Long long time until we have truely automated cars?

[BUDFORCE]

Was thinking about this.

With more automation, lane control, collision detection etc. I think the technology for having a completely automated car actually isnt that far off. I mean we pretty much have them now.

What I think is far away, is the legality and liability for them.

I mean, I am all for a car that I can get into having had a skinful at the pub, and it drives me home. But I cant see that ever happening, not for a long time?

The thing is, if you automated car ***** up, and runs over someone's kid, who is to blame? It certainly wont be the manufacturer of the car.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

They’re closer than you think…

 

[BUDFORCE]

They’re closer than you think…

Yea sure, but that focuses only on the technology side of it, that's not what I am questioning.

 

[dlockers]

I've said it before, the sooner we can see driverless cars as a small part of a bigger solution to getting rid of all this 'future scrap iron' from decorating my lovely streets the better.

Lanes optimised for driverless cars to be summoned to you, avoiding the need to own your own car (with its record 98% of non utilisation ), meaning you can rely on them entirely.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Lanes optimised for driverless cars to be summoned to you, avoiding the need to own your own car (with its record 98% of non utilisation ), meaning you can rely on them entirely.

I don't think this is realistic or really even useful. This sort of service already exists - its called a taxi. You can summon a car to arrive outside your door and drive you to your destination but still people prefer their own car, which they will continue to do.

Cars are more than simple transit from A to B which is why we're wasting our time arguing about them in the OcUK Motors Section and there is nobody in the OcUK dishwasher forum.

 

[tom_nieto]

The technology is almost certainly safer than a human driver as it currently stands. The question is how much safer than a human does it have to be before insurance companies will underwrite both damage and public liability? Car manufacturers certainly won’t want to be involved in that aspect. It’ll be very interesting to see if Uber is more than just an elaborate Ponzi scheme when they have the opportunity to actually roll this out. I’d welcome driverless taxis that you can summon.

The main problem: how will furious sales/estate agent types express their anger at being caught in traffic or slowed by a cyclist by pulling a crazed overtake or tailgating when they can’t drive the car themselves?

 

[[TW]Fox]

The technology is almost certainly safer than a human driver as it currently stands.

In controlled environments, smooth highways and correctly signed and marked roads, perhaps. But overall? Have you driven a modern car with autonomous driving features for any length of time? They hand control back to the driver numerous times per journey when ambiguous lane markings, questionable weather conditions or even when being confused by a speed limit sign on a sliproad (or my favourite, those 50 60 70 stickers on the back of foreign trucks!!!!!!). They are excellent assistant schemes but we've got a long way to go before they'll take you from A to B without the use of a driver....

 

[BUDFORCE]

The thing is, forget how good the technology needs to be for a minute.

And as a side note, I do agree, once the technology is polished, a world full of automated cars, would be safer than human driven cars, but again forget all that for a minute.

If you car kills someone's child, who is to blame?

As a driver of a non automated car, and you have a collision with an automated car, whi is at fault.

The thing is, it doesn't matter how good the technology gets, with millions of cars driving around, people walking around, every event that could happen, hardware failure, accident WILL happen.

But can you just say "well that wasn't my fault I was 8 times over the limit and my car run your child over".... I just can't see it happening.

For a long, long time yet, a human "operator" will still need to be responsible for that vehicle.

 

[tom_nieto]

In controlled environments, smooth highways and correctly signed and marked roads, perhaps. But overall? Have you driven a modern car with autonomous driving features for any length of time? They hand control back to the driver numerous times per journey when ambiguous lane markings, questionable weather conditions or even when being confused by a speed limit sign on a sliproad (or my favourite, those 50 60 70 stickers on the back of foreign trucks!!!!!!). They are excellent assistant schemes but we've got a long way to go before they'll take you from A to B without the use of a driver....

I haven’t, however aren’t these systems on modern cars designed to be assistant systems rather than completely autonomous? A lot of autonomous features aren’t allowed to be autonomous. For example the Mercedes system below isn’t allowed to change lanes, but with a full LIDAR array there’s surely scope to add this feature in with an over the air update?

https://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-germancars/mercedes-beats-tesla-to-level-3-autonomy/45049

 

[[TW]Fox]

I haven’t, however aren’t these systems on modern cars designed to be assistant systems rather than completely autonomous? A lot of autonomous features aren’t allowed to be autonomous. For example the Mercedes system below isn’t allowed to change lanes, but with a full LIDAR array there’s surely scope to add this feature in with an over the air update?

It's not a case of 'oh they're not designed to', its a case of limitations to the tech as it currently stands. An adaptive cruise system with speed control doesn't accidently brake when it mis-reads a sign because it isn't designed to be autonomous, it does it because the technology isn't perfect, works as best it can but sometimes makes mistakes - it's a technical marvel it even works as well as it does currently.

There are various autonomous systems available right now which will steer for you within your lane and perform lane changes for you as well - but sometimes, the system hands control back to the driver as it isn't able to cope with or understand what is happening - often due to poor road conditions, or lane markings, or whatever. It doesn't do this because it 'isn't designed' to be autonomous, it does it because designing a system that works as well in the remaining 20% of conditions as it does in the initial 80% is incredibly difficult.

Don't get me wrong, I really like these systems and find what they can do even now to be absolutely astounding. But there is so a long, long way to go. I'm also not even sure just how clear the demand is for fully automatic cars?

We don't even have widespread implementation of fully automated railway systems and that is on a system that is entirely enclosed, controlled and has NONE of the variables that affect autonomous driving! Yet outside of some mass transit implementations, every single railway locomotive in the world on a main railway system has a driver..

 

[dave28]

It would only work in small patches in the UK with the best roads, where i live in rural Wales you 100% need a human driving without any doubt

 

[Deleted member 651465]

If you car kills someone's child, who is to blame?

As a driver of a non automated car, and you have a collision with an automated car, whi is at fault.

You. The driver is legally responsible for a vehicle under their control.

Forget self driving: ask yourself the same question and substitute “adaptive cruise control”. If you hit someone with cruise control on then you’d be liable.

If you hit an automated car then I’d wager you’d find it harder to argue that the automated car is at fault unless you could prove it broke a road rule or acted erratically.

 

[BUDFORCE]

You. The driver is legally responsible for a vehicle under their control.

Well yes, exactly my point. But means your car isn't truely automated is it?

 

[Deleted member 651465]

Well yes, exactly my point. But means your car isn't truely automated is it?

Lolwut.

Your car will be able to drive itself (automated) but of course you’re going to be liable if it hits someone. It’s your car

 

[BUDFORCE]

Lolwut.

Your car will be able to drive itself (automated) but of course you’re going to be liable if it hits someone. It’s your car

But that's not truely automated? It means you need to be responsible for that vehicle, so you lol have to pay attention, have to be ready to take control at any moment. That isn't my idea of automation.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

But that's not truely automated? It means you need to be responsible for that vehicle, so you lol have to pay attention, have to be ready to take control at any moment. That isn't my idea of automation.

Oh ok then. I’m out.

 

[builder22]

I think Budforce means driverless? I can't see there ever being driverless cars alongside 'normal' cars on our roads...would have to be dedicated lanes etc for them and can't really see that working

 

[Nasher]

Still a long way off. The technology to make some parts work reliably/safety just doesn't exist yet. Can you imagine the current "AI" navigating a single lane country road with cars coming the other way? No chance.

I think we might see self-driving flying cars before we see fully automated ones in the road. Because that is WAY easier to make work. We can do that already.

For the legal bit, I don't think it's as simple as you being responsible for everything it does. You didn't tell it to ram in to a bunch of cyclists, it did it by itself. You can't blame the one who happens to be in the car for that and you can't just blame the owner. How would you feel about going to prison for death by dangerous driving because your automated car, with no manual controls killed someone?

 

[Kenai]

You. The driver is legally responsible for a vehicle under their control.

This is fundamentally the question being asked though isn't it - will we get to a point where the 'driver' of a driverless car isn't really the driver as the vehicle isn't 'under their control' it's under the control of the driverless software?

Evidently your take on it is 'never'

 

[BUDFORCE]

Evidently your take on it is 'never'

He may be right though lol.