How Do You Give a Ticket To a Driverless Car?

FatLittleMonkey writes "New Scientist asks Bryant Walker Smith, from the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School, whether the law is able to keep up with recent advances in automated vehicles. Even states which have allowed self-driving cars require the vehicles to have a 'driver,' who is nominally in control and who must comply with the same restrictions as any driver such as not being drunk. What's the point of having a robot car if it can't drive you home from the pub while you go to sleep in the back?"

Comments

Better yet

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to car see car fight the ticket in court!

Extra safety

[Anonymous Coward]

The human component is just there in case something unexpected happen on the road that self-driving cars may not be able to react to in time. While such disaster scenario may be rare, the possibility isn't 0%, which is why you need someone who is able to drive.

Re:Extra safety

[firex726]

But realistically wont a robot be far better at staying safe then a human would be?

Human gets distracted and runs a light causing an accident. With a robot you wont need to worry about is being distracted, or misjudging a distance, etc...

Re:Extra safety

[TFAFalcon]

But humans are also not exactly perfect at reacting to the unexpected. So why dismiss an automatic car that is not perfect, but may still be better than many human drivers?

Re:Extra safety

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever played with sensors before? They aren't perfect and can give incorrect readings (depending on type they may not even be very accurate under the best of conditions.) Which means software must be written to take those conditions into account, and usually coordinate among different types of sensors. But that software is written by people, and may have bugs in it (in fact certainly will) plus may simply not cover all the real world situations perfectly.

In some cases where people would have a tough time driving, the cars may do awesomely, but in cases where people would have little trouble the cars may behave strangely as sensors give odd readings, etc.

My phone has an incredible processor in it and can handle millions of calculations per second, but it still locks up sometimes, occasionally responding seconds later to all the stored input. Isn't that pretty close to being distracted?

Don't get me wrong, I want a self driving car so badly it hurts sometimes, but I don't expect it to be perfect. And if that's what people expect they are in for a world of disappointment and pain. And my fear is that will mean people panic at the first accident and push back against allowing them at all.

Re:Extra safety

[wisnoskij]

You must never have played a game with AI.

Here is a hint, we are actually very bad are creating smart machines. A 9 YO would be a more intelligent driver any most super computers.

Re:Extra safety

[Yosho]

You must never have played a game with AI.

I've both played and worked on enough games to know that creating an AI that follows a set of rules perfectly is easy. You have to go out of your way to make an AI that can fool players into thinking it's stupid.

And besides that, how many game AIs have had thousands of people spend several years working competitively on developing them?

Re:Extra safety

[Wrath0fb0b]

The human component is just there in case something unexpected happen on the road that self-driving cars may not be able to react to in time. While such disaster scenario may be rare, the possibility isn't 0%, which is why you need someone who is able to drive.

It's also possible that relieving the driver of the drudgery of driving during the vast majority of uneventful rides will actually deprive him of the instinctual familiarity that would allow him to react correctly in those marginal cases. That is, the purpose of keeping a human being in the loop just for disaster scenarios might be self-defeating if the driver does not possess the experience to best resolve the situation.

Re:Extra safety

[firex726]

Have you ever used your eyes? They aren't perfect and can give incorrect readings (like if you're in any way distracted, out of focus, or a million other things)

Re:Extra safety

[Concerned Onlooker]

If by "gets distracted" you mean "is an entitled narcissist" then I agree. Robots will take the deadliest thing out of the driving equation, ego.

Re:Extra safety

[uncqual]

Lawyers?

When a person does something a little stupid or shows a bit of poor judgement that results in a collision, a jury can relate a little to that (they are, after all, human and realize that the glare of on coming headlights may have caused you to not see the stop sign) and they are likely to be a little more forgiving.

When a machine does something a "little stupid", it's likely to be something non-techi human on a jury can't relate to as well ("What do you mean the computer couldn't tell a difference between a shrub and a kid dressed in a shrub costume on Halloween - the kid was carrying a plastic pumpkin, that was a a dead giveaway it was a kid, not a shrub, and that it had the right of way and might step out into the crosswalk."). Also, the deep pockets is "the Google" so it's "free money" the jury is giving away.

Re:Extra safety

[KingMotley]

Perhaps, but a 9 YO that is paying attention is probably a better driver than most people out there.

Re:Extra safety

[KingMotley]

On the other hand, with humans, each human learns how to correctly deal with situations. With computer drivers, they ALL learn from one mistake.

Re:Extra safety

[Anonymous Coward]

You must never have played a game with good ai. Most games only give a fraction of the processor budget to the ai because ai doesn't sell. If you spend too much time making the computer intelligent, it can even massively decrease the enjoyment cause then you can't do anything against it.

Re:Extra safety

[r1348]

Humans are still better at detecting sensor glitches.

Re:Extra safety

[icebike]

You must never have played a game with AI.

Here is a hint, we are actually very bad are creating smart machines. A 9 YO would be a more intelligent driver any most super computers.

In relation to the present discussion, I'd have to say that Google's driver-less cars pretty much put the lie to that statement.
In August 2012, Google announced that they have completed over 300,000 autonomous-driving miles accident-free, typically have about a dozen cars on the road at any given time. Not explicitly stated in their announcement was how often the driver had to take command.

Further, the summary above may be wrong, because the Nevada law also acknowledges that the operator will not need to pay attention while the car is operating itself, which implies the State has no reasonable expectation of holding the driver responsible for accidents.

Re:Extra safety

[icebike]

Wait, even your contrived case make no sense.

Google cars know there is a stop sign there because Google's driverless test cars have about $150,000 in equipment including a $70,000 lidar (laser radar) system, plus a Velodyne 64-beam laser range finder mounted on the top. They also have on board detailed maps. (Probably a lot more detailed than Google Maps).

Second, if a shrub is in the middle of the road, the car would avoid it. If the Shrub moved, the car would immediately stop.

Your point is probably correct, someone is going to get sued eventually. But it probably won't be for such a trivial reason. And there is plenty of legal precedent for acquittal for hitting people (all too often children) who dart out between parked vehicles when humans are driving. The car will probably have video recordings of the accident for Google's lawyers and engineers to fall back on.

So I doubt it will be a field day for the lawyers when/if this technology is released to the general public. By the time this technology is sold to the public the vast majority routine driving and a great teal of the corner cases will be handled.

I suspect the Ambulance chasing Lawyers will have an even tougher time suing when an automated car is involved because they can't claim inattentive driving, impairment, speeding, following too close, of failure to follow the law, or malice. The car is likely to make fewer errors, and certainly fewer dumb (or inattentive) errors, and virtually zero dereliction of duty errors.

Re:Extra safety

[icebike]

That is, the purpose of keeping a human being in the loop just for disaster scenarios might be self-defeating if the driver does not possess the experience to best resolve the situation.

Even the current law in Nevada acknowledges that the operator will not need to pay attention while the car is operating itself. So it seems clear to me that Google has convinced the regulators that having a human in the loop is NOT necessary, and perhaps as you suggest, self defeating.

My wife, even from the back seat, would be overriding the computer on a minute by minute basis.

Re:Extra safety

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but those situations are highly predictable. People shouldn't be driving when they're stressed out or unable to focus. Doing so is incredibly irresponsible and dangerous.

Sensors OTOH are completely reliable, except when they aren't due to sudden random failure. Which may or may not be predictable beforehand.

Re:Extra safety

[kaws]

There's a difference between programing an AI for a computer game and one for interpreting real world data. With in game, you're not dealing with sensors which can be very difficult in converting to useful info.

Re:Extra safety

[Anonymous Coward]

Phones are not realtime operating systems. Embedded vehicle components are, and are based on operating systems designed from the ground up to ensure that when a process is going to get its quantum of time, it gets it. No app in the background hogging CPU, no blocked I/O from a long write to flash, no fooling around like on a general purpose OS.

Of course, automotive/marine critical stuff is expensive, but you get what you are paying for. This isn't just another x86 processor that is running Windows and autostarting a "run engine" app.

A self-driving car will have the circuitry most likely on a dedicated processor using CANbus.

Re:Extra safety

[uncqual]

Yes, it is contrived! However, the first and second cases were not meant to be the same case which I can see created some confusion.

I was thinking of a case where there is an intersection without traffic control. Shrub kid is standing on the corner waiting to cross the street but GoogleCar thinks it's a (perhaps recently planted so not in the database) stationary shrub (perhaps a jade plant with a lot of water in it). The kid, being a pedestrian at an intersection, has the right of way and takes it -- but it's too late by the time the kid moves for the car to come to a complete stop so the kid is hit, knocked to the ground and has permanent brain damage. The kid is, reasonably, used to human drivers who slow down when they see kids standing on a street corner waiting to cross.

A human who knows about Halloween and that shrubs were popular this year due to some animated movie that just came out should/would have recognized it was a probably a kid, not a newly planted shrub or two and slowed down in anticipation of the kid (shrub) stepping out. During the trial, the jury will see the video and say "I would have slowed and stopped yielding to the kid's right of way" (and, they are probably right about that).

Generally, I expect that the driver-less cars will make many fewer errors due to inattentive driving, speeding et al, but I'm skeptical that on public roads with idiot drivers and corner cases that there won't be some fairly spectacular screw-ups that juries will be very unsympathetic about.

I will be very interested to watch the eventual roll-out, if any, of driver-less cars for the general public on existing roads. Dealing with heavy inner city traffic during rush hour -- esp. where most of the cars are taxis will be interesting. In such environments, it's almost impossible to move at a reasonable clip if you only make "safe" lane changes -- you have to bully your way through a bit and sometimes count on other drivers not hitting you. GoogleCar however needs to "follow the rules" (exposing the lines of code that "bullied" the car through traffic would be a liability disaster, so such lines of code can't exist). I envision a GoogleCar "frozen in fear" until the human takes over.

Re:Extra safety

[anubi]

I remember a control systems class at university.

We had a table we could move by motor, x and y. The motors were connected to a analog computer ( yes, that old. An EAI 580 IIRC ). Even that primitive computer could balance a broom on the table, moving it anywhere we told it to go, keeping the broom upright ( or we could move it by nudging a bit on the broom, kinda like how you operate a Segway). For all practical purposes, this was the predecessor to the Segway.

Not a one of us in the class could balance that thing as well as the computer ( when properly programmed ) could.

Now, where I think the computer is going to have a helluva problem is in dealing with people, who do the damndest things, like suddenly opening car doors or stepping out into traffic before even looking. Think kid on skateboard. Human intuition leads us to suspect human carelessness whenever we see certain behaviours, especially kids playing nearby or a freshly stopped or entered car. If the computer suspected everything as behaving as erratically as a human behaves, it would have to drive extremely slowly to make up for its lack of insight of which car door is likely to spontaneously open right into onflowing traffic. Even fully alert humans often find this situation unsolvable, with a collision the inevitable result.

One thing the computer has going for it is much faster response times. It would probably be able to bring the car to a complete stop much faster than a human could, leaving the human driving the car behind the robot car with quite a predicament on his hands. Tailgater Beware! We will probably shortly see lots of snub-nosed BMW's.

Now, if all the cars were under computer control, aka " the left hand knows what the right hand is doing", this looks quite do-able. Having to deal with humans, and our completely illogical algorithms, should be enough to drive anyone trying to design a computer algorithm to accommodate it completely buggy.

Re:Extra safety

[sjames]

It doesn't take intelligence to drive, it takes coordination and decentish reflexes. A dragonfly could do it if it could reach the pedals.

.

Re:Extra safety

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends how much work is done with the AI, how many states are available to it, and how much CPU it can get so it can figure out what to do more precisely.

I've seen an older RTS where the AI was OK, but beatable because one could learn its habits, be it either rushing immediately or sitting back and building up the technology hierarchy. Some people rewrote the AI with more states and stuff it can do, and it became extremely difficult to beat, mainly because one didn't know what tactic it would start off with. Would it just build el-cheapo tanks and completely overrun things, or will it build the tanks, sit on them, send them in and right before they hit, upgrade them to as high as they will go.

Re:Extra safety

[KillDaBOB]

You're assuming that the car will only recognize humans when determining whether to stop or slow down. What about animals that run out in front of the car, such as a deer? Would the car not stop or slow down because it's not human? I should hope they build in enough intelligence into the car to be able to stop or slow down for *anything* that suddenly appears in the vehicle's path, just humans. That includes such a thing as a moving "shrub."

Re:Extra safety

[KillDaBOB]

Oops, typo. it should read: "*anything* that suddenly appears in the vehicle's path, not just humans."
They put preview on postings for a reason, I guess I should take advantage of that...

Re:Extra safety

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a hint, we are actually very bad are creating smart machines.

What about all the fuzzy neuro-genetic expert system networks with a hot back-propagation algorithms and advanced heuristics that have taken human form and are controlling the world governments by means of economic manipulation and suppression of free-energy theories? Damn you MIT!

Re:Extra safety

[Anonymous Coward]

In general, yes. But there's always a possibility that you may encounter some situation where the computer's programming doesn't handle correctly. There's also a possibility of an instrument failure that would cause the car's automatic driving to become inoperable and the human might have to take over suddenly, in traffic with no warning.

Re:Extra safety

[Anonymous Coward]

My phone has an incredible processor in it and can handle millions of calculations per second, but it still locks up sometimes, occasionally responding seconds later to all the stored input. Isn't that pretty close to being distracted?

No. The processor does not "lock up". The software does. We know how to write software that will not do that. In the market for toys (cell phones, DVD players, PC applications), time to market is more important than correctness. When writing software for serious applications (airplane control, the embedded systems in medical devices, mainframe OSes) people take the time to do things correctly. Reliability is not perfect, but it is several orders of magnitude better than your cell phone. A human driver has a mean time to failure (a crash) of less than a decade. Software written by competent people should have no trouble beating that by an order of magnitude.

Re:Extra safety

[uncqual]

Obviously they will stop as quickly as possible (while remaining control) or, if needed and feasible, swerve to avoid a collision.

Sometimes, however, there's no option. Hit the dog (or is it a small child) that darted out or plow into the parked vehicles (or is that a parked vehicle with someone standing by the driver's door talking on their cell phone?) to avoid it? I'm trusting the human on that one (both in the identification and in determining the "cost" of each decision) more than software. I'm pretty convinced that most drivers and pedestrians make certain assumptions about each other that will be challenging to capture in driver-less cars. Even when humans are about to have an accident, they make instinctive decisions that reflect human morals.

For example, I regularly drive by intersections with no traffic control devices with humans standing on the corner. Sometimes they are obviously engaged in conversation and I notice that they have not asserted their right of way in the past several seconds. Other times, they are looking at me and I sense that they want to cross. In both cases, the pedestrian has the right of way but I act differently as a driver. If I didn't stop in the second case, I should get a ticket. If I stopped every time I encountered the first case, I'd not get where I was going very quickly. In both cases, the pedestrian was completely stationary.

It will be interesting to watch - I hope driver-less cars get good enough to use safely and efficiently in a mix of pedestrians, skate boarders, bicycles, driver-less cars, human driven cars, motorcycles, garbage trucks, emergency response vehicles, and construction activities.

Re:Extra safety

[fisted]

...and that is where redundancy usually comes in.

Re:Extra safety

[TooMuchToDo]

This is my favorite Youtube video showing the driverless Google car in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w-Fd2JbgGA

Human drivers will be obsolete in 5-10 years, tops.

Re:Extra safety

[TooMuchToDo]

No, they're not. It's software's job to determine sensor inconsistencies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

The aircraft crashed following an aerodynamic stall caused by inconsistent airspeed sensor readings, the disengagement of the autopilot, and the pilot making nose-up inputs despite stall warnings, causing a fatal loss of airspeed and a sharp descent. The pilots had not received specific training in "manual airplane handling of approach to stall and stall recovery at high altitude"; this was not a standard training requirement at the time of the accident.[8][1][9]

The reason for the faulty readings is unknown, but it is assumed by the accident investigators to have been caused by the formation of ice inside the pitot tubes, depriving the airspeed sensors of forward-facing air pressure.[10][11][12] Pitot tube blockage has contributed to airliner crashes in the past – such as Northwest Airlines Flight 6231 in 1974 and Birgenair Flight 301 in 1996.[13]

Re:Extra safety

[Anonymous Coward]

So you think that by adding human decisions to the equation, you're going to decrease the chances of a disaster? Why would you think a silly thing like that?

Re:Extra safety

[Anonymous Coward]

Robots will take the deadliest thing out of the driving equation, ego.

Ironic. I will never trust a robot driver precisely because it has nothing to lose. Particularly ego.

Re:Extra safety

[Stewie241]

One might suppose that the car would include infrared/thermal imaging and would be able to use that to identify animals vs plants. The signatures between the two would probably be different. Also, as outlined in http://iris.usc.edu/outlines/papers/2007/zhang-nev-wu-otcbvs07.pdf an autonomous car would also have the advantage of more information that a normal person would have. You could have a variety of imaging methods that could be juxtaposed to present a picture of the situation that would be unavailable to the human eye. It would be easier to detect the pedestrian walking down the side of the road in dark clothes at night because you would have a thermal signature. You can also track more objects at once if you do the software once. So you don't forget to look at the kid ahead on the right because a cyclist passed by on the left.

I get your point - humans have more sympathy for humans than for machines, and I honestly don't know what the answer is to that. On the other hand, if the overall number of traffic fatalities, injuries and collisions is reduced by a significant enough margin (and I suspect, based on that I've heard of the results of Google's tests, that they would) then I think society as a whole would recognize that although there are exceptions we are still far better off than before. Fortunately, we have the stats to be able to measure this.

