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

[ackmondual]

This request is ironic considering:
1) Uber made a similar request a while back, thumbing their noses at the CA DMV that they "respectfully disagree" that they should need to register their autonomous vehicles
2) Uber recently got into trouble with Apple for not following the iOS App Store's Terms of Service for their app.
Tim Cook called the Uber CEO in for a talk about this. Will the head of the CA DMV call Tim Cook in for a one-on-one?

 

[jerryk]

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.

Depends. You are assuming the drunk would be driving, and would not have used the autonomous car to drive instead of trying to do it themselves. If there is not a drunk driving, there would likely be no drunk driving accident.

What we do know for certain is that having self-drive would provide an option. And we can hope that people would be smart enough to use it when they are in need.

Also, unlike a human driver a self-drive car can looks in 360 degrees at once, constantly, and see traffic coming from any direction. Also it is able to see and classify vehicles being operated in a conflicting manner. On YouTube there are videos of a Tesla doing just this, and taking action to avoiding getting involved in an accident that occurred ahead and a lane over.

 

[RamsayBolton]

That (or any other self-driving car) better never come close to me, otherwise:

 

[Tech198]

Its almost like Apple running the show... I can see myself doing that to an Apple car

 

[Glassed Silver]

Wow, they have quite the nerve to ask for this.

Glassed Silver:ios

 

[demodave]

"System errors or failures. For example, a software bug or sensor dropout that does not affect the safe operation of the system. "

Uh, bugs? Yeah, let's be required to report those. "that does not affect the safe operation of the system" sounds just as much like conjecture about future events as the other stuff Apple doesn't want to explain.

I make sensors that go into cars. Automotive customers are very tough. And they should be. Apple should be no exception to the rules.

 

[Ladybug]

Automated vehicles might be safer overall but I don't see this having any effect as far as safety goes, on drivers who drive drunk. Most habitual drunks think they are ok to drive because they are inebriated and can't think straight. Same goes for those who use drugs and drive. As for Apple asking for special rules to avoid safety standards.. Uh No. Laws and standards are set for public safety and should remain so.

 

[jeremiah256]

Wow, lots of cynical people here who have clearly never tested software of any kind.

Can we assume that Apple does not want to sell you software that causes collisions? If you can't agree with that premise, you can stop reading now since this discussion will go nowhere.

If you're still reading, let's be clear: there is NO BUG FREE SOFTWARE. Autonomous cars especially cannot be tested in a vacuum.

From the way this reads:

The proposed requirement in §227.50(b)(3)(B)(vi) to describe the type of incident that would have happened without the disengagement should be removed. It requires speculation about future events that have not occurred.

Pretend for a moment you're a software engineer. You know parts of your software work and parts that don't. The way the law is written apparently means you have to write PERFECT software before it's ever tested.

If you're in the early stages of development, imagine writing up fail after fail after fail, even if you KNOW in some situations the code WILL fail. Expectedly. Some news outlet gets ahold of this testing and spins the hell out of it without fully knowing all the facts. In fact, this comment section is proof of this happening.

Let's say a company did some testing and the safety driver had to intervene 100 times.
Another company did some testing and the safety driver had to intervene 50 times.

Does that make Company B's car more foolproof or Company A's software more buggy? Hardly. It could also simply mean that Company A tests a lot more than company B. Again, to get something right, you might have to "fail" a lot.

This is also not the horse and buggy era. News gets reported instantly nowadays with zero fact checking. This is part of the problem of fake news. I can see how Apple—or anyone else—would be extremely annoyed by this.

Can you imagine if computer software developers were required by law to report every time their software crashed while they were testing it? If I know the software program is going to "crash" at a certain point in the code, I will manually intervene and force quit the process before it happens. This is exactly what a safety driver does.

How do you regulate close calls? You can't.

These are also just the PROPOSED rules for driverless cars.

And these systems are not even on sale yet. I would imagine the regulations for putting these autonomous cars through the ringer is even higher.

It's not just Apple that wants clarification; Google, Uber and Tesla each are asking for revisions.

https://consumerist.com/2017/04/28/...fornia-to-revise-rules-for-self-driving-cars/

No, it does not mean you have to write perfect software.

The DMV is collecting data on a new means of transportation. No one, at this stage, can predict what data will, or will not be needed to ensure the safety of the public. Therefore the DMV needs as much data as possible, specifically because they know the software will not, in fact be perfect.

 

[sudo1996]

Meanwhile, I just want the default license plate to say something cooler than "dmv.ca.gov" at the bottom. What boring DMV worker thought that was a good idea??

 

[SpinThis!]

the DMV needs as much data as possible, specifically because they know the software will not, in fact be perfect.

Because we all know what happens to the government's access to data? Apple is simply saying that any data which does not interfere with public safety—arguably the DMV's main purpose here—shouldn't have to be included.

As for Apple asking for special rules to avoid safety standards.. Uh No. Laws and standards are set for public safety and should remain so.

Apple is not asking for special treatment or avoiding any safety standards. In fact, these laws are NOT even on the books yet. The DMV is asking for revisions and suggestions to its proposed autonomous plans. Apple is simply obliging.

 

[jeremiah256]

Because we all know what happens to the government's access to data? Apple is simply saying that any data which does not interfere with public safety—arguably the DMV's main purpose here—shouldn't have to be included.

This is about licensing of autonomous vehicles (AV) to safely navigate our roads. We have 50 states with 50 different safety concerns and companies are going to have to make sure AVs address each state's individual concerns. Montana may license an AV to drive only if it has this equipment, during these hours, during these conditions. Maine may say, yeah, AVs with that equipment are restricted and can't drive in certain zones. Your state may say having that same equipment means you can drive with no restrictions. If California's DMV says they need the data, I'll trust them on this. Worst case, they have excess data that was not needed. Best case, they or researchers who can access the data, find something that saves someone's life.

I'm glad my state is being obsessive when it comes to data collection.

 

[SpinThis!]

Shouldn't be long until California regulates every citizen into asking the state permission to go to the bathroom... under the guise of public safety of course. Wouldn't want people to fall into their toilets or anything...

 

[jerryk]

This is about licensing of autonomous vehicles (AV) to safely navigate our roads. We have 50 states with 50 different safety concerns and companies are going to have to make sure AVs address each state's individual concerns. Montana may license an AV to drive only if it has this equipment, during these hours, during these conditions. Maine may say, yeah, AVs with that equipment are restricted and can't drive in certain zones. Your state may say having that same equipment means you can drive with no restrictions. If California's DMV says they need the data, I'll trust them on this. Worst case, they have excess data that was not needed. Best case, they or researchers who can access the data, find something that saves someone's life.

I'm glad my state is being obsessive when it comes to data collection.

Agree. California has been dealing with autonomous cars for well over a decade. Also, there are self-drive test cities laid out here.

And states are different. Colorado allows testing of self-drive technology on it's highways, such as the Anheuser-Busch tests below.

 

[jeremiah256]

Shouldn't be long until California regulates every citizen into asking the state permission to go to the bathroom... under the guise of public safety of course. Wouldn't want people to fall into their toilets or anything...

Yes, it's horrible here. Practically hell on earth. You should stay far, far away and enjoy the freedoms we have lost.

 

[jclardy]

I think all disengagements should be reported. I especially think if the driver has to take over due to construction workers, etc it should be reported.

I agree with some of these (Like when running a specific test) but the ones like the software bug or sensor failure...so basically they only want to report in when one of their vehicles crashes?