That's not my position at all.
I'm turning that upside down.
What I'm asking is... IF the companies that develop this technology are so sure they could reduce accidents like that from 30000 down to 500... then why don't they put their money where their mouths are and take the blame for all remaining accidents if their technology is in charge?
IF they want me to use the technology and be unable to drive the car... then I don't want to be responsible for any accident that results from their technology in control. IF it is safer, maybe I could get used to it. I don't mind being in cars with other people driving that I trust... so if I learned to trust the technology it could be ok... BUT, don't have the technology glitch and drive me into an accident and then try to tell me the accident is my fault and I'm liable for it if I don't get to control the car.
That's my position.
And as an aside... I again say why make the claim that humans are "hugely" flawed and then be confident that those same humans can develop technology that will be more reliable than they are?
Take this from the point of view of a person who's been a computer programmer for over 40 years.
Testing. That's how you do it. Ever wonder how the Mars Rovers kept going 10 years into their 90-day mission? And that's exactly what Google is doing now. Unbelievable amount of testing. And when those are done - MORE testing.
I watched some programs on the DARPA challenge that had autonomous vehicles with NO databases run a course of over 150 miles depending on nothing but sensors as input - and this was 5 years ago.
Computers don't get tired. They don't drive when their girlfriends made them mad. They don't get drunk. They won't have blind spots and they can see through fog far better than we can. They won't fall asleep at the wheel. They won't mistake the gas pedal for the brake and plow through 10 people at a bus stop or drive through the front window of a pharmacy.
The companies that develop this aren't going to take the responsibility completely away from humans. After all, if "Freedom Industries" can avoid prosecution for poisoning over a quarter million people in WV by declaring bankruptcy, there's NO WAY a company will assume that liability.
As I said, I think the insurance companies will drive this with discounts - at least at first. What's likely to happen as this technology progresses is that, eventually, in the distant future, you will get hit with surcharges by your insurance company if you DON'T use auto-drive. It will not be a question of whether or not you trust the auto-drive hardware/software package, it'll be whether or not your insurance company trusts YOU more than, say, Google. The least reliable part in any car on the road is "the nut behind the wheel". Me? I have a pretty good track record in 35+ years of driving (3 low speed fender benders, nothing since the 1990s) but I know that I don't have the attention span of a computer. Redundant systems will take care of the problems that can arise from malfunctions.
Edited by djlong, 21 January 2014 - 05:09 PM.