You would still be free to modify your car to your desire. It would just no longer be legal to take on public roads like various other modified vehicles.
This is getting a little far afield, but "you can modify your car but you can't drive it on a street anymore" is equivalent to "you can't modify your car". Have a look at efforts to secure The Right to Repair for more info.
The ability to talk to your onboard computer should be core - you shouldn't need to call a Google technician and pay them 8x the standard service fee just to flash the bios on your self-driving car, nor should you have to agree to a EULA that indemnifies the manufacturer in case of accident.
Or, on the flip side, we delete the private auto industry and return all that cost to the consumer.
This is starting to feel like GST territory but weren't you saying in chat that none of the makers would accept liability anyway?
yeah I don't believe, to bring it back around, that Uber would accept a regime where they're carrying comprehensive coverage for every self-driving car, nevermind Google or Tesla or Daimler-Chrysler carrying coverage for even 10% of the US auto market. It's not scalable. Even if we cut road deaths by a factor of 10, no company can sustain the weight of 3300 insurance claims per year that resulted in death, certainly not on the back of the one-time profit from a durable goods purchase like a car. And that's not even talking about injuries and property damage claims.
Quick question about the statistical discussion earlier re: miles per death...how much of that is highway miles? It's my understanding that far and away a large portion of the self driving car mileage is in-town because that's where it needs the most practice/training/whatever you call it. And for people driving it's highway because it's just so much faster to rack up miles doing 70 in a relatively straight line than it is going stop light to stop light. When you look at WHAT is being driven, not just raw numbers, I'd bet 2 apples to your 1 orange that things will start to skew.
As for the statement that in 20 years personal cars will no longer be a thing and it will all be fleet cars, that MAY be something that is true in large enough cities, but as soon as you start going rural you're out of your mind. There is just no way for a fleet to work for a 6,000 person town that is 45 minutes away from every other town, much less a 600 person one.
Do you, in fact, have any builds in this shop at all?
You would still be free to modify your car to your desire. It would just no longer be legal to take on public roads like various other modified vehicles.
This is getting a little far afield, but "you can modify your car but you can't drive it on a street anymore" is equivalent to "you can't modify your car". Have a look at efforts to secure The Right to Repair for more info.
I'm cool with that.
I'm super not! I'd like to be able to put an aftermarket GPS in my car without bricking the onboard computer, and I'd like to be able to change the oil without needing a trip to the garage so they can charge me $200 to attach a wire and click "approved".
I'd like for people to not modify their cars in ways that endanger others. The things you're listing as concerns are not "people hacking their car to get them through traffic faster". They still could. That they'd be banned from driving on public roads is fine.
So I should have access to the on board computer for good things, but I should also not have access to it in case I do bad things. What we're talking about here is the ability to do something vs the legality of doing it.
Maybe we're not disagreeing? It's just that when you add software, you add hacking. If you lock down the equiment to prevent hacking - when the hacker has physical access to the equipment - you severely reduce the ability of benign users to make desirable and legal changes.
You would still be free to modify your car to your desire. It would just no longer be legal to take on public roads like various other modified vehicles.
This is getting a little far afield, but "you can modify your car but you can't drive it on a street anymore" is equivalent to "you can't modify your car". Have a look at efforts to secure The Right to Repair for more info.
I'm cool with that.
I'm super not! I'd like to be able to put an aftermarket GPS in my car without bricking the onboard computer, and I'd like to be able to change the oil without needing a trip to the garage so they can charge me $200 to attach a wire and click "approved".
I'd like for people to not modify their cars in ways that endanger others. The things you're listing as concerns are not "people hacking their car to get them through traffic faster". They still could. That they'd be banned from driving on public roads is fine.
So I should have access to the on board computer for good things, but I should also not have access to it in case I do bad things. What we're talking about here is the ability to do something vs the legality of doing it.
Maybe we're not disagreeing? It's just that when you add software, you add hacking. If you lock down the equiment to prevent hacking - when the hacker has physical access to the equipment - you severely reduce the ability of benign users to make desirable and legal changes.
What desirable and legal changes to self-driving software can you possibly make?
You would still be free to modify your car to your desire. It would just no longer be legal to take on public roads like various other modified vehicles.
This is getting a little far afield, but "you can modify your car but you can't drive it on a street anymore" is equivalent to "you can't modify your car". Have a look at efforts to secure The Right to Repair for more info.
I'm cool with that.
I'm super not! I'd like to be able to put an aftermarket GPS in my car without bricking the onboard computer, and I'd like to be able to change the oil without needing a trip to the garage so they can charge me $200 to attach a wire and click "approved".
I'd like for people to not modify their cars in ways that endanger others. The things you're listing as concerns are not "people hacking their car to get them through traffic faster". They still could. That they'd be banned from driving on public roads is fine.
So I should have access to the on board computer for good things, but I should also not have access to it in case I do bad things. What we're talking about here is the ability to do something vs the legality of doing it.
Maybe we're not disagreeing? It's just that when you add software, you add hacking. If you lock down the equiment to prevent hacking - when the hacker has physical access to the equipment - you severely reduce the ability of benign users to make desirable and legal changes.
What desirable and legal changes to self-driving software can you possibly make?
Maybe you want a little more stopping distance programmed in because your back is shit and the car brakes too hard for you?
Maybe you bought cutting-edge LIDAR in the 4th year of owning the car, but the software doesn't support it without installing a patch validated by the manufacturer, which you can't install without visiting the dealer even though it's just bluetooth.
I could go on and on! Maybe you want the new HUD but the software won't display at a resolution the OLED manufacturer says the display supports. Maybe a stick of RAM failed and you want to replace it yourself. Maybe you cancelled your Verizon HUM driving monitor subscription but you own the hardware now, still want to get info from it, and you know it's sending out signals but can't read them anymore. Maybe you put snow tires on and can't get the damned thing to recognize them without paying the dealer $250 for a service call where he just logs in remotely and ticks the "snow tire" box.
