SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Monday June 08 2015, @08:22AM
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
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
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
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.