5 ms·

Excited about the technology and expected this news eventually, but in less of a "Bam, we did it" and more of a "Coming Dec 2017... look for new autonomous vehi

Excited about the technology and expected this news eventually, but in less of a "Bam, we did it" and more of a "Coming Dec 2017... look for new autonomous vehicles, they'll be bright orange with flashing lights". Following-up on the "How is this legal" question below, can anyone comment on: 1. For the 'autonomous engineers/technologists': a) Is the technology mature enough that it can be utilized without an on-board driver such that public isn't at risk? b) Does the sensor system provide the remote "monitor" have enough situational awareness? c) What happens if whatever up-link that the vehicle is connected to disconnects? (for example: They're using Comcast) 2. For the 'lawyers': a) Who's responsible if someone gets hurt or the vehicle breaks a law? b) Is an Executive Order from the Governor the ideal channel for introducing the technology to the public (versus legislative action)? [I know subjective but curious] 3. For the 'marketers': a) Any examples of technologies prematurely introduced that had negative impact on their growth or contributed to their demise? Note: I realize some of these are subjective but thought would make for some great discussion.

StreamBright 9y ago
I think the question is what happens when the first accident happens caused by autonomous car. US law is not really forgiving in this regard.
- tempestn 9y ago
  People assumed it would be huge news the first time a car crashed while driving autonomously too though, and it turned out people barely noticed. I'm sure this stuff will need to get figured out, but I don't think it will necessarily be a huge incident the first time there's an accident without someone in the driver's seat. Presumably the first of these vehicles to be deployed will be fleet cars and such and will have specially tailored insurance policies; by the time it's individual owners, the legality will probably be somewhat settled (although there probably will eventually be elements litigated).
- dx034 9y ago
  In that case the manufacturer (or their insurance) will pay for it. Let that be $10m if someone dies, maybe a bit less if someone gets seriously hurt. Even if it's a multiple of that, that's in no relation to the cost of the programme. As long as they demonstrate that their cars are still a magnitude safer than other cars, paying fines will be enough.
  - davidkuhta 9y ago
    Yeah I was curious how the responsibility aspect of autonomous vehicles might work. If I as the consumer own the car and it hurts someone while driving autonomously am I at fault or would the manufacturer be at fault. It seems like this would be an industry paradigm shift if manufacturers were to take on liability for products performing as expected in a world of the unexpected (so to speak).
ghaff 9y ago
>a) Any examples of technologies prematurely introduced that had negative impact on their growth or contributed to their demise? Not really a class of product, but there certainly have been interesting processor architectures whose implementations weren't very good (and/or their timing was bad) out of the gate. Itanium comes to mind although there are others as well. One can reasonably argue whether it made a difference in the long run but late and slow meant Itanium ultimately never had a chance. >a) Who's responsible if someone gets hurt or the vehicle breaks a law? It's an interesting question. Outside of, perhaps, drugs, it's hard to think of consumer products that, correctly maintained, and used according to directions (or even not), randomly hurt or kill people and everyone just accepts that because "stuff happens." No, they get a lawyer. It also raises questions like "I'm sorry. You're not updated to sensor suite 3.72 with firmware patch level 7865 so we're not liable" or "Your vehicle is out of support and we can no longer provide security or safety updates so you can no longer be covered for liability."
- davidkuhta 9y ago
  Yeah with respect to injuries, I agree that the consumer aspect is a particularly unique facet of the discussion. I've heard stories of accidents involving automated machinery in factories which resulted in "accidental death & dismemberment", but that seems to be somewhat of a known risk. With autonomous vehicles it you can foresee them being marketed as 'roombas of transportation'.
- carapace 9y ago
  Off topic, but years ago a friend of mine participated in a jury research program around tobacco. He learned a lot of weird and fascinating stuff there. One thing he said was that cigarettes et. al. were "the only product which, when used as directed, will kill you." He also said that they had apparently come up with a strain of tobacco that wasn't addictive but didn't bring it to market.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    Tobacco is actually a good example of an inherently dangerous consumer product. It just doesn't make a strong case for "and everyone's just fine with it."

StreamBright 9y ago

I think the question is what happens when the first accident happens caused by autonomous car. US law is not really forgiving in this regard.

tempestn 9y ago
People assumed it would be huge news the first time a car crashed while driving autonomously too though, and it turned out people barely noticed. I'm sure this stuff will need to get figured out, but I don't think it will necessarily be a huge incident the first time there's an accident without someone in the driver's seat. Presumably the first of these vehicles to be deployed will be fleet cars and such and will have specially tailored insurance policies; by the time it's individual owners, the legality will probably be somewhat settled (although there probably will eventually be elements litigated).
dx034 9y ago
In that case the manufacturer (or their insurance) will pay for it. Let that be $10m if someone dies, maybe a bit less if someone gets seriously hurt. Even if it's a multiple of that, that's in no relation to the cost of the programme. As long as they demonstrate that their cars are still a magnitude safer than other cars, paying fines will be enough.
- davidkuhta 9y ago
  Yeah I was curious how the responsibility aspect of autonomous vehicles might work. If I as the consumer own the car and it hurts someone while driving autonomously am I at fault or would the manufacturer be at fault. It seems like this would be an industry paradigm shift if manufacturers were to take on liability for products performing as expected in a world of the unexpected (so to speak).

ghaff 9y ago

>a) Any examples of technologies prematurely introduced that had negative impact on their growth or contributed to their demise? Not really a class of product, but there certainly have been interesting processor architectures whose implementations weren't very good (and/or their timing was bad) out of the gate. Itanium comes to mind although there are others as well. One can reasonably argue whether it made a difference in the long run but late and slow meant Itanium ultimately never had a chance. >a) Who's responsible if someone gets hurt or the vehicle breaks a law? It's an interesting question. Outside of, perhaps, drugs, it's hard to think of consumer products that, correctly maintained, and used according to directions (or even not), randomly hurt or kill people and everyone just accepts that because "stuff happens." No, they get a lawyer. It also raises questions like "I'm sorry. You're not updated to sensor suite 3.72 with firmware patch level 7865 so we're not liable" or "Your vehicle is out of support and we can no longer provide security or safety updates so you can no longer be covered for liability."

davidkuhta 9y ago
Yeah with respect to injuries, I agree that the consumer aspect is a particularly unique facet of the discussion. I've heard stories of accidents involving automated machinery in factories which resulted in "accidental death & dismemberment", but that seems to be somewhat of a known risk. With autonomous vehicles it you can foresee them being marketed as 'roombas of transportation'.
carapace 9y ago
Off topic, but years ago a friend of mine participated in a jury research program around tobacco. He learned a lot of weird and fascinating stuff there. One thing he said was that cigarettes et. al. were "the only product which, when used as directed, will kill you." He also said that they had apparently come up with a strain of tobacco that wasn't addictive but didn't bring it to market.
- ghaff 9y ago
  Tobacco is actually a good example of an inherently dangerous consumer product. It just doesn't make a strong case for "and everyone's just fine with it."