The 15-Point Federal Checklist for Self-Driving Cars

[FrodosPet]

Source: NY Times

By CECILIA KANG | SEPT. 20, 2016

Federal regulators announced their first safety checklist ever for semiautonomous and driverless cars this week. In the guidelines, the United States Department of Transportation urged automakers and tech companies to prove that their semiautonomous and autonomous vehicles could meet a 15-point list of safety expectations before the autos hit the road.

~ snip ~

SYSTEM SAFETY The cars must be engineered to respond safely to software malfunctions, near crashes, loss of traction and other risks. Carmakers should get outside validation of their safety systems and prove their cars can operate safely even when technology problems are encountered.

DIGITAL SECURITY The vehicles should be engineered with safeguards to prevent online attacks. Automakers should record all programming decisions and testing around security and share that information with others in the industry.

~ snip ~

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS Many human driving decisions carry ethical considerations, so the way a car is programmed also carries ethical consequences. For example, should a car be programmed to better protect its occupants or other drivers in a crash? Or in heavy traffic, should a car be able to violate the traffic rule of crossing double lines at the risk of running into oncoming traffic? These programming decisions should be clearly disclosed to the N.H.T.S.A.

~ snip ~


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/technology/the-15-point-federal-checklist-for-self-driving-cars.html?_r=0

---

But we want self driving cars now and hurry up with it! It doesn't have to be perfect, as long as it is slightly better than humans. And all human progress is painted in blood, so anyone killed b/c of the technology is an honored martyr, not a victim of greed and impatience.

Stop government obstructionism of self driving cars NOW!

[FrodosPet]

1. They want the carmakers to be transparent and share data between themselves and with regulators?

Damn those federal troublemakers! Don't they understand "Trade Secrets" and "Competitive Advantage"?

Uber über alles!

[Nitram]

2. Dude, the government is being proactive in mandating safety in the design of self-driving cars.

Just think if the government had mandated seat belts earlier. Tens of thousands of lives saved?

But I've always wondered why the Enterprise didn't have seat belts (or something more technologically advanced).

[MADem]

8. Maybe it did... (the Enterprise, I mean) ....

The minute the spaceship engages in flight, the seat kinda sucks you in, like a vacuum cleaner, only less onerous....? LOL!

[Nitram]

13. Then why did every body fall out of their seats every time they were struck by a...

photon torpedo or meteor? I'm talking Star Trek Classic, of course.

[MADem]

17. Maybe the suction wasn't all that strong...?

It kept you in the seat for the normal stuff, but if there was a real jolt, it couldn't hold ya--especially, if you were like Cap'n Crunch, errr, I mean, Kirk, and wearing a girdle to keep all your business trimmed up!

[Nitram]

18. But that's what seat belt are for - the real jolts!

You'd think with the technology to build warp drive space ships, they could come up with a better way to keep people ion their seats...

[MADem]

19. They didn't want all that clicking, and those soiled straps that

get a bit grotty with wear!!!

[Nitram]

20. That's it! They just wouldn't look cool in seat belts.

Looking cool is the Enterprise's real mission!

[7962]

3. THIS will be the downfall of mass self-driving cars:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3121999/security/researchers-demonstrate-remote-attack-against-tesla-model-s.html

[forest444]

5. The electronic voting and tabulation of the automotive world?

We all remember the horrific Toyota hacking incidents in 2009. Thanks for sharing this, 7962.

[Egnever]

21. Doubtfull

[LanternWaste]

23. Seems your point would parallel the downfall of computers as well...

Seems your point would parallel the downfall of computers as well... being susceptible to remote hacking also.

[7962]

24. A laptop isnt going to slam into you & kill you either. A bit of a difference.

Get a lot of these out on the road and have ONE major hack cause chaos and the courts will be FULL of lawsuits. No insurance company would want to cover them.
I already wonder what the rates are for the ones that are already out there.

[airplaneman]

4. I'm guessing the car will be allowed to abandon you prior to your destination n/t.

[yeoman6987]

6. Self driving cars are relatively new

The wright brothers started flying planes but it took time to perfect the planes. Self driving cars will be here to stay but not for 5-10 years for most of the population. That is plenty of time to get the kinks out. I can't wait to buy one. But just like everything, I'll wait until they are affordable.

[MADem]

7. When I'm too old to drive long distances, I want one.

I think they're a great innovation, and I look forward to the day when they're common.

I'm not going to hang on to my buggy whip. The future is coming.

[FrodosPet]

9. Do you want a SAFE car?

Or just whatever cheap piece of self driving crap they can throw out there?

How much do you trust that 24 year old nerd to value your life over their paycheck?

THIS TECHNOLOGY NEED STANDARDS AND TRANSPARENCY IN DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION!!!!!!! My apology if that delays your auto auto plans.

[MADem]

10. I imagine that "this technology" will have "standards" in development.

They'll be a moveable concept until the developers break down the acceptable level of risk v. safety. They're not interested in killing their customers, notwithstanding your doom and gloom.

Transparency will come after everyone shakes out what kind of system works best, and is standardized. People drove coal fired, steam powered and electric cars in the early days of the auto industry...hell, they drove trains on wheels, basically.

You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

Since you're not the "decider" here, the progress will continue apace with or without your approval. It doesn't matter what you, or I, want--you can offer input, I suppose, but I get the impression they won't be lining up to hear your rather negative, nay-saying POV.

I await, with great anticipation, my first self driving car. It'll be a neat thing to see. And I expect that "24 year old nerd" will have some degree of supervision--he's not left out there on his own, picking his nose and building my car. While he works, he'll learn, and one day, he will be a capable supervisor improving on the original designs--that is how it works.

One of the odd things about message boards is that there's always someone who expects the worst and wants to bleat on about how awful it's gonna be--like people are going to happily turn in shoddy work with their names on it, and customers will be willing to buy that "cheap piece of crap" you're going on about.

I prefer to expect the best--I find that I'm often not disappointed.

The future has potential to be wonderful, and guess what? It's coming. You can't stop it. Might as well turn your face to the sun and welcome it.

[vdogg]

11. +1!

[Nitram]

14. When self-driving technology is perfected, cars won't have to be heavy pieces of junk...

to keep us safe. They can be light-weight works of art.

[LanternWaste]

22. No one is arguing otherwise.

"THIS TECHNOLOGY NEED STANDARDS AND TRANSPARENCY IN DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION!!!!!!!"

No one is arguing otherwise. My apology if that relevant data point derails your righteous indignation (or that I fail to type in all caps to illustrate a fictional pretense of validity).

You appear to consistently argue against a point no one on DU is making. Things that make one go "hmmm", Part II.

[vdogg]

12. Damn horseless carriages.

They're too dangerous, we're not ready for them. I don't trust these young whipper snappers and their newfangled technology. Give me a horse.

[Nitram]

15. Here's a pogo stick...

[Javaman]

16. will they have coffee and tea makers?

that's all I want. lol