Who's driving Miss Daisy?

[old man emu]

Recent work in the field of the application of Artificial Intelligence to the operation of vehicles on public roads has outdistanced Society's ability to deal with the negative ramifications of the absence of direct human control over that operation. In other words, the Law hasn't caught up with the technology that is used to "drive" a vehicle.

 

The application of Artificial Intelligence to the operation of vehicles on public roads has given rise to the "autonomous vehicle. An autonomous vehicle is able to operate without being controlled directly by humans. There are six levels of autonomous driving, ranging from zero where there is no automation (think of the cars most of us here learned to drive on) to full automation where An automated driving system performs all aspects of the dynamic driving task under all roadway and environment conditions that can be managed by a human driver, without inputs from the humans travelling in the vehicle to the driving task.

 

What is the current legal definition of "driving"? In Australia we accept the definition given by an English judge in 1974: To “drive” refers to a person using the driver’s controls for the purpose of directing the movement of the vehicle. The essence of driving is the use of the driver’s controls in order to direct the movement, however movement is produced. That was quite clear before the arrival of autonomous vehicles which remove the "person" from the use of the vehicle's controls.

 

One of many questions to be determined in the future is "When does a person cease to be the driver when the vehicle is fully autonomous?" Could it be that the human who brings an autonomous vehicle into operation but doing something necessary for the vehicle to operate (pressing the <START BUTTON>), which is using the controls for the purpose of directing the movement of the vehicle, remain the driver throughout the journey and is therefore liable for any collision or breach of the road rules? 

 

If the vehicle is wholly autonomous and the human occupants are simply passengers, having no ability to control the vehicle apart from deciding on the destination, who then is the :driver" at Law? Who has the duty of care for the safe operation of the vehicle?

[spacesailor]

Were would be the ' Fun ' . in " driving miss Daisy " or your lover to a picnic,

I enjoy driving,  

IF , We ever go that far to be " obsolete  " it will a great shame.

The same as travelling in a vehicle without windows. (It's the journeynot the destination ) .

Or , walking through flower gardens without the smell .

Horses are ' obsolete ' ( as transport ) but people still ride , for fun .

spacesailor

 

[facthunter]

Modern vehicles have more "Horses" than ever. There's plenty of Horse$#!t about vehicles out there..  Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/self-driving-vehicles-set-to-be-on-roads-by-2026-as-automated-vehicles-act-becomes-law

[old man emu]

46 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/self-driving-vehicles-set-to-be-on-roads-by-2026-as-automated-vehicles-act-becomes-law

I am aware of that bit of legislation. 

 

The act delivers the most comprehensive legal framework of its kind worldwide, setting out who is liable for AVs meaning that drivers can be assured that, while their vehicle is in self-driving mode, they will not be held responsible for how the vehicle drives. For the first time, corporations such as insurance providers, software developers and automotive manufacturers can assume this responsibility. 

 

This creates a conflict between the Criminal and Civil Law. In Australia at present, if a driver has a collision whilst intoxicated, driving dangerously or driving a a speed dangerous to the public, the driver commits a criminal offence. It is highly likely that the insurer of the vehicle would deny any claim since the results of criminal act are not insurable. With the English law, if the autonomous vehicle is the cause of a collision, who is to be held accountable in the criminal sphere? I imagine that claims for restitution of damages would be met, but it seems that there is no offence in the criminal sphere for the failure of the vehicle.

[Jerry_Atrick]

I don't think it does. If fully autonomous mode is engaged even when the driver is drunk, if there is no further input from the driver, then they are not driving.  They are merely a passenger. There will be edge cases - for example a driver is driving whilst drunk or speeding  and then puts the car in charge during an impossible situation for the car to safely avoid, etc.. in which case liability is likely to fall on the driver, but normally once the car is engaged, it is making all the decisions... if it speeds or drives dangerously (it is hardly likely to be drinking), then would not any criminal liability fall on those deemed driving the car? 