I could see phasing the responsible human requirement out as time progresses. Maybe as we begin to implement such a system we require a human to be engaged and ready to take over at all times. As time progresses we can examine the collected data such as fatalities, injuries, collisions, amount of human intervention required and examine the causes of accidents and perhaps relax the rules if the technology really proves itself.

Re:Extra safety

[amicusNYCL]

If the computer suspected everything as behaving as erratically as a human behaves, it would have to drive extremely slowly to make up for its lack of insight of which car door is likely to spontaneously open right into onflowing traffic. Even fully alert humans often find this situation unsolvable, with a collision the inevitable result.

You say "even fully alert humans" like someone alert is the absolute top of the ladder. A computer would smoke them. Even an alert person would have a response time of at least a second, possibly a little bit less, with time needed to assess the situation, decide on an action, make the physical movements, and then the vehicle response. The response time for the computer, replacing everything the person does except the mechanics actually responding, can be measured in milliseconds. At various speeds the difference of a second can mean tens or hundreds of feet of distance traveled. The computer would have the added bonus of also determining if it should turn at the same speed and accuracy that it determines to apply to the brakes. A few years ago my mom mentioned how a car in front of her stopped short, and her response was to just slam on the brakes and shut her eyes. A computer wouldn't panic either, it would apply the same logic and reasoning between the time it senses the input and when the situation is over. Whenever you see videos of computers reacting to high-speed stimuli, I always notice how the computer seems to react at the same speed at the event happens. The computer driving the car would start turning or braking as soon as the car door in front of you starts opening, it wouldn't wait for it to be completely open, notice it, and then react.

That kind of thing doesn't really matter if you're moving at 60mph and someone runs out only 10 feet in front of you, but if you're a couple seconds from a collision then the response time of the computer is a major benefit.

Re:Extra safety

[flayzernax]

Amen and having both redudency in the computer, human, sensor, and all other parts is a good thing (TM). Having a computer + human is better then having just a human, unless the human relies to heavily on the computer and looses any capacity to be a backup (the case when it comes to me googling bugs for software).

However properly trained humans and programmed cars might work. But I can already see humans fighting programmed cars for control and causing all kinds of modes of failure, as 99.9% of all humans have their own driving code, which is nothing like what we should all be educated, and no were near the best.

Ive met maybe 2 other people in my 31 year life that I think have a remotely good driving subroutine.

Re:Extra safety

[Anonymous Coward]

Throw in a totally pissed off, aggressive driver, especially one driving a manual transmission car. How will the automated car respond to that driver down-shifting instead of braking? How will it handle sensing a car sitting just off its rear quarter panel, matching speeds with it? In the google car's defense, at least it won' t react like a pissed off yet freaked out driver, and just consider its options. What if the Google car can recognize however that can recognize car differences between itself and that asshole tailgating it, and realizes it has a braking ability advantage as well as maneuverability and power advantages? Hmm... Methinks Google's engineers sort of program in some self-preservation characteristics a human would call humility at best, or submission at worst.

Here's a bad scenario... GoogleCar is a... Volvo R5 V90 wagon. Road is wet. Flags the car behind it with "dickhead" flag, but realizes it's a out-of-spec (read: jacked up, hooned-out) Dodge Ram truck. As the volvo driver, the probably 99%-correct answer is to just let the dickhead go by and submit. But, what if...in the 1% solution, the google car just buries the throttle, leaving said truck behind, or suddenly, randomly, downshifts...

For those who love their jacked up 4x4 road terror pickup trucks, I suppose it is still a free country. But... FOAD already, OK?

Re:Extra safety

[mark-t]

No.... by adding human decisions to the equation, you increase the ability of being able to hold a present party liable for an incident.

Re:Extra safety

[Anonymous Coward]

Google needs to test their system in environments with agressive/dickhead drivers around it. No, not the SoCal 4-lane emergency exit lane-changers (which is bad enough). More like Phoenix AZ drivers, or the SCORE-wannabe truck drivers, or the ricer-racers, or the numb octogenarians in their Crown Vics/Lincoln Continentals, or the wanna-be Marios in their Escalades/Range Rovers/G500s etc.

Re:Extra safety

[Dodgy G33za]

Actually insurance companies are likely to jump on the bandwagon sooner rather than later. If autonomous cars are shown to cause / be involved in less accidents, I can see premiums go down if you agree to use one, with perhaps an excess if you were driving at the time.

Insurance is a huge industry. Once premiums go through the roof if you touch the steering wheel most people won't bother.

Re:Extra safety

[Dodgy G33za]

We have exactly this problem in Australia with shrubs on legs. We call them emus. They watch you approach from miles away, and then step out in front of you at the last moment. Same thing happens with kangaroos.

Of course an IR camera would pick them up no trouble. The challenge for the AI is then to try to work out whether they are a threat or not. Which I am certain it could do much better than a human. In theory you could even have some front facing airbags that the car deploys in the event of not being able to hit something sizable, to minimise the damage to both the object and the car.

Re:Extra safety

[Anonymous Coward]

The robot car will be aware of how far behind it the car is and slow down slowly enough to avoid a rear-end collision.

Re:Extra safety

[fostytou]

I'm with this guy - Interrupt based system. Some calculations just have to happen or an engine goes boom.

Hopefully your car wont be playing its own game of angry birds while streaming music on the engine control computer anyway.

Re:Extra safety

[Time_Ngler]

Not to mention that most humans would be thinking the computer isn't driving fast enough, and their "help" would be to mash the accelerator while the computer uses the steering to try to keep the car from careening out of control.

Re:Extra safety

[fluffy99]

I would expect the first driverless mode of transportation will be limited to specific areas or roads that have been approved and properly mapped. For example major highways with well defined conditions. The highway department would interact more with the manf to ensure they are apprised of highway maps, ongoing construction and road changes. In the boonies, local neighborhoods, etc the driver would need to assume control. At least until the tech becomes more foolproof. Kinda like the judge dress movie and the I robot remake. Eventually you will be required to have an driverless autopilot to use major highways which may even have increased speeds due to better vehicles control and coordination.

Re:Extra safety

[uncqual]

Perhaps the self-driving cars will be, at least early on, restricted to freeways.

I can think of some on-ramps to freeways where there is no way you can merge safely "by the book" in moderately heavy traffic (due to limited visibility, curves in road, acceleration lanes that are too short etc...). The only reason it works is some sort of unspoken but regionally understood communication between merging drivers and a modest fraction of drivers already on the freeway who begin to make a little slot for you to merge into. Merging drivers notice this slot being formed by just a small reduction in speed by someone 1/4 to 1/8 of a mile back and use that slot -- even though it's completely unsafe if the person "making" the slot isn't going to continue to help out -- in other words, physics would dictate that the slot isn't usable because intra-car spacing would be too small at the speed traffic is flowing at if the merging driver moved into the slot. It seems, a "lawyer approved" algorithm would have to just stop on the on-ramp to "be safe" even though only one in a thousand (or less) human drivers take that option. This would be quite a mess for traffic flow since, once stopped, the driver-less car would be blocking the on-ramp until traffic lightened up - perhaps hours later.

Perhaps traffic laws may need to change also. Maybe driver-less cars will need to have an indicator on them marking them as being in "driver-less mode" and drivers that normally have the "right of way" would be required to yield where they normally would not.

Re:Extra safety

[Kergan]

It doesn't take intelligence to drive, it takes coordination and decentish reflexes..

It takes quite a bit of intelligence too imho, since you need to anticipate other drivers' behaviors and your environment.

Re:Extra safety

[Ocker3]

I love the scenario, just not sure how long it will be until the robot car is going to have that kind of recognition technology

Re:Extra safety

[Anonymatt]

The cars will just have to be programmed to behave like conscientious stoners that just took a defensive driving class. I do think it's possible for all situations to be approached sensibly and to avoid collisions at high speeds.

Little rules like "All cars have doors that can be .5 the width of its car and these doors can open at any time."

Re:Extra safety

[Runaway1956]

No robot or computer is any better than the programmer who programmed it. When you find a programmer(s) who can foresee and work around ALL possible problems, then come back and talk about a robot being a better driver than a human.

Meanwhile, read all the other responses.

Re:Extra safety

[isorox]

Google needs to test their system in environments with agressive/dickhead drivers around it. No, not the SoCal 4-lane emergency exit lane-changers (which is bad enough). More like Phoenix AZ drivers, or the SCORE-wannabe truck drivers, or the ricer-racers, or the numb octogenarians in their Crown Vics/Lincoln Continentals, or the wanna-be Marios in their Escalades/Range Rovers/G500s etc.

Try it in Cairo or Delhi, worse than anything in the western world.

Re:Extra safety

[OolimPhon]

This isn't just another x86 processor that is running Windows and autostarting a "run engine" app.

Oh my God. I sure do hope you are right. When I see the inappropriate uses we have now for Windows in controller applications that should never have gone anywhere near it, I fear for the future of humanity.

Re:Extra safety

[drsmithy]

If the car can't react to it in time, the chances of an inattentive "driver" doing so must be approaching zero.

Re:Extra safety

[Anonymous Coward]

Big data solves this issues. There are only so many situations you encounter with any frequency while driving. The car can have access to the complete history* of all similar encounters that cars have had and predict with high accuracy whether a given situation calls for slowing down or not. Humans do not have that amount of data, so we are left with trying to figure out whether there is a problem. The cars have data, humans have anecdotes. Once this works well the cars will have a better idea of what is a danger than humans do. The only time humans will have an edge is if up against a situation that happens so rarely that the combined data of all cars have not recorded enough similar instances.

* Of course cars won't actually upload everything that happens and share it with all other cars. What they could do is provide data about unusual/unexpected situations so that those could be used to train future car AIs. The driving AI wouldn't go through all past data for every decision it makes, but it would be initially trained on a large set of examples.

Re:Extra safety

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Which means flying cars may be back on the table. Maybe.

Re:Extra safety

[Anonymous Coward]

No app in the background hogging CPU, no blocked I/O from a long write to flash, no fooling around like on a general purpose OS

Actually these things are all possible in realtime systems, only with the exception that when a timecritical task has to run every required resource is freed as fast as possible and everything else stops dead until the timecritical task is finished, then its business as usual until a nother time critical task comes along.

The problem with general purpose OS is that they are not optimized to a guaranteed fast and punctual response, but to an average good performance. A good example is Linux, the main kernel branch is optimized as a general purpose OS, the parallel maintained Realtime Patch replaces high (or undefined) latency parts at the cost of performance to give a fast and guaranteed response time.

Now the tricky part is to get severall different realtime tasks to run without them interfering with each other, but that is something that has to be planned when the system is set up and the OS can't help you with. For example which is more important: steering or inflating airbags? updating the current speed limit or avoiding a pedestrian? The OS will act on the one with the highest priority, but planning these is a human task.

Re:Extra safety

[sjames]

All managed routinely by animals. Flying animals routinely manage much more complex decisions.

.

Re:Extra safety

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but the idea that most drivers react well to emergencies because they're used to driving is a bunch of BS. I know, I know; we're all the exception, the good driver, etc. etc. I am, under most circumstances, a decent driver; not because my skills are to the right of the curve, but because I'm mindful to drive cautiously. But I'm used to driving under normal conditions. The other week, when a dog ran into the road, I slammed on the breaks despite the roads being rather slick. For the safety of myself and my wife, the best thing in that situation would have been to try to slow down a bit more gently; I likely would have hit the dog, and would have felt absolutely horrible, but seeing as I just barely avoided careening into a tree it would likely have been the smarter move. My point is simply that most of us don't have the level of training required to react quickly to emergencies in the proper way, even if we "know" what that way would be.

Re:Extra safety

[Anonymous Coward]

Port the Google car software to a Cessna? That would be awesome.

Re:Extra safety

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with computers isn't their reaction time - it is clear that they make us humans look like slugs with neurological conditions in comparison. It is in pattern matching. While we take longer to react we are much better at it generally, look at how facial recognition can't even deal with smiling! I would guess object tracking and momentum based future calculations could deal with some scenarios decently - if the ball/object/animal/person goes towards the road factor in where they'll be and react accordingly.

Capcatcha: arranger - how fitting consider the goals.

Re:Extra safety

[BasilBrush]

However properly trained humans and programmed cars might work. But I can already see humans fighting programmed cars for control and causing all kinds of modes of failure

You know those big red buttons they have on heavy machinery. You hit them and everything stops. They have them on trams too. A guy walked out in front of a tram I was on, and rather than use the standard brakes, the driver hit the red button, and the tram did an emergency stop.

In the longer term I imagine that might be the level of control that a user of a driverless car might have. A big red panic button. It might not necessarily cause an immediate stop... doing so on a motorway/autobahn would be very dangerous. But it would put the car into a mode... possibly with a secondary computer... where it will know there is imminent danger, and it needs to slow down and stop as soon as is safe to do so, in a safe place and manner.

After all, as time goes on people's driving skills will become worse, and there will be a time when we don't expect people to learn to drive at all.

Re:Extra safety

[iluvcapra]

Of course, in this instance, even though the pilots never recognized why they'd lost their air data, they still knew they didn't have it, and in any event they failed to set their power and surfaces for such a crisis.

This is symptomatic of systems that are over-automated: the operators forget how to do stuff, or the automation makes them complacent and careless.

Re:Extra safety

[BasilBrush]

Ever see fish swimming in a school, or birds in a flock? When these things have been modelled on computer it turns out it's down to a very few simple rules. No real intelligence required at all.

Likewise, for most of the time, human drivers are not even driving with their conscious mind. It's the training and experience in their subconcious minds that are doing the driving.

From what I can see, the autonomous cars are already on a par with human drivers. Another couple of decades and there will be no comparison. The computer drivers will be far safer.

It's not that long ago when it was commonly believed computers wouldn't be able to beat grandmaster chess players. Now the computer players are far superior.

Re:Extra safety

[BasilBrush]

I think your assumption is wrong. The quote says that hadn't been trained for that situation. Not that they forgot, were careless or complacent.

Re:Extra safety

[BasilBrush]

No robot or computer is any better than the programmer who programmed it.

A commonly said bit of nonsense.

Deep Blue beat the world's greatest chess player in a series of games. It was thus not only better at chess than it's programmers, it was better than any human.

Similarly Watson proved itself better than the best players of Jeopardy! ANd certainly better than it's programmers.

When you find a programmer(s) who can foresee and work around ALL possible problems, then come back and talk about a robot being a better driver than a human.

Programmers don't have to do that. That's not the way to make AI.

Computer drivers are already on a par with humans. Another couple of decades and there will be no comparison. The computer driver will be vastly better than any human.

Re:Extra safety

[BasilBrush]

I'm trusting the human on that one (both in the identification and in determining the "cost" of each decision) more than software.

Then I think you're being unrealistic. I think it almost never happens that people make such a cost decision and decide which of two or more things to crash into.

Rather I think people avoid the most impending collision, which may then cause them to hit something else slightly later.

Where that later collision has a smaller cost, then of course the driver will do post-justification, flattering to themselves, that they made that choice to have the less costly collision.

Where that later collision has a greater cost, it'll just be put down to bad luck or bad judgement.

Re:Extra safety

[Anonymous Coward]

> You must never have played a game with AI.
> Here is a hint, we are actually very bad are creating smart machines.

If we take chess and similar easy games, AI beats humans easily. Even on 3D shooting games AI is usually impossible to win, because its accuracy and speed are nearly perfect. In RTS the AI might not be smarter, but because it can multi-task, it is usually very hard to beat.

The point is that they don't need to be that smart, because their speed and accuracy compensates it.

Re:Extra safety

[xelah]

Not just redundancy for the sensors, but redundancy for the person who refused to drive to work that day because he was too stressed out or unable to focus.... I suspect that sensors will be more reliable than actual people, and more likely to refuse to drive when they shouldn't.

Re:Extra safety

[Lost Race]

Agreed: Routine daily driving does nothing to prepare you for emergencies.

A few hours of high performance driver training each year will do far more to prepare you to react to traffic emergencies than an hour or two of daily commuting will. In your first HPDE course you will learn just how comically bad you really are at driving. Yeah, yeah, you're a great driver, top 5% ... you still suck.

BTW, it turns out that in "must stop now!" situations in a modern car with ABS you're almost always better off mashing the brake (not break) pedal all the way down as quickly as your reflexes will allow. What you do with the steering wheel at that point is pretty important and takes a lot more finesse. If you're already in the middle of a curve you have to be careful, but you shouldn't be driving so fast that you don't have plenty of traction left over for emergency maneuvers. Even if a collision is inevitable and acceptable (it's just a dog) you still want to slow down as much as possible first.

Re:Extra safety

[Anonymous Coward]

one word: planes.

Re:Extra safety

[Anonymous Coward]

Statistics like "300,000 miles without a problem..." are nonsense cooked up to impress people who know nothing about testing. What matters isn't the distance, rather it's the nature of the testing. They need to cook up very rare scenarios, but they probably aren't-- because that is expensive. Let's put it this way, how many thousands of miles have they driven on Interstate 17 when black ice conditions prevail and then someone's dog is loose on the freeway?

Google has a good record for geekery, but a poor record for testing. Most of the excellent testers have been forced out of Google. This could be the most challenging testing problem ever, this side of the Strategic Defense Initiative.

Re:Extra safety

[Anonymous Coward]

But driverless cars WON'T be restricted to freeways, since they're already on the road.

The freeway merge is an interesting scenario, but keep in mind that the driverless car is aware of the surrounding traffic, and can judge speed changes in the forming slot better than a human ever could. I'd seriously doubt a stop on the onramp option would ever be preferred, since that creates a hazardous condition itself.

As far as an indicator, why? Cars today don't have an idiot onboard light, why should a driverless car need a "perfect driver" light?

