Why testing self-driving cars in SF is challenging but necessary | Hacker News Reader

Why testing self-driving cars in SF is challenging but necessary

medium.com

1 pointsnowmaker3 comments

  Pass using opposing lane: 422

This disturbs me, given that this is illegal everywhere but Residence Districts (except in the rare cases where the lane divider specifically allows it, like the #2 image... but they proceeded to drive over the hashed markings indicating a solid barrier anyway, which is seriously illegal), and I can't imagine that a very high percentage of meaningful test driving would be in Residence Districts (given that there isn't much difference between driving in SF RDs vs. RDs elsewhere in the Bay Area.

Not sure why this disturbs you; people regularly violate traffic laws when they decide it isn't risky. Our laws are not written with enough precision to deal with all scenarios, so we let people applying the law to decide if what you did was reasonable even if it was illegal.

  people regularly violate traffic laws when they decide it isn't risky

People doing so take on the responsibility for their actions and can take situational assessment of risk to drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, etc. They also accept the risk of a traffic stop, citation, summons, search, fine, and effects on insurance rates. What can a traffic officer even do to an algorithm or its company? There isn't even statute law (in CA, anyway) empowering them to hold the "driver" accountable on any level.

When you program an algorithm to disregard law in non-emergency situations, there are so many edge conditions that come into play that go untested in advance.

I'm afraid these issues will go ignored until there is a body count to throw into the media narrative.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com