back to article Autonomous vehicles inquiry set up in the UK

A UK parliamentary committee will look into the potential uses and benefits of autonomous vehicles in a new inquiry it has opened. The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee said its inquiry would look at how 'driverless' vehicles could be used for road transport as well as in areas such as farming and space …

  1. Filippo Silver badge

    We've had driveless vehicles in space for quite a while.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      And GPS controlled Combined Harvesters, accurate to around 2cm (take that Google car).

      1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
        Joke

        I got a brand new combine harvester

        @Lost all faith...

        I got a brand new GPS controlled combine harvester

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tb63PdPweDc

  2. Squander Two
    Devil

    Privacy? Really?

    However, an industry survey carried out by Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, found that nearly 80% of respondents believe the UK government needs to change current laws either urgently or very urgently to facilitate driverless cars testing and use.

    An earlier report published by Pinsent Masons in April identified outdated road traffic laws, complexities in patent licensing and restrictive data privacy rules as among the obstacles to the testing and adoption of driverless and connected vehicles.

    Restrictive data privacy rules? Hmm, I wonder which of the firms you contacted might have said the Government needs to scrap data protection? We're looking for a company who are developing driverless cars and want all our private data. It's certainly a puzzler.

    But I'm guessing it wasn't Volvo.

  3. Dr. Mouse

    changes to motor insurance

    The one thing I would expect* with a driverless vehicle is for the manufacturer to be held liable for accidents.

    Very simple reasoning here: The occupants are not driving the vehicle, the manufacturer's software is. As we hold the driver responsible for accidents which were their fault, the manufacturer becomes responsible. The occupants are all third parties in the accident.

    * OK, this is what I would expect in a logical, reasonable and consistent world. What I expect in this country (UK) is that the owner of the vehicle will be held responsible, and the manufacturer only when you take them to court because their software or hardware failed. The manufacturer will realise there are faults, but will do the same calculations around cost of recall vs cost of being sued, and leave dangerous vehicles on the road. The owner will have to prove that it was a software fault to get compensated, and the car manufacturer will throw loadsa money at lawyers to prove it wasn't, and that somehow the occupant was using it wrong.

    1. TRT Silver badge

      Using the autonomous driving facility in inappropriate conditions, perhaps. A torrential downpour would play havoc with most of the mid precision sensors, surely? It was nigh on impossible for a human to drive in the storms that hit us last Friday morning - dark, lightning, rain, leaves, bits of wood, dead pigeons, drunken revellers...

      1. Roger Greenwood

        "nigh on impossible for a human"

        But humans don't always react according to their training and are often influenced by "lubrication" to do the wrong or unsafe thing. I would expect that the machine is programmed to "fail safe", however inconvenient it may seem at the time. Fascinating to see how this develops and how much effort is put into coping with unexpected inputs compared to making the thing go.

      2. Dr. Mouse

        "Using the autonomous driving facility in inappropriate conditions, perhaps"

        It specifically mentioned driverless vehicles. In this case, it's use autonomous driving or don't go anywhere. Therefore, I would expect the system to refuse to operate if it is unsafe to do so.

        If it's a dual-use vehicle, the autonomous system should refuse to operate where unsafe, and the manufacturer should be held liable for accidents where the autonomous system is enabled. If the autonomous system is not in operation, it is no longer the driver, so the responsibility lies with the person controlling the vehicle.

      3. Pedigree-Pete
        Mushroom

        Tested for failure

        As someone said in a different thread yesterday, it needs to be tested for unlikely fail situations. Not just the bleedin' obvious. PP

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Tested for failure

          "As someone said in a different thread yesterday, it needs to be tested for unlikely fail situations. Not just the bleedin' obvious. PP"

          Such as a bunch of pissed up blokes having a punch-up in the road (last Saturday)

          Driver would stay at least 25m to 50m away and look for escape routes ASAP.

          Auto car may go closer and sit there like a lemon working out what the hell to do.

