See guys! We are, apparently, the problem!

SVreX wrote:

Knurled wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: Interesting thought (to me, anyway): if you send your autonomous car out to do an errand and it's in an accident, are you going to be held responsible?

Yes.

I seriously doubt the right answer is anywhere near that simplistic.

Laws are already on the books that say the automakers are not liable for any accidents that autonomous cars are involved in. So it cannot be the automaker's fault. Who else's fault is it going to be? YOU should have been in the car and monitoring it. You're the person responsible for it, the car's collision is your responsibility. See also: Parents are responsible for damages when their kid vandalizes things, pet owners are responsible when their dog (or cat, or whatever) attacks someone.

Airplanes, right now, could be fully autonomous. They can do everything completely by themselves. We still have pilots, though. Now, air traffic has a lot more liability involved but the sky is nowhere near as crowded, and airplanes are maintained to a much higher standard than cars are.

What I'm curious is, if it does come to pass that auto-autos can travel by themselves, how long until some enterprising person figures out how to quickly disable them electronically and make off with the car. Or remotely tell it to go to a hiding spot and disable communication with its legal owner. Thieves would have cars that would steal themselves for them!

someone earlier mentioned something about the auto autos not having any man useable controls … steering wheel, brakes, accelerator … etc .. with autonomous airplanes, there are still pilots WITH the ability to take control of the plane and fly it by hand

In reply to Knurled:

Those laws will change.

Google is delivering a product with no steering wheel. It is not physically possible for the owner to accept responsibility, because he has no control.

A pilot has control. A pet owner has control. A parent has control. Therefore, they have responsibility.

An autonomous car owner has no control. They can't be held responsible.

If the laws don't change, the cars won't sell. The industry will be dead before they begin.

No one would accept legal responsibility or liability for injury or damage from something they have no control or influence.

The word liability by definition is completely different than ownership.

Can't wait for the first time someone puts their dog in one and just reaches through the window from the outside and hits "go".

Fr3AkAzOiD wrote: Can't wait for the first time someone puts their dog in one and just reaches through the window from the outside and hits "go".

I imagine this would have a similar, but greater, effect as driving your pickup truck around from the passenger seat with no one in the driver seat.

SVreX wrote: No one would accept legal responsibility or liability for injury or damage from something they have no control or influence.

What you are saying is that without litigation life would not exist? Seems most of the human race is brought into the world under the conditions you describe!

It is funny how the technical challenge disappeared early on and litigation has become the dominant theme of this thread. I have a funny feeling that in the next 100 years, while NA debates the liability issue of all technical progress, some other country is just going to go ahead and run with it.

In reply to NOHOME:

Well, not exactly.

The original article linked in the first post was not about the technical challenge. It was about the legal/ liability issue.

The "problem" mentioned in the title is the problem of humans being the culpability and error in Google's perfect car world.

Human error IS the technical challenge that has to be overcome, and the reason this is so much harder than it sounds.

NOHOME wrote:

SVreX wrote: No one would accept legal responsibility or liability for injury or damage from something they have no control or influence.

What you are saying is that without litigation life would not exist? Seems most of the human race is brought into the world under the conditions you describe! It is funny how the technical challenge disappeared early on and litigation has become the dominant theme of this thread. I have a funny feeling that in the next 100 years, while NA debates the liability issue of all technical progress, some other country is just going to go ahead and run with it.

And that's the way all new automotive control-related technologies enter the US market. Let it be introduced somewhere else, and we watch and see what happens and allow the technology to mature and liabilities/realities become knowns instead of "what ifs".

SVreX wrote: In reply to NOHOME: Well, not exactly. The original article linked in the first post was not about the technical challenge. It was about the legal/ liability issue. The "problem" mentioned in the title is the problem of humans being the culpability and error in Google's perfect car world. Human error IS the technical challenge that has to be overcome, and the reason this is so much harder than it sounds.

This is true. We have had the technology for decades to make robots follow a predetermined path. In a perfect world, that is all we would need.. but once you input the human element, all that perfect programming goes to E36 M3

The internets says that sheeple are the problem. but everyone believes they are not sheeple....

circular reference..

rcutclif wrote:

Fr3AkAzOiD wrote: Can't wait for the first time someone puts their dog in one and just reaches through the window from the outside and hits "go".

I imagine this would have a similar, but greater, effect as driving your pickup truck around from the passenger seat with no one in the driver seat.

Hey it happens everyday legally! In this part of the country mailmen are paid federal funds to drive their left hand drive vehicles from the right seat 6 days a week. Haven't you ever lived on a rural route.

Ill keep my manual everything Z thank you very much. Self driving cars are an okay idea but i truly hope I dont have to live in a world where they are everywhere.

I can't wait for self-driving cars. Focusing on the positive:

• Get all the people who view cars as appliances and have no interest in driving or paying attention out from behind the wheel.

• Distracted driving, drowsy driving, bad drivers, no longer a problem.

• Don't forget, all you naysayers will eventually get old. When you (or your parents) are no longer physically/mentally capable of driving for yourself, self-drivers will be a godsend and allow for increased mobility and self-reliance.

• Heck, I'll buy one just so I no longer have to pay attention to commutes or long trips. I'll be playing Elite: Dangerous with an Oculus Rift in the car the whole way to the race track.

• Potential to reduce cost of insurance. Fewer wrecks = fewer settlements?

• Potential to reduce cost of goods and travel. Self-driving trucks and taxis, while they will destroy many jobs, will make transporting goods and people less costly.

Follow the $$

It's clear that all the major automakers are headed in this direction. They wouldn't have spent the kind of $$ they are currently spending to develop these fully-automated cars unless they had gotten a "back door" green light from lawmakers.

I can't see any way they will allow automated machines to intermingle with non-automated (read human error devices) cars on the same roadways. Instead what I'd imagine we'll see are HOV-type lanes that are separated with barriers for the automated cars. Once automated cars become the norm, the "regular" lanes will shrink.

This will first start in congested urban areas. Then it will spread. Eventually (maybe in 15-20 years) the automated lanes will be the norm, and the non-automated lanes will start to disappear.....eventually making most roads "Robot Only" After all, it will be safer....for the children.....

I just hope they leave a few places where we are still able to drive ourselves.

i want to see one operate in an ice storm.

Joe Gearin wrote: I can't see any way they will allow automated machines to intermingle with non-automated (read human error devices) cars on the same roadways. Instead what I'd imagine we'll see are HOV-type lanes that are separated with barriers for the automated cars. Once automated cars become the norm, the "regular" lanes will shrink. This will first start in congested urban areas. Then it will spread. Eventually (maybe in 15-20 years) the automated lanes will be the norm, and the non-automated lanes will start to disappear.....eventually making most roads "Robot Only" After all, it will be safer....for the children..... I just hope they leave a few places where we are still able to drive ourselves.

So, who wants to go in with me? Im thinking about investing in companies that will operate senior care centers and Store-N-Locks in close proximity to racetracks...the only people who will still be driving their cars will be seniors, and the only places youll be able to drive em will be tracks...Please have checks ready, the line forms on the left

Rupert wrote:

rcutclif wrote:

Fr3AkAzOiD wrote: Can't wait for the first time someone puts their dog in one and just reaches through the window from the outside and hits "go".

I imagine this would have a similar, but greater, effect as driving your pickup truck around from the passenger seat with no one in the driver seat.

Hey it happens everyday legally! In this part of the country mailmen are paid federal funds to drive their left hand drive vehicles from the right seat 6 days a week. Haven't you ever lived on a rural route.

They can't use those funds to buy RHD cars built/imported just for that purpose? We saw quite a few of them at the Saturn dealership.

Joe Gearin wrote: I can't see any way they will allow automated machines to intermingle with non-automated (read human error devices) cars on the same roadways.

I don't see that happening for a long, long time. Why would Google and others be developing cars that are capable, right now, of intermingling with human-operated vehicles on public roads? I also don't see specialized lanes happening since so many roads aren't highways but are rural and residential streets and simply couldn't support this format. Also, who would pay for those new lanes? Just this morning on the radio they were talking about updating a 2 mile stretch of road nearby at a cost of $60 million dollars.

The only way we're going to see broad public adoption of this technology is if it "just works" seamlessly right out of the box.

In reply to Armitage:

No way.

It will have to begin in limited ways. No "seamless out of the Box".

Like the first horseless carriages did when everyone else was still riding horses, and roads and gas stations did t even exist.

The "limited ways" began years ago in the form of parking assist, automatic following/braking, and stuff like this.

Times have changed a lot since the 1800's. Self driving cars aren't going to be a novelty marketed to the rich, they are going to be an appliance. If they don't work, they aren't going to sell. If they aren't safe, no company will risk damaging their reputation and exposing themselves to lawsuits to go to market with a half-baked product.