SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the avoiding-accidents-is-dangerous-driving dept.
BBC reports that according to Dmitri Dolgov, lead software engineer for Google's driverless car project, Google's self-driving cars are programmed to exceed speed limits by up to 10 mph when surrounding vehicles are breaking the speed limit, because going more slowly could actually present a danger. In many countries, including the United States, the speed limit is a rather nebulous thing. It's posted, but on many roads hardly anybody obeys it.
Almost every driver speeds regularly, and anybody going at or below the limit on a clear road outside the right lane is typically an obstruction to traffic—they will find themselves being tailgated or passed at high speed on the left and right. A ticket for going 1 mph over the limit is an extremely rare thing and usually signals a cop with another agenda or a special day of zero-tolerance enforcement. In fact, many drivers feel safe from tickets up to about 9 mph over the limit. Tickets happen there, but the major penalties require going faster, and most police like to go after that one weaving, racing guy who thinks the limit does not apply to him. Commenting on Google self-drive cars' ability to exceed the speed limit, a Department for Transport spokesman said: "There are no plans to change speed limits, which will still apply to driverless cars".
(Score: 5, Interesting) by MrGuy on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:19PM
I'm struck by the parallel of "who gets the ticket if a driverless car is speeding" is similar to the dubious legal theory on which red light camera citations are issued.
There's no law (in any jurisdiction I'm aware of) that makes it a crime to OWN a car that violates a traffic law. The crime is to DRIVE a car in violation of traffic laws. You ticket the driver of the car, not the owner.
However, as (to date) facial recognition technology is poor, and red light cameras focus on the rear of the car (to get the plate number), it's somehow been established that you can hold the owner of a car responsible for how it's driven, even absent proof of who is at the wheel at the time. IANAL, but this has always struck me as problematic when it bumps up against the "due process" clause of the constitution combined with the 5th amendment - a red light camera can't tell you who was driving, and the 5th amendment establishes you cannot compel the owner of a car to admit to driving the car, nor can you use the refusal to testify against themself as proof of guilt.
But I digress - who SHOULD be responsible when a self-driving car commits a traffic violation? The owner, even if they're not present? The passenger, even if they're not in control of the car at the time? The company that made the car?
And what happens if it's not speeding - what if the collision avoidance camera fails, the failsafe doesn't detect it, and the car hits a small child who ran out into traffic. Is the owner of the car guilty of vehicular manslaughter?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:29PM
WRT red lights the legal analogy that's traditionally rolled out is parking violations.
The biggest legal problem is proving its your car. So you ticket me in downtown NYC while my car is parked at work in Chicago. What happens next? Probably nothing good, at least not good to me.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by quacking duck on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:31PM
Re: red light and speed cameras... Insurance holds the owner ultimately responsible for giving the keys to whoever is driving the car (except if it's stolen, of course), so why not the law?
The law at least draws the line at a fine for violations on camera, so moving violations don't result in any demerit points like you'd get if caught by cop (that's how it works where I live, anyway).
(Score: 5, Informative) by MrGuy on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:41PM
Insurance holds the owner ultimately responsible for giving the keys to whoever is driving the car (except if it's stolen, of course), so why not the law?
Only for damages. If I get a speeding ticket, MY insurance rates go up, regardless of whose car I was driving. But insurance is a contractual agreement between two parties (the owner of a car and the insurance company). They can write the contract however they want (well, technically not - insurance is heavily regulated, but the point is insurance is governed by contract law).
To your question of "why shouldn't the law work like insurance comapnies?" the answer is "because that's how the law works." To make out a criminal complaint against an individual (and while they're misdemeanors, traffic charges are criminal charges), you need prima facia evidence that the person being charged committed the crime. And the laws related to the crimes in question (with respect to the crimes in question) relate to the DRIVER of a car. You cannot establish a criminal case against someone for driving a car in violation of the law without providing evidence that the individual charged was in fact driving the car.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by BasilBrush on Wednesday August 20 2014, @10:49PM
In the UK the way it's dealt with is that speeding tickets are not a criminal matter. The are classed as "fixed penalties", which are civil matters. They can become criminal matters if you choose not to deal with them and go to court. Additionally there's a law which says that if the vehicle gets a fixed penalty notice, you have an obligation to tell the authorities who was driving if it wasn't you. So there's no legal avenue for saying "I wasn't driving and I'm not going to say who was."