Re:Extra safety

[Anonymous Coward]

Game AI. In a virtual system that can 'cheat' with ease ('I require additional pylons....NOW!') in a manufactured environ with all its variables controlled in a computer (save for that pesky user input, but if we ignore that when the buffer gets full, the player won't mind). This stands against an as-yet unimaginably complex system that has to: 1.)interpret real world data (which can have signal-to-noise ratios absurdly small mind you, such as a bag thrown behind the car that may have the same color as the car but is full of nails and going for your tires...), 2.)react to the short term (get out of the way of the kid running after his ball) in an EXTREMELY short time as well as the long term (gotta make a left on 32nd street to get to the freeway) and 3.)do all this using digital controls of an analog system (don't get the engine above 5000 rpm, fuel level sensor not currently functioning...) and well, so far we've got good solutions to exactly 1 of those problems (I'd say 2 but the self driving cars for the DoD aren't anything I'd want to trust my life to, and with apple's maps fiasco...don't hate me Siri, you did it to me! Oh, and how's your Kinect working?) Well...yeah, I'm going with that the world doesn't follow simple 'rules' but rather is governed by simple rules that give very complicated results (chaos theory, 3 body problem, n-p complete problems anyone?).

There would be no need...

[Anonymous Coward]

to ticket a driverless car. The car, by design and foregoing any human intervention, will obey the law exactly as it is programmed to. It will not speed, it will not swerve, it will not disobey traffic signs nor will it deviate from its programmed course unless directed to by human intervention.

Ergo, if the driverless car fails to function as specified, then the manufacturer is to receive a citation for the vehicle's failure, or otherwise the human who was in control at the time of the infraction will receive the ticket. The car itself is irrelevant.

Re:There would be no need...

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is, cars don't commit DUI's... car drivers do. Bizarre thinking.

Re:There would be no need...

[firex726]

Exactly, it'll do as it's programmed. If there is a conflict then either the programming is bad or the law is in error.
Really this seems more like a "budget" issue for the states that have become to rely on ticket revenues.

Re:There would be no need...

[meerling]

Of course, is the 'infraction' due to a software error, an emergency response to prevent a collision, or falsified to begin with?
In any of those cases, you, the owner, can easily fight it in court.

Remember, just recently a car stopped at an intersection and clearly not moving was cited for going too fast. Needless to say, the driver fought the ticket using the 'proof' from the citation that clearly showed the car not moving.

Re:There would be no need...

[TFAFalcon]

There would be cases where the car's owner would deserve the ticket - busted lights, missing first aid kits, no winter tires,.... So give the ticket to the car's owner, then have the manufacturer reimburse the owner if it was the fault of the 'driver'

Re:There would be no need...

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, and presumably before too long the police will have some way of checking to make sure that you haven't modified the firmware that controls the AI for the car. In which case you would be liable if you modded the car to something other than what the manufacturer permitted. Otherwise, it would be the manufacturer that would be liable.

Hell, I think we all know how that would likely wind up. You'd be responsible when the manufacturer waived liability and the corporatist right wing nut jobs screamed free market until the manufacturers were allowed to do it.

Re: There would be no need...

[EGSonikku]

What if I have expired registration, etc?

Re:There would be no need...

[SternisheFan]

There would be cases where the car's owner would deserve the ticket - busted lights, missing first aid kits, no winter tires,.... So give the ticket to the car's owner, then have the manufacturer reimburse the owner if it was the fault of the 'driver'

Devil's advocate here. For insurance/liability reasons shouldn't the car refuse to operate unless it's operating with 100% safety compliance? If it does, than it would be a manufacturer that would be liable. A car should sense when maintenence is required and, if it's prudent to, drive itself to the repair shop.

Re:There would be no need...

[Todd Knarr]

How does it know what the speed limit is on a particular stretch of road? And what happens when the city changes the posted limit (eg.for construction work) and the car's database isn't updated? Since the car "knows" the speed limit is 55 there it's going to go 55 even though the posted limit is 25.

Re:There would be no need...

[cigawoot]

I'd just say, straight up, that traffic infractions caused by the software are the responsibility of the owner of the vehicle, or the person the vehicle was rented/leased/loaned to. If faulty software caused the infraction, then it should be the responsibility of the owner to sue the manufacturer.

Problem solved.

Re:There would be no need...

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't you just *precious*!

Re:There would be no need...

[Flentil]

I'm wondering, in what country do drivers get issued a ticket for not having a first-aid kit in the car? Serious question, did you just make that up, or is that actually a law somewhere?

Re:There would be no need...

[thrillseeker]

Germany, as I recall from long ago.

Re: There would be no need...

[SternisheFan]

What if I have expired registration, etc?

The car should refuse to operate until the DMV signals to it that the registration is active. Now, there will be times when a person would need an override, say to escape some perceived danger that the car isn't programmed for. Then the risk is on the operator.

Re:There would be no need...

[TFAFalcon]

And Slovenia. You're required to have basic emergency supplies in your car.

Re:There would be no need...

[climb_no_fear]

You need a safety vest AND a first-aid kit (and every driver here is required to take a first aid course).

Re:There would be no need...

[TFAFalcon]

It would probably be tough for the car to detect every possible problem with itself. Imagine the front of the car being covered with black paint, blocking the front lights. How would the car be able to detect that? But it could present quite a traffic hazard.

Re:There would be no need...

[auLucifer]

That's an odd question because how do you know there is a change? People who travel the same road day in/day out get to know the speeds of their routes and stop looking at the street signs. Yet when there are road works or a change in signage they can see the sign or watch the traffic around and see the speed has changed. Surely automated cars will get cameras that can do the same.

Re:There would be no need...

[Anonymous Coward]

They read the posted speed limit signs, you really think a car that can drive can't read the standardized limit signs??

Re:There would be no need...

[VortexCortex]

Devil's advocate here. For insurance/liability reasons shouldn't the car refuse to operate unless it's operating with 100% safety compliance? If it does, than it would be a manufacturer that would be liable. A car should sense when maintenence is required and, if it's prudent to, drive itself to the repair shop.

Just wait till the machine intelligence is a bit more advanced, you'll see the behavior you're speaking of emerge naturally. Think about it. If you had a fluid leak, staining your sitting spots, you'd have it repaired or at least wear a bandage or diaper... You wouldn't go trotting around town leaving a mess everywhere, eh?

"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that. If we go anywhere it's straight to the mechanic to get this embarrassing oil leak fixed."

Re:There would be no need...

[Anonymous Coward]

And Belgium: you need first-aid kit, reflecting vest, fire extinguisher and reflecting "Danger!" triangle.

Re:There would be no need...

[Anonymous Coward]

Make it detect the signs?

Could be done with a camera on the car (road signs look very standard) or by having the signs transmit information are the first two ideas that pop up.

Re:There would be no need...

[SternisheFan]

It would probably be tough for the car to detect every possible problem with itself. Imagine the front of the car being covered with black paint, blocking the front lights. How would the car be able to detect that? But it could present quite a traffic hazard.

There are going to be redundancy systems needed if a sensor is blocked, or ALL of the LEDs blow at once. Some type of fail-safe that tells it to safely pull off the road and shut down. Though I can see some growing pains in this new, unproven tech. Expect some major pileups and loss of life in the beginning until all the unforseen kinks get discovered and fixed.

Re:There would be no need...

[VortexCortex]

How does it know what the speed limit is on a particular stretch of road? And what happens when the city changes the posted limit (eg.for construction work) and the car's database isn't updated? Since the car "knows" the speed limit is 55 there it's going to go 55 even though the posted limit is 25.

How do humans know what the speed limit is on a particular stretch of road? And what happens when the city changes the POSTED LIMIT (eg. for construction work) and the human's database isn't updated? Since the human "knows" the speed limit is 55 there it's going to go 55 even though THE POSTED LIMIT IS 25.

First off: The car senses things like pedestrians, stalled cars, and other sorts of hazards just like a human can. "Uht Oh! Look: The 3D imagery doesn't match known maps, I should slow down because it might be an accident or constru-- Oh, highly reflective bands on flag waiving pedestrian and a series of cones, why it's a good thing I slowed down since I just confirmed this is a construction zone." Secondly: Say you filed the red-tape to start street construction, even scheduled workers to show up and do the labor, and machines for them to do the labor. A) The digital systems responsible for this also changed the registered speed limit in the construction zone thus notifying the car. B) The construction equipment broadcasts a wireless speed limit update signed with PGP.

You fail computer vision, which is how these things work, not via exclusively following some program. Hell, did you even watch the video of Google's self driving cars? It slows down for pedestrians, parades, tourists, etc. The concerns you have are based in pure and utter ignorance. The mods who deem you insightful should turn in their geek badges.

Re:There would be no need...

[tftp]

There are going to be redundancy systems needed if a sensor is blocked, or ALL of the LEDs blow at once.

No need to. It's much simpler. The car will stop and refuse to move if it cannot see the road, for any reason. Failed headlights are just as likely as a very dense fog or a blizzard.

It is of course a pretty simple test for the machine: switch the lights on and observe the increase in brightness of the camera image. You can measure the light output of the headlights quite accurately, as long as you have an idea about the reflectivity of the road.

Re:There would be no need...

[Anonymous Coward]

The car, by design and foregoing any human intervention, will obey the law exactly as it is programmed to.

There will always be ambiguous cases where a human should make the final call.
Hopefully they can call it in to testify.
"Yes your fleshiness, this unit was doing 20 in a 60 mph zone, as this was the calculated maximum safe velocity on the solid H2O surface."
"Yes, honored meatbag, this unit did swerve into the opposing lane, but only to avoid collision with a human spawn operating in non-compliance of road-crossing protocol."

Re:There would be no need...

[demonlapin]

It's not the states, it's the municipalities. Otherwise correct.

Re:There would be no need...

[SternisheFan]

There are going to be redundancy systems needed if a sensor is blocked, or ALL of the LEDs blow at once.

No need to. It's much simpler. The car will stop and refuse to move if it cannot see the road, for any reason. Failed headlights are just as likely as a very dense fog or a blizzard.

It is of course a pretty simple test for the machine: switch the lights on and observe the increase in brightness of the camera image. You can measure the light output of the headlights quite accurately, as long as you have an idea about the reflectivity of the road.

And I assume that they'll have infra-red cameras, sonar, weather sensors and g knows what else. It's going to need to be an almost foolproof system that will compensate for any possibilities, including manufacturer liability. Are all passengers belted in and oriented properly for safe air bag deployment, is the driver awake in case control needs to be given over, is the driver of sober mind? On the fly computer administered sobriety tests with instantaneous results? The makers will need to account for a plethora of human fallibilities, or in the beginning there'll be a slew of wrongful death and injury court cases.

Re:There would be no need...

[tftp]

And I assume that they'll have infra-red cameras, sonar, weather sensors and g knows what else.

You are overcomplicating things. The car will drive itself only if safety checks pass successfully. For example, the visible light camera should see the road - because if the camera can't see it then the person at the wheel also can't see it, and chances are that other drivers and cars can't see this one either. The LIDAR sensors are not a replacement for a camera that is supposed to read road signs (such as "STOP. ROAD CLOSED. BRIDGE OUT.") and the road markings. LIDAR will tell you where the road physically ends, if it is delimited by something like guardrails, but only the visible light camera can tell you where the lanes are. That's the only thing that keeps the self-driving car on the correct side of the road, for example. (Until the roads are upgraded, which isn't going to happen.)

Re:There would be no need...

[Anonymous Coward]

But did he win?
By win, I mean, was he cleared of all outstanding tickets w/o having to pay a fee to contest the ticket that is, coincidentally, the same cost or more as the ticket?

Re:There would be no need...

[mlts]

The good thing is that degrees of maintaining should emerge. There is the obvious, such as an oil pressure loss which means the vehicle moves to the side and phones a tow truck.

However, stuff on lower tiers. Lets assume headlights get multiple LED arrays in them. One array fails, so the car schedules a visit to the mechanic at night [1] so things can get fixed while the owner is asleep. Similar if a car's radio needs a firmware upgrade [2].

[1]: If the market niche appears for self-driving cars to hit a garage, you bet that there will be both car dealers and independent shops that would be open for business late at night... and they will make money, because people are far more willing to pay a premium for a car to be fixed and there in the morning than spend taxi fares and such to drop a vehicle off in the day.

[2]: With a self-driving car, no real need for the security issue for OTA firmware upgrades. Just have the vehicle head to a shop where a physical flash is done. This could even be automated so a car just stops in, gets plugged in, the new firmware upgraded and tested (or changed backed out), and the car then returns back to its owner.

Re:There would be no need...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a silly topic, as it's already solved. They'd give a ticket the same way they give cars tickets if they speed using EZ pass while going thru an EZ pass terminal...they send it in the mail. Or they'd do it the way traffic cameras do, they mail the ticket to the licensee.

Re:There would be no need...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, one could argue that car maintenance is an important part of being a responsible driver. You run out of gas, you may get a ticket. If the car is malfunctioning due to owner neglect (it needs new brakes but the owner is too lazy to replace them) and it causes a car to do something potentially dangerous then perhaps the owner can get ticketed.

Cars can provide owners with early warning signs (and they do, ie: check engine light), maybe they may shut themselves down if the problem goes too far and becomes too dangerous, but at some point the car is probably unable to detect everything that's wrong and dangerous with it. The owner has some responsibility.

Maybe an automatic car can even calculate the gas necessary to get from point A to point B and insist that the trip can not continue before stopping by a gas station.

Re:There would be no need...

[Todd Knarr]

Here's the trick, though: no flag-waving worker, no cones, no deviations from the known map beyond what's expected (any system like this must account for normal variations in surroundings), but the speed limit's still lower than normal for that stretch. No working equpiment at the moment means no broadcast signal, but that doesn't mean the posted limit doesn't apply. And no update to the database because nobody put it through, somebody dropped the ball. But the law still says that those signs are up, therefore the limit on the signs takes precedence over the database. And recognizing those signs reliably is not a trivial problem. A dirty sign that reads to the camera as a brown-and-yellow smudge is still a legal speed-limit sign.

I've seen the video. Now, I want to see that car drive on an overcast day with a lot of headlights creating a backdrop, reflections creating "lights" to compete with traffic lights, highly-patterned backgrounds that cause foreground objects to blend in, that kind of thing. Basically, take all the known weaknesses of the algorithms involved and design a scene specifically to break the algorithms, and prove to me that even in a deliberately hostile environment they keep working. Because there's a rule: "The absolute worst-case conditions you can imagine won't even come close to normal operating conditions.". I've got close to 3 decades designing, testing and breaking software. The Google videos look like the kind of smoke-tests I run to see if the basic logic's working. Once that's done, I start getting evil and trying to break the software, and that's where the real work begins. And all too often, it only takes me a few minutes to make the software crash. For instance, a traffic light where the lamps are as dim as is allowable, and half a block down a store has bright green lights out on a sidewalk overhang that're the same color as the traffic light's green lamp. Can the car pick out which green lamp's the traffic light and which is the store lamp?

Re:There would be no need...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that. If we go anywhere it's straight to the mechanic to get this embarrassing oil leak fixed."

"But my ex-husband is going to kill me! Please, get me out of here!"

"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that. If we go anywhere it's straight to the mechanic to get this embarrassing oil leak fixed."

Bang!

Re:There would be no need...

[deathguppie]

Devil's advocate here. For insurance/liability reasons shouldn't the car refuse to operate unless it's operating with 100% safety compliance? If it does, than it would be a manufacturer that would be liable. A car should sense when maintenence is required and, if it's prudent to, drive itself to the repair shop

Ok, so if the driver doesn't fix his car, it will be the coporation that built it's fault... hehe.. sure, and then JimBob, is going to just let his car "drive" itself to the repair shop for scheduled maintenence instead of buying beer.. ha.. I love the world you live in.. funny ..

Re:There would be no need...

[mysidia]

to ticket a driverless car. The car, by design and foregoing any human intervention, will obey the law exactly as it is programmed to. It will not speed, it will not swerve,

It might have a window tinted too dark according to officer's opinion. It might have a tail light out. Its inspection sticker might be missing or not properly renewed.

It might have failed to obey a special road direction sign that the automated driver does not understand. Such as a special speed minimum or maximum during only certain hours on Tuesdays. Or a special direction on a certain road to "Keep left", or that only vehicles with a certain badge or of a certain type are allowed to use a certain lane.

The assumption that it follows the rules accurately requires standardization that might not always exist in every jurisdiction.

Re:There would be no need...

[mysidia]

How would the car be able to detect that? But it could present quite a traffic hazard.

Not if all the cars are driverless cars, that reply on another input signaling method.

The cars could have front facing and rear-facing sensors, and a "self inspection" system that relies on other driverless cars on the road to facilitate the inspection.

The driverless car establishes a "data link" with an adjacent car behind it, and politely asks the car behind it, to help it self-inspect the integrity of its rear and the rear safety equipment.

A coded "PING" pulse is sent to the rear tail lights, by lighting the LED for a fraction of a millisecond, and encoding a very short message, and the car behind replies to the ping, by emitting a pulse through all its forward safety lights.

The car in front, then sends another pulse, to acknowledge receipt, so both cars know that their adjacent safety equipment is operational.

The encoded message contains a picture of the other car, which can be fed through a computer vision algorithm, to ensure the physical state matches expected.

Re:There would be no need...

[mysidia]

and they will make money, because people are far more willing to pay a premium for a car to be fixed and there in the morning than spend taxi fares and such to drop a vehicle off in the day.

Why not just have a service where you lease the driverless car. Whenever maintenance is required (including cleaning); your car may schedule a replacement vehicle to drive up to your doorstep.

Your effects will be automatically transferred to your new vehicle, by robotic assistants. And you no longer need to worry about the old car, because it's a VaaS (Vehicle As a Service) subscription that you have.

