7 ms·

This is a really difficult situation, in that lowering regulatory overhead would mean getting automated solutions to the public faster, and even if they weren't

This is a really difficult situation, in that lowering regulatory overhead would mean getting automated solutions to the public faster, and even if they weren't optimally safe they'd likely be vastly better than human drivers and the sooner we could reap that benefit the better. However, there is a substantial long-term risk to the viability of self-driving cars if any high-profile accidents do happen, because outside of Silicon Valley people generally trust themselves more than technology. So on the other hand it might be better to continue the dangerous status quo for longer, until regulatory framework can assure safety, so as to make the rollout of autonomous cars actually result in adoption of autonomous cars.

Dirlewanger 10y ago
Even the most dug-in libertarian can't really argue against these kinds of regulations; automobiles affect everyone within their vicinity. Ideally, all automobile manufacturers should be politely told to shut the fuck up and deal with it, but the realist in me thinks Chao's pockets will be lined with their money quite soon.
- liberte82 10y ago
  You'd be surprised. The problem with regulations is that they have done their job so well that a subset of people now believe they are not necessary and that the market will "take care of itself". See also: vaccines.
  - unityByFreedom 10y ago
    People can change their tune. Greenspan was chairman of the Fed for 20 years arguing for free market the whole time. It was his life's philosophy. Then he testified to Congress after the housing meltdown '08 and said he was wrong. The banks can't be trusted to regulate themselves via the market, and regulation is necessary. We will face a recession again. Trump will repeal Dodd Frank, banks will start making riskier loans and obscuring them in hidden investment products, and one day someone big enough will pull out, causing the whole house of cards to collapse. And, Republicans and Democrats will do another TARP because the alternative is World Depression II. That is, unless Trump seizes enough power to prevent TARP II.
    - liberte82 10y ago
      People can change their tune, but that's not what is happening in today's political climate. It's been less than ten years since the last financial crisis, and no one has forgotten that it was loose regulations that caused it. What we have happening today is something much more sinister - crises and bailouts are becoming part of the system itself. Socialized bailouts, privatized profits.
      - unityByFreedom 10y ago
        Yeah. I suspect it's not new. We've gone back and forth between being red and blue, through recessions and wars. We need to remain vigilant, and also remember that history does have a way of repeating itself. Let's just hope this isn't a big bang type event, and more of a wake up call for everyone.
- slang800 10y ago
  > Even the most dug-in libertarian can't really argue against these kinds of regulations Oh, I beg to differ. From a hard-core libertarian perspective, the state has no right to exist, let alone impose arbitrary regulations on business owners. People should be free to trade at will and guarantees on safety should be handled through a contract between the people who are trading. To impose regulations on trade would be an act of aggression. During vehicle operation, everyone using the road would need to agree on an acceptable level of risk, probably managed by the road owner, not a state. Even if the owner of a particular road refuses to do business with you, you would still be able to buy whatever vehicles you like and operate them on your own property.
  - nickbauman 10y ago
    Historically, to the degree that the state recedes from markets is to the same degree that markets get more volatile, smaller and less profitable.
    - slang800 10y ago
      That might be true, though I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that. But my point wasn't that regulation is inefficient - it's that libertarians can be quite a bit more extreme than the OP thinks.
      - pharrington 10y ago
        >>That might be true, though I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that. Libertarian paradises aren't always theoretical. See early bitcoin, and the commonly cited Somalia. On the opposite end, known authoritarian-tightass state China currently has the most efficient capitalist economy the planet has yet seen.
        nickbauman 10y ago
