Thread: The next step to autonomous vehicles ?

It is an obvious step that is needed, but it is not really a sticking point for autonomous vehicles. The sticking point, as I have mentioned before, is a viable legal framework - and I see nothing even on the horizon for this! In fact, nobody seems to want to even talk about it.

To put it bluntly, who does an accident victim sue? - the occupant, the owner, the builder, the designer, or someone else? And which one of these goes to gaol?

It doesn't matter that it is claimed that this technology reduces accidents - I don't think anyone is saying it will eliminate them. For that matter, if you remember that a US government analysis of Tesla statistics (Tesla has a lot of data on their cars) showed a major decrease in accidents when 'autopilot' was engaged. A recent successful (after two years) FOI request got hold of the data, did an independent analysis, and found that they had the mathematics wrong, and done correctly, there was a major increase. But they also pointed out that even Tesla's data had so many holes that if you only included the ones with complete data, the numbers were too small to draw any serious conclusions. (I don't have a link readily to hand, but the article covering it is in arstechnica.com.)

Originally Posted by JDNSW

It is an obvious step that is needed, but it is not really a sticking point for autonomous vehicles. The sticking point, as I have mentioned before, is a viable legal framework - and I see nothing even on the horizon for this! In fact, nobody seems to want to even talk about it.

To put it bluntly, who does an accident victim sue? - the occupant, the owner, the builder, the designer, or someone else? And which one of these goes to gaol?

It doesn't matter that it is claimed that this technology reduces accidents - I don't think anyone is saying it will eliminate them. For that matter, if you remember that a US government analysis of Tesla statistics (Tesla has a lot of data on their cars) showed a major decrease in accidents when 'autopilot' was engaged. A recent successful (after two years) FOI request got hold of the data, did an independent analysis, and found that they had the mathematics wrong, and done correctly, there was a major increase. But they also pointed out that even Tesla's data had so many holes that if you only included the ones with complete data, the numbers were too small to draw any serious conclusions. (I don't have a link readily to hand, but the article covering it is in arstechnica.com.)

I reckon the owner of the vehicle caused it to go out on the road so the owner would get sued first, the same as if I shoot someone with a gun it is me who gets sued, not the manufacturer of the gun. Operators are responsible for errors.
Maybe I could then sue the manufacturer of the autonomous vehicle, claiming that it failed to perform as promised, but I bet the lawyers will have filled the sales contract full of get-out clauses.

As far as the civil liability goes, I suspect you are right - but for insurance companies to take that view, there will have to be a long record of accident free autonomous driving - and without insurance cover, it is hard to see many owners accepting the liability, especially with, as you suggest, purchase contracts absolving the manufacturer from all liability. Which may not stand up in a court, but are you going to bank your home on that? Remember a few weeks ago, a car in Sydney hit a railway signal junction box, disabling a major part of the suburban railway network for about three days - that would have cost the insurer a fair bit. If that had been an autonomous car, the owner needs to be certain the insurer would cover it - and the insurer needs to have real world data to know the risk. It is hard to see where this data is going to come from.

And then there is criminal liability. Like the Uber car that killed a pedestrian in Arizona - the 'safety driver' has been charged; but who gets charged if there is no safety driver? The owner? Are you going to bet your freedom that the autonomous car is not going to do that? Or will you wait until the law says that the owner is not going to be blamed? And if the law is changed, who will receive the blame? And by what reasoning?

Quote
..........the draft standard makes clear the driver can take back control at any time by actions such as turning the steering wheel or operating the accelerator.
Unquote

Cool, I can still run down the person I'm aiming at.

In other words, driver assistance, not autonomy. And it is not clear to me that this will necessarily increase safety except in some circumstances - it will stop a lot of head-tail accidents in heavy traffic, but whether this is outweighed by the driver deciding they don't need to pay attention is another matter (as seen with several high profile Tesla accidents).

If the driver can take back control at any time then the driver is responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle.
Some cars already have emergency braking, but the driver is still responsible when that vehicle runs into the one in front.