from the I-bet-there's-a-search-for-that dept.
There's an article on IEEE Spectrum about the Google autonomous car project, describing cases where the car using the registration is not the one that passed the test:
if you happen to catch sight of AU-001 on the Vegas strip these days, you will find it’s attached to a self-driving 2012 Lexus RX 450h SUV instead. This car has not been driven, tested, or even seen by the Nevada DMV, nor has Google had to file information on any changes to its technologies or safety procedures.
This comes down to the details of exactly what was tested and licensed. With the test designed to validate the underlying AI algorithms but not the specific hardware or software combination then Google have been free (legally) to change the software and hardware without re-licensing or any kind of inspection, and simply switch the registration between vehicles.
(Additional background on the Google Self-Driving Car, and Google's own project information.)
This has some experts worried: From Bryant Walker Smith of USC:
“Autonomous vehicles are necessarily a combination of hardware and software. You couldn’t simply take Google’s algorithms for the Prius and apply them to the Lexus SUV. Anything down to the tire pressure can be relevant for how a vehicle will respond in emergency situations. Braking force, the condition of the brakes, and sightlines are all functions of the hardware and can potentially vary from vehicle to vehicle, even within the same make, model, and year.”
(Score: 5, Interesting) by theluggage on Saturday October 04 2014, @04:04PM
Quick TLDNR summary of TFA:
Of course, the summary would love you to think that Google have sneakily unscrewed the AU-001 plate from the old car and screwed it to the new one without telling the DMV, but TFA actually has a scan showing the signed registration document for the new Lexus. Informatively, it is entitled "Autonomous Vehicle Testing license - not "License to sell Autonomous Vehicles to Joe Sixpack". Another couple of useful details from TFA:
and
Where is this anti-autonomous-vehicle FUD coming from? What vested interest is under threat? Obviously, they're not ready for big time yet, so why does everybody react as if Google has announced that it will have self-driving cars in the shops for Christmas, and that next Spring the roads will be full of morons speeding along in self-driving cars at 70 with their feet up on the dash while they update their Google+ page? (As opposed to the cosy status quo of morons speeding along in regular cars at 70 with their feet up on the dash while they update their Facebook page).
When self-driving cars are ready to go to market, new legislation on licensing, driving tests, insurance etc. will be required. In the mean time, the need to seek DMV approval for every hardware and software revision would pretty much kill the project dead.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday October 04 2014, @04:37PM
Anti-autonomous-vehicle-FUD?
That sentence does not claim that there's an unusual risk from autonomous test cars (of course there is a risk because every car that's operated poses some risk; the sentence however doesn't compare the risk of an autonomous car to the risk of a normal car, it especially doesn't claim the former is somehow larger than the latter). All the sentence says is that the risk doesn't increase by using a Lexus instead of a Prius.
Anything else you might have read into the sentence is purely from your own fantasy, not from the sentence itself.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Informative) by theluggage on Saturday October 04 2014, @05:19PM
You misread my post (maybe I could have structured it better). The FUD in question is the insinuation in the summary and TFA that Google is doing something underhand or dangerous by re-using license plate numbers: eg. "the car using the registration is not the one that passed the test" (summary) and "Plate and Switch" (TFA). To be fair, TFA does go on to include some counter-arguments (some of which I quoted), but that doesn't make up for the headline, or the fact that the whole article is total non-news without the FUD.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday October 04 2014, @10:26PM
The thing that was tested by the state is the software, not the car. TFA even eventually gets around to admitting that:
Google is not breaking the law. While Nevada’s self-driving test covers many of the same scenarios as in a human exam, such as city driving, highway driving, crosswalks, traffic lights, and roundabouts, it was designed to evaluate the underlying artificial intelligence of autonomous driving rather than specific vehicles,
In other words it was a drivers license, not a car license.
Switching plates might still be illegal. I don't know Nevada law, but in some states you can legally move your plates to a replacement vehicle.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3) by tonyPick on Saturday October 04 2014, @05:19PM
As the person who wrote the summary:
the summary would love you to think that Google have sneakily unscrewed the AU-001 plate from the old car and screwed it to the new one without telling the DMV
Not really: Sure they renewed the license and they did fill out the paperwork (all perfectly legal), but they've placed it on three different cars, with a different set of hardware and software, and that, to quote TFA:
This means that none of Google’s self-driving vehicles licensed to drive on Nevada’s roads have actually taken the state’s self-driving test
And that's the point at issue:
The department awarded the license after a review of Google’s safety plans, employee training, system functions, and accident-reporting mechanisms, as well as two demonstration drives in Las Vegas and Carson City
But we don't know what changes two years of design and development have done to the "safety plans, employee training, system functions, and accident-reporting mechanisms" on top of the hardware and software changes. These are large and complex experimental systems, and from TFA the folks in Nevada haven't asked, which (IMO) is a big old red flag when these things are operating on public roads.
To me this story isn't just "FUD"; it's a valid concern that if you're going to license out autonomous cars to operate on public roads during trials (and you really should be) then you *should* be checking that the development procedures don't change, or that the hardware fitted stays consistent. That's a standard in other industries developing safety critical firmware: Google's car is cool and all, but I don't see why it should be exempt.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Saturday October 04 2014, @06:40PM
...and if TFA had provided any evidence that Google had changed those practices, then maybe we'd have a story. If Nevada is never going to review or re-examine Google's fitness to test AVs (which TFA seems to be conflating with registering license plates for specific vehicles) then there might be a story. Neither of these is in evidence.
NB: Where I live, you need to pass a driving test to get a driver's license. You don't have to re-take the test if you sell your 1100cc city car and buy a Porsche. I think the danger that Google's software might perform slightly differently in a Lexus than a Prius rather pales alongside that stupidity.
(Score: 2) by mmcmonster on Saturday October 04 2014, @08:50PM
Agree 100%.
I know people who are reasonably safe in their 4-door sedans. They then "size-up" to a Porsche and get in an accident the first time they drive in the rain.
Once you go over a certain hp engine, you should be required to get a better licence.
In addition, driving tests should be renewed every decade for everyone. (This will never happen, but I could dream.)
(Score: 2) by tonyPick on Sunday October 05 2014, @10:03AM
Fair enough - from TFA I get the impression that we're more in the "not re-examining" scenario, and Nevada don't seem to be planning to monitor it (again, if you believe TFA), and I'd have expected major underlying hardware changes (such as lifting the system into another chassis) to be a trigger for that.
Judging from the comments so far I'm obviously more paranoid about the deployment of the system than the average soylentil though.
You don't have to re-take the test if you sell your 1100cc city car and buy a Porsche
Yeah, but you don't, generally, remove and replace your eyes when you get a new Porsche.
(Your brain perhaps, based on some of the Porsche drivers I've seen :)
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Tuesday October 07 2014, @12:05PM
Two prominent effects of middle age are deteriorating eyesight and the inclination to buy powerful sports cars.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Silentknyght on Saturday October 04 2014, @06:45PM
This is spot-on. Someone is being a bureaucrat, instead of exercising reasonable brainpower.
And, what will happen if Nevada DMV continues to be overly bureaucratic? Google will test elsewhere. Cars have wheels and can travel, and all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 04 2014, @07:07PM
They didn't? There goes my joke about Mexicans.
(Score: 2) by mmcmonster on Saturday October 04 2014, @08:45PM
The FUD isn't anti-autonomous vehicles.
It's anti-Google.
Everything make sense, now?