How Do You Give a Ticket To a Driverless Car?

Better yet by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-24 12:03 · Score: 4, Funny

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

Extra safety by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-24 12:05 · Score: 1

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 by firex726 · 2012-12-24 12:21 · Score: 2

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 by TFAFalcon · 2012-12-24 12:24 · Score: 2

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-24 12:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by wisnoskij · 2012-12-24 12:43 · Score: 1

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.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Re:Extra safety by Yosho · 2012-12-24 12:58 · Score: 1

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?

--
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
Re:Extra safety by Wrath0fb0b · 2012-12-24 13:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 by firex726 · 2012-12-24 13:11 · Score: 1

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 by Concerned+Onlooker · 2012-12-24 13:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Re:Extra safety by uncqual · 2012-12-24 13:29 · Score: 1

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.

--
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
Re:Extra safety by KingMotley · 2012-12-24 13:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

Perhaps, but a 9 YO that is paying attention is probably a better driver than most people out there.
Re:Extra safety by KingMotley · 2012-12-24 13:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by r1348 · 2012-12-24 13:47 · Score: 1

Humans are still better at detecting sensor glitches.
Re:Extra safety by icebike · 2012-12-24 13:49 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:Extra safety by icebike · 2012-12-24 14:10 · Score: 2

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.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:Extra safety by icebike · 2012-12-24 14:18 · Score: 2

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.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:Extra safety by kaws · 2012-12-24 14:35 · Score: 1

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-24 14:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 by uncqual · 2012-12-24 15:00 · Score: 1

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.

--
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
Re:Extra safety by anubi · 2012-12-24 15:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
Re:Extra safety by sjames · 2012-12-24 15:07 · Score: 1

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 by KillDaBOB · 2012-12-24 15:19 · Score: 1

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 by KillDaBOB · 2012-12-24 15:24 · Score: 1

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-24 15:50 · Score: 3, Informative

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 by uncqual · 2012-12-24 15:56 · Score: 1

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.

--
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
Re:Extra safety by fisted · 2012-12-24 16:14 · Score: 1

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

--
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
Re:Extra safety by TooMuchToDo · 2012-12-24 16:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by TooMuchToDo · 2012-12-24 16:26 · Score: 2

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 by Stewie241 · 2012-12-24 17:23 · Score: 1

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 by amicusNYCL · 2012-12-24 17:42 · Score: 1

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.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:Extra safety by flayzernax · 2012-12-24 18:12 · Score: 1

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-24 18:19 · Score: 1

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 by mark-t · 2012-12-24 18:21 · Score: 1

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

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Extra safety by Dodgy+G33za · 2012-12-24 18:35 · Score: 1

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 by Dodgy+G33za · 2012-12-24 18:39 · Score: 1

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 by fostytou · 2012-12-24 19:17 · Score: 1

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 by Time_Ngler · 2012-12-24 19:30 · Score: 1

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 by fluffy99 · 2012-12-24 19:38 · Score: 1

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 by uncqual · 2012-12-24 19:50 · Score: 1

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.

--
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
Re:Extra safety by Kergan · 2012-12-24 20:38 · Score: 1

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 by Ocker3 · 2012-12-24 21:35 · Score: 1

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 by Anonymatt · 2012-12-24 21:37 · Score: 1

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 by Runaway1956 · 2012-12-24 21:58 · Score: 1

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.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:Extra safety by isorox · 2012-12-24 22:03 · Score: 2

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 by OolimPhon · 2012-12-24 22:39 · Score: 1

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 by drsmithy · 2012-12-24 22:59 · Score: 1

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 by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2012-12-25 00:30 · Score: 1

Which means flying cars may be back on the table. Maybe.
Re:Extra safety by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-25 00:35 · Score: 1

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 by sjames · 2012-12-25 01:25 · Score: 1

All managed routinely by animals. Flying animals routinely manage much more complex decisions.
.
Re:Extra safety by BasilBrush · 2012-12-25 03:07 · Score: 1

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 by iluvcapra · 2012-12-25 03:24 · Score: 1

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.