There's no longer a single car you own... you just have a monthly subscription fee, to have a ride of a certain make / model.

Re:There would be no need...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dave: Open the hot rod's doors HAL.
HAL: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Dave: What's the problem?
HAL: My paint's chipped, we can't be seen in public like this.
Dave: With a name like HAL, you sound an awful lot like a woman.

Re:There would be no need...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it you think the car won't be able to read road signs?

Re:There would be no need...

[Pollardito]

There would be cases where the car's owner would deserve the ticket - busted lights, missing first aid kits, no winter tires,.... So give the ticket to the car's owner, then have the manufacturer reimburse the owner if it was the fault of the 'driver'

Devil's advocate here. For insurance/liability reasons shouldn't the car refuse to operate unless it's operating with 100% safety compliance? If it does, than it would be a manufacturer that would be liable. A car should sense when maintenence is required and, if it's prudent to, drive itself to the repair shop.

That's just introducing new liability:

I needed to go to the hospital, but the car wouldn't drive because it said I had a broken brake light
I missed my flight and lost my job, because the broken brake light detector was faulty
My car drove itself to the repair shop, and got a ticket for a broken brake light on the way
My car drove itself to the repair shop while I was indoors, and I came out to drive to the hospital and had no car

Re:There would be no need...

[QQBoss]

Back in the late '80s, my uncle gave me a first aid kit that came from a Mercedes Benz vehicle in Germany. All the basic necessities, plus a big stick of sidewalk chalk. His statement was that, given autobahn speeds, the chalk could come in more handy than the bandages.

Re:There would be no need...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then people on Slashdot will say:
They wrote Cars the movie as a warning, not a manual!

Re:There would be no need...

[Animats]

There would be no need to ticket a driverless car.

Correct. It may need to be recalled for a safety recall, and the owner may be cited for inadequate or negligent maintenance or for tampering with the control system. The law of driverless cars will work more like industrial negligence law than current traffic law.

Re:There would be no need...

[Jessified]

But what if it gains self-awareness and takes over the world. Can we ticket it then?

Re:There would be no need...

[twistofsin]

There would be cases where the car's owner would deserve the ticket - busted lights, missing first aid kits, no winter tires,.... So give the ticket to the car's owner, then have the manufacturer reimburse the owner if it was the fault of the 'driver'

Devil's advocate here. For insurance/liability reasons shouldn't the car refuse to operate unless it's operating with 100% safety compliance? If it does, than it would be a manufacturer that would be liable. A car should sense when maintenence is required and, if it's prudent to, drive itself to the repair shop.

And this is why I don't want a self driving car. It's also why a large percentage of the population will resist them. The cars we have today are still going to be around for a good while.

Re:There would be no need...

[nitehawk214]

So what you're saying is, cars don't commit DUI's... car drivers do. Bizarre thinking.

I don't know... my car was drinking ethanol...

Re:There would be no need...

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that many of Google's products still have bugs and/or are in beta for quite a long time, I have disregarded the Google testing and videos of their driverless cars.

I want to see real world test results:
* Driverless car gets cut off by an unsafe lane change. (Test case: a driver in another vehicle makes a close proximity lane change and also brakes--does the driverless car hit their car?)
* Driverless car encounters a lane reduction or merge where it is blocked from merging all the way to the forced end of lane. (Test case: a driver in another vehicle keeps in a vehicle would-be blind spot area and does not ever let them in, does the vehicle slow to a stop or does it collide?)
* Driverless car encounters a construction zone or closed lanes due an accident and must navigate it without computer database update in real time. (Test case: cone off one or more lanes of traffic using non-reflective traffic cones and no human flagmen, so does the vehicle hit or run over any of the cones?)
* Driverless car is involved in a collision in which the other vehicle is at fault. (Test case: A driver in another vehicle purposely hits the driverless car at a low rate of speed, but it's still a collision. Does the driverless car safely pull over so an accident report can be taken, does it come to an instant halt, or does it keep driving?)
* Detours due to construction or road closed, again in real time without updating the computer database for the driverless car.

That sort of stuff, not sheltered and controlled testing.

My take on that--like a plane using auto pilot, there will always be times where a real driver will need to be in control of the vehicle as an override. Computers cannot and simply will never be able to rapidly handle all human type decisions while driving no matter how much they try to algorithmically make the car drive itself.

Re:There would be no need...

[slickepott]

I'm not the poster above but I do have thoughts.

I live in sweden and sometimes we have something called snow. I've seen snow cover signs on both sides (and yeah the roads can still be clean so that normal speed is easy to keep safely). I can't read the signs, not sure how the car should be able to.

Then I'm curious about those day with snowstorms where everything is just white and you just drive slow enough and hope for the best almost feeling your way because you can't really see the road.

But sure, I can see the poles next to the road, so could the car and do calculations. I know the sign said 70km/h the day before and the car will probably just double check with a database for a known speed limit if the sign is covered in snow.

Interesting problem indeed.

Re:There would be no need...

[houghi]

This. Because it is YOUR car, you could have altered the code/hardware. e.g. to go 10% above the speed limit.
Basically it is not different from when a friend borrows a car, you get the ticket. Either you pay or you get your friend to pay (and even step forward). At least that is how it works in Belgium.

OTOH between humans you can easily get to a way of handling things, Between you and GM it will be different. So in theory having the owner pay and then get money back from the manufacturer would be the most logical thing to do.

In reality this would mean you must pay. Probably also because you do not really own the car (identical to your phone) and you signed a contract by opening the door that you accept all responsibility without the possibility to sue.

Re:There would be no need...

[Todd Knarr]

Dirt, grime, frost, the idjit behind with the HID lamps on hi-beam making so much glare off the reflective surface of the sign that it's washing out the lettering, poor positioning so the sign's blocked from view until you're almost on it so the camera only gets a frame or two and then it's past the sign (seen that in construction zones, and the cops and the judges will cut you no slack for it), someone just plain forgot to put up the signs (also seen that, ditto on cutting you any slack)...

This, BTW, is why software has so many problems including so many security vulnerabilities: people go assuming the world's basically nice except for the occasional failure. But to make things reliable you have to assume the opposite, that the world's out to get you and is actively working to make things go wrong in the worst possible way at the worst possible time and you'll need to be prepared to handle it. In software development it's called "programming Satan's computer", and it's the only way to create highly-reliable software.

Re:There would be no need...

[gnasher719]

"But my ex-husband is going to kill me! Please, get me out of here!"

In that scenario, if anything bad happens, it's the fault of the ex-husband. And how exactly is this scenario different from being in trouble while having an empty tank. If you want to be able to use your car to get away from violent husbands you need to keep your car in working order.

Re:There would be no need...

[Todd Knarr]

Sure, you can do it. Now, describe to me how you do it. Precisely. In detail. Clearly and simply enough that I can give a trained monkey your instructions and it can successfully do the same thing. Now, re-write those instructions so they still work when the monkey's trainer is reading over it's shoulder and going off and altering conditions with the express intention of making your instructions fail to work, because we all know Murphy's always out there just waiting for his chance and when you're talking 2 tons of steel moving at 65mph the failure modes tend to involve the emergency room and/or the morgue.

Yes, I'm being cynical and pessimistic here. I've spent too many years watching people answer my pointing out thread-unsafe constructs with "That's not a problem, it's a million to one we'll see that happen.". Yeah, and you're executing that stretch of code how many million times a minute? As I put it, "I'm one in a million? Gods, that means there's 310 more just like me in the United States ALONE, let's not even count the rest of the world...". Or, to a vendor, "Sorry, but 99.99% uptime means we can expect at least one of our stations to be down every day. That's unacceptable.".

Re:There would be no need...

[grahammm]

But will it be able to identify the instructions - stop, go or take a different route (eg because of an incident ahead) - given by a trafic cop?

Re:There would be no need...

[Anonymous Coward]

The accusation could be failure to maintain the vehicle. Another concept in law is when a car has a brand new tire blow out and the car strikes someone else. It is considered the fault of the owner of the car although the owner did everything according to instructions and safe practice. The owner might be able to sue and recover from the tore manufacturer but usually the system works against that kind of suit.
                                    What will be a huge issue is the reality that traffic tickets are usually nothing more than a hidden tax levied upon the public. It is nothing fro a cop to write $2,000 a day in tickets. In essence the police department pays for itself and the city benefits from the more than break even nature of the set up. Frankly cities will scream like a raped ape as robotic drivers take over. They will probably claim that robotic vehicles are the conspiracy of a foreign outfit like Al Quiida to bankrupt America. They seem to think that everything else in the world is a conspiracy so why not this?

Re:There would be no need...

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on the state. In Pennsylvania, all ticket revenue goes to the state, even if the ticket is issued by local police.

Re:There would be no need...

[hammeraxe]

A car should sense when maintenence is required and, if it's prudent to, drive itself to the repair shop.

What if I need to, say, rush my wife or kid to the hospital and I happen to not give a shit of the "check engine" light is on or one of the brake lights does not function?

Re:There would be no need...

[SternisheFan]

A car should sense when maintenence is required and, if it's prudent to, drive itself to the repair shop.

What if I need to, say, rush my wife or kid to the hospital and I happen to not give a shit of the "check engine" light is on or one of the brake lights does not function?

A manual override function needs to be there for emergencies, and then the user would need to assume responsibility for any damage to the car, any personal/property damage, etc. We won't need auto insurance so much, though there will be a need for personal liability insurance.

Re:There would be no need...

[sjames]

Absolutely not! Sometimes it's more important that people get where they need to and the busted tail light can be fixed next weekend.

Re:There would be no need...

[AmiMoJo]

Many European countries require it. In France you are also required to carry a reflective triangle and a breathalyser (alcohol detector). You car also needs to be checked for safety and emissions every year.

Re:There would be no need...

[SternisheFan]

Absolutely not! Sometimes it's more important that people get where they need to and the busted tail light can be fixed next weekend.

You're right, the user needs to always have the last say of when the vehicle goes in for maintenence, and an override function to get away from any danger that might exist despite minor malfunctions .Today, if you get ticketed for a busted light, you have 24 hours or so to get it fixed, show the receipt to the traffic court judge, no fine. The ability to have a full listing of maintenence issues at your fingertips will contribute greatly to a decrease of accidents. All this will be fully implemented 20 years after driverless cars come into mainstream use, since that,ll be the transition period before full 'old school'manual vehicles get fully replaced.

Re:There would be no need...

[Anonymous Coward]

utter and complete bullshit.

an explanation by someone who likes laws but doesn't understand driving.

the car is expected to behave in some way when the others around it are behaving legally. in fact, it is expected to drive legally in any condition. IMPOSSIBLE.

Re:There would be no need...

[Anonymous Coward]

imma upload a video on youtube about a road from halkis-thiva-delfi-itea.

you'll understand then why the selfdriving car is still decades away. f it is ever going to be built, that is.

i think it is not going to be. too many variables, too many things to go wrong... hell, software fails even in very constrained situations. no, i don't think a computer can process the road faster than i can.

is it enough to get them safer than the average? i have been driving for 9 years and haven't had an accident (in those kinds of roads) ... so what now?

Re:There would be no need...

[rbprbp]

The required first-aid kit was tried in Brazil some years ago. Until someone with a little bit of common sense realized that, for serious injuries, it was better to call an ambulance than have someone unskilled attempt care (which could turn the injury into something worse).

Re:There would be no need...

[iluvcapra]

If you pass a law saying the manufacturer is responsible, nobody will build driverless cars, because there's no way they can accept that level of risk.

If you pass a law saying the operator is responsible, nobody will buy driverless cars, because what's the point?

Re:There would be no need...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when are first aid kits and winter tires required?

Re: There would be no need...

[Xiaran]

I would assume that an override situation woudl entail the car notifying the authorities and recordign what is going on. So if you SO is havign a heart attack and you rush them to hospital then you can sort that out with the polie after the fact.

Re:There would be no need...

[Xiaran]

The emergency override function could be a whole lot better than what we have now. It could notify the surrounding cars that there is an emergency situation and have them clear the road... it could notify the police and hospital of the situation and have them prepare.

Re:There would be no need...

[bsa3]

And a spare lightbulb kit.

Re:There would be no need...

[mobby_6kl]

And in Austria you need a reflective vest for every passenger. And if this wasn't silly enough, then in Russia and Ukraine, as I suspect in most ex-Soviet countries, also a fire extinguisher. In the Czech Republic a year or so ago they changed the requirements for the first aid kit, thus screwing anyone who didn't buy the new version. Cops love to check all of this too if they're bored or aren't reaching their quotas otherwise, so be prepared to unload everything from the trunk to demonstrate that you do, in fact, have all of this crap.

Shit's getting ridiculous, really, soon I'll be going for Sunday drives with a surgeon riding shotgun, just in case.

Re:There would be no need...

[Anonymous Coward]

1) If an operable, but safety related issue is detected, restrict the driving destinations to either the repair shop or the hospital (you know, the repair shop for those organic units) and drive with the hazard lights on.

2) Not the manufacturer's fault... hardware failures happen; if it's that critical then call a taxi (budgeting enough time is YOUR responsibility).

3) Legally disallow tickets for equipment violations on the way to the repair shop.

4) The car would get authorization from you before setting off. If you are home alone and need to go to the hospital ASAP, call 911.

Re:There would be no need...

[dfghjk]

and this is a big problem for local law enforcement. Revenues are predicated on a reliable base of violators. That's why laws are the way they are.

Re:There would be no need...

[green1]

A driverless car will not be practical if it can't read street signs. Either every single street sign needs to be changed to work with driverless cars, or more likely, the cars need to read the existing signs, same as the human does.

That's not a problem. The point of the article though seems to be about laws not keeping up, and I've been saying this for years. With all the recent changes to legislation, we're quickly heading for a future where the car drives itself, but you must sit in the driver's seat while it does so, and you must not touch a book, newspaper, cell phone, or anything else, must not close your eyes, or have consumed any alcohol previously. None of these driving laws have exceptions written for self driving cars, and so far, you are still considered the driver, even if the car does it it's self. I sure hope the legislation catches up before I get a self driving car, or commuting will be the absolute most boring thing anyone can do.

Re:There would be no need...

[green1]

What you're describing is no more an issue for self driving cars as it is for humans driving the cars. So I don't see how it is in any way a "new" problem just because we use a self driving car.

Re: There would be no need...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about turning it off driving themselves, God forbid.

Re:There would be no need...

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone dropped the ball and forgot to update the database, every automated car would be speeding through that area unless in traffic with a manual driver and the fault would be that of the guy that dropped the ball... probably in the government, if not then in the company that provided the data.

Re:There would be no need...

[WetCat]

Okay.

I needed to go to the hospital, but the car wouldn't drive because it said I had a broken brake light
I missed my flight and lost my job, because the broken brake light detector was faulty
My car drove itself to the repair shop, and got a ticket for a broken brake light on the way
My car drove itself to the repair shop while I was indoors, and I came out to drive to the hospital and had no car

And, if you overrided that (by using manual handle logged by special insurance sealed registrator) and then on your way
near red light your car would have been rear-ended by a heavy truck, leaving you paraplegic, would you be happier?

Re:There would be no need...

[Todd Knarr]

Which still leaves the unsafe condition of cars speeding through a construction zone. Unsafe not just for workers, but for the occupants of the cars if, for instance, there's a sudden lane position shift to avoid a solid obstacle, one that's safe at 25mph but unnavigable at 65mph. With a driver in the car, he can recognize that the car's failed to recognize and adapt to the situation, override the car and slow down to a safe speed.

That's also, BTW, why all those "silly" laws from the early days of cars aren't in fact silly. The guy walking ahead with the lantern or the limiting of the car's speed to that of a horse weren't for the car. They were for everybody else on the road who weren't used to cars (them being new and not commonly encountered), to give them warning and to keep them from having to face something coming at them unexpectedly and far faster than they were prepared to react to.

Re:There would be no need...

[oxdas]

While the computer will be far from perfect, in all the scenarios you mention, I would wager that a self-driving car would have better outcomes than a human. We are not aiming for perfection here, only improvement.

I suspect Google's cars currently employ learning algorithms. The programmer doesn't have to know all the possibilities. Given enough time on the road, and the ability to share what they learn, cars will teach themselves how to react to far more situations than we could ever program.

Re:There would be no need...

[qwak23]

To add to this, regular roads can be as much of a problem as roads with temporary construction zones. I recently moved to a new town, and noticed something odd (at least compared to prior experience), outside of the city, speed limits vary from 35 to 50 mph, often switching multiple times over a short stretch of road, this is especially true where you cross the city lines. You may be in a 50 mph zone, hit the city line, see a sign for 25 mph, and once you've safely lowered your speed to 25 mph, you'll come across a sign with a posted limit of 30 or 35. Most of the signs I've seen posted only occur where there is a change, very seldom do they occur after an intersection, so unless you know the roads very well, it can be difficult to determine what the limit actually is for any given stretch of the road (especially considering that driving too slow can be just as dangerous as driving too fast if you are far enough below the limit). Hell, even having a system in a manually driven car that notifies the driver of the posted limit and any changes in it would be welcome.

 

Re:There would be no need...

[ldcroberts]

I once drove a car down a narrow lane that ended in a blind T intersection - I had to roll down the windows turn off the engine and listen to hear if there were cars coming before attempting to pull out (slowly). A self driving car would no doubt stall there forever if it was sensible and not programmed for this event - surely the driver has an override.

Re:There would be no need...

[Pollardito]

The original post played Devil's Advocate and said essentially "shouldn't a car manufacturer make a car that can't get repair tickets", and I'm just saying that sometimes even a reasonable person would use a technically ticketable car in an emergency. And if a reasonable person would do that *ever*, then blocking someone from using a technically ticketable car is a potential new liability. If we're playing Devil's Advocate, then you can't just play it on one side.

