[subego]

Far less safe.

If you want to "person" drive, expect your rates to double or triple.

[turtle777]

I guess the question is: what IF something happens with a autonomously driven car ?

WHO will you the system sue ?

Insurance company ?
Driver ?
Car manufacturer ?
Tier 1 or 2 suppliers of the system(s) in the car ?
Provider of GPS information ?
Provider of map data ?

I just don't see how under the current tort system, autonomous driven cars will be remotely affordable.
Everyone in the production chain will have to keep huge funds for litigation and damages. That will be factored into the cost of the systems.

-t

[subego]

I'm not so sure it's tort which is the issue, it's insurance companies.

You're still going to be paying for insurance. For 95% of the cars that'll be gravy, they're never going to collect on anything.

That's plenty to make payouts. No one has to sue anyone anymore.

Am I saying this will happen? No, but it's not really a tort problem unless you get into how insurance companies have built their business model to exploit our tort system.

So, sort of a tort problem.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's plenty to make payouts. No one has to sue anyone anymore.

Am I saying this will happen? No, but it's not really a tort problem unless you get into how insurance companies have built their business model to exploit our tort system.

So, sort of a tort problem.

Well, but that's exactly the issue we have today. Nobody HAS to sue anyone, but everybody is jolly happy to do so, especially if the lawyers just take a "let's see if it sticks" approach, representing based on dividing the spoils.

Why would this NOT be exploited with incidents involving autonomous cars ?

-t

[Shaddim]

Lawyers will see this as more people to sue; car owner, GPS provider, system programmer, carmaker... that could be nasty.

[subego]

On one hand, yes. On the other, there's going to extreme pressure to make it bulletproof. Brand damage from an accident will be far worse than any form of civil or criminal liability.

Technology can be made bulletproof, the only question is if the effort and expense required to do it can be offset by the income you make on the product.

I'm guessing the Google plan is to make the system bulletproof. They'll probably accomplish it with a bunch of redundancy. If each facing has five near-field sensors when one would do, you're not going to have a sensor problem severe enough to cause an accident.

[subego]

I mean, new jets all have fly-by-light systems (I assume). Does this system ever break?

Not a rhetorical question, I don't know the answer. I only assume that if the ability to control some jet just stopped, it's something we'd hear about.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

I mean, new jets all have fly-by-light systems (I assume). Does this system ever break?

Fly-by-light ?

Never heard of it. Did you mean fly-by-wire ?

-t

[subego]

It's the fiber optic equivalent.

But if it's still mostly or all FBW, take any system developed in the last 10 years.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

It's the fiber optic equivalent.

But if it's still mostly or all FBW, take any system developed in the last 10 years.

Interestingly, "FBW" in cars is still a big discussion. It's coming, but at a slower pace than in aircraft.''

In aircraft, it's a matter of weight. Cost really doesn't factor in as much.
In cars, it's going to be cost. Where you used to have no fail-safe or backup system in the past, drive-by-wire suddenly mandates all kinds of double and triple backup systems. This is making cars more expensive.

-t

[subego]

They can take their time. I'm fine with that.

My point is (I assume, I could be wrong) is it's possible to make a bulletproof control system which can take non-human input. I gave the example above of the redundant sensor arrays, so you have a bulletproof system of "situational awareness". The only remaining system is one linking the two.

That's by no means an easy system to build, but if you can, you can make it very robust on its own, and make it redundant?

Well, these are famous last words, but I don't see how it could get into an accident of its own accord.



Note: a big part of this kind of system is it would need to have just as bulletproof ability to self monitor. Five times the sensor arrays means five times the likelihood one will fail. You need to instantly know your car has been compromised, because now you're not bulletproof any more.

[turtle777]

As always, as long as money is no object, yes, you can make it bullet proof.

-t

[besson3c]

I can see cities that still have street cars maybe laying off their drivers for some autonomous street cars, and then later the subways and busses.

-b

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I guess the question is: what IF something happens with a autonomously driven car ?

WHO will you the system sue ?

Isn't this a moot point in no-fault insurance states? Why couldn't that solution be used elsewhere as well?

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

As always, as long as money is no object, yes, you can make it bullet proof.

-t

I think you could swing it now for $200K MSRP. Then it goes down as you get some economy of scale.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think you could swing it now for $200K MSRP. Then it goes down as you get some economy of scale.

