Volvo Unveils Autonomous Concept Car, WIth Retracting Wheel, 25" Display (computerworld.com)

Lucas123 writes: Volvo has revealed what is sees as the future of self-driving vehicles, a car that has three autonomous driving options, one of which includes a retracting steering wheel, reclining seats with foot rests and a tray table. Unveiled at the Los Angeles Auto Show this week, the Concept 26 also has a 25-in interactive display. Volvo is also among the first to address the subject of self-driving cars and liability, saying we firmly believe that car makers should take full responsibility for the actions of the car when it is driving in full autonomous mode."

Comments

I feel the need....

[erp_consultant]

the need for Swede!

Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents it

[Joe_Dragon]

Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents its cars cause.

So will the CEO do hard time if there is a felony car accident? Due to a software fault / sensor error?

What the car dumps out of full autonomous mode rig

[Joe_Dragon]

What the car dumps out of full autonomous mode right before an accident giving the people in the car no time to try to get out of it?

Pretty awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

At some point we'll also need inter-car communication protocols. I look forward to cars strategizing on the highway, in yields, or at traffic lights (which may eventually stop to exist altogether).

Re:Pretty awesome

[bondsbw]

Because it can still help with traffic flow.

Today when 4 cars approach an intersection from all directions at about the same time and all want to go straight, the current protocol would be for all to slow to a stop and wait in turn to proceed based on who stops first. But if they communicate, there would be no need to come to a complete stop... the vehicles would speed up and slow down in such a manner that they would avoid collisions.

Here's an example with an intersection of two 12-lane highways. All directions flow with just a slight reduction in speed compared with no intersection.

And, communication at a higher urban level could spread out traffic volume in order to produce the most optimal traffic flows. Increasing traffic flow helps to reduce the time it takes for each vehicle to reach its destination, and can also save quite a bit in fuel costs.

Eagerly looking forward to this technology

[The-Ixian]

I haven't had a car for many years and don't foresee buying one any time soon.

However, once self driving cars are a reality, I will certainly consider buying one.

I suspect that I am not alone in this. It will be a huge selling point for these car companies and will perhaps turn non car owners into car owners.

Re:Eagerly looking forward to this technology

[Viol8]

"However, once self driving cars are a reality, I will certainly consider buying one."

Why , can't you drive? If you're such a poor driver please stay away from autonomous cars too and continue taking public transport, because if the car needs you to take over suddenly your fellow motorists won't want you having a panic in the middle of the highway.

Re:Eagerly looking forward to this technology

[Thud457]

1. Self-driving car?
Try self-driving RV .
With the boomers retiring and slowing down, this will be a huge product category.

2. 25" screen? How quaint.
How about thinking futuristically, maybe a VR holosphere driven by methane micro-lasers?
Gonna need some sort of privacy screen for the inevitable social maladjusted out there that feel the need for a FUFME session with their 'net-enabled fleshlight on the 405.

Re:Eagerly looking forward to this technology

[suutar]

if a car needs someone to take over _suddenly_ it doesn't matter. Nobody's going to be paying enough attention to what's going on every minute of every trip to be ready to take over on the one trip when the car can't handle it.

Re:Eagerly looking forward to this technology

[swillden]

However, once self driving cars are a reality, I will certainly consider buying one.

I think it will go exactly the opposite direction. People who now own cars will get rid of them, instead calling a self-driving car to pick them up when they need a ride. When you remove the overhead of paying a driver, the car service model of transportation becomes really compelling. We spend so much money on vehicles that are parked 95% of the time... pure waste.

Re:Eagerly looking forward to this technology

[angel'o'sphere]

Face it, most people are poor drivers. Those who proclaim themselves to be exceptional good are usually the worst.

Most autonomous cars will be fully autonomous and there will be no "sudden taking over".

It would spoil completely the point if it where otherwise, or how do you think a person without driving license would ever be able to use an autonomous car?

Also, you and basicslly everyone here commenting against autonomous cars is obviously since decades out of the loop.

High end cars allready have everything incorporated that you need for being autonomous except the actuall continious steering.

Sign recognition, pedestrian detection, all round radar, lidar and ultrasonic distance detection, lane detection and warnings if you come to close to the edge, detection of obstacles especially persons on the road, automatic emergency breaking.

And guess what, while this are either 'expensive add ons' , or standard in the high end cars, they will be state of the art and declared mandatory by law in aproximately 10 years. Just like ABS, ESS etc.

And I would bet, that in 20-25years, every car will mandatory be able to drive autonomous. That does not mean that all of them will be without steering wheel, however all of them likely will be able to react to emergencies and bring you to the closest hospital autonomous.

Re:Eagerly looking forward to this technology

[Immerman]

Any autonomous car that may need you to take over suddenly is completely unfit for purpose, because the erstwhile passenger will almost certainly not be paying any attention to the road, and require at least several seconds to survey the situation and decide on a course of action. In which time the car could have come to a complete stop and avoided the problem.

