Autonomous Vehicles Scrutinized Over Liability Amid 'Minor' Incidents

by Cameron Aubernon

Published: May 11th, 2015

autonomous vehicles scrutinized over liability amid minor incidents

Autonomous vehicles may need the Three Laws of Robotics to function in the future, while getting a handle on accident prevention remains a present concern.

Since September of last year, four of the 48 autonomous vehicles permitted to roam freely in California have found themselves involved in accidents, The Detroit News reports. Two of the accidents happened while the cars drove themselves, while the other pair occurred while their human occupant was behind the wheel.

The vehicles in question belonged to Google and Delphi, with the former linked to three of the four accidents. Both companies claimed they were not at fault, and that the accidents were minor in scope. An employee with the California Department of Motor Vehicles confirmed two of the accidents happened in autonomous mode at speeds below 10 mph, but no other information could be given due to confidentiality laws regarding collision reports.

The accidents come as autonomous vehicles are under ongoing scrutiny over safety and responsibility for whatever does happen in a given accident. Down the road, such a vehicle – which may have no means to override an action in the future – may decide to sacrifice the lives of its occupants in order to protect everyone else, a scenario among others likely to hold back the technology overall, according to BMW sales boss Ian Robertson:

The technology will be held back by the ultimate moral question on who’s responsible. An algorithm will make a decision which might not be acceptable from a cultural or societal point of view.

The potential solution may place full responsibility upon the occupant/driver, following an amendment to the United Nations’ Vienna Convention on Road Traffic made last year allowing assisted driving so long as “such systems can be overridden or switched off by the driver.” The 1968 convention previously banned autonomous vehicles outright when it came into force 38 years ago, declaring all drivers to maintain control of their vehicles at all times.

[Photo credit: Freightliner]

#AccidentReporting #AutonomousVehicles #California #Delphi #Google #Liability #PrivacyLaws #UnitedNationsViennaConventionOnRoadTraffic

Cameron Aubernon

Seattle-based writer, blogger, and photographer for many a publication. Born in Louisville. Raised in Kansas. Where I lay my head is home.

More by Cameron Aubernon

Comments

Join the conversation

8 of 149 comments

An innocent man on May 16, 2015

It's like everyone forgets their talking points on this one. The problem with (driver) education is that we don't spend enough money on it. That's the answer! Throw. More. Money. Geez, do I have to solve every issue?

Like Reply
NMGOM on May 17, 2015

WheelMcCoy - - - One of the unspoken, underlying issues that all the formal analysis of so-called "Driver Education" has not isolated and dealt with properly, is the marginal quality of the actual driver training that occurs (and has occurred) in the USA. I can certainly understand that teaching about traffic laws and how a car works is valuable, but tangential. Having hands-on driving under instruction for typically less than 10 hours with new drivers is miniscule. To be really effective would require much more: some European tutored driving courses offer between 50 and 100 contact hours, under increasingly demanding situations, with "distraction de-conditioning". As I have been saying, what is needed is much more rigorous and intense driver training (not "education"). Then more clearly observable positive effects will occur here in the USA (e.g., fewer violations; fewer crashes). A recent NY Times article (June 2012) began to address this, especially with regard to the Oregon program, which was above the national average (but still inadequate, in my view), and from which some positive results have been obtained: "One exception is Oregon, where state officials say that the driver education program has helped reduce teenage accidents and fatalities. Many safety experts say it is among the best programs in the country." "Since it overhauled driver training about a decade ago, Oregon has had a reduction of more than 55 percent in the number of 16-year-olds behind the wheel when someone is killed or injured in a crash and a drop of almost 40 percent for 17-year-olds, said Mr. Costales, who is also chairman of the Governors Highway Safety Association, which represents state highway safety offices." ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/automobiles/the-mixed-bag-of-driver-education.html?_r=0 ========================

Like Reply
- See 5 previous
- Landcrusher on May 18, 2015
  
  Correct, but don't expect any agreement. (Grabbing popcorn, waiting for PCH to go ad hominem).
  