Are there economies of scale regarding potential lawsuit liabilities ?

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Isn't this a moot point in no-fault insurance states? Why couldn't that solution be used elsewhere as well?

I don't think this would apply. the "non-fault" clause is tied to drivers, not equipment. No ?

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't think this would apply. the "non-fault" clause is tied to drivers, not equipment. No ?

-t

Can we sue airlines whenever a plane crashes and they are using autopilot?

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Are there economies of scale regarding potential lawsuit liabilities ?

-t

I go back to the jet model. A new model jet is way more complicated, and don't these only go down with human error or acts of God?

Calling all MacNN plane geeks...

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Can we sue airlines whenever a plane crashes and they are using autopilot?

Nope, but there's a human there whose job is to take control at a moment's notice.

If the autopilot is going to crash, the human is at fault for not taking over.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Nope, but there's a human there whose job is to take control at a moment's notice.

If the autopilot is going to crash, the human is at fault for not taking over.

Couldn't this be the model for cars, at least at first? I mean, there is no way that there will not be some sort of transition. We can't go from 100% human to 100% computer and feel/be safe and secure.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Can we sue airlines whenever a plane crashes and they are using autopilot?

What's your point ? Seems to me you don't have a question, but rather, that you're trying to make a comment. So what's your comment ?

Yes, you can [try to] sue airlines. How successfully ? I dunno, I'm not a lawyer.

Plus. I'm not sure how many airline incidents are tied to the use of autopilots. AFAIK, very few planes just crash out of the blue sky. And that's where the autopolit is used most.

But you obviously avoided my point about cost.
Airline manufacturers are in a duopoly, and don't need to compete on cost as much as car manufacturers have to. Selling to end customers is different than selling to airlines.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

What's your point ? Seems to me you don't have a question, but rather, that you're trying to make a comment. So what's your comment ?

Yes, you can [try to] sue airlines. How successfully ? I dunno, I'm not a lawyer.

Plus. I'm not sure how many airline incidents are tied to the use of autopilots. AFAIK, very few planes just crash out of the blue sky. And that's where the autopolit is used most.

But you obviously avoided my point about cost.
Airline manufacturers are in a duopoly, and don't need to compete on cost as much as car manufacturers have to. Selling to end customers is different than selling to airlines.

-t

Chill, we're just exploring stuff, I don't necessarily have some sort of set point and agenda, nor am i trying to avoid anything.

Airbags are pretty amazing. I would bet the first sensors and software/electronics used for airbags were very expensive, but now you probably can't even buy a new car without them. I would expect the costs of autonomous driving hardware to follow that sort of similar pattern.

I would also imagine that there is some sort of "use at your own risk" sort of framework to provide legal protections, right? Cruise control can be dangerous too, but I haven't heard of somebody suing a company for providing cruise control. About the only way that I can see a lawsuit coming out of autonomous driving tech is when the car doesn't turn over control to the human when it can't operate properly. This seems like a problem that we can work with. The results of an airbag going off when it shouldn't would be fatal too, yet I haven't heard of this happening.

I dunno.

-b

[subego]

I mentioned cost.

Your move, testudine.

[subego]

Also, with regards to autopilot, my understanding is it gets used a lot for landing. Enough there are rules forcing pilots to do manual landings every now and again to keep them sharp.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Also, with regards to autopilot, my understanding is it gets used a lot for landing. Enough there are rules forcing pilots to do manual landings every now and again to keep them sharp.

And just to geek out for a minute, that is pretty amazing. I mean, there is a ton of booze to calculate and sense here, and all of this needs to happen very quickly. If it is possible to land via autopilot this is pretty awesome.

[subego]

IIR the details of the conversation properly, this pilot doesn't land the plane himself unless the weather is boozy.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by subego 

I go back to the jet model. A new model jet is way more complicated, and don't these only go down with human error or acts of God?

Calling all MacNN plane geeks...

Isn't human error an act of God?

Only joking.

Air France Flight 296 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Air France Flight 447 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So many variables. Cars have fewer, but still.

You can make cars extremely safe, but nobody would buy them. Have a look at average traffic speeds for large cities. London is less than 10mph IIRC. If you made a car that was fully autonomous that did 20mph MAX, you'd sell a few to the Greenpeace crowd, but who else would buy it? Even if they never go more than 10mp while commuting.

EDIT : didn't notice the autopilot stuff about landing. From what I've learned after ~18 months at Airbus and taking flying lessons with an ex-Airforce and Airbus test pilot as my instructor, commercial airliner landings are 99.99% of the time manual. The approach is on auto, but the pilot (or FO) is the one that puts the tyres on the tarmac. Have a look at CAT 3 ILS stuff though.

[subego]

My quick skim makes it look like both of those were human error. The first involved an automatic safety system intentionally turned off. The second happened after the auto-pilot had disengaged. Correct me if I'm wrong (no snark... that's not a challenge, it's a request ).

You couldn't throw one of these into the middle of a major city right now and expect people to buy into it, even though it'd probably work fine.

In the beginning, it will be sold as a glorified cruise control. You turn it on when you hit a high-speed artery.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't think this would apply. the "non-fault" clause is tied to drivers, not equipment. No ?

-t

Why does that matter? Isn't that just because humans have been the only entities eligible for "fault" in the first place? Not because the concept wouldn't work equally well with autonomous (but human-owned and human-insured) equipment?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Why does that matter? Isn't that just because humans have been the only entities eligible for "fault" in the first place? Not because the concept wouldn't work equally well with autonomous (but human-owned and human-insured) equipment?

It doesn't matter if you or I think it matters.

The real question is: how are the non-fault laws worded, and would they include or exclude equipment failure.

You can bet that once there are issues due to autonomous vehicles, the laws will be challenged, no matter what.

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It doesn't matter if you or I think it matters.

The real question is: how are the non-fault laws worded, and would they include or exclude equipment failure.

You can bet that once there are issues due to autonomous vehicles, the laws will be challenged, no matter what.

-t

No, the real question is: what do you get when you cross luddite and FUD?

a FUDdite

Seriously, your post is overflowing with fear, uncertainty and doubt, and devoid of anything else including facts, details, specifics, credibility or follow-through. Why should we be more fearful of this technology than any other technology chosen at random? If "it doesn't matter if you or I think it matters," then why does it matter what you or I "bet" about whether some laws might or might not be challenged (which might or might not be successful, relevant, or actually an improvement)?

[turtle777]

Whatever. As if I care what you think.

-t

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, the real question is: what do you get when you cross luddite and FUD?

a FUDdite

Seriously, your post is overflowing with fear, uncertainty and doubt, and devoid of anything else including facts, details, specifics, credibility or follow-through. Why should we be more fearful of this technology than any other technology chosen at random? If "it doesn't matter if you or I think it matters," then why does it matter what you or I "bet" about whether some laws might or might not be challenged (which might or might not be successful, relevant, or actually an improvement)?

Don't like the narrative, insult the speaker. "Might as well call him names, maybe he'll quit the discussion and I'll win", right? WTF are people actually "winning" anyway? Ego points, cyber-street cred? Is the entire internet turning into a Youtube comments section? I thought the whole point of these types of discussions is to bring up possible issues and concerns?

This is all conjecture because... there are no completely autonomous cars out there yet. We don't know the legal implications, but you can rest assured that if there are a few $ to be made, some attorney out there will try.

[mattyb]

Milton Keynes gets ready for 100 driverless cars- The Inquirer

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Air France Flight 447 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wasn't part f the cause of this crash that the airplane took both pilot inputs and averaged them? Why didn't someone sue the manufacturer for that? (Because its ludicrous, that's why)

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Whatever. As if I care what you think.

-t

lol

textbook turtle

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Interestingly, "FBW" in cars is still a big discussion. It's coming, but at a slower pace than in aircraft.'

Nearly every new car is throttle-by-wire, and variable-ratio electric power steering isn't uncommon.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Note: a big part of this kind of system is it would need to have just as bulletproof ability to self monitor. Five times the sensor arrays means five times the likelihood one will fail. You need to instantly know your car has been compromised, because now you're not bulletproof any more.

I see the car pulling itself over and warning the cars around it that it's compromised. While autonomous cars will be able to keep close to each other, they will also warn each other when they're in trouble or being manually driven so that the self-driving cars give it extra space.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Don't like the narrative, insult the speaker. "Might as well call him names, maybe he'll quit the discussion and I'll win", right? WTF are people actually "winning" anyway? Ego points, cyber-street cred? Is the entire internet turning into a Youtube comments section? I thought the whole point of these types of discussions is to bring up possible issues and concerns?

