Uh Oh! Self-driving Uber cars to carry passengers

[BobbyJones]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/uber-autonomous-cars-haul-people-125127470.html?ref=gs


After reading this I thought about the legalities of this down the road (no pun intended). Especially as a cyclist.

Once these vehicles become truly autonomous, where does the burden of responsibility lie in the case of an accident?

I’m sure auto manufacturers and corporations can push legislature through making this doable, but what are the repercussions in the case of an accident? Where does the culpability lie?

It’s bad enough fighting with insurance companies in the case of accidents. Can you imagine getting another few layers of corporate evasion involved?

[christian]

I will take a robot over a coffee-swilling, iPhone-texting, suburban Range Rover pilot any day. Yes, I, for one, welcome our new robot car overlords.

[ColonelJLloyd]

Preach it, man. I love robots. And I don't say that just because I know they're listening.

[p nut]

Yeah, at least it means not dealing with distracted drivers. Just don't wear this jersey, though.

http://www.milesinstyle.com/uploads/1/4/0/2/14027710/4260117.jpg?440

[CampyorBust]

http://jeremyvarner.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/iRobot-Sonny-WInks.png

No thanks.;)

[Cicli]

I will take a robot over a coffee-swilling, iPhone-texting, suburban Range Rover pilot any day. Yes, I, for one, welcome our new robot car overlords.

Froome is driving for Uber now?

[Mark McM]

Well, for one thing, a software algorithm is likely to drive more predictably than a human ...

Let's just say that self-driving car drives a little worse than the average human. Sounds like it would make cycling more dangerous, right? But maybe not. Not all humans drive exactly on average - most drive close to average, plus or minus some amount; some drive much better than average; and some drive much worse than average.

As we know, the majority of human drivers don't present a danger to cyclists, the danger comes from just a few really bad drivers. If all self-driving cars drove 10% worse than average, they would still be safer than those really bad human drivers - the ones who do pose a danger to cyclists.

[cp43]

I will take a robot over a coffee-swilling, iPhone-texting, suburban Range Rover pilot any day. Yes, I, for one, welcome our new robot car overlords.

My thoughts exactly. The autonomous car will be looking for cyclists (and other cars, kids, trees, etc) constantly. Based on what I see driving to work, we're lucky if most drivers look up from their phones often enough to see other cars, let alone cyclists.

[BobbyJones]

My OP wasn't about if self-driving cars are better / worse than human drivers.

We all get in an uproar when a driver injures or kills a cyclist with seeming little to no legal repercussion.

With the assumption that if there is no human operator involved in an public setting (versus a controlled facility) and there is an injurious or fatal accident involving one of these vehicles (and there will be) where does the liability point?

My personal thoughts are that if you think we as cyclists and pedestrians got it bad now, just wait.

That's all.

[MattTuck]

I will take a robot over a coffee-swilling, iPhone-texting, suburban Range Rover pilot any day. Yes, I, for one, welcome our new robot car overlords.

I'm with you. They are coming. It isn't the robot cars that I'm worried about. It is the millions of people who make their livelihood driving vehicles everyday that I am worried about. I'm not sure there is a modern example that would compare to the economic displacement that is about to happen.

That said, we continue to face more crowded roads because we are growing in population faster than we're building roads. Perhaps technology is how to best dope with that, as building roads is pretty expensive, and we're already bankrupt as a nation.

Please see my fancy pictures below as evidence.

[seric]

I see nothing but benefits:

a) Ride sharing and transportation on demand will reduce the number of vehicles on the road, as well as reduce parked vehicles allowing for more room for cyclists.

b) Self driving cars will have plenty of data points to provide evidence for and determine fault in accidents.

c) I believe self driving cars are already much better drivers than the average person behind a wheel in any country I've visited.

d) I suspect the need to worry as much rather or not the car is insured will largely be nullified. I do not believe self-driving cars will be privately owned in anything but very rare cases. And fleet insurance will be well tracked.

e) Liability issues as indicated are not a foreign concept, and are already being dealt with. In some cases such as with Volvo, the manufacturer is contractually taking responsibility for any at fault accidents on behalf of the owner. In other cases, it's most similar to if someone gets injured on your property. If a homeowners property caused an injury, the homeowner is at fault and could potentially go after a contractor or other vender after the fact if some external workmanship or materials were at fault. This would not impact the ability of the injured to receive their claim in the meantime.

[MattTuck]

d) I suspect the need to worry as much rather or not the car is insured will largely be nullified. I do not believe self-driving cars will be privately owned in anything but very rare cases. And fleet insurance will be well tracked.


