This is to reflect today’s dire reality of driverless car makers. They claim that driverless cars eliminate human errors completely and will result in a lower accident rate. Have you ever seen a piece of software without a bug? So, programmers’ errors are not human errors. Plus, they really scale. A programming error can trigger multiple accidents all over the world. If it takes a day to discover an error and broadcast a software fix worldwide, the number of accidents can be quite impressive indeed. The problem is, driverless car makers keep on making extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence to back them. True, a driverless car may have achieved an impressive total mileage, such as 1 million miles so far, in a few very confined environments. However, statistically, we really need at least 1000 cars driving at least 5000 miles per year for a minimum sample size, which translates to 5 million miles. Even then, we can’t cover the comparison with experienced drivers. We can only compare to new drivers who don’t drive as often. Accident rates vary from city to city and even block to block. We must compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. It’s feasible, but are driverless car makers doing it? The tests are probably too expensive, but then these car makers shouldn’t make empty claims.
So, they need real life scenarios. Accidents are inevitable. However, if they can keep the number of accidents within 20, it’s supposed to be ethical. Plus, they can issue multi-million dollar lotteries for their victims. Don’t worry, because people are not going to lose an arm or a leg for a million dollars. It’s not worth it. On the other hand, they need to place a robot in every driverless car to make sure that people do not shun away from driverless cars. It shouldn’t be too obvious to pedestrians and other drivers on the road. The level of alertness is supposed to be the same around driverless cars and regular drivers. Otherwise, it’s not a fair game. We have the technology, so we must be responsible enough to make sure that these robots look like real people, ideally men in their 40’s to maintain a confident atmosphere within a radius of 100 meters.
I still don’t get it. Why are driverless cars so important that we even are willing to sacrifice human lives, even early in the testing phase? The market is not very big. Will you buy one? They are really doing all of this work for nothing.
Let’s see how the mini-cities work out for driverless cars and walking robots. True, humanoid robots are expensive, typically in tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands. If they are too expensive for these car makers, then we know how much human lives are worth in their eyes. Businessmen really know how to look good.
Law is rather easy with driverless cars. Driverless car makers pay for law suits, compensations for victims, equivalent compensations for jail time and pretty much everything else bound to human drivers, who are legal persons. I hope it’s not too expensive for them also.
Actually, it’s not enough. Given that car insurance companies need actual data to calculate premiums, it is necessary that driverless car makers assume the role of these companies for the first 5 years. In fact, this is good for car makers because I have just eliminated their competitors in the car insurance market for them, assuming they are doing a good job on programming. The protection for car insurance companies and the privilege of driverless car makers must not exceed 5 years to ensure the health of national economy.
That’s all. If you like my laws and policies, please give me a tongue kiss in my asshole. Bingo!