I could go on. There's a hundred legit reasons to modify the software in a car.
You would still be free to modify your car to your desire. It would just no longer be legal to take on public roads like various other modified vehicles.
This is getting a little far afield, but "you can modify your car but you can't drive it on a street anymore" is equivalent to "you can't modify your car". Have a look at efforts to secure The Right to Repair for more info.
I'm cool with that.
I'm super not! I'd like to be able to put an aftermarket GPS in my car without bricking the onboard computer, and I'd like to be able to change the oil without needing a trip to the garage so they can charge me $200 to attach a wire and click "approved".
I'd like for people to not modify their cars in ways that endanger others. The things you're listing as concerns are not "people hacking their car to get them through traffic faster". They still could. That they'd be banned from driving on public roads is fine.
So I should have access to the on board computer for good things, but I should also not have access to it in case I do bad things. What we're talking about here is the ability to do something vs the legality of doing it.
Maybe we're not disagreeing? It's just that when you add software, you add hacking. If you lock down the equiment to prevent hacking - when the hacker has physical access to the equipment - you severely reduce the ability of benign users to make desirable and legal changes.
I don't think the right to repair laws impact the software which runs the vehicle or item, other than the fact that you have to have the right to be able to repair what the company can repair without the tech actually stopping you.
So you wouldn't have the right to download the self driving software and re-write it. However, the car couldn't implement a system where even if you went to a third party repair shop with all the right tools and manuals (which they would be obliged to provide) that the self driving would deactivate when that shop repaired your windscreen wipers or replaced a camera lens
You would still be free to modify your car to your desire. It would just no longer be legal to take on public roads like various other modified vehicles.
This is getting a little far afield, but "you can modify your car but you can't drive it on a street anymore" is equivalent to "you can't modify your car". Have a look at efforts to secure The Right to Repair for more info.
I'm cool with that.
I'm super not! I'd like to be able to put an aftermarket GPS in my car without bricking the onboard computer, and I'd like to be able to change the oil without needing a trip to the garage so they can charge me $200 to attach a wire and click "approved".
I'd like for people to not modify their cars in ways that endanger others. The things you're listing as concerns are not "people hacking their car to get them through traffic faster". They still could. That they'd be banned from driving on public roads is fine.
So I should have access to the on board computer for good things, but I should also not have access to it in case I do bad things. What we're talking about here is the ability to do something vs the legality of doing it.
Maybe we're not disagreeing? It's just that when you add software, you add hacking. If you lock down the equiment to prevent hacking - when the hacker has physical access to the equipment - you severely reduce the ability of benign users to make desirable and legal changes.
What desirable and legal changes to self-driving software can you possibly make?
Maybe you want a little more stopping distance programmed in because your back is shit and the car brakes too hard for you?
Maybe you bought cutting-edge LIDAR in the 4th year of owning the car, but the software doesn't support it without installing a patch validated by the manufacturer, which you can't install without visiting the dealer even though it's just bluetooth.
I could go on and on! Maybe you want the new HUD but the software won't display at a resolution the OLED manufacturer says the display supports. Maybe a stick of RAM failed and you want to replace it yourself. Maybe you cancelled your Verizon HUM driving monitor subscription but you own the hardware now, still want to get info from it, and you know it's sending out signals but can't read them anymore. Maybe you put snow tires on and can't get the damned thing to recognize them without paying the dealer $250 for a service call where he just logs in remotely and ticks the "snow tire" box.
I could go on. There's a hundred legit reasons to modify the software in a car.
As a software engineer, those are weak reasons to allow altering of the on board electronics. The braking distance may be a config parameter at best, but really that should be based on the conditions of the road anyway and not the comfort of the passenger once various base safety levels are met. I absolutely DO NOT want people to change out ram on their car like it's a PC. Hell, the ram won't even be able to be replaced like a PC, it is almost always embedded on the board in one way or another.
Autonomous will trend towards aerospace design rather than PC design. Hell, it is part of the reason why ISO 26262 exists.
This may be the most well documented pedestrian accident due to the car's sensors and cameras. It may be safe to say that we can wait and see where the fault lies.
I agree, which is why I find it especially disappointing that the police STILL jump straight to putting all the onus on the victim.
The police might have you know interviewed the safety driver and other people at the scene- like they do with every other accident that doesn't involve a self driving car. That can be done in minutes versus getting all the telemetry and video data off the car.
From what I've seen others experience in this area yes, the police MO is to take whatever the driver says at face value, regardless of whether than reflect reality or not.
If the car or the safety driver can't see an object as big as a person walking a bicycle across 4 lanes of traffic then I don't see how this technology is going to bring many safety benefits.
Also, the AV was speeding; we can't even get them to follow the most basic of traffic laws.
The link you just provided says:
"The vehicle was doing about 40 miles per hour on a street with a 45 m.p.h. speed limit when it struck Ms. Herzberg, who was walking her bicycle across the street, according to the Tempe police."
You would still be free to modify your car to your desire. It would just no longer be legal to take on public roads like various other modified vehicles.
This is getting a little far afield, but "you can modify your car but you can't drive it on a street anymore" is equivalent to "you can't modify your car". Have a look at efforts to secure The Right to Repair for more info.
I'm cool with that.
I'm super not! I'd like to be able to put an aftermarket GPS in my car without bricking the onboard computer, and I'd like to be able to change the oil without needing a trip to the garage so they can charge me $200 to attach a wire and click "approved".
I'd like for people to not modify their cars in ways that endanger others. The things you're listing as concerns are not "people hacking their car to get them through traffic faster". They still could. That they'd be banned from driving on public roads is fine.
