. Even if they are paying attention, there's still going to be the time needed for the driver to get their hands on the wheel, feet on the pedals, etc. And then you're going to have a
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Out of work truck drivers? What? There's a huge shortage, and the artificial scarcity rules that the Obama administration has forced down our throats has made it worse. I work for a benefits and time clock software company for trucking companies, and the pay for truck drivers has nearly doubled in the past decade for our customers. A truck driver with five years of experience is paid higher around here than my son makes, and he graduated from Ga Tech in EE last December. There's such a severe shortage
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And now subtract off the cost of a driver for at least most work, and that buys a whole lot of new hardware. On pure backing, this is a much, much easier problem for computers than humans. google 'double inverted pendulumn'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have never backed with a 53ft trailer, have you?
You didn't google what he suggested, did you?
This is a trivial problem for a computer to solve, it is not remotely hard to do, you simply need to have the right sensors on the truck and trailer.
It will have a large up front cost, but pay for itself over time.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] Quadcopter holding an inverted pendulumn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] - 2 axis inverted triple penduumn. (the joints are free to move)
The backing is the utterly trivial part.
The hard part is knowing what traffic laws to break, and when, and how to deal with others breaking laws and doing unexpected things.
Re: (Score:2)
You have never backed with a 53ft trailer, have you?
You should watch more TV. There is a current production run pickup truck that does button push backing of boat trailers into the water. You can buy one NOW. TODAY.
The problem you are worried about has already been solved.
Re: (Score:3)
> I just don't see one of those self driving things backing up across 4 lanes of street with normal traffic on it, and then down an alley.
What's the problem? A properly programmed computer can almost certainly do that. And the fact that it has tied up traffic for sixteen blocks in both directions won't bother it a bit. It doesn't care if people are swearing at and waving tireirons. It's a computer.
Re: (Score:2)
"Foolish humans, with their linguistic threats and ... wait, what are you doing with that ... put that logic probe down ... don't JTAG me, bro!"
Re: (Score:2)
I could see a yard stopper being automated moving trailers between a parking lot and the docks, but not anything more than that for a long time.
That has been done for years in Europe... Germany has had such a system at their docks for nearly 10 years now, much of the container movement is all done by computers and robots now.
I run a local trucking company just outside of chicago, and the current state of automated trucks is a joke, they still have along way to go.
That view is easy to see when it threatens your way of doing business.
It'll be like smart phones, it'll go from no one having them to every one having them and you'll wonder how it happened.
Plus it would require a complete redesign of the way the electrical cord and air lines are hooked up from the truck to the trailer
Yea, but since it will ALSO require brand new trucks and brand new trailers, so what? That is a trivial problem to solve when you're buil
Re: (Score:2)
In 30 years? more like in 3 years. And these regulations will still exist, holding back innovation for no reason.
As for the truck drivers, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tjZchYXMmA
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just truck drivers. There are a lot of jobs we lose or significantly reduce due to autonomous driving.
Perhaps we can't get trucks fully autonomous in the early phases so we'll have "citymasters" who basically pilot them around the cities. Regardless, many cities among popular trucking routes will no longer have drivers needing to rest along them so those hotels will take hits. We might even need less trucks since you can get higher utilization out of the existing ones you have. Accidents are lessen
Re: (Score:2)
To driverless cars. They'll be a driver with the minimal amount of training needed to handle an emergency and the rest gets home by computer. In 30 years the computer will be better at handling the emergencies and the driver will get the boot. My question is what are we gonna do with all the out of work truck drivers. Your not gonna retrain them, there's only so much they can do.
This is awesome! Just not very. So the driver not only has to pass his regular tests, he has to have additional training, and has to remain always at the ready in case the autonomous car does something like veer off the road.
I suspect with this incredible enhancement of the human condition, they will have to so something like they do on the raiload tracks in Western Australia. The rails are so straight and boring that the engineer has to push a button every so often to show he's still awake, or the train
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I was going to mention (this is a good enough spot) the attraction of these cars is the driver gets to do something ELSE besides drive. Read, talk, text, watch videos or something. Around here, they'd be bought by people that don't want to get a second DUI. (Another question that would have to be sorted out.)
