I’d say safer refers to all aspects: conditions, other drivers, pedestrians,
cyclists and so on. You can’t talk about safety without the whole picture. Yes,
it will be interesting to see what happens but I’d say it’s inevitable,
whatever happens. Also, ultimately I don’t think drivers will be able to pick
and choose – it will simply be a driverless situation. Google’s self-driving
cars don’t have steering wheels. Weird.
http://mashable.com/2016/05/03/driverless-car-no-steering-wheel/#HNbVG8m0y5qm
Petra Liverani
Technical Writer / UX Designer
TMC Systems Development
Operational Systems
Infrastructure and Services
Transport for NSW
T 02 8396 1617 | F 02 8396 7950 | M 0401 023 961
25 Garden St, Eveleigh NSW 2015
Use public transport... plan your trip at
transportnsw.info<http://www.transportnsw.info/>
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stuart Burnfield
Sent: Monday, 25 July 2016 5:20 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Driverless cars (Was: OT I hate it when I am this right)
Once driverless cars are shown to be objectively safer, of course it makes
sense to make them generally available on the road. But the lawyers must be
rubbing their hands at the thought of all those interesting lawsuits that will
have to be argued in the first few years from when the car manufacturers decide
it's time.
What if these cars are safer in good conditions but not so when visibility is
poor? If the car suggests that you take over and you don't, are you liable? If
you feel like having a drive on a nice day and take over, are you more liable?
You clicked that EULA back in 2018 accepting all of their terms and conditions.
You must have, otherwise the car wouldn't start. When the T&Cs change in 2019
and you object to one of the new provisions, what do you do--sell the car?
What if you're measurably safer if you have an accident in your driverless
Tesla, but pedestrians and occupants of other vehicles are a little less safe.
Overall the roads are slightly safer but can you accept that slightly higher
risk on my behalf?
This has suddenly become topical for me as we're looking at buying a car with
the option of a driver-assistance system called Eyesight. Is it objectively
safer? Is the added safety worth the added cost? Is it reliable? Does it just
encourage you to drive a little less attentively, so you can finish that
important SMS knowing that the car will almost certainly save you if the car in
front stops suddenly?
Interesting times.
--- Stuart
----- Original Message -----
From:
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
"austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
<austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent:
Mon, 25 Jul 2016 15:53:41 +1000
Subject:
atw: Re: Driverless cars (Was: OT I hate it when I am this right)
In a certain way it’s really quite simple. With person-controlled driving you
have a certain number of accidents of various levels of seriousness. With
driverless driving you will also have a certain number. To justify driverless
you have to have fewer (you could say no worse than the same number but I don’t
think people would accept that). In fact, Elon Musk says that his cars will
only be allowed to go proper autopilot when they have 10 times fewer accidents
– when he says “have” I guess he means according to the data collected on their
autopilot features (when not operated as true autopilot) both from the cars and
drivers themselves – perhaps this data is not exactly the same as “for real”
data but if they’re only going to go “live” when they think that driverless is
at the 10-times-better level then surely it will be at least significantly
better if not 10 times better.
http://mashable.com/2016/07/21/elon-musk-future-cars/#HNbVG8m0y5qm
Petra Liverani
Technical Writer / UX Designer
TMC Systems Development
Operational Systems
Infrastructure and Services
Transport for NSW
T 02 8396 1617 | F 02 8396 7950 | M 0401 023 961
25 Garden St, Eveleigh NSW 2015
From:
austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stuart Burnfield
Sent: Monday, 25 July 2016 3:03 PM
To: Austechwriter
Subject: atw: Driverless cars (Was: OT I hate it when I am this right)
This broadcast on the ABC RN Ockham's Razor programme was obviously inspired by
Christine's post and our recent discussion on ATW:
Pondering the prospects of driverless cars
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/pondering-the-prospects-and-pitfalls-of-driverless-cars/7553938
It doesn't provide any easy answers but asks some interesting questions.
--- Stuart
This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or legally
privileged information and is intended only to be read or used by the
addressee(s). If you have received this email in error, please notify the
sender by return email, delete this email and destroy any copy. Any use,
distribution, disclosure or copying of this email by a person who is not the
intended recipient is not authorised.
Views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, and are not
necessarily the views of Transport for New South Wales, Department of Transport
or any other NSW government agency. Transport for NSW and the Department of
Transport assume no liability for any loss, damage or other consequence which
may arise from opening or using an email or attachment.
Please visit us at http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au or ;
http://www.transportnsw.info
