Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Car Chat => Topic started by: Lizzie Zoom on 27 March 2017, 16:37:59
-
Well, what so many of us predicted has happened:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/ubers-driverless-car-pilot-halted-after-dramatic-crash-in-america-a3499376.html
Now perhaps they will really think about all the insurance and legal implications of having driverless cars on our roads with standard driven ones! ::) ::) :D
-
You did actually read the article? ???
The driverless vehicle was NOT at fault.
It probably only rolled following a light tap on the rear quarter, and being an SUV, it wouldn't have taken much ::)
Volvo are leading the way in automated crash avoidance, but unless you know something mere mortals don't, I am certain that these systems only work on the vehicle to which they are fitted ::) Also looking at the marks on the road/kerb, the Volvo didn't have the space to recover from the external influence.
Yet another non story designed to provoke an irrational reaction from the general populus.
-
Yup, another non-story complete with a click-bait headline. Despite them being free, every time I read a London Evening Standard I still come away thinking I've been overcharged ::)
The regulations around driverless cars in the US are fantastically strict, companies need approval for every car on the road from the state and fed authorities. They are also required to produce a full and detailed report on all collisions and near misses - which is doubtless why the Uber programme is on hold.
The single biggest cause of all transport related fatalities/injuries/collisions is human error. The more the human element is taken out of driving, the safer roads will become.
-
You did actually read the article? ???
The driverless vehicle was NOT at fault.
It probably only rolled following a light tap on the rear quarter, and being an SUV, it wouldn't have taken much ::)
Volvo are leading the way in automated crash avoidance, but unless you know something mere mortals don't, I am certain that these systems only work on the vehicle to which they are fitted ::) Also looking at the marks on the road/kerb, the Volvo didn't have the space to recover from the external influence.
Yet another non story designed to provoke an irrational reaction from the general populus.
Yes I did. I was making the point that no one has really sorted the insurance and legal implications that arise when one of these crashes (no matter how caused) takes place. Indeed if you read further into the report it mentions about one of these cars crashing when it swerved to avoid an obstruction. As I see it, until driver driven car are not actually on the road with driverless cars there will be these issues of responsibility. ;)
A non-story. No I do not think so. It is news on something that again has happened and it raises legitimate questions of human intrest.
-
You did actually read the article? ???
The driverless vehicle was NOT at fault.
It probably only rolled following a light tap on the rear quarter, and being an SUV, it wouldn't have taken much ::)
Volvo are leading the way in automated crash avoidance, but unless you know something mere mortals don't, I am certain that these systems only work on the vehicle to which they are fitted ::) Also looking at the marks on the road/kerb, the Volvo didn't have the space to recover from the external influence.
Yet another non story designed to provoke an irrational reaction from the general populus.
Well yes, but what we do cannot know is if the collision would have taken place had there been a human at the wheel.
It's easy to say that somebody or something is at "fault" but many collisions are avoided by a human taking some action even if that human is not "at fault". Many collisions are caused by the pig headedness of a human driver not taking defensive action as it is percieved that the "other" driver is at fault, a "why should I" attitude.
I am in mixed thoughts about driverless vehicles. On the one hand as a human and of course a totally faultless driver ( ::) ) I am suspicious, on the other hand most collisions are caused by human attitudes.
-
Each 'driver' is already responsible for behaving in a manner appropriate to the conditions, including but not limited to, separation and effective observation.
Vehicle insurance is designed to protect against risk, however it may arise. Not a minefield, legally, technically or any other way.
Volvo and Uber will pull the vehicle data, analyse it and improve upon it if feasible/appropriate and resume testing. Simples.
-
Rog, there were two testers in the front of the vehicle and they couldn't stop it from being crashed into either ::)
-
You did actually read the article? ???
The driverless vehicle was NOT at fault.
It probably only rolled following a light tap on the rear quarter, and being an SUV, it wouldn't have taken much ::)
Volvo are leading the way in automated crash avoidance, but unless you know something mere mortals don't, I am certain that these systems only work on the vehicle to which they are fitted ::) Also looking at the marks on the road/kerb, the Volvo didn't have the space to recover from the external influence.
Yet another non story designed to provoke an irrational reaction from the general populus.
Well yes, but what we do cannot know is if the collision would have taken place had there been a human at the wheel.
It's easy to say that somebody or something is at "fault" but many collisions are avoided by a human taking some action even if that human is not "at fault". Many collisions are caused by the pig headedness of a human driver not taking defensive action as it is percieved that the "other" driver is at fault, a "why should I" attitude.
I am in mixed thoughts about driverless vehicles. On the one hand as a human and of course a totally faultless driver ( ::) ) I am suspicious, on the other hand most collisions are caused by human attitudes.
And that is the very point I am making; that is when the legal arguments will always begin in these cases. :y
-
Actually the legal debate only occurs if the fault vehicle is uninsured. Neither new or news.
-
Actually the legal debate only occurs if the fault vehicle is uninsured. Neither new or news.
Ok that is what you think. But in reality a good lawyer will always be able to argue a legal case for one party even if both cars are insured, and a driverless car scenario will only muddy the water, especially if serious injuries occur and make those same lawyers rich :D :D ;)
-
Driverless vehicles log speed, steering angle, road position and video feeds.
Disputes occur when the parties involved have different interpretations of events (either due to imperfect memory or a desire to avoid blame). How can one party in a dispute having "perfect memory" possibly muddy the waters?
Dashcams have already become the arbiters in many disputes over who is at fault, add to that the "black box" recording of driverless vehicles and there will be far fewer cases to answer. The reason why there are so few autonomous vehicles on the roads is precisely because the legal ramifications have been thought through very carefully indeed.
Every tesla model s produced since about 2015 has the capability to be fully autonomous. However they aren't because the legalities are still being worked out.
-
It will be interesting to see how insurance companies price the risk when these cars appear on the roads.
-
Driverless cars should significantly cut down the number of accidents. Driverless cars will not eliminate accidents completely.
-
Don't think I would ever want one or more importantly be able to afford one, hopefully by the the time these are common on the roads I would have given my driving licence up , my father in law gave up at 80 years of age & I will do the same .
-
You did actually read the article? ???
The driverless vehicle was NOT at fault.
It probably only rolled following a light tap on the rear quarter, and being an SUV, it wouldn't have taken much ::)
Volvo are leading the way in automated crash avoidance, but unless you know something mere mortals don't, I am certain that these systems only work on the vehicle to which they are fitted ::) Also looking at the marks on the road/kerb, the Volvo didn't have the space to recover from the external influence.
Yet another non story designed to provoke an irrational reaction from the general populus.
funny that uber have pulled their cars as a result then ::)
-
No, it's common sense you loon...
-
No, it's common sense you loon...
Probably a regulatory necessity as well.
-
No, it's common sense you loon...
Probably a regulatory necessity as well.
^^ Wot e sed
I can't find the article now but when they were handing out licences, there were some fairly draconian reporting requirements in the event of accidents or even near misses
-
I'm not sure I'd ever get in one, I'm a nervous passenger now, let alone with no one in the driver seat