I'm not really all that mysterious

Driverless Cars

I was listening to a brief snippet of a radio talk show and the topic was driverless cars. As far as the guest was concerned, driverless cars are inevitable (one of the things they touched upon is that since they’re safer, insurance companies are probably going start charging higher prices for cars that require a driver.)

But driverless cars probably mean continuous remote monitoring. While this will probably help law enforcement immensely, I wonder how privacy advocates feel about this.

(crossposted on Facebook)

Pulitzer-winning car critic: Self-driving vehicles could put end to car ownership • 2015 Dec 15 • AirTalk • 89.3 KPCC

In related news, California just released draft rules for self-driving cars, requiring a driver to be ready to take the wheel at any moment (and also addressing the privacy issue.)

Self-driving cars must have driver behind the wheel, California says • 2015 Dec 16 • Associated Press • Los Angeles Times

This would seem to negate a lot of the advantages of self-driving cars. I am especially concerned about how liability will be applied in case of an accident.

Sure, people text and read their newspaper in the driver’s seat of existing cars, but the critical question is, if the person in the driver’s seat is texting or reading their newspaper and the car for some reason crashes before they can take control, does this mean the person in the driver’s seat will be totally liable for the property damage and/or deaths?

Sorry to Disappoint, but Driverless Cars Will Still Need Drivers • 2015 May 10 • Michael Nees • Newsweek

The problem with this “active watching” model is that it introduces a new problem:

The Out-of-the-Loop Performance Problem and Level of Control in Automation • Mica R. Endsley and Esin O. Kiris • Human Factors • SAGE journals

initially published online on:
page regenerated on: