Leave it to the New York Times to put the most negative spin on a conference about driverless cars. “Collision in the Making Between Self-Driving Cars and How the World Works,” reads the headline.
As the Antiplanner wrote three years ago, the main barriers to driverless cars are institutional and bureaucratic, not technological. So it isn’t really news when the Times reports that “an array of speakers suggested that questions of legal liability, privacy and insurance regulation might pose far more problems than the technological ones.”
“Some trivial tasks for human drivers–like recognizing an officer or safety worker motioning a driver to proceed in an alternate direction–await a breakthrough in artificial intelligence that may not come soon,” frets the Times. I can think of multiple solutions to this problem. One would be to have a standard set of signs that the driverless vehicles can recognize, like Stop, Detour, and Slow. Another, more high-tech solution would be to build “vehicle-to-infrastructure” (V2I) radios in each car and at each place where an officer or safety worker might be.
The real solution to all of these issues is to set national standards that both auto manufacturers and highway agencies can meet. This isn’t that difficult a problem; such standards are set by private computer companies (e.g., USB) and public agencies (e.g, fire codes) all the time.
Clearly, Horny goat weed is true to its name’s promise. tadalafil india online Acidity is a chief causative factor for precipitation of the bile acids, calcium salts, cholesterol, and bile on line levitra opacc.cv pigments. The most important aspect to understand is that failing to learn may not be completely their fault but it also depends from person soft cialis mastercard to person. Non-pharmacological therapies In addition to pharmacological treatment, psychosocial and educational strategies, including psychotherapy, promoting adherence to treatment and education of patients and their families to provide professional counseling services, through interviews and online appointment letters to help young people face growing confusion, to express emotional relief, stress and other problems, improve ability to solve cialis no prescription usa problems with the ears, nose and eyes. Another issue raised by the Times is psychological. “We think it’s a scary concept for the public,” said one federal official. “If you have two tons of steel going down the highway at 60 miles an hour a few feet away from two tons of steel going in the exact opposite direction at 60 miles an hour, the public is fully aware of what happens when those two hunks of metal collide and they’re inside one of those hunks of metal. They ought to be petrified of that concept.”
Okay, which is scarier: sometimes inebriated, often distracted drivers with a narrow range of vision semi-controlling two tons of steel on the highway at 60 mph, or never-distracted computers with a 360-degree field of vision in complete control of the vehicle? There shouldn’t be any question, especially if driverless cars are introduced in stages such as first on major highways and later on city streets.
The only really difficult issue is legal liability. As long as auto manufacturers fear they will be sued for accidents, even if their car isn’t really at fault, they will be reluctant to introduce self-driving cars. Even now, auto makers can sell cars that can steer themselves on a highway lane–but the versions sold in the U.S. don’t really steer, they just beep if the driver accidentally drifts out of the lane. The Antiplanner’s solution is for states to pass true no-fault insurance laws–something that is resisted by the legal profession.
One person quoted in the Times speculates that a limited version of driverless cars may be available in 20 years. But we can have them much sooner if anyone works to actively break down the legal and institutional barriers.
Update: One of the conference participants, the chief counsel for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, agrees with the Antiplanner that the New York Times account of the symposium was overly negative.
The Autoplanner; Another issue raised by the Times is psychological. “We think it’s a scary concept for the public,†said one federal official. “If you have two tons of steel going down the highway at 60 miles an hour a few feet away from two tons of steel going in the exact opposite direction at 60 miles an hour, the public is fully aware of what happens when those two hunks of metal collide and they’re inside one of those hunks of metal. They ought to be petrified of that concept.â€
Okay, which is scarier: sometimes inebriated, often distracted drivers with a narrow range of vision semi-controlling two tons of steel on the highway at 60 mph, or never-distracted computers with a 360-degree field of vision in complete control of the vehicle? There shouldn’t be any question, especially if driverless cars are introduced in stages such as first on major highways and later on city streets.
THWM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dual_Mode_Vehicle.jpg
Such technology might well have prevented this from happening last Friday night/Saturday morning along U.S. 50/U.S. 301 (in spite of the lack of an Interstate number, this is a freeway with a very high design speed, though the posted limit is only 65) in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
There are at least 10 dead from a major accident on Florida’s I-75 where smoke from a nearby brush fire reduced visibility to almost zero. A greater incorporation of driverless technology, if not driverless cars, could have prevented this tragedy.
