UK to allow driverless cars on public roads in January • Hacker News Board

Re: UK to allow driverless cars on public roads in January

#31

Post by Karellen » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 7:21 PM UTC

suprgeek wrote: post #17

When ever I see a new place or country allowing a test of these cars this wired article always comes to mind [1]. I think the two main questions will be liability & drivability - 1) when (not if) these cars get into a serious crash, who is to assume liability? Is it Google who created the algorithm? Is it the Audi integrator who fused Google technology into the Audi? Is it the fault of the mapping software that did n…

Thanks for that great link. I think the answer to 1) is going to end up as "insurance companies".

In order to put an autonomous vehicle on the road, it's going to have to be insured. Insurance companies will have to vet any and all autonomous vehicles anyway, assume direct financial liability for all harms resulting from anything that could go wrong with such a vehicle, and charge whatever premiums they think are approprite to cover those liabilities to the owner of each vehicle.

How they vet autonomous vehicles up to them, and it's probably going to be tricky at first - maybe on a comparable order of trickyness as actually making an autonomous vehicle. But they're going to have to do it if only to get their premiums right. Maybe they'll require certain development practices, like using specific programming languages, or programming conventions within a language, or requiring 3rd party static analysis of all the code (e.g. Coverity), or mandatory reviews of all checkins by at least one other developer than the person who wrote it, or a certain level of automated test coverage, or "passing" a certain percentage of simulated situations.

Whatever the insurance companies do, they're going to have to get some measure of how dangerous these vehicles are.

The better a manufacturer does on the vetting process, the more open they are, the lower the premiums will be to any owners of their cars.

At that point, the insurance companies should be in a position to assume all direct financial liability resulting from an accident - as they are now (discounting your excess) - including negligence, as that's the only incentive we can put on them to ensure they've done their part right. The lawyers will of course ensure that if a vehicle as supplied is not up to the standard that the insurance company confirmed, either in terms of hardware or software, then the insurance company will have a way to take that up with the manufacturer.

Naturally, if you mod your autonomous vehicle in any ways not permitted by your cover, you may void your insurance. At that point the liability falls entirely on you, the owner. But again, that's just as things are now.

Re: UK to allow driverless cars on public roads in January

#32

Post by Buttons840 » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 7:23 PM UTC

notahacker wrote: post #24

For the last decade or so, human learner drivers in the UK have had to pass a video "hazard perception test" based on their ability to recognise potential developing hazards (kids playing near the roads, a cyclist confronted by a line of parked cars, a vehicle approaching a junction onto your lane) at a very early point before their movements make their entry into the roadway inevitable. This strikes me as something…

That's true. I think of turning right at a crosswalk where some pedestrian is really anxious for their turn to walk, so they're standing right on the edge of the curb. I always pay careful attention to them and rely on my human intuition of body language, eye contact, etc, until I feel comfortable that they're going to remain on the edge of the curb instead of steeping out in front of me during my turn. A robot can't do this.

Re: UK to allow driverless cars on public roads in January

#33

Post by anigbrowl » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 7:23 PM UTC

suprgeek wrote: post #17

When ever I see a new place or country allowing a test of these cars this wired article always comes to mind [1]. I think the two main questions will be liability & drivability - 1) when (not if) these cars get into a serious crash, who is to assume liability? Is it Google who created the algorithm? Is it the Audi integrator who fused Google technology into the Audi? Is it the fault of the mapping software that did n…

Liability to some extent depends on the jurisdiction. For example, Washington DC will require drivers of autonomous-capable cars to get a special license endorsement and assume legal responsibility for the operation of the vehicle regardless of whether it is in autonomous mode or not. Presumably a driver who incurred legal liability for an accident while in autonomous mode would then turn around and seek damages from the vehicle and automation services provider as a separate action. For a completely autonomous vehicle (eg a bus or delivery van) the victim would likely recover from the corporate operator, who would probably not be using COTS technology anyway (think how UPS has its own trucks, or buses are often built to order for transit agencies).

http://dcist.com/2014/04/dc_preparing_for_terrifying_future....

