5 ms·

So, it's now November of 2019, and it seems unlikely that driverless cars will be ubiquitous or even an available option by 2020. If you could go back and chang

So, it's now November of 2019, and it seems unlikely that driverless cars will be ubiquitous or even an available option by 2020. If you could go back and change some laws and regulations, which ones would you have fixed to hit the 2020 prediction?

jedberg 7y ago
This article make it sounds like I was right. The author just took a ride in a driverless car. Which is limited to driving in Arizona due to legal restrictions. But to answer your question, we’d need a whole different legal framework about liability for driverless cars instead of technological restrictions. Like for example, the law ~says~ would say “one person must be designated as legally liable for the vehicle” and that’s it. Drive your driverless car on any road you want. If it hits someone, the designated person is liable.
- rory096 7y ago
  Can you point me to that law? Do 'legal persons' qualify?
  - jedberg 7y ago
    No I’m saying that is the law I would write. It doesn’t exist.
- Noos 7y ago
  Why would anyone buy a car where they can be held liable for the software defects of the manufacturer? The driver has no control over the software and cannot compensate for it. You're blaming them for putting the thing on the road at all, and the end result would be not to bother.
  - alonmower 7y ago
    While I personally wouldn’t that doesn’t stop a bunch of people from kicking their feet up and texting as their Model S’s drive them down 280 every morning. They’re already agreeing to the trade off between convenience and liability. I think you underestimate how much some people value the convenience.
    - ghaff 7y ago
      That some idiots may misuse their vehicle assistive driving system is different from you having to sign an agreement when you purchase your self-driving car in which you agree to hold the manufacturer harmless and accept full responsibility for [long list of things] that may happen during autonomous operation.
      - aptwebapps 7y ago
        I think there's a difference between agreeing to hold the manufacturer harmless for anything that happens and accepting basic liability for purchasing the car and putting it on the road. I guess jedberg's idea is that there needs to be a place for the buck to start, as it were, wherever it might end up. Currently that is the driver. However, I don't see why it couldn't start with the manufacturer. They could always try to shift blame to the owner if they were misusing it somehow or interfering with its correct operation.
  - Terretta 7y ago
    Why would anyone buy a dog where they can be held liable for the genetic disposition of its parents? The dog has a degree of autonomy or self-agency, and can make decisions that put its owner at legal risk. Someone else brought it into the world, but you, ultimately, made the purchase. You made it yours, the problem’s on you.
    - vishnugupta 7y ago
      I’m not sure if it’s as black and white as that. Continuing the counter argument: who is liable if the phone you bought with faulty battery explodes causing life and property damage?
    - smt88 7y ago
      This is a terrible analogy from every conceivable angle. Dog owners have physical and (some) psychological control over their dogs. Not true of SDCs. Dogs are not programmed, they're bred. Even very dangerous dogs can be kept in a way that renders them unable to harm anyone. Not true of a car that must drive around in public. No breeder guarantees a dog's behavior for its lifetime. SDC manufacturers will guarantee the car's ability to drive.
      - itake 7y ago
        I think a better comparison would be if the passenger in a taxi had to pay the taxi driver's speeding tickets.
    - orbifold 7y ago
      Which is why our dog can cause up to 5 million in damages and they would be payed by our dog liability insurance...
  - IanCal 7y ago
    I don't see it as being a great idea, but if it was written like that the answer is simply insurance.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  The manufacturer of the car/software must be responsible for any accidents is causes. There is no other way.
  - jedberg 7y ago
    Why? Car manufacturers are usually indemnified when someone uses their car improperly. It’s not so black and white. That’s why we need laws to spell it out.
    - BurningFrog 7y ago
      With self driving cars, the only entity who "uses" the car is its software. The owner/user isn't in charge of any of its actions, and can therefore not be help responsible for them.
- ar0 7y ago
  Actually the article states that the driverless rides are limited to a subset of the total Waymo test area in Phoenix, which has nothing to do with legal restrictions but with how confident Waymo is in their technology. And, yes, some (maybe a big) part of Waymo being in Phoenix is the regulatory environment, but I bet a lot is also that there is no snow and other challenging weather conditions.
- chibg10 7y ago
  The designer of the software should be liable for bugs that cause life and property damages. This makes sense morally, and the costs incurred from damages should be factored into the costs of pricing a driverless car. This protects the consumer from being responsible for damages they have no control over, provides meaningful competitive incentives for driverless car manufacturers to improve safety, and doesn’t hamstring the industry’s development.
  - bobbylarrybobby 7y ago
    Should the driver not incur some responsibility for putting on the road a car that is known to be worse than a human driver in many situations?
notatoad 7y ago
>seems unlikely that driverless cars will be ubiquitous or even an available option by 2020 this is moving the goalposts. the parent never said it would be ubiquitous, he said "we would have the tech". Waymo is currently offering driverless rides to the public, therefore we have the tech. no, it's not ubiquitous, and there's a lot of caveats, but it exists. driverless cars are a thing.
- aeturnum 7y ago
  >it exists. driverless cars are a thing. I think what you're saying is true as far as it goes. Also, if you allow cars that can only drive in a limited list of places, we've had driverless cars for 30 years. So do with that what you will. For me, I would say that when anyone can order a self-driving car to go from any point on a road in California to any other point on a road, we're clearly there. One city seems far too small.

