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

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.

Comments

What's the new DUI?

[Snotnose]

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.

Re:What's the new DUI?

[Highdude702]

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.

Re:What's the new DUI?

[Yosho]

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.

Re:What's the new DUI?

[Snotnose]

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.

Re:What about liability both civil and criminal?

[ShanghaiBill]

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?