14 ms·

I understand your argument, but I see two other possibilities: 1) Drivers remain liable for actions taken by their car's AI. This would encourage people to onl

I understand your argument, but I see two other possibilities: 1) Drivers remain liable for actions taken by their car's AI. This would encourage people to only use truly driverless AI in the safest possible conditions, ie not on crowded streets or when its raining. This will let market forces balance the technological development of the cars with public adoption 2) After initial legal precedents for damages are set, some companies will make enough money to insure a large fleet of autonomous vehicles. And again, market forces will be able to pace the tradeoff between how "safe" the AI technology is vs how quickly its adopted. tldr; an authoritarian government isn't necessary to push this particular technology forward. As much as I hate to say it, the Free Market will do just fine in this case

seanmcdirmid 11y ago
In China, I'd assume that they would just go fleet and skip autonomous personal vehicles. Basically just taxis without drivers.
dogma1138 11y ago
If the AI is as good or better than a human driver your first point wont matter. You can't avoid accidents anyone who is driving a car on a daily basis will be involved in an accident involving another human being in one point or another (and I don't even count rush hour fender benders) that's just statistics. If driverless cars can improve those statistics they'll be used if only than to get lower insurance premiums in the end a company that can reduce the chance of you getting into an accident by even 10% would have every insurance company in the world behind them. I for one do not see a major legal battle or precedents especially not from places like China, smart cruise control and various other drive assist technologies (lane keeping, auto park etc.) have been around for about a decade and we still haven't had major cases around them and there is no way that say Toyota's auto park feature did not cause some accidents. Driverless or not as long as there is a driver in the car they are responsible for any liabilities as they have full control over the car even in drive assist mode (steering and breaking is always accessible to the driver) so unless there will be some major issue and that issue has to be that the AI actually prevented the driver from using the car controls I don't see any major legal issues arising. And by the time driverless cars become truly driverless as in Total Recall (the Schwarzenegger one) driveless insurance companies would find a solution for that just like they found a solution for human drivers. As long as it's an accident and the AI and all car systems were in working order the insurance will cover it if the car was not maintained properly then the owner of the service will be liable. This is pretty much how human driver coverage works, if you did nothing wrong, the car was maintained, and you weren't negligible (e.g. drunk driving, speeding, etc.) you are covered by your insurance in any other case you are on your own.
jacquesm 11y ago
> This would encourage people to only use truly driverless AI in the safest possible conditions, ie not on crowded streets or when its raining. You just cancelled any driverless cars in NL or the UK. Driverless cars are only useful if they have a 'backup' driving mode by a person in the most extreme of circumstances. Under all normal conditions the car should drive itself. Otherwise it is not a 'driverless car' but merely a car with a software augmentation for the driver and they should be lumped in with the regular cars. Self driving cars should be able to move from one place to another without a licensed driver present or required in all circumstances normally encountered.
- DanBC 11y ago
  > Driverless cars are only useful if they have a 'backup' driving mode by a person in the most extreme of circumstances. This sounds terrifying. There you are, in your self-driving car, doing some light text editing, when BAMN the alarms beep and you're handed back control of your car. Hey, try not to kill the pedestrians.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    No, obviously not in the middle of driving. I meant that as in after the car has been sideswiped by another vehicle or if the batteries have been drained to the point that the on-board electronics need work, in a garage and so on. In times when the cars self-driving capabilities can not be relied on. Not in normal traffic and certainly not as a 'ok, I give up, you try something' mode. Hence the 'Under all normal conditions the car should drive itself' bit above. That includes trying not to kill the pedestrians.
    - 05 11y ago
      Is that really necessary? With a fleet car, a replacement comes soon enough, and the towing vehicle can pick up the broken one. With personal SDCs, it's probably the same, with the possible exception of the replacement car being the same premium brand (and it won't be able to arrive as soon as a generic fleet one, I guess).

seanmcdirmid 11y ago

In China, I'd assume that they would just go fleet and skip autonomous personal vehicles. Basically just taxis without drivers.

dogma1138 11y ago

If the AI is as good or better than a human driver your first point wont matter. You can't avoid accidents anyone who is driving a car on a daily basis will be involved in an accident involving another human being in one point or another (and I don't even count rush hour fender benders) that's just statistics. If driverless cars can improve those statistics they'll be used if only than to get lower insurance premiums in the end a company that can reduce the chance of you getting into an accident by even 10% would have every insurance company in the world behind them. I for one do not see a major legal battle or precedents especially not from places like China, smart cruise control and various other drive assist technologies (lane keeping, auto park etc.) have been around for about a decade and we still haven't had major cases around them and there is no way that say Toyota's auto park feature did not cause some accidents. Driverless or not as long as there is a driver in the car they are responsible for any liabilities as they have full control over the car even in drive assist mode (steering and breaking is always accessible to the driver) so unless there will be some major issue and that issue has to be that the AI actually prevented the driver from using the car controls I don't see any major legal issues arising. And by the time driverless cars become truly driverless as in Total Recall (the Schwarzenegger one) driveless insurance companies would find a solution for that just like they found a solution for human drivers. As long as it's an accident and the AI and all car systems were in working order the insurance will cover it if the car was not maintained properly then the owner of the service will be liable. This is pretty much how human driver coverage works, if you did nothing wrong, the car was maintained, and you weren't negligible (e.g. drunk driving, speeding, etc.) you are covered by your insurance in any other case you are on your own.

jacquesm 11y ago

> This would encourage people to only use truly driverless AI in the safest possible conditions, ie not on crowded streets or when its raining. You just cancelled any driverless cars in NL or the UK. Driverless cars are only useful if they have a 'backup' driving mode by a person in the most extreme of circumstances. Under all normal conditions the car should drive itself. Otherwise it is not a 'driverless car' but merely a car with a software augmentation for the driver and they should be lumped in with the regular cars. Self driving cars should be able to move from one place to another without a licensed driver present or required in all circumstances normally encountered.

DanBC 11y ago
> Driverless cars are only useful if they have a 'backup' driving mode by a person in the most extreme of circumstances. This sounds terrifying. There you are, in your self-driving car, doing some light text editing, when BAMN the alarms beep and you're handed back control of your car. Hey, try not to kill the pedestrians.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  No, obviously not in the middle of driving. I meant that as in after the car has been sideswiped by another vehicle or if the batteries have been drained to the point that the on-board electronics need work, in a garage and so on. In times when the cars self-driving capabilities can not be relied on. Not in normal traffic and certainly not as a 'ok, I give up, you try something' mode. Hence the 'Under all normal conditions the car should drive itself' bit above. That includes trying not to kill the pedestrians.
  - 05 11y ago
    Is that really necessary? With a fleet car, a replacement comes soon enough, and the towing vehicle can pick up the broken one. With personal SDCs, it's probably the same, with the possible exception of the replacement car being the same premium brand (and it won't be able to arrive as soon as a generic fleet one, I guess).