Also, think of all the people who make their livelihood in the auto insurance industry. They'll be displaced also.

[ColonelJLloyd]

It isn't the robot cars that I'm worried about. It is the millions of people who make their livelihood driving vehicles everyday that I am worried about. I'm not sure there is a modern example that would compare to the economic displacement that is about to happen.

Not sure what those people are going to do either, but I suspect the truck drivers and package delivery drivers won't be replaced until much later than the cabbies/uber drivers.

Also, think of all the people who make their livelihood in the auto insurance industry. They'll be displaced also.

What should we do after we think about it? Some jobs that don't require much analytical thinking or "human touch" are just gonna disappear. I mean, there used to be a whole lot more travel agents than there are today. I don't know what those folks are doing now, but I've never thought we should do something to protect that industry just because "jobs".

[raygunner]

I just read this article about self-driving cars:

https://backchannel.com/self-driving-cars-will-improve-our-cities-if-they-dont-ruin-them-2dc920345618#.uni5icwmm

[seric]

Human progress has always in large part been measured in our ability to use tools to make our work more efficient. From making tools out of rock to the combustion engine, all of these things had huge impacts on old definitions of skilled labor. It's lazy and selfish to bemoan such advances. It's the responsibility of all to constantly strive to find better uses for ourselves, no system in nature works via stagnation.

[Mark McM]

Not sure what those people are going to do either, but I suspect the truck drivers and package delivery drivers won't be replaced until much later than the cabbies/uber drivers.

Well, not all the truck drivers will be displaced, but perhaps their numbers will be reduced. In Europe, they are already testing "convoys" of multiple self-driving trucks, being led by a human driver in the lead truck.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/7/11383392/self-driving-truck-platooning-europe

[raygunner]

Hopefully in the future I can take a driver-less car to work & waste even more time on the Paceline forum!

[jemoryl]

I'm sure such cars will have a feature that prevents them from colliding with an object. So what if some people decide to stand in its way and not move? Lots of fun to be had with these cars!

[benb]

I think the self driving cars are going to end up being much much more careful around pedestrians and cyclists since their behavior is going to be programmed much more deliberately than the way most drivers behave.

There is one interesting thing I think we will see in terms of failures with this system and my prediction is there will be a period where there are some bugs in self driving cars when they encounter large crowds of other self driving cars. No one has tested 1000 of these things together on a freeway. I think we're going to have a hilarious occurrence at some point where they all just stop and decide they can't move cause it's too dangerous.

In terms of fear cycling I think the more logical fear is that when all the road vehicles are automated and they decide you can't drive your car yourself anymore they might just decide we can't ride our bikes on the road any more either under the argument that we'll be the most dangerous thing on the road at that due to our inferior human judgement.

[MattTuck]

What should we do after we think about it? Some jobs that don't require much analytical thinking or "human touch" are just gonna disappear. I mean, there used to be a whole lot more travel agents than there are today. I don't know what those folks are doing now, but I've never thought we should do something to protect that industry just because "jobs".

Human progress has always in large part been measured in our ability to use tools to make our work more efficient. From making tools out of rock to the combustion engine, all of these things had huge impacts on old definitions of skilled labor. It's lazy and selfish to bemoan such advances. It's the responsibility of all to constantly strive to find better uses for ourselves, no system in nature works via stagnation.

We clearly live in a period of transition. It is easy to say that we all need to strive for being better, but that is a platitude. There are real people who have real lives that are impacted by this. There are going to be many, many people whose livelihoods are destroyed by algorithms -- many have already been destroyed.

The policy makers (among others) got it very wrong when it came to companies out sourcing labor. I just hope they don't get it wrong when it comes to this.

The algorithms came first for the travel agents, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a travel agent; And then they came for the cab drivers, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a cab driver; And then they came for the teachers, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a teacher; And then . . . they came for me . . .


Don't get me wrong, I am all for progress. But, we (as a society) need to actually have a conversation, and tell people what is coming down the road (literally), and have a candid discussion about the implications. The big threat, as I see it, is that many of these algorithms concentrate the economic benefit in the hands of a very small number of people. And those that are left out are going to be angry. I don't think that social unrest is out of the question in the next 10 years, honestly.

I'm not sure what the solution is. The economist part of me thinks that a tax on algorithms, basically a tax on the externality (cost born by others, on a benefit that you receive) is something that should atleast be considered. There is a normal process of creative destruction in the economy. But it is unknown if the economy can absorb, in a reasonable time, the kind of numbers that we're talking about with autonomous cars.

