Hi Mike, If we posit a situation where driverless technology has become so reliable that accidents are almost unknown, then I agree the ethical & legal issues would disappear. In this scenario cars would no longer be fitted with manual controls and would be able to go anywhere, say for example, along a winding, unmarked dirt road up the side of a mountain. Why? Because the technology would perform much better than a human driver.
However the technology at this point is obviously far from that. In the case of the recent accident the Tesla ran into a truck turning in front of it at a T-intersection in broad daylight, surely a very basic avoidance situation. Leaving aside details of the low-level technology and the feasibility of the ultimate goal, I think the issues various people have alluded to in this thread relate to the interim situation which exists between now and then, and how they might be addressed. Personally I think it'll be a long time, the technological, ethical, and legal devils are certainly in the detail Best wishes! (I believe we both worked for a certain now-defunct computer company of good memory!! A book could be written about that...) David ------- On 2016-07-14 19:05 Michael wrote: > On 14 July 2016 at 18:13, David Lochrin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > <snip> > > The core question is to what extent people are to be held responsible for > > their actions. Is a driverless car which kills someone the responsibility > > of the owner, the maunfacturer, the agency which approved it, or nobody? > > > > I think we can answer this. > Consider the simple cruise control feature of modern cars. > If you engage it, then carelessly collide with somebody, you cannot > reasonably argue that the manufacturer or government is to blame for > allowing the tool. > Now consider an advanced cruise control that provides steering and breaking > in some circumstances. Again, we can simply state the driver is responsible > if they do not take adequate care in its operation. > > Extrapolate to a circumstance where the car effectively does all the > driving and the person in the front seat is really just a passenger, yet > they retain a steering wheel, brakes etc. > Even if the driver lets the car drive itself 100% of the time, we can still > hold the driver responsible for making that choice should the robot driver > drive poorly because we expect the human to be supervising. > > Extrapolate yet again to a future where self-driving cars have dramatically > lowered road crash incidence, and everyone places almost complete faith in > their superior driving ability. Perhaps the mechanism is as reliable as an > automatic transmission is today. We don't insist on a manual clutch in case > the auto transmission fails. We, rightly, expect it to perform flawlessly > all the time. But on rare occasions, auto transmissions do fail. And it is > possible that failure might cause an accident. > > Such a circumstance needn't hold the manufacturer liable, if they were not > negligent, and would be highly unlikely to see the driver charged, as an > unforeseen mechanical failure of such rarity can't be readily blamed on the > driver's negligence. For calculations of fault, etc. we would likely agree > the driver's insurance must pay for repairs, medical bills etc. But being > 'at fault' does not mean the driver was negligent. > > So I can see a circumstance where insurers absorb the risk of a failed > robot driver mechanism as part of the bundle of risks they insure against. > And I can also see them clamouring to do so, if indeed the robot drivers > prove safer over time. > > Best regards, > Michael Skeggs > _______________________________________________ > Link mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link > > _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
