[x43b]

"perhaps if everyone on the road was in a driverless car, and they all communicated and prevented crashes. But that's not going to happen."

I hear this sentiment a lot. Having a higher percentage of cars following safe practices is safer even if those are cars aren't perfect and even if 100% of the cars aren't automated.

Can you tell me the logic (I've seen it many times in posts) that there won't be any safety benefits until all cars are automated (or until there aren't any manual drivers?).

I disagree that the benefit will be that discrete.

[WalterBright]

The trouble is that even if driverless cars are overall vastly safer, in today's litigious environment it just takes one fatal crash to derail (!) the whole concept when the car maker is sued out of existence. Whereas suing individual drivers doesn't take down the whole system.

[TheCowboy]

I see this argument a lot, and it seems to beg the question to assume that there is such a "litigious environment."

Why are Google and other companies trying to develop this technology if all it takes is a single fatal crash, and therefore a single lawsuit? It should be in their rational self-interest to avoid any contact with this technology. It would be lighting on money on fire.

This is not the strongest example, but automobile companies have ignored fatality inducing problems, yet the practice didn't end their business. There is likely enough profit in the pursuit to deal with such issues. These lawsuits are slow-moving enough that there would be room to maneuver.

The greatest threat, in my opinion, is over-reacting politicians passing laws due to a shock in public opinion on the safety of the cars. The shock could be legitimate, due to reckless implementation, or just due to an unpreventable accident.

[WalterBright]

I trot out the power generation industry as an example. People sue nuke plants out of existence, despite them being far less damaging than coal - in both lives and environmental destruction.

There's also the vaccine industry. Some vaccinations result in severe adverse reactions in a handful of people. But the public health benefit is so vast that the government has stepped in to shield vaccine makers from the lawsuits.

[TheCowboy]

As far as I know, nuclear power and the disposal of nuclear waste is more of a NIMBY problem than a problem of excess punitive damages or other alleged problems with lawsuits. This could also be an example of public shock putting pressure on politicians and public utilities to shy away from nuclear power.

The vaccine point suggests to me that it's not so black and white about if self-driving cars are doomed. If the public safety benefit of self-driving cars becomes so great, then maybe the government will be pressured to ensure they're here to stay. I think there will definitely need to be changes in the law to accommodate this tech, but it's not impossible.

[dandrews]

Hope you have some compelling evidence at hand when you sue an entity that has a complete record of the incident.

In any case, I expect the incipient googlecars will have capacitive sensors on the steering wheel, requiring that your fingerprints are on the controls.