4 ms·

any car company making a robocar is going to get sued into oblivion when they collide with a human driver, regardless of who is at fault I'd actually be somewh

any car company making a robocar is going to get sued into oblivion when they collide with a human driver, regardless of who is at fault I'd actually be somewhat surprised if this were the case. Self-driving cars will gather an enormous amount of sensor data and I bet they'll store that and decision tree logs in a "black box" of sorts. If this isn't being done now, I guarantee it'll be done after the first few lawsuits. With that info in hand, it should be rather clear – at least in the majority of cases – who's at fault. The human driver can claim they swerved over the double line to avoid an obstacle, but the sensor information can probably confirm whether that's actually the case. This isn't to say there won't be lawsuits, or that self-driving cars will never be at fault. I just expect there will be a rash of initial lawsuits. Then, as it becomes clear that the data recorded by self-driving cars makes them a difficult target to exploit (and assuming self-driving cars are in fact less error prone than human drivers), I expect lawsuits to taper off.

hyperbovine 14y ago
You are exactly right -- no company with half an ounce of brains is going to make a robocar that does anything except obey every traffic law on the books. Barring a software failure it's almost inconceivable to me that said cars even could cause an accident! But the flip side is much more damning: congratulations, you're now driving the speed limit everywhere you go. You're following at five car lengths. You stop for yellows and anybody within a quarter mile of a crosswalk. Basically, you drive like a Florida octogenarian, everyone else on the road hates you and it takes longer to go places. I can see a few die-hards going for that proposition, but not many.
- humbledrone 14y ago
  Actually, a software-driven car could follow cars much closer than (mph / 10) car lengths. That particular rule of thumb is based off of human reaction times. A safety buffer is still a good thing, but software will react several orders of magnitude faster than a person. Also, if software-driven cars become common enough, you will probably get places a lot faster, at least in heavy traffic. Traffic flow could be much better than it is with humans driving. There have been several studies on freeway gridlock traffic that show that small driving mistakes (e.g. slowing down more abruptly than necessary) can butterfly-effect out into massive bottlenecks. And of course if software-driven cars cause fewer accidents, there will be less gridlock due to those as well.
- veidr 14y ago
  You're right, but I think that most people who would like a robocar place the most value on doing something else while en route. Even if it took longer (which, I agree, it would (unless the traffic was all robocars, which I can imagine actually being more efficient in many traffic scenarios, despite their slavish adherence to regulations)) I still think that most people would be happier doing something important or interesting for 35 minutes than they would be getting there in 27 minutes that they weren't able to use because they had to drive.
- ryannielsen 14y ago
  Flip side: with accurate and trusted self-driving cars in mass use, speed limits could be raised, car following distances can be reduced. There's no need to keep traffic controls and flow patterns that were designed for humans when instead there's a network of autonomous vehicles. Wouldn't it be fantastic to get on a freeway where the speed limit's well over 80, because the vehicles have necessary reaction times and are guaranteed to be well maintained (why not have a car take itself in for routine and regular maintenance when it's not in use)? And regardless, sign me up for Florida octogenarian driving patterns. I'd love to get in a vehicle that takes me point to point with no effort on my part. I can read, nap, work, or fully interact with other passengers – things I can't do when my attention must be focused on controlling the vehicle and monitoring traffic around my car.

hyperbovine 14y ago

You are exactly right -- no company with half an ounce of brains is going to make a robocar that does anything except obey every traffic law on the books. Barring a software failure it's almost inconceivable to me that said cars even could cause an accident! But the flip side is much more damning: congratulations, you're now driving the speed limit everywhere you go. You're following at five car lengths. You stop for yellows and anybody within a quarter mile of a crosswalk. Basically, you drive like a Florida octogenarian, everyone else on the road hates you and it takes longer to go places. I can see a few die-hards going for that proposition, but not many.

humbledrone 14y ago
Actually, a software-driven car could follow cars much closer than (mph / 10) car lengths. That particular rule of thumb is based off of human reaction times. A safety buffer is still a good thing, but software will react several orders of magnitude faster than a person. Also, if software-driven cars become common enough, you will probably get places a lot faster, at least in heavy traffic. Traffic flow could be much better than it is with humans driving. There have been several studies on freeway gridlock traffic that show that small driving mistakes (e.g. slowing down more abruptly than necessary) can butterfly-effect out into massive bottlenecks. And of course if software-driven cars cause fewer accidents, there will be less gridlock due to those as well.
veidr 14y ago
You're right, but I think that most people who would like a robocar place the most value on doing something else while en route. Even if it took longer (which, I agree, it would (unless the traffic was all robocars, which I can imagine actually being more efficient in many traffic scenarios, despite their slavish adherence to regulations)) I still think that most people would be happier doing something important or interesting for 35 minutes than they would be getting there in 27 minutes that they weren't able to use because they had to drive.
ryannielsen 14y ago
Flip side: with accurate and trusted self-driving cars in mass use, speed limits could be raised, car following distances can be reduced. There's no need to keep traffic controls and flow patterns that were designed for humans when instead there's a network of autonomous vehicles. Wouldn't it be fantastic to get on a freeway where the speed limit's well over 80, because the vehicles have necessary reaction times and are guaranteed to be well maintained (why not have a car take itself in for routine and regular maintenance when it's not in use)? And regardless, sign me up for Florida octogenarian driving patterns. I'd love to get in a vehicle that takes me point to point with no effort on my part. I can read, nap, work, or fully interact with other passengers – things I can't do when my attention must be focused on controlling the vehicle and monitoring traffic around my car.