Automated cars

[The Cowboy]

That must be a very American thing I think. I can't recall ever having taken a taxi and thought about who I might sue in the event of the cab being car-jacked or whatever. You wouldn't sue anyone as it's no more the fault of the automated car you've rented as it is the taxi driver who might have taken a wrong turn by mistake.

Let me reiterate again. 1.25 million people die every year on roads around the world. Millions more must be injured. Who's liable for those? We have to be really careful here in not demanding things from a new technology that we appear quite happy to operate without in an existing technology.

Imagine how freaked out you'd be if you jumped in a Johnny Cab, the doors lock, and before long it starts taking you in absolutely the wrong direction into some bad neighbourhood.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Maybe the next step is a higher level personal driver's license (or CDL) that covers these elements, reinforcing the driver as the responsible entity, with specific training in programming and disengaging the device?

That wouldn't cover the liability should the driver be sat watching the 'auto pilot' and it suddenly swerved into the path of an oncoming artic, giving him no time to react.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Imagine how freaked out you'd be if you jumped in a Johnny Cab, the doors lock, and before long it starts taking you in absolutely the wrong direction into some bad neighbourhood.

About as freaked as I'd be if I got into a cab and David Mellor was driving.

 

[SerenityNigh]

That must be a very American thing I think. I can't recall ever having taken a taxi and thought about who I might sue in the event of the cab being car-jacked or whatever. You wouldn't sue anyone as it's no more the fault of the automated car you've rented as it is the taxi driver who might have taken a wrong turn by mistake.

Let me reiterate again. 1.25 million people die every year on roads around the world. Millions more must be injured. Who's liable for those? We have to be really careful here in not demanding things from a new technology that we appear quite happy to operate without in an existing technology.

That wouldn't cover the liability should the driver be sat watching the 'auto pilot' and it suddenly swerved into the path of an oncoming artic, giving him no time to react.

Admittedly, my view is heavily biased by what I know about flying airplanes. But as autopilot systems in airplanes are the closest thing in technology and practice to driverless car systems, it seems a good comparison.

On liability, I'm just working backwards to consider the limiting factors. All industries are limited by regulation/license on the governmental side and insurance on the private side. While safety is an operator/best practices concern, safety is regulated by these two forces. In the US, a personal driver's license is easy to obtain and renew and allows the holder to operate most vehicles except those of a certain size/weight/wheel structure. Adding complex technology to the use of a car is not considered by States administering PDLs. One option on the State side is to create a licensing requirement; maybe something as simple as requiring a commercial driver's license to operate a driverless car.

On the insurance side, individual underwriters can create their own requirements. I'm rated by the FAA to operate most single or multi-engine non-turbojet aircraft with a gross weight less than 12,500 lbs (i.e., by license I can fly a King Air). But I could never get insurance to fly one with initial and recurrent training specific to this aircraft that is acceptable to the insurer.

On the operations side, if I take controls of an aircraft of any level of complexity, I am the responsible entity (pilot in command in FAA terms, since most aircraft have duplicate controls unlike cars). No matter what systems I employ to aid my travel, I am ultimately responsible for myself, the aircraft, passengers and cargo, and any action I take with such. In less complex aircraft, the autopilot system does little more than hold heading and altitude. In more complex aircraft, all that's left to do between takeoff and touchdown is talk on the radio. Never is the responsibility of safe travel removed from the pilot in command, however, because of any technological complexity.

I see the same in cars (i.e., no drinking and driving or any other action, including the various sorts of breastfeeding, that would otherwise incapacitate or prevent the designated driver from performing his/her role). Liability in an airplane is pretty straightforward: the commercial operator and pilot in command bear chief responsibility. Manufacturers seldom bear primary responsibility in airplane crashes.

The manufacturer defect problem may be rather difficult; how do we determine whether the car veered because of automated or manual input? Other liabilities are rather straightforward--a person who is not capable of being responsible for such a vehicle should not be in charge; any person deemed responsible for such a vehicle is therefore responsible and liable. On the driverless Johnny Cab, the safety/liability issue is determining who is in charge/responsible. When I get a cab at O'Hare and sit in the back seat, responsibility is mutually agreed to fall on the driver. Similarly, when I ride a subway/train, responsibility is both on the commercial operator (transit authority that maintains the trains/tracks) and vehicle operator. I'm only responsible for not falling onto the tracks when I get in and out.

I don't disagree that there are too many deaths on the roads due to unsafe driving and that we should move forward to "driverless" cars; I think that the method for moving forward has been largely discovered by other industries and should be applied similarly in the auto industry.

 

[PITA]

Even more boring, you mean?

Yeah but I didn't want to offend the petrol heads.

 

[PITA]

It'd help massively with my commute. Fed up of having to undertake people who are sitting in the fast lane doing 45mph in a 50! Also people who push in to queues would be a thing of the past.

As someone else pointed out, I wonder how it'd effect drinking and 'driving'. Kind journeys would be a lot more bearable too.

It's not people who push into queues that are the problem, it is those drivers who willingly give way to them. I like it when trucks block off a 'closing' lane. I wish I had a big truck.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Admittedly, my view is heavily biased by what I know about flying airplanes. But as autopilot systems in airplanes are the closest thing in technology and practice to driverless car systems, it seems a good comparison.