If I had to condense my views on this down to a few sentences it is this: Progress does not benefit everyone equally, and we must consider the fact that there are real costs and hardships that some people will suffer as a result. To push blindly ahead, without a plan, is both callous (in the short term) and foolhardy (in the long term) because we are in uncharted waters. The population is bigger than ever before, the fiscal debt is bigger than ever before, the rate of technology adoption is greater than ever before and because of all this, the risks involved if we get it wrong are very bad. As a result, I think it worthwhile of careful thought to consider the 2nd and 3rd order effects in addition to the obvious impacts.

[Shortsocks]

Froome is driving for Uber now?

Lol. That's great! Thanks for that!

I agree. I'll take Froome/robot over a teenage girl loaded with birthcontrol, ADHD, iPhone any day. Bring on the Robots!

[54ny77]

and once that overhead is gone, surely the insurance company will lower their premiums to pass along the savings.....:rolleyes:

(well i guess they might if it's a mutual ins. co. and you get a dividend check.)

Also, think of all the people who make their livelihood in the auto insurance industry. They'll be displaced also.

[ColonelJLloyd]

If I had to condense my views on this down to a few sentences it is this: Progress does not benefit everyone equally, and we must consider the fact that there are real costs and hardships that some people will suffer as a result. To push blindly ahead, without a plan, is both callous (in the short term) and foolhardy (in the long term) because we are in uncharted waters. The population is bigger than ever before, the fiscal debt is bigger than ever before, the rate of technology adoption is greater than ever before and because of all this, the risks involved if we get it wrong are very bad. As a result, I think it worthwhile of careful thought to consider the 2nd and 3rd order effects in addition to the obvious impacts.

I agree with you; a serious plan has to be in place.

[rwsaunders]

Uber opened their advanced technologies group in Pittsburgh in early 2014 and I started noticing test cars on the streets this Spring.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/19/technology/uber-self-driving-cars/index.html

[Mark McM]

Don't get me wrong, I am all for progress. But, we (as a society) need to actually have a conversation, and tell people what is coming down the road (literally), and have a candid discussion about the implications. The big threat, as I see it, is that many of these algorithms concentrate the economic benefit in the hands of a very small number of people. And those that are left out are going to be angry. I don't think that social unrest is out of the question in the next 10 years, honestly.

And will this unrest be led by General Ludd (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Ludd)?

There were similar concerns and problems that came up during the Industrial Revolution, when western society lurched from being a rural, agrarian economy, into becoming an urban, industrial economy. Sure, there were social upheavals and strife, but it has largely worked itself out, mostly for the better.

As far as concentrating the economic benefit in the hands of a very small number of people, there were similar issues during the Industrial Revolution; only, it didn't cause the concentration, it merely shifted it. Previous to the Industrial Revolution, wealth was concentrated on a small number of aristocrats and landed gentry; after the Industrial Revolution, wealth was was largely shifted to the Industrialists. But interestingly, it also saw the growth of the middle classes.

Who will be the final beneficiaries of the Algorithm Revolution? That's yet to be seen, but currently it looks like it is tilting toward an entirely new class, the MegaNerds (ala Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, etc.)

[verticaldoug]

And will this unrest be led by General Ludd (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Ludd)?

the MegaNerds (ala Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, etc.)

The capital controllers with the right rolodex are always the ones that benefit.

Uber is smart bootstrapping the whole GM/CMU research that has been going on for years in Pittsburgh.

[verticaldoug]

Well, not all the truck drivers will be displaced, but perhaps their numbers will be reduced. In Europe, they are already testing "convoys" of multiple self-driving trucks, being led by a human driver in the lead truck.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/7/11383392/self-driving-truck-platooning-europe

You mean a railroad?

[unterhausen]

I don't see the point except as a publicity stunt. There is still a person sitting at the wheel. Self driving cars will not be really self driving until after I'm dead. Hopefully not run over by one of these cars, which is a real possibility

There is a video of another crash involving a volvo, didn't see it right off

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsTxS6tg6xc

The reason that rail doesn't displace trucks is that most truck trips are too short to be replaced by a rail trip. OTOH, I drive on I81 a lot and sometimes it looks like a train. Seems to me that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

My prediction is this: we are going to be in a battle to get everything off of the roads for these cars and trucks. They aren't going to work, they will cause accidents, and the masters of the universe that are too special to ride the buss will raise a stink. It seems to me that we should be investing in rail and last mile solutions. We are in an artificial oil glut right now, it's not going to last forever. When it blows up, we are still going to want to have trucking and farming to have oil. Ridiculous that we're looking for ways to waste oil.