jedberg 7y ago

This article make it sounds like I was right. The author just took a ride in a driverless car. Which is limited to driving in Arizona due to legal restrictions. But to answer your question, we’d need a whole different legal framework about liability for driverless cars instead of technological restrictions. Like for example, the law ~says~ would say “one person must be designated as legally liable for the vehicle” and that’s it. Drive your driverless car on any road you want. If it hits someone, the designated person is liable.

rory096 7y ago
Can you point me to that law? Do 'legal persons' qualify?
- jedberg 7y ago
  No I’m saying that is the law I would write. It doesn’t exist.
Noos 7y ago
Why would anyone buy a car where they can be held liable for the software defects of the manufacturer? The driver has no control over the software and cannot compensate for it. You're blaming them for putting the thing on the road at all, and the end result would be not to bother.
- alonmower 7y ago
  While I personally wouldn’t that doesn’t stop a bunch of people from kicking their feet up and texting as their Model S’s drive them down 280 every morning. They’re already agreeing to the trade off between convenience and liability. I think you underestimate how much some people value the convenience.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    That some idiots may misuse their vehicle assistive driving system is different from you having to sign an agreement when you purchase your self-driving car in which you agree to hold the manufacturer harmless and accept full responsibility for [long list of things] that may happen during autonomous operation.
    - aptwebapps 7y ago
      I think there's a difference between agreeing to hold the manufacturer harmless for anything that happens and accepting basic liability for purchasing the car and putting it on the road. I guess jedberg's idea is that there needs to be a place for the buck to start, as it were, wherever it might end up. Currently that is the driver. However, I don't see why it couldn't start with the manufacturer. They could always try to shift blame to the owner if they were misusing it somehow or interfering with its correct operation.
- Terretta 7y ago
  Why would anyone buy a dog where they can be held liable for the genetic disposition of its parents? The dog has a degree of autonomy or self-agency, and can make decisions that put its owner at legal risk. Someone else brought it into the world, but you, ultimately, made the purchase. You made it yours, the problem’s on you.
  - vishnugupta 7y ago
    I’m not sure if it’s as black and white as that. Continuing the counter argument: who is liable if the phone you bought with faulty battery explodes causing life and property damage?
  - smt88 7y ago
    This is a terrible analogy from every conceivable angle. Dog owners have physical and (some) psychological control over their dogs. Not true of SDCs. Dogs are not programmed, they're bred. Even very dangerous dogs can be kept in a way that renders them unable to harm anyone. Not true of a car that must drive around in public. No breeder guarantees a dog's behavior for its lifetime. SDC manufacturers will guarantee the car's ability to drive.
    - itake 7y ago
      I think a better comparison would be if the passenger in a taxi had to pay the taxi driver's speeding tickets.
  - orbifold 7y ago
    Which is why our dog can cause up to 5 million in damages and they would be payed by our dog liability insurance...
- IanCal 7y ago
  I don't see it as being a great idea, but if it was written like that the answer is simply insurance.
BurningFrog 7y ago
The manufacturer of the car/software must be responsible for any accidents is causes. There is no other way.
- jedberg 7y ago
  Why? Car manufacturers are usually indemnified when someone uses their car improperly. It’s not so black and white. That’s why we need laws to spell it out.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    With self driving cars, the only entity who "uses" the car is its software. The owner/user isn't in charge of any of its actions, and can therefore not be help responsible for them.
ar0 7y ago
Actually the article states that the driverless rides are limited to a subset of the total Waymo test area in Phoenix, which has nothing to do with legal restrictions but with how confident Waymo is in their technology. And, yes, some (maybe a big) part of Waymo being in Phoenix is the regulatory environment, but I bet a lot is also that there is no snow and other challenging weather conditions.
chibg10 7y ago
The designer of the software should be liable for bugs that cause life and property damages. This makes sense morally, and the costs incurred from damages should be factored into the costs of pricing a driverless car. This protects the consumer from being responsible for damages they have no control over, provides meaningful competitive incentives for driverless car manufacturers to improve safety, and doesn’t hamstring the industry’s development.
- bobbylarrybobby 7y ago
  Should the driver not incur some responsibility for putting on the road a car that is known to be worse than a human driver in many situations?

notatoad 7y ago

>seems unlikely that driverless cars will be ubiquitous or even an available option by 2020 this is moving the goalposts. the parent never said it would be ubiquitous, he said "we would have the tech". Waymo is currently offering driverless rides to the public, therefore we have the tech. no, it's not ubiquitous, and there's a lot of caveats, but it exists. driverless cars are a thing.

aeturnum 7y ago
>it exists. driverless cars are a thing. I think what you're saying is true as far as it goes. Also, if you allow cars that can only drive in a limited list of places, we've had driverless cars for 30 years. So do with that what you will. For me, I would say that when anyone can order a self-driving car to go from any point on a road in California to any other point on a road, we're clearly there. One city seems far too small.