GTPNewsWire
Contributing Writer
- 21,867
- GTPHQ
This is the discussion thread for a recent post on GTPlanet:
This article was published by Joe Donaldson (@Joey D) on March 30th, 2018 in the Automotive News category.
Autonomous Chevy Bolt Gets Slapped With a Ticket in San Francisco
- Thread starter GTPNewsWire
- 26 comments
- 2,506 views
- 287
- Austin
- SleezyBigSlim
This is very interesting. I'm a auto insurance claims adjuster and this just lets me know auto insurance is going to become even more important with these autonomous vehicle's.
- 189
- Australia
@sleezybigsim I think it's going to be an interesting time, when an owner crashes a manual car it's typically on the owner's insurance - But I can see instances where auto drive cars have their software brought into question, and personally I think taking on a car manufacturer for an insurance claim could be quite the challenge.
Mind you, with technology we also have the advent of tracking, logging and essentially the ability to recreate the situation for review (as in the article). I wonder how this will pan out?
- 287
- Austin
- SleezyBigSlim
Definatly, but for autonomous vehicles to take off their needs to be nearly zero crashes because there not being driven by humans.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,426
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Not necessarily zero crashes, but far fewer than cars driven by humans.
I mentioned this in another thread regarding autonomous cars, but we are still a really longs ways off from having 100% autonomous cars that require no human interactions. What companies like Cruise and Uber are trying to do is rather ambitious, but between the red tape of the government and a society hellbent on suing for everything, they're nowhere near prime time yet. Plus, the sensors, cameras, etc. are still just way too big and way too expensive to be profitable on a mass-produced scale. Honestly, I don't think we will see full Level-5 autonomous cars in the next 20 years, at least with regards to the general public being able to buy them.
KingFrog
(Banned)
- 837
- NOYB
10 feet is WAY to close, I have seen people drop their phones and turn back . The AI is assuming the person will continue moving forward , what if they turn back? The truth is, an AI can only react to meta data previously acquired in a specific set of parameters alongside immediate data through its sensors. On my street, there is a family who idiotically lets their 5-year-old play outside without supervision. He has often run out into the street, sometimes on purpose to scare cars. To top it off his yard is behind a wall, so you can't see him. Everyone in the neighborhood knows about this and drives extra slow . NO AI will ever be able to know this unless it's coded in which won't ever happen.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,426
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
In some states, the traffic code states that a vehicle must maintain at least 10 feet from a pedestrian. I looked through the California traffic code and couldn't actually find anything regarding it though. Subsequent searches across the net had CHP officers chiming in saying that you can legally proceed once the pedestrian has cleared your car. 10 feet is more than the width of most cars and definitely more than the 6-foot width of a Bolt. That seems like plenty of room - especially when you consider the standard for traffic lanes in the US is 12-feet.
As for the example with the child, if you didn't know the area you have the same risk of hitting them. Probably the better course of action, when the child runs out into the road, is to call the police. It's illegal in most states for a pedestrian to enter a roadway not at a crosswalk. It's also illegal in every state except Utah to allow your children to play outside without supervision and the Utah law just passed this week. While hitting the kid would be tragic for all parties, chances are the driver would not be at fault if they were obeying the speed limit.
In researching this story, I seem to think the cop was being jumpy due to what happened in Arizona. However, both sides are withholding the full story. We don't know if the pedestrian was standing on the curb, if they had the WALK sign, if the light was red, or if they had cleared the vehicle completely. All we know is the Cruise (and GM) is saying the sensor data is saying there was 10.8 feet of space between the pedestrian and the car.
- 11,832
- Marin County
- 144
- Dublin
- jaytmtb
I like to drive, that's the primary reason for having a car, and because cycling isn't an option
on some of my journeys
I reckon, and it's my hope that it takes a long time to implement autonomous cars
Don't get me wrong, I love technology, so long as it enhances your life, not control it
on some of my journeys
I reckon, and it's my hope that it takes a long time to implement autonomous cars
Don't get me wrong, I love technology, so long as it enhances your life, not control it
- 423
- York/UK
- mekonrider
It'd be heaven if you could stick all old people in these things. I dread to think about the amount of time these people cost, dawdling about in a Jazz with a hat on the back shelf. Hopefully automated cars will happily do the speed limit if possible.
- 4,053
- Wisconsin
- GTP_Eggstor
Given the limited information available, this reads a lot like the sting big-city police (like the one here in Milwaukee, Wisconsin) run from time to time where they have somebody step off the curb and nail drivers on the far side of the 4-to-6-lane street for not immediately stopping to "yield" to the "pedestrian" dozens of feet away.
