6 ms·

I'm fascinated by the accidents. The AV is stopped at a light. Someone rear-ends it. Minimal damage. Probably similar accidents are occurring every minute betw

I'm fascinated by the accidents. The AV is stopped at a light. Someone rear-ends it. Minimal damage. Probably similar accidents are occurring every minute between human drivers, going unreported as the rule. AVs might one day even avoid this "victimization," if these events keep following a predictable pattern. AVs could exaggerate the gap, leave a precisely calibrated amount of extra space. When anticipating a rear end collision, the AV would honk and flash brake lights while scooting forward. Google's absolutely correct that its AVs are never at fault in any of these accidents, legally speaking. Does blame change though if there are ways the AI can prevent this series of similar accidents, but they choose not to? The AV yields to those running a red light, even though getting t-boned wouldn't legally be the AV's fault. That seems wise to me. Is it inconsistent to expect the AV to avoid getting t-boned, but not expect it to avoid getting rear-ended? I'm not sure... Or, more broadly: How do you divide blame between two parties when one has superhuman faculties? Is the AI responsible for everything it could have conceivably been programmed to prevent? Or do you just hold it to a human standard? Like all hard problems, neither extreme is very satisfying.

Swizec 11y ago
> Consider another problem the vehicle already solves. The AV wisely yields to those running a red light, even though the AV has the right of way. If it didn't, but was instead frequently t-boned... Google could technically still say its vehicle "never caused an accident," right? It'd never be at fault for these, but the AVs are still designed to avoid them anyway. Is this inconsistent with a choice not to avoid rear end collisions at intersections? This is called defensive driving. You as a human are supposed to avoid getting killed even in cases where you aren't legally liable. This includes making sure the intersection is clear before going in. It includes checking if anyone is coming down the wrong way of a one way street before going in or crossing it. It involves something as simple as making sure "right lane must turn" actually turned before someone magically appears out of your blind spot. And, importantly, it also includes knowing what's behind you as much as knowing what's in front of you. If you see someone is going to rear-end you, you should at the very least step off the brake to make the collision less violent. If possible accelerate forward. And I know this isn't possible [/practical] in most american cars because they're automatics, but don't hold the brake when you're standing still. It makes potential rear-endings work out better. And never turn the wheel before you intend to turn. If you get rear-ended you could get pushed into oncoming traffic. All this is to say that while only one vehicle is to blame for a collision, two vehicles are responsible. (unless you hit a tree or some other static barrier, a tree cannot drive defensively) Or, more bluntly, it might be the other person's fault, but you're the one who's dead.
- Jyaif 11y ago
  DO hold the brake if you are about to be rear ended. It results in less acceleration, and you are less likely to be projected into an obstacle.
  - jfoster 11y ago
    Doesn't this depend on what is in front of you? If you can safely move forward, wouldn't not holding the brake be better?
    - ferongr 11y ago
      Assuming an intersection, wouldn't it be better to be rear-ended hard than having a vehicle slam into the driver's side door?
      - jfoster 11y ago
        Yep, which is why I think it depends on what's in front of you. A human probably doesn't have enough time to analyze the situation and determine whether or not they could do better than holding down the brake. A computer can probably do better in some situations.
    - crottypeter 11y ago
      No. Rapid acceleration from being rear-ended causes whiplash. Having brakes on reduces the initial acceleration.
      - dsfyu404ed 11y ago
        In modern bucket seats the risk of whiplash injury is incredibly minimal. Your head doesn't have the distance to travel far enough to hurt your neck. On the other hand, standing on the brake will cause both vehicles more damage and cause the other car to decelerate more quickly, causing the occupants to experience more acceleration in a direction in which the restraints are less effective (getting pressed into seat-belts and airbags hurt more than getting pressed into a seat). Standing on the brake is simply shifting the energy around at the expense of the other party
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Google's absolutely correct that its AVs are never at fault in any of these accidents, legally speaking. Does blame change though if there are ways the AI can prevent this series of similar accidents, but they choose not to? By definition, we don't do that with human drivers that don't meet the legal circumstances to be "at fault" even if in the specific case it would be possible for them to avoid the accident but they didn't. Why would do that for non-human drivers?
- jfoster 11y ago
  I think what brownbat is saying is that regardless of legal outcome, there is potential for AVs to do better than humans here. Not that they have to, just that they could.
- brownbat 11y ago
