Autonomous Cars

[Zynerji]

I see no difference between this action and putting an autonomous car into drive, and watching it do something wrong.

If they can put it in drive then it isn't an autonomous car, is it?

A truly autonomous car would be one where you get in and say "take me to work" and the car does everything. At that point, the car is the driver and the person is a mere passenger. At that point the person in the car can not be guilty of any action carried out by the car.

If people are required to be involved in the driving process, whether that's having a stop button or required to hold a "dead man's handle", then the driver may be culpable, perhaps jointly with car, in any accident. If the accident is the rest of the driver being too drunk to hit the stop button when the car's systems fail, then he should be liable. If there is no button then he should not be liable, liability would rest with some other party, whether that's the manufacturer or someone else is for the courts to decide.

If an accident occurs that can traced to a fault in the vehicle caused by the manufacturer, then the manufacturer should be held liable.

As a general rule, I do not adhere to the belief that human choices have machine delegable responsibilities.

Just getting into the car, and giving a command to commence transportation, puts the responsibility for the machines action on the operator, even if the only operation is giving a command such as "take me to work".

[roon]

Just don't start punishing the cars.

Quite right. No car deserves this...

https://youtu.be/78b67l_yxUc

Haha. Quite.

[strad]

And what of those who fail? Are they to walk?

When I was young those would couldn't drive well weren't comfortable doing so and either walked, took a cab/Uber these days, or found a friend or relative to give them a ride. Of course back then they taught that a license to drive was a privilege you earned and could be taken away and NOT a right. No one has the right to be a bad driver but that has become the case. Along with the idea "I can drive how ever I want and screw you if you don't like it."
I hold myself and everyone on the road with me to a much higher standard than those who hand out licenses to anyone who can chunk down the fee.

[Just_a_fan]

As a general rule, I do not adhere to the belief that human choices have machine delegable responsibilities.

Just getting into the car, and giving a command to commence transportation, puts the responsibility for the machines action on the operator, even if the only operation is giving a command such as "take me to work".

So if you get in a lift (elevator) and press the button to go to a different floor, you're then responsible for anything that occurs thereafter? If someone is injured, you're responsible?

[Just_a_fan]

And what of those who fail? Are they to walk?

When I was young [...]

When I was young the driving test was easier and the pass rate much the same as today. So today's new drivers will have a higher standard than many at the time I started to drive.

The problem is that the system is "one shot". You pass your test and then you get 50+ years of driving without any retraining / checking. The driving environment evolves and drivers must likewise develop their skill to accommodate the changes. But we never make sure that they are doing so.

[Phil]

Where is this obsession coming that humans are no longer deemed to be safe to be driving and thus need to be replaced by software/AVs? Because accident statistics are increasing?

This isn't necessarily because drivers are becoming worse; it's more likely that the rate of accidents are increasing because there are also more cars on the road. That, and possibly because people are confronted with more distractions (mobile phones) while driving.

[Just_a_fan]

I think the autonomous car issue is an urban one, particularly in high density areas where car parking is at a premium and many won't own cars anyway. For those journeys where a car is required, being able to order one that turns up and then takes you somewhere before parking and charging itself is an interesting idea. Think the sci-fi pod rather than car as we know it today. No need to be licenced to drive, just need the ability to pay to fare.

I happen to think that correctly implemented autonomous cars will reduce accidents and thus improve traffic congestion issues. Not so worried about injuries as most accidents are minor (even though the car may be written off, the occupants are usually no more than shaken up), but more interested in the negative effect the accident has on the 5 miles of tailback it causes. Will autonomous cars reduce fatal accidents? It's possible, but I'm not sure that should be the metric by which they are assessed.

I think most opposition to autonomous cars comes from the petrolheads. They enjoy driving, even if it's just down to the local shop for a pint of milk, and dislike the idea of not being able to do it. I can see their point as I enjoy driving too. But there are times when I would welcome the ability to have the car do the driving and I could spend the time doing something else e.g. work. My car is a mobile office at times and driving is a "waste of time" in that regard. I'm guessing that many others would welcome the ability to work e.g. on the commute. It might even allow less time to be spent in the office which would be a good thing for many.

[Zynerji]

As a general rule, I do not adhere to the belief that human choices have machine delegable responsibilities.

Just getting into the car, and giving a command to commence transportation, puts the responsibility for the machines action on the operator, even if the only operation is giving a command such as "take me to work".

So if you get in a lift (elevator) and press the button to go to a different floor, you're then responsible for anything that occurs thereafter? If someone is injured, you're responsible?

In that instance, you chose to raise your risk% by being too lazy to take the stairs, and those choices do sometimes have negative consequences.

Those that got on the elevator with you took the same risk, and the responsibility of trusting the machine to not fail reverts to them.

[Just_a_fan]

In that instance, you chose to raise your risk% by being too lazy to take the stairs, and those choices do sometimes have negative consequences.

Those that got on the elevator with you took the same risk, and the responsibility of trusting the machine to not fail reverts to them.

Nice side step but doesn't answer the question - if you press the button and are therefore, in your previously suggested thoughts, the operator, should you take the fall for any incidents that occur whilst you are the lift's "operator"?
What about the lift's owner? Or the lift's manufacturer?

[Zynerji]

In that instance, you chose to raise your risk% by being too lazy to take the stairs, and those choices do sometimes have negative consequences.

Those that got on the elevator with you took the same risk, and the responsibility of trusting the machine to not fail reverts to them.

Nice side step but doesn't answer the question - if you press the button and are therefore, in your previously suggested thoughts, the operator, should you take the fall for any incidents that occur whilst you are the lift's "operator"?
What about the lift's owner? Or the lift's manufacturer?