This page is a hub for legal information regarding autonomous vehicles: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/wiki/index.php/Automated_Drivin...

The federal body (National Highway Transportation and Safety Board) seems to focused primarily on the development of technical standards that will allow for a uniform certification. But questions of driver liability will likely be left to the states, as most accidents resulting in lawsuits are tort actions alleging driver negligence, and different states have different rules on both driving and allocation of fault.

Re: UK to allow driverless cars on public roads in January

#34

Post by zanny » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 7:27 PM UTC

purringmeow wrote: post #23

cordite wrote: post #21

How will the taxi unions feel when someone combines uber/lyft with self driving cars?

That occupation will disappear, save for a few high-end human driver services, IMO. After the taxis come the trucks. I am quite certain shipping companies will be the quick ditch humans. After all, this means no more travel expenses & salaries, no more breaks, probably automatic unloading too! Goods will get cheaper, although hundreds of thousands of people will be out of work. I am scared.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

Also, I think the shipping cos will do away with their drivers first. Highway traffic is easier to navigate with an algorithm - nearly trivial if you could compel a retrofit of all vehicles with a low power radio broadcasting its position, so that any autonomous vehicles around it can perceive it via its own sensors, any external gps radar, and the cars pings. Even without that, it is easier to juggle the variables of a high way (multiple lanes, moving in a direction, consider merge traffic, maintain safe stop distances, etc) than to try to navigate intersections and pedestrian traffic. Also, 18 wheelers don't need human interfacing, whereas self driving taxis require that licensed, but non-owners, sit in the drivers seat of the taxi since nobody will let self driving cars pilot themselves without someone to take manual control if necessary for a while. Albeit, that remains a problem with the 18 wheeler, but I see letting self driving tractor trailers without pilots come much sooner than self driving taxis without the passenger in the drivers seat.

Re: UK to allow driverless cars on public roads in January

#35

Post by icebraining » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 7:27 PM UTC

ignostic wrote: post #30

suprgeek wrote: post #17

When ever I see a new place or country allowing a test of these cars this wired article always comes to mind [1]. I think the two main questions will be liability & drivability - 1) when (not if) these cars get into a serious crash, who is to assume liability? Is it Google who created the algorithm? Is it the Audi integrator who fused Google technology into the Audi? Is it the fault of the mapping software that did n…

You always voice the same concerns, I always hear the same concerns. It's crazy to me that people get hung up on the liability issue. 1) Liability is assessed exactly as it is now. We use the same system to determine which car was at fault. If it's your car, you are at fault. Someone will insure a self-driving car, especially once the safety record is established. Your current provider might not, but someone will. If…

I don't think (1) is all that clear. I'd say it depends on what happens when the liable driver sues the vendor. That said, even if the vendors are found to be liable, I don't think that will change anything much, except maybe slightly raise the price of cars.

Re: UK to allow driverless cars on public roads in January

#36

Post by cordite » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 7:29 PM UTC

purringmeow wrote: post #23

cordite wrote: post #21

How will the taxi unions feel when someone combines uber/lyft with self driving cars?

That occupation will disappear, save for a few high-end human driver services, IMO. After the taxis come the trucks. I am quite certain shipping companies will be the quick ditch humans. After all, this means no more travel expenses & salaries, no more breaks, probably automatic unloading too! Goods will get cheaper, although hundreds of thousands of people will be out of work. I am scared.

There might be some jobs created, perhaps not as much.

Consider, what if several shipping companies delegated fuel administration to a company that had manned staff 24/7 at places like Flying J diesel and gas fuel locations?

If you have autonomous trucks coming in, I don't see tons of places upgrading their facilities to support robotic administration. (At least for a few years)

There's also maintenance when there are problems.

