Driverless cars get US legal boost.

[I Think]

As reported by the BBC;

Google's self-driving car system could soon be given the same legal definition as a human driver, paving the way for vehicles without steering wheels or pedals.
The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) - which sets rules and regulations on America's roads - shared its thoughts in a letter to Google made public this week.
Until now, any car without a human driver would not be considered roadworthy.
However, in light of technological advancements, the NHTSA has changed its perspective.
"If no human occupant of the vehicle can actually drive the vehicle, it is more reasonable to identify the driver as whatever (as opposed to whoever) is doing the driving," it said.
"In this instance, an item of motor vehicle equipment, the Self-Driving System, is actually driving the vehicle."
Google boost
It means Google's self-driving pod, which has no typical in-car controls, is one crucial step closer to being allowed on public roads.
With the NHTSA's blessing, the car now fits the key criteria required to pass the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards test.


http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35539028

[LTD]

no thankyou

[I Think]

LTD, you likely wont get a choice, I'll wager that within 20 years drivers will not be legal, they are unreliable.

[GordonH]

Setting up driverless vehicles in the warmer non-winter conditions will be much easier.

Added bonus: with driverless vehicles drinkers & drug users will not be behind the wheel.

[LTD]

I would gladly take that bet we can barely make cars reliable now not a chance in hell that we will be rolling in driverless cars in twenty years the electronics involved are not there yet we can barely keep planes from running into each other and there's alooot less of them than cars . Not a chance in hell would I trust my computer to drive me around I had one quit for no apparent reason a couple months ago that would be handy at 120 on the connector and don't even get me started on what it would take for a driverless car to adapt to changing winter conditions we're a loooooong way away from that my friend and there's always a choice! Computers are unreliable they lack the ability to think or reason only humans can do that.

[I Think]

LTD, a competent driver does not think "oh yes, the light has turned red, I must stop" he just puts his foot on the brake pedal
Sensors can do that better and faster.

PS air travel is far safer than car travel per person mile.

[Gilchy]

My dream is a Porsche 911 that can operate autonomously when sitting in traffic on Harvey, but when a windy backroad opens up, I take control.

For commuting/A-B transportation, where the goal is to get there as quickly and efficiently as possible, automated cars would be much more preferable to the texting, shaving and make-up applying distracted jerks currently crashing into things.

[dirtybiker]

This is already licenced for use in Nevada.

Freightliner Inspiration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdSRUG4KTPA

[Smurf]

This makes me ask, who is responsible when the car screws up, it will happen, it's mechanical. Does that mean that no one will be responsible for motor vehicle accidents and or deaths on our highways in the future. Someone will figure out how to hack that one to their advantage. Looks to me like more lack of responsibility. I know too much about mechanics, electronics and computers to want to put my life totally in their hands. Even airplanes have safety overrides. All you have to do is look up automobile recalls to realize how bad a decision it could be to remove all controls.

[dirtybiker]

As long as there is a human in the vessel there will be someone to blame.

[JLives]

If someone jumps out in front of the car does the car veer, potentially killing the driver, or mow the pedestrian over? What if it's 2 pedestrians? Who would be legally responsible?

[MattJ]

The same thing would happen as now, when someone jumps out in front of a car. They get hit, they get injured or killed, and the pedestrian is at fault, for jumping out in front of a vehicle.

[Dizzy1]

LTD, you likely wont get a choice, I'll wager that within 20 years drivers will not be legal, they are unreliable.

Some people simply shouldn't be gambling - especially when they don't understand the odds of reality vs. their own personal utopia.

[atenbacon]

If someone jumps out in front of the car does the car veer, potentially killing the driver, or mow the pedestrian over? What if it's 2 pedestrians? Who would be legally responsible?

That is a good question. It is being debated on all levels of software development. I read a couple articles on the very subject and it is interesting. I'll just rattle off a couple things I remember, but please forgive me as I am just winging this based on my poor memory of a couple dozen articles.. Debate has been going on for quite a few years now as to how much smarts will be built in. To give you an idea of where they are now.. the computer overthinks potential hazards like a cat that "May" hop into the path, or a bike that is a block away that could come near.. so the cars go ridiculously slow at some points (Over cautious) Most debate is on what kind of factors should the car ignore.. or better said, at what level of safety should the caution be placed. Quite a difficult problem to solve.

The computer basically can make thousands more decisions per millisecond than a human could ever make and can also react much quicker as well. Not only that but the car has a 360 degree field of view along with radar, infra red sensors and who knows what other things that make them so much better at assessing their environment. Because of this, it not only has to, but can play over hundreds if not thousands of possible outcomes before a human would have been able to even start to know something was happening. Moral dilemma scenarios will need to be written into the software. In the event of a death or accident, the vehicle logs will be admissible in court to show that the best case scenario decision was made by the car. Software would be constantly updated with any new crash data becomes available, including near misses. So, in a court or legal arena liability would be based on the decisions made..

Here is one article that touches on it a little, it's quite an interesting subject... and I am hitting (Or trying to) on only a little tiny bit of the debate that is taking place in the development. What an awesome field this would have been to get into.

http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2015/8/18 ... s/fulltext

[Dizzy1]

There is no question that driverless vehicles will be the norm - one day, but the sheer complexity of the liability issues alone presently is a lawyers dream.