There is perhaps some leeway for "highway autopilots" operating in low-complexity environments, but even then they need to be ready to deal with any sudden accidents/obstructions on their own, because it's completely unreasonable to ask people to continuously monitor a situation over which they are not exerting any control. A person may be able to react *better* if they're completely in control, but the autopilot should be prepared to react *reasonably*. And really, that shouldn't be too much of a challenge - coming to a stop while minimizing collisions isn't exactly rocket science.

Re:Eagerly looking forward to this technology

[Immerman]

Have you *looked* at humans lately? For a relatively straightforward task such as driving (stay on the road, obey traffic laws, don't hit anything) a machine programmed by a team of competent, well-informed humans and subjected to millions of miles of real-world testing has my vote over a lot of the oblivious idiots I see on the road. Sure, I'd still much prefer a competent, attentive human driver behind the wheel, but those are so rare they're practically mythical anyway.

Re:Eagerly looking forward to this technology

[The-Ixian]

True.

As a matter of fact, self driving cars as a service will probably be viable long before self ownership of these cars.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Re:Eagerly looking forward to this technology

[The-Ixian]

Yeah, you are right, I should have thought of that.

Thanks for the reply.

Re:Eagerly looking forward to this technology

[Cthefuture]

I haven't had a car in over 20 years. I will be happy when everyone has an autonomous car because hopefully then there will be a competent driver behind the wheel that doesn't try to kill me on my motorcycle.

Re:Eagerly looking forward to this technology

[swillden]

there is a cost associated with waiting to get picked up if a car isn't available, too

Sure. But just as Google Now today tells me when I need to leave to get somewhere, I expect in the future it'll arrange for the car to be available. That won't help with spur-of-the-moment decisions, but I expect capitalism to do a good job of making cars readily available. Efficient allocation of scarce resources is what it's good at.

My car costs less than $10 a day (everything included)

Are you including the cost of parking? Including at retailers who have "free" parking, but must build into their prices the cost of buying the land and building and maintaining a parking lot? Or what about the cost of buying a house/renting an apartment that has parking space? That's just one example; I suspect there are a lot of other less obvious examples of societal costs that we all pay without realizing it to maintain widespread personal vehicle ownership.

Re:Eagerly looking forward to this technology

[just another AC]

I see this argument all the time... "cars spend 95% of the time parked and this won't happen if we all could just book self driving cars."

Well unfortunately commerce has to change massively before this happens. The reason there is a "peak hour" is because the majority of society needs to be on the road at the same time in the morning and in the evening. There are comparatively many fewer people on the road during 9-5.

With self driving cars, we still have to maintain enough cars to meet peak demand. Therefore there are going to be many cars that spend most of their time idle. It will be less than current levels but not by much (a good estimate will be it will reduce by the average number of cars parked during peak hours).

Re:Eagerly looking forward to this technology

[Wycliffe]

When self driving cars are ubiquitous why would anyone buy and own them?

For the same reasons people currently buy and own non-self-driving cars even though taxis exist.

I own a car because it is cheaper and faster than a taxis. A self-driving car doesn't have to pay a driver to wait for a call, pick you up, wait on you to do your task, and take you home. With a self-driving car, I can page it as I'm getting dressed, it arrives as I walk out the front door, it drops me off at the front of the store, I page it again as I'm checking out, it picks me up at the front door again, and takes me home. Taxis are kindof like full service gas stations which have largely disappeared once people realized it was cheaper to fill up your own car. Take away the taxis driver and the cost of a taxis will be considerably less.

Re:Eagerly looking forward to this technology

[swillden]

With self driving cars, we still have to maintain enough cars to meet peak demand. Therefore there are going to be many cars that spend most of their time idle. It will be less than current levels but not by much (a good estimate will be it will reduce by the average number of cars parked during peak hours).

True, we still have to meet peak demand, but I disagree that it won't be much less than current levels. For multiple reasons.

First, once we get the human-operated vehicles off the highway, we can greatly increase highway speeds. Tightly-packed "trains" of automated vehicles can cruise along at, say, 100 mph. Automated vehicles, particularly with radio frequency communications for coordination, will also not be subject to the typical rush-hour slowdowns; as density increases human drivers have to slow down, especially to manage entrance and exit ramps. Automated vehicles in constant communication with surrounding vehicles wouldn't need that. This means that a vehicle that currently makes a single journey during rush hour may make two or three, exploiting the small amount of spread in arrival times that does exist.

During the interim period when highways are shared with human-operated vehicles, we can still get some of the same effect by partitioning of automated-only lanes, separated with barriers and moving at much higher speeds. This is only feasible where there are already at least three, and preferably four, lanes of traffic, but many heavily-commuted corridors meet that requirement.

