Slashdot Mirror
Alphabet's Waymo and Intel Are Launching Public Campaigns To Build Trust In Self-Driving Cars (theverge.com)
Alphabet's Waymo and Intel announced plans today to sponsor ads about self-driving cars. "Alphabet's Waymo is launching a public education campaign today called "Let's Talk Self-Driving" aimed at addressing the skepticism many people have about autonomous technology," reports The Verge. Meanwhile, "Intel said it would be airing its commercial starring LeBron James in the run-up to the NBA season opener on October 17th. From the report: The ad campaign will launch first in Arizona, before spreading to other states. Waymo is preparing to launch its first commercial ride-hailing service powered by its self-driving Chrysler Pacifica minivans, according to a recent report in The Information. This public education campaign would appear to be a prelude to inviting ordinary people to take a ride in a driverless vehicle. Both companies recognize that in order to make lots of money, there will need to be a robust effort to persuade people that autonomous vehicles are as safe, if not safer, than human-operated ones. Recent polls suggest that most people wouldn't take a ride in a driverless car, even if they like the idea surrounding the technology.
Having famous people promote the cars is a sign
to me that the cars are not reliable.
Dude it's Lebron James - this guy turned his back on fans and they still fawn over him. Lebron could be sitting in a self driving car on fire and programmed to run over kittens and people would still trust self driving cars if he endorses them.
ôó
Companies can't play god with public safety. Build trust by lobbying for increased automation regulation. Enact laws requiring strict safety functionality in all functions, and advertise heavily once you exceed it.
*in all operations
Who's Lebron James?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
No...
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Form TFS:
aimed at addressing the skepticism many people have about autonomous technology
Even my skepticism resulting from the fact that Google is involved?
I think he's some sportsball dude or something.
Autonomous car makers get the the house to relax nearly all regulations on autonomous cars. Now they want us to just trust them? I don't even trust the senate isn't as well paid off and this will become law.
How about offering a $100m dollar prize payout to each of the first 100 fatalities caused by thier faulty cars. Ohhh, the computer has fancy sensors and can't make math mistakes so it's impossible! Do that and I'd trust them a little.
Traffic flow is the problem. Self-driving cars will adhere slavishly to every letter of the law, even when it creates traffic havoc. Imagine a self-driving car doing exactly the speed limit in the passing lane as it inches by a self-driving transport truck doing five kph under the speed limit.
I believe Dennis Leary wrote a song that mentioned a situation much like it.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
I want to see them fail (on their fault) in a current-day environment before I'd even think of trusting them.
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
The litigation system will require they are absolutely safe to pedestrians and other drivers.
Well, it would help, but it wouldn't require absolute safety (which, to be pedantic, is an impossible standard that is demanded of literally no other product or service).
What will happen is that the companies will perform a calculation and determine an amount that they can absorb as a cost of doing business. That amount won't be zero, but won't be infinite, either.
They only need the failure rate of the car (or any other product/service that can maim or kill) to be low enough as to remain "in budget".
I always ask myself what kind of goofballs James Lebron's parents are and why they screwed up his name like that.
How about they just simply demonstrate that their cars dont make mistakes? Or is that too hard?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
For sale: Chain saw. May injure or maim, even if used correctly. Manufacturer not responsible for injury caused by using product.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Intel has already put a backdoor into every computer using their processors and is heavily involved in anti-competitive practices. Nobody should trust anything made or said by Intel.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
There's nothing to prove. People readily accept the risk in human driven cars the way it is. The $100m is unnecessary.
...I can't take you to that destination. The government told me not to.
Goofball? Is that the kind of sportsball Lebron James plays?
Before you can regulate you need standards and those standards should actually cover the specifications of automated vehicles and their real world capabilities and how they are promoted. First up detection capabilities should be fully publicised and 3D image maps of what they can detect and how far they can detect it, what the detection cycles are and the standards it has been tested under and the validity and completeness of those test ie what the vehicle can see and how it sees it and what independent tests have been carried out to confirm the truth of the claims.
Then you have vehicle action processing capability, how it can react to what it sees, how it processes it, what some important decision trees are, will it purposefully run down a person in order to preserve value in the vehicle and the safety of the occupant ie an imminent collision with another vehicle, the only evasive action is through a bunch of pedestrians but it is much safer to run them down for the vehicles passenger, than to take the impact with the other vehicle (so a vehicle might be designated as a zero evasive action, breaking only and always adhering to road traffic rules regardless of consequence for the passenger).