 

The corporations may not have points deducted from their licence, but they could be punished - fines and those under the management regime may be denied liberty?

Edited July 15 by Jerry_Atrick

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

 If fully autonomous mode is engaged even when the driver is drunk, if there is no further input from the driver, then they are not driving.

There I've got you in a situation where the current law in Australia holds that "driving" means operating a vehicle's systems to get it to move. How would you interpret this situation: An intoxicated person gets into an autonomous vehicle and presses the <START BUTTON> which initiates the vehicle's operating systems. The driver then provides the operating system with a destination, and from there the vehicle commences the journey and the intoxicated driver falls asleep and makes no further action to control the vehicle until it reached the destination, wakes up the person who hits then <STOP BUTTON> and gets out. There's two instances of operating the vehicle's systems.

 

As may be implied, there  are lots of dollars in this autonomous vehicle business for the legal eagles. I simply would not be the poor Common Man whose appeal to a higher court set the basis for the legal precedent.

[octave]

OME I think that using the current law in relation to self-driving cars of course presents some problems.  The thing is that self-driving cars are not yet legal in this country The legal framework is being developed.  NTC Policy Paper - regulatory framework for automated vehicles in Australia  I have not read this document yet but I will. 

 

There have been many times in history when new technologies have presented us with legal and other conundrums.    I guess in the earliest days of aviation it would have been hard to imagine the legal framework we now have.   I certainly don't think we are ready to put autonomous cars on the road in a widespread way however it will come.  Of course, old laws (in all sorts of areas) have to change as technology changes. With the advent of the internet new laws were created and this continues.

 

My understanding is that it is expected that car companies will assume liability. I believe Volvo amongst other companies have stated that it will take responsibility.

 

I am all for autonomous driving although as with any technology, there will be pros and cons.  

 

If autonomous vehicles can be built that can operate as safe or safer than a human driver then we surely are smart enough to draw up the rules and regulations to allow it to happen. It is too important not to do. Many people will say that they"like driving" and they don't see the point however many people can't drive perhaps due to disability or age.  Many older people should not be driving but have little choice.

 

 

[facthunter]

There's quite a few drivers who are not suited to drive anything due to their temperament. Do WE have to be "encouraged" to go autonomous because of the worst drivers?  That's a sort of "big brother" thing that can be philosophically challenging. Some people like driving and piloting Planes or sailing boats.. The bakers Cart was a semi Autonomous vehicle drawn by a Big Clydesdale who moved on the next house without being controlled. Fresh baked and still warm bread to the HOME. Paid for with Bread cartons. That's quality of life.  Nev

[old man emu]

13 minutes ago, octave said:

OME I think that using the current law in relation to self-driving cars of course presents some problems.

Too true. I don't have the answers, and I'm sure that they will come. My reason for creating this discussion was to open the topic to discussion of how society will treat the liability for a person's actions in using such vehicles. I'm happy to accept that one day, the wrinkles in the autonomous vehicle fabric will have been ironed out, either by the software developers or the Courts. But who will be responsible, probably in civil litigation, when something does go wrong. Afterall, nothing manmade is perfect.

[facthunter]

The Courts ironing out wrinkles?? It just applies the LAW which most know is an ass. You depend on sensors and system logic. What back ups are there? It has to solve it's own  serviceability issues What duplication is designed into it? it's a tall order. Operating in a fairly hostile environment.  Mud, fog, Ice foreign objects. The logic has to  anticipate a lot of problems and there will be some that were not anticipated. That happens all the time with such things. Nev

[octave]

13 minutes ago, old man emu said:

My reason for creating this discussion was to open the topic to discussion of how society will treat the liability for a person's actions in using such vehicles.