  Like
- Pch101 on May 18, 2015
  
  @Landcrusher Again, you folks need to learn the difference between an ad hominem argument and a factual one. It would be nice if there was some effort made to acquire critical thinking skills. For example, when you see a statistic about one particular place, it would be wise if you spent an extra minute with your friends at Google to find other data to which you could compare it. For example, the IIHS notes that the number of teenage drivers who died in car crashes in the US over the decade referenced in the NYT article declined by 53%. Sounds like Oregon is barely keeping up with the averages -- when you know how the rest of the country performed, Oregon's result doesn't sound so impressive. To understand numbers, you have to look at what they actually mean. I can see that you can't be bothered to do that. Once folks like you have seen something that you want to believe and that confirms your bias, you stop looking for more information, which is exactly the sort of thing that people who don't know how to perform research are inclined to do.
  
  Like
- Landcrusher on May 18, 2015
  
  @Pch101 Nothing but Net! How do I do it!?! NMGOM - The study doesn't address the quality of training, only that it is historically ineffective. LC - PCH is going to insult you. PCH - You are dense, lazy, ignorant, lazy again, hard headed, and ignorant again. It's just too easy. PCH, your study doesn't say all what you think it says, and according to my study, which you keep hoping will go away, it's most likely incorrect even in what it does say.
  
  Like
- Pch101 on May 18, 2015
  
  @Landcrusher This policy of not believing anything that you don't understand or that is produced by researchers who are smarter than you isn't doing you any favors. That sort of knee-jerk anti-intellectualism is the mark of the uneducated.
  
  Like
- Landcrusher on May 18, 2015
  
  @Landcrusher The ultimate retreat - you don't get it! Of course, you have to put in an extra helping of ad hominem.
  
  Like
- WheelMcCoy on May 18, 2015
  
  @NMGOM Ok! The NY Times piece is something I can chew on. Comparisons are relatively local, "with kids taking driving education outperforming kids who don't." If this were "German kids taking driving education outperforming American kids who don't", the article wouldn't work for me. I have read good things about graduated licensing which restricts night time driving and taking passengers, among other things. It's a sensible approach. Then there's the driver training refresher course that takes 5% off your insurance bill. The incentive sounds right, but it also attracts those who already know their limitations as drivers. The real problem are the drivers who think they don't need training when they really do. Hence, I see your desire to educate them while they are young. It could be effective for them! Old dogs (drivers lacking in self-awareness) who can't learn new tricks are better off with passive safety devices. Anyway, @PCH's information throws a little cold water on the Oregon stats. While blunt, he's also insightful and well-informed. Still, @NMGOM, you have made me take a second look.
  
  Like

Recent Comments

GrumpyOldMan All modern road vehicles have tachometers in RPM X 1000. I've often wondered if that is a nanny-state regulation to prevent drivers from confusing it with the speedometer. If so, the Ford retro gauges would appear to be illegal.
Theflyersfan Matthew...read my mind. Those old Probe digital gauges were the best 80s digital gauges out there! (Maybe the first C4 Corvettes would match it...and then the strange Subaru XT ones - OK, the 80s had some interesting digital clusters!) I understand the "why simulate real gauges instead of installing real ones?" argument and it makes sense. On the other hand, with the total onslaught of driver's aid and information now, these screens make sense as all of that info isn't crammed into a small digital cluster between the speedo and tach. If only automakers found a way to get over the fallen over Monolith stuck on the dash design motif. Ultra low effort there guys. And I would have loved to have seen a retro-Mustang, especially Fox body, have an engine that could rev out to 8,000 rpms! You'd likely be picking out metal fragments from pretty much everywhere all weekend long.
Analoggrotto What the hell kind of news is this?
MaintenanceCosts Also reminiscent of the S197 cluster.I'd rather have some original new designs than retro ones, though.
Fahrvergnugen That is SO lame. Now if they were willing to split the upmarketing price, different story.