To be sure.... they are taking a chance. Now we wait for .... ' The end of the story . ' Paul Harvey
Order of Kilopi
To be sure.... they are taking a chance. Now we wait for .... ' The end of the story . ' Paul Harvey
Order of Kilopi
I just saw some of these driverless cars of Google. I must say I am surprised at how well they are doing.
Order of Kilopi
Todays newspaper had an article about them. Quoted a google exec as saying humans were the "bugs" in cars.
Get up, a get-get, get down.
Established Member
Google driverless cars must be very convenient for Google whole earth photographs and then we can all see what it would be like if we were to drive there ourselves, which maybe is the future shock we deserve?
Order of Kilopi
I see a disturbing trend going on with this except in aviation. In the recent Air and Space Smithsonion, the cover story dealt with U-2 pilots suffereng from the bends. The cockpits are only partially pressurized, and the pilots are actually having longer flights and are being asked to do more work in the cockpit than during the Cold War itself. On page 8 of the May 14, 2012 Av Week, we see a letter about how the elimination of flight engineers may have led to a mental collapse in the cockpit. Ryanair sought a waiver to operate with only one pilot on some flights.
Lastly there is an amusing story on the subject. "The future cockpit will hold one pilot and one dog. The pilot's only job is to feed the dog--who is trained to bite the pilot if he touches any contols in the automated cockpit."
So if a drunk doesn't service his car properly and even the automation can't save him from causing a wreck if a balding tire hydroplanes beyond the automations ability to cope--who get's the ticket? The drunk, or the manufacturer?
Order of Kilopi
Publiusr, I'd suggest that rules and technology can be used to prevetn such situations from occurring in the first place. First of all, not many drunks are drunk and non-functional at all times -many hold jobs and can perform activities such as vehicle maintenance when non-drunk. Someone who is constantly in a state of inebriation who probably can't hold a job then probably doesn't have a vehicle either. A car computer could be made capable of detect a balding tire through several methods: estimation from date of last tire change, estimate tire traction from previous usage, road noise sensors and visual inspection sensors. After detection, a computer may simply refuse to drive, or it may refuse to drive beyond certain parameters based upon the cars current capabilities. Thus, a computer may not drive the car into such an accident scenario, but depending on the law, the driver may be allowed to drive the car himself, meaning the drunk would be at fault.Originally Posted by publiusr
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Established Member
Does anyone remember the Simpsons episode where Homer's brother invites him to create a car for a failing manufacturer. He ends up with this hideous car that's just a bunch of "you could do this and that" included.
One major problems is that car's are supposed to be a convenience. A car that won't go into drive because it has: a crack in the windshield, an open gas flap, a burnt out tail light, the trunk ajar, is not my cup of tea. Who's going to stop me from overriding all those junk sensors?
Order of Kilopi
Also, all of these automated prevents would be removed should they cause too much trouble, or cost too much. If a person, say, has substance abuse troubles only due to a recent death and doesn't service, say, a less automated call without the latest in balding tire inspections, and gets behind the display and a wreck occurs...who knows. Here is where we will have to focus on laws and how they are written, as much as with technology. Big companies have big lobby power, so they will push for exemptions in liability due to lack of maintenance--possibly to the point to where you would have to have your own NASCAR pit crew to avoid liability. Now you can just go to a garage and show your brake repair bill to a judge if the grease monkey didn't do his job right
In the future, anything less than optimal performance and you might be on the hook, especially if your car stumbles due to drafting behind a line of cars now mandated to save petrol. The car companies level of liability may DECREASE if anything since money=speech in this post-- Citizens-United era. Otherwise if a wreck occurs, the driver must be blameless, especially if there is a fault with the computer chip. The answer? Your car company issues an owners manual where it encourages the purchase of an expensive new chip (only at your dealership of course) every so often or they are held blameless. And no chips for that car will be made after a certain time--forcing a new car purchase/lease.
Then this all gets into what 'reasonable care' is, and so on. Computer code writing is a cinch compared to the new laws needed to deal with all this.
Order of Kilopi
Perhaps no one, but the question was about who was at fault. A computer that refuses to drive and forces the human driver to take agency cannot be held responsible for the actions of the driver. Now, there can be a law to punish people who make certain modifications to sensors, but like a lot of laws, it would work as a deterrent not direct prevention.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Order of Kilopi
I written both. I think computer code is harder.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Order of Kilopi
I don't think the laws themselves need to be complicated. Generally, principles are laid out, and it is up to courts to decide what is reasonable. The same thing could happen even under the current system. A car manufacturer can recommend that people change the computer chip controlling their airbags every six months, or something like that. But I would suppose that if the word gets out that manufacturer A is mandating unreasonable changes, then people will switch to manufacturer B. And the problems of liability already exist. If a person forgets to get a car inspected and the brakes fail, whose fault is the accident? It is not necessarily a black and white thing. If it's discovered that the particular car model had defective brakes, then the manufacturer might have to share liability. If another car ran a red light, then that driver would also share in the liability.
As above, so below
Order of Kilopi
It depends on the issue. Some of those things seem easily correctable or not safety critical, but if you force an override for something that is critical to safety, perhaps you wouldn't be allowed to use the automation features, not be allowed to drive in the same lanes as automated vehicles, or depending on the problem, you might only be allowed to go automated in a slow "limp-along" mode. The key issue, I'd think, is that if you're going to force unsafe driving conditions that you would have to take responsibility for it. In a situation like that, I wouldn't want to see other people hurt or the automation blamed for what is actually human error.
