Originally Posted by
billridesbikes
I’m fairly certain that algorithms will be optimized to prioritize driver and occupate safely including minor injuries, and if pedestrians get in the way that’s just too bad. (Thoughts and prayers)
There is no will now to protect cyclists and pedestrians if it inconveniences drivers even a little bit. Why would AVs change that mindset?
Given the current historical example, that automakers will give any thoughts at all to pedestrian or cyclists safety unless mandated by law is kind of a joke.
We have the
Elaine Herzberg incident that was settled for an undisclosed amount of money. Potentially in the hundreds of thousands, or a million. And, almost killed off the Uber AV trials.
They were running a "Taxi" service, so the AV company (Uber) would have a lot of liability to whatever they run into, dangers to other vehicles on the road, and dangers to their occupants and the occupant's property.
If these systems are sold privately, we'll likely see liability where the owner will be liable for maintenance or personal choices they make. But, the manufacturer will be liable for algorithm design and algorithm choices.
Kill a bunch of cyclists and pedestrians, and the governments will pull the plug on the entire project. Millions, or Billions invested down the drain. Payouts for a few broken eggs vs payouts for killing someone... the company will make the choices following the pocketbook.
The problem with the Herzberg death was that she was picked up 6 seconds before the crash, plenty of time to slow down. But, by the time she was correctly identified as a pedestrian/bicycle, with her walking speed across the road, it would have necessitated an emergency stop. And, Uber decided not to force emergency stops for fear of false alarms. But, doing so cost Herzberg her life. Their Volvo might have even stopped if the manufacturers systems hadn't been overridden (can't have two AI systems fighting internally).