On liability, I'm just working backwards to consider the limiting factors. All industries are limited by regulation/license on the governmental side and insurance on the private side. While safety is an operator/best practices concern, safety is regulated by these two forces. In the US, a personal driver's license is easy to obtain and renew and allows the holder to operate most vehicles except those of a certain size/weight/wheel structure. Adding complex technology to the use of a car is not considered by States administering PDLs. One option on the State side is to create a licensing requirement; maybe something as simple as requiring a commercial driver's license to operate a driverless car.

On the insurance side, individual underwriters can create their own requirements. I'm rated by the FAA to operate most single or multi-engine non-turbojet aircraft with a gross weight less than 12,500 lbs (i.e., by license I can fly a King Air). But I could never get insurance to fly one with initial and recurrent training specific to this aircraft that is acceptable to the insurer.

On the operations side, if I take controls of an aircraft of any level of complexity, I am the responsible entity (pilot in command in FAA terms, since most aircraft have duplicate controls unlike cars). No matter what systems I employ to aid my travel, I am ultimately responsible for myself, the aircraft, passengers and cargo, and any action I take with such. In less complex aircraft, the autopilot system does little more than hold heading and altitude. In more complex aircraft, all that's left to do between takeoff and touchdown is talk on the radio. Never is the responsibility of safe travel removed from the pilot in command, however, because of any technological complexity.

I see the same in cars (i.e., no drinking and driving or any other action, including the various sorts of breastfeeding, that would otherwise incapacitate or prevent the designated driver from performing his/her role). Liability in an airplane is pretty straightforward: the commercial operator and pilot in command bear chief responsibility. Manufacturers seldom bear primary responsibility in airplane crashes.

The manufacturer defect problem may be rather difficult; how do we determine whether the car veered because of automated or manual input? Other liabilities are rather straightforward--a person who is not capable of being responsible for such a vehicle should not be in charge; any person deemed responsible for such a vehicle is therefore responsible and liable. On the driverless Johnny Cab, the safety/liability issue is determining who is in charge/responsible. When I get a cab at O'Hare and sit in the back seat, responsibility is mutually agreed to fall on the driver. Similarly, when I ride a subway/train, responsibility is both on the commercial operator (transit authority that maintains the trains/tracks) and vehicle operator. I'm only responsible for not falling onto the tracks when I get in and out.

I don't disagree that there are too many deaths on the roads due to unsafe driving and that we should move forward to "driverless" cars; I think that the method for moving forward has been largely discovered by other industries and should be applied similarly in the auto industry.

As probably the nearest real comparison, what's the situation like with drones these days? I know they're becoming both more affordable and more powerful, but am not really sure on the legislation involved in operating one.

That 'may' provide a hint as to how this might work from a legislative point of view.

 

[ilikecheese]

Automated cars are all over the place in Northern California. Google has been testing them for several years.

I reckon we are no more than 5 years away from driverless taxis, buses, and the like.

 

[SerenityNigh]

As probably the nearest real comparison, what's the situation like with drones these days? I know they're becoming both more affordable and more powerful, but am not really sure on the legislation involved in operating one.

That 'may' provide a hint as to how this might work from a legislative point of view.

In the US, drones are still a touchy subject. As I understand, they're not approved for commercial uses and the FAA more or less doesn't do want to do much with them (since it regulates pilots/aircraft/air commerce and drones are largely considered hobby devices). The only group using drones with any regularity is the USAF/CIA, but all are remotely piloted (not to mention larger than most small aircraft) and military/CIA activity falls outside of FAA authority. No drones are automated in the sense that they make autonomous choices; they're simply flown remotely. I still think large jets with autopilot/autoland makes a better comparison, however, because we're talking about transporting people and this technology has been used since beards ago.

On military drone sizes:

 

[SerenityNigh]

If you've never experienced auto land, here is a good video of a 737 on a Category III approach with auto land. It's a wonderful marriage of technological progress with human interaction. Neither would be possible without the other (autoland allows approach in conditions that pilots cannot otherwise attempt; no airline or airspace authority would allow computers to fly people without pilot oversight).

Sorry for the stupid "surprise image;" RS supporters probably

 

[Baines' left foot]

It's not people who push into queues that are the problem, it is those drivers who willingly give way to them. I like it when trucks block off a 'closing' lane. I wish I had a big truck.

True.

In fact on my way home just now, in the space of 30 seconds the car in front of me let 4 cars push in to the queue we were in. Utter tit. I nearly rammed him.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

If you've never experienced auto land, here is a good video of a 737 on a Category III approach with auto land. It's a wonderful marriage of technological progress with human interaction. Neither would be possible without the other (autoland allows approach in conditions that pilots cannot otherwise attempt; no airline or airspace authority would allow computers to fly people without pilot oversight).

Sorry for the stupid "surprise image;" RS supporters probably

You clearly know your stuff in this field. Do you work in aviation?

 

[SerenityNigh]

You clearly know your stuff in this field. Do you work in aviation?

I did for a while, but never for an airline. I worked as a flight instructor for a few years.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

Automation might have stopped that stupid pie-eater from ramming up my arsh this afternoon, probably and very likely deeming my car to be a write off after the insurance assess it.
It's been a reliable car, good mpg (60 avg), in good condition, not needed any money spent on it & I'm brassed off tbh cos even though with my insurance company they offer you cash or a replacement vehicle there's nothing to say that it will be in as good condition and give me no problems.
As they are holding him completely responsible though I suppose they should push for a resolution that keeps me happy as it's his insurance coughing up, he could of course be insured with the same company in which case they'll want to settle for as low as possible.