Re: UK to allow driverless cars on public roads in January

#37

Post by joncrocks » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 7:35 PM UTC

ignostic wrote: post #30

suprgeek wrote: post #17

When ever I see a new place or country allowing a test of these cars this wired article always comes to mind [1]. I think the two main questions will be liability & drivability - 1) when (not if) these cars get into a serious crash, who is to assume liability? Is it Google who created the algorithm? Is it the Audi integrator who fused Google technology into the Audi? Is it the fault of the mapping software that did n…

You always voice the same concerns, I always hear the same concerns. It's crazy to me that people get hung up on the liability issue. 1) Liability is assessed exactly as it is now. We use the same system to determine which car was at fault. If it's your car, you are at fault. Someone will insure a self-driving car, especially once the safety record is established. Your current provider might not, but someone will. If…

While I agree that liability will be assessed the same way it is now, the answer isn't always:

  If it's your car, you are at fault.

There are examples of situations where a car producer/manufacturer was at fault for accidents, caused by bad software. The question is where that line will be in the myriad of situations that will be more complex due to the the introduction of automation.

The control system itself is then a part of the car, which will dramatically increase the likelihood that it is at-fault in the case of an accident. It presumably would have to be audit-able in the case of an accident to identify whether it made the 'correct' decisions or not, adding additional legal and technical complexity.

If privately owned, would there be regular sensor cleaning/calibration tasks that need to be met before the manufacturer is deemed liable? What about tire pressure?

There will be a lot of factors that could go into deciding whether the user or manufacturer was at fault in the case of an accident that simply wouldn't be a problem now, because the user of the vehicle is also the one responsible for maintenance.

Re: UK to allow driverless cars on public roads in January

#38

Post by bdamm » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 7:36 PM UTC

purringmeow wrote: post #23

cordite wrote: post #21

How will the taxi unions feel when someone combines uber/lyft with self driving cars?

That occupation will disappear, save for a few high-end human driver services, IMO. After the taxis come the trucks. I am quite certain shipping companies will be the quick ditch humans. After all, this means no more travel expenses & salaries, no more breaks, probably automatic unloading too! Goods will get cheaper, although hundreds of thousands of people will be out of work. I am scared.

I seriously doubt that truck drivers are going out of business any time soon. First of all, there's a massive fleet of trucks requiring drivers, and replacement trucks are expensive. Second of all, truck drivers also serve as a security guard. Even if we have self-driving trucks, I imagine they'll have a chaperone for a long time yet.

I expect that trucks driven by a human-computer team will be safer than trucks driven by either one alone.

Re: UK to allow driverless cars on public roads in January

#39

Post by anigbrowl » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 7:40 PM UTC

ignostic wrote: post #30

suprgeek wrote: post #17

When ever I see a new place or country allowing a test of these cars this wired article always comes to mind [1]. I think the two main questions will be liability & drivability - 1) when (not if) these cars get into a serious crash, who is to assume liability? Is it Google who created the algorithm? Is it the Audi integrator who fused Google technology into the Audi? Is it the fault of the mapping software that did n…

You always voice the same concerns, I always hear the same concerns. It's crazy to me that people get hung up on the liability issue. 1) Liability is assessed exactly as it is now. We use the same system to determine which car was at fault. If it's your car, you are at fault. Someone will insure a self-driving car, especially once the safety record is established. Your current provider might not, but someone will. If…

Agreed. This is one area where existing market mechanisms already work pretty well and are likely to accommodate change pretty smoothly. From an insurer's point of view, autonomous cars are probably a pretty attractive risk - even where the technology does fail and they incur liability, it's probably much less than the liability they incur from insuring drivers who drive while impaired/ angry/ distracted/ late but whose actual liability can't be established.

Re: UK to allow driverless cars on public roads in January

#40

Post by Istof » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 7:47 PM UTC

suprgeek wrote: post #17

When ever I see a new place or country allowing a test of these cars this wired article always comes to mind [1]. I think the two main questions will be liability & drivability - 1) when (not if) these cars get into a serious crash, who is to assume liability? Is it Google who created the algorithm? Is it the Audi integrator who fused Google technology into the Audi? Is it the fault of the mapping software that did n…

I would say that if the technology used in a car is at fault, then the manufacturer of that car will be held liable (just take a look at all the recalls)... later, they can sue whoever created that technology if they feel like it