Not being actively but minimally involved with the car by holding the steering wheel is going to put people to sleep and make a "push the button to prove awake" thing needed. Which is WORSE tha
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, this means the 'driver' can override the computer at any time with no notice, even if he has to hit a button to do so.
First problem, there's no real danger, but the human freaks out, does takes over and does something stupid/wrong and causes an accident.
Second problem, there is an actual emergency, and the human doesn't have time to react to it
Re: (Score:2)
Why does "with an autonomous car" make this such an issue? Human drivers are doing stupid shit like this every day, and killing themselves and others to the tune of roughly a hundred deaths per day on average here in the US.
And I guarantee you there will be extensive black box data systems that preserve exactly what the computer was thinking, what the car was doing, and what the driver may or may not have done. No guesswork required as to the cause of any accident with these cars.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect that when the automated cars progress from prototype stage to production stage they'll re-write the requirements.
At least they aren't demanding that someone run ahead of the car waving a red flag. (Actually, for prototype cars the regulations sound quite reasonable.)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. In many cases, a truck delivery also involves a transaction between multiple parties. You need someone there from both parties to check the transaction and verify the paperwork. This is especially true if the truck needs to deliver to multiple different parties. You can't have people from destination A unloading destination B's stuff.
Seems good for stuff still in testing and 3 years (Score:2)
Seems good for stuff still in testing.
At least 3 years with drivers with special training in the operation of the 'autonomous' system seems like a good base line as it may take 3-5 years just for the laws / courts to work out stuff. also 3 years of logs can build up a lot of stuff / issues that will need to be fixed be for you can take away a driver.
Maybe 2 years in move to some like an autopilot where you still need to be some what ready to take over but can sit back a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
In a few years when there are a number of solutions not in testing, these regs will really bite.
Even today, what problem does the "licensed driver" rule solve? How may people have been injured, how much property has been destroyed, by automated cars not having a driver?
Beware when a government thinks it's innovating. They aren't do-ers, they're don't-ers. When there exists no actual problem, mandating a solution is lunacy.
Re: (Score:2)
The licensed driver solves the liability problem. If your car causes an accident, you are at fault.
Re: (Score:2)
This misses one of the biggest upsides of car autonomy. The manufacturer assumes all liability, resulting in a much much more efficient auto insurance market and a big headache removed from consumers.
Volkswagen already did said they'd assume it.
Re: (Score:2)
Google said they'd assume liability as well.
Re: (Score:2)
or at least if the computer throws up its hands the licensed driver is legally allowed to drive the car home (assuming it can go, of course).
Re: (Score:2)
Except you aren't, because you weren't driving, because the autopilot was. That's what it's for, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Moment? (Score:2)
ready to take over on a moments notice
If the driver really can take a moment to take over, it's likely that whatever catastrophe that made manual control necessary will have already played out.
Re: (Score:2)
An example would be the car sitting at a red light in a construction zone with new signals strung up and when an unrelated light turns green, the autonomous car releases the brakes and starts to move forward against a red for its lane. An alert individual can override and re-apply the brakes immediately similar to if they had a lapse of clarity and a moment of confusion and avoid crossing fully into opposing traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
An example would be the car sitting at a red light in a construction zone with new signals strung up and when an unrelated light turns green, the autonomous car releases the brakes and starts to move forward against a red for its lane. An alert individual can override and re-apply the brakes immediately similar to if they had a lapse of clarity and a moment of confusion and avoid crossing fully into opposing traffic.
The problem is that the driver is not going to be alert -- drivers are barely alert even with fully manual cars, they surely are not going to be paying attention while stopped at a light, they are going to be playing Angry Birds.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the driver is not going to be alert -- drivers are barely alert even with fully manual cars, they surely are not going to be paying attention while stopped at a light, they are going to be playing Angry Birds.
