Kill animals and destroy property before hurting humans, Germany tells future self-driving cars

Who Cares

As long as they sound like KITT

All that's needed is legislation that says in the event of an incident involving an autonomous vehicle, at which the fault could be attributable to behaviour (erroneous or as per design) of the car's software, then the developer and test team which signed it off are personally liable.

Specify a mandatory jail term for the culpable parties.

Putting the developers on the line would mean that they'd never want to sign the software off, just in case anything ever did go wrong.

All other questions then become moot.

When does three equal two?

"...Germany is, famously, home to a large number of car manufacturers – including BMW, Mercedes and Daimler to name but three..."

Mecedes (Benz, AMG, etc.) is part of the Daimler group.

In the past (from early '60s), if you wanted to buy a Daimler car it would have been a badge engineered Jaguar.

initiative

Did I read, "Ultimately, drivers will still bear responsibility if their autonomous charabanc crashes, unless it was caused by a system failure"?? If it's an autonomous car it would not be in control of human or will it bail out in the moments of accident?

Though ethically wrong, but it's an initiative towards regulating the autonomous car driving.

Statistics?

I wanted to review the relative death rates of car occupants vs bicycles, pedestrians, motorcycles, etc. So I Googled for some info. And I found (among other things) this article in The Guardian. Problem: The category 'other road users' seems to be the most variable between regions. In some regions, like S.E. Asia, car occupants are less (and motorcycles more) likely to perish probably due to the relative use of each type of vehicle. But a lot of the data appears to be hidden in this 'other' category. And it is not well explained. Perhaps it is bus plunges.

I was prepared to make some snide remarks about pedestrian deaths in Asian countries, after having seen quite a few gruesome surveillance cam posts and apparent lack of traffic/pedestrian control compared to Western countries. But the death rate in this area (according to the WHO data) appears to be lower. Perhaps the worst thing we do here in the West is to lull pedestrians (and cyclists) into a false sense of security by painting green boxes and crossings for them to use. And then we run over them. In Asia, there appears to be less of this. And the pedestrians (and bicycles) watch for the crazy drivers. And survive at a far greater rate.

Are numbers a consideration?

Ok, fair enough, let's not discriminate on age, sex, ethnicity, etc, but given an accident with unavoidable human injuries shouldn't the number of humans injured in each possible scenario be considered?

Not really

"the nation's Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure – a curious combination that suggests they took "information superhighway" too literally"

Not really curious, nor unique in Europe. It just could have been more briefly named Ministry of Communications.

Do not let El Reg headline writers program cars

"Kill animals and destroy property before hurting humans, Germany tells future self-driving cars"

Or they will go first for your cat, wreck your conservatory, and then hunt you down.

Working near a school, I hate the notion of autonomous cars that automatically avoid collisions, because schoolkids will just use this fact to step into the road without looking, knowing autonomous cars will just stop, they won't bother using crossings anymore.

There are two schools on the same road, one further up about 3/4 of a mile away. It's going to be a horrid stop/start experience for many commuting along that route.

this is progress :)

compared to, say, the 'logic' presented in https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/05/selfdriving_algorithms_that_make_ethical_decisions_based_on_impulse/

or

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/18/helping_autonomous_vehicles_and_humans_share_the_road/

and the rather worrying simulation offered (linked-to) at http://moralmachine.mit.edu/ which I remember giving up on after less than a half-dozen scenarios ... because it just felt wrong ...

To put it another way, we can't expect a machine to solve a problem, (the trolley problem) that we don't know how to solve, (that's another way to state the Church-[Taski-]Turing thesis, isn't it ?)

We can't expect 'machine learning' to 'just do this' without much more & better real world knowledge than we (humans) could realistically acquire, process and apply within very short time-scales ...

That, I think & hope, is the edge that AI systems should have ...

I won't underestimate the possobility that one day we will have autonomous cars, if civilization lasts that long. I have underestimated what technology can do too many times before.

What I dread is the transition period during which people are suppose to still be at the wheel to handle odd situations. Are you kidding me? We already have a problem with inattentive drivers who are suppose to be in complete and sole control of their vehicles. Allow some autonomy, and no one will be paying any attention at all.

I have manual transmission cars (Honda Prelude andj S2000, both fine cars). It is a pain in the bcakside in the normal stop-and-go traffic we have here, but with one hand on the wheel, one on the stick, one foot on the clutch, and the other working the gas and brakes, you have no option but to be ONLY driving. No cellphone, internet, ebook, whatever. Sometimes I think we would do better if we reduced the automation in cars. Ban automatic transmission (yes, I know, that would never happen, but I think the roads might actually be safer).

I would rather they keep autonomous cars off the road until they are 100% autonomous.

This whole issue is a shiny bauble to distract you from the true intent of the 'ruling class'. First they establish a date when all internal combustion engines will be banned. EVs are to be the future. But there are no plans to roll out charging stations, or to upgrade the electric grid to provide the power necessary to charge all our vehicles. Why not? Because neither will be needed. They will raise the price of power (tiered based on usage) such that you simple can't afford to heat your home AND charge a car. Now, onlt the very affluent can afford vehicles. They can install their own charging systems, and the grid could handle the small increase of electrical requirements.

I suspect they are already salivating over the money they can save not doing new road construction, less road repair, less traffic police needed, fewer accidents, etc., and as a bonus, they will never be stuck in traffic again. You? You will be on bicycles, buses, trains, subways, or walking.

Many moons ago I was put on a skid pan in a truck to stop us swerving to avoid an accident, however, it will not be really possible and take the following scenario.

A small child runs out in front of you from the pavement side. you will automatically swerve as will the auto system. On the other side of the central reservation hedge there is a bus queue of kids. You will swerve into them killing several and maiming more. The auto vehicle can NOT be programmed to do this otherwise it will kill the toddler! The vehicular situation on terra firma is not the same as trains or planes and the reliability will not be sustainable. How many of you have remote key locking on 433.925, Mhz, and how many do I block when running 50 watts into a radio repeater. A range of 50 miles may be good. All radio systems are potentially subject to interference. Put the freight on railways!