Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

If the car is driven by a computer at Google, then it can be "hijacked" by the computer. A few years after mandating that everybody have self-driving cars, the argument will be that certain roads don't need to be in the system because there's far too little traffic. After that, it'll be argued that Google should be able to divert you away from certain areas of town where there's been high traffic or other hazards, without asking you. Then it'll be argued that the government can mandate certain routes in order to preserve the environment or some such excuse. Then it'll be seen as entirely reasonable that all auto "routes" be managed by city planners who want to control noise, pollution, etc, for your own good. It'll be incremental.

Fortunately, as you say, there are still a majority of sane people who vote in the USA. Will that still be true a generation later?

The problem with these hypothetical questions is that they all require some form of clairvoyance to ask them.

How do you know the kids would be saved by your sacrifice? How do you know they would die from your selfishness? How do you know that bus isn't actually filled with violent and dangerous felons being transferred to supermax while awaiting execution, and the guards on it aren't also corrupt to the core?

You don't have that extra information at the time the decision would need to be made.

The logical and ethical thing for the computer to do would be to switch over to emergency collision avoidance mode, and try to avoid damage to the one vehicle it can actually control. The authority to instruct a driver to put its passengers at risk would have to be vested in some sort of traffic control program capable of recognizing when the selfish behavior of individual driver programs might result in more damage and injury overall.

And that's a whole new can of worms.

>then what really is being automated, or optimized, other than recordkeeping?

Other than record keeping? Why does it need to go beyond that? You don't want transparency in your laws? You don't want the ability to format and translate them as needed? You don't want the ability to do queries and comparisons? You don't want machines to be able to update their own behavior when the law changes?

I'm not talking about automating anything other than record keeping.

> “The real problem is that the car is too safe...”

no. this statement is fallacious, and i believe it is dangerously misleading. it sounds like something out of the mouth of a corporate attorney, and not someone who cares about being actually safe. out here in the real world driving laws are more like guidelines.

my take on the situation is the car knows and follows all of the written rules of the road, but not the unwritten ones. kind of like a 16-year-old kid who's just aced his driving exam, but doesn't yet have a feel for driving. every so often he encounters a situation not covered by the law or the driver's handbook, and he's forced to choose the safest course of action on his own.

i live near google in mountain view, and (usually) encounter the self-driving SUVs many times a day, either biking around town or as they drive past my residence. in hundreds of encounters i've only witnessed one potentially dangerous incident (many months ago) involving a self-driving SUV. it wasn't clear to me who/what was at fault.

whilst making a protected left turn onto west el camino real from el monte ave [0], a self-driving SUV came to a complete stop in the middle of the intersection, causing the vehicles behind it to halt and lay on their horns. since the incident occurred a few yards behind me (over my left shoulder) i don't know exactly what precipitated the incident, but reflecting on the experience has caused me to recognize some potential flaws in this generation of self-driving vehicles.

that intersection's turning lanes are delineated by dotted lines. this isn't unique, but it's interesting to me because dotted lines can sometimes be more difficult to see than solid lines (especially in certain lighting or weather conditions, or when there are debris on the road). for example, i remember lanes on stretches of 101-N marked with faded dotted lines and no reflector dots. these lanes were impossible to see under wet conditions and the sun's reflection. drivers were forced to either guess where the lanes might be, or to follow other vehicles, but we could still proceed safely. how would a driverless vehicle respond?

further, some human drivers completely ignore lane markers even when they are perfectly visible. in india and some central american countries, for example, driving conditions are like the polar opposite of suburban SV: lawless. yet in my experience, driving there is not without rules; it's just that the rules are unwritten. and though this is an extreme analogy, it led me to an interesting question: if self-driving vehicles can't safely navigate the crowded streets of mumbai, how comfortable are we giving them free reign in the US? or perhaps should we exclude them from certain roads until they can?

the main point i'm trying to make is this: the current generation of self-driving vehicles has not developed (whether by feature or flaw) the level of intuition of an experienced and safe driver. they are quite literally like student drivers whose instructors have a foot above the brake and a hand on the steering wheel. and while it's conceptually possible to create safer roads by eliminating human error, i'm not confident replacing humans with a bunch of robotic student drivers is the best solution. i'd feel much safer as a passenger in a vehicle driven by someone or something that's A) primarily concerned with my safety (and not corporate liability), and B) knows what to do in unexpected or unpredictable circumstances.

[0] satellite image of the intersection; pin at approximate incident site: https://www.google.com/maps/place/1786+El+Camino+Real,+Mount...

> A lot of us are skeptical of self-driving cars because a lot of their advocates want the next step to be banning private citizens from driving, which you've just confirmed, thanks.

Lol, i think you're mistaking my (attempted) logical thinking towards some type of agenda towards banning humans driving cars. You seem far more agenda driven, heh.

Just because i think we are extremely unqualified for driving, does not mean i want to ban the act. It be extremely improbable to achieve, with all the costs of upgrading the entire infrastructure alone making your defense of this almost seem like a half hearted joke. Moreover, even if in some magic realm where we can make all cars into self driving cars to abolish human driving, i'm just simply not in favor of removing human rights.

Yes, i would want to make it difficult for you to drive, but for your own (and mine!) safety. Our safety standards for driving tests are incredibly, and i mean incredibly, laughable. How often we enforce rules and laws for driving are also laughable. Almost no one even follows some of the most basic rules, like speed limits, and the more extreme people often break sobriety laws.

Self driving cars would give us a platform to A: Raise the bar for who can drive, and what sort of training you need. and B: Be more willing to ban someone from driving if they put others at risk, through speed, drugs, alcohol, or whatever.

We have a hard time banning drivers these days because it very negatively impacts your life if you cannot drive. In a world with self driving cars though, you can still have a first class life. Driving is now something of leisure.

Anyway, nice try at putting words in my mouth - next time make them a little less tinfoil though, please.