7 ms·

The author is making a distinction between whether Uber was legally at fault (as stated in the article, likely not) versus whether the accident was avoidable. I

by vamin 9y ago

The author is making a distinction between whether Uber was legally at fault (as stated in the article, likely not) versus whether the accident was avoidable. I agree with the author's position that the accident was likely avoidable.

femto 9y ago
I think there is an argument for removing this ambiguity by making self driving cars automatically liable for all personal injury, whether the person be inside or outside the car. The only exception would be if the tester could prove intent by the other party, keeping in mind that a self-driving car will have extensive logs of its environment to use in such a defence. Supporting arguments include: 1) The physics of driving isn't random, so it could be said that there are no accidents in autonomous driving, only oversights. 2) It would set a minimum performance level by making it prohibitively expensive to have a dangerous car. Those who test responsibly would have a low enough injury rate that they could deal with the risk by taking out suitable insurance. 3) It would provide a strong incentive to make the best car possible and not to take expedient shortcuts. 4) Over time automatically liability would become irrelevant if it asymptotically forces the injury rate to zero. 5) We have an historic opportunity to create a culture that will eliminate the danger of cars. It might have an increased short-term once off cost, but a huge long term payoff in the reduction of health costs and human misery. If we miss this opportunity we will be stuck with the long term cost of an industry that will be competitively driven towards poorer performance, potentially against the will of the majority of players, by the actions of a few.
- URSpider94 9y ago
  Your concept that there are no accidents, only oversights, is not correct. Say I’m crossing the street and I don’t see your car coming, because I look the wrong way or I’m distracted, or my view is blocked by the sun. You may not be able to avoid hitting me. Additionally, if we train self-driving cars to always give way to pedestrians who even look like they might cross the street, they’re going to have a heck of a time getting through cities. Kids are going to learn that they can trigger a squealing emergency stop by lunging towards the curb - great fun! What I think WILL happen is that autonomous cars will have to buy blanket insurance policies that cover their entire fleet. High accident/fatality rates will result in high insurance premiums, which will put bad actors out of business.
  - telchar 9y ago
    You're suggesting that self-driving cars may have to drive slowly and carefully in cities. I don't really see a problem with that. Pedestrians aren't frequently in the immediate vicinity of roads with limits higher than 35mph in my experience. Any human driver has to drive cautiously in the vicinity of pedestrians anyway, if they don't want to risk manslaughter. I'd want SDVs to do that too.
    - URSpider94 9y ago
      Slowly and carefully, yes. Assuming that any pedestrian could leap in front of your car in violation of traffic laws - no. Where I live in California, there are two major streets with crosswalks in regular use, with speed limits of 40 mph or higher (and travel speeds of 50+ mph), within a quarter mile of my home.
  - femto 9y ago
    I think your first paragraph is written from the perspective of a human driver. The machine can predict based on physics. If anything a person who does not see a car will be more predictable, not less, as they will tend to be moving uniformly and not taking evasive action. Taking into account optimal (computer driven) car stopping distances, the maximum acceleration of a person and typical pedestrian densities, I don't think getting though cities would be an issue, especially outside the CBD. Even in areas with very high pedestrian traffic cars will be able to get though. In support of this argument, I offer today's "shared" pedestrian zones, where cars and people mix. Pedestrians have right of way, cars are limited to 10km/h, but the cars manage to get though without injuring anyone. Cars would naturally do high speeds on main roads with low pedestrian density and lower speeds (with very short stopping distance) at high pedestrian density. Why should children have a propensity to intentionally jump in front cars above and beyond anyone else? That's bias. If anyone intentionally jumped in front of a car then it would be covered by the exemption that I proposed: that the car would not be liable if intent could be proved. Based on the car's sensor logs it would be pretty easy to prove that someone intended to get hit. If the car managed to stop and the person ran away it would then be relatively easy to track that person down based on the logs and charge them with a crime. In any case, I think that that is a hypothetical situation which is unlikely to occur. For the vast majority of people self preservation would trump the desire to cause trouble by putting oneself in a terrifying and life-threatening situation, so I think it would be negligibly rare.
Guvante 9y ago
I think even if you think the accident was unavoidable it is certainly damning that the car never attempted to stop.
chopin 9y ago
In Germany, when an accident is avoidable, you are 100% at fault (as it should be) criminally and civilly. Isn't that the case in the US? I'd be astonished if that were the case. If you enforce your right of way and kill somebody, that's manslaughter in my book.

