Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Monday June 08 2015, @05:03AM   Printer-friendly
from the uninsured-self-drivers dept.

In response to reports that their self-driving cars have not been totally free from accidents, Google has created a webpage where it will publish monthly reports detailing all of the accidents that its self-driving cars are involved in.

The first report [PDF] includes summaries of all accidents since the start of the Google X project in 2009:

The report for May showed Google cars had been involved in 12 accidents since it first began testing its self-driving cars in 2009, mostly involving rear-ending. Google said one of its vehicles was rear-ended at a stoplight in California on Thursday, bringing the total count to 13 accidents.

"That could mean that the vehicles tend to stop more quickly than human drivers expect," public interest group Consumer Watchdog said. The group called for more details on the accidents, including statements from witnesses and other drivers.

None of these accidents were caused by a fault with the car, Google said.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Monday June 08 2015, @07:25AM

    by Non Sequor (1005) on Monday June 08 2015, @07:25AM (#193553) Journal

    If you get in an accident and contact a shyster lawyer, they file a suit against the other driver, their employer (f they were driving on the job or even driving to work in a work vehicle), the city, and whatever company last worked on the road where the accident occurred, and anyone else even tangentially involved.

    You can usually go fishing for "fault" and have a good chance at a settlement. Any self-driving car project is likely going to either need to be granted immunity from these lawsuits or it needs to have expected settlement costs priced in.

    I haven't seen anything that suggests that Google has picked up on this yet, although I would expect that car companies adding semi-automated features may be contemplating it.

    --
    Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by anubi on Monday June 08 2015, @07:52AM

    by anubi (2828) on Monday June 08 2015, @07:52AM (#193561) Journal

    I would think a Google car would be able to dump megabytes of images and data detailing exactly what happened and its response to it.

    My guess is ( barring some bad computer programming ) its going to be hard as hell to nail it on Google.

    I guess you have seen those saws they test by sticking a frankfurter ( simulating a finger ) up to them to see how fast they stop.

    I would not be surprised if a Google car stops for anything moving into its collision path. Much faster than a human could respond.

    It will probably not take long for the motoring public to learn to not tailgate a Google car - and that Google cars will honor the exact letter of the law down to the tiniest nit.

    If anything, I could see people taunting a Google car so as to force it to obstruct traffic and annoy the passenger.

    --
    "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
    • (Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Monday June 08 2015, @08:22AM

      by Non Sequor (1005) on Monday June 08 2015, @08:22AM (#193570) Journal

      Any actual trial would be based on subjective decisions relative to tests prescribed by case law for determining if the defendant took appropriate measures to prevent the accident. My understanding is that these do reflect cost-to-benefit analysis on a subjective basis. The trial result depends on the jury's judgment of how the facts of the case as presented relate to the tests given by the judge.

      It's a crap shoot basically, although to some that's a hard problem to avoid. Regardless, the fact that there are always more measures that can be taken to improve safety, you can't preemptively resolve the issue with data. The data supports your side of the case, but it doesn't lock it down.

      Whoops, and I forgot to mention it's cheaper to settle than to go to court anyways. These plaintiffs will typically accept a settlement priced based on this. It's disproportionately expensive to go to trial with these cases just for the sake of discouraging them.

      --
      Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
      • (Score: 1) by Dr Spin on Monday June 08 2015, @09:15AM

        by Dr Spin (5239) on Monday June 08 2015, @09:15AM (#193584)

        As a general rule, "trial by jury" involves the use af a jury: 12 people probably with very limited grasp of any relevant concept and a deep wish to be elsewhere. You may get justice, or anything else could happen.

        Google needs to invent serious money in taking down "lawyers are us" and all similar organized scumbags. (including patent trolls).

        --
        Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday June 08 2015, @07:09PM

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 08 2015, @07:09PM (#193767) Journal

        If Google becomes known as an easy mark, it will cost them a lot more then being known as someone who will fight to the last penny, unless you have a prima facie case.

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
        • (Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Monday June 08 2015, @10:53PM

          by Non Sequor (1005) on Monday June 08 2015, @10:53PM (#193852) Journal

          Existing situations with similar dynamics haven't gone towards a deterrence based equilibrium. What makes Google different?

          Patent disputes may be a situation where you could say the equilibrium matches your prediction of aggressive and costly defense to avoid shakedowns. That situation is different in that the attackers tend to be somewhat larger and more heavily invested in single cases, where in the accident liability cases the attackers are smaller and less heavily invested in single cases.

          --
          Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by t-3 on Monday June 08 2015, @08:53AM

      by t-3 (4907) on Monday June 08 2015, @08:53AM (#193575)

      Worse than taunting, I can see people intentionally causing accidents and fucking over self driving cars. Aside from the stuff weather and nature throws at cars all time, intentional human malice is a huge problem. I can't wait for the day when I see criminals fuck over cops by throwing shit out the window.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday June 08 2015, @12:35PM

    by bradley13 (3053) on Monday June 08 2015, @12:35PM (#193614) Homepage Journal

    This is what no fault insurance is for. There may need to be some tweaks to make it work for autonomous vehicles, but basically: if you get in an accident, your insurance pays your costs and the other person's insurance pays their costs.

    Civil "get rich quick" suits files by shyster lawyers? That's mostly an American problem, and easily fixed by two things. First, switch to "loser pays", so that you can't play the lottery for free. Second, US courts need to be much more willing to penalize shyster lawyers. Look at Prenda [wikipedia.org]: More than two years after a court was finally willing to call them on their dirty little game, they still have not had their day of reckoning. They haven't paid their fines yet, they haven't been disbarred; in fact, they are busily pursuing new, equally shady shakedown schemes [techdirt.com].

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.