  That's a really great way to put it, captures the powerful intuitions on one side of the issue here. On the other side, well, we've been down some similar roads before. It's easier to see in the exploding Pintos and combustible Volkswagens. It's a common theme throughout the macabre history of modern (US) product liability: How much responsibility does a company have for accidents that it could prevent, but at some obnoxious cost? [1][2] At one point, some judges had a simple rule. Just run the numbers. If you can prevent more harm than it costs you to fix, you better fix it. If not, eh, good call, save your money. Don't spend millions to prevent one stubbed toe every ten years, that'd be a waste. Seems sensible. Until it gets applied to harder cases. Sure, they did the tests. They knew their Pinto would burn a few hundred people to death each year. But they ran the numbers. They used the right value for life, were careful in their choice of actuarial tables, and used conservative costs for the upgrades. It was just too expensive. I mean, they'd have to be hit just right, perfect angle and velocity. Better to put the exploding fuel tanks on the road. Maybe not better for Lilly Gray, trapped in a burning vehicle, skin sloughing off, pain so extreme her heart eventually quit. But you know. Better for society. So the resulting case[1] tackles that inevitable question: is this really enough? Ford clearly forecasted the future. They saw Lilly Gray's charred corpse in the crystal ball, or someone like her. They didn't do anything to stop it. They followed the law instead, because it was cheaper or more expedient. Are we really going to let that slide? Ok, that's verging towards polemic. Let's pause. Let's swing back the other way: How many accidents is a company expected to prevent? Should every car be wrapped in thousands of dollars of bubble wrap, or whatever the steel equivalent is? Should every car come equipped with roll cage and handy fire extinguisher, prepped for battle on the NASCAR track? Should these hefty tanks then run on nearly inert fuel to prevent engine fires completely, capping their range at a few paltry miles? Clearly there are extremes. So let's drop the absurd extremes and go back to the common, the real issue. Back to Google's problem: avoiding the simple rear end collision. Given enough data, enough predictability, you're going to see some subtle shifts in the notion of blame. Especially when you start looking at the issue of "fault." In most (all?) US states, juries divine a "percentage at fault" for both parties before proceeding to divvy up damages. You're going to get at least a few juries claiming that, sure, the rear ender was 99% at fault, everyone can see that. But that savvy defense lawyer has a point: Google was at least a teensy weensy bit at fault, just barely. With all their data and slick technology, surely they could have done something. Surely they're responsible for not improving their algorithm ever so slightly to handle this particular case. Let's call it 1%. No more, certainly, but no less. Conveniently enough - it's enough to get the case dismissed without any damages whatsoever. At least in a few US states.[3] N.B. - I sharked you a bit here and I apologize. In my original post, I said Google wasn't at fault, "legally speaking," but "legally speaking," nothing's really ever that simple. [1] http://users.wfu.edu/palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/1999/Leggett-pinto.html http://users.wfu.edu/palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/1999/Legg... [2] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/444/286.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/444/286.html - ok, doesn't really get all the way to this point, but the facts are startling, and prime the discussion. It's a harrowing story and explains a lot about how product liability works and why it exists. [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_negligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_negligence
michaelt 11y ago
Does blame change though if there are ways the AI can prevent this series of similar accidents, but they choose not to? [...] Is it inconsistent to expect the AV to avoid getting t-boned, but not expect it to avoid getting rear- ended? While I was in college I worked on some wheeled robots that played a competitive ball game. We wanted to avoid collisions between robots, and to win the game. One of the things we found was: If one team has great collision avoidance and the other team has no collision avoidance, the team without collision avoidance always wins. When there's a contest for the ball the team without collision avoidance just blasts in there, and when the team with collision avoidance back off to avoid a collision they lose the ball. If autonomous cars were so good at avoiding accidents that you could merge aggressively and they'd always brake, and run red lights in front of them and they'd always stop, manual drivers might learn to do that. Riding in a Google autonomous vehicle would be a pretty shitty experience if you knew you'd get four or five emergency stops in every journey when assholes decide to cut you up :)
- foxhedgehog 11y ago
  As a general rule, I feel that technologists routinely underestimate the ability of people to acclimate to new technology. This is an insightful post.
- rwmj 11y ago
  The Googlecar is collecting all this information about the behaviour of the other drivers: number plates, accurate time and location, LIDAR, possibly even video. No idea about the US, but in the UK such driving is itself an offence, you just need a way to prove it.
- jjoonathan 11y ago
  Since the AV would be keeping detailed records of everything, legal remedies are possible. I imagine someone would quickly lose interest in cutting off AVs if after a modest threshold they would start getting a bill every month.
- sushirain 11y ago
  So, human drivers will be faster and die more often than AV passengers. I choose slower and safer.
maxerickson 11y ago
The pragmatic thing to do legally is to license it before it is widely deployed and then hold it to whatever standard you established at that time. That doesn't rule out making the standard more stringent over time, but determining what events the AI gets blamed for probably doesn't need to be a huge gray area.

