Slashdot Mirror
Fully Self-Driving Cars May Hit US Roads in Pilot Program: NHTSA (reuters.com)
Fully self-driving cars may be on the fast lane to U.S. roads under a pilot program the Trump administration said on Tuesday it was considering, which would allow real-world road testing for a limited number of the vehicles. Reuters: Self-driving cars used in the program would potentially need to have technology disabling the vehicle if a sensor fails or barring vehicles from traveling above safe speeds, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said in a document made public Tuesday. NHTSA said it was considering whether it would have to be notified of any accident within 24 hours and was seeking public input on what other data should be disclosed including near misses. The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation in 2017 to speed the adoption of self-driving cars, but the Senate has not approved it. Several safety groups oppose the bill, which is backed by carmakers. It has only a slender chance of being approved in 2018, congressional aides said.
If they already know the cars are going to hit the roads, why are they launching them anyway?
Nice word choice. Other than the roads, what else are they going to hit?
Bet that's not the only thing they hit.
I've lived and visited some places where many of the locals really shouldn't be licensed to drive, ever (Upstate New York in particular). It would be a great place to test self-driving cars as it couldn't possibly make their situation worse.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
If it's an Uber car it's likely to hit anything and everything.
After any accident all sensor data should be made public so that it can then be used to further train AI systems. If it's not a law then companies will keep it to themselves so that they can only improve their AI and not their competitors. The net result is that different companies' AI's will have to "learn the same lesson" multiple times instead of once.
I know that people will quote a number of accidents (including two fatalities) with autonomous vehicles but the rate at which current technology has accidents is many times less than with humans behind the wheel in non-safety critical situations.
The ironic thing is, safety critical situations are generally caused by humans. Somebody driving erratically, an accident taking place in front of the vehicle, somebody running a red light because they are distracted by a text. I would think that the more autonomous vehicles on the road, the few safety critical situations will occur which means that things will get safer all around.
On the point of safety, I am very concerned about autonomous vehicles in inclement weather and would like to see how they perform in the slush and sleet here in the Great White North. I would think that if the weather is too bad for autonomous vehicles, it's also too bad for human drivers...
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Self-driving cars used in the program would potentially need to have technology disabling the vehicle if a sensor fails or barring vehicles from traveling above safe speeds
Why is this necessary? Half the point of self driving cars is that they can go slower because I don't need to focus. Go 40 mph (64 kph) for all I care. I can be doing something else. I don't need to "hurry" at 70, just get me there.
Though I suppose I do see why it legally "needs to be said". During the introductory phase it would be best to "flow with traffic", but once the majority are self driving they could lower the speed limits so any accidents that do happen are less dangerous.
I refuse to sign
Ask any elevator operator.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Safe out of state driver. "Make sure your seatbelts are on and sit quietly."
Local driver: "Hold my beer and watch this."
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
All I can say is: if they approve this, invest in body-bag companies, you'll literally make a killing.
Autopilot has recently been polished for this.
What was the elevator accident rate before they became automated versus afterwards?
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
What about Liability?
This pilot program will end with the first lawsuit filed for the death of an American child by the hands of a foreign robot vehicle.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Naw, it seems like a much better idea to just legalize them at highway speeds day 1.
What about it? Are you asking whether the owner of rhe vehicle will be liable, or the manufacturer?
Both. The manufacturer will ultimately pay the bill, but I I buy a device and send my device out on the road, where it injures you, you're claim is against me.
Just as I as a driver have an agreement with an insurance company to cover my liability, the owner of an autonomous vehicle have coverage from the manufacturer. Essentially the manufacturer serves the same role as an insurance company as far as how a suit would proceed. This makes sense because it avoids the need to deal with the question of whether the owner or the manufacturer is at fault - the manufacturer is going to pay the bill anyway.
Updates and Patches.. need not Apply.. especially for Microsoft Car Play
The pilot, of course. It's right in the title!
#DeleteFacebook
killing 20 people for no good reason.
Me? PPV of the person(s) responsible execution, with proceeds going to the victim's families.
Seriously, someone needs to at least go to prison for 10+ years on this. And don't go blaming the dead driver, sounds like he wasn't happy either.
Oh, you're hiding in Pakistan? Guess what? We have people trained for exactly that, shitstick.
We need trump to appoint new leaders at NHTSA. One that will safely put a demise to NHTSA.
First let's be clear it's not about fault, it's about liability.
It's a question of who needs to pay the bill to get the damage fixed, not who is a bad boy.
If my dog bit your kid, causing damage, you could expect me to pay for at least the medical bills, because it's my dog. I'd like to not because I did anything wrong, but because it's my dog that did the damage.
Just by getting a dog I took on the risk that the dog would cause damage. (You and your kid didn't choose for me to get the dog, and so didn't assume the risk).
If my car slips out of park and rolls down the hill, hitting your car, I could expect me to pay to fix the dent. I'd be liable because it's my car that did the damage, not because I necessarily did anything wrong.
I do pyrotechnics (fireworks). I'm VERY careful, reminding professionals I work with of the safety procedures. If my fireworks do any damage, the owner can expect me to pay for it. Not because I did anything wrong, but because it's my fireworks that burned the paint on their car.
Separately, if my new car tends to slip of out gear and roll down even very gentle slopes I may expect the manufacturer to compensate me for any damage, and fix the car. The manufacturer may be liable to me, if the car shouldn't have done that. The manufacturer and I could argue about whether I parked it on a slope that's far to steep, or argue about tif I should have used the parking brake.
If my car hits your car, it doesn't matter TO YOU whether or not I used the parking brake. My car hits yours, so I need to fix the damage. You don't care whether or not I recoup the money from the manufacturer. You just know that my car rolled into yours, and you rightly expect me to cover the costs.
Hopefully I bought insurance which will cover my cost in all of the above scenarios, but again that's of no consequence to you. You'd expect me to cover any damage causes by my stuff whether I get the money from my savings or from my insurance company.
In the specific case of *fully* autonomous cars, probably the owner would say it's the manufacturers fault almost every time. Perhaps the owner sent the car out in a blizzard and that's their fault, but most times the owner will want the manufacturer to pay. Because of that, for the practical purpose of avoiding law suits it's convenient to have the manufacturer serve as the owner's insurance company. That way the manufacturer/insurer will pay either way, whether it's the owner's fault or the manufacturer's fault. Doesn't matter whoee fault it is if the manufacturer also provides the owner with insurance that covers any fault the owner may have.
I have a typo above. Instead of:
I'd like to not because I did anything wrong, but because it's my dog that did the damage.
That should be
I'm liable not because I did anything wrong, but because it's my dog that did the damage.
buildings, trees
Really, this isn't going to happen anytime soon. Though it may find certain specialized uses, I doubt the technology will ever be mainstream, at least not in our lifetimes. It's just not a realistic endeavor, it never was.
So, do I still have to get liability insurance if I buy a self-driving car? Seems to me all of the liability should rest with the manufacturers, freeing me from having to purchase state required liability insurance. Is the insurance indutsry prepared for this loss of revenue?
And if they're already "fully self-driving" then why do they still need to do testing.
The term to Google is "privity of contract".
See also Winterbottom v. Wright (1842). Winterbottom, a postal service wagon driver, was injured due to a defective wagon wheel. Winterbottom sued.
Held:
The wagon was provided to Winterbottom by the postmaster. Winterbottom can file a claim only against the postmaster, with whom he has dealings.
It is the postmaster who received assurances from Wright, so the postmaster can sue Wright. Winterbottom cannot "skip a step" and sue Wright.
Later cases clarified that if the manufacturer KNOWS the product is defective, and they intentionally or recklessly put a defective product into the marketplace, that's a tort (an unlawful act causing injury). In such a case, if neither the retailer nor the purchaser is able to discover the defect, the manufacturer may be liable because of their unlawful act which is intentional or reckless.
If a third-party could prove that not was the car defective, but the manufacturer knew it was defective, they could recover from the manufacturer. It would be a heck of a lot easier, cheaper, and more winnable to just recover from the person who put the car on the road, though, the person who commanded it to go drive on the public road. They are definitely liable.
There are other fine points and many cases on the subject. I don't have time to write a book about it, but those are the big principles.
In any event, in the self-driving car case, in practical reality for the foreseeable future, the manufacturer will also be insuring the driver, so they'll end up paying either way. Doesn't matter if they pay because they are the owner's insurer or if the pay because they are the manufacturer - either way they'll be the ones to pay.