The Self-Driving Vehicles Thread

[lostboy]

there's no way that any manufacturer is going to leave themselves open to being liable for accidents in their vehicles.

They already are.

There are all kinds of requirements and hoops to jump through when making vehicles for sale to the general public for exactly that reason.

I knew you'd chip in with that. And obviously there's been various class actions for things like automatic creep etc. but fundamentally the only thing they're liable for is that the product is (to use the legal fraterities favourite phrase) fit for purpose. This is a massive step beyond that and the manufacturers are now being told that they may well be held liable for ANY accident as the vehicle has been programmed to complete a journey and it hasn't happened - that's an extreme "get out of jail" card for the user and a complete passing of the buck to the car manufacturer. IF it's the way it goes then what are they doing to deal with that risk? You can guarantee that autonomous vehicles will only come along if they can see a way that the consumer will be paying for that.

[Mussels]

there's no way that any manufacturer is going to leave themselves open to being liable for accidents in their vehicles.

They already are.

There are all kinds of requirements and hoops to jump through when making vehicles for sale to the general public for exactly that reason.

I knew you'd chip in with that. And obviously there's been various class actions for things like automatic creep etc. but fundamentally the only thing they're liable for is that the product is (to use the legal fraterities favourite phrase) fit for purpose. This is a massive step beyond that and the manufacturers are now being told that they may well be held liable for ANY accident as the vehicle has been programmed to complete a journey and it hasn't happened - that's an extreme "get out of jail" card for the user and a complete passing of the buck to the car manufacturer. IF it's the way it goes then what are they doing to deal with that risk? You can guarantee that autonomous vehicles will only come along if they can see a way that the consumer will be paying for that.

Maybe that will focus manufacturers minds on making a product fit for purpose.
I either drive or I don't, stuff in the middle is pretty pointless.

[Mr. Dazzle]

I'm sure they'll figure it out.

Buses, taxis, airlines etc. etc. all manage to make money despite taking on the risk of transporting you safely. They even have a mix of human and machine operated vehicles.

Ditto on things like Drs and Dentists, they operate successfully despite being liable for your well being.

There have already been accidents caused at least in part by machine operated vehciles. 737 Max for example, or Air France 447 (the one which crashed into the South Atlantic). Both were caused by automated controls not doing as expected (and TBF by the Human operators also not doing as expected) yet they weren't the end of the tech.

[Horse]

Call to make drivers not legally accountable for accidents in autonomous cars.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-60126014

This has the potential to fuck up the development of autonomous cars - and make a LOT of lawyers very rich - as there's no way that any manufacturer is going to leave themselves open to being liable for accidents in their vehicles. It's also going to make insurance a very interesting proposition - do you just insure it against theft because third party liability will now be with the manufacturer?

AFAIK, every uk consortium working on automated systems includes a major insurance company.

[slowsider]

This has the potential to fuck up the development of autonomous cars - and make a LOT of lawyers very rich - as there's no way that any manufacturer is going to leave themselves open to being liable for accidents in their vehicles. It's also going to make insurance a very interesting proposition - do you just insure it against theft because third party liability will now be with the manufacturer?

It's the way it's got to go though. If the car is driving then it has to take responsibilty for it. It's an either/or situation. If the car is fully autonomous then why would the driver be to blame?

If it's fully autonomous (L5), there isn't a driver to blame. If you are in a lift that crashes, do you go after the guy that last pressed a button?

[The Spin Doctor]

Should have made it clear she was holding a mobile phone...

[Mr. Dazzle]

Buses, taxis, airlines etc. etc. all manage to make money despite taking on the risk of transporting you safely. They even have a mix of human and machine operated vehicles.

Just expanding on this slightly....buses and whatever have insurance to cover injury to you caused by the bus driver's mistakes. That insurance comes out of your fare.

It seems likely that self driving cars will operate on a subscription basis in one way or another, so I imagine the insurance will be part of that. That then means the onus is on the manufacturer/subscription provider to make cars which don't generate insurance claims!