Swizec 11y ago

> Consider another problem the vehicle already solves. The AV wisely yields to those running a red light, even though the AV has the right of way. If it didn't, but was instead frequently t-boned... Google could technically still say its vehicle "never caused an accident," right? It'd never be at fault for these, but the AVs are still designed to avoid them anyway. Is this inconsistent with a choice not to avoid rear end collisions at intersections? This is called defensive driving. You as a human are supposed to avoid getting killed even in cases where you aren't legally liable. This includes making sure the intersection is clear before going in. It includes checking if anyone is coming down the wrong way of a one way street before going in or crossing it. It involves something as simple as making sure "right lane must turn" actually turned before someone magically appears out of your blind spot. And, importantly, it also includes knowing what's behind you as much as knowing what's in front of you. If you see someone is going to rear-end you, you should at the very least step off the brake to make the collision less violent. If possible accelerate forward. And I know this isn't possible [/practical] in most american cars because they're automatics, but don't hold the brake when you're standing still. It makes potential rear-endings work out better. And never turn the wheel before you intend to turn. If you get rear-ended you could get pushed into oncoming traffic. All this is to say that while only one vehicle is to blame for a collision, two vehicles are responsible. (unless you hit a tree or some other static barrier, a tree cannot drive defensively) Or, more bluntly, it might be the other person's fault, but you're the one who's dead.

Jyaif 11y ago
DO hold the brake if you are about to be rear ended. It results in less acceleration, and you are less likely to be projected into an obstacle.
- jfoster 11y ago
  Doesn't this depend on what is in front of you? If you can safely move forward, wouldn't not holding the brake be better?
  - ferongr 11y ago
    Assuming an intersection, wouldn't it be better to be rear-ended hard than having a vehicle slam into the driver's side door?
    - jfoster 11y ago
      Yep, which is why I think it depends on what's in front of you. A human probably doesn't have enough time to analyze the situation and determine whether or not they could do better than holding down the brake. A computer can probably do better in some situations.
  - crottypeter 11y ago
    No. Rapid acceleration from being rear-ended causes whiplash. Having brakes on reduces the initial acceleration.
    - dsfyu404ed 11y ago
      In modern bucket seats the risk of whiplash injury is incredibly minimal. Your head doesn't have the distance to travel far enough to hurt your neck. On the other hand, standing on the brake will cause both vehicles more damage and cause the other car to decelerate more quickly, causing the occupants to experience more acceleration in a direction in which the restraints are less effective (getting pressed into seat-belts and airbags hurt more than getting pressed into a seat). Standing on the brake is simply shifting the energy around at the expense of the other party

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Google's absolutely correct that its AVs are never at fault in any of these accidents, legally speaking. Does blame change though if there are ways the AI can prevent this series of similar accidents, but they choose not to? By definition, we don't do that with human drivers that don't meet the legal circumstances to be "at fault" even if in the specific case it would be possible for them to avoid the accident but they didn't. Why would do that for non-human drivers?

