Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
eveln

Who is guilty if a driverless car runs over and kills a person ?

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Sir_Substance said:

I certainly consider it to be the logical development once there's a critical mass of self-driving cars on main roads. It'll be much cheaper than re-designating some roads as self-driving only, so it'll get government support provided it can be done accurately enough. Yes, I think it'll happen to motorbikes They're not actually allowed to sneak up the middle of lanes in most places anyway, and they'll slow down all the traffic behind them at the lights because they won't be able to accelerate in a single unified block with the 50 networked self-driving cars behind them.

Cyclists are harder to deal with because they're so much slower than cars, and not as well equipped. It's pretty easy for car manufacturers to program the scar tissue planner so that if a human-driven car doesn't indicate, it won't be given a slot to cross traffic, which would enforce good behavior on human drivers. You could *try* that with arm-signalling with bikes but it's a harder computer vision problem to solve and not everyone has two arms. I don't have a good prediction for that one, other then probably self-driving cars avoiding lanes with cyclists in them entirely.

You make it all sound sooo neat and tidy ... and yet it's humans doing the programming <<< this doesn't compute 😛  I am glad it will take more than my lifetime to achieve your predictions .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

driverless cars will in my humble prediction one day become as ubiquitous as personal flying cars

my best guess is that terrestrial transport will become mass movers and autonomous, not personal luxury... the energy needed to move a single human + > 1 ton of vehicle in isolation is madness

 

the sensible world would have electric bicycles for that, which can use the majority of established roads left free by compressing commuters into sensible mass transport

 

bike riders left to their own devices are forced to show respect for other road users, or suffer the personal consequences of poor etiquette - the rudeness of most commuters is almost directly proportional to the mass of vehicle they are cocooned within, and inversely proportional to their self assessment of ability

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Sir_Substance said:

That's where we disagree, I don't see that practical need. Self-driving cars are going to push out human drivers, so it doesn't matter if the human drivers feel the traffic is going "too slow". Insurance companies won't want to cover humans who might run red lights at 100km/h when they could cover robots that never do, and so increasing insurance costs will marginalise humans. On top of that, the ability to time-share a car between 3+ people and have it autonomously route between them will rapidly speed the adoption of self-driving cars once they become available, with one obvious result:

Self-driving cars will form "scar tissue" around human drivers on main roads to prevent them from messing with the traffic flow. When you drive in a traditional car, you'll get gently and tactfully boxed in by the three nearest self-driving cars, they will watch your movements and indicators and move with you to let you get where you indicate you want to go, but they will body-block you from running a red light at 100km/h or even getting to 100km/h, so that other cars can be more certain of your behavior. And yeah, that means those self-driving cars are going to force you to drive at 15km/h if they're not sure you can drive faster without causing an accident.

 

well there is nothing wrong with taking an idealistic long view.  necessity is the mother of invention after all, and i trust the inevitability of ever more refined technological solutions.  which is why i said "it may take these cars becoming mainstream" in my original post. see stadl's post for a different but complimentary take.

the disconnect here, is whether or not we focus on the difficult realities of the protracted interim, already in full swing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2018 at 5:48 AM, @~thehung said:

the disconnect here, is whether or not we focus on the difficult realities of the protracted interim, already in full swing.

Fair enough. I don't consider what's currently available to be "self-driving" in any meaningful sense. The tipping point at which the interesting stuff will happen is the point where insurance companies start offering to ignore your past driving history if you buy specific models of car. That'll be the starting gun indicating that the actuaries who are running the numbers have decided that robots are better than humans at driving.

Personally, I rate Teslas autopilot feature similar to how I rate their "dancing car" feature. Gimmick and maybe kinda neat under some circumstances, but ultimately not very significant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sir_Substance said:

Personally, I rate Teslas autopilot feature similar to how I rate their "dancing car" feature. Gimmick and maybe kinda neat under some circumstances, but ultimately not very significant.

And that's prolly a fair assessment. It is what's currently out there and potentially quite harmful as it evolves, and as such very significant to those it ( or the person behind the wheel, or the programmer)  harms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

Musk is South African, if you had ever driven in that country you would understand why a South African would be keen to take the driver out of the equation.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2018 at 12:27 PM, Rybags said:

The other possibility is that we'll experience the other end of the scale.

Roads full of paranoid androids with traffic jams that last for hours and sick occupants of vehicles that start/stop constantly and don't maintain a steady speed for more than a few seconds at a time.

And vehicles that won't release you in a jam because safety!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting question - which I would devolve down to simply no one - unless negligence or a deliberate attempt to cause harm has been proven.

 

Think of another example - imagine you plant a tree and it one day falls over and kills someone - are you liable? I imagine courts would argue that it is an inherent risk in the technology and everyone is aware of it so everyone accepts the risks once these types of vehicles become common place.  You benefit from the capability so you bear the risk.

 

Same way if a driver-less train kills someone in Paris or you stick a fork into a light-socket and get electrocuted - Edison and his estate isn't to blame.  It is only  my take on it and I am not a lawyer - so that is only my 'common-sense' view of a rather complex matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/12/2018 at 10:50 PM, chrisg said:

Musk is South African, if you had ever driven in that country you would understand why a South African would be keen to take the driver out of the equation.

Mate, I can see where you're coming from with this, but... If that were all that was at base, a Malaysian woulda got there first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, g__day said:

Interesting question - which I would devolve down to simply no one - unless negligence or a deliberate attempt to cause harm has been proven.

 

Think of another example - imagine you plant a tree and it one day falls over and kills someone - are you liable? I imagine courts would argue that it is an inherent risk in the technology and everyone is aware of it so everyone accepts the risks once these types of vehicles become common place.  You benefit from the capability so you bear the risk.

 

Same way if a driver-less train kills someone in Paris or you stick a fork into a light-socket and get electrocuted - Edison and his estate isn't to blame.  It is only  my take on it and I am not a lawyer - so that is only my 'common-sense' view of a rather complex matter.

With a light socket it would be the manufacturer of the product you would look at rather than Edison. If the light socket was safe for "normal use" then that company is fine. 

Normal use for a car is to be part of every day traffic. My slightly amended take goes like this. If someone in traffic does something outside of the road rules that means the car kills someone then that person is to blame. If it could have been prevented by car proper maintenance that hadn't been done or if the owner is "driving" a model with known issues then the owner is at fault. If the car could be expected to act normally in compliance with all road rules and expected/known driving actions of other cars and it makes a mistake within those parameters then the company who makes the car is to blame. If things happen outside that then sometimes there are just horrible accidents that no one could expect or account for so how could lay blame? 

I think there has to be a large onus on the car maker to make sure their product is not in any way half baked when it is released. There will be high expectations on the finished product to completely safe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cybes said:

Mate, I can see where you're coming from with this, but... If that were all that was at base, a Malaysian woulda got there first.

🙂

I don't mind driving in Malaysia, Vietnam is bloody terrifying but Perth can be as well 🙂

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×