A lot of automated vehicle rules should not be a matter of convenience for profit first corporations but standards and regulations approved by the public and their representatives ie to illegally evade a collision or to take the impact and stay within the law and that coding should be audited to ensure it complies no bloody secrets with vehicle automation.
The other big thing is remote control vs localised control, whether or not the vehicle owned by the individual can be remotely controlled by the corporation, keep in mind servicing laws for automated vehicles will end up being compulsary and extremely highly priced and profitable, don't pay and the remote control vehicle wont go, price to change oil $1,000, change computer 50% of vehicle price, the sky is the limit. All automated vehicles will only be able to be serviced or repaired by the original manufacturer with massively inflated profit margins, else lose the warranty on automation, instantly and as a bonus the car simply stops where it is and requires towing to an manufacturer authorised location.
Watch, they will want to ban bicycles because they are not remotely controlled and they cause problems for automated vehicles, and why have them, a child can climb into an automated vehicle and be taken where the corporation wants to take them. More than public safety, this is an issue of total control over your movements. The corporations don't want you to go somewhere and you will be walking and likely get run down by an automated vehicle.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
saying we will cover you in court is a better way.
be by saying we are liable for civil stuff and if there happens to be a criminal case we will cover your costs + bail if needed.
$400 to install an 500GB hdd at dealer when the stock 250GB one is to small for the map data and you must take att with there $15 a gig Canadian data pack
real school zones not for profit ones that drop 45 down to 20 a on a main road where the school has a traffic light and big parking lot with an side walks that are far off the road.
they don't enforce the 55 on the IL tollways!
I want an extremely affordable electric car first.
Advertising is a powerful thing. You obviously underestimate it.
It's like saying "Trumps chances of being elected will go out the window as soon as he opens his mouth"
How'd that turn out?
Where I live in Scottsdale, Arizona, I have seen these several self driving vehicles almost every day depending on my route. These vehicles seem fairly common now. I have seen vehicles from several manufacturers and Uber. The vehicles usually have noticeable devices mounted on top of the vehicle.
These vehicles seem fairly common now. I ride a bicycle for approximately 36 miles per day. Most of the route has bicycle lanes. I am usually going slower than motor vehicle traffic except near intersections. On unusual behavior I have seen for these vehicle is for them to slow down to the speed I am riding on a bicycle, fifteen to twenty miles per hour on a road with a thirty five MPH speed limit. I have also seen the self driving vehicles slow down and stop in the middle of the road as I am riding nearby on a bicycle.
...especially supposedly technically knowledgeable people who are supposedly future-oriented. Here we are on the threshold of a revolutionary transformation in how transportation occurs and what I'm seeing so far here is an amalgam of: who can we sue when/if something fails?!?; it'll NEVER work 100% of the time! (omitting how shitty our current methodology scores); we need Standards(TM) first!! (ignoring how technology evolves); etc. Damn, just when I thought things could not get worse for America.
Chill. There are some who are against the autonomous vehicles, but yeah, it is pretty important that the things are predictable and safe. And there are some important questions as well, as how they will handle when there are a lot of AV's on the road. And while you dismiss liability, what happens when one loses control, and plows into my house? Who covers that?
Even then, would it not make complete sense for the manufacturers to tread very carefully? Look at the shitstorm Tesla is reaping from some dude who effectively killed himself when he ignored the autopilot warnings. A few really high profile accidents with a lot of people killed is going to stop a manufacturer in it's tracks.
And then there are the tactical issues. How do we prevent someone from loading a car with nasty stuff and autonomously driving it into some target? Or commandeering the vehicle to drive someone off a cliff - because you know these things are going to be part of the Internet of Pwned Things.
A good bit of caution is an engineers best tool. The US Government's shitting on State's rights in order to fast-track these things is a political tool.
And politics can only trump the laws of physics for a very short time.
If I were to suggest a path forward to full autonomy, I would suggest that the pieces be developed - and they are being developed - like the lane assist, the anti collision Infrared cameras, and anti tailgating radar (which of all these things needs mandated soon), and all of the other bits and pieces, but allows people to get used to this technology and the manufacturers to tweak it at the same time.
Trying to mandate that "you trust this stuff" without building any trust is simply going to fail. A lot of technology that covers what people cna and cannot do is also critical. Imagine thousands of people getting dropped off and their cars instructed to "circle the block" instead of parking. Imagine how you are going to program the car to where you want it to go and accommodate quick changes in destination. Imagine how the car will determine who to kill in the cases of unavoidable accidents. Do any of those choices include killing the occupants of it's own car? Or will the software always kill the occupants of the other car, or any pedestrians involved. Imagine how the cars will communicate with each other. You aren't going to have thousands of AV's on the road without them having ground truth, otherwise you will get some cases of AV gridlock, as occasions of impossible to solve problems come up.