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 21 2014, @06:39AM
Once someone I know let someone else drive his car (this is in the U.S.). The driver crossed a red light illegally and a ticket came in the mail from one of those ticket cameras. When the owner went to fight it the authorities insisted the owner was the driver based on the photo. The judge also agreed. The owner kept insisting he wasn't the driver. The judge said the driver sure looks like the owner. The owner said he couldn't have been the driver because he was the passenger. So they took a look at the picture of the passenger and, sure enough, it was the owner. The driver wasn't the owner. Case closed. However, they couldn't really go after the driver because the driver was from overseas and had an international license. The driver was no longer in the United States. So the court just dropped the case. In such a case what could they do?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by monster on Thursday August 21 2014, @10:30AM
Put him on the terrorist list.
Now, on a more serious note, it's the same case that happens in Europe with foreign cars: Either the police stops the car, identifies the driver, issues the ticket and gets it paid or it ends being not economical to enforce it (more money spent in the proceedings than got with the ticket). It may suck, but that's life.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by migz on Wednesday August 20 2014, @05:11PM
The Gubberment does not care about your safety. It only wants you to obey, and pay.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday August 20 2014, @05:50PM
But traffic cops don't like dealing with accidents caused by people driving significantly under prevailing speed in any lane.
Some will tell you "8, your great, 9 your mine", and if you are keeping up with traffic in your lane they are not going to single you out. Basic rule of thumb is limit plus 10% and nobody will bother you.
In virtually every state cops will give you a ticket for religiously adhering to the speed limit in anything but the rightmost lane, and the ticket will be for "lane travel" (being in wrong lane for your slower speed).
In some states the law is "keep right except to pass". But most states have realized this leads to constant lane changing, and have revised their laws to say "slower traffic keep right". There is a subtle difference, but it translates to fewer tickets.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Wednesday August 20 2014, @07:30PM
There's no law (in any jurisdiction I'm aware of) that makes it a crime to OWN a car that violates a traffic law.
In the UK there is a law making it a crime to not tell the police who was driving at a specific time.
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Wednesday August 20 2014, @09:41PM
Fair enough. In the US, such a law would be illegal under the 5th amendment.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday August 22 2014, @09:32PM
The UK has similar protections in law. It's ignored by the court, just as the U.S. courts ignore the constitution.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday August 20 2014, @10:21PM
Several states, mine included, have deemed red light cameras unconstitutional.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by mrider on Wednesday August 20 2014, @10:30PM
(Only addressing part of your post...)
My wife got a red-light camera ticket, which in retrospect we should have fought because it was partially caused by a too-short yellow (she was turning left at an uncontrolled intersection). They take a picture through the windshield of the driver's face as well as a picture of the license. That city has since removed all the cameras because it's in an area near a university, and the students are historically very politically active.
So if someone other than the registered owner is driving, then a simple visit to the DMV with the picture and a statement of "does this look like me?" will suffice to get it cleared.
As a motorcyclist that wears a darkened shield on my helmet most of the time, all I have to say is good luck getting a picture of my face! :)
Doctor: "Do you hear voices?"
Me: "Only when my bluetooth is charged."
(Score: 1) by Wootery on Wednesday August 20 2014, @11:17PM
Well, not the owner, obviously, any more than you would be guilty of murder if I killed someone with your crowbar.
If the car is totally without human driving override, then clearly the responsibility is will the organisation that built the car. If a dangerously faulty aircraft autopilot causes trouble, we blame the organisation that made the autopilot.
The person in the car might be able to reconfigure the car's destination, but suppose having it change speed were entirely out of their control. If that's the case, they really are just a passenger, the same way they'd be a passenger if a taxi driver were at the wheel.
If there is manual override, I'd say the responsibility is shared, but it's less clear-cut. There's no taxi driver analogy there.
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Wednesday August 20 2014, @11:40PM
And hence my original post comparing the situation to red light cameras, which take PRECISELY this legal theory - the owner of the car is presumed guilty of crimes committed by a driver of the car, regardless of whether they were the driver or not.
And if you think the government is going to prosecute Google (or any other car manufacturer) for manslaughter, you're dreaming. Heck, it's not even really possible - who would go to jail if you DID convict Google of "murder."
We're very close to Asimovian territory here, where there's going to need to be a whole lotta law and a whole lotta precedent regarding criminal law and autonomous devices (self driving cars, piloted and unpiloted drones, etc.)
I'm betting on any "crimes" being committed by autonomous devices get classified as "industrial accidents." And trial lawyers are going to have a field day with the notion of joint and several liability for civil damages - you only have to be a little negligent as the maker of an autonomous car to get sued. Then the big car manufacturers whine to congress, and there's a big shield law passed, provided the autonomous cars pass some notional standard set by an NHTS-like body (which the manufacturers can continually lobby to lower their standards). And on and on we go...
(Score: 1) by Wootery on Thursday August 28 2014, @03:29PM
Agree - this isn't so different to those 'old' issues that it's likely to be treated differently.