[Lutin]

Tesla investigated over 'phantom braking' problem

The US government is investigating reports of Tesla cars braking unexpectedly on motorways.

The so-called "phantom braking" problem is being looked at by US regulator the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

It received 354 complaints in the past nine months and its investigation will cover approximately 416,000 Tesla Model 3 and Model Y vehicles from 2021-22.

Drivers say the issue occurs using the Autopilot driver assistance system.

The feature gives the vehicle control over some elements of braking and steering when driving, although it is not a substitute for a human driver.

Bit worrying that - braking for no apparent reason.

[Cousin Jack]

More worrying is Remington caving in to a claim that the manufacturer is liable if an idiot shoots people with a gun. By that logic car manufacturers are liable for every crash.

[Horse]

Tesla investigated over 'phantom braking' problem

The US government is investigating reports of Tesla cars braking unexpectedly on motorways.

The so-called "phantom braking" problem is being looked at by US regulator the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

It received 354 complaints in the past nine months and its investigation will cover approximately 416,000 Tesla Model 3 and Model Y vehicles from 2021-22.

Drivers say the issue occurs using the Autopilot driver assistance system.

The feature gives the vehicle control over some elements of braking and steering when driving, although it is not a substitute for a human driver.

Bit worrying that - braking for no apparent reason.

Amateur stuff!


Vauxhall recalls Zafira models for third time over new fire risk
The car giant says the latest recall affects cars built between 2005 and 2014 which do not have electronic climate control.

200 fires reported!

[The Spin Doctor]

More worrying is Remington caving in to a claim that the manufacturer is liable if an idiot shoots people with a gun. By that logic car manufacturers are liable for every crash.

Why? Unless it's a sporting gun, they are designed for, and sold for the purpose of shooting people with.

Cars are not designed to, nor sold for, the running down of pedestrians.

[Horse]

More worrying is Remington caving in to a claim that the manufacturer is liable if an idiot shoots people with a gun. By that logic car manufacturers are liable for every crash.

Cars are not designed to, nor sold for, the running down of pedestrians.

And are being developed and tested to reduce injuries to pedestrians (eg EuroNCAP testing), reversing sensors, IR camera systems). Small changes that many car owners will never realise, like the pivot bolts for windscreen wipers being shielded by the bonnet.

[Cousin Jack]

Why? Unless it's a sporting gun, they are designed for, and sold for the purpose of shooting people with.

Cars are not designed to, nor sold for, the running down of pedestrians.

Tosh!

99%* of rifles sold on the civilian market are used for shooting at targets or hunting.

*Guestimate - it may be 99.999%

[The Spin Doctor]

Why? Unless it's a sporting gun, they are designed for, and sold for the purpose of shooting people with.

Cars are not designed to, nor sold for, the running down of pedestrians.

Tosh!

99%* of rifles sold on the civilian market are used for shooting at targets or hunting.

*Guestimate - it may be 99.999%

1) did you not read the phrase "unless it's a sporting gun"?
2) you obviously neglected to think about the market in the US

[Cousin Jack]

1) did you not read the phrase "unless it's a sporting gun"?
2) you obviously neglected to think about the market in the US

I did read the phrase. It was not a 'sporting gun', it was a 'black gun', a military look-alike.
But 99+% of military-type rifles purchased in the US by civilians are used exclusively for target or hunting purposes.
Even in the USA nut cases that shoot people are rarer than you think.

[Horse]

[The Spin Doctor]

Proving what, exactly? Just curious if you know more.

[Horse]

Nope. Saw the vid elsewhere, thought it was a bit different from the usual.

Practical on-road applications? Limited, I suppose, but hints at possibilities of drifting around the trolley bus

[The Spin Doctor]

Seems to me all they've done is taken the inputs from a skilled driver, then recreated them with a computer making the same inputs, with - not surprisingly - the same outputs.

[Count Steer]

Makes some sort of sense. If an autonomous car hits a slippy patch of road, what happens? Just as it's too late it probably says 'Oops, soz, my programming does not include this, all yours mate, bye'.

Including some capability to deal with 'sub-optimal situations' may be the objective.