So I should have access to the on board computer for good things, but I should also not have access to it in case I do bad things. What we're talking about here is the ability to do something vs the legality of doing it.
Maybe we're not disagreeing? It's just that when you add software, you add hacking. If you lock down the equiment to prevent hacking - when the hacker has physical access to the equipment - you severely reduce the ability of benign users to make desirable and legal changes.
What desirable and legal changes to self-driving software can you possibly make?
Maybe you want a little more stopping distance programmed in because your back is shit and the car brakes too hard for you?
Maybe you bought cutting-edge LIDAR in the 4th year of owning the car, but the software doesn't support it without installing a patch validated by the manufacturer, which you can't install without visiting the dealer even though it's just bluetooth.
I could go on and on! Maybe you want the new HUD but the software won't display at a resolution the OLED manufacturer says the display supports. Maybe a stick of RAM failed and you want to replace it yourself. Maybe you cancelled your Verizon HUM driving monitor subscription but you own the hardware now, still want to get info from it, and you know it's sending out signals but can't read them anymore. Maybe you put snow tires on and can't get the damned thing to recognize them without paying the dealer $250 for a service call where he just logs in remotely and ticks the "snow tire" box.
I could go on. There's a hundred legit reasons to modify the software in a car.
As a software engineer, those are weak reasons to allow altering of the on board electronics. The braking distance may be a config parameter at best, but really that should be based on the conditions of the road anyway and not the comfort of the passenger once various base safety levels are met. I absolutely DO NOT want people to change out ram on their car like it's a PC. Hell, the ram won't even be able to be replaced like a PC, it is almost always embedded on the board in one way or another.
Autonomous will trend towards aerospace design rather than PC design. Hell, it is part of the reason why ISO 26262 exists.
Fundamental difference: I own the car. The desires of a corporate software engineer to control what I do with my property are, to put it mildly, irrelevant.
Any situation which puts me in the position of being in a personal mass transit vehicle had better come with a similar cost, i.e. a couple of bucks a day. If I'm paying $50,000 for this car the only thing I should have to do is follow the law, and it needs to be possible for me to do that through my own ability.
Changing the stopping distance seems like one of the most important things that you don't let people change. That's probably really not the best example to support your point . As in, it's a really bad example :P
You don't let people remove the safety features that autonomous vehicles would get you.
Edit: To be clear, I'm thinking this should probably be part of the laws, not just something that companies determine however they want. I agree that giving corporations full control over all our transportation methods sounds sketchy.
Changing the stopping distance seems like one of the most important things that you don't let people change. That's probably really not the best example to support your point . As in, it's a really bad example :P
You don't let people remove the safety features that autonomous vehicles would get you.
Spool's example was to make it more cautious, not less.
It occurs to me that differing values could have knock on effects spreading through the system but the infrastructure for cars to talk to cars about their settings is another issue entirely.
Changing the stopping distance seems like one of the most important things that you don't let people change. That's probably really not the best example to support your point . As in, it's a really bad example :P
You don't let people remove the safety features that autonomous vehicles would get you.
Spool's example was to make it more cautious, not less.
It occurs to me that differing values could have knock on effects spreading through the system but the infrastructure for cars to talk to cars about their settings is another issue entirely.
If you can hack the code to make it more cautious, you can also make it less cautious. That's the whole point for why people are saying these things shouldn't be editable by users.
If you are suggesting that people could only change the value in a certain range, well then sure! That's just a configurable value, it should be in the settings of your cars onboard computer or something, but that is not what spool was suggesting.
Changing the stopping distance seems like one of the most important things that you don't let people change. That's probably really not the best example to support your point . As in, it's a really bad example :P
You don't let people remove the safety features that autonomous vehicles would get you.
I was talking about increasing it.
Ultimately I think what needs to happen is that the car logs into a central authority of some sort and submits a checksum that validates it's operating with road-legal settings, and otherwise it shows up as a bright red blob on the police computer. Even that is pretty chilling, in terms of privacy concerns. Otherwise though, people should be able to do what they like with their property.
Changing the stopping distance seems like one of the most important things that you don't let people change. That's probably really not the best example to support your point . As in, it's a really bad example :P
You don't let people remove the safety features that autonomous vehicles would get you.
Spool's example was to make it more cautious, not less.
It occurs to me that differing values could have knock on effects spreading through the system but the infrastructure for cars to talk to cars about their settings is another issue entirely.
If you can hack the code to make it more cautious, you can also make it less cautious. That's the whole point for why people are saying these things shouldn't be editable by users.
If you are suggesting that people could only change the value in a certain range, well then sure! That's just a configurable value, it should be in the settings of your cars onboard computer or something, but that is not what spool was suggesting.
I'm just suggesting you argue against spool's actual arguments there.
I'll offer a competing and more likely scenario: You buy a self driving car and it is fantastic and you love it and maintain it spotlessly for a decade. Now your car is woefully out of date, the manufacturer hasn't updated the control software in 5 years and you want it to conform to the latest and safest driving methodologies. Happily there is a lovely package of DD-WRT open source car driving whatever software that fully conforms with all DOT regulations and is in fact provably safer than the OEM software on the car.
You would still be free to modify your car to your desire. It would just no longer be legal to take on public roads like various other modified vehicles.
This is getting a little far afield, but "you can modify your car but you can't drive it on a street anymore" is equivalent to "you can't modify your car". Have a look at efforts to secure The Right to Repair for more info.
I'm cool with that.
I'm super not! I'd like to be able to put an aftermarket GPS in my car without bricking the onboard computer, and I'd like to be able to change the oil without needing a trip to the garage so they can charge me $200 to attach a wire and click "approved".
I'd like for people to not modify their cars in ways that endanger others. The things you're listing as concerns are not "people hacking their car to get them through traffic faster". They still could. That they'd be banned from driving on public roads is fine.
