thirdcrank wrote:Society is already used to the idea that motor traffic is not risk-free. All that's going to happen is a balancing act to see how much risk is acceptable with this developing technology. Cue for somebody to mention Adams Risk. Many users of these vehicles won't want them slowing to a crawl every time they approach some potential problem with vulnerable users. They'll expect the vehicle to be as selfish as they are, with the added advantage of being able to blame the vehicle if something goes wrong.
I could easily imagine the emergence of a two tier system where your basic autonomous vehicle, including most goods vehicles, would be "deferential" to something more forceful. Emergency vehicles would need priority, but there will almost certainly be a method, formal or otherwise, for other important traffic to have priority. I'm thinking of a variation of the Russian migalka, the blue light fitted to the limo's of important officials, also available to the self-important rich. No need for all that nee-naw, just a system for one car to tell another to get out of the *********ing road.
gaz wrote:Some interesting comments here: http://bristolcars.blogspot.co.uk/2018/ ... meone.html
Has some similar observations.
While the US American approach is likely to be 'blame the victim', I don't think that this will be an acceptable approach in all European countries. In particular, I think it will fail the test in the Netherlands, Denmark, and in Volvo's home, Sweden. One of the advantages of globalisation is that an approach required for Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands will influence European law (i.e. a new set of directives covering autonomous vehicle safety) and incident investigations, which will in turn influence the global market.
