Driverless Cars : Not Ready for Prime Time

The way I see it, the driverless vehicle will only be a viable option when the majority of the cars on the road are driverless. Given all of the defensive driving a person does automatically every time the get behind the wheel is incredible, so just imagine allow a computer driven car in traffic down town in a large city, or for that matter, on the interstate a 65 or 70 mph while most other cars are under the control of people falling asleep or texting.

How many times does a person make correction to the car that is moving forward in traffic? How will the computer know what the other person is doing if it only has information that was down loaded and not years of real time experience and the human brain to decide what action to take to avoid conflict.

I think a time will come when the driverless car will be a good idea, especially on interstates and when most cars that are on the interstate are computer controlled. It makes sense that one computer will not interfere with the actions of another computer because it didn't signal before changing lanes and made you hit the brakes to avoid contact.

Ramming the other car will not be an option for the computer driven vehicle.

How to Regulate Driverless Cars
Source: Marc Scribner, "Self-Driving Regulation," Competitive Enterprise Institute, April 23, 2014.

April 29, 2014

The rise of the driverless car poses new challenges for vehicle and safety regulations, says Marc Scribner, a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

With human error as a crash factor in 90 percent of automobile accidents, the dawn of the driverless car (also called autonomous vehicles, or self-driving cars) has great potential to reduce crashes. It also offers the possibility of increased mobility for those who cannot drive cars themselves -- the disabled and the elderly.

Scribner divides driverless car policy issues into two main categories: legality and safety. Addressing the first issue, Scribner asks, are driverless cars even legal?

• Florida, Nevada, California, Washington, D.C., and Michigan have each passed laws specifically upholding the legality of autonomous vehicles.
• New York's law restricts the operation of these cars to licensed drivers, who must have one hand on the steering wheel at all times. California requires a licensed driver in the driver's seat.
• For states that have not explicitly addressed the issue, Scribner contends that driverless cars are probably legal in most jurisdictions.

Addressing the second issue, Scribner notes that companies like Google will need to demonstrate to regulators that their self-driven cars are safer than manually-driven cars with 99 percent confidence in order to expand beyond the testing phase. One of the major safety issues is the ability of a car to determine outcomes, dictating precisely how a driverless car will crash. Will it veer one direction (guaranteeing a severe crash with one car) or another (guaranteeing a moderate crash with two cars)? Or will it try to avoid the crash altogether, even though attempting to avoid the crash may carry a more serious, and more likely, risk of injury?

• The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which regulates vehicle safety, has established a five tier system for classifying automated cars, ranging from Level 0 (no automation) to Level 4 (full self-driving automation).
• No car has been developed that fits in Level 4.
• Google's self-driving car is classified as Level 3 (limited self-driving automation), which means that the driver can give full control of the vehicle in some situations but can retake manual control as well.

Scribner cautions lawmakers against overregulating these new vehicles. If, in fact, they are safer, then government should pass laws that encourage their development, not squash innovation through regulation and legislation.