uk-make-self-driving-car-makers-liable

[StevenRB45]

But those idiots might just be looking out of the window if they thought they were driving...and that's how they keep killing people at the moment.

In theory someone is meant to be looking after them..those people are idiots..and the systems are too crap to notice they are.

I.e. they need to be better than this before going mass market. Perhaps it costing the manufacturer money everytime an idiot crashes will concentrate their minds..

Or they'll just do all the beta testing in other markets...but they may never achieve anything beyond beta testing as it's an extremely complex problem and without major road network changes they will remain as dangerous as an idiot..but just in a different way and unfortunately they'll be too expensive to sell here..shame.

 

[SB1500]

If or when this technology is released and someone is killed by it… the legal system will absolutely prosecute both the manufacturer AND the driver of the vehicle. Very silly to think they’ll blame one or the other…

 

[AndyRKett]

But those idiots might just be looking out of the window if they thought they were driving...and that's how they keep killing people at the moment.

In theory someone is meant to be looking after them..those people are idiots..and the systems are too crap to notice they are.

I.e. they need to be better than this before going mass market. Perhaps it costing the manufacturer money everytime an idiot crashes will concentrate their minds..

Or they'll just do all the beta testing in other markets...but they may never achieve anything beyond beta testing as it's an extremely complex problem and without major road network changes they will remain as dangerous as an idiot..but just in a different way and unfortunately they'll be too expensive to sell here..shame.

I think we’re on the same page, but reading it from different directions, I see the new technology as a necessary evil needed to protect idiots from themselves, and you see it as something that needs to be completely fool proof before it can be trusted.

The thing is you can make something completely “fool proof” and then some one will come a long and prove that they’re an even greater fool and still find away to kill themselves.

There has to be a point that the technology is good enough, and deemed ok to enter use, then refined from that point. It is impossible to make something that will work on the real world without real world testing.

 

[vexorg]

Automatic braking averting an accident i can see the point of, but as for things like automatically turning on the lights and wipers etc it’s as much about laziness and a selling point rather than safety

Having seen loads of cars recently with no lights on, then auto lights is a good idea. Part of the issue is the DRL and fancy dashboards that make you not realise that the lights aren't on.

I've not touched the light switch on my car for 7 years, dont give it a thought now as it's just gets it right every time. The nissan on the other hand, great at auto lights as it gets dark, but never puts them on the in the rain. The citroen on the other hand has auto wipers too (that I dont use), but has the sense to know it's raining so puts the lights on.

Adaptive cruise control is another brilliant thing, it can still see well ahead into fog because it's radar based.

The nissan is half way there, doesn't auto drive, but could if they wanted. It gives mixed feelings with me, tells me off when having fun, but if you are driving tired then it's a great thing for peace of mind knowing that it's watching everything.

 

[RalphM]

Make something idiot proof and nature will just breed a better idiot.

 

[StevenRB45]

I think we’re on the same page, but reading it from different directions, I see the new technology as a necessary evil needed to protect idiots from themselves, and you see it as something that needs to be completely fool proof before it can be trusted.

The thing is you can make something completely “fool proof” and then some one will come a long and prove that they’re an even greater fool and still find away to kill themselves.

There has to be a point that the technology is good enough, and deemed ok to enter use, then refined from that point. It is impossible to make something that will work on the real world without real world testing.

Agreed, but I refuse to believe giving manufacturers a free pass if their tech contributes to accidents is good.

If your brakes worked 999 times you pressed the pedal out of 1000 is that good enough? What if one time it coincided with a zebra crossing and you ran someone over? Would you take the punishment for it or would you blame VW if you'd pressed the pedal and the car had not operated as expected?

 

[AndyRKett]

Agreed, but I refuse to believe giving manufacturers a free pass if their tech contributes to accidents is good.

If your brakes worked 999 times you pressed the pedal out of 1000 is that good enough? What if one time it coincided with a zebra crossing and you ran someone over? Would you take the punishment for it or would you blame VW if you'd pressed the pedal and the car had not operated as expected?

If it was a brand new car then the unfortunately it becomes a case of proving who is at fault, is it a manufacturer fault or is it caused by poor/lack of maintenance on the owner/drivers part.

If it’s an older car as mine is, then the weight of blame is definitely going to shift towards the owner and the maintenance.

Ultimately if there is a fatality then the police would investigate and come to some conclusions as to what was the ultimate cause of the accident, did the driver not look after the car, was the driver reading a book and smoking a pipe with the cruise control switched on? Was there some weight manufacturing defect that meant every 1000th press of the brakes the car would uncontrollably crash into a crossing load of people.

If it were the last of those option then there may be a lot of cases of that happening to prove the reasons for the accident happening.


I totally agree that companies cannot just be allowed to say “I think that will maybe work, just put it in the market and we’ll see what happens”

Companies are massively risk averse so tend not to knowing put dangerous technology in their cars, so what you’re arguing against is what everyone is arguing against and what everyone is already doing

 

[s130]

Having been deeply involved with product safety (electircal equipment, electronics, computers etc.) to various international standards then despite what the standards may dictate (letter of the law) there is another aspect often attention/neglected and that is "foreseen misuse". This is often neglected and only when the woman tried to dry her wet cat in a microwave (real case) did people say "ooops".

Despite stupid people, drivers, operators, Joe public, etc. there is also a requirement for designers and engineers to think about, address and cater for the stupidty of humans. And this is where the "Foreseen" aspect has a very powerful legal standing when cases come to court.

I used to go through hours of brain storming how anybody could foresably misuse kit I was designing or testing and all over anfd above what any standars may dictate.

I've not thought about it but I suspect I could find a few ways to screw a self driving car that the designers may not have thougt of. This is possibly only because I addressing the design/technology from a different perspective to them. They are focussing on getting the "driving corrent" and not on what a human could to screw them.

Today's aircraft with all their self landing, navigating, etc. after many many years of advanced developemnt still have issues. So much can go wrong that the pilots have detailed "check lists and procedures" to cary out to resolve issues. Up there they generally have a little space and time to try and resolve matters (not on memory action lists). On busy roads down here, whilst only working in two dimesions, the vehicles systems and software have to "get it right" in split seconds. There is no room for error or recaluclation and "lets try again".

As I mentioned before no doubt we will probably get to safe driverless/self drive situation but I think this will take massive infrastructure changes. eg. smart traffic lights in communication with the vehicle. Road / lane sensors to augment the vehicles "view" etc.

I see that now some councils strapped for cash have said they will not be fixing road pot holes and worse still not renewing road markings. Decent road marking are essential for humans and even then we struggle. For basically camera image driven vehicles they are now one more clue down. As for GPS which often leads people up blind alleys and dead ends, wrong speed limits, etc. then it is clear to me that fully driverless cars or slef driving cars are a very very long way off.

 

[StevenRB45]

Companies are massively risk averse so tend not to knowing put dangerous technology in their cars, so what you’re arguing against is what everyone is arguing against and what everyone is already doing

They are but until they were legally made liable as per thread title...the consequences of their technology and it's limitations would have likely sat with the owner and insurer of the vehicle.

This is simply removing the ambiguity.

But as S130 says without huge other changes anything beyond better driver aids is a long way away.

 

[RalphM]

And of coarse the auto's will have to mix with driver piloted vehicles that may or may not
abide by any rules of the road, there's a junktion near me that as been under construction
for 3 or 4 years it change's what seems daily and is a sea of temporary lights and cones few
meaningful white lines, you have to really think about it to end up in the right lane going
the right way, be interesting to see what a self driving car would make of that.
If they are going to be marketed as fully auto self driving cars you cant really blame the owner
for getting in telling it were to go and expecting to arrive there in one piece without them
taking any further part in the process and even wondering why they would even need
a licence, or a restricted one as we have for auto or manual gearbox cars,
interesting times that's for sure.

 

[vexorg]

And of coarse the auto's will have to mix with driver piloted vehicles that may or may not
abide by any rules of the road,

Nissan does that now, if the conditions are bad, or it's unsure of road markings then it lets you know you're on your own and turns off the guidance.

 

[AndyRKett]

At some point as with all technology they will need to standardise the way roads are laid out, and the need to accommodate self driving cars may actually mean road planners build roads that are not insanely complex with multiple traffic lights for multiple different directions Mini roundabouts and lanes that endlessly split and merge into and out of more and less lanes.

The difficulty in making driverless cars that can follow complex roads may ultimately result in more simple user friendly roads

The problem with this is that right now is that these standards do not exist and then to make it more complicated we are one of only a very small number of countries who drive on the left.

 

[Greasytrucker]

At some point as with all technology they will need to standardise the way roads are laid out, and the need to accommodate self driving cars may actually mean road planners build roads that are not insanely complex with multiple traffic lights for multiple different directions Mini roundabouts and lanes that endlessly split and merge into and out of more and less lanes.

The difficulty in making driverless cars that can follow complex roads may ultimately result in more simple user friendly roads

The problem with this is that right now is that these standards do not exist and then to make it more complicated we are one of only a very small number of countries who drive on the left.

Be nice if they could even make so called “smart motorways” safe for a start, and work there way down from there. Not in my lifetime as a driver i’d imagine!

 

[vexorg]

Be nice if they could even make so called “smart motorways” safe for a start, and work there way down from there.

Easily done, maybe have a lane on the side for emergency use, like some sort of hard shoulder.

 

[StevenRB45]

This is fun...

"You sold me a self driving car"

"No sir, you bought an aspiration that we had?"

Tesla owners demand refunds after £5,800 ‘driverless’ technology was never delivered

Unhappy customers take action as ‘self-driving’ feature is plagued with repeated delays

www.telegraph.co.uk

Although watching their bullshit come home to land is probably only funny if you don't have shares in them.

 

[Greasytrucker]

Easily done, maybe have a lane on the side for emergency use, like some sort of hard shoulder.

Wow! Why has nobody ever thought of such a fantastic and safe idea as that??? ……….oh yes they did, but then they decided to put money before safety and ruin a system that’s worked fine for years!

 

[RalphM]

Car makers and the powers that be seem to have the idea that the driver will be able to take over in a emergency but if a disaster happens it’s likely to be so fast that you won’t be able to do anything even if you see it coming.
The driver on the other hand will likely expect the car to sort it out so won’t be keeping much or any lookout.

 

[StevenRB45]

Car makers and the powers that be seem to have the idea that the driver will be able to take over in a emergency but if a disaster happens it’s likely to be so fast that you won’t be able to do anything even if you see it coming.
The driver on the other hand will likely expect the car to sort it out so won’t be keeping much or any lookout.

Precisely...

It's regularly been in the case in air accidents where a plane flies itself into trouble while the pilot who is far better trained than any driver just lets it do so.

Vast majority of "pilot error" accidents in commercial aircraft are not a flying error, they've not made a flying error at all. They've misunderstood the capability of the system or something changed at the last update and it now behaves differently in a very specific situation which they are now in.

These people are absolutely not idiots...and yet a computer they don't understand and poor situational awareness can render them lethally so.

 

[AndyRKett]

Precisely...

It's regularly been in the case in air accidents where a plane flies itself into trouble while the pilot who is far better trained than any driver just lets it do so.

Vast majority of "pilot error" accidents in commercial aircraft are not a flying error, they've not made a flying error at all. They've misunderstood the capability of the system or something changed at the last update and it now behaves differently in a very specific situation which they are now in.

These people are absolutely not idiots...and yet a computer they don't understand and poor situational awareness can render them lethally so.

Aside from the 737 Max with its two crashes specifically related to the MCAS system which was specific to that aircraft and very poorly implemented, with all of the controversy that surrounded that.

Very very few aircraft accidents are caused by the systems and are almost always related to mechanical malfunctions or human factors.

Generally on the west aircraft are so safe now that it is usually pilot error and occurs in the critical phases of flight ie take off and landing when the pilot is in control of the aircraft.

Arguably even the MCAS problems on the max 8 was partially caused by pilots not knowing how to react to the error that was being caused by the system, MCAS relied on one sensor with no back up which goes completely against everything that should be implemented in aircraft where there should always be multiple back ups

 

[StevenRB45]

Not just the 737 max...

There's all sorts over the history of time.

Unfortunately I've picked these up over the years so can't quote flight numbers and incidents...but there was for example the A330.

In the event of a go around, the most famous crash of which was in front of the fans at an airshow in France. But it had a "ghost in the machine" the pilots were unaware of that in the event of a missed approach and go around the automation would adopt a severe nose high attitude and throttle up.

Pilots would attempt to correct this with the side stick and push the nose down, it would push it back up, they would push back harder slowly getting more and more nose high..until it stalled. This happened multiple times on some flights most cases didn't result in a crash but some did.

There's also cases like I think it was the one on San Francisco where they appeared to just crash onto the runway. All 3 crew members were apparently relying on something that wasn't active on the day...and due to a no hand flying policy didn't realise until they smeared a 777 across the tarmac.