"That said, our test driver believed the bust was going to slow or stop
to allow us to merge into the traffic, and that there would be
sufficient space to do that."
So, basically, the expectation was that the vehicle in control of the lane would yield right of way to another vehicle traveling much more slowly in another lane?
Sounds like it's 100% the Googmobile's fault. It executed an unsafe lane movement, which is illegal in California.
The bus driver had no legal reason to slow or stop. And in fact might have felt compelled to maintain speed in order to avoid a sharp stop which would have potentially endangered standing passengers.
"That said, our test driver believed the bust was going to slow or stop
to allow us to merge into the traffic, and that there would be
sufficient space to do that."
So, basically, the expectation was that the vehicle in control of the lane would yield right of way to another vehicle traveling much more slowly in another lane?
Sounds like it's 100% the Googmobile's fault. It executed an unsafe lane movement, which is illegal in California.
The bus driver had no legal reason to slow or stop. And in fact might have felt compelled to maintain speed in order to avoid a sharp stop which would have potentially endangered standing passengers.
A sharp stop at 15 mph? Have you even been in a bus?
Considering the damage was minimal and crashing will stop you too, I'm pretty sure the bus had the space to stop. It seems the bus also assumed the car would clear the lane and that's why it delayed stopping. Control of the lane doesn't mean you shouldn't stop if someone's there if it's possible to do so. In this case, it clearly was, so it is not 100% Google car's fault. I'm sure if actual video is posted, which I expect to be eventually; it will show just that.
The Google car seems though to have had more than 50% responsibility for the accident (in misjudging the speed of the trailing bus and not waiting to make sure it could get fully into a lane before changing lane, the bus's delayed reaction also coming from assumptions about position make it responsible for the rest.
I suspect most accidents with Gcars are caused by Gcars. It is only reported differently. A Wired Gcar test report showed why this is the case: in one short drive almost two accidents, in one case (changing lane) the human driver intervened, in the other case the car braked at a totally unpredictable (and totally wrong ) moment causing danger to other cars behind it (note that in most accidents Gcars are hit at the rear). Another big concern is that the Gcar drove like a grandma (extremely slow and erratic) creating danger and irritation for other drivers. The Gcar was called a 'moron' several times. Funny Gs retoric has human drivers as experts when it comes to defend a Gcar but otherwise disses the abilities of human drivers.
Of course... a private citizen's car runs into a Government vehicle and the Government official says that it is the citizen's fault. i call bullshit!
i have seen this in real life involving real people. the citizen received a ticket by the officer who caused the accident. the citizen protested and the duty officer arrived and issued the citizen another ticket. the citizen protested and the highway patrol was called. the highway patrol officer gave the officer the ticket and the judge suspended the officer's license for 6 months. quite funny. I guess google will have to program the ability to dispute a ticket with their cars. If corporations are people, then cars are people too!
If the bus was acting properly, and the car made an error in expecting that the bus wouldn't move, then whose fault is that?
the fault lies solely in the hands of the vehicle that was leaving its lane.
Raises a good point: If I get in an accident in a self driving car, who's at fault, me or the manufacturer?
This is something the lawmakers are debating extensively. It is likely to vary from state to state, and I wouldn't consider any current laws to be stable enough to rely on in the short term.
That being said, I believe I read a recent article that California was going to hold the human in the "driver's seat" responsible, on the grounds that he should be paying attention and be ready to take control if the car misbehaves.
That seems good in theory, while the cars are still experimental, but it is going to be bad in practice because:
Self-driving car designs (once the tech becomes stable) are expected to not even have manual controls
One of the reasons for a self-driving car is so that human occupants don't have to be fully alert and ready to respond to situations. If the law says they do, then there's really no point to it being self-driving at all. It would be worse than a normal car because you won't be as alert as you would be while driving normally.
That being said, I read (even more recently) that the NHTSA has decided that a self-driving car that is determined to be at fault should be the responsibility of the car manufacturer. This makes more sense to me (at least in the case where no human is at the controls or where there are no controls) since whatever happens is going to be the result of the car's hardware and software. I can understand holding the owner responsible if the car isn't maintained properly (e.g. broken sensors) but not otherwise.
How the NHTSA decision will interact with California's law is going to be interesting if/when it is put to the test.
But I fully expect all these laws to change a lot as the tech matures and becomes more commonplace.
So if the car kills or injures someone can it go to prison?
Since the system is identical across all cars, it would be that ALL self-driving cars with the system would have their license revoked, stranding thousands or millions of people.
I definitely see a time where automotive manufacturers will implement some kind of common automotive-network system where the cars communicate with each other and can therefore prevent collisions.
And then the FBI will demand a backdoor to this network so they can take control of the cars whenever they want.
Remember the movie "Minority Report" (and not the terrible TV series with the same name)?
For a human driver to be allowed on the road legally, he (she) has to get a drivers license and pass for a drivers exam. A non human driver has to pass the Turing drivers exam. And that will be quite difficult in Europe (because over here we have a real exam with extensive lessons and very strict rules, unlike the U.S.), things like erratic (uncertain) driving or under speeding will all flunk the exam.
Raises a good point: If I get in an accident in a self driving car, who's at fault, me or the manufacturer?
The law so far appears to be saying the car. So if the car gets into 3 accidents, the state confiscates your car and has it crushed into a tiny cube. Bad car. Bad.
If the bus was acting properly, and the car made an error in expecting that the bus wouldn't move, then whose fault is that?
the fault lies solely in the hands of the vehicle that was leaving its lane.
I don't know what that statement means. Is it the car, or the bus? If the bus driver made a legal move, then the car is definitely at fault. The the bus driver made the illegal move, then it's a good question. Would a human driver have caught that, or not? Considering how may accidents we have every year, I'm not so rushed to blame the car. It's very likely that anyone would have had the same, or worse, response.
remember that we're talking about an accident, not who made the legal, or illegal, move. There's a big difference there.
Raises a good point: If I get in an accident in a self driving car, who's at fault, me or the manufacturer?
I believe that's been settled. If you aren't driving the car, because you can't drive an autonomous car, then it's not your fault.
Settled? By whom? Other members of this forum?
For example, the state of California has legislated the exact opposite. Their current laws mandate manual-override controls and require drivers to use those controls to prevent accidents (and require special training beyond a normal license in order to permit driving such a car.) They explicitly prohibit cars without manual controls at this time and will hold the driver liable for any accidents. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/dbcf0f21-4085-47a1-889f-3b8a64eaa1ff/AVRegulationsSummary.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
This is hardly settled. The way things currently stand, your rights and liabilities are going to vary radically from state to state. I wouldn't make any blanket statements at this time. Not until the states come to some kind of consensus (or Washington dictates policy to the states) and the courts try a bunch of high-profile cases that can set binding precedent.
I believe that's been settled. If you aren't driving the car, because you can't drive an autonomous car, then it's not your fault.
Settled? By whom? Other members of this forum?
For example, the state of California has legislated the exact opposite. Their current laws mandate manual-override controls and require drivers to use those controls to prevent accidents (and require special training beyond a normal license in order to permit driving such a car.) They explicitly prohibit cars without manual controls at this time and will hold the driver liable for any accidents. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/dbcf0f21-4085-47a1-889f-3b8a64eaa1ff/AVRegulationsSummary.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
This is hardly settled. The way things currently stand, your rights and liabilities are going to vary radically from state to state. I wouldn't make any blanket statements at this time. Not until the states come to some kind of consensus (or Washington dictates policy to the states) and the courts try a bunch of high-profile cases that can set binding precedent.
Various laws around the country that have come out recently. When I say settled, I mean that the laws and courts are looking to blame the maker of the car, and not the driver. But at this time, real self driving cars are not here, just experiments. Even so, it's obvious that the way this is going is predicated by the thought that if self driving cars are allowed, and there is no human driving possible, then the blame for an accident, if that accident can be deemed to have been caused by that vehicle, in whole, or in part, will be on the manufacturer of the car, and not the passenger, whether (s)he owns the vehicle or not.
the only instance where I can think the owner of the car could be blamed would be if it could be shown that the owner knew that the car wasn't working properly, and still used it, assuming that the car would work in the instance that needed safety components weren't working to standard. These cars may not work if that happens as a safety procedure, and may even be required by law (I think it should be).
then we have the question of a self driving cab. The same thing applies. But here, we have the cab company in the middle.
I believe that's been settled. If you aren't driving the car, because you can't drive an autonomous car, then it's not your fault.
Settled? By whom?
Various laws around the country that have come out recently. When I say settled, I mean that the laws and courts are looking to blame the maker of the car, and not the driver. But at this time, real self driving cars are not here, just experiments. Even so, it's obvious that the way this is going is predicated by the thought that if self driving cars are allowed, and there is no human driving possible, then the blame for an accident, if that accident can be deemed to have been caused by that vehicle, in whole, or in part, will be on the manufacturer of the car, and not the passenger, whether (s)he owns the vehicle or not.
the only instance where I can think the owner of the car could be blamed would be if it could be shown that the owner knew that the car wasn't working properly, and still used it, assuming that the car would work in the instance that needed safety components weren't working to standard. These cars may not work if that happens as a safety procedure, and may even be required by law (I think it should be).
then we have the question of a self driving cab. The same thing applies. But here, we have the cab company in the middle.
Then I think we are (more or less) in agreement. I concur that that is where the laws will have to eventually end up. But I think it will be quite some time before we actually get there.
Comments
So if the car kills or injures someone can it go to prison?
So, basically, the expectation was that the vehicle in control of the lane would yield right of way to another vehicle traveling much more slowly in another lane?
Sounds like it's 100% the Googmobile's fault. It executed an unsafe lane movement, which is illegal in California.
The bus driver had no legal reason to slow or stop. And in fact might have felt compelled to maintain speed in order to avoid a sharp stop which would have potentially endangered standing passengers.
/s
Considering the damage was minimal and crashing will stop you too, I'm pretty sure the bus had the space to stop.
It seems the bus also assumed the car would clear the lane and that's why it delayed stopping.
Control of the lane doesn't mean you shouldn't stop if someone's there if it's possible to do so. In this case, it clearly was, so it is not 100% Google car's fault.
I'm sure if actual video is posted, which I expect to be eventually; it will show just that.
The Google car seems though to have had more than 50% responsibility for the accident (in misjudging the speed of the trailing bus and not waiting to make sure it could get fully into a lane before changing lane, the bus's delayed reaction also coming from assumptions about position make it responsible for the rest.
Another big concern is that the Gcar drove like a grandma (extremely slow and erratic) creating danger and irritation for other drivers. The Gcar was called a 'moron' several times.
Funny Gs retoric has human drivers as experts when it comes to defend a Gcar but otherwise disses the abilities of human drivers.
That being said, I believe I read a recent article that California was going to hold the human in the "driver's seat" responsible, on the grounds that he should be paying attention and be ready to take control if the car misbehaves.
That seems good in theory, while the cars are still experimental, but it is going to be bad in practice because:
That being said, I read (even more recently) that the NHTSA has decided that a self-driving car that is determined to be at fault should be the responsibility of the car manufacturer. This makes more sense to me (at least in the case where no human is at the controls or where there are no controls) since whatever happens is going to be the result of the car's hardware and software. I can understand holding the owner responsible if the car isn't maintained properly (e.g. broken sensors) but not otherwise.
How the NHTSA decision will interact with California's law is going to be interesting if/when it is put to the test.
But I fully expect all these laws to change a lot as the tech matures and becomes more commonplace.
A non human driver has to pass the Turing drivers exam.
And that will be quite difficult in Europe (because over here we have a real exam with extensive lessons and very strict rules, unlike the U.S.), things like erratic (uncertain) driving or under speeding will all flunk the exam.
I don't know what that statement means. Is it the car, or the bus? If the bus driver made a legal move, then the car is definitely at fault. The the bus driver made the illegal move, then it's a good question. Would a human driver have caught that, or not? Considering how may accidents we have every year, I'm not so rushed to blame the car. It's very likely that anyone would have had the same, or worse, response.
remember that we're talking about an accident, not who made the legal, or illegal, move. There's a big difference there.
I believe that's been settled. If you aren't driving the car, because you can't drive an autonomous car, then it's not your fault.
For example, the state of California has legislated the exact opposite. Their current laws mandate manual-override controls and require drivers to use those controls to prevent accidents (and require special training beyond a normal license in order to permit driving such a car.) They explicitly prohibit cars without manual controls at this time and will hold the driver liable for any accidents. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/dbcf0f21-4085-47a1-889f-3b8a64eaa1ff/AVRegulationsSummary.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
Other states (and the NHTSA) have come to different decisions. http://cleantechnica.com/2016/02/16/google-self-driving-cars-now-considered-drivers-nhtsa/
This is hardly settled. The way things currently stand, your rights and liabilities are going to vary radically from state to state. I wouldn't make any blanket statements at this time. Not until the states come to some kind of consensus (or Washington dictates policy to the states) and the courts try a bunch of high-profile cases that can set binding precedent.
the only instance where I can think the owner of the car could be blamed would be if it could be shown that the owner knew that the car wasn't working properly, and still used it, assuming that the car would work in the instance that needed safety components weren't working to standard. These cars may not work if that happens as a safety procedure, and may even be required by law (I think it should be).
then we have the question of a self driving cab. The same thing applies. But here, we have the cab company in the middle.