Keep in mind that with full automation, as long as it doesn't have an issue requiring towing, a car can take itself to the mechanic, so keeping a car serviced would generally be more convenient than now.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Established Member
Here's a little update on some of the upcoming technology: http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/22/u...ts-3-000-cars/
Order of Kilopi
Self-Driving cars are now street legal in California
California has become the third state to welcome driverless cars with open arms. Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill into law today that officially legalized self-driving vehicles, following in the footsteps of Nevada and Florida.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Order of Kilopi
I can see it now: " No fault driverless cars" . So who gets sued when it fails? HHmmmm.....
Order of Kilopi
Ask Google. They have a website.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Order of Kilopi
Yes; but where do they make claims about this car? I can't find it.
Besides; How do I know that their description is as clear as the legislation. It's not like they are an un-biased party.
I actually blame the reporters for this. It is a very important issue, and one that is probably in the legislation. The reports that I have heard were only from the point of "cool, it's legal".
Order of Kilopi
Well, who gets sued today when say a tire suddenly blows out on the highway and a car crashes into another car?
As above, so below
Order of Kilopi
Here's information on the Senate Bill:
http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/SB_1298/20112012/
It mostly is a directive to set up the regulations. Initially, it's to authorize testing of a vehicle with someone in the driver's seat who can monitor and take over if needed. So, this way, testing isn't in legal limbo. Once they get more time testing, then they would take it further.
Seeing this makes me very happy. I'm looking forward to the day drunk and distracted "drivers" are just watching, not driving.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Order of Kilopi
The driver (or the estate) or owner of the car crashed into will sue the driver and owner of the car that had the blowout; that driver will sue tiremaker, the government entity that maintained the road, the driver of the car crashed into, the car manufacturer, whomever the car was brought from, installed the tire, and anybody else they can think of to absolve the car's driver of responsibility.
I've had blowouts on the highway. I didn't lose control, and I do have a lead foot.
Order of Kilopi
Thanks. Now, we have an answer to danscope's question about who would be sued when a car malfunctioned. And a perfect answer: exactly the same people who are sued when a car malfunctions today!
As above, so below
Order of Kilopi
Bad chip, bad connector, electrical problem, bad switch.......... etc etc etc etc . That whole system is thin ice.
Order of Kilopi
It always seems to work when you want to post.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Order of Kilopi
As long as it does better than all the bad drivers around, I'm happy. Fewer tragedies, fewer lives ruined, fewer drunks going to jail because they killed people, fewer people getting their necks broken.............etc etc etc etc . Wonderful.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Order of Kilopi
The altar of technology is deeply pitted with good intentions and bad executions. Read your history.
With a scrubbed launch, you wait for another window and repair the problem. When your family is killed by a head-on collision
by some so called " driverless idiot " , it's a lot harder to pick up the pieces. We are not talking about a plastic exstruder or your kid's remote controled kiddie car. I would welcome proximity governing on a monorail. That would make sense... with back-ups .
But this is something else.
Order of Kilopi
Major points for you. The basis for comparison isn't perfection; it's 45,000 dead and a much larger number maimed a year. The robo-cars just have to be better than that.
Order of Kilopi
Actual history is full of examples of things made safer by technological advancements. In those cases where safety hazards existed with a widely adopted technology, later refinements generally greatly reduced the hazards.
Cars are an example of a technology that brought new safety hazards with it: operating or riding in a car is one of the most unsafe activities that people commonly perform. Safety measures like belts and airbags have mitigated the inherent unreliability of a human driver by making crashes more survivable. Reducing the rate at which those accidents happen in the first place is the next obvious step.
The desire for a clear target to attack with lawyers after an accident is an extremely poor reason to reject computer drivers in favor of crash-prone, proven-dangerous human drivers. danscope, exactly how many lives is your desire for someone to sue worth? What right do you have to insist that others put their lives and health at risk so you can sue them if they screw up (assuming they survive the event)?
Order of Kilopi
You missed the point entirely. I think it may be beyond your grasp.
You will only get the point when it crosses the centerline and two tons of steel come hurtling head on at you with a rate of closure of 125 MPH. Good luck. We will put an add in the paper for another automation expert.
We will simply have to wait and watch what happens.
" A man convinced against his will ..... is of the same opinion still . " Dale Carnegie
Order of Kilopi
Says the man who passes judgement before the facts are known.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Order of Kilopi
I didn't miss the point, I refuted it. Actual history is full of counterexamples where automation increased safety.
And here's the point you keep ignoring: odds are that if this happens between a human-driven car and a self-driving car, the human driver will be at fault. When sharing the road with automated cars, the biggest hazard you and the occupants of those cars face will be yourself. If you get in an accident with an automated car while driving manually, you are the one who is likely to be at fault.
Humans are not safe drivers. This fact is demonstrated constantly. They fail more often than the cheapest consumer electronics, and regularly get themselves and others injured or killed in the process. Even the best human driver is subject to illness, fatigue, distraction, sensory overload or interference, misjudgment, or just plain stupidity. The very first generation of self driving cars can be expected to be safer than a human driver, and further safety increases can be expected as the technology is refined.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote