[LINK] Google's Driverless Car Is Worth Trillions

[Bernard Robertson-Dunn]

On 28/01/2013 2:48 PM, Kim Holburn wrote:
> On 2013/Jan/28, at 1:00 PM, Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote:
>
>> On 28/01/2013 11:43 AM, Kim Holburn wrote:
>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/chunkamui/2013/01/22/fasten-your-seatbelts-googles-driverless-car-is-worth-trillions/?utm_campaign=techtwittersf&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
>> If a driverless car is involved in an accident, and it is determined
>> that the behaviour of the car is at fault, who is responsible?
> How would that be determined exactly?

As now, by a court of law. And AFAIK, the law doesn't work on "exactly", 
just various levels of probability, depending on the court - i.e. 
criminal or civil..

> The driverless car would for sure have all its sensors recording at least in the minutes before the accident.

"... for sure..."? You have a wonderful confidence in technology. 
Suppose one of the sensors malfunctioned? At least it would limited to a 
on-off case. What about a design fault?

There's discussion re this subject here:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/24/are-driverless-cars-really-in-our-near-future.html 


and this guy
http://radar.oreilly.com/2013/01/the-driverless-car-liability-question-gets-ahead-of-itself.html
thinks that "...driverless cars might present a liability problem for 
anyone who doesn’t own one — a human driver who crashes into a 
driverless car will find it nearly impossible to show he’s not at fault."

> There will beless  fewer accidents andless  fewer court cases about accidents andless  fewer deaths and injuries on the road.  Wouldn't that be worth it?

I'm not commenting on the worth or otherwise of such technology, just 
pointing out that there are non-technology issues yet to be sorted.

-- 

Regards
brd

Bernard Robertson-Dunn
Sydney Australia
email: brd at iimetro.com.au
web:   www.drbrd.com
web:   www.problemsfirst.com
Blog:  www.problemsfirst.com/blog