Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Why can a private for profit company "test" their systems on the public roads?

Because at some point, it's literally not possible to test something that's ultimately intended for use on public roads anywhere but public roads. Or, to put it in terms that would be more familiar to developers, "you can test all you want in QA, but prod is the ultimate test of whether your code really works".

As mentioned downthread, the problem here is that Arizona basically gave companies full leeway, without having to demonstrate that they had done sufficient tests internally before putting the cards on public roads. Apparently they're not even required to report data on accidents to the state, which is absurd.

I wouldn't be surprised if Uber were ultimately found to be cutting corners, but Arizona is also responsible for rushing to allow self-driving cars on their roads without doing their own due diligence first.



This is what it means when politicians say they’re cutting red tape. They’re letting industry do whatever the fuck they want at the expense of everyone.


When it is deemed necessary to test the vehicles on public roads after they have shown to be mostly safe, ALL of these vehicles should have flashing lights like any emergency vehicle.

I'm stunned that when I drive in Texas, there don't seem to be regulations over which vehicles can have flashing lights and with which colors. Yet in these other cities you have experimental robots that are designed to blend in with other cars as much as possible. NO! Make them stick out.


Which is hilarious to me because AZ is the bastion of those "Don't treat on me" stickers and all this anti-regulation sentiment...until someone gets killed by a lack of regulations and then everyone wants to lock everything down and blame the government for not doing their due diligence.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: