Uk to allow Driverless Cars

[pcstru]

Uk to allow Driverless Cars from January.

 

The future is here! Is this a good thing? Who will we swear at when one of these cuts us up? Will Google cars be continually served penalty points because they are always on the phone to home? Will cars now try and sell you things "I see you are going to work, have you thought of visiting work-shoes.come today?". Have we really, finally found a way to get Jeremy Clarkson off our screens!

[IrritableTech]

I read an interesting article on driverless cars a while ago - all around the ethics.

 

For example - how do you program a car to crash - they will at some point.

 

Say a child runs out from behind a wall. There was no indication what so ever that it could have been there, and the car needs to decide - take evasive action, possibly into oncoming traffic, or hit the child? If we as individuals behind the wheel were put in that decision, we'd make different decisions. Driverless cars quite possibly make the decision based on the person who wrote the program - and in the event of an identical accident it would make the same decision.

 

How about a crash where the driverless car is going to hit one of two motorbikes. One rider is wearing a helmet, the other (stupidly) is not. How do you program a car to make a decision? The rider with the helmet is statistically more likely to live - but should they be punished for wearing the correct equipment and following the laws or should the car be programmed to hit the rider who seems to take less regard of their life?

 

Do we need to humanize the program and add in a random number generator to decide someones fate?

 

I thought it was a fascinating subject.

[FN-GM]

Does that mean my car can give me a lift home from the pub?

[laserblazer]

Does that mean my car can give me a lift home from the pub?

 

So long as it's p!ssed as well

[CAM]

Does that mean my car can give me a lift home from the pub?

 

Nope because you are 'in charge' of the car whilst drunk even if it doesn't have a steering wheel. Same reason you can be in a stationary car and still get done for drink driving.

 

I want to know how Google intend for the car to handle parking though. Will it get confused in multi-story car parks?

[pcstru]

The reverse side of the ethics question has to be, when robots prove they are safer drivers than humans (they almost certainly will be), will it be ethical to actually allow humans to drive?

[pcstru]

Nope because you are 'in charge' of the car whilst drunk even if it doesn't have a steering wheel. Same reason you can be in a stationary car and still get done for drink driving.

I suspect that this will be one area of law that will need to change. The actual offence can be to be drunk in charge of a motor vehicle on a public road or place, you don't have to be driving it to be in charge of it. An application of autonomous vehicles will be as taxis, that can't happen if the robot is not legally in charge of the vehicle.

[nicholab]

Is this the new top gear format? No presenters

[pcstru]

Is this the new top gear format? No presenters

That would leave

. (probably NSFW (swearing))

[CAM]

I suspect that this will be one area of law that will need to change. The actual offence can be to be drunk in charge of a motor vehicle on a public road or place, you don't have to be driving it to be in charge of it. An application of autonomous vehicles will be as taxis, that can't happen if the robot is not legally in charge of the vehicle.

 

Someone else is in charge of a taxi, namely the taxi driver.

[pcstru]

Someone else is in charge of a taxi, namely the taxi driver.

Err ... yes. But in a driverless taxi, there will be no, err ... driver.

[CAM]

Exactly, so who is the one in the car and subsequently in charge?

 

You are trying to apply too much common sense to UK law. I guarantee if you get in a driverless car drunk and get pulled over, "but it's driverless" won't fly with the officer holding the ticket book. Do not think just a stop/go button will be a reality, health and safety will likely require some means of stopping the vehicle in an emergency which if you are too drunk to operate (or operate because you are drunk) you will not be fit to be in charge of the vehicle.

[pcstru]

For "driverless cars" to happen, the law needs to change. TPTB will be looking at what needs to change, as reported in the article. All I was saying was that that (Road Traffic Act 1998 - section 4) was one area likely to need amendment, otherwise companies looking to put driver less cars on the road, wont be able to operate them as Taxis.

 

Generally the law does operate with a good deal of common sense. It's just that common sense ... is not all that common.

[Davit2005]

I want to know how Google intend for the car to handle parking though. Will it get confused in multi-story car parks?

 

So people will still need to be able to park in spaces correctly then

[jinnantonnixx]

I read an interesting article on driverless cars a while ago - all around the ethics.

 

For example - how do you program a car to crash - they will at some point.

 

Say a child runs out from behind a wall. There was no indication what so ever that it could have been there, and the car needs to decide - take evasive action, possibly into oncoming traffic, or hit the child? If we as individuals behind the wheel were put in that decision, we'd make different decisions. Driverless cars quite possibly make the decision based on the person who wrote the program - and in the event of an identical accident it would make the same decision.

 

...

 

Good point. Suppose Jeremy Clarkson was on one side of the street, and David Cameron was on the other, and you could only hit one of them. This sort of thing would give the software engineers sleepless nights.

[Ad93]

There are still a lot of answers which need to be found about this.

 

For example if the driverless car is caught speeding who pays the fine?

 

Also what happens if the driverless car becomes like a stroppy teenager and just drives off and sulks somewhere?

 

I've got lots of other questions involving robots turning against humans and taking over the world but those are some of the more sensible ones

 

A

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

Good point. Suppose Jeremy Clarkson was on one side of the street, and David Cameron was on the other, and you could only hit one of them. This sort of thing would give the software engineers sleepless nights.

 

Program the car to lose its front tires so that each one could hit the intended target

[CAM]

Railway crossings will be the big headache. They aren't uniform (different angles, gate types and so on), they are often abused by other drivers and in some areas are hard to program to avoid. And if the car gets it wrong just once...

[Davit2005]

Good point. Suppose Jeremy Clarkson was on one side of the street, and David Cameron was on the other, and you could only hit one of them. This sort of thing would give the software engineers sleepless nights.

 

You'd probably get a blue screen of death or smoke pouring out of the ECU as it decides which one.

[visioN]

I think you won't be able to be drunk and get in the car (as the driver) - in case of emergency and the driver may need to take manual control of the car

 

Also if the car is speeding it will be going against its programming and thus the creating company should be charged not the owner?

 

maybe "jail break your Ford Focus to go faster than the road limits" will happen!

[SiliconAlley_Sam]

Exactly what we need on the motorways, lots of cars that can't physically go above 70.

[localzuk]

There are still a lot of answers which need to be found about this.

 

For example if the driverless car is caught speeding who pays the fine?

 

Also what happens if the driverless car becomes like a stroppy teenager and just drives off and sulks somewhere?

 

I've got lots of other questions involving robots turning against humans and taking over the world but those are some of the more sensible ones

 

I think the way they'll deal with many problems like this is to make it illegal to alter the factory set controls for driverless cars. Then, manufacturers will have a set of rules they have to follow. So, if a car speeds then it can be tracked back to one of 2 places - the manufacturer or the owner/operator.

 

Also, a driverless car isn't a teenager... It won't have a personality, just a pre-set list of routines it uses through being educated to do so.

 

I think you won't be able to be drunk and get in the car (as the driver) - in case of emergency and the driver may need to take manual control of the car

 

Also if the car is speeding it will be going against its programming and thus the creating company should be charged not the owner?

 

maybe "jail break your Ford Focus to go faster than the road limits" will happen!

 

The thing is, some companies are pushing for control-less cars, so as to maximise the internal space and make it more like a moving living room than a bus. So, how could someone take control in the event of an emergency?

 

Exactly what we need on the motorways, lots of cars that can't physically go above 70.

 

It is illegal to go above 70... So that shouldn't be a problem anyway!

Edited July 30, 2014 by localzuk

[pcstru]

I think you won't be able to be drunk and get in the car (as the driver) - in case of emergency and the driver may need to take manual control of the car

I'd think otherwise. Initially, the cost of driverless cars is likely to be hundreds of thousands - out of the reach of most people BUT economically viable if operating as taxis with high utilisation. So the issue of "being in charge of" is likely to be addressed very early on.

[localzuk]

I'd think otherwise. Initially, the cost of driverless cars is likely to be hundreds of thousands - out of the reach of most people BUT economically viable if operating as taxis with high utilisation. So the issue of "being in charge of" is likely to be addressed very early on.

 

How so? The technology isn't actually *that* expensive in itself. LIDAR sensors and the like aren't hugely expensive. The expense at the moment is the testing and refinement of the control software.

[pcstru]

I don't know where you are buying your LIDAR from! The ones in use on Google cars are Velodyne 64-beam laser units which cost around $70,000 a pop. The car itself has another $150,000 of outfitting, so that's $220,000 in hardware costs alone. I'd agree that is dwarfed by the software development costs, but even just the hardware is unlikely to be being bought for private use in the first few years.

[localzuk]

I don't know where you are buying your LIDAR from! The ones in use on Google cars are Velodyne 64-beam laser units which cost around $70,000 a pop. The car itself has another $150,000 of outfitting, so that's $220,000 in hardware costs alone. I'd agree that is dwarfed by the software development costs, but even just the hardware is unlikely to be being bought for private use in the first few years.

 

You're looking at short run dev kit prices. When, say, VW, decide to make 100,000 of those cars, those prices plummet. You can get basic lidar sensors for home robotics for hardly anything now, but that's only because the kit is now mass produced.