Autonomous car

This article may be in need of reorganization to comply with

Wikipedia's layout guidelines. Learn more

Waymo Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid undergoing testing in the San

Francisco Bay Area

Automated racing car on display at the 2017 New York City ePrix

An autonomous car, also known as a robotic car, self-

driving car, or driverless car,[1][2] is a vehicle that is
capable of sensing its environment and moving with
little or no human input.[3]
Autonomous cars combine a variety of sensors to
perceive their surroundings, such as radar, lidar, sonar,
GPS, odometry and inertial measurement units.
Advanced control systems interpret sensory
information to identify appropriate navigation paths, as
well as obstacles and relevant signage.[4][5]

Long distance trucks are seen as being in the forefront

of adopting and implementing the technology.[6]

History
Experiments have been conducted on automated
driving systems (ADS) since at least the 1920s;[7] trials
began in the 1950s. The first semi-automated car was
developed in 1977, by Japan's Tsukuba Mechanical
Engineering Laboratory, which required specially
marked streets that were interpreted by two cameras
on the vehicle and an analog computer. The vehicle
reached speeds up to 30 kilometres per hour (19 mph)
with the support of an elevated rail.[8][9]

The first truly autonomous cars appeared in the 1980s,

with Carnegie Mellon University's Navlab[10] and
ALV[11][12] projects funded by DARPA starting in 1984
and Mercedes-Benz and Bundeswehr University
Munich's EUREKA Prometheus Project[13] in 1987. By
1985, the ALV had demonstrated self-driving speeds on
two-lane roads of 31 kilometres per hour (19 mph) with
obstacle avoidance added in 1986 and off-road driving
in day and nighttime conditions by 1987.[14] A major
milestone was achieved in 1995, with CMU's NavLab 5
completing the first autonomous coast-to-coast drive
of the United States. Of the 2,849 miles between
Pittsburgh, PA and San Diego, CA, 2,797 miles were
autonomous (98.2%), completed with an average speed
of 63.8 miles per hour (102.3 km/h).[15][16][17][18] From
the 1960s through the second DARPA Grand Challenge
in 2005, automated vehicle research in the U.S. was
primarily funded by DARPA, the US Army, and the U.S.
Navy, yielding incremental advances in speeds, driving
competence in more complex conditions, controls, and
sensor systems.[19] Companies and research
organizations have developed
prototypes.[13][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]
The U.S. allocated $650 million in 1991 for research on
the National Automated Highway System, which
demonstrated automated driving through a
combination of automation, embedded in the highway
with automated technology in vehicles and cooperative
networking between the vehicles and with the highway
infrastructure. The program concluded with a
successful demonstration in 1997 but without clear
direction or funding to implement the system on a
larger scale.[28] Partly funded by the National
Automated Highway System and DARPA, the Carnegie
Mellon University Navlab drove 4,584 kilometres
(2,848 mi) across America in 1995, 4,501 kilometres
(2,797 mi) or 98% of it autonomously.[29] Navlab's
record achievement stood unmatched for two decades
until 2015 when Delphi improved it by piloting an Audi,
augmented with Delphi technology, over 5,472
kilometres (3,400 mi) through 15 states while
remaining in self-driving mode 99% of the time.[30] In
2015, the US states of Nevada, Florida, California,
Virginia, and Michigan, together with Washington, D.C.,
allowed the testing of automated cars on public
roads.[31]
In 2017, Audi stated that its latest A8 would be
automated at speeds of up to 60 kilometres per hour
(37 mph) using its "Audi AI". The driver would not have
to do safety checks such as frequently gripping the
steering wheel. The Audi A8 was claimed to be the first
production car to reach level 3 automated driving, and
Audi would be the first manufacturer to use laser
scanners in addition to cameras and ultrasonic sensors
for their system.[32]

In November 2017, Waymo announced that it had

begun testing driverless cars without a safety driver in
the driver position;[33] however, there was still an
employee in the car.[34] In October 2018, Waymo
announced that its test vehicles had traveled in
automated mode for over 10,000,000 miles
(16,000,000 km), increasing by about 1,000,000 miles
(1,600,000 kilometres) per month.[35] In December
2018, Waymo was the first to commercialize a fully
autonomous taxi service in the U.S.[36]

Definitions
There is some inconsistency in the terminology used in
the self-driving car industry. Various organizations have
proposed to define an accurate and consistent
vocabulary.

