4 ms·

Google's self-driving car is the victim in a serious crash

14 points by openmosix 10y ago

sounds 10y ago
I think nobody questions the need for fully autonomous cars. I do think there is still a lot of discussion needed in terms of autonomous car policy. What insurance requirements must be in place for a manufacturer, such as Tesla, when their drivers are routinely taking their eyes off the road? What insurance must be carried by the _manufacturer_ of the autonomous driving equipment? What effect does this have on the insurance carried by the "human in command"? (I was going to say "driver" but that didn't seem quite right.) What additional legal protections must be in place for the _inevitable_ day when software chooses to kill a human? What additional legal protections must be in place for the day when, because of software, a human's life was saved -- will society even know? Should Tesla produce a monthly statistic of the estimated total number of trips driven by their cars where an intoxicated "human in command" was able to get home? (Because then anyone can compare to how successful humans were before an autonomous system was available.) What legal protections must be in place before Google is allowed to provide autonomous driving service "in the cloud"? If the cell connection suddenly drops at just the wrong moment, should Google pay the costs of the ensuing accident? (Ok, ok, maybe Google isn't planning on putting the driving software "in the cloud." I'm just saying...it's not like the owner of the vehicle will be any wiser. Then they'll be dead.)
- Animats 10y ago
  The NHTSB laid down policy on this last week. Level 1 and 2, it's the driver's fault. Levels 3-5, the driver can sit back and relax and it's the car manufacturer's fault. The Tesla fatal crashes (Tesla is Level 2) have produced lawsuits, but no decisions yet.
  - sounds 10y ago
    Thanks, and I agree on your quick analysis: no decisions yet. The NHTSB's policy will almost undoubtedly also need to be tested in court, as it appears on the surface that it over-simplifies some critical things.
dsfyu404ed 10y ago
"Google also stressed that red light violations are the "leading cause" of car crashes in US cities, and that 94 percent of those are due to human mistakes." Last I heard the speed trap towns and insurance companies were justifying their agenda by saying speed was dangerous. Before that it was the prohibitionists (MADD) and universities using drunk driving to push their agenda. I'd wager that tailgating and distracted driving causes a lot more car crashes (they're far more common behavior even if the average instance is less risky), barring some absurd definition of car crashes that rules out most rear endings. IIRC other articles have mentioned Google has complaining about distracted drivers. Why the sudden change of priorities? Is a company Google owns trying to win speed camera contract or something?
parent5446 10y ago
I don't know if I necessarily agree with the article's conclusion that self-driving needs to become the rule. Sure, if all cars were self-driving, this accident would not have happened, and that's the dream. But if the Google car was not self-driving, i.e., it was just me or you in the car, I doubt I would have been able to avoid this crash. If automatic sensors can't see a car speeding through a red light, there's no way I will.
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  Do we know if the van was traveling cross ways or was sitting at a red arrow? Not many people will run a red 6sec after it's red. Many more people will floor it right as the light changes to cut off opposing traffic and take a left turn on a red left arrow edit: nevermind, robocar got hit on the left.

14 points by openmosix 10y ago

I think nobody questions the need for fully autonomous cars. I do think there is still a lot of discussion needed in terms of autonomous car policy. What insurance requirements must be in place for a manufacturer, such as Tesla, when their drivers are routinely taking their eyes off the road? What insurance must be carried by the _manufacturer_ of the autonomous driving equipment? What effect does this have on the insurance carried by the "human in command"? (I was going to say "driver" but that didn't seem quite right.) What additional legal protections must be in place for the _inevitable_ day when software chooses to kill a human? What additional legal protections must be in place for the day when, because of software, a human's life was saved -- will society even know? Should Tesla produce a monthly statistic of the estimated total number of trips driven by their cars where an intoxicated "human in command" was able to get home? (Because then anyone can compare to how successful humans were before an autonomous system was available.) What legal protections must be in place before Google is allowed to provide autonomous driving service "in the cloud"? If the cell connection suddenly drops at just the wrong moment, should Google pay the costs of the ensuing accident? (Ok, ok, maybe Google isn't planning on putting the driving software "in the cloud." I'm just saying...it's not like the owner of the vehicle will be any wiser. Then they'll be dead.)

Animats 10y ago
The NHTSB laid down policy on this last week. Level 1 and 2, it's the driver's fault. Levels 3-5, the driver can sit back and relax and it's the car manufacturer's fault. The Tesla fatal crashes (Tesla is Level 2) have produced lawsuits, but no decisions yet.
- sounds 10y ago
  Thanks, and I agree on your quick analysis: no decisions yet. The NHTSB's policy will almost undoubtedly also need to be tested in court, as it appears on the surface that it over-simplifies some critical things.

dsfyu404ed 10y ago

"Google also stressed that red light violations are the "leading cause" of car crashes in US cities, and that 94 percent of those are due to human mistakes." Last I heard the speed trap towns and insurance companies were justifying their agenda by saying speed was dangerous. Before that it was the prohibitionists (MADD) and universities using drunk driving to push their agenda. I'd wager that tailgating and distracted driving causes a lot more car crashes (they're far more common behavior even if the average instance is less risky), barring some absurd definition of car crashes that rules out most rear endings. IIRC other articles have mentioned Google has complaining about distracted drivers. Why the sudden change of priorities? Is a company Google owns trying to win speed camera contract or something?

parent5446 10y ago

I don't know if I necessarily agree with the article's conclusion that self-driving needs to become the rule. Sure, if all cars were self-driving, this accident would not have happened, and that's the dream. But if the Google car was not self-driving, i.e., it was just me or you in the car, I doubt I would have been able to avoid this crash. If automatic sensors can't see a car speeding through a red light, there's no way I will.

dsfyu404ed 10y ago
Do we know if the van was traveling cross ways or was sitting at a red arrow? Not many people will run a red 6sec after it's red. Many more people will floor it right as the light changes to cut off opposing traffic and take a left turn on a red left arrow edit: nevermind, robocar got hit on the left.