Which simply means that the requirements will require alert drivers and no angry birds. This leads to the concept that California still considers the technology to be "In Development" and not for the average SMSing driver or general consumption. Which also leads to the implication that these requirements will be changed in the future when the technology is no longer in a testing phase.
To forestall responses that "It'll never change", I'll point out that very few open-stretch, long-haul freeways still have a
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the driver is not going to be alert -- drivers are barely alert even with fully manual cars, they surely are not going to be paying attention while stopped at a light, they are going to be playing Angry Birds.
Which simply means that the requirements will require alert drivers and no angry birds. This leads to the concept that California still considers the technology to be "In Development" and not for the average SMSing driver or general consumption. Which also leads to the implication that these requirements will be changed in the future when the technology is no longer in a testing phase.
To forestall responses that "It'll never change", I'll point out that very few open-stretch, long-haul freeways still have a speed limit of 55.
Drivers are "required" to be alert today, yet that doesn't stop them from texting, putting on makeup, reading books (!) and lots of other things that divide their attention - they surely aren't going to pay *more* attention to their driving when the car is doing all of the work.
Re: (Score:2)
Drivers are "required" to be alert today, yet that doesn't stop them from texting, putting on makeup, reading books (!) and lots of other things that divide their attention - they surely aren't going to pay *more* attention to their driving when the car is doing all of the work.
That makes it sound like "drivers" is all-inclusive. Probably as long as these requirements exist, the companies making the cars will only allow them to be operated by people who will not do that. It's not as if you can go to a dealership and buy a self-driving car, after all. Though of course the requirements will be taken as seriously as the penalties for not meeting them and as the likelihood of being caught. Penalties to likely include bad press as well as legal implications.
Re: (Score:1)
ready to take over on a moments notice
If the driver really can take a moment to take over, it's likely that whatever catastrophe that made manual control necessary will have already played out.
Yeah, the difference with a plane is that unless you're in a real steep dive you tend to have minutes to hit the ground rather than milliseconds.
So what? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a real pain in the ass for doing things like moving it a few feet so you can get something out of the garage [...]
Walk into the garage, see the shovel behind the car, say, "Siri, move the car into the driveway." Garage door opens and car moves into the driveway. Grab the shovel and say, "Okay, Siri, you can move the car back." Car moves back into the garage.
Versus walk into the garage, see the shovel behind the car, go back inside, get the car keys, come back out and get in the car, hit the remote for the garage door, drive out into the driveway, get out of the car, grab the shovel and put it someplace convenient, g
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Me, personally. Due to medical problems, I have reaction times that mean I cannot safely drive.
Some sort of vehicle would be very handy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, a car that drives itself would be very handy for lots of people. I'm not saying that we don't make cars that can drive themselves, I'm questioning the reasoning behind cars that can ONLY drive themselves.
Not everyone can drive, but most people think they can.
With cars that only drive themselves, you could make the driving test much stricter and only allow people to drive cars that really can do it well.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone can drive, but most people think they can.
With cars that only drive themselves, you could make the driving test much stricter and only allow people to drive cars that really can do it well.
I believe most people can drive adequately, in a driving test situation. What the tests can't account for is what they do in their every day travels, including drinking, eating, texting, being drunk/high, and just generally not being attentive. You don't have to have racing skills to operate a car, you just have to operate the damn thing above all else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My fear is that they will take away the steering wheel, gear shift and brakes and give me some gawdawful touch screen interface that is almost impossible to use. That's annoying on an entertainment device. It's likely to be dangerous or lethal in a vehicle control system.
Might be OK if I only have to use it once or twice a year.
But of course automotive engineers are far too clever to do that. Rig...............ht.
Re: (Score:2)
Who really wants a car that you can't manually control yourself, ever? Seems like a real pain in the ass for doing things like moving it a few feet so you can get something out of the garage, or putting it up on ramps so you can change your oil.