Such confusion has been documented in SAE J3016

which states that "Some vernacular usages associate
autonomous specifically with full driving automation
(level 5), while other usages apply it to all levels of
driving automation, and some state legislation has
defined it to correspond approximately to any ADS at or
above level 3 (or to any vehicle equipped with such an
ADS)."

Words definition and safety considerations

Modern vehicles provide partly automated features

such as keeping the car within its lane, speed controls
or emergency braking. Nonetheless, differences remain
between a fully autonomous self-driving car on one
hand and driver assistance technologies on the other
hand. According to the BBC, confusion between those
concepts leads to deaths.[37]
Association of British Insurers considers the usage of
the word autonomous in marketing for modern cars to
be dangerous because car ads make motorists think
'autonomous' and 'autopilot' means a vehicle can drive
itself when they still rely on the driver to ensure safety.
Technology alone still is not able to drive the car.

When some car makers suggest or claim vehicles are

self-driving, when they are only partly automated,
drivers risk becoming excessively confident, leading to
crashes, while fully self-driving cars are still a long way
off in the UK.[38]

Autonomous vs. automated

Autonomous means self-governing.[39] Many historical

projects related to vehicle automation have been
automated (made automatic) subject to a heavy
reliance on artificial aids in their environment, such as
magnetic strips. Autonomous control implies
satisfactory performance under significant
uncertainties in the environment and the ability to
compensate for system failures without external
intervention.[39]

One approach is to implement communication

networks both in the immediate vicinity (for collision
avoidance) and farther away (for congestion
management). Such outside influences in the decision
process reduce an individual vehicle's autonomy, while
still not requiring human intervention.

Wood et al. (2012) wrote, "This Article generally uses

the term 'autonomous,' instead of the term 'automated.'
" The term "autonomous" was chosen "because it is the
term that is currently in more widespread use (and thus
is more familiar to the general public). However, the
latter term is arguably more accurate. 'Automated'
connotes control or operation by a machine, while
'autonomous' connotes acting alone or independently.
Most of the vehicle concepts (that we are currently
aware of) have a person in the driver's seat, utilize a
communication connection to the Cloud or other
vehicles, and do not independently select either
destinations or routes for reaching them. Thus, the
term 'automated' would more accurately describe these
vehicle concepts."[40] As of 2017, most commercial
projects focused on automated vehicles that did not
communicate with other vehicles or with an enveloping
management regime. EuroNCAP defines autonomous
in "Autonomous Emergency Braking" as: "the system
acts independently of the driver to avoid or mitigate the
accident." which implies the autonomous system is not
the driver.[41]

Autonomous versus cooperative

To enable a car to travel without any driver embedded

within the vehicle, some companies use a remote
driver.

According to SAE J3016,

Some driving automation systems may

indeed be autonomous if they perform all of
their functions independently and self-
sufficiently, but if they depend on
communication and/or cooperation with
 outside entities, they should be considered
cooperative rather than autonomous.

Self-driving car

PC Mag defines a self-driving car as "A computer-

controlled car that drives itself."[42] UCSUSA states that
self-driving cars are "cars or trucks in which human
drivers are never required to take control to safely
operate the vehicle. Also known as autonomous or
'driverless' cars, they combine sensors and software to
control, navigate, and drive the vehicle."[43]

Classification

Tesla Autopilot system is considered to be an SAE level 2 system.[44]

A classification system based on six different levels
(ranging from fully manual to fully automated systems)
was published in 2014 by SAE International, an
automotive standardization body, as J3016, Taxonomy
and Definitions for Terms Related to On-Road Motor
Vehicle Automated Driving Systems.[45][46] This
classification system is based on the amount of driver
intervention and attentiveness required, rather than the
vehicle capabilities, although these are very loosely
related. In the United States in 2013, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
released a formal classification system,[47] but
abandoned this system in favor of the SAE standard in
2016. Also in 2016, SAE updated its classification,
called J3016_201609.[48]