So I should have access to the on board computer for good things, but I should also not have access to it in case I do bad things. What we're talking about here is the ability to do something vs the legality of doing it.
Maybe we're not disagreeing? It's just that when you add software, you add hacking. If you lock down the equiment to prevent hacking - when the hacker has physical access to the equipment - you severely reduce the ability of benign users to make desirable and legal changes.
What desirable and legal changes to self-driving software can you possibly make?
Maybe you want a little more stopping distance programmed in because your back is shit and the car brakes too hard for you?
Maybe you bought cutting-edge LIDAR in the 4th year of owning the car, but the software doesn't support it without installing a patch validated by the manufacturer, which you can't install without visiting the dealer even though it's just bluetooth.
I could go on and on! Maybe you want the new HUD but the software won't display at a resolution the OLED manufacturer says the display supports. Maybe a stick of RAM failed and you want to replace it yourself. Maybe you cancelled your Verizon HUM driving monitor subscription but you own the hardware now, still want to get info from it, and you know it's sending out signals but can't read them anymore. Maybe you put snow tires on and can't get the damned thing to recognize them without paying the dealer $250 for a service call where he just logs in remotely and ticks the "snow tire" box.
I could go on. There's a hundred legit reasons to modify the software in a car.
As a software engineer, those are weak reasons to allow altering of the on board electronics. The braking distance may be a config parameter at best, but really that should be based on the conditions of the road anyway and not the comfort of the passenger once various base safety levels are met. I absolutely DO NOT want people to change out ram on their car like it's a PC. Hell, the ram won't even be able to be replaced like a PC, it is almost always embedded on the board in one way or another.
Autonomous will trend towards aerospace design rather than PC design. Hell, it is part of the reason why ISO 26262 exists.
Fundamental difference: I own the car. The desires of a corporate software engineer to control what I do with my property are, to put it mildly, irrelevant.
Any situation which puts me in the position of being in a personal mass transit vehicle had better come with a similar cost, i.e. a couple of bucks a day. If I'm paying $50,000 for this car the only thing I should have to do is follow the law, and it needs to be possible for me to do that through my own ability.
It to me depends on how autonomous systems work. If your vehicle is a 'solo' autonomous system (IE, vehicle brain replaces your brain for driving purposes) then I can agree with you. You should be able to modify your car, although, your car will then need to pass a 'driving test'. Which may include standards for consistency of behavior and LIDAR range, so probably most things other than "I fixed it following the specific rules provided by the manufacturer but using a third party part" wouldn't work.
I just feel these solo systems are unlikely to exist for long and be very popular, since once you allow auto driving, 'flock' based behavior becomes immensely incentivized nearly immediately. They would also be far safer (since many vehicles give many vision points and allow the system to be pre-warned about accidents ahead)
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Changing the stopping distance seems like one of the most important things that you don't let people change. That's probably really not the best example to support your point . As in, it's a really bad example :P
You don't let people remove the safety features that autonomous vehicles would get you.
Spool's example was to make it more cautious, not less.
It occurs to me that differing values could have knock on effects spreading through the system but the infrastructure for cars to talk to cars about their settings is another issue entirely.
If you can hack the code to make it more cautious, you can also make it less cautious. That's the whole point for why people are saying these things shouldn't be editable by users.
If you are suggesting that people could only change the value in a certain range, well then sure! That's just a configurable value, it should be in the settings of your cars onboard computer or something, but that is not what spool was suggesting.
Not users. Owners.
And yes, this is exactly the problem, because you have this situation where:
- If I can't change it, I don't own it
- If I don't own it, I'm not liable for how it behaves
- If I'm not liable, the maker is
- If corporations don't want the liability, they won't make it
Therefore, no self-driving cars.
- If I do own it, I can change it
- If I can change it, I can change it illegally
- If you stop me changing it, you're liable for how it operates
- If corporations don't want the liability, they won't make it
Also, the AV was speeding; we can't even get them to follow the most basic of traffic laws.
The link you just provided says:
"The vehicle was doing about 40 miles per hour on a street with a 45 m.p.h. speed limit when it struck Ms. Herzberg, who was walking her bicycle across the street, according to the Tempe police."
Oops, previous articles had said it was a 35mph zone.
You would still be free to modify your car to your desire. It would just no longer be legal to take on public roads like various other modified vehicles.
This is getting a little far afield, but "you can modify your car but you can't drive it on a street anymore" is equivalent to "you can't modify your car". Have a look at efforts to secure The Right to Repair for more info.
I'm cool with that.
I'm super not! I'd like to be able to put an aftermarket GPS in my car without bricking the onboard computer, and I'd like to be able to change the oil without needing a trip to the garage so they can charge me $200 to attach a wire and click "approved".
I'd like for people to not modify their cars in ways that endanger others. The things you're listing as concerns are not "people hacking their car to get them through traffic faster". They still could. That they'd be banned from driving on public roads is fine.
So I should have access to the on board computer for good things, but I should also not have access to it in case I do bad things. What we're talking about here is the ability to do something vs the legality of doing it.
Maybe we're not disagreeing? It's just that when you add software, you add hacking. If you lock down the equiment to prevent hacking - when the hacker has physical access to the equipment - you severely reduce the ability of benign users to make desirable and legal changes.
What desirable and legal changes to self-driving software can you possibly make?
Maybe you want a little more stopping distance programmed in because your back is shit and the car brakes too hard for you?
Maybe you bought cutting-edge LIDAR in the 4th year of owning the car, but the software doesn't support it without installing a patch validated by the manufacturer, which you can't install without visiting the dealer even though it's just bluetooth.
