5 ms·

Any conversation at all about how to avoid the legal issues/being sued out of existence? As much as I'd love robot cars to "move fast and break things", making

by Qworg 13y ago

Any conversation at all about how to avoid the legal issues/being sued out of existence? As much as I'd love robot cars to "move fast and break things", making an argument that "well, at least it doesn't kill as many people as teenage drivers" won't fly in court.

ivankirigin 13y ago
In 2006, when I was chatting with the head of engineering at iRobot about this, he said: "this is what is going to make it work" and pulls out his car keys. Turning a system on will mean that the driver is making the choice. The same things were said about the first cruise control systems actually. This is a dramatic over simplification. What will really matter is whether they work or not. From the performance I've seen, they will work. It is also worth noting that the technology isn't in question, just the regulations. That means it is just a matter of when, not if.
- Qworg 13y ago
  I'm currently working in a field that tries to lean on the same thing - the operator is making a choice. It doesn't work, we still get sued, and money has to change hands. I'd love to be laissez-faire about it, but it is a pretty critical issue.
- iandanforth 13y ago
  > It is also worth noting that the technology isn't in question, just the regulations. That means it is just a matter of when, not if. Hemp. Superior is many ways, illegal for a century and counting.
  - nsmnsf 13y ago
    ? You can buy hemp protein powder on Amazon, I've seen hemp blend shirts (horribly scratchy, for the record).
- dm2 13y ago
  Pressing a remote button telling the car to start seems no different, correct? There is no reason that a fully autonomous fleet of cars is unsafe, only a matter of convincing stubborn old people to embrace advanced technologies. If the car is unsure of what to do (road conditions change or map doesn't match road) then pull off to the side of the road and wait for a remote human to say "ok, you're clear, carry on".
  - waterlesscloud 13y ago
    "convincing stubborn old people to embrace advanced technologies." I think you meant just 'stubborn people', who come in all ages.
- thrill 13y ago
  I believe that what will make it work is that boring old concept called insurance. Insurance on unproven concepts will be quite expensive - at least as long as our unlimited tort attitude exists in the US. However, if encouragement can be given to lawmakers to recognize that if any concept should allow limitations on damages then it should be where a machine is autonomously performing the activity.
- thrill 13y ago
  I believe that what will make it work is that boring old concept called insurance. Insurance on unproven concepts will be quite expensive - at least as long as our unlimited tort attitude exists in the US. However, if encouragement can be given to lawmakers to recognize that if any concept should allow limitations on damages then it should be where a machine is autonomously performing the activity.
josephpmay 13y ago
It probably won't be to hard for the startup to find an insurance company that's willing to partner with them. As long as there's a large payout in accident cases, I doubt civil suites would be a major problem. I personally would be more worried about criminal liability, which is best mediated by data collection. I could see early versions being "computer assisted" driving, where the driver is responsible (and liable) to take over if there is a problem. This is what Google is doing.
- lazyjones 13y ago
  I bet insurance companies will love the idea of self-driving cars - because there will be practically no avoidable accidents but drivers will likely accept at least normal insurance fees because they can't argue away the uncertainty associated with such new technology.
  - ivankirigin 13y ago
    Also consider this: the cameras of the system will be recording everything.
  - patrickk 13y ago
    Short term perhaps, but longer term a huge reduction/elimination of human-caused accidents is really bad news for car insurance. Here's a quote from Warren Buffett (big investor in Geico): "If you end up with no accidents, we will end up with no insurance company" http://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/1vj99m/warren_buffett_on_how_googles_self_driving_cars/ http://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/1vj99m/warr... (unfortunately the video has been removed)
- andrewfong 13y ago
  I wonder what the capital cost for starting your own insurance company would be actually ... would VC money be sufficient for this sort of thing?
sown 13y ago
> Any conversation at all about how to avoid the legal issues/being sued out of existence? I share your concern, but maybe just sort, uh, :) worry about that part later? It could prove to be fatal but it'll be neat to at least see? I mean, at least quick enough to get a prototype together and then later-on the avionics level of code auditing would take place. I've worked with former and current avionics engineers before, whom worked with Ada on fighter aircraft or civilian jets. It seems like a few lines of code per day is typical.
- HeyLaughingBoy 13y ago
  A point of reference here before the onslaught of "they must be crappy coders if they're that slow" remarks begins. A few LOC/day rate is generally accepted to be the overall rate of development from Requirements through Final Verification/Validation. That is, you may write a product of 10kloc in just a few months of coding, but the entire software aspects of the project actually took about 2.5 years to complete. I don't do avionics (though it sounds like more fun. Greener grass on that side, etc...), but this is the way we measure LOC in medical devices. To your other point, well, that's easy to say until the people killed are your loved ones. No company that plans to stay in business (or its officers out of jail) can afford to be blase about killing its customers.
  - sown 13y ago
    > A few LOC/day rate is generally accepted to be the overall rate of development from Requirements through Final Verification/Validation. That is, you may write a product of 10kloc in just a few months of coding, but the entire software aspects of the project actually took about 2.5 years to complete. I probably should have mentioned that in my original post. :) Yes, they do lots of verification and auditing for any kind of code like that. This includes things like NASA TDRSS, space shuttle fuel flow regulators, etc. The sort of thing where people might die if an exception isn't caught. They don't necessarily want super-creative worker types itching to break rules, even if the system they are working on is indeed new and perhaps revolutionary. Things like the F35 JSF, etc.

by Qworg 13y ago

ivankirigin 13y ago

In 2006, when I was chatting with the head of engineering at iRobot about this, he said: "this is what is going to make it work" and pulls out his car keys. Turning a system on will mean that the driver is making the choice. The same things were said about the first cruise control systems actually. This is a dramatic over simplification. What will really matter is whether they work or not. From the performance I've seen, they will work. It is also worth noting that the technology isn't in question, just the regulations. That means it is just a matter of when, not if.

Qworg 13y ago
I'm currently working in a field that tries to lean on the same thing - the operator is making a choice. It doesn't work, we still get sued, and money has to change hands. I'd love to be laissez-faire about it, but it is a pretty critical issue.
iandanforth 13y ago
> It is also worth noting that the technology isn't in question, just the regulations. That means it is just a matter of when, not if. Hemp. Superior is many ways, illegal for a century and counting.
- nsmnsf 13y ago
  ? You can buy hemp protein powder on Amazon, I've seen hemp blend shirts (horribly scratchy, for the record).
dm2 13y ago
Pressing a remote button telling the car to start seems no different, correct? There is no reason that a fully autonomous fleet of cars is unsafe, only a matter of convincing stubborn old people to embrace advanced technologies. If the car is unsure of what to do (road conditions change or map doesn't match road) then pull off to the side of the road and wait for a remote human to say "ok, you're clear, carry on".
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  "convincing stubborn old people to embrace advanced technologies." I think you meant just 'stubborn people', who come in all ages.
thrill 13y ago
I believe that what will make it work is that boring old concept called insurance. Insurance on unproven concepts will be quite expensive - at least as long as our unlimited tort attitude exists in the US. However, if encouragement can be given to lawmakers to recognize that if any concept should allow limitations on damages then it should be where a machine is autonomously performing the activity.
thrill 13y ago
I believe that what will make it work is that boring old concept called insurance. Insurance on unproven concepts will be quite expensive - at least as long as our unlimited tort attitude exists in the US. However, if encouragement can be given to lawmakers to recognize that if any concept should allow limitations on damages then it should be where a machine is autonomously performing the activity.

josephpmay 13y ago

It probably won't be to hard for the startup to find an insurance company that's willing to partner with them. As long as there's a large payout in accident cases, I doubt civil suites would be a major problem. I personally would be more worried about criminal liability, which is best mediated by data collection. I could see early versions being "computer assisted" driving, where the driver is responsible (and liable) to take over if there is a problem. This is what Google is doing.

lazyjones 13y ago
I bet insurance companies will love the idea of self-driving cars - because there will be practically no avoidable accidents but drivers will likely accept at least normal insurance fees because they can't argue away the uncertainty associated with such new technology.
- ivankirigin 13y ago
  Also consider this: the cameras of the system will be recording everything.
- patrickk 13y ago
  Short term perhaps, but longer term a huge reduction/elimination of human-caused accidents is really bad news for car insurance. Here's a quote from Warren Buffett (big investor in Geico): "If you end up with no accidents, we will end up with no insurance company" http://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/1vj99m/warren_buffett_on_how_googles_self_driving_cars/ http://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/1vj99m/warr... (unfortunately the video has been removed)
andrewfong 13y ago
I wonder what the capital cost for starting your own insurance company would be actually ... would VC money be sufficient for this sort of thing?

sown 13y ago

> Any conversation at all about how to avoid the legal issues/being sued out of existence? I share your concern, but maybe just sort, uh, :) worry about that part later? It could prove to be fatal but it'll be neat to at least see? I mean, at least quick enough to get a prototype together and then later-on the avionics level of code auditing would take place. I've worked with former and current avionics engineers before, whom worked with Ada on fighter aircraft or civilian jets. It seems like a few lines of code per day is typical.

HeyLaughingBoy 13y ago
A point of reference here before the onslaught of "they must be crappy coders if they're that slow" remarks begins. A few LOC/day rate is generally accepted to be the overall rate of development from Requirements through Final Verification/Validation. That is, you may write a product of 10kloc in just a few months of coding, but the entire software aspects of the project actually took about 2.5 years to complete. I don't do avionics (though it sounds like more fun. Greener grass on that side, etc...), but this is the way we measure LOC in medical devices. To your other point, well, that's easy to say until the people killed are your loved ones. No company that plans to stay in business (or its officers out of jail) can afford to be blase about killing its customers.
- sown 13y ago
  > A few LOC/day rate is generally accepted to be the overall rate of development from Requirements through Final Verification/Validation. That is, you may write a product of 10kloc in just a few months of coding, but the entire software aspects of the project actually took about 2.5 years to complete. I probably should have mentioned that in my original post. :) Yes, they do lots of verification and auditing for any kind of code like that. This includes things like NASA TDRSS, space shuttle fuel flow regulators, etc. The sort of thing where people might die if an exception isn't caught. They don't necessarily want super-creative worker types itching to break rules, even if the system they are working on is indeed new and perhaps revolutionary. Things like the F35 JSF, etc.