Thread: Autonomous Vehicles

Nothing about abdicating responsibility is good. ...don't forget that one might die in the crash themselves. Who is to blame won't matter then! But if one wasn't asleep at the wheel the crash could have been avoided.

I vote for Autonomous drivers!

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

If only that were the case.

What is coming out is autonomous vehicles won't stop deaths from motor accidents. They will merely reduce deaths from motor accidents.
The other thing is the person in charge of the vehicle (formerly driver now occupant) will be responsible for any accident the vehicle is involved in.
The person in charge of the vehicle (formerly driver now occupant) will still require a drivers licence and would be required to be in charge of (be awake) the vehicle at all times.

I'll see if I can find where I read this.

that is the case atm as a autonomous system is not allowed with out a supervising driver making sure the autonomous system is operating correctly.

But where it gets interesting is when it becomes fully autonomous ie i dont ride in the front i am in the back and not in control of the car and also wont require a licencee as you are not operating it you just own it and an incident occur's, the at fault party is then the software designer not the owner and this is the main reason why autonomous cars are not allowed un supervised, because is it the manufacture that installed the program, is it the company that designed the program, or is it the designer or designer's of the individual part of that program that failed that is responsible, then their is hacking prevention issue's as well.

also dont forget the autonomous system does not need to be 100% perfect and fool proof it only has to be better then human and it all ready is other then elite driver's and then they only better it for an hour maybe 2 after that fatigue sets in and the computer win's little lone after 24 hours of continual operation which it will be able to do

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

Great logic, sadly, the law will be written in such a way that you are still to blame.

Wouldn't there be a precedent in place? Many cities have unmanned trains/light rail. Who would be at fault should an accident occur that may have been avoided were a human driver in control?

Uber-style driverless cars set for Perth as part of international trial - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Tree interesting quotes from the article:

and the RAC will also have a human chaperone onboard, capable of overriding the computer systems.

If driverless cars are that good, why do they need a human to potentially take control?

RAC WA's CEO Terry Agnew said it was hoped driverless technology could one day eliminate the 90 per cent of road crashes that were caused by human error.

So, they are still going to be involved in accidents. They're backing down on their unrealistic claims now. (Read earlier parts of this thread.)

The autonomous shuttle bus trials in South Perth required over 700 changes to legislation and regulations before they could proceed.

Yep, legislation. They're going to legislate the creators of these autonomous vehicles cannot be held accountable for the accidents. If they were, they wouldn't build them.
They'll legislate the passenger in the autonomous vehicle will be held accountable, after all, the vehicle wouldn't have been there had the passenger not wanted to use the vehicle.

Originally Posted by bee utey

Autonomous JLR skywalker 2033!

I assume the owner of the autonomous vehicle who took the decision to put it on the road would be held responsible. The manufacturer would argue it was not being operated according to manufacturer's specifications.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

I assume the owner of the autonomous vehicle who took the decision to put it on the road would be held responsible. The manufacturer would argue it was not being operated according to manufacturer's specifications.

if the operator has zero input, are they still an operator?