I could go on and on! Maybe you want the new HUD but the software won't display at a resolution the OLED manufacturer says the display supports. Maybe a stick of RAM failed and you want to replace it yourself. Maybe you cancelled your Verizon HUM driving monitor subscription but you own the hardware now, still want to get info from it, and you know it's sending out signals but can't read them anymore. Maybe you put snow tires on and can't get the damned thing to recognize them without paying the dealer $250 for a service call where he just logs in remotely and ticks the "snow tire" box.
I could go on. There's a hundred legit reasons to modify the software in a car.
As a software engineer, those are weak reasons to allow altering of the on board electronics. The braking distance may be a config parameter at best, but really that should be based on the conditions of the road anyway and not the comfort of the passenger once various base safety levels are met. I absolutely DO NOT want people to change out ram on their car like it's a PC. Hell, the ram won't even be able to be replaced like a PC, it is almost always embedded on the board in one way or another.
Autonomous will trend towards aerospace design rather than PC design. Hell, it is part of the reason why ISO 26262 exists.
Fundamental difference: I own the car. The desires of a corporate software engineer to control what I do with my property are, to put it mildly, irrelevant.
Any situation which puts me in the position of being in a personal mass transit vehicle had better come with a similar cost, i.e. a couple of bucks a day. If I'm paying $50,000 for this car the only thing I should have to do is follow the law, and it needs to be possible for me to do that through my own ability.
Changing some things may be covered by configuration options. Swapping out hardware that controls the self-driving, no. It won't be swappable. You won't be able to change the ram or the model of lidar, this will all be built directly into the body, and it probably won't even be available for individual sale. Additionally, absolutely nobody will insure you if you change the software or hardware responsible for controlling the vehicle because your risk factor becomes completely unknown but very large if you make a bad change, or even a change that just interacts poorly with other systems. So I suppose you could own it and make whatever changes you want, and can't drive unless you have a spare few hundred thousand or so to self-insure
You would still be free to modify your car to your desire. It would just no longer be legal to take on public roads like various other modified vehicles.
This is getting a little far afield, but "you can modify your car but you can't drive it on a street anymore" is equivalent to "you can't modify your car". Have a look at efforts to secure The Right to Repair for more info.
I'm cool with that.
I'm super not! I'd like to be able to put an aftermarket GPS in my car without bricking the onboard computer, and I'd like to be able to change the oil without needing a trip to the garage so they can charge me $200 to attach a wire and click "approved".
I'd like for people to not modify their cars in ways that endanger others. The things you're listing as concerns are not "people hacking their car to get them through traffic faster". They still could. That they'd be banned from driving on public roads is fine.
So I should have access to the on board computer for good things, but I should also not have access to it in case I do bad things. What we're talking about here is the ability to do something vs the legality of doing it.
Maybe we're not disagreeing? It's just that when you add software, you add hacking. If you lock down the equiment to prevent hacking - when the hacker has physical access to the equipment - you severely reduce the ability of benign users to make desirable and legal changes.
What desirable and legal changes to self-driving software can you possibly make?
Maybe you want a little more stopping distance programmed in because your back is shit and the car brakes too hard for you?
Maybe you bought cutting-edge LIDAR in the 4th year of owning the car, but the software doesn't support it without installing a patch validated by the manufacturer, which you can't install without visiting the dealer even though it's just bluetooth.
I could go on and on! Maybe you want the new HUD but the software won't display at a resolution the OLED manufacturer says the display supports. Maybe a stick of RAM failed and you want to replace it yourself. Maybe you cancelled your Verizon HUM driving monitor subscription but you own the hardware now, still want to get info from it, and you know it's sending out signals but can't read them anymore. Maybe you put snow tires on and can't get the damned thing to recognize them without paying the dealer $250 for a service call where he just logs in remotely and ticks the "snow tire" box.
I could go on. There's a hundred legit reasons to modify the software in a car.
As a software engineer, those are weak reasons to allow altering of the on board electronics. The braking distance may be a config parameter at best, but really that should be based on the conditions of the road anyway and not the comfort of the passenger once various base safety levels are met. I absolutely DO NOT want people to change out ram on their car like it's a PC. Hell, the ram won't even be able to be replaced like a PC, it is almost always embedded on the board in one way or another.
Autonomous will trend towards aerospace design rather than PC design. Hell, it is part of the reason why ISO 26262 exists.
Fundamental difference: I own the car. The desires of a corporate software engineer to control what I do with my property are, to put it mildly, irrelevant.
Any situation which puts me in the position of being in a personal mass transit vehicle had better come with a similar cost, i.e. a couple of bucks a day. If I'm paying $50,000 for this car the only thing I should have to do is follow the law, and it needs to be possible for me to do that through my own ability.
Yeah, but you don't own the road. And me and everyone else not wanting to share the road with cars that people who do shit like this
can modify the autonomous driving features on is very relevant.
These seem to be arguments about what degree of modification is allowed to be made to safety features and devices. I am guessing that this issue has come up before and autonomous vehicles will ultimately end up being handled through similar guidelines.
I would expect Uber to be obligated to follow the regulations that are put in place.
Changing the stopping distance seems like one of the most important things that you don't let people change. That's probably really not the best example to support your point . As in, it's a really bad example :P
You don't let people remove the safety features that autonomous vehicles would get you.
Spool's example was to make it more cautious, not less.
It occurs to me that differing values could have knock on effects spreading through the system but the infrastructure for cars to talk to cars about their settings is another issue entirely.
If you can hack the code to make it more cautious, you can also make it less cautious. That's the whole point for why people are saying these things shouldn't be editable by users.
If you are suggesting that people could only change the value in a certain range, well then sure! That's just a configurable value, it should be in the settings of your cars onboard computer or something, but that is not what spool was suggesting.
I'm just suggesting you argue against spool's actual arguments there.