jfoster 11y ago
I think what brownbat is saying is that regardless of legal outcome, there is potential for AVs to do better than humans here. Not that they have to, just that they could.
brownbat 11y ago
That's a really great way to put it, captures the powerful intuitions on one side of the issue here. On the other side, well, we've been down some similar roads before. It's easier to see in the exploding Pintos and combustible Volkswagens. It's a common theme throughout the macabre history of modern (US) product liability: How much responsibility does a company have for accidents that it could prevent, but at some obnoxious cost? [1][2] At one point, some judges had a simple rule. Just run the numbers. If you can prevent more harm than it costs you to fix, you better fix it. If not, eh, good call, save your money. Don't spend millions to prevent one stubbed toe every ten years, that'd be a waste. Seems sensible. Until it gets applied to harder cases. Sure, they did the tests. They knew their Pinto would burn a few hundred people to death each year. But they ran the numbers. They used the right value for life, were careful in their choice of actuarial tables, and used conservative costs for the upgrades. It was just too expensive. I mean, they'd have to be hit just right, perfect angle and velocity. Better to put the exploding fuel tanks on the road. Maybe not better for Lilly Gray, trapped in a burning vehicle, skin sloughing off, pain so extreme her heart eventually quit. But you know. Better for society. So the resulting case[1] tackles that inevitable question: is this really enough? Ford clearly forecasted the future. They saw Lilly Gray's charred corpse in the crystal ball, or someone like her. They didn't do anything to stop it. They followed the law instead, because it was cheaper or more expedient. Are we really going to let that slide? Ok, that's verging towards polemic. Let's pause. Let's swing back the other way: How many accidents is a company expected to prevent? Should every car be wrapped in thousands of dollars of bubble wrap, or whatever the steel equivalent is? Should every car come equipped with roll cage and handy fire extinguisher, prepped for battle on the NASCAR track? Should these hefty tanks then run on nearly inert fuel to prevent engine fires completely, capping their range at a few paltry miles? Clearly there are extremes. So let's drop the absurd extremes and go back to the common, the real issue. Back to Google's problem: avoiding the simple rear end collision. Given enough data, enough predictability, you're going to see some subtle shifts in the notion of blame. Especially when you start looking at the issue of "fault." In most (all?) US states, juries divine a "percentage at fault" for both parties before proceeding to divvy up damages. You're going to get at least a few juries claiming that, sure, the rear ender was 99% at fault, everyone can see that. But that savvy defense lawyer has a point: Google was at least a teensy weensy bit at fault, just barely. With all their data and slick technology, surely they could have done something. Surely they're responsible for not improving their algorithm ever so slightly to handle this particular case. Let's call it 1%. No more, certainly, but no less. Conveniently enough - it's enough to get the case dismissed without any damages whatsoever. At least in a few US states.[3] N.B. - I sharked you a bit here and I apologize. In my original post, I said Google wasn't at fault, "legally speaking," but "legally speaking," nothing's really ever that simple. [1] http://users.wfu.edu/palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/1999/Leggett-pinto.html http://users.wfu.edu/palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/1999/Legg... [2] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/444/286.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/444/286.html - ok, doesn't really get all the way to this point, but the facts are startling, and prime the discussion. It's a harrowing story and explains a lot about how product liability works and why it exists. [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_negligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_negligence

michaelt 11y ago

Does blame change though if there are ways the AI can prevent this series of similar accidents, but they choose not to? [...] Is it inconsistent to expect the AV to avoid getting t-boned, but not expect it to avoid getting rear- ended? While I was in college I worked on some wheeled robots that played a competitive ball game. We wanted to avoid collisions between robots, and to win the game. One of the things we found was: If one team has great collision avoidance and the other team has no collision avoidance, the team without collision avoidance always wins. When there's a contest for the ball the team without collision avoidance just blasts in there, and when the team with collision avoidance back off to avoid a collision they lose the ball. If autonomous cars were so good at avoiding accidents that you could merge aggressively and they'd always brake, and run red lights in front of them and they'd always stop, manual drivers might learn to do that. Riding in a Google autonomous vehicle would be a pretty shitty experience if you knew you'd get four or five emergency stops in every journey when assholes decide to cut you up :)

foxhedgehog 11y ago
As a general rule, I feel that technologists routinely underestimate the ability of people to acclimate to new technology. This is an insightful post.
rwmj 11y ago
The Googlecar is collecting all this information about the behaviour of the other drivers: number plates, accurate time and location, LIDAR, possibly even video. No idea about the US, but in the UK such driving is itself an offence, you just need a way to prove it.
jjoonathan 11y ago
Since the AV would be keeping detailed records of everything, legal remedies are possible. I imagine someone would quickly lose interest in cutting off AVs if after a modest threshold they would start getting a bill every month.
sushirain 11y ago
So, human drivers will be faster and die more often than AV passengers. I choose slower and safer.

maxerickson 11y ago

The pragmatic thing to do legally is to license it before it is widely deployed and then hold it to whatever standard you established at that time. That doesn't rule out making the standard more stringent over time, but determining what events the AI gets blamed for probably doesn't need to be a huge gray area.