Another Future Clash: How Will The Law Deal With Autonomous Vehicles

from the it's-coming dept

So much of what we seem to talk about is really the clash of disruptive innovation and the opportunity it creates with the existing infrastructure (business, legal, physical) and how they seem to clash in ways that tends to limit and/or delay the innovation. Sometimes you can see these clashes coming from miles away -- and autonomous vehicles is one of those clashes. New Scientist has an article by Bryant Walker Smith, discussing the coming clash over autonomous vehicles by asking a simple question: how does a traffic cop give a ticket to a driverless car? Think about it for a bit, and it can be a pretty complex question. While Walker Smith delves into a few of these questions, there are many more -- and lots of people are trying to dig in now.

For example, the law school at Santa Clara University held an entire conference on the legal implications of autonomous vehicles, leading to the Santa Clara Law Review publishing a whole bunch of papers on the subject (including one by Walker Smith). One hopes that lots of people putting some thought into the legal implications today will help us avoid the political messes tomorrow, but given what we know from the history of disruptive innovation, that seems unlikely. Fully expect someone whose businesses are disrupted by autonomous vehicles to make a giant stink about how "unsafe" they are and how they need to be regulated to a degree that makes them effectively impossible to exist.

Filed Under: autonomous vehicles, challenges, law, regulations

Hilarious Attack Ad In Florida Suggests That Legalizing Autonomous Vehicles Puts Old People At Risk

from the run-for-your-lives dept

It's political silly season, so you expect to see all kinds of ridiculous campaign ads, and in local elections they can get particularly bizarre. Most of them have little to do with technology and innovation and things that we focus on, but here's one that's been making the rounds that seems worth discussing here. A local campaign ad in Florida attacked candidate Jeff Brandes for... legalizing "driverless cars" in Florida. First, just watch it: The voice over and the graphics are pretty funny, but hilariously wrong. The idea that driverless cars are going to run down little old ladies in the street seems pretty odd -- especially when you consider the driving ability of some of those little, old ladies themselves. I've spent plenty of time in Florida, and I'd feel a hell of a lot safer with autonomous vehicles on the road than some of those little, old ladies behind the wheel.

Then, the ad "quotes" Forbes supposedly saying that "Driverless Cars for All: More DANGEROUS Than Driving." Here's the screenshot: Except... as Alex Knapp at Forbes points out, if you look at the actual article in question, it's got absolutely nothing to do with the physical safety of autonomous vehicles, but is more of a political discussion about the idea that, someday, in someone's imagination, we'll all be required to use autonomous vehicles, rather than be able to make bad distracted driving choices on our own. In other words, completely unrelated to what the ad appears to be suggesting.

But, more seriously, the ad then attacks the candidate by saying he should be focused on the economy and jobs. Um. You know one good way to do that? It's to help advance job-creating technology and innovations. You'd think that seniors in Florida would be excited, not worried about autonomous vehicles, in that they could help make them a lot more mobile.

Either way, the ad is silly, and pure misleading luddism targeted at Florida seniors. And, clearly, they didn't work, as the guy won his primary anyway. Oh, and it's worth noting that his opposing candidate -- the one that ad wanted the little old ladies to vote for? Yeah, he voted in favor of the same proposal to allow autonomous vehicles on the roads in Florida too. Ah, politics...

Filed Under: attack ad, autonomous vehicles, jeff brandes, politics

DailyDirt: Who Drives Best -- Men, Women... Or Robots?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

If you believe in gender stereotypes, then you probably think that men are better drivers than women. However, auto insurance companies are inclined to believe that women are actually safer drivers. It's a hotly debated topic, but it's safe to say that there are lots of bad drivers -- both men and women -- on the road. That's why we need robot cars. Here are a few links to some driving-related studies.

• A New York City traffic study found that male drivers were responsible for 80% of car accidents in which pedestrians were severely injured or killed. Blame it on testosterone, which increases aggression and risk-taking. [url]
• A University of Michigan analysis of 6.5 million car accidents in the U.S. between 1998-2007 found that female drivers were responsible for 68.1% of all crashes. Apparently, women have trouble navigating intersections, as they were most often hit on the driver's or passenger side while trying to turn left or right. [url]
• A more recent UK study showed that women are actually better at parking than men, dispelling the myth that men have better spatial awareness than women. According to the professional driving instructor who created the study, men learn and perform better during driving lessons, but it's possible that women retain what they learn better than men. [url]
• Let the car park itself. Many automakers, including Ford, Toyota, and BMW, are offering self-parking systems in their vehicles now. While they can guide cars into parking spaces with minimal driver involvement, they aren't always reliable. [url]
• To discover more interesting car-related content, check out what's driving around StumbleUpon. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: accidents, autonomous vehicles, cars, drivers, gender stereotypes, parking, robots
Companies: bmw, ford, toyota

Dear World: Self-Driving Cars Will Get Into Accidents Too (Though, This One Wasn't The Computer's Fault)

from the hello-technology dept

There's a bunch of talk today over the news that one of Google's self-driving autonomous vehicles apparently got into a minor fender bender. Google was quick to point out that it was actually under human control at the time, so really there's not much of a story here. However, since it's leading to a variety of discussions about how "scary" autonomous vehicles are, why don't we just get an important point out of the way: there's no way that autonomous vehicles will have a perfect track record and never, ever get into an accident. They will crash. It's just a matter of time. The real question is not whether or not they will crash, but whether or not the likelihood of getting into an accident (or the likelihood of the seriousness of any such accident) is significantly higher or lower than with a human at the controls. I'm certainly not confident in the state of the art today to be safer, but I find it likely that it won't be long until such vehicles have a much higher probability of getting you to your destination safely than a human-driven vehicle.