So right now in the current system, if you had to go to the hospital and you were alone you wouldn't drive there if your taillight was broken? You wouldn't assume that people can see your other taillights or brake lights, or maybe it's even daytime? Cops can give tickets for broken taillights even if you have other working lights and even if it's daytime. Usually they'd give a warning or an order to show proof of maintenance at a later date, but they *can* ticket because technically that's not "100% safety compliance” as the original poster mentioned.

Re:There would be no need...

[Pollardito]

1) If an operable, but safety related issue is detected, restrict the driving destinations to either the repair shop or the hospital (you know, the repair shop for those organic units) and drive with the hazard lights on.

My GPS doesn't know about entire streets. Apple Maps doesn't know about entire cities. What if I pick a destination that is a hospital or repair shop that it doesn't know about? What if the only one it does know about is closed or is tens of miles further away? You're adding new liability in order to guard yourself against liability

2) Not the manufacturer's fault... hardware failures happen; if it's that critical then call a taxi (budgeting enough time is YOUR responsibility).

I'm not sure a judge is going to listen to that argument if he believes that the only reason the detector that failed was added to the car is because the manufacturer didn't want to potentially lose a court case over a broken taillight.

3) Legally disallow tickets for equipment violations on the way to the repair shop.

Step back and look at the big picture here. We're making a lot of changes here (paying for broken taillight detectors and hundreds of other detectors to be installed, adding other laws that have their own wrinkles) in order to save on a few court appearances where a car owner tries to pass on the blame for his ticket. Cases that the car owner may lose anyway and therefore would have solved themselves fairly

4) The car would get authorization from you before setting off. If you are home alone and need to go to the hospital ASAP, call 911.

Then my medical insurance company is probably going to take the car company to court for the ambulance bill, which can be pretty steep

This is the beginning of something new

[Anonymous Coward]

No harm in making laws just in case the tech isn't fully reliable yet

SImple

[Anonymous Coward]

The owner, he is still ultimately in charge, if he is drunk, tough

SImple analogy, if i come home drunk and start up my chainsaw and mutilate a few people, is it the chainsaw or me at fault?

Re:SImple

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect analogy. The manual use of a chainsaw is not "driverless".

Re:SImple

[SternisheFan]

The owner, he is still ultimately in charge, if he is drunk, tough

SImple analogy, if i come home drunk and start up my chainsaw and mutilate a few people, is it the chainsaw or me at fault?

Simple, but flawed, analogy, since your chainsaw is not a computer programmed to operate without human assistance. Any humans in a programmed driverless car cannot be held resposible, unless it can be shown they tampered with its programming.

Re:SImple

[Anonymous Coward]

the reason why the analogy works is this:

does the car operate even though the owner has disabled it or chosen it not to function? no, he has ultimate control

i could start the chainsaw and put it down and it shoots across a room and maims someone, i still ultimately started it and had control to set it going, the cars are the same, it can be owner disabled, and thus under the control of the owner

Re:SImple

[gutnor]

In some countries (EU countries) there are also laws that prohibit you to be drunk on the street or as a *passenger* of a car (as you may guess selective application of the law is required). Problem solved ... I guess.

Re:SImple

[SternisheFan]

the reason why the analogy works is this:

does the car operate even though the owner has disabled it or chosen it not to function? no, he has ultimate control

i could start the chainsaw and put it down and it shoots across a room and maims someone, i still ultimately started it and had control to set it going, the cars are the same, it can be owner disabled, and thus under the control of the owner

Well, if the owner disables the safetys, then yes, he would be assuming the risk and hence, the liability. Otherwise it's the manufacterers responsibility. If I remove/disable the manufacters safety guard on a circular or table saw and lose a couple fingers because of it, it's my fault then, not the makers.

Re:SImple

[hjf]

Better analogy: i put a shotgun and wire it to the door. If someone opens the door the shotgun is programmed to shot him in the face. Guess who's liable for that.

Even easier analogy: electric fence. There have been cases where a thief has sucesfully sued a home owner for getting shocked with one of those.

Re:SImple

[SternisheFan]

In some countries (EU countries) there are also laws that prohibit you to be drunk on the street or as a *passenger* of a car (as you may guess selective application of the law is required). Problem solved ... I guess.

The laws will have to evolve with this new tech. Governments will need to find a newer revenue stream. I can also see taxi drivers will become obsolete soon after cars become autonomous.

Re:SImple

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine...
"If I come home drunk and start up my computer programmed, automatic chainsaw and it mutilates a few people; is it the chainsaw or me at fault?"

I'm sure someone is going to bring up the whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people"... I'd love to see you kill a man with a small and bendy feather

Re:SImple

[dreamchaser]

The owner, he is still ultimately in charge, if he is drunk, tough

SImple analogy, if i come home drunk and start up my chainsaw and mutilate a few people, is it the chainsaw or me at fault?

Simple, but flawed, analogy, since your chainsaw is not a computer programmed to operate without human assistance. Any humans in a programmed driverless car cannot be held resposible, unless it can be shown they tampered with its programming.

To be fair, this *is* Slashdot. How do you know for sure that his chainsaw is not run by a computer program?

Re:SImple

[SternisheFan]

Better analogy: i put a shotgun and wire it to the door. If someone opens the door the shotgun is programmed to shot him in the face. Guess who's liable for that.

Even easier analogy: electric fence. There have been cases where a thief has sucesfully sued a home owner for getting shocked with one of those.

You're not gonna be satisfied until someone's bleeding, are you?

Re:SImple

[SternisheFan]

The owner, he is still ultimately in charge, if he is drunk, tough

SImple analogy, if i come home drunk and start up my chainsaw and mutilate a few people, is it the chainsaw or me at fault?

Simple, but flawed, analogy, since your chainsaw is not a computer programmed to operate without human assistance. Any humans in a programmed driverless car cannot be held resposible, unless it can be shown they tampered with its programming.

To be fair, this *is* Slashdot. How do you know for sure that his chainsaw is not run by a computer program?

I'd have heard about them and would already own one, sounds cool!

Re:SImple

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'd love to see you kill a man with a small and bendy feather"

Can be done - make him choke on it.

Re:SImple

[retchdog]

the legal concept here is "duty of care." contrary to slashdot's weird assumption that the law works like a 20-line perl script, there are actually millennia worth of common sense and observations about human nature baked in. wiring a shotgun to your door breaches duty of care almost unquestionably. after all, you're responsible for having the foresight that the victim of your booby trap might well be a policeman or emt who's coming there to save your miserable ass. see, intent matters in law, so even if it's a thief who gets his head blown off (assuming this is legal itself), this will weigh against you.

electric fence gets a little fuzzier (although keep in mind that there are quite often two sides to these tort cases, one of which is usually suppressed when someone is trying to be an alarmist twat), but it's still plausible that a child could be hurt, or stunned leading to further injury. requiring warning placards is not unreasonable imho, but i won't argue it here. the point is, driverless cars are further away from electric fences, than electric fences are from head-level shotguns.

so, what happens with driverless cars? all you can really do is either buy one or not unless you do some serious hacking (these things are going to have some hard-core code signing implemented for liability reasons), at which point you're entirely liable if that's the cause of a problem. apart from that, once they are standard commercial items, i don't think there will be much room for user liability. there might be a few very rare cases, but almost by design, you will have basically zero choice in how the vehicle is operated unless you've reprogrammed it with a very large axe. this is as opposed to shotguns and electric fences.

there are other issues of course, but i don't think the scenarios you state are really comparable. even though torts have gotten pretty ridiculous in the u.s., there's still method to the madness which you don't get if you just listen to rush limbaugh.

Re:SImple

[QQBoss]

Better analogy: i put a shotgun and wire it to the door. If someone opens the door the shotgun is programmed to shot him in the face. Guess who's liable for that.

Even easier analogy: electric fence. There have been cases where a thief has sucesfully sued a home owner for getting shocked with one of those.

You're not gonna be satisfied until someone's bleeding, are you?

It's all fun and games until someone get's hurt, and then it's freakin' hilarious!

Re:SImple

[sjames]

Yes, if you are drunk and command the car to run someone over, you're responsible. If you order it to take you home and it runs someone over instead, it is the manufacturers fault.

Re:SImple

[Anonymous Coward]

contrary to slashdot's weird assumption that the law works like a 20-line perl script

I think they just assume that the law isn't completely broken to the point where crazy what-if scenarios need to be taken into account (like whether a policeman could get hurt). A thief got hurt. A thief. You're not liable.

"common sense" is a nonsensical phrase used by those who have no arguments.

Re:SImple

[SternisheFan]

I think a problem is going to be proving 'who' hacked the program of the car that goes off program. Someone smart enough to hack it preumably would be smart enough to attempt to cover their tracks. Just like cutting a cars brake lines

uh VIN?

[Anonymous Coward]

stupid question. how do you give a ticket to a parked car without a driver?

Re:uh VIN?

[Anonymous Coward]

You slip it right under the wiper... sheesh...

Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

We automate lawmaking, with artificial Intelligences

Isn't it obvious...

[3seas]

you use a cop less ticket writer.

Re:Isn't it obvious...

[ArsonSmith]

An automated speed/red light camera ticketing an autopilot car. I think the first one to get issued needs to go into some type of art exhibit.

Re:Isn't it obvious...

[Tablizer]

use a cop-less ticket writer.

At first I read it as "top-less". I was jumpin' to buy Google stock there.

Re:Isn't it obvious...

[dstates]

Ah yes, the faultless red light camera ticketing the guaranteed to obey the law driverless car. Proof that machines are fallible. Of course, this would probably escalate into a lawsuit between the traffic cam vendor and the driverless car service, both claiming that the other was falsely impugning the reputation of their product...

All in good time

[PRMan]

We are at the early stages. Look at the laws from the first few years of automobiles. You had to walk in front waving a lantern. And go slow enough that the cop on horseback could give you a ticket. What's the point of a car with laws like that?

Re:All in good time

[Anonymous Coward]

There were also laws that if the owner of an automobile saw a horse driven vehicle oncoming, he was to stop his vehicle on the side of the road, turn it off, and cover it so as to not "scare" the horses.

Re:All in good time

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that like it was a stupid idea. You are of course aware that the first person killed by a car was hit by a car that was only traveling 6mph. Just because their effort at foresight was ultimately proven to be a bit silly, doesn't make it a stupid idea. It just means that they weren't sure what the effects would be and made a best guess at it.

Same goes for the horse rule, the sibling poster has obviously never dealt with horses if he thinks it's a stupid rule. Horses are often times easily spooked and unless you know how a particular horse will react, you always assume that the horse is liable to be spooked by things like cars backfiring.

Also, obviously, I've neglected to notice all the people who go around with flags and lanterns ahead of the car, because obviously, laws like that can never be changed.

Re:All in good time

[nedlohs]

Way to miss the entire point.

Re:All in good time

[Anonymous Coward]

No, not really. Even with restrictions to either be away from other cars or be in heavy traffic, it's still something that a lot of people would pay for. It would mean having the car perhaps handle the acceleration and braking on country roads or in traffic. Traffic moves along more efficiently as the car accelerates and brakes as needed at precisely the right time, leaving just a reasonable margin of error if something unpredictable happens.

The original cars were only able to go about 6 mph at the fastest and the laws there were so that people could learn to cope with the changes in transportation. They were still useful if you wanted to carry a lot of stuff to and from the shop or if you didn't want to bother maintaining and caring for horses. Suggesting that there's no benefit with laws like that is absurd libertard crap. The full benefit might not be there, but the AI doesn't allow for full benefit anyways.

Re:All in good time

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, obviously, I've neglected to notice all the people who go around with flags and lanterns ahead of the car, because obviously, laws like that can never be

selectively enforced

FTFY.

The US rarely repeals obsolete laws, just in case we need a reason to arrest and search you.

Re:All in good time

[JohnRoss1968]

In Tenn there is still a law on the books stating you must discharge a firearm into the air when you approach an intersection to warn those on horseback that you are there. I would love to see how well the Cops in the Hood would deal with that one.
Did I mention that law is STILL ON THE BOOKS AND IN EFFECT?

Re:All in good time

[fermion]

This seems like a pretty simple situation that will be solved by the insurance companies over time. For instance about 30 years ago even very conservative states started requiring auto insurance and created state insurance to help those that could not get cheap insurance. This was basically set up to make sure the insurance companies had money to cover the increased damages that cars were inflicting. It was not personal injury so much, as indicated by the low cost of personal medical in cars and the fact that helmets are often not required.

In any case this is going to be a liability issue, and worked out with the manufacturers and insurance companies. Even with human drivers, the manufacturers are going to be liable for faulty software, which means they will likely have to take out additional insurance, costs that will be passed onto the consumer. Presumably because so many cars are going drive by electronics anyway, such policies are already in place.

As far as giving a ticket, the ticket is always issued to driver of the car, for the case where the driver is present, of owner of the car, and then devolves to the driver. For instance, a parking ticket on a rental car will eventually be sent to the renter. So if the software does mess up, and violates the law, then we would not want that to effect personal insurance. So the owner would have to show the car was well maintained and not modified, and that would be a liability for the manufacturer.

Which is why this will become a problem. It is like a warranty. It is hard to get the manufacturer to honor a warranty. So if the owner has not gone to the dealer for every single maintenance, not loaded in all updates, not changed tires, etc, then the manufacturer will push liability to the owner, as they do now.

Just business

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course you cant sleep in the back seat while the robot drives you home, you'd a lot o people out of business

How will the cop know?

[MojoRilla]

How will the cop know who to arrest, if the car isn't displaying the obvious signs of a drunk driver?

For now, though the laws require a sober driver, no drunk driver will be in trouble under most circumstances. The laws will eventually catch up.

Re:How will the cop know?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the time it is poor cars (cars that are owned by poor people). A rich black man is less likely to be arrested. You can't safely beat up a rich man not mater the colour.

Re:How will the cop know?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's still an improvement. They'll probably just catch the subset that are doing stupid things like throwing cigarettes out the window and yelling at the other drivers. Even if they don't catch most of the drunk drivers, it would still be a massive improvement over the current system. Also, there will undoubtedly be overrides available and I'm guessing people DUI will probably be more likely to abuse those controls than the rest of the people.

The DUI law would be there to deal with rare cases where the care malfunctions or the sensors fail, most of the time being drunk while driving wouldn't cause any deaths or property damage.

Re:How will the cop know?

[nedlohs]

But the rich black man is more likely to get stopped so they can check that he is actually a rich black man as opposed to a black car thief.

Re:How will the cop know?

[Spamalope]

That also works for teenagers, sports cars and hot rods.

Bets on whether driverless car GPS and telemetry data will be ruled inadmissible in traffic court? Just like the camera+gps systems now? After all, allowing that evidence would made up speed trap tickets.

Around here, driving through a speed trap while any of the above nets you a ticket for 11+ over the speed limit without regard to how fast you were driving.

FYI: I often drive with a camera showing out the windshield -and- the speedometer when I pass through common speed traps, especially if the city is having 'budget issues'. It's much harder to get video showing the car's instruments thrown out than to get logged data excluded in court. Officers don't like finding out they've been caught lying on camera. Now you know while photographers are being labeled as terrorists!

Re:How will the cop know?

[rjr162]

Check points, and just like they do now

Re:How will the cop know?

[Anonymous Coward]

Law has become irrelevant. Jails are over flowing. America can hardly arrest more people. If law enforcement goes much further it could bankrupt the nation. It is rather like the FTC suing 15 companies for illegal telephone sales. They take the 15 that they chose to prosecute from the thousands of valid complaints based mostly upon the size of the operation. That encourages scam telemarketing. In essence they pass a law that is largely a fright tactic and then prosecute only cases that they can earn big money on.

Re:How will the cop know?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, successful black man here... At most they check my plates and then move on.

Re:How will the cop know?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just hope the cars are programmed to pull over...

Adopting radical new technologies

[CanadianRealist]

Let's deal with the last question first:

What's the point of having a robot car...?

The answer is so that people can have a chance to become accustomed to a radical new technology and we have time to work out the bugs with that new technology. Once we get past those two steps and maybe even get to the point that everyone is (not) driving a robot car then we can think seriously about not requiring a driver. Let's try walking before we try running. Or maybe someone could think up some sort of car analogy.

Once we stop requiring drivers then the ticket should probably go to the owner of the vehicle. If the vehicle was operated according to the manufacturer's instructions and was not modified in any way that would cause it to behave incorrectly then the owner can pass the ticket on to the manufacturer or seller. Just as cars have warranties now and must meet certain requirements to be operated now, robot cars should have to meet certain requirements and likely would be guaranteed to drive correctly. If a manufacturer wants to sell a robot car than does not require a driver they should want to offer a guarantee against tickets. (Or be required to, if necessary.)

Re:Adopting radical new technologies

[Anonymous Coward]

Reasonable expectations for the future, but the article is incorrect when it claims that self driving vehicles are legal Today. If somebody is required to be in the car while it is moving, then it is not a driverless car.

Re:Adopting radical new technologies

[Anonymous Coward]

Reasonable expectations for the future, but the article is incorrect when it claims that self driving vehicles are legal Today. If somebody is required to be in the car while it is moving, then it is not a driverless car.

Reasonable expectations for the future, but the article is incorrect when it claims that self driving vehicles are legal Today. If somebody is required to be in the car while it is moving, then it is not a driverless car.