Yep, having poked around the net I might suggest that planning may be more advanced than you think.  There are robot taxis operating in the US so I imagine the issues are being addressed as they occur just like in aviation.  Planning is underway in this country.     https://www.ntc.gov.au/transport-reform/ntc-projects/av-safety-reform

 

13 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Do WE have to be "encouraged" to go autonomous because of the worst drivers? 

I imagine that the adoption of autonomous cars will be similar to the adoption of EVs. You wont be forced to buy one.   At some point in time when autonomous cars have a lower accident rate they will be cheaper to insure.

 

  At first, I imagine that many of us won't be able to afford one until the price comes down.

 

It is not just a case of outright bad drivers. My father drove for well over 60 years and did not have one accident, not even a fender bender. When he was 80 I don't believe he still had the ability to drive safely.  Sometime later the doctor pulled his licence but because of where he lived I think the doc felt sorry for him and gave it back.   All of us will most likely get to this stage. 

4 minutes ago, facthunter said:

You depend on sensors and system logic.

Yes, that is true. I would agree that landing a plane with sensors and logic is probably easier but it is only a matter of time before this technology is safer than a human.  We have not reached the limits of technology.    Autonomous cars are already operating in some places so it is not impossible. 

[red750]

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/12/tech/dominos-pizza-delivery-robot/index.html

[red750]

This report is dated March 2016, announcing comencement of a trial in Brisane. Haven't heard of it since,

 

https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/retail/dominos-launches-worldfirst-technology-to-shake-up-the-delivery-game/news-story/408a58fe56bdc6547ae23cc6cc2983d4

[onetrack]

If someone got into an autonomous car, pressed the "start" button, and all the automation took over, it would be a brave legal claim to try and say the person sitting in the car is in control.

 

It surely wouldn't be too hard to decide who was in control at any particular time frame in a crash? These things are full of sensors, and no doubt, recording devices, too.

 

If the driver took back control via some method of cancelling the automated driving, then that would be recorded and traceable, too.

[spacesailor]

Autominus vehicles. 

Driverless trains & Trams .

Why not ban all private 'cars ' from cities. Make commuter's use that public transport. 

 we ' can ' have firearms,  only if , you are a club member. 

Such is life .

spacesailor

 

[old man emu]

I had a bit of a thought drift about this subject. I wondered what benefits to the well-being of Mankind there would be if the effort to perfect autonomous vehicles was directed instead into non-transport areas.

[octave]

I guess we could ask that question about many areas of human endeavour.  The question presupposes that the car companies developing these technologies would spend their time and effort in some other area if they ceased working on autonomous vehicles.   Tesla and Volvo and all the others are working on a technology that they believe they will have a market for.  There are humans working on advancements in many many areas, we can do more than one thing at once.

 

 I think the benefits of autonomous cars when sufficiently developed are great.  As I mentioned before there is an obvious benefit to the elderly and disabled.    Autonomous vehicles will only succeed once they are safer than human drivers, indeed I suspect that they would have to be many times safer. So there is a benefit, less carnage on the road    In the more distant future autonomous vehicles that can communicate with each other greatly reducing traffic jams and even the need for traffic lights.

 

OME if you for some medical reason you had your licence revoked would you be able to survive with public transport or friends and relatives driving you everywhere?   We can disagree about priorities however I don't think we can write off autonomous vehicles as not improving people's lives.  A disabled person being able to use their own private transport rather than perhaps unreliable taxis and Uber and public transport.

 

As I said earlier autonomous vehicles will only be accepted if they are many times safer than human drivers.  If they are not safer then they will fail if they are safer then the benefit to humans can be measured in lives saved and injuries avoided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 15 by octave

[old man emu]

10 hours ago, octave said:

OME if you for some medical reason you had your licence revoked would you be able to survive with public transport or friends and relatives driving you everywhere? 

It is a present worry for me that my car might fail me, leaving me 10 kms from town with no other means of transport but to hitchhike. And that would only take me to a small town that lacks the facilities and variety of retail choices of the closest rural city. 