I don't know about the US, but here in Norway (and I imagine most the EU) there's an exemption for anything that goes less than 10 km/h (6 mph) like electric wheelchairs and whatnot. If in addition it has 360 degree sensors and will refuse to bump into objects, run over kids or pets or off sharp drops I would think all but the mentally challenged, demented and very young children would be permitted to nudge it around. I don't think they want to want to map out the "rules of the road" for driveways and parki
Re: (Score:2)
You are thinking far too small. Why would you park a car you don't own in your garage or change it's oil?
Autonomous cars won't be owned by individuals. They will owned by Uber and Lyft and other such companies.
Why would anyone go through the expense and hassle of owning their own car when I can use Uber to summon an autonomous car from it's fleet of thousands to arrive to pick me up in under a minute, and take me where I want. On-demand transport will be orders of magnitude cheaper than owning a vehicle bec
Re: (Score:2)
I do. I hated driving back when I did it, but I really liked the convenience of having a car. Additionally, I know I'm not a safe driver. I'm near-sighted, blind in one eye, and tend to lose myself in thought.
I would *LOVE* to have a car that I didn't need to drive. (Now, when it's convenient for her, I have my wife drive me. Otherwise I depend on public transit, about which I can only say...UGH.
P.S.: With my eyesight the DMV would not give me a license until I had a recent certification by an optomet
Really? (Score:3)
"There must be a licensed driver behind the wheel at all times, alert and ready to take over on a moments notice"
Kinda defeats the whole purpose of the autonomous car, might as well just drive rather than having to pretend to drive and ready to take the wheel instantly...
Re: (Score:3)
I feel the same but suspect it's temporary until we can start trusting the tech the not so trust worthy humans are building.
Re: (Score:3)
The phrasing of the actual draft requirement is "capable of taking control in the event of a technology failure or other emergency", which need not require instant response, merely being prepared and legally allowed to operate the vehicle when the automation can't. Like in the scenario someone posted above where getting out of a parking deck involved going the wrong way down 3 one-way segments.
Re: (Score:2)
"Kinda defeats the whole purpose of the autonomous car, might as well just drive rather than having to pretend to drive and ready to take the wheel instantly..."
I suspect that will evolve into, you have to be in the driver's seat and not totally dysfunctional. But the car will tell you if it needs help. You can text, listen to music, think beautiful thoughts, sleep, plot revenge on your coworkers for real or imagined slights, etc. You just have to be available if the car needs help with a difficult situ
Re: (Score:2)
This is because the cars are still in the testing phase. Nobody is allowing cars to operate autonomously on public roads yet.
Obligatory Princess Bride reference (Score:4, Funny)
So, "self-driving" cars will require licensed drivers with more qualifications than every other car on the road. Brilliant!
Re: (Score:2)
Luddites gonna ludd
End of cruise control? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly enough, this law, like all the other laws, has a definitions section. Here is the definition they use:
“Autonomous vehicle” means any vehicle equipped with technology that has the
capability of operating or driving the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of
a natural person, whether or not the technology is engaged, excluding vehicles
equipped with one
or more systems that enhance safety or provide driver assistance but are not capable of driving or
operating the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person.
So no, cruise control, etc, do not count.
Quest. Drunk/ancient OK? (Score:3)
And far more commonly, if you've had 12 shots in 2 hours, can you get arrested for being the driver in a driverless car? Will the cop even notice? Will the car test your breath?
Because these are the primary reasons for a normal customer to buy one of these things.
Summary of the draft: (Score:2)
2. At every cross road the pilot vehicle and the autonomous vehicle should come to a complete stop and the pilot vehicle should light a fire cracker to warn other motorists
3. False fronts and covers must be fitted to the autonomous vehicle so that it does not cause fear or cause frighten human drivers .
driverless cars with driver features (Score:2)
Aaron Levie of Box tweeted that if the California DMV existed when cars first hit the road, then they would have required Ford to include a horse in each car. Exactly right.