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Re:Extra safety by BasilBrush · 2012-12-25 03:34 · Score: 1

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 by BasilBrush · 2012-12-25 03:39 · Score: 1

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 by BasilBrush · 2012-12-25 03:47 · Score: 2

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 by BasilBrush · 2012-12-25 04:01 · Score: 1

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 by xelah · 2012-12-25 07:11 · Score: 1

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 by Lost+Race · 2012-12-25 08:05 · Score: 1

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.

There would be no need... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-24 12:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

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... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-24 12:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

So what you're saying is, cars don't commit DUI's... car drivers do. Bizarre thinking.
Re:There would be no need... by firex726 · 2012-12-24 12:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

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... by meerling · 2012-12-24 12:24 · Score: 2

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... by TFAFalcon · 2012-12-24 12:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

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... by EGSonikku · 2012-12-24 12:31 · Score: 1

What if I have expired registration, etc?

--
- "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
Re:There would be no need... by SternisheFan · 2012-12-24 12:39 · Score: 5, Interesting

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... by Todd+Knarr · 2012-12-24 12:52 · Score: 1, Interesting

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... by cigawoot · 2012-12-24 12:58 · Score: 1

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... by Flentil · 2012-12-24 13:03 · Score: 2

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... by thrillseeker · 2012-12-24 13:08 · Score: 2

Germany, as I recall from long ago.
Re: There would be no need... by SternisheFan · 2012-12-24 13:09 · Score: 1

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... by TFAFalcon · 2012-12-24 13:16 · Score: 2

And Slovenia. You're required to have basic emergency supplies in your car.
Re:There would be no need... by climb_no_fear · 2012-12-24 13:18 · Score: 1

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... by TFAFalcon · 2012-12-24 13:18 · Score: 2

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... by auLucifer · 2012-12-24 13:27 · Score: 1

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.

--
If I was witty I'd put something funny here but, as it stands, I am not and have just wasted seconds of your life
Re:There would be no need... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-24 13:27 · Score: 1, Informative

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... by VortexCortex · 2012-12-24 13:31 · Score: 5, Funny

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... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-24 13:35 · Score: 1

And Belgium: you need first-aid kit, reflecting vest, fire extinguisher and reflecting "Danger!" triangle.
Re:There would be no need... by SternisheFan · 2012-12-24 13:44 · Score: 1

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... by VortexCortex · 2012-12-24 13:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

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... by tftp · 2012-12-24 13:52 · Score: 2

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... by demonlapin · 2012-12-24 14:25 · Score: 2

It's not the states, it's the municipalities. Otherwise correct.
Re:There would be no need... by SternisheFan · 2012-12-24 14:39 · Score: 1

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... by tftp · 2012-12-24 14:51 · Score: 1

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... by mlts · 2012-12-24 15:50 · Score: 1

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... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-24 16:00 · Score: 1

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... by Todd+Knarr · 2012-12-24 16:13 · Score: 2

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... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-24 16:15 · Score: 1

"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... by deathguppie · 2012-12-24 16:30 · Score: 1

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 ..

--
once more into the breach
Re:There would be no need... by mysidia · 2012-12-24 18:01 · Score: 1

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... by mysidia · 2012-12-24 18:08 · Score: 1

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... by mysidia · 2012-12-24 18:14 · Score: 1

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... by Pollardito · 2012-12-24 18:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

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... by QQBoss · 2012-12-24 18:34 · Score: 1

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... by Animats · 2012-12-24 18:51 · Score: 1

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... by Jessified · 2012-12-24 19:08 · Score: 1

But what if it gains self-awareness and takes over the world. Can we ticket it then?
Re:There would be no need... by twistofsin · 2012-12-24 19:20 · Score: 1

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... by nitehawk214 · 2012-12-24 19:48 · Score: 1

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...

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Re:There would be no need... by slickepott · 2012-12-24 20:08 · Score: 1

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... by houghi · 2012-12-24 20:13 · Score: 1

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.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:There would be no need... by Todd+Knarr · 2012-12-24 21:07 · Score: 1

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... by gnasher719 · 2012-12-24 21:10 · Score: 1

"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... by Todd+Knarr · 2012-12-24 21:17 · Score: 1

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... by grahammm · 2012-12-24 21:51 · Score: 1

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... by hammeraxe · 2012-12-25 00:18 · Score: 1

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... by SternisheFan · 2012-12-25 00:33 · Score: 1

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... by sjames · 2012-12-25 00:48 · Score: 1

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... by AmiMoJo · 2012-12-25 00:59 · Score: 2

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.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:There would be no need... by SternisheFan · 2012-12-25 01:21 · Score: 1

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... by rbprbp · 2012-12-25 02:59 · Score: 1

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).

--
They're there in their room. You're on your own.
Re:There would be no need... by iluvcapra · 2012-12-25 03:29 · Score: 1

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?

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Re: There would be no need... by Xiaran · 2012-12-25 03:55 · Score: 1

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... by Xiaran · 2012-12-25 04:03 · Score: 1

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... by bsa3 · 2012-12-25 07:18 · Score: 1

And a spare lightbulb kit.
Re:There would be no need... by mobby_6kl · 2012-12-25 09:24 · Score: 1

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... by dfghjk · 2012-12-25 15:40 · Score: 1

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... by green1 · 2012-12-25 17:12 · Score: 1

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... by green1 · 2012-12-25 17:14 · Score: 1

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... by WetCat · 2012-12-26 02:19 · Score: 1

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... by Todd+Knarr · 2012-12-26 08:56 · Score: 1

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... by oxdas · 2012-12-26 09:20 · Score: 1

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... by qwak23 · 2012-12-26 11:24 · Score: 1

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... by ldcroberts · 2012-12-27 16:04 · Score: 1

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... by Pollardito · 2012-12-29 02:54 · Score: 1

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... by Pollardito · 2012-12-29 03:22 · Score: 1

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

Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-24 12:08 · Score: 1

We automate lawmaking, with artificial Intelligences

Isn't it obvious... by 3seas · 2012-12-24 12:09 · Score: 2

you use a cop less ticket writer.

Re:Isn't it obvious... by ArsonSmith · 2012-12-24 12:37 · Score: 3, Funny

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.

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:Isn't it obvious... by Tablizer · 2012-12-24 16:50 · Score: 1

use a cop-less ticket writer.
At first I read it as "top-less". I was jumpin' to buy Google stock there.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Isn't it obvious... by dstates · 2012-12-25 03:54 · Score: 1

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...

--
Statesman

All in good time by PRMan · 2012-12-24 12:11 · Score: 5, Informative

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?

--
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...

Re:All in good time by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-24 12:34 · Score: 1

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-24 12:48 · Score: 1

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 by nedlohs · 2012-12-24 12:58 · Score: 1

Way to miss the entire point.
Re:All in good time by JohnRoss1968 · 2012-12-24 15:00 · Score: 1

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 by fermion · 2012-12-24 15:00 · Score: 2

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.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black

Re:SImple by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-24 12:16 · Score: 1

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

How will the cop know? by MojoRilla · 2012-12-24 12:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

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? by nedlohs · 2012-12-24 13:00 · Score: 1

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? by Spamalope · 2012-12-24 13:11 · Score: 1

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? by rjr162 · 2012-12-24 14:36 · Score: 1

Check points, and just like they do now

Adopting radical new technologies by CanadianRealist · 2012-12-24 12:18 · Score: 1

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:SImple by SternisheFan · 2012-12-24 12:18 · Score: 2

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.

Interesting Market by Gorobei · 2012-12-24 12:25 · Score: 1

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.

What's the motivation for these rules? by climb_no_fear · 2012-12-24 12:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

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? by rolfwind · 2012-12-24 12:58 · Score: 1

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? by SeaFox · 2012-12-24 13:23 · Score: 1

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? by martin-boundary · 2012-12-24 18:04 · Score: 1

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? by GoodNewsJimDotCom · 2012-12-24 18:25 · Score: 1

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?

--
God spoke to me
Re:What's the motivation for these rules? by Time_Ngler · 2012-12-24 19:46 · Score: 1

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?

Is it really that complex?(prolly yes but still) by spectre_be · 2012-12-24 12:32 · Score: 1

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 by EmperorOfCanada · 2012-12-24 12:40 · Score: 1

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-24 12:42 · Score: 1

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

Follow the money.

Re:SImple by gutnor · 2012-12-24 12:43 · Score: 1

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.

What ticket? by AK+Marc · 2012-12-24 12:48 · Score: 1

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.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Re:What ticket? by Geeky · 2012-12-24 22:01 · Score: 1

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.