Levels of driving automation

In SAE's automation level definitions, "driving mode"

means "a type of driving scenario with characteristic
dynamic driving task requirements (e.g., expressway
merging, high speed cruising, low speed traffic jam,
closed-campus operations, etc.)"[49]
Level 0: Automated system issues warnings and may
momentarily intervene but has no sustained vehicle
control.
Level 1 ("hands on"): The driver and the automated
system share control of the vehicle. Examples are
systems where the driver controls steering and the
automated system controls engine power to
maintain a set speed (Cruise Control) or engine and
brake power to maintain and vary speed (Adaptive
Cruise Control or ACC); and Parking Assistance,
where steering is automated while speed is under
manual control. The driver must be ready to retake
full control at any time. Lane Keeping Assistance
(LKA) Type II is a further example of level 1 self-
driving.
Level 2 ("hands off"): The automated system takes
full control of the vehicle (accelerating, braking, and
steering). The driver must monitor the driving and be
prepared to intervene immediately at any time if the
automated system fails to respond properly. The
shorthand "hands off" is not meant to be taken
literally. In fact, contact between hand and wheel is
often mandatory during SAE 2 driving, to confirm that
the driver is ready to intervene.
Level 3 ("eyes off"): The driver can safely turn their
attention away from the driving tasks, e.g. the driver
can text or watch a movie. The vehicle will handle
situations that call for an immediate response, like
emergency braking. The driver must still be prepared
to intervene within some limited time, specified by
the manufacturer, when called upon by the vehicle to
do so.
Level 4 ("mind off"): As level 3, but no driver attention
is ever required for safety, e.g. the driver may safely
go to sleep or leave the driver's seat. Self-driving is
supported only in limited spatial areas (geofenced)
or under special circumstances, like traffic jams.
Outside of these areas or circumstances, the vehicle
must be able to safely abort the trip, e.g. park the car,
if the driver does not retake control.
Level 5 ("steering wheel optional"): No human
intervention is required at all. An example would be a
robotic taxi.
In the formal SAE definition below, note in particular
what happens in the shift from SAE 2 to SAE 3: the
human driver no longer has to monitor the environment.
This is the final aspect of the "dynamic driving task"
that is now passed over from the human to the
automated system. At SAE 3, the human driver still has
the responsibility to intervene when asked to do so by
the automated system. At SAE 4 the human driver is
relieved of that responsibility and at SAE 5 the
automated system will never need to ask for an
intervention.
SAE (J3016) Automation Levels[49]
Execution of Fallback System
Monitoring
SAE steering and performance capability
Name Narrative definition of driving
Level acceleration/ of dynamic (driving
environment
deceleration driving task modes)

Human driver monitors the driving environment

The full-time performance by the human driver of

No Human
0 all aspects of the dynamic driving task, even when n/a
Automation driver
"enhanced by warning or intervention systems"

The driving mode-specific

using information
execution by a driver Human
Driver about the driving
1 assistance system of driver and
Assistance environment and with Human Human
"either steering or system
the expectation that driver driver Some
acceleration/deceleration"
the human driver driving
The driving mode-specific
performs all modes
execution by one or more
Partial remaining aspects of
2 driver assistance systems System
Automation the dynamic driving
of both steering and
task
acceleration/deceleration

Automated driving system monitors the driving environment

with the expectation

that the human driver Some
Conditional Human
3 will respond driving
Automation driver
appropriately to a modes
request to intervene
The driving mode-specific
even if a human driver
performance by an Many
High does not respond
4 automated driving system System System driving
Automation appropriately to a
of all aspects of the modes
request to intervene
dynamic driving task
under all roadway and System
environmental
Full All driving
5 conditions that can be
Automation modes
managed by a human
driver

Legal definition
In the District of Columbia (DC) code,

"Autonomous vehicle" means a vehicle

capable of navigating District roadways
 and interpreting traffic-control devices
without a driver actively operating any of
the vehicle's control systems. The term
"autonomous vehicle" excludes a motor
vehicle enabled with active safety systems
or driver- assistance systems, including
systems to provide electronic blind-spot
assistance, crash avoidance, emergency
braking, parking assistance, adaptive
cruise control, lane-keep assistance, lane-
departure warning, or traffic-jam and
queuing assistance, unless the system alone
or in combination with other systems
enables the vehicle on which the technology
is installed to drive without active control
or monitoring by a human operator.