I'll offer a competing and more likely scenario: You buy a self driving car and it is fantastic and you love it and maintain it spotlessly for a decade. Now your car is woefully out of date, the manufacturer hasn't updated the control software in 5 years and you want it to conform to the latest and safest driving methodologies. Happily there is a lovely package of DD-WRT open source car driving whatever software that fully conforms with all DOT regulations and is in fact provably safer than the OEM software on the car.
Should you be able to install it?
Absolutely not. Bring it in to a dealer or mechanic.
Uber’s robotic vehicle project was not living up to expectations months before a self-driving car operated by the company struck and killed a woman in Tempe, Ariz.
The cars were having trouble driving through construction zones and next to tall vehicles, like big rigs. And Uber’s human drivers had to intervene far more frequently than the drivers of competing autonomous car projects.
Waymo, formerly the self-driving car project of Google, said that in tests on roads in California last year, its cars went an average of nearly 5,600 miles before the driver had to take control from the computer to steer out of trouble. As of March, Uber was struggling to meet its target of 13 miles per “intervention” in Arizona, according to 100 pages of company documents obtained by The New York Times and two people familiar with the company’s operations in the Phoenix area but not permitted to speak publicly about it.
Ironically this points to increased liability for the driver.
Perhaps, but it also mentions that Uber cut down from two drivers to one, despite knowing how heavily reliant they were on manual interventions. Running solo safety drivers in late night tests when you know that your cars make mistakes all the time seems like a recipe for disaster.
I think the concerns about who will carry insurance are overblown. If we accept the premise that autonomous cars will result in fewer accidents, then they will be cheaper to insure. Whether those lower insurance costs are directly born by the owner or by the manufacturer who will recoup it through higher prices is somewhat irrelevant. It will be cheaper than driving yourself.
What I expect is that car ownership will start looking more like Care by Volvo (as an example), where the manufacturer will lease a car to you at a rate that includes insurance and maintenance.
I think the concerns about who will carry insurance are overblown. If we accept the premise that autonomous cars will result in fewer accidents, then they will be cheaper to insure. Whether those lower insurance costs are directly born by the owner or by the manufacturer who will recoup it through higher prices is somewhat irrelevant. It will be cheaper than driving yourself.
What I expect is that car ownership will start looking more like Care by Volvo (as an example), where the manufacturer will lease a car to you at a rate that includes insurance and maintenance.
You're assuming that the Insurance companies won't just pocket the savings as dividends to shareholders and bonuses for C-level.
yeah the personal auto insurance industry is going to have to get bludgeoned into changing, hard and viciously.
I agree. The idea that companies will voluntarily charge customers less simply because their expenses are reduced is not congruent with capitalism. Prices would only fall for two reasons: Demand shrinking, or regulation, and I doubt demand would be impacted by AVs, since it'll likely still remain as law to have them insured.
yeah the personal auto insurance industry is going to have to get bludgeoned into changing, hard and viciously.
I agree. The idea that companies will voluntarily charge customers less simply because their expenses are reduced is not congruent with capitalism. Prices would only fall for two reasons: Demand shrinking, or regulation, and I doubt demand would be impacted by AVs, since it'll likely still remain as law to have them insured.
competition is supposed to exist.
any actuary with a couple years of statistics can show "hey cars driving themselves results in 90% payouts."
it should be able to sell money people on only the same ROI as when they back normal insurance.
given the number of fly by night terrible insurers, it doesn't seem like there is are huge regulatory barriers to entry.
so long as capitalism functions in this country, or at least in the insurance industry, this really is an issue the free market should fix. Even if it mean manufactures come in and sell their own insurance, because that decrease the cost of ownership of the cars significantly making them much more desirable, while creating a new revenue stream.
yeah the personal auto insurance industry is going to have to get bludgeoned into changing, hard and viciously.
I agree. The idea that companies will voluntarily charge customers less simply because their expenses are reduced is not congruent with capitalism. Prices would only fall for two reasons: Demand shrinking, or regulation, and I doubt demand would be impacted by AVs, since it'll likely still remain as law to have them insured.
competition is supposed to exist.
any actuary with a couple years of statistics can show "hey cars driving themselves results in 90% payouts."
it should be able to sell money people on only the same ROI as when they back normal insurance.
given the number of fly by night terrible insurers, it doesn't seem like there is are huge regulatory barriers to entry.
so long as capitalism functions in this country, or at least in the insurance industry, this really is an issue the free market should fix. Even if it mean manufactures come in and sell their own insurance, because that decrease the cost of ownership of the cars significantly making them much more desirable, while creating a new revenue stream.
this is surreal.
The free market is a useful simplification, like spherical cows. It's not something that properly exists in the real world, because it assumes informed and involved purchasers (among other things).
Insurance is generally not something people can make perfectly informed buying decisions on; they can at best get multiple quotes to pick from.
And prices do not drop overnight, even where companies do cut prices in reflection of reduced costs (to compete), it happens over a long period of time. Meanwhile, they pocket the difference.
Uber's retreat from the global ridesharing business continued on Monday as the company announced it was selling its southeast Asian business to Singapore-based rival Grab. The deal gives Uber a 27.5 percent stake in Grab and gets its CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi, a seat on Grab's board of directors.
Uber is pulling out of Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Myanmar, and Cambodia. According to Bloomberg, this represents a region of 620 million people. The deal includes the operation of UberEats.
yeah the personal auto insurance industry is going to have to get bludgeoned into changing, hard and viciously.
I agree. The idea that companies will voluntarily charge customers less simply because their expenses are reduced is not congruent with capitalism. Prices would only fall for two reasons: Demand shrinking, or regulation, and I doubt demand would be impacted by AVs, since it'll likely still remain as law to have them insured.
competition is supposed to exist.
any actuary with a couple years of statistics can show "hey cars driving themselves results in 90% payouts."
it should be able to sell money people on only the same ROI as when they back normal insurance.
given the number of fly by night terrible insurers, it doesn't seem like there is are huge regulatory barriers to entry.
so long as capitalism functions in this country, or at least in the insurance industry, this really is an issue the free market should fix. Even if it mean manufactures come in and sell their own insurance, because that decrease the cost of ownership of the cars significantly making them much more desirable, while creating a new revenue stream.
this is surreal.