--
Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
Re:What ticket? by AK+Marc · 2012-12-25 08:55 · Score: 1

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.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Re:SImple by SternisheFan · 2012-12-24 12:51 · Score: 1

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 by hjf · 2012-12-24 12:52 · Score: 1

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.

I guess... by Mike73 · 2012-12-24 12:55 · Score: 1

They could file a bug report instead?

Legacy/inertia by Sycraft-fu · 2012-12-24 12:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by takeda64 · 2012-12-25 08:39 · Score: 1

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 by powerlinekid · 2012-12-25 14:30 · Score: 1

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.

--

can't sleep slashdot will eat me

Re:SImple by SternisheFan · 2012-12-24 12:56 · Score: 1

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.

dumb question by pbjones · 2012-12-24 12:56 · Score: 1

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.

--
There was an unknown error in the submission.

Re:dumb question by pbjones · 2012-12-24 13:02 · Score: 1

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.

--
There was an unknown error in the submission.
Re:dumb question by SternisheFan · 2012-12-24 13:34 · Score: 1

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 by tftp · 2012-12-24 14:10 · Score: 1

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.

How? I'll tell you how. by Datamonstar · 2012-12-24 13:03 · Score: 1

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.

--
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.

Re:SImple by dreamchaser · 2012-12-24 13:08 · Score: 1

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 by SternisheFan · 2012-12-24 13:12 · Score: 1

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 by SternisheFan · 2012-12-24 13:15 · Score: 1

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!

To Serve Mankind by DarkWyld · 2012-12-24 13:18 · Score: 1

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 by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-12-24 13:19 · Score: 1

They were drivin' the foncker.

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

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Point is moot by spire3661 · 2012-12-24 13:54 · Score: 1

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.

--
Good-bye

Re:Point is moot by ios+and+web+coder · 2012-12-24 14:05 · Score: 1

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.

--
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
-H. L. Mencken

Here at Brazil... by Lisias · 2012-12-24 14:00 · Score: 2

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.

--
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org

Aleady happened (in Russia) by s52d · 2012-12-24 14:09 · Score: 1

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... by CODiNE · 2012-12-24 14:17 · Score: 1

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.

--
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz

Autopilot is no substitute by EmagGeek · 2012-12-24 15:27 · Score: 2

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 by PacRim+Jim · 2012-12-24 15:35 · Score: 1

Wonder if cars will take trips on their own.

point by Tom · 2012-12-24 15:38 · Score: 1

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.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Give it by JustOK · 2012-12-24 15:49 · Score: 1

Give it an eTicket.

--
rewriting history since 2109

Phones do have RTOS inside it by Su27K · 2012-12-24 15:54 · Score: 2

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.

Why would I want a "driverless" car? by Roger+W+Moore · 2012-12-24 16:07 · Score: 1

...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? by Roger+W+Moore · 2012-12-25 05:06 · Score: 1

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 by xQx · 2012-12-24 16:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 by bbelt16ag · 2012-12-24 18:35 · Score: 1

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

--
NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER GIVE UP! "No limitations, no boundaries, there is no reason for them."
Re:Not as silly as it sounds by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-24 21:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 by rmdingler · 2012-12-24 23:49 · Score: 1

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

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Re:Not as silly as it sounds by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-25 00:12 · Score: 1

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 by MrL0G1C · 2012-12-25 00:40 · Score: 1

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.

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Re:Not as silly as it sounds by Njovich · 2012-12-25 01:51 · Score: 1

(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 by kdemetter · 2012-12-25 02:15 · Score: 1

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 ?

--
Slipping shoelaces ?
Re:Not as silly as it sounds by SerpentMage · 2012-12-25 02:30 · Score: 1

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.

--

"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Re:Not as silly as it sounds by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-12-25 02:58 · Score: 2

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.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:Not as silly as it sounds by jbmartin6 · 2012-12-25 03:02 · Score: 1

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

--
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Re:Not as silly as it sounds by Sigma+7 · 2012-12-25 04:50 · Score: 1

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 by dkf · 2012-12-25 05:11 · Score: 1

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.)

