One of the greatest technological revolutions of our time may be fast approaching, and has the potential to completely upturn the transportation industry in a way not seen since the advent of the 'horseless carriage'. With the advent and slow-but-steady progress on driverless vehicles of all types, from massive cargo and shipping trucks able to deliver goods across country pausing only to recharge their batteries, to personal taxi services which may eliminate personal vehicle ownership, the future of our roadways looks strikingly different than that seen today. However, this progress doesn't come without great debate: everything from legality and legislation to questions of moral philosophy have been raised.
With LYFTs initial public offering having arrived at the end of march, it's clear that the concept of driverless vehicles isn't merely a technological fad - as part of an industry now worth billions, these companies such as Lyft and Uber have major stakes in pushing for the continued progress towards (and full legalization) of driverless vehicles. Having the ability to command a fleet of "robocars to navigate city streets alone so they can offer rides 24-7 without having human drivers share their takings"is a key part of these ride-sharing companies' business strategies, but many are increasingly concerned with the safety of passengers and other travelers. Legislation is struggling to keep up with the rapid development of technology, and initial testing has received some setbacks, even among its customers. Regarding a Phoenix-based test, “Almost 40 percent of Waymo’s customers registered complaints in reviews seen by the publication, from wrong turns to near-crashes". However, some of these companies argue that their cars still produce less accidents/crashes than an average driver does, and as such continue to push for accelerated testing and lax laws surrounding it.
Considering these facts, I think a few important questions are raised:
- If, in the future, the technology is capable of producing less accidents than a human driver, couldn't the argument be made that it would be unethical to not allow these cars on the road in order to replace human drivers, thus lowering the number of overall collisions?
- In your opinion, how should laws be crafted regarding who is at-fault if harm comes to the passenger even if the 'robocar' is not at fault? Would the company have a responsibility to insure its passengers, or would it still fall to the at-fault driver of the other vehicle?
- Should these companies be allowed to go forward with accelerated testing, even if it bears an increased risk to the public for the sake of more rapid development to hopefully lower traffic collisions and congestion in the future? Is there a hard-line to be drawn at some point (and if so, what might that point be)?
Hi Grady,
ReplyDeleteGreat Post! I do find the concept of driverless cars to be fascinating. It is funny to see politicians debate over one or two crashes of a driverless car, when thousands of accidents involving people happen over the same time span. The safety aspect does concern me, but it shouldn't be the whole argument that is often talked about today.
1) I agree! I think if it would result in a safer environment then it has to be done. We trust machines to deliver our goods, pay us, and do many other daily facts but still we as a society have not fully embraced automation. Whether that is due to the hysteria that movies like iRobot or Transformers have caused or something else would be interesting to find out.
2) That is an interesting question. I believe that a company has to have insurance to cover its drivers and their passengers and this would likely be no different. In the case in-which you are discussing, the insurance company that covers the person at fault would have to pay.
3) I think testing can and should be done in a safe environment. It shouldn't be deployed until they are confident that people won't be injured. While traffic collisions and congestion aren't fun to be in, they don't cause physical harm to anyone.
Hi Grady,
ReplyDeleteI think this is a great topic. With futuristic and self driving cars, such as the Tesla, you make a great point that ride-share companies such as Lyft and Uber want to jump on the movement.
To answer your first question, I do believe your argument is valid, and that if self-driving cars cause less accidents than human error, it would be overall safer. This, of course, would need rigorous testing and laws to allow such technologies on the road.
For your second question, I will refer again to my previous statement about human error. If the self-driving car is as advanced as it is, it would show that their was either an error or not during a post-crash inspection. Therefore, if there was no error made by the self-driving car, the other driver should be at fault (in my opinion). The biggest hassle with car accidents are the “he said, she said” claims. Self-driving cars should be smart and capable enough to record this type of information during an accident.
Your last question is more difficult to answer. I suppose since many self-driving cars have already been tested on high-traffic roads and locations, technology should be advanced enough to keep pursuing accelerated testing.