The free market is a useful simplification, like spherical cows. It's not something that properly exists in the real world, because it assumes informed and involved purchasers (among other things).
Insurance is generally not something people can make perfectly informed buying decisions on; they can at best get multiple quotes to pick from.
And prices do not drop overnight, even where companies do cut prices in reflection of reduced costs (to compete), it happens over a long period of time. Meanwhile, they pocket the difference.
?
There is an entire profession dedicated to buying the best fit insurance for people.
yeah the personal auto insurance industry is going to have to get bludgeoned into changing, hard and viciously.
I agree. The idea that companies will voluntarily charge customers less simply because their expenses are reduced is not congruent with capitalism. Prices would only fall for two reasons: Demand shrinking, or regulation, and I doubt demand would be impacted by AVs, since it'll likely still remain as law to have them insured.
competition is supposed to exist.
any actuary with a couple years of statistics can show "hey cars driving themselves results in 90% payouts."
it should be able to sell money people on only the same ROI as when they back normal insurance.
given the number of fly by night terrible insurers, it doesn't seem like there is are huge regulatory barriers to entry.
so long as capitalism functions in this country, or at least in the insurance industry, this really is an issue the free market should fix. Even if it mean manufactures come in and sell their own insurance, because that decrease the cost of ownership of the cars significantly making them much more desirable, while creating a new revenue stream.
this is surreal.
The free market is a useful simplification, like spherical cows. It's not something that properly exists in the real world, because it assumes informed and involved purchasers (among other things).
Insurance is generally not something people can make perfectly informed buying decisions on; they can at best get multiple quotes to pick from.
And prices do not drop overnight, even where companies do cut prices in reflection of reduced costs (to compete), it happens over a long period of time. Meanwhile, they pocket the difference.
?
There is an entire profession dedicated to buying the best fit insurance for people.
Yes. Which means you're paying someone to figure it out for you. Not exactly the classical free market model at that point.
Posts
yeah I don't believe, to bring it back around, that Uber would accept a regime where they're carrying comprehensive coverage for every self-driving car, nevermind Google or Tesla or Daimler-Chrysler carrying coverage for even 10% of the US auto market. It's not scalable. Even if we cut road deaths by a factor of 10, no company can sustain the weight of 3300 insurance claims per year that resulted in death, certainly not on the back of the one-time profit from a durable goods purchase like a car. And that's not even talking about injuries and property damage claims.
As for the statement that in 20 years personal cars will no longer be a thing and it will all be fleet cars, that MAY be something that is true in large enough cities, but as soon as you start going rural you're out of your mind. There is just no way for a fleet to work for a 6,000 person town that is 45 minutes away from every other town, much less a 600 person one.
So I should have access to the on board computer for good things, but I should also not have access to it in case I do bad things. What we're talking about here is the ability to do something vs the legality of doing it.
Maybe we're not disagreeing? It's just that when you add software, you add hacking. If you lock down the equiment to prevent hacking - when the hacker has physical access to the equipment - you severely reduce the ability of benign users to make desirable and legal changes.
What desirable and legal changes to self-driving software can you possibly make?
Maybe you want a little more stopping distance programmed in because your back is shit and the car brakes too hard for you?
Maybe you bought cutting-edge LIDAR in the 4th year of owning the car, but the software doesn't support it without installing a patch validated by the manufacturer, which you can't install without visiting the dealer even though it's just bluetooth.
I could go on and on! Maybe you want the new HUD but the software won't display at a resolution the OLED manufacturer says the display supports. Maybe a stick of RAM failed and you want to replace it yourself. Maybe you cancelled your Verizon HUM driving monitor subscription but you own the hardware now, still want to get info from it, and you know it's sending out signals but can't read them anymore. Maybe you put snow tires on and can't get the damned thing to recognize them without paying the dealer $250 for a service call where he just logs in remotely and ticks the "snow tire" box.
I could go on. There's a hundred legit reasons to modify the software in a car.
I don't think the right to repair laws impact the software which runs the vehicle or item, other than the fact that you have to have the right to be able to repair what the company can repair without the tech actually stopping you.
So you wouldn't have the right to download the self driving software and re-write it. However, the car couldn't implement a system where even if you went to a third party repair shop with all the right tools and manuals (which they would be obliged to provide) that the self driving would deactivate when that shop repaired your windscreen wipers or replaced a camera lens
As a software engineer, those are weak reasons to allow altering of the on board electronics. The braking distance may be a config parameter at best, but really that should be based on the conditions of the road anyway and not the comfort of the passenger once various base safety levels are met. I absolutely DO NOT want people to change out ram on their car like it's a PC. Hell, the ram won't even be able to be replaced like a PC, it is almost always embedded on the board in one way or another.
Autonomous will trend towards aerospace design rather than PC design. Hell, it is part of the reason why ISO 26262 exists.
From what I've seen others experience in this area yes, the police MO is to take whatever the driver says at face value, regardless of whether than reflect reality or not.
If the car or the safety driver can't see an object as big as a person walking a bicycle across 4 lanes of traffic then I don't see how this technology is going to bring many safety benefits.
From https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/20/us/self-driving-uber-pedestrian-killed.html
Also, the AV was speeding; we can't even get them to follow the most basic of traffic laws. Wrong
I can easily believe that Uber's implementation is bad, and that they were rushing to get into market first without considering the consequences.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
The link you just provided says:
"The vehicle was doing about 40 miles per hour on a street with a 45 m.p.h. speed limit when it struck Ms. Herzberg, who was walking her bicycle across the street, according to the Tempe police."