I try my best to avoid focusing on the messenger, the exception being times like these when the messenger refuses to provide any message to focus on, leaving only one other option.

This is all conjecture because... there are no completely autonomous cars out there yet.

Yeah, exactly. I proffered some conjecture and the rejoinder was that "it doesn't matter what you or I think." I also requested some conjecture of what legal issues we might ("might" == conjecture) be contending with, and the response was merely TBA. That is not even up to the standards of conjecture; instead it is textbook Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. There literally couldn't be a better archetype of FUD than to say "I can't think of a single example, but rest assured there will be many and they will be insurmountable."

We don't know the legal implications, but you can rest assured that if there are a few $ to be made, some attorney out there will try.

Agreed, we don't _know_ what the legal implications would be, but I am asking you to name a single _possible_ legal implication, so that we can have some small idea if your fears, uncertainties and doubts are grounded in reality. There's nothing wrong with F, U and D, they provide a good starting point for framing the problem in order to find solutions. The problem is in confusing that starting point for an ending point.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Nearly every new car is throttle-by-wire, and variable-ratio electric power steering isn't uncommon.

Yes, but in other areas, it's not common yet.

E.g. brake-by-wire

The safety-relevance makes it very complicated. Everything has to be implemented in a fail safe (redundant) manner.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Don't like the narrative, insult the speaker. "Might as well call him names, maybe he'll quit the discussion and I'll win", right? WTF are people actually "winning" anyway? Ego points, cyber-street cred? Is the entire internet turning into a Youtube comments section? I thought the whole point of these types of discussions is to bring up possible issues and concerns?

The error in this reasoning is turtle never quits.

I fully believe US's post was designed to elicit a response, not kill the discussion.

[osiris]

If I'm in a limo and ignore the chauffeur hard enough, would that count as being in an autonomous vehicle? Or is that just being a dick?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yes, but in other areas, it's not common yet.

E.g. brake-by-wire

The safety-relevance makes it very complicated. Everything has to be implemented in a fail safe (redundant) manner.

We already have electronically-controlled ABS systems that specifically release brake pressure applied by the driver, and we have the ability for the car's computer to apply the brakes when the driver doesn't, how much more brake-by-wire can we get?

[subego]

I'm a little surprised regenerative braking isn't by wire.

[subego]

On reddit today. Presumably not autonomous.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm a little surprised regenerative braking isn't by wire.

Well, it kind of is - when you let off of the gas or just begin to press the brake pedal, the ECU controls how much power the motor can absorb and use to charge the batteries. As you press the brake pedal harder, the physical brakes engage.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I try my best to avoid focusing on the messenger, the exception being times like these when the messenger refuses to provide any message to focus on, leaving only one other option.

There's always another option, though it isn't nearly as emotionally satisfying.

Agreed, we don't _know_ what the legal implications would be, but I am asking you to name a single _possible_ legal implication, so that we can have some small idea if your fears, uncertainties and doubts are grounded in reality. There's nothing wrong with F, U and D, they provide a good starting point for framing the problem in order to find solutions. The problem is in confusing that starting point for an ending point.

Here's one, corruption in navigation data, causing the system to turn on to a bike path, thinking it's a one-way alley. The car then proceeds to run over an on-coming biker, while the car's driver is asleep. Software failure? Hardware? Stupid driver asleep at the wrong time? One thing is certain, litigation would be imminent.

Originally Posted by subego 

The error in this reasoning is turtle never quits.

I fully believe US's post was designed to elicit a response, not kill the discussion.

Fair enough, but using name-calling as a debate tool, specifically when used against the person you're in the discussion with, tends to push my buttons.

[The Final Dakar]

I think we're a long way off from having autonomous vehicles and having ones we're (legally) cool with sleeping or being drunk in.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

We already have electronically-controlled ABS systems that specifically release brake pressure applied by the driver, and we have the ability for the car's computer to apply the brakes when the driver doesn't, how much more brake-by-wire can we get?

I said it once and I'll say it again. Leaving a horde of vehicles traveling 70MPH+ to sleepy/angry humans is lunacy. It's only getting worse and we already trust out lives to the systems aboard our vehicles. If they could communicate with each-other and react as a group to changing conditions I guarantee you the death rate on our highways would plummet.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by subego 

On reddit today. Presumably not autonomous.

The B52 landing gear was designed for that