Meanwhile the future has been here for a while. Check your insurance policy if
you have one of the new vacuum cleaners - - the ones without handles that roam
around your carpet in patterns you know little about.
Sent from BlueMail
On 25 Jul 2016, 6:00 PM, at 6:00 PM, LIVERANI Petra
<Petra.LIVERANI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