Second, and even before removing human-operated vehicles from the highway, self-driving cars make mass transit much more effective and accessible in sub-urban areas. Some regions have large parking lots near transit stations in an attempt to facilitate the personal vehicle to mass-transit transition, but that's expensive (for the transit system) and not always feasible. Given self-driving cars, self-driving buses and systems that know the actual location of the buses, it will be a simple matter to have a car pick you up and drive you to the bus stop (or, even better, train stop), arriving scant minutes before the transit vehicle.

Self-driving vehicles also facilitate smaller, more independent, transit vehicles. Rather than building a system around 40-seat buses, you can build it around 10-seat vans. When you have to pay a human driver, going bigger is far more efficient. Without a driver, smaller vehicles are still more expensive than big ones on a passenger-mile basis, but only if both are running full. Given how often buses are mostly empty, a larger fleet of smaller vehicles will be more cost-effective, and with automated routing and automated electronic interaction with future passengers can be much more efficient. Consider the opportunities for efficiency if passengers' personal digital assistants (e.g. Google Now) notify the system when and where the passenger is intending to board the van.

Third, right now the cost of vehicle transit is mostly independent of the time of day. It costs a little more to drive to work during rush hour because traffic results in higher fuel costs, but not much, and people don't think about it at all. But I expect that rush-hour transit in automated car service vehicles will be subject to "surge" pricing, because the level of peak demand translates directly into the single highest cost for such a service: vehicles that sit idle much of the day. Of course, the surge pricing will still be lower than current personally-owned-vehicle transportation costs, but because it will be so visible and easily measurable I expect it will provide a stronger incentive for employers to allow their employees to stagger their arrival times, spreading the surge and reducing peak usage.

On that last point, it's worth noting that most employers of highly-paid employees already allow them considerable latitude in arrival times, and many employees take advantage of that flexibility to reduce the time cost of commuting. Lower-paid employees tend to be required to punch the clock, and their time is considered less valuable, so employers are less receptive to complaints about transit times... but might be more receptive to complaints about transit surge pricing.

I'd ask about linux

[behrooz0az]

But considering this is volvo,
Does it run SteamOS?

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[jellomizer]

Even though Volvo will be liable, however that doesn't really excuse them for taking the steering wheel away from the driver.
There is legal liability. However that isn't much condolence if you are in the car about to get into an accident which you could avoid if you could.

Well I am going to lose my arm or die. However I will take comfort in the fact that I will get a big payout for this. Even though if I had access to a wheel and brake I could have saved myself.

Re:What the car dumps out of full autonomous mode

[Joe_Dragon]

Your idea is way out there. My thing is the EULA / fine print BS that is used to get out being liable. Also can they use the DMCA to keep logs / source code out of court?

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[Lendrick]

If someone is driving a brand new car right off the lot and the breaks fail, causing a fatal accident, does the CEO do hard time now? In that case, it's pretty clear that the defect is the responsibility of the manufacturer, but it would be far more likely that there would be a civil lawsuit. So when Volvo says they will be liable, they're talking about civil and not criminal liability.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[jellomizer]

To expand further. It is like if you are driving and you can safely avoid someone rear ending you. But you don't because they are liable.

That would be beyond stupid

[FreeUser]

So will the CEO do hard time if there is a felony car accident? Due to a software fault / sensor error?

Yeah, because that will so encourage corporations to accept liability and responsibility for their products, and not use a boilerplate "get out of jail free" card by putting all risk on the passengers (e.g. GPL section 15):

THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM âoeAS ISâ WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

That is exactly what we don't want from autonomous car manufacturers, so threatening to lock their CEOs up for trying to do the right thing isn't just counter-productive, it is beyond stupid.

Re:That would be beyond stupid

[Immerman]

Agreed. Though I *would* love to see CEOs and Boards doing hard time if the fault is due to intentional fraud or corner-cutting. Even if they're not personally involved, they're the only ones in a position to impose the necessary oversight and/or avoid the creation of perverse incentives.

Re:That would be beyond stupid

[Plumpaquatsch]

So will the CEO do hard time if there is a felony car accident? Due to a software fault / sensor error?

Yeah, because that will so encourage corporations to accept liability and responsibility for their products, and not use a boilerplate "get out of jail free" card by putting all risk on the passengers (e.g. GPL section 15):

THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM âoeAS ISâ WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

That is exactly what we don't want from autonomous car manufacturers, so threatening to lock their CEOs up for trying to do the right thing isn't just counter-productive, it is beyond stupid.

So what you are saying is that the GPL is incompatible with use in autonomous vehicles?

Re:That would be beyond stupid

[Joe_Dragon]

So what happens in a case where some dies and a criminal court finds that Volvo software is at fault Lets say (Volkswagen level failing or code that will not pass FAA regs)? Professional engineers can do prison time for signing off on unsafe stuff. Or what about evidence destruction say there is code in the case of unknown error to delete logs so they can't be used against them?

What if a judge holds Volvo in contempt of court for trying to NDA / DMCA / EULA there way out of giving up logs / source code?

Re:That would be beyond stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

It is compatible. You can release the source code as GPL (with no warranty) and provide customers with a warranty, be it for the code or car as a whole. There is no requirement in the GPL that no warranty should be provided, although the GPL by itself provides none.

Re:That would be beyond stupid

[jiriw]

Definitely NO. Answer is in the same same piece of text:

EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING...

It's very easy to add a little certificate of 'taking responsibility', or add it as an extra clause at the end of the license. It won't change the GPL. However... you must find a manufacturer of software for autonomously driving vehicles willing to provide their sources under a GPL license.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[Viol8]

"So will the CEO do hard time if there is a felony car accident?"

I think we know the answer to that - liability will be strictly limited to the company and there will be so many get-out clauses in the purchasing contract that they'll never be succesfully charged with anything short of a major failure of the vehicle.

Also I suspect "its cars cause" doesn't include the time when the car isn't driving itself - ie just after its detected an unavoidable accident and hands over to the human!

Psychology of self driving cars?

[OzPeter]

Seeing the pic in the TFA of the hipster guy leaning back while the car drives itself made me think that if it was me, I would not be able to relax while the car just drove. I think I'd still be continually scanning the displays and surrounding area looking out for potential trouble even though I know that I am not in control.

This make me wonder how much autonomous driving it will take before people actually feel emotionally comfortable letting the car do its thing? Or if anyone who has grown up with manual driving can ever fully trust an automated driving system? And I say this as someone who builds automated manufacturing equipment for a living and I implicitly trust those systems to do what they are designed to do (after being thoroughly tested).

(Of course the flip side is that reading Risks List gives me a dose of skepticism when it comes to other peoples systems)

Re:Psychology of self driving cars?

[suutar]

I suspect most folks who are comfortable being passengers and comfortable around computers will be capable of getting used to this. That is, admittedly, a limited subset of humanity, but growing over time.

What surfs and moves but does not move?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I need dimmable windows for some...surfing privacy while I'm driven to work.

On liability

[swillden]

I can't find the link at the moment, but as I recall Google has articulated the same position, and said it some years ago. The maker of the autonomous care should be held liable for any errors made by the autonomous driving system. Really, who else could be liable?

Re:On liability

[Dare nMc]

This likely isn't a selfless move, If the auto maker takes responsibility they expect to make a profit off that liability.
>Really, who else could be liable?
those who provide the map, the maintenance, the inspections, the tires, the route... So all of those will need to be provided by someone willing to take the liability. So basically Google or Volvo will likely require they are paid to provide all of these processes. Of course not all directly, but they will be the authority, that certifies those allowed to provide all of these services. Fixed the car yourself, your responsible. Wait how do we prove that, well we justified DRM on every component by taking responsibility.
This is probably the best route, even with the obvious down sides. I for one hope their is a reasonable way to get a developers license to be able to get affordable insurance, yet still be able to make modifications. (For things like adapting the tech to new vehicles/functions like offroad applications, not triciking the car into going faster...)

backseat passenger

[aicrules]

Is Volvo also legally and financially responsible for the driver's side backseat passenger being crushed to severe injury or death immediately upon enabling self-driving mode? Source: the concept pic at the bottom of the article.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[bondsbw]

Precisely, the only times criminal liability would be a factor is if there is evidence that an employee tampered with the vehicle, management decided to ignore internal warnings that a design defect could cause loss of control, or if the manufacturer systematically cheated regulatory tests designed to find such problems.

More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

More importantly, this is probably the first direct statement from a car manufacturer that THEY consider themselves 100% responsible for any accidents or problems when the car is in self drive mode.

This statement alone is more news worthy then the self-driving car itself!

Re:More importantly

[hyades1]

That's certainly what caught my attention. And it could go a long way toward making these things workable.

Let's face it, there's going to be huge push-back from people who don't want to get stuck behind a vehicle that drives under the speed limit most of the time, and there's bound to be wankers who try to get a pay-off by throwing themselves at the car or cutting in front of it in their scrap-worthy beater.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[zlives]

so... someone from GM is going to jail?

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

To expand further. It is like if you are driving and you can safely avoid someone rear ending you. But you don't because they are liable.

The way Americans love to tailgate (follow too closely) you picked a good example. I've actually had to slam on my brakes because someone in front of me suddenly stopped (deer, I think). Since I wasn't following too closely, I had a good margin. But the jerk-off behind me was following much too closely in his large SUV and I saw he was about to plow into me. So I then had to punch the gas, move up another meter or two, and slam the brakes again which gave him barely enough time to stop and avoid me.

Now maybe the AI aboard this vehicle can cope with a situation like that. And maybe it can't. I sure hope it doesn't assume sanity among fellow drivers. With potential car accidents there are much more immediate concerns than legal liability. Who pays for it is something that gets settled later among the survivors. While getting rear-ended is usually not fatal unless it happens at crazy speeds, it can cause some painful long term damage especially to the neck and spine.

That was one of the closest calls I had but certainly not the only one. Just last week I was stuck behind a very slow driver (possibly a drunk). He was doing about 25 to 30 in a 45 mph zone during good conditions. There was no safe opportunity to pass him or her. Especially since I suspected intoxication I gave more following distance than I usually would. The moron behind me (also in a large SUV - coincidence?) decided to display his infantile patience by tailgating me very closely. Apparently he believed I was somehow responsible for what the guy in front of me was doing, even though he could plainly see I was as stuck as he was. Or he didn't care and just wanted to take out his infantile impatience on the first available target which was me.

Could an AI be smart enough to know a) what the speed limit was, b) how much below it the vehicle in front is moving, c) that these were good conditions, no adverse weather, etc, and d) that people tend not to go that slow unless something is wrong with them, put all of that together, and realize that the situation is more risky than normal? Do we have the tech to do that right now?

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[Joe_Dragon]

So what if say due to a software error a small kid gets miss identified as safe to run over and car does that and keeps on going that is hit and run a felony + felony manslaughter. Will volvo pay for the owners court costs + Attorney + bail + job loss support + jail fees + inpoud / towing fees + a new car / cab fees?

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[Lendrick]

I thought it was Volkswagon.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[squiggleslash]

I think "Felony car accident" is a contradiction in terms. If it's an accident, it's highly improbable, probably impossible, to be accidental. Even manslaughter requires the killer did something willful that lead to the victim's death, even if death wasn't the intent.

Of course, mischievous designers could design a car so that it'll kill someone deliberately, but that's possible today too, so there's that.

Now, it is good news Volvo accepts liability, and I suspect all car manufacturers recognize that this is the only way it can work, but I suspect the consequences will be the death of car sales, and cars becoming rentable/leasable instead. No car company is going to be happy with being liable for the potentially deadly behavior of their vehicles when they can't control them, and they're even less likely to be happy about essentially writing a blank check for any accidents when a car leaves a car lot.

So more likely, you'll lease a vehicle. Leases will be short - perhaps even month to month. You'll need to return the car for servicing or risk losing it. If the manufacturer uncovers a problem that's expensive to fix and would need significant rises in lease payments to cover, you may find it unexpectedly withdrawn at the next renewal.

That sounds... unpopular? Leasing is common in the US, but it's not the majority, and it's usually sold as a way for someone on a medium income to get a better new car, which is a very specific market. I bet very few Slashdot readers would do that.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[Dutch Gun]

Have you ever been in an accident? It's pretty rare that you can actually see them coming. Otherwise, you would have avoided it, right? Or put another way... even if you can see it coming, it's likely that had you seen it earlier, there would be no need for last second heroic swerving or braking maneuvers.

Short of some horrible malfunction on multiple levels, a computer is going to start slowing down or braking long before a human is even aware of a potential problem. The autonomous car has the advantage of literally being able to see in all directions at once, and being able to react to that information in the blink of an eye.

Typical future scenario in your autonomous vehicle: "Why the hell is the car slowing d... oh, I see..."

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[Immerman]

Actually, I think handing control over to the "driver" in such a situation is the worst possible solution, since they probably aren't paying any attention at the time. Sure, the driver should always be able to demand control if they're paying attention, but even then the computer can probably do a better job of damage mitigation than most people.

Besides, if it's truly an unavoidable accident then it wasn't caused by the car or driver in the first place. And if it was an accident that could have been avoided if the danger was properly recognized sooner then it *was* caused by the car, and handing control over to the driver when it's already too late to do anything doesn't change that fact.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[Plumpaquatsch]

I thought it was Volkswagon.

No, they just pollute a little more than other cars, not kill people directly.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[Immerman]

Hey man, it wasn't my fault! It's all this ethanol-rich gasoline that they're serving everywhere. I *tried* to stay sober, I really did, but *you* try being fed 10 gallons of 15% alcohol and see how well YOU drive!

Re:Good on them

[MyAlternateID]

Too bad cars like this will never be street legal.

The states have an incentive to fight it. They receive a tremendous revenue stream from speeding tickets and other violations (which is why the speed limits are often too low, or change by 5 mph for no apparent reason). While the public service commercials talk a good game about "safety", the major use for traffic cops is revenue collection agents. Automated cars would likely be programmed to never commit traffic violations. This could seriously break the budgets of many local and state governments.