Filed Under: accidents, autonomous vehicles, driving
Companies: google

Nevada Looking To Proactively Legalize Autonomous Cars

from the paving-the-road-to-the-future dept

There's been a lot of advancement lately in the field of autonomous cars. The DARPA Grand Challenge a few years ago convinced many people that autonomous vehicles were possible and since then we've been seeing more and more work on concepts around such vehicles, including Google's secret testing of its own autonomous cars and some other researchers doing an autonomous drive from Italy to China. However, with Google, it needed to get special permission to take the car out on the roads, and apparently some politicians in Nevada are working hard to court autonomous vehicle manufacturers to its state. They've put together a bill that would make it easier to get autonomous vehicles on the road in the state, by setting up a process to "authorize" such vehicles, and allow them to operate on Nevada highways.

As Ryan Calo notes in his post (the one linked above) about this, it's great that Nevada is taking a proactive approach, however, he does worry about some of the broad language:

The bill's definition of autonomous vehicles is unclear, even circular. Autonomous driving exists on a spectrum. Many vehicles available today have autonomous features, while falling short of complete computer control. Surely the bill's authors do not intend to require that, for instance, today's self-parking Lexus LS 460L be tested and certified.

Either way, it's exciting to think that such vehicles are getting closer to being available to the public.

Filed Under: autonomous vehicles, cars, nevada

Getting Closer To Autonomous Cars: Vans Make The Trip From Italy To China

from the marco...-polo... dept

Back in July we mentioned that some researchers had begun an attempt to have an autonomous vehicle drive safely from Italy to China. Then, about a month ago, we also noted that Google had been successfully testing autonomous vehicles on the roads as well. Now, Slashdot alerts us to the news that the Italy to China effort was completed successfully. As with the Google experiments, it wasn't "perfect." Apparently, humans had to intervene during a Moscow traffic jam -- and at toll booths. They also mention that "at one point, a van stopped to pick up hitchhikers." That's quite a story the hitchhikers must have left with... Either way, it's nice to see so much research going on in this field. Hopefully we can start to see some of that research make its way into actual production vehicles, at least to improve accident reduction techniques.

Filed Under: autonomous vehicles, cars

Google Secretly Tested Autonomous Vehicles On The Road

from the feeling-lucky? dept

"I'm feeling lucky," may take on new meanings on the roads someday, following the news that Google has been out testing autonomous vehicles on the roads for quite some time, racking up 140,000 miles of travel time. The cars all do have someone sitting behind the wheel ready to take over, but so far they haven't been needed for the most part (one car was hit from behind... and a driver has needed to intervene "occasionally"). Just a few months ago, we were talking about a test of a similar autonomous car traveling from Italy to China, but the Google effort actually seems a lot more advanced. Of course, it kind of makes you wonder why this research is happening from a search engine company... rather than a car company. In the meantime, what was that people were just saying about how none of these Silicon Valley companies were tackling "big" problems any more?

Filed Under: autonomous vehicles, driving
Companies: google

Autonomous Vehicle Begins Drive From Italy To China

from the watch-out-on-the-roads... dept

It's been nearly five years since the famous DARPA "Grand Challenge" showed off some successful autonomous vehicles traveling 132 miles without a driver (this was a year after a similar attempt ended with no vehicles making it). The DARPA Urban Challenge followed, and not surprisingly, there's still plenty of research going on in the space. Slashdot points us to the news that two autonomous vehicles are now attempting to drive from Italy to China over the course of the next three months.

It's not quite the same as the Grand Challenge situation (which had no one in the car, and no lead vehicles or anything like that). In this case, each autonomous vehicle will be following a "lead van." Also, each of the autonomous vehicles will have a "driver" sitting in the driver's seat who is supposed to be able to quickly take over the vehicle should anything go wrong (which sounds like it might be a tougher job than you might imagine, as I would imagine boredom sets in pretty quickly). However, it will also involve real roads with real traffic. In other news, governments between Italy and China are recommending drivers stay off major roads for the next three months...

That said, the folks behind this project admit that "failure is part of the plan." They fully expect problems to arise, and part of the idea is to figure out where those failure points are, so they can work on correcting them. In fact, in a "test drive" before the caravan left, they already experienced problems when a car got between the lead van and the autonomous vehicle in a traffic circle.

Filed Under: autonomous vehicles, driving