4 ms·

There's at least a magnitude of difference between a driver, who is always in control of the vehicle, suddenly finding that his brakes have failed, and then doi

There's at least a magnitude of difference between a driver, who is always in control of the vehicle, suddenly finding that his brakes have failed, and then doing what he can to reduce or minimize the impact of the accident; and a driver who is basically a passenger having to make what is likely to be a last-minute decision to wrench control from an anonymous vehicle. A decision that will be heavily question by the manufacturers' lawyers or insurance companies. If it's not possible to take control, would he have any liability at all?

perl4ever 6y ago
Well, yeah, who knows if the driver of the car that causes the accident would seem responsible. Which is why I wouldn't want to own that kind of car. If they really are that much safer, then I should benefit from them being on the road anyway.
- cgriswald 6y ago
  I though the same way: It's better if everyone else has one. But I don't think it'll play out that way. You'll benefit from the additional safety. On the other hand, if there is an accident involving you and the other car is a self-driving car, the assumption will be (and the manufacturer's lawyers will argue) that you, the human, are at fault. It might even be the case, but I suspect it'll be more of a guilty-until-proven-innocent situation regardless.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    The situation where the human driver is assumed to be guilty without evidence seems self-contradictory. A self-driving car would have abundant telemetry and video. If it didn't, if say the information gathering mysteriously failed then by definition, it's at fault. This fear makes no more sense to me as the sentiment that nobody will be able to afford to insure a non-self-driving car in the future.
dheera 6y ago
On this note, how many human drivers actually know what to do if their brakes fail? Do they know to try to switch the car into lower gear and engine brake, move towards the right lane, coast and then use the parking brake to try to stop the vehicle? How many human drivers might try to shove the vehicle into park, neutral, or downright panic in that situation? I think very few humans actually understand these concepts. Autonomous vehicles don't panic, and they can be programmed with rules to maximize the probability of survival. Autonomous vehicles can also be equipped with backup brakes, separate front/rear brakes with independent controls (humans can't handle that complexity but algorithms can), or other modifications and programmed to simply NOT start driving if there are any failures in the redundant system. Humans often continue to drive cars that show signs of trouble, because it's the only car they have. With an autonomous car, it could, at the first sign of trouble, automatically summon help, and also summon a replacement rental vehicle to show up at your location so you can ditch the problem vehicle for the towers to deal with and continue about your life. How cool would that be?
- cgriswald 6y ago
  > On this note, how many human drivers actually know what to do if their brakes fail? In fairness, they all should know. Believe me when I say I'm for much stricter standards for human drivers. > I think very few humans actually understand these concepts. Autonomous vehicles don't panic, and they can be programmed with rules to maximize the probability of survival. The survival of who, though? The occupants? The occupants of other vehicles or pedestrians? If the breaks fail on a narrow mountain road, does the car decide to throw itself off the cliff or collide with the car in front of it, potentially pushing it off the cliff instead? (Eventually, I think the cars would be able to talk to each other and the front car could intentionally use itself to slow and stop the rear car.) This is a can of worms, too. > How cool would that be? It's all really cool, but until the courts and Congress have figured out a lot of these issues, I'm not sure these cars are going to be my cup of tea.

perl4ever 6y ago

Well, yeah, who knows if the driver of the car that causes the accident would seem responsible. Which is why I wouldn't want to own that kind of car. If they really are that much safer, then I should benefit from them being on the road anyway.

cgriswald 6y ago
I though the same way: It's better if everyone else has one. But I don't think it'll play out that way. You'll benefit from the additional safety. On the other hand, if there is an accident involving you and the other car is a self-driving car, the assumption will be (and the manufacturer's lawyers will argue) that you, the human, are at fault. It might even be the case, but I suspect it'll be more of a guilty-until-proven-innocent situation regardless.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  The situation where the human driver is assumed to be guilty without evidence seems self-contradictory. A self-driving car would have abundant telemetry and video. If it didn't, if say the information gathering mysteriously failed then by definition, it's at fault. This fear makes no more sense to me as the sentiment that nobody will be able to afford to insure a non-self-driving car in the future.

dheera 6y ago

On this note, how many human drivers actually know what to do if their brakes fail? Do they know to try to switch the car into lower gear and engine brake, move towards the right lane, coast and then use the parking brake to try to stop the vehicle? How many human drivers might try to shove the vehicle into park, neutral, or downright panic in that situation? I think very few humans actually understand these concepts. Autonomous vehicles don't panic, and they can be programmed with rules to maximize the probability of survival. Autonomous vehicles can also be equipped with backup brakes, separate front/rear brakes with independent controls (humans can't handle that complexity but algorithms can), or other modifications and programmed to simply NOT start driving if there are any failures in the redundant system. Humans often continue to drive cars that show signs of trouble, because it's the only car they have. With an autonomous car, it could, at the first sign of trouble, automatically summon help, and also summon a replacement rental vehicle to show up at your location so you can ditch the problem vehicle for the towers to deal with and continue about your life. How cool would that be?

cgriswald 6y ago
> On this note, how many human drivers actually know what to do if their brakes fail? In fairness, they all should know. Believe me when I say I'm for much stricter standards for human drivers. > I think very few humans actually understand these concepts. Autonomous vehicles don't panic, and they can be programmed with rules to maximize the probability of survival. The survival of who, though? The occupants? The occupants of other vehicles or pedestrians? If the breaks fail on a narrow mountain road, does the car decide to throw itself off the cliff or collide with the car in front of it, potentially pushing it off the cliff instead? (Eventually, I think the cars would be able to talk to each other and the front car could intentionally use itself to slow and stop the rear car.) This is a can of worms, too. > How cool would that be? It's all really cool, but until the courts and Congress have figured out a lot of these issues, I'm not sure these cars are going to be my cup of tea.