In the same district code, it is considered that:

 An autonomous vehicle may operate on a
public roadway; provided, that the vehicle:

(1) Has a manual override feature that

allows a driver to assume control of the
autonomous vehicle at any time;
(2) Has a driver seated in the control seat
of the vehicle while in operation who is
prepared to take control of the
autonomous vehicle at any moment; and
(3) Is capable of operating in compliance
with the District's applicable traffic laws
and motor vehicle laws and traffic
control devices.

Semi-automated vehicles
Between manually driven vehicles (SAE Level 0) and
fully autonomous vehicles (SAE Level 5), there are a
variety of vehicle types that can be described to have
some degree of automation. These are collectively
known as semi-automated vehicles. As it could be a
while before the technology and infrastructure are
developed for full automation, it is likely that vehicles
will have increasing levels of automation. These semi-
automated vehicles could potentially harness many of
the advantages of fully automated vehicles, while still
keeping the driver in charge of the vehicle.

Technical challenges
There are different systems that help the self-driving
car control the car. Systems that currently need
improvement include the car navigation system, the
location system, the electronic map, the map matching,
the global path planning, the environment perception,
the laser perception, the radar perception, the visual
perception, the vehicle control, the perception of vehicle
speed and direction, the vehicle control method.[50]

The challenge for driverless car designers is to produce

control systems capable of analyzing sensory data in
order to provide accurate detection of other vehicles
and the road ahead.[51] Modern self-driving cars
generally use Bayesian simultaneous localization and
mapping (SLAM) algorithms,[52] which fuse data from
multiple sensors and an off-line map into current
location estimates and map updates. Waymo has
developed a variant of SLAM with detection and
tracking of other moving objects (DATMO), which also
handles obstacles such as cars and pedestrians.
Simpler systems may use roadside real-time locating
system (RTLS) technologies to aid localization. Typical
sensors include lidar, stereo vision, GPS and IMU.[53][54]
Control systems on automated cars may use Sensor
Fusion, which is an approach that integrates
information from a variety of sensors on the car to
produce a more consistent, accurate, and useful view
of the environment.[55]

Driverless vehicles require some form of machine

vision for the purpose of visual object recognition.
Automated cars are being developed with deep neural
networks,[53] a type of deep learning architecture with
many computational stages, or levels, in which neurons
are simulated from the environment that activate the
network.[56] The neural network depends on an
extensive amount of data extracted from real-life
driving scenarios,[53] enabling the neural network to
"learn" how to execute the best course of action.[56]

In May 2018, researchers from MIT announced that

they had built an automated car that can navigate
unmapped roads.[57] Researchers at their Computer
Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL)
have developed a new system, called MapLite, which
allows self-driving cars to drive on roads that they have
never been on before, without using 3D maps. The
system combines the GPS position of the vehicle, a
"sparse topological map" such as OpenStreetMap, (i.e.
having 2D features of the roads only), and a series of
sensors that observe the road conditions.[58]

Heavy rainfall, hail, or snow could impede the car

sensors.

Nature of the digital technology

Autonomous vehicles, as digital technology, have
certain characteristics that distinguish them from other
types of technologies and vehicles. Due to these
characteristics, autonomous vehicles are able to be
more transformative and agile to possible changes.
The characteristics will be explained based on the
following subjects: homogenization and decoupling,
connectivity, reprogrammable and smart, digital traces
and modularity.

Homogenization and decoupling

Homogenization comes from the fact that all digital

information assumes the same form. During the
ongoing evolution of the digital era, certain industry
standards have been developed on how to store digital
information and in what type of format. This concept of
homogenization also applies to autonomous vehicles.
In order for autonomous vehicles to perceive their
surroundings, they have to use different techniques
each with their own accompanying digital information
(e.g. radar, GPS, motion sensors and computer vision).
Due to homogenization, the digital information from
these different techniques is stored in a homogeneous
way. This implies that all digital information comes in
the same form, which means their differences are
decoupled, and digital information can be transmitted,
stored and computed in a way that the vehicles and its
operating system can better understand and act upon
it. Homogenization also helps to exponentially increase
the computing power of hard- and software (Moore's
law) which also supports the autonomous vehicles to
understand and act upon the digital information in a
more cost-effective way, therefore lowering the
marginal costs.;