On the upside, the widespread use of autonomous cars could completely eliminate the problem of drunk driving. Hell, some of them might even have a mini bar installed.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[Dutch Gun]

I think we know the answer to that - liability will be strictly limited to the company

There's no need for "get-out clauses" in the purchasing contract, because that's how the law works. Employees are not liable for the products or services of the company they work for. The only exception, from what I understand, is if they do something illegal themselves.

Also, Volvo has clearly stated that they're accepting liability for accidents which their autonomous systems cause. From TFA: "Who will be responsible when an autonomous vehicle causes an accident?" Why would they be responsible when another car broadsides theirs? They haven't even remotely suggested accepting liability in all cases.

You seem to be inferring some conspiratorial vibe here, and I'm not really seeing it. It seems rather straightforward to me.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[Lendrick]

I wasn't aware of anything like that. Story?

Re:What the car dumps out of full autonomous mode

[Immerman]

Once it's too late to do anything to avert an accident then responsibility (or lack of, in the case of unavoidable confluences of bad luck) has already been established. In purely human terms, if a pilot sends an airplane into a steep dive while the copilot is on the can, and then hands the controls over to the copilot moments before impact, he does not transfer any responsibility to the copilot, because he did not actually transfer any control over the events about to unfold.

I agree that it is the sort of thing that a conniving lawyer could attempt to weasel out of with the right fine print, but I suspect that few judges or juries would be sympathetic to their argument. And even if they were, I suspect the damage to the reputation of both company and product would be far greater than magnanimously accepting full responsibility from the start. The only problem I see is the risk of corporations being sentenced to much greater penalties than a human driver that caused an analogous accident.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[ultranova]

Even though Volvo will be liable, however that doesn't really excuse them for taking the steering wheel away from the driver.
There is legal liability. However that isn't much condolence if you are in the car about to get into an accident which you could avoid if you could.

Except you can't, because you stopped really paying attention to the traffick the second the car began driving itself. You won't even notice you're about to get to an accident, much less have any idea what to do about it. At best you might get startlet and do something stupid, like unexpectedly slam the brakes in the middle of a highway. It's best to take direct control away from you except through some ritual which is complicated enough to ensure you're actually paying attention and have had time to think what you're doing. And yes, that will sometimes lead to accidents, but probably less often than the other way.

Besides, isn't getting rid of that whole "paying attention to the traffick and planning what to do" thing the whole point of self-driving cars? It's not like working the controls is physically tiring.

Interesting take on liability

[SkunkPussy]

What's interesting about robotic cars is they will probably be vastly safer than human drivers overall. Say 15,000 human cause accidents a year, versus 100 automation caused accidents a year. So going with my made up numbers, even if a robotic car causes an accident it would have prevented 150 accidents. Morally, it seems like they should *almost* get a free pass for the limited number of accidents they cause (as every human driver they replace will save lives).

Re:Interesting take on liability

[bobbied]

Right, like how we should give the police free passes for killing innocent civilians because ultimately they have saved more lives then they take.

You do realize that unjustified police shootings are incredibly rare. The number of police who are shot and die on duty outnumber civilians wrongfully killed by police by more than an order of magnitude.

So, where I'm not advocating we just give police a pass, there does need to be a huge burden of proof involved in finding fault with them. This means that unless there is irrefutable evidence the cop is lying about the use of force, they should be afforded both the benefit of the doubt and shielded from both criminal and civil court action. But hey, that's just me.

Re:Interesting take on liability

[TheTurtlesMoves]

The road toll in the US is about 50,000 per year.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[smooth wombat]

So what if say due to a software error a small kid gets miss identified as safe to run over and car does that and keeps on going that is hit and run a felony + felony manslaughter.

No, it's called Natural Selection. The kid shouldn't have been in the road in the first place.

Re:Stupid Is As Stupid Does - Even Gump Knew That!

[Lendrick]

I know the difference. I just wasn't thinking very hard when I typed it.

That said, if you're the kind of person who's bothered enough to be an total asshat about it, then I'm glad I irritated you and caused you to waste your time replying to me. :)

Y-Job

[PopeRatzo]

Ladies and gentlemen, the greatest concept car of all time, the Buick Y-Job:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Insurance

[Faust6]

This ought to collapse insurance rates in the long-run, so I'm all for it. What a racket that is.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[MyAlternateID]

I wasn't aware of anything like that. Story?

There's this amazing invention called Google. Perhaps you have heard of it? It's very easy to use. Using it and getting a solid answer even takes less time than posting stupid questions! Have you tried it? Give it a try, it really works! Why, the very first search result answers your question -- how 'bout that?

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[cheater512]

I'd feel a lot better if most people on the roads DIDN'T have a wheel that would allow them to control a multi-ton vehicle at speed.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[Lendrick]

Everyone loves Snide Lmgtfy Guy!

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[MyAlternateID]

Everyone loves Snide Lmgtfy Guy!

As much as I love what I call "willful helplessness", or the helplessness you choose.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[stdarg]

I'm guessing that Volvo is banking on changes to laws if this becomes common. The concept of felony driving violations will simply go away, at least with respect to self-driving vehicles.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[dotancohen]

Typical future scenario in your autonomous vehicle: "Why the hell is the car slowing d... oh, I see..."

Here is a video of that actually happening, with Tesla's autopilot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[Moof123]

Corporations are people my friend.

Just not people when it comes to criminal acts. I can't pay a fine to get away with manslaughter. Corporate "persons" can.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[jopsen]

Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents its cars cause.

So will the CEO do hard time if there is a felony car accident? Due to a software fault / sensor error?

If you cause a car accident due to an unforeseen heart attack or medical condition that you had no control over or expectation of, you hopefully won't go to jail :)
Similarly, if one of the wheels fall of the car while driving, and the car is well maintained, regularly serviced, you hopefully won't face criminal charges in the event of a car accident. Nor will your mechanic face charges.

If however, it is proven that your mechanic knowingly didn't do his job and put bad wheels on your car, then yes, maybe there is a criminal charge.
Or if you could be expected to know that wheel was likely to fall off... But you decided to run anyways.

But generally a crime has to have some level of intent or ignorance, to qualify as a crime.

Re:What the car dumps out of full autonomous mode

[ShanghaiBill]

What the car dumps out of full autonomous mode right before an accident ...?

Since self driving cars (SDCs) do not "dump out of full autonomous mode", that will not happen. The car may beep to get the human's attention, but the computer will continue to make a best effort to prevent an accident, or reduce its severity, until the human affirmatively takes control of the vehicle. There is no way in hell that the computer will just stop controlling a moving car.

It is odd that when people try to point out the problems with SDCs, they often tend to focus on tasks where SDCs particularly excel. Many accidents happen in a split second, and an SDC will react far faster, steer optimally, pre-tension seat belts, and almost always handle the situation better than a human. The increased reaction time alone will save thousands of lives annually.

The concept vs reality

[DrXym]

Here is where Volvo is with the tech.

Re:The concept vs reality

[DrXym]

Gah the link disappeared.

Re:The concept vs reality

[mister_playboy]

Perhaps they should have confirmed the vehicle had pedestrian collision detection ability before testing it on themselves?

Can't solve a captcha but can drive just fine

[burtosis]

I am still not sure how people think computers can deal with the real world when my 3 year old can out do most any computer in solving visual word captchas. We give them lidar and sensors galore, then painstakingly and manually map out the routes to inch resolution marking every driveway, road sign and stop light. Many of these sensors won't function in bad weather like rain and snow, and what happens when real world things happen like a blowing cardboard box that lidar would pose a far bigger threat to safe AI driving than a human driver or to a vehicle. What we need isn't really more powerful hardware or even sensors - we need groundbreaking research in new algorithms and ways to optimally fuse them. I would feel far safer in a vehicle with algorithms on par with common household fly using just two crappy cameras and a 3 dollar 6-axis gyro/accelerometer.

Its a great start if auto companies take full responsibility, i just have no hope of it actually replacing human drivers on open roads anytime in the next 20 years.

Re:Can't solve a captcha but can drive just fine

[yes-but-no]

They will replace paid human drivers much faster than we can foresee. Capitalism and cutting costs will not wait even 1 second longer than when they can fire a bunch of vehicle (trunk, cab) drivers. I think the real market autonomous driving may be eyeing for is the long-haul trucking business.

Re:Can't solve a captcha but can drive just fine

[burtosis]

No doubt, but for each wrongful death you would have to fire an awful lot of employees to cover the cost that quarter.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[ultranova]

So what if say due to a software error a small kid gets miss identified as safe to run over and car does that and keeps on going that is hit and run a felony + felony manslaughter. Will volvo pay for the owners court costs + Attorney + bail + job loss support + jail fees + inpoud / towing fees + a new car / cab fees?

What court costs? You weren't driving, but were a mere passenger in a car that had been approved by regulatory agencies to not need a driver. It's Volvo and said agencies who are responsible for any errors the autopilot might make - as long as you haven't tampered with it, of course.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[bondsbw]

You are assuming that the criminal liability laws which govern human drivers would apply exactly the same to autonomous vehicles, but we have been arguing that they would not.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

So many hypotheticals. Self driving cars have eyes in the back of their heads! You don't. So, self driving cars aren't estimating distances, know exactly how fast they are going, frequently know road conditions (wet, dry), can calculate much more accurately and faster how soon impacts will happen in all directions. It is really quite amusing to assume that most drivers can perform better in an emergency situation. Does anyone still believe that seat belts don't save lives? Antilock brakes? People over estimate their driving skills. I truly believe that the sooner people are removed from the driving equation, the safer everyone will be.