- 521
- Russian Federation
- S15Fox
Oh, an obligatory "I don't want autonomous cars to be a norm anytime soon because I'm a car enthusiast and I enjoy driving" post.
Dude (and everyone with similar point of view to his), you should be welcoming autonomous cars, because that would help so much for people who dislike driving. As much as I myself enjoy driving, I'm afraid to drive in crowded cities because of how many horrible drivers are around here. Why there are so much horrible drivers? Because they hate doing this. And they are the majority. I'd rather drive surrounded by AIs that are designed to be good drivers than surrounded by drivers who don't give two s:censored:ts about driving and just want to get from one place to another ASAP.
(fun fact: "how to enjoy driving" is a pretty popular search request at Google; that should also imply)
I do understand what you're getting at, and yes, I don't want all cars to become autonomous. But I do want autonomous cars to become widely available, because AIs make better driver than human folk who dislike driving or don't care about it.
- 8,191
- Southern Louisiana
- GTP_Kent
If my car is fully autonomous I will stop paying insurance and file a law suit when they try to make me... Why should I pay for the insurance if someone else is driving?
- 29,838
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
If driving is an option, cycling is as well; it just may not be the most convenient. But you could relocate to a dwelling closer to your place of work and various other establishments you deem necessary to visit so that cycling not only is more convenient than it is presently but also more convenient than driving would be.
But it's really not an option because you think saying so reinforces your assertion that autonomous cars are wrong. Am I right?
How? Oh wait, I know..."hax":
Boot hackautonomousveh.exe?
Y
Allow survivors?
N
Cover all tracks?
Y
Have a nice day!
Joey D
Premium
- 47,426
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Because it's still your property or if you're leasing it, it's still in your possession and you'll need something like renters insurance. Car insurance covers more than just accidents.
If you have an autonomous car that's parked at a store and a tree falls on it, then what? Or what if it's broken in to?
Plus, even if someone hits you then you still need insurance in some states. In Michigan for example, it's a "no-fault" state meaning each parties' insurance covers its own vehicles in the event of an accident.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 8,191
- Southern Louisiana
- GTP_Kent
I wasn't specific enough I suppose... I'd contest the form of insurance. Incidental is fine, I'd like hail damage to be covered, etc etc... but liability shouldn't be an issue if autonomous cars are taking the wheel.
Hell, my insurance currently has excluded drivers... If an AI program is the primary operator I don't see why I should have to pay premiums for the AI's liability.
Hell, my insurance currently has excluded drivers... If an AI program is the primary operator I don't see why I should have to pay premiums for the AI's liability.
Absolutely. After all, I only pay the insurance on my house when I'm inside it
- 8,191
- Southern Louisiana
- GTP_Kent
It may not be necessary if the car can seek shelter.
If we applied teneighty's logic regarding my earlier post you wouldn't need to worry since you don't have to pay insurance if you aren't in the car.
In all fairness, the earlier statement wasn't developed well.
The reality is that there are still matters you'd need insurance for... At the same time, there are matters that should be on the AI developer. We (as drivers, or really, passengers) shouldn't be held responsible for actions performed by the operator of the vehicle if it isn't us.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
It's an interesting point. I suspect an arrangement would come about where we pay an insurance premium to protect our vehicles against the usual loss/damage but also have warranty protection from the 'AI' provider. There'd be lots of small print of course (what's new?) covering regular servicing, no modification, proper software updates, maybe even modes and areas of acceptable use.
If you're walking beside a road and you're injured by an 'AI' car then you will naturally direct your claim at the car's owner. The owner will have to have an arrangement where they redirect the claim to the AI provider if the owner was using (or dispatching) the vehicle according to legitimate parameters.
- 8,191
- Southern Louisiana
- GTP_Kent
Agreed and that process would probably be called Subrogation (that's what it's currently called- I used to work as an auto and home adjuster for State Farm and Liberty Mutual). It's essentially for situations like your neighbor's tree lands on your fence, your insurance covers it and then in subrogation they get the money from the insurance of the person that owned the land the tree fell from. It's usually a huge pain in the ass and takes way too long.
- 287
- Austin
- SleezyBigSlim
- 7,602
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
It's not impossible. Imagine self driving cars with some learning capability that can communicate with each other and report things like areas with higher than expected numbers of pedestrians or limited reaction times.
A system like that might not be something you would expect to see pop up next week, but the issue you bring up doesn't sound like an insurmountable problem.
Similar threads