[octave]

Just now, old man emu said:

It is a present worry for me that my car might fail me, leaving me 10 kms from town with no other means of transport but to hitchhike. And that would only take me to a small town that lacks the facilities and variety of retail choices of the closest rural city. 

It is a problem for many people.  My parents bought a house in a retirement village about 5 km from town.  This proved to be a bad move with respect to transport once they ceased driving.  There was no public transport and taxis often took ages to turn up and often didn't turn up all.  This did feed into decisions around going into aged care.

 

   There is a sliding scale of driver automation from nothing through cruise control to adaptive cruise control to lane keeping to automatic emergency braking to full self-driving.  All of these steps have the potential to make driving safer and to perhaps allow people to keep their licences just a little longer as they age.  I think we are some time away from mass fully autonomous driving. 

[old man emu]

1 minute ago, octave said:

All of these steps have the potential to make driving safer and to perhaps allow people to keep their licences just a little longer as they age.

I agree that a fully autonomous vehicle would be ideal for the aged or disabled, but here's the problem. How many people of, say, 80+ years would have the money to be able to purchase such a vehicle. The majority of people that age are just keeping their heads above the financial low water mark.

[octave]

Just now, old man emu said:

I agree that a fully autonomous vehicle would be ideal for the aged or disabled, but here's the problem. How many people of, say, 80+ years would have the money to be able to purchase such a vehicle. The majority of people that age are just keeping their heads above the financial low water mark.

I agree, it will be some time before the price drops or that all cars are autonomous.   I don't think autonomous driving is only for the elderly or disabled.  We moved from inner Melbourne to Geelong 6 years ago to retire although we had to commute into inner Melbourne for the first 18 months. The drive in and out at rush hour was harrowing.  We used to work west of the city and when we would leave the western freeway we could see the 4 lanes of traffic crawling into the city and we wondered how people could do this day after day, year after year.

A couple of years ago I had a chat with a Geelong man who had recently bought a Tesla. He worked in Melbourne.  His commute had become much less stressful because although he still had to monitor the car it would take care of staying in its lane or lane changing where necessary and not running into the back of the car in front.

 

To be clear I am not saying that we are ready for mass adoption yet but unless you take the view that we have reached the end of technological advances or that we should just stop technological progress then it will happen if enough people want to adopt it.

 

If it was available now and I could afford it and it proved to be safe I would be up for it. About 4 times a year we have to travel to Adelaide.  There are a couple of ways we get to the airport.   Mostly we take the train into Melbourne (1 hour) and then Skybus (30 minutes and $19 each) We usually work out depending on how long we will be away for and work out the price of public transport Vs driving and paying for long-term parking. If in the future my car could drop me off and then return home and pick me up when I get back, I would be all for it.  I don't believe this will happen at a reasonable price in my lifetime but I think it would be a bold call to say never.

[spacesailor]

Medical reasons for " licence '' lose .

NSW , it is " age " . At 85 the government pulls your licence , then you sit a test to redeem it . Or if your fail you walk home from that testing station. 

Age discrimination. 

spacesailor

 

[Marty_d]

56 minutes ago, old man emu said:

I agree that a fully autonomous vehicle would be ideal for the aged or disabled, but here's the problem. How many people of, say, 80+ years would have the money to be able to purchase such a vehicle. The majority of people that age are just keeping their heads above the financial low water mark.

We need a new financial model.  Let's face it, if cars have the ability to be autonomous, why leave it parked in your garage all day?
People who do own them could hook up to ride-sharing apps where their car is used in a local area as an on-demand Uber type thing.  That way, anyone wanting to get from A to B can do so for a smaller cost than taxi or Uber (as there's no human driver involved).

Plus that bonus of not having to make awkward conversation with the driver.

[spacesailor]

There's a European city, that does that , with bicycles. 

Just use the first one available. 

No thought about the last person who  left it,  to get directions. 

spacesailor