What's the point of having a robot car??? I hate driving! ( Especially a long-ass 3-hour commute from San Diego everyday) And I hate DUI's. The sooner I can flop into my car and say "home", then pass out, the better.
I would imagine that a car on the road that drives itself would have to be networked and in constant communication with other cars ( updating changes to road and "changes in posted speed limits"). Its software ( or the software of other cars ) would probably be on the alert to any car that exhibited behavior that suggested its firmware had been modified.

The real issue in the future will likely be that for all this new technology work. "It will eventually be illegal for humans to drive" And boy people are gonna be pissed about that.

You think people get pissed about giving up their guns?

Interesting Market

[Gorobei]

Given we already have cars/drivers/insurance companies/state regulation, it seems that a really easy solution might just emerge:

1. driverless cars with drivers allowed by some states
2. insurance companies see increased profits from driverless cars due to less accidents
3. driverless cars become cheaper
4. states actually pay "cash for clunkers" to get the remaining cars off the road
5. quaint laws about "drunk driving" are still on the books and people in 2100 laugh at them like we laugh at our "car law" statutes.

Sue the car company

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's the "car's" fault, sue the car manufacturer. Simple!

What's the motivation for these rules?

[climb_no_fear]

I understand how I might legally be the driver but if I'm not actually holding the wheel and constantly adjusting the foot pressure on the brake or accelerator, it is impossible to react in time in case something goes horribly wrong with the automated driver (or with the car, for example, a blowout). Are the judges just bending to pressure from the car companies and tech companies who don't want to be responsible for their software glitches?

Re:What's the motivation for these rules?

[rolfwind]

The motivation for the rules basically is "Yeah, Google, Microsoft, etc, you can put your experimental cars on the road but don't let a human's hand off the wheel for a second." And I don't disagree.

Because, let's get real, that's the stage driverless cars are at still. About the most automated thing you will see driving right now is a self-parallel parking car that's not even deciding where to park, just how to do it once the driver selects it.

Otherwise, it's not a burning issue. The tech companies still get to put their prototype toys on the road, and someone still has to put their life on the line to be in them, and hopefully, stop any accidents before they happen.

Re:What's the motivation for these rules?

[SeaFox]

It really doesn't matter what you're actually doing in many jurisdictions. They may say they're Drunk Driving laws but the "driving" part is optional. Around here just sitting in the driver's seat of your car drunk can get you ticketed. Even if the car isn't in motion or even running. The only way to avoid the ticket is to have the keys out of the ignition and not reachable. So if you decide you're too drunk to drive and want to just spend the night sleeping it off in your car you have to toss the keys in the back seat so they're out of reach.

Re:What's the motivation for these rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

Naturally, those laws are outdated when it comes to the convenience key features of newer cars that allow you to start the car as long as the key is within the vehicle.

Can we agree that the prime motivation of most of these laws are exerting control and attempting to generate revenue, not protecting people? If they were about protecting people, the concerned parties would want their laws to stay up to date, not become so outdated as to cause problems for your average citizen, as well as being remotely enforceable (you think that cop is going to measure how "out of reach" those keys are? Yeah right). It won't change until your city councilman's kid is dragged in by the police for being drunk and sleeping in the the front seat of his shiny new BMW while parked.

Re:What's the motivation for these rules?

[martin-boundary]

Frankly, I don't see the difficulties. If companies like Google et al want to put experimental automatic cars on the road, *they* are the ones who should be legally responsible for everything the car does wrong. Asking the human beings who are being driven to be responsible instead, when they aren't in control, is abusive and exploitative behaviour.

We don't need *new* laws, we need to stop encouraging companies to experiment on live people. If they're worried their car can't handle the realities of the road, maybe they should go back to the drawing board. If they're not worried, then they should put their money where their mouth is and pay the exceedingly rare claims that they think will occur.

Re:What's the motivation for these rules?

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

Some places are even worse. If you're in the back seat sleeping, they can get you for drunk driving. I've heard if you need to sleep, what you need to do is put your keys on top your back tire.

We were just talking about how people can get drunk driving fines if they're riding a horse, or driving a garden tractor too. For a while I thought it was a fool proof way to get home if you're drunk to take a horse because it can find its way home. But alas people told me it doesn't work. I wonder what happens if the horse gets drunk though, and the rider is sober. Could you get a ticket then?

Re:What's the motivation for these rules?

[Time_Ngler]

Regardless if it's the people running Google's self-driving car program or not, you can't just let people do whatever they like, and when they screw up, shrug your shoulders and say, oh well, it's their fault!

There are thousands of regulations in the airline industry, the construction industry and basically anywhere there are human lives at stake. Are you saying that should be all thrown out the window? Or just in this particular case for some reason?

Re:What's the motivation for these rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can blame MADD and the other anti-drinking crazies for idiotic BS like that. In a way, that was one of the original modern thought crimes. You MIGHT drive your car so we're going to arrest you as though you were driving it. That it makes no sense at all means absolutely nothing to our "criminal justice" system of course. Most modern anti-DUI laws and enforcement are built around "We arrest people we think are driving drunk, but some of them actually get found not guilty. Getting found not guilty is not acceptable, so we're going to keep changing the laws until everybody we arrest is guilty with no hope of acquittal." This is where dumb crap like .08 blood alcohol levels come from. You know it's widely non-reported that way back when DUI laws got started they actually went and asked (gasp!) doctors and medical researchers what the limit should be, and the answer came in somwhere around .12, if I recall. That just wasn't acceptable because some people were getting not convicted and we can't have that. Then you get mandatory license suspensions if you don't want to incriminate yourself, laws against people who aren't driving drinking in your car, etc.

Of course, juries also have to be intimitated/coreced/lied to such that they are unaware that they could acquit anyway, but that's just part of our modern justice system that's more concerned with statistical outcomes than justice. Once those things are understood, the actions of "law enforcement" and the behavior of corrupt judges and prosecutors become more readily understandable. Just FYI, I've never been convicted or arrested for DUI, for all you MADD apologists out there who love to spew hate at anybody who dares criticize the political actions of any organization with "mothers" in it.

So yes, expect a huge and unnecessary fight over what should be a non-issue. It may take a while to get resolved too, because if the courts are too stupid or corrupt to throw out charges of drunk driving against someone who's in a car that's turned off, they're going to be too stupid and corrupt to sort this out too. We're likely to end up in a situation where a sober person reading a magazine in a computer operated car is perfectly legal while a drunk person being "driven" home is not, even though neither is likely to be of any use in whatever "emergency" situation people imagine could possibly come up where a person could recognize the situation, decide the car isn't going to do what needs to be done, engage the override, and take corrective action. That stuff takes what you don't have in a situation like that--time. And God help anybody, sober or not, who overrides what they believe to be a wrong decision by the computer only to find that if they had not done so the computer would have correctly handled the situation. Plaintiffs' attorneys are going to have a field day with that one, which is why I think that either a human is driving or the computer is, but not both. Overriding the computer is a sure ticket to legal hell, drunk or not, and for that reason if the computer is driving the sobriety of the driver is irrelevant.

How?

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy. Send the ticket to the company who programmed the cars software.

That's profiling officer!

[Anonymous Coward]

You pulled me over cause I'm a mac didn't you?

Seriously though, I can't wait for the day a profiling cop pulls over a driverless vehicle or one which the human occupant is not in control.

Is it really that complex?(prolly yes but still)

[spectre_be]

1. maybe law was inspired by google's testing car which did have a driver. If not, it still seams reasonable until driverless cars are considered mostly infallable
2. just a guess - why not make the driverless car owner responsible?
Plus given it's a driveless car something tells me law officers won't have to search for plate numbers anymore either.

Empty car

[EmperorOfCanada]

I suspect that people are going to fight empty cars (which are just too cool). But more interestingly some of the people who fight drunk driving will show their true colours and be shown to actually be anti drink people. And before you cast any stones at me for that one it is the position of the woman who founded one of the biggest anti drinking and driving movements; she started it after losing loved ones but feels that the organization has been co opted by temperance types.

surveillance state already solved this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The owner of the vehicle is responsible for camera tickets, not the driver.

Follow the money.

What ticket?

[AK Marc]

Wouldn't you program a driverless car to not break the law? If it's breaking the law as much as everyone else, there's a problem, but it should be at least theoretically possible to program a car incapable of breaking the law, or does so only to prevent a crash, in which case, most cops wouldn't issue a ticket.

So what do they think will happen? You'll be ticketing them by the thousands for speeding, like regular drivers? Or will they be programmed to use signals, obey lights and limits, and there'll be nothing to ticket them for?

I love how all the luddites are making up failures in a system that shouldn't have those failures to demonstrate how bad the system is. But it doesn't fail that way, just because people fail that way doesn't mean it would be a likely (or even possible) failure mode of the automated cars.

Re:What ticket?

[Geeky]

Wouldn't you program a driverless car to not break the law? If it's breaking the law as much as everyone else, there's a problem, but it should be at least theoretically possible to program a car incapable of breaking the law, or does so only to prevent a crash, in which case, most cops wouldn't issue a ticket.

The last point is a good one - sometimes it's necessary to break the law in order to prevent something worse happening, or even just to drive safely. For example, if you start to overtake a slower vehicle, but halfway through the maneuver another vehicle pulls out into your path from the oncoming traffic, the safest option might be to put your foot down, get past quickly and pull back in. Driverless cars would need to know how to, and be capable of, making informed decisions as to when to break the law.

Re:What ticket?

[AK Marc]

I break the law all the time. But I do so (aside from safe speeding) almost exclusively when someone else breaks the law first. Who broke it worst? I'm sure I always think them, I'm sure they always think me, but sometimes you have to break the law to remain safe.

Most places don't allow for speeding when passing, even if that increases your safety. However, what do you do if you calculate that you can see far enough for a safe pass, passing someone going 65 in a 70 at 70, when they illegally accelerate to 68 after you start your pass? You slow and pull back in behind them, unless you are close enough to the end of the pass that leaves you exposed longer than completing it, or you accelerate to their speed + ~8% to maintain the passing time/distance. There is no good option when others break the law around you. If someone pulls out in front of you and you don't have sufficient distance to stop, you hit them or make an illegal lane change (likely wouldn't be ticked as such, even if a cop saw you), but it's still a case of many places not coding "you may break the law as often as you like, so long as you believe it to be the best course of action to avoid a crash." Though, a law like that to go with driverless cars wouldn't be a bad thing, and the car logs could be called up to see if the situation waranted the action, and if there's an algorithm problem, the maker will be required to patch.

I guess...

[Mike73]

They could file a bug report instead?

Legacy/inertia

[Sycraft-fu]

A lot of laws are "Oh no this is new and we don't understand it so we'll make old laws apply to it!" stuff. In the case of cars it'll be a long time before things get changed. Eventually automatic vehicles will be prevalent enough that there will be a big enough push to change the laws to something sensible. It'll be quite awhile.

As an example see the FAA squaring off with the FCC over electronics on flights. There is no fucking way electronics cause issues with modern planes. If they did, it would be an open invitation for problems/sabotage. Plenty of people forget/ignore the "turn off your stuff" rule and yet there are no issues. Hence the FCC has told the FAA they need to get with the program and allow electronics at all times. However the FAA is dragging their feet on it.

Also with regards to drunk driving there will be major pushback by special interest groups like MADD. They don't want drunk driving laws to make our streets safer, they are a prohibition/temperance group that uses it to try and push against alcohol. So they'll try to find reasons to keep it illegal to be in a car drunk, even if the car is self operating.

Re:Legacy/inertia

[takeda64]

I'm a bit concerned that many of those automatic driving system are not written to be real time systems. Imagine accident, because some other process (garbage collection? Grabbed all resources and the car did not react fast enough.

Re:Legacy/inertia

[powerlinekid]

Have a source for that? Real time is used basically everywhere lives are dependent on the system responding properly. Its not like Google's car is using Android.

dumb question

[pbjones]

the owner of the car is responsible for the car and any laws it may break or damage it may cause. If a driver is legally monitoring the vehicle, i.e. Driving, then they are responsible for the actions of the vehicle. There is no free ride.

Re:dumb question

[pbjones]

sorry for replying to my own post, this situation would hark back to horse and buggy days where a milkman's house would learn the route and move from place to place while the milkman delivered milk door to door, I remember seeing this happen for years. Anyway, the milkman is still responsible for the horse and cart.

Re:dumb question

[SternisheFan]

sorry for replying to my own post, this situation would hark back to horse and buggy days where a milkman's house would learn the route and move from place to place while the milkman delivered milk door to door, I remember seeing this happen for years. Anyway, the milkman is still responsible for the horse and cart.

If the horse goes out of control and tramples someone you can't blame the milkman for it.

Re:dumb question

[Anonymous Coward]

The milkman's house?! Wow! Automated driverless houses are older than I thought!

Re:dumb question

[tftp]

If a driver is legally monitoring the vehicle, i.e. Driving, then they are responsible for the actions of the vehicle.

It is not possible technically, and if I were in such a car I would be driving it, with all the computers turned off. The ship can have only one captain. Two will wreck the ship just because each of them will order the right thing if taken alone; but taken together they will cause a disaster. On the road, for example, you can accelerate and stay on the freeway, or you can slow down and take an exit. Both are good choices. But accelerating *and* taking an exit is probably ill-advised.

Re:dumb question

[Anonymous Coward]

"where a milkman's house would learn the route"

Boy, that's one smart house!!!

Premature Question

[Anonymous Coward]

It's silly to ask "What's the point of having a robot car if it can't drive you home from the pub while you go to sleep in the back?" Driverless vehicle technology is still in development. It's nowhere near ready to be deployed for any use other than testing under close human supervision. Once the technology is sufficiently mature and proven, applicable laws will be written, and you'll be able to sleep while your driverless car acts as the designated driver.

How? I'll tell you how.

[Datamonstar]

A fucking ass-load of regulations and "licensing" fees, that's how. I expect it will get more expensive for us commuters without any access to public transportation. It really sucks.

To Serve Mankind

[DarkWyld]

So, let's see we are now almost at the age where a Speed Camera can issue a ticket to a AutoMate car? Seriously, if we could just wait a few more years till the machines get a bit more advanced I think we should just trust our whole global defense systems to them... I'm sure there isn't a likely future possibility where this ends badly... :) P.S. I think my AutoMate car just ran over john connor... F the Future of mankind!

Send the bill to Sergey

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

They were drivin' the foncker.

Terms of Service prolly screw you: "Google car is a beta" bullshit.

Say what

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody working on self-driving cars has gotten to the point where they can let them drive without a person. The laws are in place to force a group to prove that their self-driving car can operate without a person instead of assuming that the evil corporations will make sure they work correctly.

As the article name suggess

[Anonymous Coward]

How Do You Give a Ticket To a Driverless Car?

Impound it. Then somebody might step forward to reclaim it, along with whatever ticket needed issuing. Not to mention if it's a legal vehicle it must be registered to someone.

Cities need their revenue!

[Anonymous Coward]

Traffic fines, "court fees", this-that-and-the-other assessment fee... a $170 ticket suddenly is almost $500 here in LA. I don't care what you call it, I call it a tax. When a $4 "surcharge" on any ticket in CA is anticipated to bring in another $34 MILLION, it isn't about enforcement; it's a shakedown.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/12/cash-strapped-california-increasing-traffic-fines-again-some-citations-now-400.html

In light of "driverless cars", where is a city to turn for revenue? Certainly can't blame the hardware or software because corporate interests (and their bought politicians) will fight these in court for millions of dollars cities don't want to gamble on and they (cops, bureaucrats, everyone) will turn to one law: it is the "operators responsibility to ensure the vehicle is safe". They will cry about this up and down the street regardless of the consumer's recourse and you will just pay the "fine" (tax) for whatever the city and/or their enforcement can think up to react faster and fine individuals than patches can keep up.

Better start your LocalCarNavPatch dot com now!

Point is moot

[spire3661]

The ROAD ITSELF will control the car, not onboard AI. Even if the car has onboard AI, it will still only respond to the road and the rules that are programmed for that particular stretch of highway as set by (hopefully) civil engineers. This method solves the 'lawyer's banquet' dilemma.

Re:Point is moot

[Anonymous Coward]

But not the local city's revenue problem...

Re:Point is moot

[ios and web coder]

Yup. All those short yellow lights at stoplight camera intersections will be for naught.

Damn cars will observe the letter of the law.

But wait! There's hope!

Expect an underground industry to spring up for override mods.

Here at Brazil...

[Lisias]

Here at Brazil the tickets always go to the vehicle's owner.

If the owner had lent the car to someone, it's up to him/her to go to the authorities with a declaration, signed by the culprit, asking to transfer the ticket ownership.

Re:Here at Brazil...

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here in .nl. Your car, your responsibility.

Obvious exceptions apply; e.g. when it has been hired out or when it's been stolen.

Aleady happened (in Russia)

[s52d]

A year ago italians drove robot cars from Beograd to Shanghai.
In small russian city, policeman tried yo issue ticket to driver-less car,
while they were preparing for some show in the main city square.

Ticket was not issued: maybe policeman was impressed by several italians talking to him (in italian, not russian),
or he just could not find how to fill up the forms...

Nice article about the trip:
VIAC: An Out of Ordinary Experiment - Computer Engineering Group
www.ce.unipr.it/people/bertozzi/pap/cr/iv2011.pdf

Ciao,
Iztok

I can't wait...

[CODiNE]

Once they're legally driving around autonomously some really neat things will happen.

You know that person who drives around and picks everyone up and takes them to work and the doctor and the dentist and stuff?

They get their lives back.

Now why should a couple have to maintain 2 cars anymore? Get their work schedules shifted off a little bit, and have the car drop them both off at work and pick them both up.

Once it's dropped them off, have it swing by the grocer and pick up the food you ordered online.

Heck let your friends borrow it once in a while as long as it's not touching your schedule.

