Reply to post: Re: First, find the problem

Prosecute driverless car devs for software snafus, say Brit cyclists


Re: First, find the problem

"From the cyclists' point of view, I would get worried. All these (truly) autonomous vehicles will have such a vast array of sensors that they will record every facet of an accident. Video from every direction, audio, weather conditions, positions of every object in the vicinity. All of that will be of "forensic" quality, It wold be very difficult for a cyclist, or pedestrian, who was faced with a weight of evidence that they were in the wrong, to defend against. No longer would there be an automatic presumption that every collision was always the car's fault."

I would have to ask why you would be worried from the cyclists point of view? Surely the fairer position is that you should be worried about the drivers who have been wrongly accused and probably wrongly convicted of being to blame for incident between cyclists and drivers where the driver has been taken as being at fault as a matter of course? Surely if their was any hint of sincerity and honesty in any investigation between a car and another mode of transport, then the liability and failures of both parties must be weighed. The cycling lobby, of course, loathe and hate this suggestion that they can do anything wrong and should have any liability for doing anything wrong under any circumstances, and quickly race to their statistics to show the number of drivers convicted of injuring cyclists and how few cyclists have been convicted to prove their case. The issue is how convincing are those numbers if the liability of the party other than the motorist was rigorously investigated in the same way the actions of the motorist are. It's easy to say the motorist is always wrong is the actions of the other party are not fully investigated.

As it stands, I sincerely hope that the forensic evidence available from these systems is accessible to the driver so to make it easy to prove his actions, but should we not really be asking ourselves why 'innocent until PROVEN guilty' and 'He who asserts must PROVE' seem increasingly alien when an accident occurs on the road, instead the focus being to find some tenuous way of placing blame solely on the motorist?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019