“But we can have them much sooner if anyone works to actively break down the legal and institutional barriers.”
The crux! Driverless cars are a fundamental change in the operation of vehicles on the road. Legal and institutional barriers will likely a major hurdle for some time to come.
What does a driverless car do when it drives into smoke or fog?
“What does a driverless car do when it drives into smoke or fog?’
Unless it has radar. It pulls over and waits. Which is what human drivers should do as well.
Working in insurance, I am steadfastly opposed to no fault insurance. In the states where it has been implemented, rates have risen faster than in states where it has not been implemented. It also fosters a great deal of claim fraud on the personal injury side.
Having said that, a no-fault regime is the only regime that would work in a driverless car scenario. The current system of tort law in each of the fifty states would never work with driverless vehicles. For a tort to occur, a human has to be involved and responsible for the harm. Without a driver, the proximate cause for every loss would be the manufacturer. They would find themselves on the hook for every claim, if the human driver were out of the loop.
Of course it is silly to claim that the NYT spun it the “wrong” way or even spun it because they didn’t drool all over the story and claim the conference brought up problems that John Galt could solve in his sleep, but figuring out how to assess liability – as Jardinero brings up – is one of several key issues here. Surely black boxes are good enough to record what happened to allow the lawyers to flock to the proper carcass, and surely manufacturers know this and will hire their lawyer army to ensure their liability will be limited. Its a job-creating technology!
Our society is too complex to have this solved for all roadways in the next couple of decades. Surely we will have limited operation on certain roads, but on collector and local access roads? I’ll keep my money in my pocket.
DS
We already have “driverless” aircraft. Where does the fault lie when one crashes? With the autopilot manufacturer? Or with the pilot or his/her employer?
Andy, autopilot control has strict ICAO rules, including when to disengage for manual takeover. Ask Sully or the Air France 447 (which should be a cautionary tale about dependence on autopilot, BTW). And more relevant to the OP: full auto control all the time for, say, a 172 in turbulence? Come now.
DS
The limitless faith in technology being expressed here is astonishing.
I used to watch the early version of these systems being tested by Carnegie Mellon engineers in Schenley Park in Pittsburgh. The system had trouble distinguishing a dark tree from the asphalt path it was supposed to follow. They later took the vehicle out on the highways at night, and eventually took a cross country trip and proudly announced it had self-driven 98% of the way. Wondeful. Watch out if you were around during the other 2%.
Humans have the ability to learn and accumulate experience, which is why they become better drivers over time, as they learn to anticipate what others will do and where to watch for danger. Computers do not have that ability. Humans also of course have the ability to act stupid, such as driving drunk, but then computers have the astonishing ability to “crash” and malfunction for unknown reasons at the most inopportune times, as well as to catch viruses and just generally go on the fritz. Anyone who uses one daily has experienced that.
There is so much going on out on the road that automated cars would obviously have trouble with. Lets start with deciding who should proceed at a four way stop. Or deciding when to turn right on a red light. How about where to park in the parking lot or driveway? Sensing when someone is going to dart into the street. Yielding to the sound of an emergency vehicle siren. Reacting to a skid in winter or choosing the correct lane to avoid a danger. Would my car have known to drive in the left lane to avoid trees that were falling onto the PA Turnpike during the Hurricane last August? I did, because I listened to a radio announcement and made a decision. The decision saved me from a tree falling onto my car.
How do you avoid something as obvious as crashing from accidentally bumping the “on-off” button for the auto-driver function?
If the system is as perfect as being claimed, there shouldn’t be a liability issue because no crashes would ever occur to cause a liability in the first place. Since liability with this system is being admitted to exist, it is an implict acceptance that the system will fail regularly and cause accidents.
Then there is the question of who decides where this contraption will decide to go on its routing from A to B. Do “special people” get to influence the decision algorithms to route traffic away from the streets they live on, or past the shops they own?
How do you make a quick change in plans during auto-driver mode when you suddenly need to stop? Say to hit a rest stop or because you see a place you want to go?
claim the conference brought up problems that John Galt could solve in his sleep
OK, in all seriousness, that was a funny line.
Who is John Galt? 🙂
Sandy Teal asked:
Who is John Galt?
A wooden, highly unbelievable character, er, cartoon figure, in Ayn Rand’s silly, absurdly overrated novel Atlas Shrugged. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galt.
@Sandy Teal It looks like you’ve awakened James Taggart. 🙁
There is a town south of Sacramento named “Galt” named after John Galt.
Probably time to fuse Guy Fawkes and John Galt into a series of non-sequitur, existentially dysphoric bar jokes. I’m on it.
Andy Stahl posted:
We already have “driverless†aircraft. Where does the fault lie when one crashes? With the autopilot manufacturer? Or with the pilot or his/her employer?
We were supposed to have “driverless” trains in the Washington Metrorail system (under normal operation, all that the person in the cab is supposed to be doing is opening and closing the doors).
Then came 23-June-2009 on the Red Line in the afternoon peak commute period near the Fort Totten station, and nine persons were killed. Fortunately (in a sense), the crash happened on the non-peak-direction track (inbound to downtown D.C.). Since that horrible day, all trains run in “manual” mode, which means that the train operators have to actually operate their trains, though it is intended that the system will eventually return to automatic mode.
msetty –
I am free market kind of guy, but I couldn’t get through ten pages of Atlas Shrugged, and only five minutes of the movie.
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
Saw yet another several people blatantly texting on the drive home tonight. Incidents from distracted driving due to tech are likely to increase. Driverless cars can help with a population so addicted to mobile devices that they essentially can’t stop themselves from driving under the influence.
As for the idiot’s claim:
“The town needed a name, so John McFarland was given the privilege of naming the town after a town in Canada, Galt, Ontario.”
As for the book, I’m surprised I fished the tome. There are some excellent vignettes particularly scathing to corporatism and socialism, as I’ve mentioned here years ago. But as a work of literature, it’s insufferable. I read it closely until John Galt’s speech, some 50 pages long; I’m supposed to believe that thousands would stand around listening to a three-hour long speech over the radio? I couldn’t, so I heavily skimmed that section.
There is a town south of Sacramento named “Galt†named after John Galt.
Although the town is dull and a bedroom community for long-distance freedom-loving commuters, no – but note that a high-speed rail project made the town prosper ;o/ . Although we’d go down there every year for the spectacle of the sandhill cranes.
OK, in all seriousness, that was a funny line.
:o)
DS
Dan is right. The town of Galt, California, is rather boring and non-descript. But it does provide relatively cheap housing for Sacramento commuters. I know it’s boring because I conducted some transit planning work in that area of South Sacramento County three years ago.
Galt is adjacent to a national wildlife refuge and is just northeast of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. It was actually named after Galt, Ontario. Who Galt, Ontario is named after…well, Google it if you care! http://www.galthistory.org/history/galthistory.htm.
Frank, if you quote something, please provide the link as I did!
One of the reasons Galt doesn’t flood is gummint levees. And some of the ag uses subsidized water. So surely it can’t be named after the hero.
DS
“Frank, if you quote something, please provide the link as I did!”
No.
I don’t always feel like doing the HTML and copying the link, especially using Android. If it’s in quotes, you can select the text from quote to quote, right click, and search Google for that exact phrase, and the source will materialize in 0.3 seconds.
C. P. Zilliacus said:
Andy Stahl posted:
We already have “driverless†aircraft. Where does the fault lie when one crashes? With the autopilot manufacturer? Or with the pilot or his/her employer?
We were supposed to have “driverless†trains in the Washington Metrorail system (under normal operation, all that the person in the cab is supposed to be doing is opening and closing the doors).
Then came 23-June-2009 on the Red Line in the afternoon peak commute period near the Fort Totten station, and nine persons were killed. Fortunately (in a sense), the crash happened on the non-peak-direction track (inbound to downtown D.C.). Since that horrible day, all trains run in “manual†mode, which means that the train operators have to actually operate their trains, though it is intended that the system will eventually return to automatic mode.
THWM: It’s was similar to that plane crash mentioned before, there was a break down with the automatic mode and then manual over ride, along with wrong info from dispatch.
One of the reasons Galt doesn’t flood is gummint levees. And some of the ag uses subsidized water. So surely it can’t be named after the hero.
It’s California. What did you expect?
MJ said:
One of the reasons Galt doesn’t flood is gummint levees. And some of the ag uses subsidized water. So surely it can’t be named after the hero.
It’s California. What did you expect?
THWM: No, Randroids are just hypocrites.