by vamin 9y ago

femto 9y ago

I think there is an argument for removing this ambiguity by making self driving cars automatically liable for all personal injury, whether the person be inside or outside the car. The only exception would be if the tester could prove intent by the other party, keeping in mind that a self-driving car will have extensive logs of its environment to use in such a defence. Supporting arguments include: 1) The physics of driving isn't random, so it could be said that there are no accidents in autonomous driving, only oversights. 2) It would set a minimum performance level by making it prohibitively expensive to have a dangerous car. Those who test responsibly would have a low enough injury rate that they could deal with the risk by taking out suitable insurance. 3) It would provide a strong incentive to make the best car possible and not to take expedient shortcuts. 4) Over time automatically liability would become irrelevant if it asymptotically forces the injury rate to zero. 5) We have an historic opportunity to create a culture that will eliminate the danger of cars. It might have an increased short-term once off cost, but a huge long term payoff in the reduction of health costs and human misery. If we miss this opportunity we will be stuck with the long term cost of an industry that will be competitively driven towards poorer performance, potentially against the will of the majority of players, by the actions of a few.

URSpider94 9y ago
Your concept that there are no accidents, only oversights, is not correct. Say I’m crossing the street and I don’t see your car coming, because I look the wrong way or I’m distracted, or my view is blocked by the sun. You may not be able to avoid hitting me. Additionally, if we train self-driving cars to always give way to pedestrians who even look like they might cross the street, they’re going to have a heck of a time getting through cities. Kids are going to learn that they can trigger a squealing emergency stop by lunging towards the curb - great fun! What I think WILL happen is that autonomous cars will have to buy blanket insurance policies that cover their entire fleet. High accident/fatality rates will result in high insurance premiums, which will put bad actors out of business.
- telchar 9y ago
  You're suggesting that self-driving cars may have to drive slowly and carefully in cities. I don't really see a problem with that. Pedestrians aren't frequently in the immediate vicinity of roads with limits higher than 35mph in my experience. Any human driver has to drive cautiously in the vicinity of pedestrians anyway, if they don't want to risk manslaughter. I'd want SDVs to do that too.
  - URSpider94 9y ago
    Slowly and carefully, yes. Assuming that any pedestrian could leap in front of your car in violation of traffic laws - no. Where I live in California, there are two major streets with crosswalks in regular use, with speed limits of 40 mph or higher (and travel speeds of 50+ mph), within a quarter mile of my home.
- femto 9y ago
  I think your first paragraph is written from the perspective of a human driver. The machine can predict based on physics. If anything a person who does not see a car will be more predictable, not less, as they will tend to be moving uniformly and not taking evasive action. Taking into account optimal (computer driven) car stopping distances, the maximum acceleration of a person and typical pedestrian densities, I don't think getting though cities would be an issue, especially outside the CBD. Even in areas with very high pedestrian traffic cars will be able to get though. In support of this argument, I offer today's "shared" pedestrian zones, where cars and people mix. Pedestrians have right of way, cars are limited to 10km/h, but the cars manage to get though without injuring anyone. Cars would naturally do high speeds on main roads with low pedestrian density and lower speeds (with very short stopping distance) at high pedestrian density. Why should children have a propensity to intentionally jump in front cars above and beyond anyone else? That's bias. If anyone intentionally jumped in front of a car then it would be covered by the exemption that I proposed: that the car would not be liable if intent could be proved. Based on the car's sensor logs it would be pretty easy to prove that someone intended to get hit. If the car managed to stop and the person ran away it would then be relatively easy to track that person down based on the logs and charge them with a crime. In any case, I think that that is a hypothetical situation which is unlikely to occur. For the vast majority of people self preservation would trump the desire to cause trouble by putting oneself in a terrifying and life-threatening situation, so I think it would be negligibly rare.

Guvante 9y ago

I think even if you think the accident was unavoidable it is certainly damning that the car never attempted to stop.

chopin 9y ago

In Germany, when an accident is avoidable, you are 100% at fault (as it should be) criminally and civilly. Isn't that the case in the US? I'd be astonished if that were the case. If you enforce your right of way and kill somebody, that's manslaughter in my book.