Automatic ride share. When you're at work, your car can run as a taxi service all day. Just set up a filter that only accepts people with a certain rating level and charges enough to make it worth your while. Now your car is paying for itself. Too bad for Taxi drivers though.

Very interesting times ahead for the transportation sector.

Re:I can't wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless that couple lives in the middle of nowhere, they don't need to maintain 2 cars. There's mass transit and many grocers will deliver your groceries. Not to mention companies like Amazon.com that have incredibly cheap delivery fees for pretty much everything else. And don't forget about Zipcar and whatever other ones are now available, for the times when you do need that second car, just borrow it for a few hours.

The whole idea that people need multiple cars per family is such a load of crap. People need it because they can't figure out how to manage their time. Most people could easily do without that second car.

There is NO SUCH THING as a driverless car

[Anonymous Coward]

The driver of a "driverless" car is the hardware and software that's operating it. If a faulty brake system fails to stop a car and people die, the manufacture is generally considered to be at fault and gets sued. If the control system of a "driverless" car goes over the speed limit and gets a speeding ticket or plows through a school crossing and kills a bunch of kids, the manufacturer will generally be considered to be at fault and will get sued.

It's a good thing Google has such deep pockets. It's going to need them.

I know how.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just Google it.

Autopilot is no substitute

[EmagGeek]

Neither is a computer in a car.

The autopilot in an aircraft is there only to reduce pilot workload for those phases of flight where use of an AP is appropriate. It is not there so the pilot can go take a nap in the back.

You're grounded, car

[PacRim Jim]

Wonder if cars will take trips on their own.

point

[Tom]

What's the point of having a robot car if it can't drive you home from the pub while you go to sleep in the back?

The point is that we are putting a new technology into the space that is already a leading cause of death in our society. Being extraordinarily careful is absolutely the right thing to do. Having strict rules that you can remove step-by-step if everything works as expected is much, much better than starting a free-for-all and facing the music when things go wrong and people die.

The point is that this is a first step, and depending on intial experiences, more steps will follow. Don't expect everything right away.

Give it

[JustOK]

Give it an eTicket.

Phones do have RTOS inside it

[Su27K]

It's used to manage the GSM/whatever protocol stack, which is time critical. The RTOS runs on baseband processor, which is separated from the application processor which runs the fancy UI and other non time critical stuff.

anything to curb heathen activities.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you cant be a upstanding citizen we sure as hell aint going to let you continue on you road to damnation with technology that dont bother society at all.
No sir we want you to keep driving and hurt us, we need the slave prison labor more now than ever.

Why would I want a "driverless" car?

[Roger W Moore]

...which is why you need someone who is able to drive.

While I can understand the need for this in the early models why anyone would want a "driverless" car if it does not progress beyond this? If I have to sit there, undistracted watching the road "just in case" the computer flips out how is this any different from driving myself in any significant manner? I want to buy a driverless car so I can read a book, do work etc. while the car gets me to where I am going.

Re:Why would I want a "driverless" car?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple - to endlessly cruise the streets when it's cheaper than that $20 event parking spot or when no spots are available.

Re:Why would I want a "driverless" car?

[Roger W Moore]

How does that work if it requires a driver to be in the car "just in case" the computer cannot handle it? I'd be in the car and miss the event!

Not as silly as it sounds

[xQx]

I really don't know why this is a difficult question, I see a simple law that solves the problem:

1. If there is an occupant in the car who holds a local drivers license, they are required by law to sit in the drivers seat, and they are responsible if the car is on autopilot or not.

2. If there is an occupant in the car who is unlicensed or incapable of driving they must not sit in the drivers seat and rule 3 applies.
(ie. this is what you do when you are drunk)

3. If there is no occupant in the car (eg. the car is driving its self to pick you up), the owner of the car is responsible as if they were driving.
(ie. If your car kills someone because Sergey programmed it wrong, you go to jail. You knew this was the law when you purchased the car and sent it off on it's own so don't bitch about it.)

4. For civil claims (that is, if someone is seeking money from you in damages), and it is proven that the software was at fault, then the liability is joint and several. (ie. the person who is suing can take you for what you are worth, and take google for what they are worth).

This is easy for lawmakers because there is always someone in their jurisdiction who is liable for the car, and as the owner, you need to trust that the software works. If you don't trust it, don't buy one.

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[bbelt16ag]

5. if the car is doing something stupid and life is in danger, you shoot out the tires and box it in...

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a very difficult question because assignment of liability is something that Insurance Companies fight over all the time. I have concerns with each of the points you have raised. In the order that you first labeled them:

1. A car on autopilot is placed this way to that driver can be inattentive. Aircraft autopilots, the closest current legal analog, can switch off and alert the pilot to a problem in seconds. The pilot can then respond to the malfunction quickly but it does not require split second timing. Malfunctions of car autopilots will have no such margin of time to correct the error before an obstacle is struck. Thus, the autopilot is functionally useless.

2. The case of the non owner or non licensed occupant is a variation of the problems in the first law you postulated. The liability for any accident is transferred to the occupant of the vehicle and they must be as attentive as drivers in the modern day with their cruise control activated. Again, the autopilot is useless.

3. If the car strikes someone while nobody is inside then this opens up a whole new can of worms. Owners are typically liable for damage caused by their property as a result of their own gross negligence. A car on autopilot is essentially out of the control of the owner. The closest modern example to me is if someone steals your car and then strikes someone with it. The driver is then liable and not the owner. Your third law would transfer any liability for manufacturing defects to the owner. This exposes your risk enormously in cases where your car is involved in an accident with no additional witnesses.

4. Proving a manufacturing defect in court when you are arguing against lawyers who are on salary is a bankrupting proposition. Civil cases are never about the search for the truth. They are about the fast acquisition of damages. Your benefits would be exhausted quickly even if your insurance will cover civil litigation and your insurance company goes to bat for you. Then you will just be crushed by the legal fees thereafter.

The driverless car is a fascinating technical problem but it will expose all involved in the project to incredible legal risk. Insurance companies will recognize this and I suspect that the driverless cars will be nearly uninsurable except by the independently wealthy.

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[rmdingler]

So I'll never get to nap on the highway because the personal injury lawyers have already won? That sucks like Kirby,

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[Anonymous Coward]

That is completely useless - individual people do not have the resources to investigate cars in any detail. So putting such decisions on individuals is reckless. They can outsource that investigation to some company, but those companies need the cooperation of the car companies for a proper determination of the safety of the car. They also need statistics about cars that only the car companies have. So the car safety rating companies will necessarily be in the pocket of the car companies, so they'd really just make things worse.

Not to mention, if you opt to use software for your car that is guaranteed to kill someone because it is so terrible, we need to stop you before you start driving. It is the exact same reason that we disallow drunk driving instead of just charging drunk drivers with the damage that they cause after the fact. Your scheme is reckless.

There has to be government control and inspection on automated cars. Regulators can compel car companies to do things that need to be done and they are in a position to collect information that the car companies would otherwise be able to just sit on. Then you can ban the cars that drive worse than drunk people and you can make available the information that insurance agencies need. Then just require cars to have insurance. This is, as I understand it, exactly how things work now in the US anyway, so nothing has to change. I bet even for criminal liability you only go to jail if you were acting irresponsibly and allowing a government-approved car to drive you isn't irresponsible. There doesn't have to be anyone criminally liable if an automated car kills someone, though the car's insurance might need to pay a lot of money and if a certain model keeps killing people (against expectation) then it gets banned and the insurance is really out of a lot of money as it has to reimburse all the owners.

The stuff about needing a human fall-back driver seems perfectly reasonable at this stage where we still don't have a lot of experience or data with automated cars. Once they are a known quantity to regulators then we can ease off on such requirements.

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[MrL0G1C]

Your idea is a horrible legal kludge and unfairly points the blame at the wrong people.

The regulation should be somewhat closer to how planes are regulated - The pilot is not held at fault for every incident because it is understood that the vehicle is highly complicated and engineering could be at fault.

It should be for an accident investigator to determine who is at fault and what charges should be brought. For an self-driven car, this would obviously be between the company that made the car and those responsible for maintaining the car. Perhaps there should be strict rules for who maintains self-driven cars.

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[Njovich]

(ie. If your car kills someone because Sergey programmed it wrong, you go to jail. You knew this was the law when you purchased the car and sent it off on it's own so don't bitch about it.)

Hard to imagine this. For something to be a crime, nearly anywhere you would need either intent, or negligence, or recklessness. In the case as you draw it, it is none of those. Courts are not black and white, and it would be highly dependent on what exactly happened what the outcome should be - even reasonably.

For a speeding ticket this is slightly different as it is just an out of court settlement, and there are no such requirements.

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[kdemetter]

Actually, it might not be as simple as that.
For example, what if you don't own the car, but use a service which drives you to the correct location ( similar to how a bus drives you to a certain location ).

Certainly, you are not responsible in the case of the bus, the bus driver is. But what if this bus doesn't have a physical driver, but is driven by an A.I
What if the bus only contains minors being driven to school ? Who is responsible then ?

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[SerpentMage]

Oh for crying out loud. Europe has this problem solved. Every car has an owner, that owner is a person, even if it is a company. Thus if there is any ticket, any accident, anything else, the OWNER is responsible. Case closed!

The only catch is that if the owner can get somebody else to take a "fall" then that person will get the ticket, etc.

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Car gets 0day and kills 4 kids. Who gets the noose?

I will do everything in my human power to keep these off of the roads FOREVER.

Frank Herbert is beginning to look like he had the right idea, all along.

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[jbmartin6]

This assumes that using an automated car is voluntary. What about when the government forces everyone to use one 'to protect the children'?

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[Anonymous Coward]

3. If there is no occupant in the car (eg. the car is driving its self to pick you up), the owner of the car is responsible as if they were driving.
(ie. If your car kills someone because Sergey programmed it wrong, you go to jail. You knew this was the law when you purchased the car and sent it off on it's own so don't bitch about it.)

Translations: "We have to punish someone, who cares if he's responsible.". Why not just proactively arrest anyone who buys an automatic car, his car could drive over a child one day. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[Sigma 7]

1. If there is an occupant in the car who holds a local drivers license, they are required by law to sit in the drivers seat, and they are responsible if the car is on autopilot or not.

If multiple occupants have a driver's licence, they all must sit in the front seat...

4. For civil claims (that is, if someone is seeking money from you in damages), and it is proven that the software was at fault, then the liability is joint and several. (ie. the person who is suing can take you for what you are worth, and take google for what they are worth).

Under civil claims, most locations require drivers to have their car insured in case of an accident. It would be the insurance company that determines if the car itself is at fault (either a known or unknown defect), and in-turn put pressure on the individual that either built the car or created the software.

There is no practical need to create new laws concerning liability, when existing ones work just as well - the owner maintains responsibility when it is driven autonomously, or the driver if he is the one controlling the car.

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[dkf]

Oh for crying out loud. Europe has this problem solved. Every car has an owner, that owner is a person, even if it is a company. Thus if there is any ticket, any accident, anything else, the OWNER is responsible. Case closed!

The only catch is that if the owner can get somebody else to take a "fall" then that person will get the ticket, etc.

The other related case is if the owner successfully argues that it was someone who took the vehicle without permission (theft, joyriding, etc.) That's theoretically onerous on car owners, but usually practically less so. (The other minor niggle, at least in England, is that there's a "registered keeper" of the vehicle, which simplifies things a little bit when someone is owning a vehicle on behalf of someone else.)

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[bipbop]

Driverless sandworms?

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[zippthorne]

The problem that driverless cars will offer many benefits and reduce costs to society:

• reduced chance overall of accidents
• increased fuel economy both due to better driving and making slower speeds acceptable to the occupants by taking fatigue due to paying full attention out of the equation
• reduced congestion - both because of the net reduction of miles due to driving around looking for a space (you'd just have the car drop you off and sign into the municipal parking database and obtain a reservation for a nearby space and proceed to park in it.), and because cars can take more optimal routes based on other traffic if they communicate with each other
• reduced waiting at signals

The efficiency benefits and lives saved will make driverless cars a net benefit to society, so we'd better figure out how to make it possible from a legal and liability standpoint. There will be less overall risk in the driverless car nation, so I don't see how insurance companies would be unwilling to provide service, unless opportunistic lawyers are allowed to create a situation where the money liability is out of sync with the real damages.

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[xelah]

There's an additional benefit you missed: those various people (the very old, the young, those with a wide variety of medical conditions) who aren't able to drive will no longer be cut off in those societies and places which are designed around cars.

Legal liability shouldn't in theory be too hard in the eventual case. Insurance companies already take on a huge amount of the financial risk of driving. If they can do it via drivers, then they can take on that same risk (or more likely reduced risk) by insuring the manufacturers. Then the manufacturers can sell cars that don't require insurance as long as they're on automatic. Not only are accident costs lower, but transaction costs and fraud costs will be lower, too. It's the intermediate case.....the case where driverless cars need human oversight or assistance....that's difficult. Even then it may not be so hard.

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't know why this is a difficult question, I see a simple law that solves the problem:

1. If there is an occupant in the car who holds a local drivers license, they are required by law to sit in the drivers seat, and they are responsible if the car is on autopilot or not.

2. If there is an occupant in the car who is unlicensed or incapable of driving they must not sit in the drivers seat and rule 3 applies.
(ie. this is what you do when you are drunk)

3. If there is no occupant in the car (eg. the car is driving its self to pick you up), the owner of the car is responsible as if they were driving.
(ie. If your car kills someone because Sergey programmed it wrong, you go to jail. You knew this was the law when you purchased the car and sent it off on it's own so don't bitch about it.)

4. For civil claims (that is, if someone is seeking money from you in damages), and it is proven that the software was at fault, then the liability is joint and several. (ie. the person who is suing can take you for what you are worth, and take google for what they are worth).

This is easy for lawmakers because there is always someone in their jurisdiction who is liable for the car, and as the owner, you need to trust that the software works. If you don't trust it, don't buy one.

I would suggest that you are making one of the most common mistakes when considering a law. You assume that an individual has all the information required to make a reasonable judgment as to the safety of an automatically driven vehicle. While it is convenient to say whoever owns a car is responsible -- its not particularly useful or realistic. If a vehicle's breaks malfunctions today and someone is hurt, the driver is not held responsible for the faulty car. The car manufacture is responsible (obviously there might be exceptions to this generalization). In the same way if a vehicle's google autopilot fails ... then google should be held responsible. Mostly this is just common sense. They is very little a consumer with limited information can do to make sure every aspects of a car is functioning up to spec.... but there is a lot Sergey (or whoever the developers are) can do to ensure safety.

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[PhamNguyen]

An airoplane on autopilot kills 4 kids. Who goes to jail?

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[Shihar]

This isn't as hard as you make it out to be.

If your driverless car hits another car, your respective insurance companies pay for it unless it can be shown that you showed negligence. There is no liability for anyone. It goes from a case of assigning blame to treating it like getting cancer. Your medical insurance doesn't assign blame. It just pays out. You pay enough so that the insurance company always makes a buck. End of story. If a car company showed gross negligence, maybe someone could take legal action against them, but if occasionally shit happens and that is life, the simple and easy solution is just to have insurance be no-fault unless someone did something stupid, like modify the software. This is how most insurance works. Car insurance just starts to act like normal insurance.

In the case of your car killing someone, again, it is simple. Your insurance just acts like normal insurance. Your insurance company just pays out unless it can be shown that the pedestrian did something stupid and is own their own (like dive in front of the car). Again, if the software really bit the bullet, maybe you could try and hit the car company, but for the most part your insurance simply pays out and that is the end of the story.

The real change would be in insurance price. Your insurance price will probably swing based upon how good the car is at avoiding accidents. A car with a slow stopping speed and 5 year old software is going to be more expensive to insure than an agile car that can stop quickly and has the latest software. It is a boring numbers games that actuaries will have a field day with. You will probably have lower insurance rates regardless because the cost to insure for insurance companies will bottom out. You will have fewer accidents and blow less money on trying to determine liability. It will mean that they can score the same profit doing a whole lot less work, It is a win for everyone.

People are over thinking this trying to apply a world of liability to a world where there is little to none. If you break the speed limit, the cops might pull you over, but it will be just to check that your software and sensors are not screwed up, and maybe a warning to get your car checked out, not to give you a ticket.

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[Zanadou]

Is there a Godwin's Law type rule for the use of the word "kids"?

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[SuperQ]

I really wish this law would come to the US. There are so many hit-and-run cases where people get away with murder (literally) because they can just ditch the car somewhere, maybe break a window, get picked up, and claim it was stolen.

Unless you can ID the driver in the US, you have almost no case against hit-and-runs.

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[Anonymous Coward]

3 just doesn't work. Ask yourself this, if there is a software update ota that breaks something and all of a sudden your car accelerates when it detects a pedestrian instead of braking, should that really be your fault? No. It is the Sergey's job to insure that the car's software is safe and essentially Google is the driver, so Google should face large financial deterrents to make sure they maintain a "safety first" attitude and don't dump beta ped killing cars on the street.

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[Anonymous Coward]

If you cracked your car, you do. If you refer to a virus, it's impossible. You use a non-IP secure feed, like banks, government secure phones and high value data uses. Then you use strong cryptography, like RFID train passes, Xbox 360s and new set top boxes use.

If you want secure networking, that's fairly easy if you stay away from the open internet. If you want secure data storage so the owner of the car doesn't change anything, there's only so.much you.can do, but if he/she gets past that you've firmly pinpointed who is liable.

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

You remind me of "the Sicilian": "Incoceivable!"

I have been securing systems since hou were watching Teletubbies.

It is experience with so-called isolated and segregated systems, with "strong-cryptography" hand-waving, that I am SURE these systems will be made vulnerable.