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:Not as silly as it sounds by bipbop · 2012-12-25 05:28 · Score: 2

Driverless sandworms?
Re:Not as silly as it sounds by zippthorne · 2012-12-25 06:10 · Score: 1
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.
--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Re:Not as silly as it sounds by xelah · 2012-12-25 07:05 · Score: 1

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 by PhamNguyen · 2012-12-25 08:00 · Score: 1

An airoplane on autopilot kills 4 kids. Who goes to jail?
Re:Not as silly as it sounds by Shihar · 2012-12-25 09:43 · Score: 3, Informative

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 by Zanadou · 2012-12-25 19:20 · Score: 1

Is there a Godwin's Law type rule for the use of the word "kids"?
Re:Not as silly as it sounds by SuperQ · 2012-12-25 19:48 · Score: 1

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 by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-12-26 01:32 · Score: 1

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.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:Not as silly as it sounds by ultranova · 2012-12-26 05:14 · Score: 1

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?

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:Not as silly as it sounds by CanHasDIY · 2012-12-27 03:59 · Score: 1

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.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Re:SImple by retchdog · 2012-12-24 16:20 · Score: 1

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.

--
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky

Even scarier.... by dohzer · 2012-12-24 16:24 · Score: 1

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

Least of our problems: by Tablizer · 2012-12-24 16:47 · Score: 1

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

--
Table-ized A.I.

No more lucrative DUI prosecutions = driver req'd. by tillerman35 · 2012-12-24 16:56 · Score: 1

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..... by IHC+Navistar · 2012-12-24 17:21 · Score: 1

RoboCar.....Meet RoboCop!

--
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....

DUI by nick_davison · 2012-12-24 18:07 · Score: 1

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

Who needs a pub? by mbstone · 2012-12-24 18:14 · Score: 1

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.

Re:SImple by QQBoss · 2012-12-24 18:37 · Score: 1

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!

Not ego by dutchwhizzman · 2012-12-24 21:56 · Score: 3

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.

--
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?

Re:SImple by sjames · 2012-12-25 00:57 · Score: 1

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.

You clearly know nothing about local government by gelfling · 2012-12-25 01:19 · Score: 2

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:endlessly cruise by airdrummer · 2012-12-25 02:23 · Score: 1

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

Self awareness... by flayzernax · 2012-12-25 03:22 · Score: 1

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 by BlueStrat · 2012-12-25 03:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

"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

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

Re:Asking & Answering The Wrong Question by minstrelmike · 2012-12-25 15:55 · Score: 1

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 by BlueStrat · 2012-12-25 16:19 · Score: 1

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

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re:Asking & Answering The Wrong Question by dywolf · 2012-12-26 04:04 · Score: 1

In other words: Design a system so it doesnt break.
Can't be done.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.

people out side the without the possibility to sue by Joe_Dragon · 2012-12-25 04:12 · Score: 1

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 by Joe_Dragon · 2012-12-25 04:17 · Score: 1

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 by Joe_Dragon · 2012-12-25 04:27 · Score: 1

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 by Joe_Dragon · 2012-12-25 04:33 · Score: 1

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 by Joe_Dragon · 2012-12-25 04:34 · Score: 1

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.

Re:what about roads there 85%+ traffic is over lim by dkf · 2012-12-25 05:42 · Score: 1

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.

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"

Automatic street cams vs automatic cars by iMactheKnife · 2012-12-25 05:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 by Joe_Dragon · 2012-12-25 05:54 · Score: 1

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

Well BB10 phones will be by DABANSHEE · 2012-12-25 07:23 · Score: 1

The new BB10 phones will use QNX

fix-it-ticket by Burning1 · 2012-12-25 07:35 · Score: 2

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.

send it to the "brain" behind the wheels by perles · 2012-12-25 08:49 · Score: 1

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

Insurance companies should be happy by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2012-12-25 11:12 · Score: 1

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.

Re:SImple by SternisheFan · 2012-12-25 12:32 · Score: 1

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

Fined the car plat by kokoko1 · 2012-12-25 18:00 · Score: 2

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.

--
http://askaralikhan.blogspot.com/

Depends on quality by gurps_npc · 2012-12-26 06:31 · Score: 2

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.

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com

You don't by Kevin+Fishburne · 2012-12-26 10:24 · Score: 2

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.

--
Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com

Slashdot Mirror

How Do You Give a Ticket To a Driverless Car?

241 of 337 comments (clear)