    2. graeme leggett Silver badge

      At the moment, most things are the drivers responsibility

      from one police force webpage

      "To drive a motor vehicle legally on a road you must:"

      ensure you have a valid licence with valid categories for the vehicle you are driving,

      have insurance that covers you for the vehicle you are driving,

      have an MOT (on vehicles over 3 years old),

      make sure the vehicle is taxed,

      make sure the vehicle is registered,

      ensure the vehicle is in roadworthy condition. "

      The last bit is probably the bit that will need fixing for autonomous vehicles. But I'll put money that it'll be a human (vehicle owner/keeper) or an owning/operating entity (taxi firm, hire firm) that will be considered responsible in first instance. They will then have to show that they were using according to instructions and that the manufacturer or guy-who-fixed-it-last is negligent to pass the responsibility on.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        "ensure the vehicle is in roadworthy condition"

        Technically, it must also be in MOTable condition too.

        The number of cars I see driving round with only one working headlight, etc makes it clear that many drivers don't bother - and having noticed the same cars with the same busted headlights for more than a year it's clear they haven't bothered with MOTing them either. What else is wrong?

        One of the more interesting side-effects of self-driving automobiles is that taxi fares will become a lot lower (the single biggest expense is the driver), plus likely to be easier to hail. In such a case the case for private ownership will be greatly diminished - and yes, the vehicle operator will be responsible for keeping it in a roadworthy condition but when the vehicle itself can identify it's not in such a state and check itself in for repair, overriding that kind of decision should attract substantially higher penalties than are currently applied.

        FWIW, if your car isn't in MOTable condition, then your insurance company won't cover you (it's a specific clause in many policies), meaning that you could be done for driving without insurance in a lot of cases - and in the case of an override order being issued by the operator I'm willing to bet that some form of network telltale will result in insurance being cancelled before the vehicle even hits the road.

        On the other side of the coin: Self-driving vehicles may be the trigger needed to reassess the entire way that vehicle driving licenses are issued - making it much tougher and requiring that all existing drivers are rechecked. I witness middle aged drivers doing something massively boneheaded several times per day and the main reason that they don't crash is because people react to avoid them - and most days I'm only commuting the 40 minutes to/from work. The simple fact is that whilst some drivers are brilliant, the vast majority are not, and in any case we're unstable monkeys which drive beyond their reaction abilities and tend to behave emotionally rather than logically when on the road.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "FWIW, if your car isn't in MOTable condition, then your insurance company won't cover you (it's a specific clause in many policies)"

          FWIW, that isn't true.

        2. hoola Silver badge

          Middle Aged Drivers

          Clearly you are one of the many out there that have total belief in their perfect driving skills. Yes there are plenty of bad drivers who are middle aged but equally there is an even greater number of younger drivers who are appalling. What is not in question is that with reduced policing on the road far to many people ignore pelican crossing, zebra crossings, level crossings, speed limits, red lights and there own responsibility of insurance and a maintained car. Where I live we have a 30mph limit where speed checks have shown an average of 47mph. We have one of the most dangerous level crossings on the rail network that is regularly bent because some tw@t has run the red light. A zebra crossing where at school time the lollipop person risks getting mown down daily.

          You only have to see drive through an average speed controlled section to see the impact it has. ON the M1 for a long time there was a 50mph average speed section from 16 to 19. At 19 it then when to nothing more than a 50mph sign, what happens 90% of drivers belt of at 80 again.

          Prepare for the down votes but this is the reality.

    3. DaLo

      Does it really matter too much?

      The only quirk with motor insurance is that you have a no-claims bonus and the price can go up when you make a claim. However if fully autonomous it could just be based around how likely it is to have an accident (cars are already put in a category for this based around their safety, their speed and the typical driver). So if you buy a Tesra Car and it crashes a lot then the insurance will go up. If you buy a Googre Car and it doesn't then the insurance would be lower. Car manufacturers would try to gain lower insurance ratings for their cars so they will try to address safety issues (similar to what they do now with the NCAP and similar ratings playing a part in your insurance premium.

      The thing about the autonomous cars is that the more of them there are, the less likely to crash, and insurance premiums should drop massively. They also record everything so it is much easier to assess liability. Overall whether the insurance price is built in to the cost of the car itself because the manufacturer is paying it or you have to pay it yourself isn't that relevant. Especially as you'll still have to pay a significant amount for insurance anyway due to the risk of theft, vandalism ,forces of nature etc.