There will come a point down the road (sorry for the pun) when my wife and I will no longer be able to pass a driving test and thus drive. Rather than being stuck at home, as is now the case for many people, I want to be able to call up a driverless car in the same way that I would call a car service today, and then use it for point-to-
Red Flag (Score:2)
I'm surprised they don't require somebody to walk ahead of the autonomous vehicle waving a red flag to warn everyone of its approach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So I'm still accountable? (Score:2)
Then I want control, sorry. There is no point to the automation. The fact is the automation would encourage more attention deficit from the 'driver.'
Am I the only one... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because we know generally what types of failures humans have, and can design our tests around what types of competence we know will be required. Autonomous vehicles are a new situation, and have new failure or competence modes. Until we understand those modes, we can't understand what we need to test for correctly.
By letting them on the road with human drivers as overrides, we are limiting the worst-case modes, and allow for more real-world tests is a larger variety of situations so we can understand thos
Re:Can the autonomous vehicle pass a drivers test? (Score:4, Interesting)
Because the drivers test does not cover everything you will encounter. For example, the other day I was parked in a parking deck at an event. The event ended, and everyone started to leave. But there was some problem near the exit. So they had a cop standing at a different part of the garage, motioning for people to ignore the 'exit' signs, and to drive back down the entrance ramp the wrong way. This put you on a one-way street also heading the wrong way. No problem, because the cops blocked the street. They then motioned you the wrong way down yet another one-way street, where you finally joined up with the normal traffic.
All that is covered by 'follow the directions of the police'. But is an autonomous vehicle going to understand the motions of an officer, and drive the wrong way on several streets? Humans had no problem with it.
Re: (Score:3)
But is an autonomous vehicle going to understand the motions of an officer, and drive the wrong way on several streets?
With proper use of beacons, signs and temporary signals, I don't see why not. For example, officers could be supplied with special batons, similar to those used by ground crews at airports.
Re: (Score:2)
> With proper use of beacons, signs and temporary signals, I don't see why not. For example, officers could be supplied with special batons, similar to those used by ground crews at airports.
Of course. Or maybe the car will simply assume that any human looking artifact standing there waving at traffic in a certain way is an authority whose signals are to be followed. And maybe that'll work fine. It's going to take a number of years to sort out. But it will be more years than some folks assume because
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe the car will simply assume that any human looking artifact standing there waving at traffic in a certain way is an authority whose signals are to be followed.
That situation can be managed with some kind of strong authentication of the individual making the gestures, e.g., an exclusive coded signal in the light used to illuminate the batons.
Re: (Score:3)
But is an autonomous vehicle going to understand the motions of an officer, and drive the wrong way on several streets?
With proper use of beacons, signs and temporary signals, I don't see why not. For example, officers could be supplied with special batons, similar to those used by ground crews at airports.
Are you saying that autonomous vehicles can only work in redirected traffic if the people redirecting traffic have special batons? So, let's say there is a landslide and the road is partly obstructed and a good samaritan starts playing traffic cop because the real traffic cops can't get through the back up. Or, how about movers or home construction workers or anyone else dealing with an impromptu traffic redirection? How do autonomous vehicles not being able to determine how to follow directions from a per
Re: (Score:2)
All that is covered by 'follow the directions of the police'. But is an autonomous vehicle going to understand the motions of an officer, and drive the wrong way on several streets? Humans had no problem with it.
It doesn't have to...
"Siri, override traffic rules, exit down the entrance ramp, password 12345"
Re: (Score:2)
"Siri, override traffic rules, exit down the entrance ramp, authorization Picard-Gamma-6-0-7-3."
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
This was a human fix for a human problem. And while human cops can interfere with normal driving behaviour, you can be sure that the drivers can still control their cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be sure. Cars occasionally have mechanical problems that can result in their blocking the road. (I'll agree that your presumption that it was a human caused problem is probably correct, but that's probability, not certainty.)
Re: (Score:2)
WHen you're learning to drive, you get a learner's permit and can drive with another experienced driver ready to assist. This is the equivalent for autonomous vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
3/5 trolling. looks like some suckers took the bait.
Re: (Score:2)
Who likes driving ourselves around? There's pretty much nothing I like less than staring at yellow stripes and break lights for however long while trying to get somewhere.