How long before..

[subk]

How long before the insurance scammers figure out how to "bait" these new Volvi into crashing? This seems like the perfect neck-injury con-job just waiting to happen.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[Joe_Dragon]

When cops hall your ass to jail after a cop see your car run over that kid and it keeps on going even trying bypass the cop road blocks as see that as some big that it must move out of the way of.

Hmmm. So china now makes an automated car

[WindBourne]

yes, this should be interesting since volvo is now a Chinese car, with Chinese quality.
And I am sure that it will be out next fall. Right?

Re:Hmmm. So china now makes an automated car

[WindBourne]

you mean the one with 3 keys that act up and leave me regularly with upper case letters where not wanted, and another key missing?
That chinese keyboard?

Re:Hmmm. So china now makes an automated car

[WindBourne]

nope. The XC90 is being moved to China.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[newcastlejon]

Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

So... Jesus is my autopilot?

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[Wycliffe]

To expand further. It is like if you are driving and you can safely avoid someone rear ending you. But you don't because they are liable.

Let's ignore the fact that you rarely are going to be able to see or respond to an accident that the computer doesn't also see and can respond to. Even ignoring this, this is no different than you sitting on a bus, a plane, or a subway and seeing an accident that can be avoided. As a passenger, even if you are in the 2nd row seat, are you really going to jump up and try to take the steering wheel from the bus driver? What are the odds that you can do this safely and prevent an accident where the bus driver who has driven thousands (or in the case of the eventual automated car millions) more miles that you can't.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[Wycliffe]

When cops hall your ass to jail after a cop see your car run over that kid and it keeps on going even trying bypass the cop road blocks as see that as some big that it must move out of the way of.

Why would the cop haul a person sitting in an automated car to jail for a hit and run? That's like sending the passengers of a bus to jail for a hit and run done by the bus driver. Sure, the passengers have an obligation to report it, but they aren't liable for anything themself. They are just the passenger.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[mister_playboy]

Perfectly appropriate response. The VW story isn't exactly an obscure bit of news.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[Joe_Dragon]

And if you get a dumb cop like Officer Barbrady or chief wiggum?

Re:Not going to happen, sadly.

[Wycliffe]

Liability is the reason autonomous cars will not happen, at least in America.

Insurance companies have no problem taking on liability. Even if a customer has to buy their own insurance for their autonomous car they will have no problem doing it once the cars are deemed safer than humans. The insurance company will look at the number of miles driven and the number of accidents and plug it into their existing formulas just like they do when a new driver who has never driven buys insurance for the first time. There might be a slight premium at first but after a few years, each car manufacturer or even car model will have their own rates based on the number of accidents per year just like they do now for drivers.

Re:WTF

[Wycliffe]

How are you going to throw the engineers in jail for manslaughter? Wouldn't they all just quit working on such projects?

FFS, the DRIVER IS RESPONSIBLE. This is the law already and it must always be the law if we value a free society.

Of course the driver is responsible. But the software is the driver, not the person who just happens to be seated in the front seat or do you want people to only be allowed to sit in the back seats to not be liable? For the most part, the driver is the one responsible not the owner of the car and that should be the way it stays. Passengers shouldn't be liable whether they are sitting in the back seat or whether they happen to be sitting in the seat location that traditionally was thought of as the "driver" seat.

Re:Good on them

[91degrees]

Isn't the ticket revenue more of a city level thing though? And presumably autonomous cars are a state level decision.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[Plumpaquatsch]

I wasn't aware of anything like that. Story?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - "paid compensation for 124 deaths"

Re:Good on them

[dave420]

That might be the case where you live - in more civilised countries there is not such a conflict of interest: those who set the speed limits don't get the money from the tickets.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[Lendrick]

I wasn't asking about the VW story, I was asking about GM. Incidentally, Snide Lmgtfy Guy googled for Volvo and not Volkswagon,

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[dotancohen]

That's a video of exactly why autopilot isn't ready. The car on the right was already stopped, since the beginning of the video, to let the guy turn and the tesla proceded until it had to suddenly brake, nonsense. If you're stuck in traffic you have to let others cars pass on the side roads.

That sounds more like a failure of the meatbag pilot than the poorly-named "autopilot" feature.

In any case, I do not agree. The vehicle traveling straight has right-of-way, the fact that the lane to the right of him was blocked with traffic has no bearing on that. The Tesla clearly could proceed without hindrance in its own lane, and the driver that cut him off was clearly at fault by any interpretation of law, common sense, or safety.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[ultranova]

And if you get a dumb cop like Officer Barbrady or chief wiggum?

Then you'll get hauled to jail for running over a kid while you were home sleeping in your bed.

Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents

[RespekMyAthorati]

HaHa!
Your link is for "Volvo + pollution".
You're the one who is too dumb to use Google properly.