      Two points of relevance - a car today can easily have a manufacturing fault that can cause your car to have a crash (Toyota sudden acceleration), but you still have insurance and are still free to sue the manufacturer. manufacturers can also be held accountable for death or injury.

      Another example whereas the car insurance is similar to home insurance, if your washing machine breaks and floods the house, you claim on the house insurance - the washing machine manufacturer doesn't pay, but you are free to sue them. Or when a tumble drier bursts into flames, you claim through your house insurance.

      it doesn't really need to be any more complicated than removing no-claims losses for when the driver (physical person) is not at fault - i.e. extend it to when the car is driven autonomously.

    4. Julz

      If your riding a horse, you, the rider, are still responsible if there is an accident on the roads, not the horse which seems to me a similar situation as riding in an autonomous car.

      1. BebopWeBop
        Unhappy

        It is only similar if you consider the car to be the same as a horse - i.e. depending on training (and even with good training) a semi autonomous being who will start and shy at loud noises, unfamiliar objects etc... I do hope that is not the standard that car manufacturers are aiming for.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Joke

          @BebopWeBop

          On the other hand, if autonomous cars aimed at horses as the standard, think of all the money you could save on fuel by letting your car graze in a meadow when you weren't using it.

    5. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge

      insurance

      @Dr. Mouse

      The one thing I would expect* with a driverless vehicle is for the manufacturer to be held liable for accidents.

      Volvo...

      Volvo will "accept full liability" for collisions involving its autonomous vehicles, the company has confirmed.

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/13/volvo_to_accept_full_liability_for_crashes_involving_driverless_cars/

      hmm - that article was also attributed to OUT-LAW.COM

  4. MrTuK

    Trust

    I have been involved with IT since 1981, so have some experience under my belt so to speak. I don't think I would ever trust an Autonomous Vehicle, I personally would never use one as a Taxi etc.

    I can see Councils being very keen on them as ways to reduce staff for vehicles like Road Gritters, Rubbish collection, Road sweeping, Pavement sweeping/cleaning, Bus driving etc.

    Which would reduce one's Council Tax Bill maybe but in the process putting a lot of people in the unemployment queue, so it will be very interesting how the UK Gov handles this. Also since a lot of this is done by private contractors then just by using a new contractor that only uses Autonomous Vehicles obviously at a vastly reduced cost would mean it would be outside UK GOV control and could certainly put a strain on unemployment services and costs in a very short time.

    Sadly this is going to effect a workforce which is already on the lower end of the pay scale.

    The one thing I would be interested in is how an Autonomous Vehicle would handle driving up a hill with a large vehicle coming down the hill with failed brakes beeping and flashing his lights, would it just sit there waiting for an obvious collision or would it slam it into reverse or would it drive through a hedge to avoid the collision or maybe it would eject the passengers like the Aston Martin in the James bond movie ? Now I know that many drivers would just freeze in that situation, but I would expect an Autonomous Vehicle not to do this and to be able to take avoiding action, even if it means driving through a hedge to get out of the way !

  5. BebopWeBop
    Facepalm

    It said the UK "has the potential to become a world leader in developing, producing and deploying autonomous vehicles".

    Yup and the UK has the potential to do many things. Thick as shit politicians, short term financial manipulation favoured over long term investment and what seems to be a decaying education system will soon see an end to all of that!

  6. Alister

    the UK "has the potential to become a world leader in developing, producing and deploying autonomous vehicles".

    Well yes, although as usual we are starting some way back.

    And then...

    "...to ensure that we can carry out the most thorough and informative inquiry possible."

    That's game over then, the inquiry will take at least ten years to reach a conclusion.

  7. BrownishMonstr

    I think he means as in the two signs on the right:

    Signs.

  8. Tony S

    "The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee said its inquiry would look at how 'driverless' vehicles could be used for road transport as well as in areas such as farming "

    They already have driverless vehicles down on the farm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driverless_tractor

    I've seen a number of driverless combines working together in a field; quite astonishing. The key advantage is that they don't get tired or need to use lights, so can operate around the clock.

  9. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

    "Swedish car manufacturer Volvo" is owned since 2010 by the Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, the parent of Chinese motor manufacturer Geely Automobile. After being sold to them by Ford, who bought Volvo in 1999.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like