Fundamental difference: I own the car. The desires of a corporate software engineer to control what I do with my property are, to put it mildly, irrelevant.
Any situation which puts me in the position of being in a personal mass transit vehicle had better come with a similar cost, i.e. a couple of bucks a day. If I'm paying $50,000 for this car the only thing I should have to do is follow the law, and it needs to be possible for me to do that through my own ability.
You don't let people remove the safety features that autonomous vehicles would get you.
Edit: To be clear, I'm thinking this should probably be part of the laws, not just something that companies determine however they want. I agree that giving corporations full control over all our transportation methods sounds sketchy.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Spool's example was to make it more cautious, not less.
It occurs to me that differing values could have knock on effects spreading through the system but the infrastructure for cars to talk to cars about their settings is another issue entirely.
If you can hack the code to make it more cautious, you can also make it less cautious. That's the whole point for why people are saying these things shouldn't be editable by users.
If you are suggesting that people could only change the value in a certain range, well then sure! That's just a configurable value, it should be in the settings of your cars onboard computer or something, but that is not what spool was suggesting.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
I was talking about increasing it.
Ultimately I think what needs to happen is that the car logs into a central authority of some sort and submits a checksum that validates it's operating with road-legal settings, and otherwise it shows up as a bright red blob on the police computer. Even that is pretty chilling, in terms of privacy concerns. Otherwise though, people should be able to do what they like with their property.
I'm just suggesting you argue against spool's actual arguments there.
I'll offer a competing and more likely scenario: You buy a self driving car and it is fantastic and you love it and maintain it spotlessly for a decade. Now your car is woefully out of date, the manufacturer hasn't updated the control software in 5 years and you want it to conform to the latest and safest driving methodologies. Happily there is a lovely package of DD-WRT open source car driving whatever software that fully conforms with all DOT regulations and is in fact provably safer than the OEM software on the car.
Should you be able to install it?
It to me depends on how autonomous systems work. If your vehicle is a 'solo' autonomous system (IE, vehicle brain replaces your brain for driving purposes) then I can agree with you. You should be able to modify your car, although, your car will then need to pass a 'driving test'. Which may include standards for consistency of behavior and LIDAR range, so probably most things other than "I fixed it following the specific rules provided by the manufacturer but using a third party part" wouldn't work.
I just feel these solo systems are unlikely to exist for long and be very popular, since once you allow auto driving, 'flock' based behavior becomes immensely incentivized nearly immediately. They would also be far safer (since many vehicles give many vision points and allow the system to be pre-warned about accidents ahead)
I revived the existing self-driving car thread
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Not users. Owners.
And yes, this is exactly the problem, because you have this situation where:
- If I can't change it, I don't own it
- If I don't own it, I'm not liable for how it behaves
- If I'm not liable, the maker is
- If corporations don't want the liability, they won't make it
Therefore, no self-driving cars.
- If I do own it, I can change it
- If I can change it, I can change it illegally
- If you stop me changing it, you're liable for how it operates
- If corporations don't want the liability, they won't make it
Therefore, no self-driving cars.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Oops, previous articles had said it was a 35mph zone.
Changing some things may be covered by configuration options. Swapping out hardware that controls the self-driving, no. It won't be swappable. You won't be able to change the ram or the model of lidar, this will all be built directly into the body, and it probably won't even be available for individual sale. Additionally, absolutely nobody will insure you if you change the software or hardware responsible for controlling the vehicle because your risk factor becomes completely unknown but very large if you make a bad change, or even a change that just interacts poorly with other systems. So I suppose you could own it and make whatever changes you want, and can't drive unless you have a spare few hundred thousand or so to self-insure
Yeah, but you don't own the road. And me and everyone else not wanting to share the road with cars that people who do shit like this
can modify the autonomous driving features on is very relevant.
I would expect Uber to be obligated to follow the regulations that are put in place.
Absolutely not. Bring it in to a dealer or mechanic.
Perhaps, but it also mentions that Uber cut down from two drivers to one, despite knowing how heavily reliant they were on manual interventions. Running solo safety drivers in late night tests when you know that your cars make mistakes all the time seems like a recipe for disaster.
What I expect is that car ownership will start looking more like Care by Volvo (as an example), where the manufacturer will lease a car to you at a rate that includes insurance and maintenance.
You're assuming that the Insurance companies won't just pocket the savings as dividends to shareholders and bonuses for C-level.
I agree. The idea that companies will voluntarily charge customers less simply because their expenses are reduced is not congruent with capitalism. Prices would only fall for two reasons: Demand shrinking, or regulation, and I doubt demand would be impacted by AVs, since it'll likely still remain as law to have them insured.
competition is supposed to exist.
any actuary with a couple years of statistics can show "hey cars driving themselves results in 90% payouts."
it should be able to sell money people on only the same ROI as when they back normal insurance.
given the number of fly by night terrible insurers, it doesn't seem like there is are huge regulatory barriers to entry.
so long as capitalism functions in this country, or at least in the insurance industry, this really is an issue the free market should fix. Even if it mean manufactures come in and sell their own insurance, because that decrease the cost of ownership of the cars significantly making them much more desirable, while creating a new revenue stream.
this is surreal.
The free market is a useful simplification, like spherical cows. It's not something that properly exists in the real world, because it assumes informed and involved purchasers (among other things).
Insurance is generally not something people can make perfectly informed buying decisions on; they can at best get multiple quotes to pick from.
And prices do not drop overnight, even where companies do cut prices in reflection of reduced costs (to compete), it happens over a long period of time. Meanwhile, they pocket the difference.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
?
There is an entire profession dedicated to buying the best fit insurance for people.
Yes. Which means you're paying someone to figure it out for you. Not exactly the classical free market model at that point.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy