FarHorizon

This will, by necessity, be a primarily theoretical discussion at this point, but there are profoundly interesting issues, both legal and ethical to be discussed. I'm not looking for confrontations, just intelligent ideas.

When self driving cars become available, and they will, I suspect that many drivers will "self-select" their use. As people age, their visual acuity and response times decline, and the convenience of a self-driving car will become very attractive. It may also become a requirement for people who have excessive tickets or drinking problems, since their drivers' licenses will be suspended.

The first question, in my mind, is how the heuristics of the self-driving car's program will be designed to deal with cyclists & pedestrians. Will the car's programming instruct the car to deliberately crash itself rather than hitting a cyclist or pedestrian (assuming that no other options are available)? Ethically, this makes sense because the car's passengers are better protected (by the car's airbags) and thus more likely to survive unharmed. On the other hand, will any insurer be willing to accept coverage on a vehicle that is designed to crash itself under certain circumstances?

The second question, to my mind, is how the legal aspects are to be handled. If a cyclist or pedestrian causes a self-driving car to crash, will the cyclist/pedestrian be liable? Will the car be liable? Will the car's passengers be liable? Will the company that programmed the car be liable?

And finally, if no other option is available, will the car be allowed to deliberately strike cyclists, pedestrians, or other cars? This is the "lesser of two evils" scenario where no matter what the car does, some injury or damage will result. If the car is programmed to preserve human life at all costs, then the probability of striking animals, for example, is greatly increased. Further, if the car does have such "protect the people" programming, what is to stop deliberately destructive people from putting cardboard cutouts of a woman pushing a baby stroller in the middle of a street to deliberately cause crashes?

All these issues are significant and will need to be contemplated before widespread adoption of self-driving cars. The implementation of such vehicles, however, is far closer than most think. Why? Because of economic demand. There is an entire generation of Americans (the "baby boomers") who are approaching the diminution of their driving skills and who (in large numbers) have the economic ability to purchase self-driving cars. This demand will drive the rapid implementation of the technology.

So what say youse, BF folks? How SHOULD self-driving cars deal with cyclists, and why?

unterhausen

Looking at how the google car works, I can't see self-driving cars hitting the road in large numbers anytime soon. I don't think they would change the liability landscape at all. If a motorist is forced off the road by a large truck and wrecks, the large truck is not at fault in our system unless there is a collision. I can't see how this would change. There is a responsibility to drive in such a way that this sort of thing will not happen.

El Cid

If there's one thing humans have mastered, it is self-denial. Aging baby boomers, less able to drive, will probably be the last of the hold-outs, feeling that letting the car drive would threaten their independence. I see busy office workers letting the car drive so that they can use the laptop.

One big issue would be liability after a crash. Are you at fault if you weren't even driving? Can I sue google if I get hit by a car running on their software? Long after such cars are technically feasible, the law will probably still be a mess.

FarHorizon

Hi El Cid - I think you're wrong on the baby boomers; here's why - If the choice is having no mobility other than that provided by someone else at their convenience and being able to hop in the self-driving car whenever one wants, I suspect that the latter will be worth big bucks. And in fact, from what I've read, the legal issues rather than the technological ones are what's keeping self-driving cars off the market now. The car makers want to ensure that they're not on the hook for the car's programming, and the trial lawyers want to sue everyone and everything, no matter what. Nevertheless, I suspect that the demand and potential profits WILL overcome the obstacles, and I'm going out on a limb to predict that self-driving cars will be initially available within five years and widespread in 10.

genec

By treating cyclists as legal users of the road. Really it is that simple.

Video: Google?s self-driving car meets cyclists and out-performs far too many human drivers | road.cc


A lot more people have been working on this than just the "brain trust" at BF.

"Notice how the car even detects the cyclist coming up from behind..." A common right hook situation, and this car avoids it.

Caliper

My understanding is that this is not currently legal. I believe all self driving cars are required to have a legal driver in the drivers seat to take over in case of failure. In effect, you have auto-pilot but are responsible to be there to ensure it is operating correctly.

Regarding the idea of a human shaped cutout, that is an interesting thought. If it was placed in the road ahead of time, I expect the car would just stop in front of it. If someone shoved a stroller in front of the car as it drove past then there would be a certain spot where a collision is unavoidable. The best choice would be max braking while driving straight because this maximises tire traction available for braking and does the most to reduce the severity of the collision. Whatever the car does, surely the onboard cameras associated with a self driving car would have a record that would be valuable in court later.

Ummm, if someone is forced off the road and wrecks, isn't that a collision? Whether a truck or not, if someone forces another motorist off the road they are responsible for any damages caused. Even if there are no damages and a cop witnesses it, the person doing the forcing could (should) be charged with failure to yield.

KD5NRH

Bad assumption; there are a lot of people on the road that shouldn't be driving as it is, but they deny their inability. That is unlikely to change, so your assumption of "no mobility" can only work if it is externally enforced. For example, adding a category to the drivers license prohibiting the use of a manual-drive-only car, and requiring them to use automatic control outside of certain, limited circumstances. (This would likely have to be enforced through use of a car that defaults to automatic control, and can override certain manual inputs when the driver's actions are inconsistent with conditions.) Increasing penalties for certain violations while on manual control could also help, but still depends on enforcement.

FarHorizon

Yes, I'm sure that initially, all self-driving cars WILL be required to have a legal driver (who will be legally responsible for the car's behavior). This, however, defeats the primary purpose of the car.

The goal of the technology is to get the driver out of the equation completely. Why? Because asking the driver to step in for emergency situations (where immediate judgement and fast reflexes are required) is EXACTLY what the primary customers for the cars are unable to do. In other words, an elderly driver with slow reflexes and impaired vision would be unable to "take over" in these situations. Therefore, the car MUST be able to be completely autonomous. Provided that the cars ARE able to drive without human input (except for verbal input of the desired destination), then they WOULD be appropriate for not only people who were unable to drive, but also for those who were temporarily impaired or consistently careless.

In such cases, the passengers of the car would have no legal liability for the car's driving. There would need to be a "no fault" clause where the car and its software would have limited legal liability provided that the vehicle was working properly. In cases where the driver overrode the car's software and took control, then and only then would the driver assume liability.

FarHorizon

I like your ideas, and I think that if you flunk your drivers' test, then you'd get a license that would activate a self-driving car only. In other words, in lieu of a car key, you'll plug your drivers license into the car. If you're legally licensed to drive, then the car will allow you to select manual or self-driving modes; if not, then the car defaults to self-driving. This would take care of enforcement (assuming you didn't borrow or steal a license - in which case the license could be remotely deactivated and/or you'd be legally responsible for the consequences.

unterhausen

if you have a single vehicle collision with an obstruction off-road, that is not a collision with the vehicle that caused the wreck. I have known a couple of people that suffered through this. I suppose if there were video or a witness, that might change the calculus a little, but I have never heard of that happening.

Pukeskywalker

I welcome the age of self-driving cars. Here are some interesting implications not yet mentioned:

1. Will road rage will come to an end? Or will beer cans and insults just be more precisely aimed?

2. Will the pleasure of a self-driving car cut-down on cycling? Currently, biking to work is 100x times more enjoyable than sitting in traffic. But in a world were the self-driving car allows me to read a book or nap on the ride in? The lack of frustration with the rat race might hurt the cycling community.

3. Will some choose bicycles over self-driving cars just for the freedom to race ahead of traffic on city streets, and force a self-driving car to brake suddenly with their reckless riding? This could be a serious concern as self-driving cars make city streets hyper-safe for bikers, but can only be afforded by the wealthy.

Imagine streets full of rude poor cyclists on Wal-mart bikes who resent self-driving car owners and clog the streets with poor cycling manners, intentionally or not.

KD5NRH

That depends; will the computer also control the windows? Voice recognition picks up a profanity and shoots the window up on bozo's neck.

But then the self-riding bikes will come out and re-balance the equation with sleeping cyclists everywhere.

FarHorizon

My gut feeling is that after the first generation, self-driving cars will be no more expensive (or not significantly more) than current vehicles. I'd also predict that a new "hybrid" car will arise about the same time as self-driving ones. The "new hybrids" will have a small gas or diesel driven generator, not connected to the drive train, that will allow active recharge of the electric car's batteries while driving. This will do away with the need for electric charger stations everywhere, and allow the existing infrastructure of gas stations to continue.

adablduya

interesting thread. the legal vs. technological issues are many. good discussion.

however, what i am fully certain of is this: there is no way i'll ever trust my safety, and that of my passengers, to surrendering control of a motor vehicle to automated technology. in my opinion, there are far too many variables in GPS reliability, environmental factors, and other possibilities of failure that i will never accept. many of these are discussed in this thread.

i am the pilot of my vehicle, and i could never be convinced that automated control of the vehicle could ever come close to my own reliability and ability to react. this is coming from someone who despises any automated function in a car, such as auto door locks after putting a car in gear. i'm the pilot, and i don't want my craft to do anything i don't direct it to do. an automatic transmission is the ONLY exception !

KD5NRH

Even on a full-auto car, I'd still want the operator to have a direct-linked brake (i.e. real mechanical link to the hydraulics that can't be overridden by the computer) and a safe shutdown button. ("Safe shutdown" meaning pull to the side of the road or into a parking lot as quickly as possible, set the parking brake and shut off the engine.) For the elderly "40mph whether it's a freeway or a school zone" types, set it so that pressing the brake more than 10 seconds out of a full minute initiates the safe shutdown.

Hypno Toad

Safety systems already exist for cyclists & pedestrians - Volvo:

My wife's S60 has the emergency braking, it does work ... sometimes too good, like driving into the single-car garage and WHAM! it stops you cause the door is narrow.

genec

Said the man with the horse and buggy.

Sorry, but the car that can see in front and behind at the same time, and detect body heat and see under and past the car ahead IS not only better than your meager abilities, but reacts quicker.

Let us know how those buggy whip sales go.

KD5NRH

Oh that could really annoy me to the point of dumping the thing back in the dealer's front yard within a week.

There's a spot along my street (old, narrow residential) where there are people parked on both sides most of the time. When the jerk with the dually adds his to the mess, anything much bigger than my Saturn would have to fold the mirrors in to have a chance. A car that decides for me that I shouldn't squeeze through there would be in danger of getting torched where it stops. (Partly in hopes that it would spread to the dually.)

Hypno Toad

To be honest, it has only happened 3 or 4 times in the 18 months we've had the car and the only times I've had it happen are when I'm pulling into the garage. But when it happens, I need to add money to the swear jar!

adablduya

so, condescension and insults are your effective means to make an attempt at an intelligent point ? you failed miserably. it's easy to try and act tough from your own little cyber-lair, but i'll bet you wouldn't have the stones to say this to me face-to-face.

so, you go on believing that technology, for whatever benefits and conveniences it might provide, would be infallible and fail-safe when your safety and protection, even your life, are on the line. do you have flawless and 100% reliability with your cell phone service ? is that GPS in your car is 100% effective and accurate ? my point is made.

unterhausen

moderator note: I see this is getting a little heated, and people are skirting the rules about proper interaction on this forum. Please note that directly insulting other bikeforums members is not allowed, no matter how big of an idiot that person might be.

kickstart

I believe autonomous vehicles will increase the usage of personal vehicles as that time will be available for other activities. I also believe that licencing of bicycles will eventually happen for accountability of those who take advantage of collision avoidance systems.

KD5NRH

Indirect insulting is OK?

Booger1

Since everybody knows the hackers won't be able to get into the cars system...... Everything will be fine.....Just like the credit card system.....The same computer that protects us,will not be able to be used against us.

gecho

Self driving cars will probably be the safest vehicles on the road. They will be only vehicles in 100% compliance with traffic regulations. The roof mounted sensors will have a better view of traffic than any human could. They can simultaneously look in ever direction. They won't get angry. When vehicle to vehicle communication becomes standard they will be aware of whether cars ahead that aren't visible are braking. Working together they would be able to accelerate in unison from a green light improving traffic flow.

I'm not sure they would be usable everywhere though. Winter driving here can lead to some odd situations. Narrow residential streets usually end up with 3 tire tracks so its not possible to cars to drive past each other, one driver needs to pull over and let the other one go by. Same sort of deal on gravel roads after a good rain.