        Bitcoin as an economy is essentially a hoax.
- stale2002 10y ago
  Wrong. Self driving cars are already safer than humans. We need to put them on the road, in mass, NOW. Every year we wait is another million people dead, due to terrible human drivers.
  - unityByFreedom 10y ago
    That's a great idea if the tech were ready. Introduced prematurely, it could set the tech back due to public outcry. A few more autopilot deaths in the US in this political climate could really hurt the industry. Chao is looking for an excuse to pull permits.
    - stale2002 10y ago
      Maybe in big government California there would be outcry. But not in Arizona, or any other red state. Get the federal government out of regulating it, and let the states decide. Then, when red states save thousands of lives, the blue states will follow.
      - unityByFreedom 10y ago
        > Then, when red states save thousands of lives, the blue states will follow. Haha or vice versa! Depends who proceeds in the right way. I don't believe there's definitively an answer as to whether Tesla (arguably red and anti-regulation, moving forward without much caution) or Google (blue, more cautious) will find more success. I personally think Google will, but even better than that, it's great that we have such a system that permits that level of competition.
freehunter 10y ago
I've recently been disappointed by the "Uber's car ran a red light!" stories I've been seeing. I know a lot of people hate Uber for various reasons and there's every reason to stay cautious about making sure self-driving cars are predictable and have the right sensors on-board, but imagine if we saw a headline on CNN every time a human-driven car ran a red light. There's no excuse for a self-driving car to run a red light, but human drivers do it millions of times every day and in most cases when we see it we just shake our heads and say "what is that fool thinking?!" But a self-driving car does it once and it's headline news for months.
- eli 10y ago
  That's a perfectly reasonable argument that Uber could have made. Instead they lied about what happened. Lying to the public (and regulators?) about how safe your vehicles are is, in my opinion, worse than running the light in the first place.
  - freehunter 10y ago
    Right, but if a cop pulled over a random hypothetical person after they ran a red light, how would we all expect that conversation to happen? "Do you know why I pulled you over?" "No" lie #1 "Did you know you ran that red light back there?" "No, it was yellow when I went through" lie #2 "Here's the ticket" person shows up to court to fight the ticket by claiming their innocence, lie #3 Again, no excusing Uber's behavior, just pointing to a double standard. We fully expect human drivers to run red lights, and we fully expect them to lie about it. There's no excuse for Uber's response and no excuse for their software running a red light, but there's similarly no excuse for humans doing it. Yet humans do it all the time and no one really cares. Like if we're going to report headline news every time a Tesla catches on fire, we should have breaking news stop-the-presses coverage every time a gasoline or diesel powered car catches on fire, too. But we don't because it's much more frequent, to the point where we almost expect it.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
      Uber's lies affect society. This hypothetical drivers lie only affects his wallet.
pharrington 10y ago
Exactly. AI-driven cars almost certainly are/will be safer than human-driven cars. We don't need them right now. Don't cut corners on safety.
elmar 10y ago
"Chao said she was "very concerned" about the potential impact of automated vehicles on employment. There are 3.5 million U.S. truck drivers alone and millions of others employed in driving-related occupations." that is really the hardest point, when you are trying to reduce unemployment like Trump is.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
user5994461 10y ago
> This is a really difficult situation, in that lowering regulatory overhead would mean getting automated solutions to the public faster, Never lower regulations when life are on the line. There is a reason planes and cars don't crash every day, and it's because of these annoying regulations that force tests and QA. You'll never see a summer intern just come in and commits anything he wants and breaks everything. This shit doesn't happen in this line of business. Regulations is good. You don't want devs being involved in your car with zero regulations to back them.