All these things are solvable, except for the ethical who dies problems, and make for a pretty cool opportunity to do some cool programming work.
But fast tracking it isn't going to turn out well.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I can't believe some of the comments here, let me summarize...
Self driving cars are no good because: ....
1. I hate Google, Google does bad stuff, therefore driverless cars are no good
2. I hate Intel, Intel does bad stuff, therefore driverless cars are no good
3. Google using sports celebrities in advertisements, therefore driverless cars are no good
4. Google needs to prove their beta technology (it's been in development for 8 years), where did the poster get this information? therefore driverless cars are no good
5. Congress passes specific legislation on driverless cars, therefore they are no good
6. And I love this one.., driverless cars will follow the law, therefore they are no good
Wow, what a bunch of Luddites. Well at least some of us actually believe in the future of technology...
what happens when one loses control, and plows into my house? Who covers that?
And how should that happen?
Bottom line the same insurance that would cover a human drier that "loses control".
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Individuals figure out things like:
;) lol I have dated myself ;)
- They are mobile billboards for your tagging prowess and skills.
- And don't forget the videos screwing with them, so one can get that 15 minutes of fame online.
Everyone does recall what Phone Booths in urban areas looked like! OOPS right
Thus with great fanfare and childish hope did mankind embark on the path to its own annihilation.
Vechicle-to-vehicle communications + all systems on one computer/bus + hacking = worms which wardrive themselves. Even if that gets locked down, we'll still have DoS attacks that cause all cars in range to slam on the brakes.
Disclaimer: I'm excited about self-driving vehicles and will go out of my way to buy one once available, despite my fears.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
I thought "I don't believe that crash rate", so I looked it up.
An average of 102 car fatalities per day in USA in 2016.
I'm impressed.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Your data, and your lives, are safe with us. Like, totally.
Sincerely, Alphabet and Equifax.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
But with human insurance, the human responsible pays for it in terms of higher premiums. Whose premiums go up in the self driving car scenario?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Citation?
http://saveie6.com/
According to the calculations of Skynet James is a human trusted by 99.76% of the other humans.
When Skynet takes over he will be the last human puppet ruler making ads telling them that the endoskeletons and hunter killer units are peaceful refugees from a terrible war in the future and that Skynet is a computer of peace.
Actually the last bit is true from a certain point of view, after all if the humans stopped fighting and let Skynet control everything there would be peace.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
The owners, I would say, just like with humans.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
It's not so much that Trump won the election, more that Hillary lost it.
Trump is awful but she managed to convince people she was even worse. And spent $1.2 billion doing it. And had the support of most of media.
So ironically it's actually not an example of advertising working. It's more the opposite - Hillary's campaign outspent Trumps and had far more support from the media. However that ended up working against her. After all she went into the campaign something like a twenty point lead and ended up almost neck and neck.
I actually think people rebelled against the media's attempt to hard sell Clinton.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Raw, base line marketing. Albeit, for a better "consumer experience".
Your sig here!
Oh no! A single accident happened with a self driving car? I'd better go back to human controlled which has thousands of deaths a day.
I use Google Maps, primarily to detect traffic jams and such ... which is a good thing, because much of the time it doesn't even actually start up before I'm halfway there. Then it's behind a few turns for awhile, telling me to make turns I already made.
This is when it's not thinking I'm on a completely different road (like a frontage road).
If it were driving my car? Holy #$%^.
(Yeah, I know, I'm an idiot for thinking that Google's navigation product would be anything like ... Google's navigation product.)
So your car's software decides to steer into a building and you are powerless to stop it, and YOU take the financial hit? I don't think so!
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Having famous people promote the cars is a sign to me that the cars are not reliable.
The problam is that *you* is not *the general population*.
Us /.ers, given our tendencies, will tend to be over-obsessed with facts, logic, etc. compared to average joe six pack.
On the other hand, random everyday people tend to fall in for quite a lot of social cognitive bias. And if they see a celebrity endorsing something, they'll unconsciously give it more positive attention (there must be something good to it if ${celebrity} endorse it, ${celebrity} must have seen something positive in it).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
When they pay money for the service of being driven by automation, they will think much differently.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
what happens when one loses control, and plows into my house? Who covers that? And how should that happen?
Bottom line the same insurance that would cover a human drier that "loses control".
Structural failure of a component responsible for maintaining control of the car is one. Failure of a sensor. A software bug.
While you may find it interesting to cherry pick my argument, I'll just leave this link here: https://www.reuters.com/articl...
The driver was speeding and ignoring warnings, and attempting to use autopilot as autonomy - they are not remotely the same thing - but something tells me that there will be millions to be made in profit for the family.
The point is in this case, especially where the driver of the car is involved, is that with totally autonomous cars, the driver will by definition not be liable. You cannot be liable for a process that you are not involved in.
This is not how our society runs. Ever notice how disappointed people are if there is an accident, and the talking head notes at the end - "No charges have been filed"? If you go to that piece of shit page, which I suspect was designed by the same people who created "Ban Bossy", it is propaganda that old Adolf would have blushed at. Amazing how these people know! that without evidence, that autonomy is a dead lock to allow us a utopian future of safety, because as they say - "Because we should all get home safe".
tl;dr version If autonomy is as promoted, the only person involved that doesn't need liability insurance is the driver.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The car software is not deciding that. Why should it?
Unlike for humans for an autonomous car it is super simple to avid any scenarios like this: thy never get distracted or run with inappropriated speeds.
And if it is my car and I have it insured and that makes my insurance rise (very unlikely btw.), of course I take the financial hit. Who else would?
OTOH with autonomous cars on the rise: I don't need my own car. Actually living in Europe I don't need my own car anyway.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Considering that Americans drive over 8.8 billion miles a day, I find it not that impressive at all.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The owners, I would say, just like with humans.
The touchy-feely site notes that 94 percent of accidents are caused by humans. I'm looking forward to my insurance premiums going down by 94 percent. I mean, that's how it works right? When humans are no longer responsible for accidents, the premiums will plummet, and we'll all have a lot more money in pocket.
A bit of dark humor I note as well - one of the sponsors is the Foundation for Blind Children. Who on earth is going to make some poor blind kid liable for an accident in his or her self driving car?
And MADD is also involved, which is interesting, since at base they are dog whistling prohibitionists. I guess when the last bit of control is wrested from human drivers, we'll be legally able to get shitfaced at the bar and have the car drive us home.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
^
That's split among about 250 million drivers, BTW.
So, 250,000,000 people traveling over 8,800,000,000 miles, and 102 die during the process. Doesn't seem all that onerous once you plug in all the figures.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Structural failure of a component responsible for maintaining control of the car is one.
Same thing as in an non autonomous car.
Failure of a sensor.
They are redundant, and a failure is usually recognized.
A software bug.
Unlikely as the cars have millions of miles of test drives.
The point is in this case, especially where the driver of the car is involved, is that with totally autonomous cars, the driver will by definition not be liable. You cannot be liable for a process that you are not involved in. ... of course not :D
As it has no driver
Ever notice how disappointed people are if there is an accident, and the talking head notes at the end - "No charges have been filed"?
No, never noticed that. In ordinary accidents, there are no charges. Hence we call them "accidents".
That is completely different when neglenience, recklessness or bad intent is involved.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Your last point won't happen because people won't give up what they have and won't be satisfied with what they already have.
That's part why Soviet Communism doesn't work, people are dissatisfied when they can't have what they want or need. Soviet Communism may initially appeal to a truly downtrodden population because it can promise the world, but it can't deliver because there aren't enough resources. It also doesn't reward those who are truly innovative either, or those who have and use skills that deserve some extra reward.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
This is actually my only real problem with the cars they're showcasing right now. If there's no manual override, then you can't consider the car "reliable transportation".
I think you meant to post that on the numerous Trump articles already on slashdot.
For fucksakes, ever article does not have to turn into a Trump bash fest.
It's getting worse than those damn apk posts.
Exactly. Technology aside, I want to see the liability agreement. If Google says, "We're 100% liable for all harm caused by or insufficiently avoided by our vehicle when the vehicle is in 100% autonomous mode," I'll consider trusting them. Until then, they don't even trust the tech themselves.
Over here we need personal vehicles. Any kind of public transit we have is terrible. Furthermore I live somewhere very cold with snow, where accidents from self driving cars are far more likely. I don't care who pays the insurance, but I am a passenger in this scenario, not the driver. I'm not willing to be held liable for a coding or sensor error any more than I would be liable if I were in a bus or a taxi. The cost of liability should be borne on the automaker. I will pay to insure against destruction of the property so if there is a fire or vandalism I get a replacement, but since I have no control to avoid accidents it is illogical to have me pay for them when they happen. I do expect to be compensated when they happen however.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Unlikely as the cars have millions of miles of test drives.
The point is in this case, especially where the driver of the car is involved, is that with totally autonomous cars, the driver will by definition not be liable. You cannot be liable for a process that you are not involved in. As it has no driver ... of course not :D
Do you live in America? We are so reactionary that when anything happens, we scurry about waving our hands and wailing "This must never happen again!! We must punish someone!!" And we love punishing people or companies.
There is a gambling addiction lawsuit against the makers of Ability right now. https://www.youhavealawyer.com...
I don't think you understand that in America, we are in love with lawsuits, demand punisment in as many instances as possible, and seemingly love to turn a tragedy into profit.
Any of the accident scenariaos I've outlined are not about th eaccident itself, but the fault and punishment phase afterwards. My point in all of this is that someone will be sued, and the ethics of all this would be better worked out beforehand. I'd make a wager, but I need to get on Abilify first so I can join the lawsuit. 8^)
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I was alluding to Islam - it's not so much a religion of peace as a religion of surrender - Muslims surrender to Allah (Abdullah is literally slave of allah) and non Muslims surrender to the Muslims and accept second class status by paying the Jizya
Of course post Muhammad there have been multiple wars between Muslims
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And even now there is a Shia/Sunni split - even when the US troops were patrolling the streets of Iraq most of the Al Qaeda bombings in Iraq were against Shia targets, not US ones. And the biggest tension in the Middle East is not between Muslim states and Israel but between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia and their respective proxy forces.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Good marketing falls into one of the following categories:
Problem with X? Use Product Y!
Product Y: Better at X than other products!
And the always-favorite: Product X: Apply directly to the Y!
What they all have in common is getting your name out there to people who may be looking for it, and occassionally telling people about a need they didn't know they had. This could be that, or it could be an airline telling potential customers that it's 10 times less crash-and-burn-y than the competition. Self-driving cars seem like a solution to a non-existent problem for the average person. That's the barrier to cross more than anything else right now.
but I am a passenger in this scenario, not the driver. I'm not willing to be held liable for a coding or sensor error any more than I would be liable if I were in a bus or a taxi
If you are just riding in an autonomous car you are obviously not liable.
If you are the owner you are liable for everything your car is involved in.
It is enough if it is standing on the road, the breaks fail and the car is going downhill and hits something. It may not be your fault but simply material failure, but you, aka your insurance is liable.
Driving accidents might be shifted to the car maker though. However: they will be several magnitudes lower than with human driven cars.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Yeah, but who cares about america in our days? :D
Rofl
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Why? if I lend my car to someone, and they get in an accident, then the accident is their fault and goes against their insurance and driving record not mine. Why is this suddenly different for an autonomous car?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
There were only 2 fatal accidents involving space shuttles, but that was 35% of the fleet and 2% or so of the total number of missions.
The number of self-driving cars on the road today isn't probably known, but I'll bet it can be counted on a few hands. Comparing that to the millions of automobiles in total isn't useful.
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
then the accident is their fault and goes against their insurance and driving record not mine
No it does not. It goes against your insurance.
You have to convince the driver, by "friendship" or by a court suit to swap.
If you own a house and wind loses a shingle and kills a pedestrian: your insurance pays. Who else would be liable? Why should that be different for a parked car that suddenly gets lose and hits one? And where would be the difference with a self driving car, that is not parked but running?
Why is this suddenly different for an autonomous car?
It is not different, it is the same thing. First the owner is liable, then probably, if laws get formed like it, the maker.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Anyway it doesn't matter, because I have control who I give my car to. That is all that matters. With an autonomous car, not only do I not have control, but everyone is driving around with the same driver I am. If I lend my car to someone, they have the same driver I and a thousand others do. Every car is at the same risk because every car has the same driver. Why should some be paying more for their insurance for others? Because they triggered some bug what caused it to not notice a cyclist? That is rediculous, because with the same code in every car, it has an equal chance of happening to everyone who owns that car.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Rofl ... no idea what you are scared off.
When all cars are autonomous you basically don't need an insurance anymore.
Prices for insurance will drop to 1% or less.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You're assuming automated cars will ever be as good as a human, in any type of weather.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
No, I know that autonomous cars are far superior to humans. ...
They adjust the speed to driving conditions.
They have superiour perception/vision in all conditions (radar, lidar IR).
They _act_ before hand on situation changes instead of _reacting_ like humans do.
They are never distracted
Should I go on?
(Disclaimer: I worked for companies involved in self driving cars/driver assistance systems)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.