Evolution of the automobile (emerging technologies)

Yeah, I agree with Alfa.

The insurance company will take the liability. They are in the risk management business, and the simple rules of engagement developed by the car companies will make managing their actuarial tables pretty easy.

The ethical dilema is only a concern in advance of the incident, in theoretical anticipation of the event. When it happens, there is no added liability. It actually simplifies the risk management procedure. The risk is not an ethical dilema, it is a simple statistical formula.

It's like discussing whether war is right or wrong. It is a valid discussion, but once the soldier is dead there is no ethical dilema. Bury him, mourn, and decide whether the rules work or should be adjusted in the future. There is no additional liability because the soldier died in combat.

The only hit manufacturers will take will be covered by THEIR insurance companies.

It is not a liability when the product performs as planned (even if that plan includes intentionally running over an individual on track #2) . It is a liability when the system breaks down and FAILS to perform as planned.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to GameboyRMH: If that's the case, I doubt shareholders will approve them.....

Nobody told that to Mercedes, or Volvo, or Google:

http://jalopnik.com/mercedes-google-volvo-to-accept-liability-when-their-1735170893

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/10/09/volvo-accept-autonomous-car-liability/

BTW, insurance companies do not provide coverage IF there is an incident.

They provide coverage WHEN there is an incident. They already know it is going to happen.

So, you could say their business model (and profit margin) is based on a certain number of deaths, maimings, injuries, etc every year.

Yup.

GameboyRMH wrote:

alfadriver wrote: In reply to GameboyRMH: If that's the case, I doubt shareholders will approve them.....

Nobody told that to Mercedes, or Volvo, or Google: http://jalopnik.com/mercedes-google-volvo-to-accept-liability-when-their-1735170893 http://www.autoblog.com/2015/10/09/volvo-accept-autonomous-car-liability/

File not found.

I'd still bet that the liability will be born not by them but by their insurance companies.

When they say, "We will accept liability", it can easily mean, "We will pay a company to cover any potential injuries an loss".

It's better PR when you say it the first way.

GameboyRMH wrote:

alfadriver wrote: In reply to GameboyRMH: If that's the case, I doubt shareholders will approve them.....

Nobody told that to Mercedes, or Volvo, or Google: http://jalopnik.com/mercedes-google-volvo-to-accept-liability-when-their-1735170893 http://www.autoblog.com/2015/10/09/volvo-accept-autonomous-car-liability/

That's great for now. But as of yet, you can't buy one publicly, so any accident by an autonomous car is naturally taken up by the company. Just as if I got into an accident with any of my development cars.

The reality is that laws have not caught up with the cars, and every government (on many levels) is trying to figure this out. Which is another reason why this is going to take a while.

Even so, there are a lot of layers to this beyond liability in an accident.

mazdeuce wrote: ... What I really want is a "follow that guy" button which would attach me to someone in front of me for five minutes so I could relax for a couple of minutes on stupidly long road trips.

I wrote a group paper in college in the mid 1990s about various transportation technologies on the horizon, and I recall lots of discussion of that function being a likely solution to the cost of public transportation, traffic jams, need to increase fuel mileage and to reduce accidents - having a group of cars heading to the same area communicating with each other, traveling inches apart, thereby significantly increasing fuel mileage, and then disengaging from the "train" as they neared their destination. I think that would be great technology for commuting - a group of cars all move together when the light changes, instead of the staggered start (and subsequent brake checking that happens). It recognized that we in America need our autonomy with cars and won't fully adopt public transit, but we can get some of the benefit of public transit with that kind of technology.

SVreX wrote: File not found. I'd still bet that the liability will be born not by them but by their insurance companies. When they say, "We will accept liability", it can easily mean, "We will pay a company to cover any potential injuries an loss". It's better PR when you say it the first way.

Both of those links still work for me...

They might indeed be outsourcing it to an insurance company in the background...but insurance is a lucrative business, wouldn't it make sense for these companies to start their own insurance divisions?

I'm with TJ. Give me fully autonomous or nothing. I drove from WI to NY in a new Suburban with all that crap, by Illinois I was looking for the buttons to turn it all off. The adaptive cruise was great in really heavy traffic, but in very light traffic it was always a nuisance. I think the majority of the annoyance could be simply programmed out of it, however. I want an automated car I can nap in, or one I am in control of completely. I hate in between.

In reply to Joe Gearin:

I'm right there with you. I like driving, even my ~hour long daily commute, even on long ass, boring as hell highway trips. Everyone else can do whatever the hell they want, I'll keep driving my non-autonomous cars till I die.

While idealistically I'd much rather see us, as a society, embrace proper driver's education and learn to pay attention and not be idiots behind the wheel, the reality is the ship's sailed on that one. Not gonna happen, especially when everyone is walking around more engaged in their Facebook news feed than what's actually happening around them. Autonomous cars are an inevitability and for the vast majority of the population will be a good thing.

What scares me though is what that does to those of us who will choose to "self drive" when autonomous becomes the norm. Will there still be "full manual" cars available? Will I be able to register one? Can I drive it on the highway, among the packs of slip-streaming, autonomous cars, whether as a legislative matter or a practical matter? What will this do for my insurance rates? Perhaps the insurance companies will simply price me out of driving myself, since humans will be a statistically much higher risk. These are the questions that have me worried.

GameboyRMH wrote:

SVreX wrote: File not found. I'd still bet that the liability will be born not by them but by their insurance companies. When they say, "We will accept liability", it can easily mean, "We will pay a company to cover any potential injuries an loss". It's better PR when you say it the first way.

Both of those links still work for me... They might indeed be outsourcing it to an insurance company in the background...but insurance is a lucrative business, wouldn't it make sense for these companies to start their own insurance divisions?

No, it wouldn't. All the big insurance companies, for the most part, don't cover the cost of claims with premiums. They use to the premiums to invest and some of the profits of the invested premiums (along with the premiums) cover the claims.

klb67 wrote:

mazdeuce wrote: ... What I really want is a "follow that guy" button which would attach me to someone in front of me for five minutes so I could relax for a couple of minutes on stupidly long road trips.

I wrote a group paper in college in the mid 1990s about various transportation technologies on the horizon, and I recall lots of discussion of that function being a likely solution to the cost of public transportation, traffic jams, need to increase fuel mileage and to reduce accidents - having a group of cars heading to the same area communicating with each other, traveling inches apart, thereby significantly increasing fuel mileage, and then disengaging from the "train" as they neared their destination. I think that would be great technology for commuting - a group of cars all move together when the light changes, instead of the staggered start (and subsequent brake checking that happens). It recognized that we in America need our autonomy with cars and won't fully adopt public transit, but we can get some of the benefit of public transit with that kind of technology.

I don't think it's that America won't adopt public transportation, it's that many of the cities in this country really started growth booms after the invention of the automobile.

And so they don't have the population density to make it work.

I'd love to take public transit to safe money and wear/tear on my vehicle. But it's not practical. Right now it's not even an option in the suburb I live in.

And when I lived in downtown Tulsa last year and worked in one of the suburbs, it didn't make sense because of the limited routes.

I could drive to work in 15 minutes. To take public transit, meant a short walk to the bus station downtown, 50 minutes on buses with stops and a change, then the closest bus stop was a 1.5 mile to work on a 2 lane highway with no sidewalk, no shoulder and a 55mph speed limit.

So an 1+ hour commute each way with a very dangerous walking situation. Or a 15 minute drive from my garage to my parking lot.

GameboyRMH wrote:

SVreX wrote: File not found. I'd still bet that the liability will be born not by them but by their insurance companies. When they say, "We will accept liability", it can easily mean, "We will pay a company to cover any potential injuries an loss". It's better PR when you say it the first way.

Both of those links still work for me... They might indeed be outsourcing it to an insurance company in the background...but insurance is a lucrative business, wouldn't it make sense for these companies to start their own insurance divisions?

They haven't done it so far.

Even if they did, they would set it up as a different corporation (which would therefore make it a different company).

Manufacturing is one set of risks, resources, and skillsets. Insurance is another.

It wouldn't make any sense at all to comingle those two industries.

Furious_E wrote: In reply to Joe Gearin: What scares me though is what that does to those of us who will choose to "self drive" when autonomous becomes the norm. Will there still be "full manual" cars available? Will I be able to register one? Can I drive it on the highway, among the packs of slip-streaming, autonomous cars, whether as a legislative matter or a practical matter? What will this do for my insurance rates? Perhaps the insurance companies will simply price me out of driving myself, since humans will be a statistically much higher risk. These are the questions that have me worried.

It's a good question, but IMHO, it would be impossible to ban manual cars. Cars have progressed immensely- both for safety and impact on the environment. Yet no car that was legal on the road at one time has been banned. You can still drive a Model T to work if you want to.

But that's just how I see it.

I'm super excited for fully automated cars. But even in the meantime, more of these safety systems on more cars on the road still increases my safety in whatever car I'm driving, motorcycle or bicycle I am riding.

I'd be happy if the only transistorized circuits in the modern automobile were the radio and the electronic ignition. There's way too much "technology" in cars today, and it really just gets in the way of driving. Car ads used to highlight engines and performance, now they rave about their dysfunctional infotainment systems and how the driver can rocket down crowded streets at insane speeds in poor weather and their car can make decisions for them because they're distracted or just plain ignorant. Clearly, we are headed in the wrong direction.

Whatever gets the most berktards out of my way so I can go about the business of speeding. Also, if this keeps morons from pulling out in front of me when I have right of way, that'd be great. I think the ideal system for autonomous transport would be that everyone is driven by their car, the cops handle violent crime and theft, and I can just try and set a new fast laptime everywhere I go, while only worrying about animal strikes and oblivious pedestrians

Many of the two lane roads around here have built in lane warning.

Put a wheel/tire on the lane marking and you get a vibration. Hard to ignore.

Match that with a lane sensor beeping could get old very fast.

No more cutting corners.

Apexcarver wrote: Lane departure warning: Car has camera that sees the lines, gives tone when you drive over one and will even gently pull itself back into the lane.

I want to see how this works in construction zones where they have put down new tape lines to shift traffic but have never completely obliterated the old lines. If I can still see the old lines does the camera see them too?

What happens when there are no lines at all? Yesterday I drove 15 miles on a 2-lane road that was being repaved. No lines at all, just a little piece of tape every 50 feet or so in the middle.

Apexcarver wrote: Adaptive Cruise control: I live near DC, and I think its AWESOME. I kinda want a car with it. Only issue, you can set the follow distance, but even the closest distance has people cutting you off in aggressive DC traffic.

Yep, In DC traffic a turn signal to change lanes does not mean "Please let me in " it means "Warning, I'm coming over. Get out of the way".

I spent 4 hours in that mess yesterday and I was very uncomfortable following close enough to avoid being cut off. What does the ACC do when someone "dive bombs" you? Slam on the brakes and get you rear ended?