Dirlewanger 10y ago

Even the most dug-in libertarian can't really argue against these kinds of regulations; automobiles affect everyone within their vicinity. Ideally, all automobile manufacturers should be politely told to shut the fuck up and deal with it, but the realist in me thinks Chao's pockets will be lined with their money quite soon.

liberte82 10y ago
You'd be surprised. The problem with regulations is that they have done their job so well that a subset of people now believe they are not necessary and that the market will "take care of itself". See also: vaccines.
- unityByFreedom 10y ago
  People can change their tune. Greenspan was chairman of the Fed for 20 years arguing for free market the whole time. It was his life's philosophy. Then he testified to Congress after the housing meltdown '08 and said he was wrong. The banks can't be trusted to regulate themselves via the market, and regulation is necessary. We will face a recession again. Trump will repeal Dodd Frank, banks will start making riskier loans and obscuring them in hidden investment products, and one day someone big enough will pull out, causing the whole house of cards to collapse. And, Republicans and Democrats will do another TARP because the alternative is World Depression II. That is, unless Trump seizes enough power to prevent TARP II.
  - liberte82 10y ago
    People can change their tune, but that's not what is happening in today's political climate. It's been less than ten years since the last financial crisis, and no one has forgotten that it was loose regulations that caused it. What we have happening today is something much more sinister - crises and bailouts are becoming part of the system itself. Socialized bailouts, privatized profits.
    - unityByFreedom 10y ago
      Yeah. I suspect it's not new. We've gone back and forth between being red and blue, through recessions and wars. We need to remain vigilant, and also remember that history does have a way of repeating itself. Let's just hope this isn't a big bang type event, and more of a wake up call for everyone.
slang800 10y ago
> Even the most dug-in libertarian can't really argue against these kinds of regulations Oh, I beg to differ. From a hard-core libertarian perspective, the state has no right to exist, let alone impose arbitrary regulations on business owners. People should be free to trade at will and guarantees on safety should be handled through a contract between the people who are trading. To impose regulations on trade would be an act of aggression. During vehicle operation, everyone using the road would need to agree on an acceptable level of risk, probably managed by the road owner, not a state. Even if the owner of a particular road refuses to do business with you, you would still be able to buy whatever vehicles you like and operate them on your own property.
- nickbauman 10y ago
  Historically, to the degree that the state recedes from markets is to the same degree that markets get more volatile, smaller and less profitable.
  - slang800 10y ago
    That might be true, though I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that. But my point wasn't that regulation is inefficient - it's that libertarians can be quite a bit more extreme than the OP thinks.
    - pharrington 10y ago
      >>That might be true, though I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that. Libertarian paradises aren't always theoretical. See early bitcoin, and the commonly cited Somalia. On the opposite end, known authoritarian-tightass state China currently has the most efficient capitalist economy the planet has yet seen.
      - nickbauman 10y ago
        Bitcoin as an economy is essentially a hoax.
stale2002 10y ago
Wrong. Self driving cars are already safer than humans. We need to put them on the road, in mass, NOW. Every year we wait is another million people dead, due to terrible human drivers.
- unityByFreedom 10y ago
  That's a great idea if the tech were ready. Introduced prematurely, it could set the tech back due to public outcry. A few more autopilot deaths in the US in this political climate could really hurt the industry. Chao is looking for an excuse to pull permits.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    Maybe in big government California there would be outcry. But not in Arizona, or any other red state. Get the federal government out of regulating it, and let the states decide. Then, when red states save thousands of lives, the blue states will follow.
    - unityByFreedom 10y ago
      > Then, when red states save thousands of lives, the blue states will follow. Haha or vice versa! Depends who proceeds in the right way. I don't believe there's definitively an answer as to whether Tesla (arguably red and anti-regulation, moving forward without much caution) or Google (blue, more cautious) will find more success. I personally think Google will, but even better than that, it's great that we have such a system that permits that level of competition.

freehunter 10y ago

I've recently been disappointed by the "Uber's car ran a red light!" stories I've been seeing. I know a lot of people hate Uber for various reasons and there's every reason to stay cautious about making sure self-driving cars are predictable and have the right sensors on-board, but imagine if we saw a headline on CNN every time a human-driven car ran a red light. There's no excuse for a self-driving car to run a red light, but human drivers do it millions of times every day and in most cases when we see it we just shake our heads and say "what is that fool thinking?!" But a self-driving car does it once and it's headline news for months.

eli 10y ago
That's a perfectly reasonable argument that Uber could have made. Instead they lied about what happened. Lying to the public (and regulators?) about how safe your vehicles are is, in my opinion, worse than running the light in the first place.
- freehunter 10y ago
  Right, but if a cop pulled over a random hypothetical person after they ran a red light, how would we all expect that conversation to happen? "Do you know why I pulled you over?" "No" lie #1 "Did you know you ran that red light back there?" "No, it was yellow when I went through" lie #2 "Here's the ticket" person shows up to court to fight the ticket by claiming their innocence, lie #3 Again, no excusing Uber's behavior, just pointing to a double standard. We fully expect human drivers to run red lights, and we fully expect them to lie about it. There's no excuse for Uber's response and no excuse for their software running a red light, but there's similarly no excuse for humans doing it. Yet humans do it all the time and no one really cares. Like if we're going to report headline news every time a Tesla catches on fire, we should have breaking news stop-the-presses coverage every time a gasoline or diesel powered car catches on fire, too. But we don't because it's much more frequent, to the point where we almost expect it.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
    Uber's lies affect society. This hypothetical drivers lie only affects his wallet.

pharrington 10y ago

Exactly. AI-driven cars almost certainly are/will be safer than human-driven cars. We don't need them right now. Don't cut corners on safety.

elmar 10y ago

"Chao said she was "very concerned" about the potential impact of automated vehicles on employment. There are 3.5 million U.S. truck drivers alone and millions of others employed in driving-related occupations." that is really the hardest point, when you are trying to reduce unemployment like Trump is.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

user5994461 10y ago

> This is a really difficult situation, in that lowering regulatory overhead would mean getting automated solutions to the public faster, Never lower regulations when life are on the line. There is a reason planes and cars don't crash every day, and it's because of these annoying regulations that force tests and QA. You'll never see a summer intern just come in and commits anything he wants and breaks everything. This shit doesn't happen in this line of business. Regulations is good. You don't want devs being involved in your car with zero regulations to back them.