[alancw3]

according to news yesterday uber will have self driving cars (vovlo xc90) in downtown pittsburgh by december and started testing this month:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-08-18/uber-s-first-self-driving-fleet-arrives-in-pittsburgh-this-month-is06r7on

[oldpotatoe]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/uber-autonomous-cars-haul-people-125127470.html?ref=gs


After reading this I thought about the legalities of this down the road (no pun intended). Especially as a cyclist.

Once these vehicles become truly autonomous, where does the burden of responsibility lie in the case of an accident?

I’m sure auto manufacturers and corporations can push legislature through making this doable, but what are the repercussions in the case of an accident? Where does the culpability lie?

It’s bad enough fighting with insurance companies in the case of accidents. Can you imagine getting another few layers of corporate evasion involved?

Think it's gonna be many moons before they are truly autonomous. Not that having some guy in the pilot's seat will make it automatically 'safer'.

"But since the technology has not been perfected, the cars will come with human backup drivers to handle any unexpected situations."

[unterhausen]

according to news yesterday uber will have self driving cars (vovlo xc90) in downtown pittsburgh by december and started testing this month:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-08-18/uber-s-first-self-driving-fleet-arrives-in-pittsburgh-this-month-is06r7on
google has millions more hours of self-driving cars than anyone else in the world. they say it's not ready. That tells me it's not ready, and all the other people are suffering from a bad case of hubris.

[bcroslin]

I will take a robot over a coffee-swilling, iPhone-texting, suburban Range Rover pilot any day. Yes, I, for one, welcome our new robot car overlords.

This. All day and forever.

[verticaldoug]

google has millions more hours of self-driving cars than anyone else in the world. they say it's not ready. That tells me it's not ready, and all the other people are suffering from a bad case of hubris.

They are taking a page from Elon Musk, a lot of hype. But the reality iby using CMU as a base, the car can probably drive in regular traffic. Pick-up/drop-off and any construction/unmapped road conditions goes back to person. If most of downtown is just a grid, probably not that challenging. I'd like to see one of these cars in westchester NY try to merge on Sprain off Parkway Rd right before rush hour. (you going to wait a long time unless you calculate the driver coming behind will actually slow)

If Google wanted to have a driver in their car, I am sure they could do this too. It is just the fully automated way is going to be much harder. And btw, google is good, but not necesarily the only game in town.

[Len J]

I Can't wait. The benefits IMO, far outweigh the disruption.

Len

[rwsaunders]

For those familiar with Pittsburgh, I followed one of the Uber test cars across the 31st bridge the other night...we were going exactly 25mph in a 25mph zone. If the driverless cars become really popular, COPS will be forced off the air as there will be nobody to film being pulled for driving erratically.

[christian]

If the driverless cars become really popular, COPS will be forced off the air as there will be nobody to film being pulled for driving erratically.

http://imgc-cn.artprintimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/94/9475/CFB6500Z/posters/paul-noth-does-your-car-have-any-idea-why-my-car-pulled-it-over-new-yorker-cartoon.jpg

[p nut]

Although....I can see the cyber terrorists licking their chops at this.

[seric]

Although....I can see the cyber terrorists licking their chops at this.

It is absolutely becoming a thing, complete with a Car Hacking Village at this years Defcon. I can say for Tesla at least that they do have a pretty good security team, and they are very responsive to any discovered vulnerabilities. My friend Marc Rogers made headlines by hacking the Model S. Tesla responded with patches quickly, and Marc still claims that Tesla's are the most secure vehicles he has seen.

It should also be noted, that many existing vehicles (most publicly Jeeps) can already be taken over or killed remotely by those with nefarious intent. These are not problems specific to Autonomous vehicles. I do not think we will see a case like with Stuxnet and PLC's. The players currently in the field for Autonomous Vehicles are well aware of the security risks rather early on. Tesla also has an active bug bounty program started by Kyle Osborn. (another local friend in the security community)

[binxnyrwarrsoul]

They are taking a page from Elon Musk, a lot of hype. But the reality iby using CMU as a base, the car can probably drive in regular traffic. Pick-up/drop-off and any construction/unmapped road conditions goes back to person. If most of downtown is just a grid, probably not that challenging. I'd like to see one of these cars in westchester NY try to merge on Sprain off Parkway Rd right before rush hour. (you going to wait a long time unless you calculate the driver coming behind will actually slow).

This. And how will they deal with snow, ice etc.? Can't wait for the youtube of one trying to get onto the Merritt whilst traffic is travelling at 65+ (in a 50 mph zone) with those wonderful entrance "ramps" from a dead stop.