Apple Asks California DMV to Make Changes to Autonomous Vehicle Testing Policies

[69Mustang]

I disagree - slightly - on this one. In late 2014 & early 2015 I was integrating some high end lab equipment in a location on a major Apple competitors campus. I can't say what it was for, but it wasn't the self-drive program.

I asked them about their very visible - and at the time, in the news - vehicle program. They were frustrated because all the data they provided was being cherry picked and reports being written by media with only 20% of the available information. What was in the news at the time was essentially click-bait

"______'s autodrive test cars have been in 6 accidents in the last two years!!"

Well, the news completely ignored the fact that in none of those were ______'s vehicle found to be at fault. And in only one was it determined that a human operator might have been able to avoid the collision as 4 or 5 of them were strikes from behind by inattentive motorists.

And all of that was after the test fleet had collectively logged over 1.1 million miles of autonomous driving.

I say all this, because that was in my mind when I read the article. When looking through that lens, it makes some sense to only have to go "full public" with the most essential bits, even if the DMV still has the rest available on file, or at least requires the company to have it available within 24 hours any time they request it.

You and I agree on a lot of topics but I'm gonna take a hard pass on that and disagree strongly. What's being reported is just a part of doing business. It not only affects the tech industry but every facet of society. The media reports what it wants to report. That is not, nor should it ever be, a reason for not reporting the data on autonomous driving. More importantly, the media is a moot point that has nothing to do with any of this. I'll explain.

Do me a favor, go back and read the article. This has nothing to do with disclosure to the public. Apple is requesting to not report the information to the DMV, not the public. If the disengagements don't have to be reported to the DMV, then there is no record for them to have on file. The public only comes into play because the information is open to the public. Transparency is the only way to do this properly and safely so the public has full confidence in the information being disseminated. When we start excluding what's being reported, we start fomenting mistrust. Mistrust is the last thing autonomous driving needs.

 

[filmantopia]

These are exactly the cases where it should be reported...

Less disclosure in something safety-sensitive is not acceptable. There are literally lives at stake when these products hit the road. Fortunately iTunes has not learned to drive a car yet.

Nothing in that list would affect the safety of the general public.

 

[drewyboy]

Nothing in that list would affect the safety of the general public.

Riiiiiiight... just like close calls shouldn't be reported to the FAA, right?

 

[Candlelight]

If anything the rules should be made even more open and all details should be released. This is serious AI territory we're heading into. Yes you need to protect your corporate business but not at the safety of others.

 

[AngerDanger]

I hope to God I'm never near one of them on the road then! I do sincerely hope the regulators tell Apple where to go. If others have to follow the rules so can Apple NO EXCEPTION!!

Well, based on the photos we've seen, they're not exactly going to be able to sneak up on you.

 

[keysofanxiety]

You and I agree on a lot of topics but I'm gonna take a hard pass on that and disagree strongly. What's being reported is just a part of doing business. It not only affects the tech industry but every facet of society. The media reports what it wants to report. That is not, nor should it ever be, a reason for not reporting the data on autonomous driving. More importantly, the media is a moot point that has nothing to do with any of this. I'll explain.

Do me a favor, go back and read the article. This has nothing to do with disclosure to the public. Apple is requesting to not report the information to the DMV, not the public. If the disengagements don't have to be reported to the DMV, then there is no record for them to have on file. The public only comes into play because the information is open to the public. Transparency is the only way to do this properly and safely so the public has full confidence in the information being disseminated. When we start excluding what's being reported, we start fomenting mistrust. Mistrust is the last thing autonomous driving needs.

You and I frequently disagree on a lot of topics. But for what little it's worth, I think you're spot on with this.

If you're designing self-driving vehicles, you need to start with safety and work backwards from there. Holding off from reporting bugs and hiccups, no matter how trivial (which inevitably will always happen with early testing in any industry on any product) is fine if you're making computers and phones, but it simply shouldn't be done with something like this.

Apple know that there will be problems with testing — it's going to happen. There's no way of avoiding problems as that's how technology evolves and improves. Their fear is the media spin on the situation; and yes, the media will spin it. Memes will be made, haters will laugh.

But if you're 100% serious about entering an industry like this, you need to be 100% ready to take the soaring negativity and twisted, ego-bruising fallout that will always come with it. I'm not convinced the Apple of ANY era would happily accept that as a tradeoff.

 

[dannyyankou]

I disagree with Apple here. It's not like they're testing an iPhone or Mac. I'm interested in test results, for safety reasons.

 

[Rainshadow]

Not sure if you actually read the article. This has nothing to do with closing loopholes or cheating. It's about having the ability to selectively report disengagements. Apple doesn't want to report all of them. Says so right in the article.

Not quite. Apple wants the policies CLARIFIED and,yes, some amendments.

"Apple is concerned that inconsistency in how permit holders reports disengagements can lead to media coverage that causes public confusion and misunderstanding." - article

I am not for Apple being "selective" in their reports, as you claim they are asking for. But I am for everyone playing on the same field. If their is ambiguity, it should be cleared up. For everyone. As people point out, it is a safety issue.

Edit:And for the record, I don't agree with some of the disengagements apple wants to omit.

 

[44267547]

So Apple wants special treatment as usual....

I see this is a way for them trying to safeguard themselves from any type of scrutiny and/or evidence supporting what they truly are doing. Everyone knows Apple is highly secretive and very discreet with any undisclosed plans, this is just another concept of them trying to avoid any media bias to skirt around the guidelines, but at what safety costs is the measure.

 

[pat500000]

Should ban self driving cars. Not safe. Technology is not 100 percent realiable

 

[jerryk]

Should ban self driving cars. Not safe. Technology is not 100 percent realiable

In the US alone there are 40,000+ traffic deaths per year, worldwide over 1.1 million per year. 95% of those are due to human error.

Tesla alone has over 1.5 billion self-driven miles, 1 death while operator was watching DVD.

I will take the automation over human drivers.

 

[Dorje Sylas]

Should ban self driving cars. Not safe. Technology is not 100 percent realiable

Should ban humans driving cars. Proven (with much data) to be not safe, deadly even. Defiantly not 100% reliable. With statistics of risk setup by insurance companies to determine how likely a person in your age/gender/other bracket is to be "not safe."

 

[citysnaps]

Should ban self driving cars. Not safe. Technology is not 100 percent realiable

And people driving cars on the freeway, or anywhere for that matter, are 100% reliable to not cause accidents with devastating outcomes?

 

[jerryk]

I disagree - slightly - on this one. In late 2014 & early 2015 I was integrating some high end lab equipment in a location on a major Apple competitors campus. I can't say what it was for, but it wasn't the self-drive program.

I asked them about their very visible - and at the time, in the news - vehicle program. They were frustrated because all the data they provided was being cherry picked and reports being written by media with only 20% of the available information. What was in the news at the time was essentially click-bait

"______'s autodrive test cars have been in 6 accidents in the last two years!!"

Well, the news completely ignored the fact that in none of those were ______'s vehicle found to be at fault. And in only one was it determined that a human operator might have been able to avoid the collision as 4 or 5 of them were strikes from behind by inattentive motorists.

And all of that was after the test fleet had collectively logged over 1.1 million miles of autonomous driving.

I say all this, because that was in my mind when I read the article. When looking through that lens, it makes some sense to only have to go "full public" with the most essential bits, even if the DMV still has the rest available on file, or at least requires the company to have it available within 24 hours any time they request it.

Remember car complies faced this same publicity from Hearst and other yellow journalists. After all who would want a smelly, noisy automobile that needed maintenance every day, could only do 15 mph, and for which the gas costed more than a average worker's daily wage. Horses are more reliable, and can be left to feed in wild fields.

 

[Samford]

Should ban self driving cars. Not safe. Technology is not 100 percent realiable

Just the fact that at least 1 in 10 drivers are drug affected by illegal or legal drugs makes automated cars much safer.

The 1 in 10 figure comes from Australian police roadside testing of drivers for drugs and alcohol. Prescription drugs are a real problem. With future advances in drug testing this test figure will get worse.

 

[MH01]

In the US alone there are 40,000+ traffic deaths per year, worldwide over 1.1 million per year. 95% of those are due to human error.

Tesla alone has over 1.5 billion self-driven miles, 1 death while operator was watching DVD.

I will take the automation over human drivers.

You assume that an automated car could have avoided those deaths. Example, One drunk idiot will still kill others, if they are driving or if a computer is.
[doublepost=1493414578][/doublepost]

Just the fact that at least 1 in 10 drivers are drug affected by illegal or legal drugs makes automated cars much safer.

The 1 in 10 figure comes from Australian police roadside testing of drivers for drugs and alcohol. Prescription drugs are a real problem. With future advances in drug testing this test figure will get worse.

Drugs are not the main issue, alcohol and reckless driving are the main causes.

