Google Wants to Take the Steering Wheel out of Its Autonomous Cars, Doesn't Trust Humans

Robots could be considered legal drivers in the United States. This means human occupants inside the vehicle wouldn't require a valid license in order to ride inside — the software would be the vehicle's legal “driver.”


Robots could be considered legal drivers in the United States. This means human occupants inside the vehicle wouldn't require a valid license in order to ride inside — the software would be the vehicle's legal “driver.”

Late last year, Google submitted a proposal to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for an autonomous car that has "no need for a human driver."

The NHTSA responded this month to Google's request in a letter, reported on by Reuters, which said,NHTSA will interpret 'driver' in the context of Google's described motor vehicle design as referring to the (self-driving system), and not to any of the vehicle occupants. We agree with Google its (self-driving car) will not have a 'driver' in the traditional sense that vehicles have had drivers during the last more than 100 years.”

Robots make people skittish; the idea of taking control away from a person and entrusting their life to a piece of software is unsettling to some. However, public opinion may have won in California, as the government is considering a ban on the use of unmanned cars before they've even come on the market.


“Safety is our highest priority and primary motivator as we do this,” Google spokesman Johnny Luu wrote in a statement. “We’re gravely disappointed that California is already writing a ceiling on the potential for fully self-driving cars to help all of us who live here.”

Brad Templeton, a software architect, civil rights advocate, and entrepreneur, pointed out in his blog, “In the normal history of car safety regulation, technologies are built and deployed by vendors and are usually on the road for decades before they get regulated, but people are so afraid of robots that this normal approach may not happen here.”

There are a lot of legal and moral questions surrounding autonomous vehicles. Should manufacturers notify passengers about the car's moral compass (e.g., would the AI crash the car if it meant saving a group of pedestrians)? And if the car did crash, who's at fault?

We’re going to need new kinds of laws that deal with the consequences of well-intentioned autonomous actions that robots take,” says Jerry Kaplan, who teaches Impact of Artificial Intelligence in the Computer Science Department at Stanford University.

When autonomous cars do become the popular mode of transportation, it's likely we'll see more benefits come out of this adoption than tragedy. Drunk drivers would become a non-issue; the elderly would become independent; and the environment would benefit from more efficient driving.

According to the NHTSA letter, Google has expressed “concern that providing human occupants of the vehicle with mechanisms to control things like steering, acceleration, braking ... could be detrimental to safety because the human occupants could attempt to override the (self-driving system's) decisions.”

“I think 100 years from now, people will look back and say, 'Really? People used to drive their cars? What are they, insane?' Humans are the worst control system to put in front of a car,” says Peter H. Diamandis, the chairman and CEO of the XPRIZE Foundation.

***

Photo Credit: NOAH BERGER / Stringer / Getty

Graph courtesy of UMichigan study: A survey of public opinion about autonomous and self-driving vehicles in the U.S., the U.K., and Australia.

LinkedIn meets Tinder in this mindful networking app

Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.

Getty Images
Sponsored
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.

No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.

Keep reading Show less

Dead – yes, dead – tardigrade found beneath Antarctica

A completely unexpected discovery beneath the ice.

(Goldstein Lab/Wkikpedia/Tigerspaws/Big Think)
Surprising Science
  • Scientists find remains of a tardigrade and crustaceans in a deep, frozen Antarctic lake.
  • The creatures' origin is unknown, and further study is ongoing.
  • Biology speaks up about Antarctica's history.
Keep reading Show less

If you want to spot a narcissist, look at the eyebrows

Bushier eyebrows are associated with higher levels of narcissism, according to new research.

Big Think illustration / Actor Peter Gallagher attends the 24th and final 'A Night at Sardi's' to benefit the Alzheimer's Association at The Beverly Hilton Hotel on March 9, 2016 in Beverly Hills, California. (Photo by Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images)
popular
  • Science has provided an excellent clue for identifying the narcissists among us.
  • Eyebrows are crucial to recognizing identities.
  • The study provides insight into how we process faces and our latent ability to detect toxic people.
Keep reading Show less

Why are women more religious than men? Because men are more willing to take risks.

It's one factor that can help explain the religiosity gap.

Photo credit: Alina Strong on Unsplash
Culture & Religion
  • Sociologists have long observed a gap between the religiosity of men and women.
  • A recent study used data from several national surveys to compare religiosity, risk-taking preferences and demographic information among more than 20,000 American adolescents.
  • The results suggest that risk-taking preferences might partly explain the gender differences in religiosity.
Keep reading Show less