SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom has vetoed a bill to require human drivers on board self-driving trucks, a measure that union leaders and truck drivers said would save hundreds of thousands of jobs in the state.

  • ANGRY_MAPLE@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    At the current level of autonomous vehicle abilities, I agree with you, in a broad sense. Vehicles will need to still be able to differentiate between shapes, even during bad weather. Weather like blizzards, sudden downpours, heavy fog, dust storms, and the like. You still have to be able to see to safely pull off of the road.

    Until we can guarantee with 100% certainty that they can truly drive without aid, I completely agree that these vehicles would not be safe on their own. Weather is very well known for being unpredictable at times. Life in general is also known for being unpredictable at times.

    What happens if the sensors are unknowingly damaged? What happens if someone is wearing a costume that makes them look like a giant cereal box instead of human-shaped? What happens if there’s a software glitch at a bad time? What protections are there to guarantee that it doesn’t happen? Are those protections temporary? How often should they be reviewed?

    It should be OK to acknowledge that we aren’t quite there yet. Yes, it seems cool and all, but it’s silly to risk lives over impatience. If it will happen, it will happen. Forcing it to happen sooner than it should could very well lead to it being banned altogether, especially if enough people die or get injured as a result.

    IMO, anyone who causes serious crashes from using these things in “fully autonomous” mode should be charged as if the vehicle wasn’t autonomous. As if the accident was caused by sleeping behind the wheel or texting while driving. The company should be charged similarly in that scenario, as their programming and marketing would also play a part in the crash.

    Hey, if they’re truly safe, none of these charges would actually happen. If there isn’t an “oops” death in the first place, there won’t be an “oops” death to investigate.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Not until they’re safe. The tech isn’t there yet.

          There’s no reason to bother with autonomous vehicles if we’re just going to have human drivers anyway.

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                There will be testing on public roads whether you like it or not, it’s inherent to how any new thing works.

                • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  We have ways to test new technologies before unleashing them onto the public, what are you talking about? Even if it’s necessary to test them on public roads, they could be limited to only certain roads so people who don’t want to be part of he experiment don’t have to risk their lives.

                  • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No matter how much testing they get beforehand, at some point they’ll be on public roads. And when they first get access to public roads, that will be a test. That’s just the only possible way for any new technology to come into being.