Country roads claim many in oz

 

[arggg14]

Just like the cell carriers wanting to be involved in the iPhone.... "Get out of the way DMV, just pave the roads." We got this. -Apple

 

[Rainshadow]

I am always suprised reading the "self-driving cars are dangerous" comments.

They are categorically and statistically not dangerous in any situation that they have been tested. They are not even market ready and they are way safer in these uncontrolled environments...

Get REAL! How many people do you see looking down at their phone on the highway driving 80mph(US)?

With time, and of course changes in social norms, this will cut down on deaths significantly.

And those who don't think it will happen, it will. At a minimum it will be led by taxi companies and or delivery companies. They will save money by not paying drivers which will be a whole different topic.

 

[diipii]

Apple is rapidly becoming unpleasant.

 

[GoodWheaties]

I disagree - slightly - on this one. In late 2014 & early 2015 I was integrating some high end lab equipment in a location on a major Apple competitors campus. I can't say what it was for, but it wasn't the self-drive program.

I asked them about their very visible - and at the time, in the news - vehicle program. They were frustrated because all the data they provided was being cherry picked and reports being written by media with only 20% of the available information. What was in the news at the time was essentially click-bait

"______'s autodrive test cars have been in 6 accidents in the last two years!!"

Well, the news completely ignored the fact that in none of those were ______'s vehicle found to be at fault. And in only one was it determined that a human operator might have been able to avoid the collision as 4 or 5 of them were strikes from behind by inattentive motorists.

And all of that was after the test fleet had collectively logged over 1.1 million miles of autonomous driving.

I say all this, because that was in my mind when I read the article. When looking through that lens, it makes some sense to only have to go "full public" with the most essential bits, even if the DMV still has the rest available on file, or at least requires the company to have it available within 24 hours any time they request it.

*cough* Google *cough* but I agree, it doesn't seem fair to have to report things like when the driver disables the system as an incident. It only skews the data and creates alarm for little reason.

 

[TechGeek76]

*cough* Google *cough* but I agree, it doesn't seem fair to have to report things like when the driver disables the system as an incident. It only skews the data and creates alarm for little reason.

WHY shouldn't that be reported? IF the user disables it, that certainly SHOULD be known.

 

[pat500000]

I love these "automatic self driving car is safe" comments. People and technology is not safe proof. Nothing is safe. Its life. If they cant clear out osx bugs and ios bugs, what makes people think this is safe. Automatic cars are made by humans. If people made errors with these cars, then its porky pig for ya'll "thats all folks."

 

[69Mustang]

Not quite. Apple wants the policies CLARIFIED and,yes, some amendments.

"Apple is concerned that inconsistency in how permit holders reports disengagements can lead to media coverage that causes public confusion and misunderstanding." - article

To me, this sounds like nothing more than Apple being concerned about PR. If I'm honest, that excerpt from the article is bordering on FUD. What confusion or misunderstanding has the public had about autonomous driving as it relates to testing? What confusion or misunderstanding is Apple anticipating? Why is no other company (and multiple are testing) expressing the "concern" for the public? If I'm the DMV representative I would say "suck it up buttercup". The media has always, does, and will forever more spin facts to suite the narrative they're trying to present to the public. Apple is no more or less a victim of media bias than anyone else or any other company the media decides to focus on. But that's getting away from the topic. Not reporting data isn't going to help the public gain any understanding or alleviate any confusion. If the media erroneously reports info, companies correct them. Just like they've always done.

Regardless of the intent, media coverage should never be used as justification for suppressing information.

I am not for Apple being "selective" in their reports, as you claim they are asking for. But I am for everyone playing on the same field. If their is ambiguity, it should be cleared up. For everyone. As people point out, it is a safety issue.

Edit:And for the record, I don't agree with some of the disengagements apple wants to omit.

Three things: 1. That's not just my "claim". It's directly quoted from the .pdf Apple submitted to the DMV. 2. You say you're for everyone playing on the same field. Isn't everyone playing on the same field right now? Apple is asking for a different playing field. 3. We all agree it's a safety issue. How does data omission contribute to safety?

Apologies if my tone comes off too aggressively. That is not my intent. I'm on the record as not being a fan of autonomous driving so if we're going to do it, we gotta do it right. Asking for concessions on data disclosure is definitely not right.

 

[Juan007]

I don't understand what the issue is, others have been following the rules for years.

 

[2IS]

The difference is that Google's is data mining you, what you say, who you talk to, what you listen to in the car (that you bought) and where you're going - constantly.

Apple's might offer the service while preserving your privacy. Just a guess.

Of your entire post, Your last sentence is by far the most accurate.