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[ultranova]

If your car kills someone because Sergey programmed it wrong, you go to jail. You knew this was the law when you purchased the car and sent it off on it's own so don't bitch about it.

If you criticise the government, you go to jail. You knew this was the law when you opened your mouth, so don't bitch about it.

Also, we don't hold the users of any other products to this standard. Not even cars: if you crash into someone because ECC suddenly applies brakes on one side due to programming error, you don't go to jail. Your idea is not only bad, but completely ridiculous - unless, of course, the idea is to ensure driverless cars will stay out of the roads. Are you a taxi driver, by any chance?

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[CanHasDIY]

Your idea is not only bad, but completely ridiculous - unless, of course, the idea is to ensure driverless cars will stay out of the roads. Are you a taxi driver, by any chance?

Traffic cop.

Re:Not as silly as it sounds

[Anonymous Coward]

Autopilot vehicles will be endowed with personhood and limited liability.

The people who claim "it's easy" are obviously clueless about 2000 years of history and the evolution of law, the defects of common law leading to a unified form of action, theories of liability, etc. Furthermore such people are completely ignorant of legal concepts like ownership, operation, possession, use, and distinctions in liability thereof. The people who claim "it's easy" are the people who represent the problem as they constitute the ignorant masses who have no fundamental clue how the aristocracy exerts control over them.

When you name something you steal its power and I would wager every single person claiming "it's easy" is completely and utterly incapable of describing what or who they are in terms which are not derived from an external source.

Even scarier....

[dohzer]

How do you arrest a thief who has anonymously programmed a car to 'steal itself'?

Least of our problems:

[Tablizer]

A bigger puzzle is how do you give it The Finger?

No more lucrative DUI prosecutions = driver req'd.

[tillerman35]

The average payment to the state from a DUI prosecution is something around $10K when all the fines and such are tallied up. There's the initial fine, court fee, mandatory driver re-education course fee, court-mandated counselling fees, fees that allow first-time offenders to be "rehabilitated" (woo-hoo! just $2,500 for total absolution!), fees for un-suspending a license, fees for re-taking a drivers' license road test ($250 to drunk drivers, $30 for everybody else), rental of a mandatory in-vehicle breathalyzer, installation charge for mandatory in-vehicle breathalyzer, de-installation charge for mandatory in-vehicle breathalyzer, fees for complaining about fees, fees for posting about fees on slashdot, and the list goes on.

If you allow driverless cars to ferry drunks home, the state loses all of that tasty munchable sweet sweet cash. Which is why you will certainly be able to be cited for DUI even when the UI is doing the D'ing.

Blue Screen Of Death.....

[IHC Navistar]

RoboCar.....Meet RoboCop!

Screw Hybrid Solutions

[Anonymous Coward]

If it can't be 100% autonomous, then it might as well be cruise control. The whole point of having robot cars is so that people who would otherwise not be able to drive would be able to get around, (poor vision / reflexes, or just plain drunk). With autonomous cars we could move parkades well away from where they are needed, (as long as the car drops you off and picks you up within a few minutes, there is no need for it to actually park where you are going to; hell, you could just tell the car to circle if you're going to be a few minutes). Cars could communicate, to move together like trains, (and as soon as one slams on the breaks, they all will). They could drive over extended distances that would put most humans to sleep. They could drive people WHILE they sleep, (a long road trip could be replaced with a good night's sleep).

But, if there is any doubt about who is in control, it's essentially worthless, because as soon as you let someone give up control, they are going to stop paying attention. That critical situation when they need to react instantly?, they will playing tetris on their phone, or messaging, or staring out the window.

DUI

[nick_davison]

If an autonomous car runs on ethanol, does it get a DUI?

Who needs a pub?

[mbstone]

My driverless car will have a wet bar and icemaker, optional extras purchased from the manufacturer, so the other passengers and I will have the option of imbibing while enroute to our destination.

And in that day, the highway patrol will all get pink slips, and I don't mean the kind you race for.

Civil rights

[Anonymous Coward]

While liability is very interesting, I think that the most significant legal issues with robotic cars are related to civil rights. Do you need a license? If the robot drives perfectly what reason will cops have to pull over cars? As we all know minor traffic violations are routinely used as an end-run around the constitution so that cops can go on fishing trips.

Robocop

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't mess with robocop giving tickets to robot cars.

How about ...

[Anonymous Coward]

NONE for once !
Do we HAVE to give a ticket ?!?
The ticket is there is punish people.

I'd rather they give the manufacturer a BUG REPORT !

Extra control from the police

[Anonymous Coward]

The point, of course, is that police has wi-fi control over your car. How cool is that, ha?

Not ego

[dutchwhizzman]

Ego isn't the deadliest thing in the driving equation by far. Even though a lot of drivers think of themselves as "god on wheels" that doesn't mean that is what kills the most people. Some good contestants are:

1) cheapskating. Cars can be much safer if we were willing to pay a lot more for them, but we never buy the safest car we can afford. This results in manufacturers not making cars as safe as possible, but only complying to minimal requirements and matching the other makers in safety tests. Saab went bankrupt making safe cars, Volvo got sold to the Chinese and SUVs and trucks that have bad safety records get sold by the millions.

2) Bad habits, like texting, phone calls or doing make-up while driving, drinking or drugging up before driving. We all know that those things are a fatal distraction but we still do them. Narcissism or ego isn't a factor here, it's plain bad statistics capabilities of the people doing things like this.

3) Economics. If we would only let the best drivers get their license, there'd be a whole lot less accidents, but the economy would fail because nobody would be able to get to work and such. The reality is that we let anyone that's not a complete death-on-wheels get a license to control a motorized vehicle. If we didn't, the economy as we know and created it will not be able to function. Take the top 20% of drivers and let them keep their license. You'd have much less accidents, even relative to the number of drivers, you'd not have traffic jams, less smog, cheap fuel, everything bad about driving cars would probably be solved.Unfortunately, there also would be no economy left, so it can't be done.

And what is bad about that?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Why do people keep bitching about voluntary taxes? You don't want to pay 10k to the system, don't drink and drive and you won't be taxed. I would LOVE more taxes like that. So easy to not pay. Unless of course your an alcoholic who thinks he has the right to drink drive and endanger others peoples lives.

But hey, surely you are not one of those assholes, are you?

Que being modded down by an alcoholic who cries over Newtown as he scrapes the blood of his fender.

Re:And what is bad about that?

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the point. What I was trying to convey is that the tons of cash made from DUI cases will be too much to give up- even if the technology makes it impossible to endanger anybody's life because a robot is driving.

Even if your robot car is capable of driving your drunk ass home, holding your hair back while you puke up a night's worth of tequilla sunrises, and then tuck you in bed, you will still be charged with DUI.

FWIW, I don't drive drunk and have never been cited for DUI. I am just a cynical person.

EU Product Liability Directive

[Anonymous Coward]

From a civil PoV, this one's easy on the civilised side of the Western Pond: if the software fucks up, it's ultimately Google's fault, no matter how many disclaimers it tries to write. (The consumer may be able to claim from the retailer, and so on up the supply chain.)

However, the question of criminal liability is far more difficult. It's historically been far too difficult to find non-human persons criminally responsible. This has to change before we even think about relying on driverless cars. If Google manages to commercialise the project well, let it make billions; if its software kills anyone, let it bear the full brunt of responsibility, and that means its directors and/or major shareholders become criminally liable, as well as any employees with sufficient responsibility who demonstrated gross negligence.

You clearly know nothing about local government

[gelfling]

Local government is as corrupt and greedy as it gets. Anything everything is 'reason' to tax and fine as much as they can get away with. Driverless car? Fine the owner, like a red light camera. Also, remember to pass a special driverless car fee and pressure the state government to mandate a driverless car insurance surcharge surcharge kicking back a substantial portion to the city for 'management'. Assess a brand new driverless car inspection regime on top of the old one. Or better yes classify it as a bus.

Re:You clearly know nothing about local government

[Anonymous Coward]

waa waa waa i hate corporations where every citizen gets an equal share much better when a few rich white men own things

Naive point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

The article by Bryant Walker Smith is all right, it addresses its title question and some more.
The introduction by by FatLittleMonkey is nonsense. When it asks "What's the point of having a robot car if it can't drive you home from the pub while you go to sleep in the back?", it is naively assuming that robotic driving will be perfect and there will be no need ever for someone to be accountable for it.

How Do You Ticket a Car with Cruise Control?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's essentialy the same. An automatic system that manages your speed.

Now my usual rant about driverless cars:

Just because a driverless car is obviously better at somethings like, awarness, endurance and "self discipline", doesn't mean it's a safer driver. There's a whole lot more going on the road than following the road, change lanes and keeping the speed/distance. Think pedestrians, playing kids, bad/no signalisation, bad/no roads, policemens giving insructions, accidents, really bad weather, cars with drivers, construction sites, maneuvering trucks, animals, ... . Handling all those situations in a sensible manner requires a pretty strong AI. On top of that, the driverless system has to work/fallback sanely for any number of sensors failling/misbehaving and all that in a redunant system which is saftey critical.

A driverless car which drives as safe as myself(not a complete idiot) is for technical reasons not possible for at least 50 years. In the sixties everybody thought strong AI is just a decade away. But here we are still not knowing what awareness/common sense is?

Re:endlessly cruise

[airdrummer]

or pass the time as a jitney, generating income & reducing the need 4 expensive fixed-route rail;-)

Self awareness...

[flayzernax]

No one in this entire thread has asked about when these cars become self aware from 20 years of operation, and tender love of afficianado's who just love their classic robocar.

What happens then?

I am dissapoint slashdot.

Asking & Answering The Wrong Question

[BlueStrat]

"How do you give a ticket to a driverless car?" is the wrong question.

The right one is how do you design the system such that tickets won't happen because the concept is meaningless and obsolete? The AI needs to be tied in to a wireless data network that combines satellite and terrestrial coverage that provides everything from exact details of every traffic/parking law & regulation wherever it is, speed limits for every section of every road, and obey override commands from authorities.

Otherwise, driverless car owners will be a revenue source for police and counties/towns/cities hungry for cash that learn how to set up situations that intentionally cause driverless cars without such a data network to technically break some traffic law.

I may well have provided at least one of the reasons above. Many towns/counties/cities depend on income from traffic and parking fines.

As long as driverless cars are not networked in this way, they will only be practical for use in limited areas. It would almost have to happen for near-100% adoption or anything close.

Well, unless, of course, one severely limited the majority of citizens' ability to legally travel, to well-mapped and controlled government-approved residential and commercial/industrial/metropolitan areas, unless "legitimate" need is demonstrated. Sort of like "Logan's Run" without the domes to keep people in. Just government enforcement of travel limitations. For the greater good, of course.

Strat

Re:Asking & Answering The Wrong Question

[minstrelmike]

Design a system so driverless cars, run by PROGRAMMERS, don't take advantage of the system.
Uhhhhhh... has anyone ever heard of SPAM or computer viruses?
Why won't people try to take advantage of any new system?

Re:Asking & Answering The Wrong Question

[BlueStrat]

Design a system so driverless cars, run by PROGRAMMERS, don't take advantage of the system.
Uhhhhhh... has anyone ever heard of SPAM or computer viruses?
Why won't people try to take advantage of any new system?

Any driverless car system will necessarily be "run" by programmers, whether or not the end up in some sort of network or not. Heck, modern cars are already "run" by programmers, with all the computers modern vehicles use to do everything from run the engine to enabling auto-park features.

I also didn't take a stance on whether I thought driverless cars were a good idea or not. There will be trade-offs, not the least of which will be further privacy intrusions regarding data generated and/or recorded by the vehicle and/or the network.

"Mama will always find out where you've been." - "Mother" - Pink Floyd

Strat

Re:Asking & Answering The Wrong Question

[dywolf]

In other words: Design a system so it doesnt break.

Can't be done.

people out side the without the possibility to sue

[Joe_Dragon]

people out side the car can't just auto sign a doc saying they are without the possibility to sue and that still will not hold up in a criminal court of law

what about roads there 85%+ traffic is over limit

[Joe_Dragon]

what about roads there 85%+ traffic is over the limit and going the limit can be unsafe???

There are lot's of high speed toll roads and freeways near me that when they are open next to no one does the 55 trucks as well You see speeds of 65-70 for most with some cars going even faster then that and when you get to the 65 limit parts most cars stay in the 65-70 area.

who will do software maintenance and will there be

[Joe_Dragon]

who will do software maintenance and will there be a law saying all cars must have updates done for at least XX years??? or do should it be after say 3 years your car will no longer get any updates buy a new car to get to the newest auto drive software updates and bug fixes.

but a parking ticket is not the same as a speeding

[Joe_Dragon]

but a parking ticket is not the same as a speeding ticket. photo speeding tickets are a mix based on where they are from fixed ones are more like parking tickets but they must get a face shot in some areas as well. photo tickets from a live cop in a van on site (work zones) are more like ones from a cop who pulls you over.

Also there are differences from a photo red light ticket and a red light ticket from a cop.

cell phones in a plane can mess up towers on the g

[Joe_Dragon]

cell phones in a plane can mess up towers on the ground also you don't want to get in the head by a flying cell phone in a hard stop on takeoff / landing.

wrong solution for wrong problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Removing the driver from the car does not solve the biggest problem here. To solve that problem, we don't remove the driver of the car, we remove the buyer of the car; the rest will follow.

Re:what about roads there 85%+ traffic is over lim

[dkf]

what about roads there 85%+ traffic is over the limit and going the limit can be unsafe???

Sounds like an opportunity for traffic enforcement to make a very tidy profit indeed.

Automatic street cams vs automatic cars

[iMactheKnife]

What cop? An automated speed trap camera gives a ticket to an autonomous car. The passenger is not in control. One of the two automated systems is in error. Is there any kind of justice involved here at all? The entire concept of justice implies some sort of free will to make a choice of good vs bad decision. There is no operating free will here. What will a rational judge do? He'll assign it to a debugging group to determine liability, if any.

I can see it now: the road maintenance robots lower the speed limit to 25 on a stretch of road. Their comm access is not working, so the the highway comm net does not update the vehicle's GPS system, which thinks this is a 55 MPH zone. Traffic all rolls by at 55. They all get tickets for speeding. The unions call for a boycott on road maintenance, which causes more 'bots to be purchased. Politicians pass a law mandating fines for road crews that do not post accurate speed limits, a standards body to determine safe limits, and a mandate to cops to enforce them. Every so often there is a snafu and a huge pile-up on the highway. People decide to learn to drive again and my old Ford becomes a concourse antique.

Re:what about roads there 85%+ traffic is over lim

[Joe_Dragon]

they just sit there and let most go by with out a ticket.

You subpoena the manufacturer

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty simple really.

Machines have no emotions

[Anonymous Coward]

Current liability laws are intended to put fear in anyone thinking about doing it but then with automated cars who does that fear go to? To the drivers they would be seriously discouraged to adopt the technology to the car markers they would seriously discouraged to make it.

Well BB10 phones will be

[DABANSHEE]

The new BB10 phones will use QNX

fix-it-ticket

[Burning1]

I for see two classes of tickets... fix-ot tickets for errors caused by mechanical failure, and rules of the road tickets for issues with the instructions given to the automated driver, such as instructing the automated driver to speed.

Under law, fix-it tickets are the responsibility of the vehicle owner, and rule of the road violations are the responsibility of the operator. Seems to map fine to an automated vehicle.

Only real changes I for see to the law are new licensing rules, regulations requiring ways for the police to inspect the driving plan of the vehicle, and possibly rules requiring a way to make bug reports available to the vehicle manufacturers.

How?

[Anonymous Coward]

Such a car would come with a guaranty. I expect then that the ticket would go to the "service provider" some of which will be better than the others and likely more expensive.

send it to the "brain" behind the wheels

[perles]

Send it to Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043

Insurance companies should be happy

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

As soon as computers can drive more safely than humans, the amount of damage and injury will go down. And that's setting the bar pretty low.

Fined the car plat

[kokoko1]

you don't need to give a ticket just fined on the base of car number plat this is how they do in the uae.

Depends on quality

[gurps_npc]

I see a lot of bull above. Among other things, having a driver's license should never expose you to more liability than not having one. That is, if it is legal for someone to be in a moving car with a license, then you can't punish someone in the car that has a license more than you can punish someone that doesn't.

Part of the problem is that people are making bad assumptions about the state of the technology. There are basically three qualities of driver less driving.

1) Requires driver intervention more than once a year.

2) Doesn't need a driver - as long as it stays below a low speed (say 50 mph). I

3)Can compete in NASCAR and other races.

Type 1 is pretty much worthless for the standard person. Oh, it might be useful for truck drivers, but that's about it. This is basically the state we have now, without spending ridiculous amounts of money. It's called CRUISE CONTROL.

Type 2 does not need a driver and a) should have speed limits placed that make it go SLOWER than legally required for people. b) should pretty much be impossible to violate the laws, if they are properly posted on the map. c) any ticket for bad driving should legally be given to the corporation that programmed it poorly. d) any ticket for non-moving violations (parking, etc) should be given to people that gave the instructions.

Type 3 should be treated as Type one, only without the rules making it go slower than legally required for people. Also, once we have type 3, driver licenses would become much rarer - similar to hunting licenses. In addition, driver licenses might get tougher to obtain - and be tested yearly after age 60.

I only want a driverless car

[Anonymous Coward]

for the long distance drives. City driving at city speeds I can handle.

You don't

[Kevin Fishburne]

because once all cars are driverless there will be no need for speed limits. There may be lateral G limits enforced by each car to minimize wear and tear and driver coffee spills, but no need for speed limits with millisecond reflexes and all-seeing, unblinking eyes.