Driveless car bill signed in California?
Discussion
Not sure if anyone else has started a thread on this recent news yet but if not
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19726951
Nevada have already licenced Google for trials http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18012812 but this seems to be rules for ANY driveless car.
Its finally happening although its only the requirement to draft the legislation by 2015 not the legislation itself but it'll be very interesting to watch as they have lead the way with the 'Co2' car push and it will likely follow on in other places.
I suspect the issue of liability will be the main one to sort out as Google themselves say it will still require a licenced driver behind the wheel in case of emergencies but no clarification of if they can be sober/concious/alert or not.
Big losers from this - hotels and taxis - no need to get a taxi home, and no need to book a hotel if you can sleep in the car...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19726951
Nevada have already licenced Google for trials http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18012812 but this seems to be rules for ANY driveless car.
Its finally happening although its only the requirement to draft the legislation by 2015 not the legislation itself but it'll be very interesting to watch as they have lead the way with the 'Co2' car push and it will likely follow on in other places.
I suspect the issue of liability will be the main one to sort out as Google themselves say it will still require a licenced driver behind the wheel in case of emergencies but no clarification of if they can be sober/concious/alert or not.
Big losers from this - hotels and taxis - no need to get a taxi home, and no need to book a hotel if you can sleep in the car...
jbi said:
if the technology fails ... who is responsible for the ensuing crash?
I think thats the bit that will get the US lawyers very interested. I mean they put huge amounts of effort to prevent failures in aircraft but accidents it still happen from time to time.If they demand that the driver is attentive and able to take control at any time as in an aircraft on autopilot then it really defeats the point of it.
I mean if it removed any requirements of the driver i.e. no licence even then I can see the massive advantages (the end of the MLM perhaps?) but if it crashes and the driver is held responsible still then I can't see it having much purpose.
Driverless cars as a concept sounds very similar to the individual purpose of a bus or a train, in that you just sit there and eventually arrive at your destination.
The difference with a driverless car is that it will actually go where you want to go. Now, if only the public transport system could sort itself out we might not actually need driverless cars and we could just use cars for weekend fun. Meanwhile, back in the real world....
The difference with a driverless car is that it will actually go where you want to go. Now, if only the public transport system could sort itself out we might not actually need driverless cars and we could just use cars for weekend fun. Meanwhile, back in the real world....
jbi said:
if the technology fails ... who is responsible for the ensuing crash?
Whilst I doubt the law can keep up with technology like this (the law is arguably still struggling to cope with basic comcepts like inheritance and ownership) there's PLENTY of time to think about that before this stuff will be available to the sort of people who'd care to sue.It sounds scary at first - but take a wander to any nearby road and stand for 5 mins and I guarantee you'll see someone driving in a way FAR FAR more likely to cause injury or death
Hell - drive-by-wire controls are a scarier concept than computer-controlled cars, really...
renrut said:
State governor Jerry Brown backed legislation on Tuesday, and said: "Today we're looking at science-fiction becoming tomorrow's reality".Politicians are either idiots, or geniuses at saying things with zero content.
I've never been able to tell which.
The bill ".. requires the California Department of Motor Vehicles to draft the regulations by 2015". So they aren't rushing in to anything just yet.
Captain Muppet said:
The bill ".. requires the California Department of Motor Vehicles to draft the regulations by 2015". So they aren't rushing in to anything just yet.
Arguably the technological elements to do it are already in place, its a legislative problem now and thats the bit thats now moving.How that legal framework develops will probably be copied around the world perhaps with little alteration.
I suspected this was about TVR projects sitting in garages.
Maybe California is not the best test area.
I would not like to ride in one of these things while it was trying to join a freeway during peak traffic.
However should they develop this to the stage where I can send it out to buy me a newspaper and a pint of milk, then great.
Or maybe "go and get me a hooker"....... will it get me a pretty one.
Maybe California is not the best test area.
I would not like to ride in one of these things while it was trying to join a freeway during peak traffic.
However should they develop this to the stage where I can send it out to buy me a newspaper and a pint of milk, then great.
Or maybe "go and get me a hooker"....... will it get me a pretty one.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff