Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New California Law Allows Test of Autonomous Shuttle With No Driver (fortune.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the ghost-rider dept.

If you live in California, you may soon start to see self-driving cars on the road with no operators to be seen. California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law on Thursday a bill that allows a self-driving vehicle with no operator inside to test on a public road. Currently, companies are legally able to test self-driving cars in California as long as the operators are located inside the vehicles when they are being tested. Fortune reports: The bill introduced by Democratic Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla allows testing in Contra Costa County northeast of San Francisco of the first full-autonomous vehicle without a steering wheel, brakes, accelerator or operator. New legislation was necessary because although driverless vehicles can be tested on private land like the office park, the shuttle will cross a public road on its loop through the campus. The new law means that two cube-like Easymile shuttles that travel no faster than 25 mph (40 kph) will be tested for a period of up to six months before being deployed and used by people. In an interview with Reuters in March, Bonilla said the "natural tension" between regulators concerned about safety and lawmakers trying to encourage innovation in their state necessitated a new bill. "They're risk averse and we're saying we need to open the door here and take steps (to innovate)," Bonilla said, calling the driverless shuttle project "a very wise first out-of-the-gate opportunity" to show how the technology could work safely.

36 comments

  1. What about liability both civil and criminal? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 0, Troll

    What about liability both civil and criminal?

    1. Re:What about liability both civil and criminal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TBD

    2. Re:What about liability both civil and criminal? by swalve · · Score: 1

      In the first place, driverless cars are already an order of magnitude safer than human driven ones, and in the second place, the liability rests where it always has: whoever owns the thing is liable for its behavior unless they can prove different.

    3. Re:What about liability both civil and criminal? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      What about liability both civil and criminal?

      What about it? We already have autonomous vehicles moving vertically (elevators), and existing liability laws seem to work for that. So why would horizontal movement be different?

    4. Re:What about liability both civil and criminal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not a great analogy - for elevators, the owner of the roadway (shaft) is the owner of the vehicle (car), and that same owner controls all of the on-ramps (doors). And there's a very limited (usually one) number of cars per road.

      All of this means the liability situation for vertical movement is a lot easier to figure out ...

    5. Re:What about liability both civil and criminal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not aware of any case law where another elevator has crashed into someone else's elevator.

    6. Re: What about liability both civil and criminal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would if they let me build them. I'm incompetent.

    7. Re: What about liability both civil and criminal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit.

    8. Re:What about liability both civil and criminal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the first place, driverless cars are already an order of magnitude safer than human driven ones ...

      No, they aren't. If you don't include Tesla (which you shouldn't, as its Autopilot is a fancy driver assist, and not an automated driving system), then ~100% of the miles driven by automated vehicles have been in extremely controlled locations with extremely low speeds. Weather? Nope. Freeway merging and lane changing? Not a chance. Anything over 30mph? Wishful thinking. Automated vehicles' safety record can't be compared with human drivers' because they aren't driving the same situations.

  2. Easymile shuttle kills 4 by turkeydance · · Score: 0

    missed 2, otherwise it would have been 6

  3. Have they ever been independently reviewed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Has driverless car performance ever been independently reviewed?

    I have read so many press releases, but not one mainstream press review involving a substantial journey chosen by the reviewer, nor academic paper, nor assessment by a consumer organisation, private or public.

    I don't know why this field of all fields has received so much less scrutiny. If it were software, we'd classify it as still vapourware.

    1. Re:Have they ever been independently reviewed? by swalve · · Score: 1

      The press are the last people you want doing science.

    2. Re:Have they ever been independently reviewed? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      tbh I wish everyone did science.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  4. Praise be to Allah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    And the Prophet Muhammad. Praise be unto him.

    1. Re:Praise be to Allah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      And the Prophet Muhammad. Praise be unto him.

      You mean the ass-licking child molester Prophet Muhammad who raped and molested little girls? The one who murdered the fathers of these little girls so he could stick his tiny little evil dick inside innocent girls who didn't deserve that fate. You know like any women who lives in that shit-soaked hell called Saudi Arabia. You mean that sniveling little cunt Prophet Muhammad?

    2. Re:Praise be to Allah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will auto driven to the trump internment camp

    3. Re:Praise be to Allah by swalve · · Score: 1

      Pics or it didn't happen. Also, prove Jesus didn't do the same thing.

    4. Re:Praise be to Allah by Kjella · · Score: 0

      Pics or it didn't happen. Also, prove Jesus didn't do the same thing.

      If we're judging the past, I'd file the Quran into evidence as a written confession. He was a 7th century warlord, he conquered and killed. He held slaves. He played by "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" rules. And it's not like this was some kind of secret or radical exception to his contemporaries, same as the Founding Fathers kept slaves. It's the past, it was ugly but it's also history. It's only a problem when somebody says the 18th century was perfect, let's go back to the way things were in 1776 and freeze society the way it was. Or well, the Amish pretty much do that and it's not a big problem, it's the "or I'll chop your head off if you don't" fundamentalists.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re: Praise be to Allah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, given the time period. World wide, take a look. All girls who hit puberty were either married off, or something else. Everywhere. All places at war too slaves. All places at war killed there opposing forces. Typically men fought, highly likely they had their teenage wives pregnant. Hmmm. This sounds pretty much typical of the times.

      Let's try again. What is it that makes him evil? Because some of it was written down? Interesting how the same things happened but were left out of the other books.

      I'd really like to here something specific. And then if it was done by other religions. Then what is happening now. And let's hear what makes an act evil. Educate us please.

      You seem to somehow know something people that have studied this stuff could not know without being there.

      Oh everyone, I think the first immortal person has just stepped forward. He was there, that is how he knows. It is first hand knowledge. But if you were there, you must be Muslim.

  5. FAA level code audit / review? redundant "voting" by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    FAA level code audit / review? redundant "voting" systems?

  6. No Brakes?! by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    "first full-autonomous vehicle without a steering wheel, brakes, accelerator or operator" So I'm rather sure it has brakes.. Maybe not a brake pedal. It has brakes, ill bet $100 on it!

    1. Re:No Brakes?! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      The lever you have pulled, "Brakes," is no longer in service. Please make a note of it.

    2. Re:No Brakes?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $ brakes
      brakes: command not found
      $

  7. What's the new DUI? by Snotnose · · Score: 2

    If some hacker somewhere inserts a virus, or otherwise gains control of my car, and my car gets into an accident, who is liable? Me, cuz I didn't keep my car fully patched? The car maker, cuz they didn't make patches available? The software vendor, cuz they had buggy software?

    My guess is the lawyers will go after whomever has the deepest pockets that they think they can force to a settlement, liability be damned.

    1. Re:What's the new DUI? by Highdude702 · · Score: 2

      My guess is the lawyers will go after whomever has the deepest pockets that they think they can force to a settlement, liability be damned.

      In a perfect world people wouldn't be dirt bags so this wouldn't happen. In our world i would guarantee you're 100% correct.

    2. Re:What's the new DUI? by Yosho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If somebody in your back seat reaches forward, grabs the steering wheel, and forces you to get into an accident, who is liable? You, because you didn't stop them? The car maker, because they didn't prevent anybody but the driver from grabbing the steering wheel?

      The hacker is obviously the liable party.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    3. Re:What's the new DUI? by Snotnose · · Score: 2

      You've never been involved in a court case, have you? Doesn't matter who is responsible, what matters is who has money. The lawyers figure you'll decide it's better to give them half of what you've got as opposed to fighting until you're out of money, then when you fight they settle for nothing because you're broke, they get paid, and their client gets bupkis cuz your broke.

      Trust me, I've been involved in our legal system a few times (president of a homeowners board, and a shitty neighbor when I bought a house). There is no truth involved, no justice, no logic. It's who can run the other guy out of cash first, maximizing the lawyer's fee.

      Bitter? Yeah, this coffee is a bit bitter but I'll deal.

    4. Re:What's the new DUI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The liability will be covered by the insurance company.

      The insurance company will calculate the odds of incidents occurring, and price policies accordingly. The insurance cost will likely be rolled into the lease cost of early autonomous vehicles (they will not be sold, but leased in the early days.)

      Use logic. Stop trying to spread FUD.

    5. Re:What's the new DUI? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      That doesn't really give a clear answer.. Because someone's premiums are going up as a result of the claim, and I sure hope it wouldn't be the owner of the car. In fact the owner of the car should only have to have property insurance, not liability insurance since no mistake is their fault with fill autonomy.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    6. Re:What's the new DUI? by Yosho · · Score: 1

      If that's your attitude about it, why are you even bothering to ask who's liable? How would an autonomous vehicle be any different from a manual one?

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    7. Re: What's the new DUI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Criminal is a bit different from civil. And this would have major coverage. Not you petty home owner board shit. Fuck off. You know nothing.

    8. Re:What's the new DUI? by speedplane · · Score: 1

      My guess is the lawyers will go after whomever has the deepest pockets that they think they can force to a settlement, liability be damned.

      In a perfect world people wouldn't be dirt bags so this wouldn't happen. In our world i would guarantee you're 100% correct.

      They're not necessarily dirtbags for doing so. Those with the deepest pockets also have the greatest ability to prevent accidents. If you have the ability to prevent an accident, you're more responsible for preventing one.

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
  8. I live and work in silicon valley by golgotha007 · · Score: 1

    and see google bubble cars and lexus wagon vehicles from google everyday. i drive between palo alto and santa clara on central everyday and that's where they're testing these things. i'm always tempted to get close to one to see how it reacts. i'm sure the safety measures are dialed up pretty high.

    1. Re:I live and work in silicon valley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, you'd be cut in half by laser defenses

  9. I live in Contra Costa County by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    In Concord to be precise and this kind of shiznit scares the crap out of me. Gonna try me a Methuselah's children dodge-em game soon.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  10. Thanks anyway, I'll walk instead. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    I'd rather walk than sit down in some automated deathtrap like that. It's a horror show on wheels. Do not want.