Why shouldn't the individual take responsibility for their actions?

Manufacturer defects are obviously on them.

[Greg Locock]

In the case of L4 and L5 AVs the OEMs have publicly stated that they are responsible and will be liable when the cars are self driving. Maybe they are telling lies. But that is what they've said. It is also why there are no L4s or L5s in the showroom.
Volvo
http://fortune.com/2015/10/07/volvo-lia ... ving-cars/
You can google the rest.

Also, they have stated that current case law and legislation is sufficient.

[Zynerji]

In the case of L4 and L5 AVs the OEMs have publicly stated that they are responsible and will be liable when the cars are self driving. Maybe they are telling lies. But that is what they've said. It is also why there are no L4s or L5s in the showroom.
Volvo
http://fortune.com/2015/10/07/volvo-lia ... ving-cars/
You can google the rest.

Also, they have stated that current case law and legislation is sufficient.

We will see when its on the market.

Just getting 3-4 lawsuits a year could wipe out enough profit to sink a manufacturer if they take 100% responsibility for the operation of a machine that they no longer own, and have no compulsion to force dealership maintenance/calibration on any type of schedule.

I will personally base my stock purchases of auto manufacturers purely from their stance on this topic. I'm currently in on FORD with about 30k shares (bought jan2009) and was looking to add others, but my fear is this type of marketing angle will cost the shareholders when the inevitable lawsuits make their way though court.

[Just_a_fan]

We will see when its on the market.

Just getting 3-4 lawsuits a year could wipe out enough profit to sink a manufacturer if they take 100% responsibility for the operation of a machine that they no longer own, and have no compulsion to force dealership maintenance/calibration on any type of schedule.

Doubtless the acceptance of liability will come with a long list of "you must service it this way" type requirements. Usual get-out clauses for any bit of kit, to be honest.

I could see the vehicles having self-check systems that just refuse to start the vehicle if it's not maintained correctly, and which fail safe to park at the side of the road if an error occurs.

I will personally base my stock purchases of auto manufacturers purely from their stance on this topic.

That is your right, of course. Others will do likewise but in the other direction. It'll balance out.

[Phil]

I think the autonomous car issue is an urban one, particularly in high density areas where car parking is at a premium and many won't own cars anyway. For those journeys where a car is required, being able to order one that turns up and then takes you somewhere before parking and charging itself is an interesting idea. Think the sci-fi pod rather than car as we know it today. No need to be licenced to drive, just need the ability to pay to fare.

How is this supposed to work in a 'high density area'? Or in other words; what kind of benefits does an autonomous vehicle bring over a cab? Public transportation? An Uber? Also, there are already countless of car sharing models around - and they are for people who don't frequently use cars, because car ownership (regardless if autonomous or not) is expensive.

I get the idea that for long commutes (e.g. Australia) with more or less non-existent public transportation means there's a certain benefit in having a vehicle that does the driving in an autonomous manner. But everywhere else in the world where traffic density is increasing, car ownership and usage is getting more expensive, congestion growing and less parking availability... how is this the proposed silver bullet?

Think about it; If in a glorified future of AV vehicles, you get transported to the city, you get out... your car drives off to some (most likely inexistent) parking spot to charge... how long does it need to drive to get there? Will this driving clog up other AVs getting to their parking spot? And assuming it ever gets there, how likely will there be a spot around for it to park? And when, you're finally done with your 30 minutes worth of shopping... how long will it get for it to get back to you? Imagine this, in a city with millions of people, all wanting to have the same AV benefits. How is this even supposed to work?

IMO you're better in investing in teleportation technology than making an argument in favor of autonomous vehicles as the future of human travel.

[Big Tea]

I think the autonomous car issue is an urban one, particularly in high density areas where car parking is at a premium and many won't own cars anyway. For those journeys where a car is required, being able to order one that turns up and then takes you somewhere before parking and charging itself is an interesting idea. Think the sci-fi pod rather than car as we know it today. No need to be licenced to drive, just need the ability to pay to fare.

How is this supposed to work in a 'high density area'? Or in other words; what kind of benefits does an autonomous vehicle bring over a cab? Public transportation? An Uber? Also, there are already countless of car sharing models around - and they are for people who don't frequently use cars, because car ownership (regardless if autonomous or not) is expensive.

I get the idea that for long commutes (e.g. Australia) with more or less non-existent public transportation means there's a certain benefit in having a vehicle that does the driving in an autonomous manner. But everywhere else in the world where traffic density is increasing, car ownership and usage is getting more expensive, congestion growing and less parking availability... how is this the proposed silver bullet?

Think about it; If in a glorified future of AV vehicles, you get transported to the city, you get out... your car drives off to some (most likely inexistent) parking spot to charge... how long does it need to drive to get there? Will this driving clog up other AVs getting to their parking spot? And assuming it ever gets there, how likely will there be a spot around for it to park? And when, you're finally done with your 30 minutes worth of shopping... how long will it get for it to get back to you? Imagine this, in a city with millions of people, all wanting to have the same AV benefits. How is this even supposed to work?

IMO you're better in investing in teleportation technology than making an argument in favor of autonomous vehicles as the future of human travel.

TBH even though it is seen as sci-fi I think there could well be a place for 'moving walkways' in many urban areas. Even if just linking bus and rail stations with the area people want to go for employment entertainment or shopping.
It would take comparatively little space, about the same as a cycle lane.

They obviously can not go door to door, but as every one knows some 'tracks' in and out are far more used than others.