Connectivity

Connectivity means that users of a certain digital

technology can connect easily with other users, other
applications or even (other) enterprises. In the case of
autonomous vehicles, it is essential for them to
connect with other 'devices' in order to function most
effectively. Autonomous vehicles are equipped with
communication systems which allow them to
communicate with other autonomous vehicles and
roadside units to provide them, amongst other things,
with information about road work or traffic congestion.
In addition, scientists believe that the future will have
computer programs that connect and manage each
individual autonomous vehicle as it navigates through
an intersection. This type of connectivity must replace
traffic lights and stop signs.[59] These types of
characteristics drive and further develop the ability of
autonomous vehicles to understand and cooperate with
other products and services (such as intersection
computer systems) in the autonomous vehicles
market. This could lead to a network of autonomous
vehicles all using the same network and information
available on that network. Eventually, this can lead to
more autonomous vehicles using the network because
the information has been validated through the usage
of other autonomous vehicles. Such movements will
strengthen the value of the network and is called
network externalities.;

Reprogrammable

Another characteristic of autonomous vehicles is that

the core product will have a greater emphasis on the
software and its possibilities, instead of the chassis
and its engine. This is because autonomous vehicles
have software systems that drive the vehicle meaning
that updates through reprogramming or editing the
software can enhance the benefits of the owner (e.g.
update in better distinguishing blind person vs. non-
blind person so that the vehicle will take extra caution
when approaching a blind person). A characteristic of
this reprogrammable part of autonomous vehicles is
that the updates need not only to come from the
supplier, because through machine learning (smart)
autonomous vehicles can generate certain updates and
install them accordingly (e.g. new navigation maps or
new intersection computer systems). These
reprogrammable characteristics of the digital
technology and the possibility of smart machine
learning give manufacturers of autonomous vehicles
the opportunity to differentiate themselves on
software. This also implies that autonomous vehicles
are never finished because the product can be
continuously be improved.

Digital traces

Autonomous vehicles are equipped with different sorts

of sensors and radars. As said, this allows them to
connect and interoperate with computers from other
autonomous vehicles and/or roadside units. This
implies that autonomous vehicles leave digital traces
when they connect or interoperate. The data that
comes from these digital traces can be used to develop
new (to be determined) products or updates to enhance
autonomous vehicles' driving ability or safety.

Modularity

Traditional vehicles and their accompanying

(traditional) technologies are manufactured as a
product that will be complete, and unlike autonomous
vehicles, they can only be improved if they are
redesigned or reproduced. As said, autonomous
vehicles are produced but due to their digital
characteristics never finished. This is because
autonomous vehicles are more modular since they are
made up out of several modules which will be
explained hereafter through a Layered Modular
Architecture. The Layered Modular Architecture
extends the architecture of purely physical vehicles by
incorporating four loosely coupled layers of devices,
networks, services and contents into Autonomous
Vehicles. These loosely coupled layers can interact
through certain standardized interfaces.

(1) The first layer of this architecture consists of the

device layer. This layer consists of the following two
parts: logical capability and physical machinery. The
physical machinery refers to the actual vehicle itself
(e.g. chassis and carrosserie). When it comes to
digital technologies, the physical machinery is
accompanied by a logical capability layer in the form
of operating systems that helps to guide the vehicles
itself and make it autonomous. The logical capability
provides control over the vehicle and connects it with
the other layers.;
(2) On top of the device layer comes the network
layer. This layer also consists of two different parts:
physical transport and logical transmission. The
physical transport layer refers to the radars, sensors
and cables of the autonomous vehicles which enable
the transmission of digital information. Next to that,
the network layer of autonomous vehicles also has a
logical transmission which contains communication
 protocols and network standard to communicate the
digital information with other networks and platforms
or between layers. This increases the accessibility of
the autonomous vehicles and enables the
computational power of a network or platform.;
(3) The service layer contains the applications and
their functionalities that serves the autonomous
vehicle (and its owners) as they extract, create, store
and consume content with regards to their own
driving history, traffic congestion, roads or parking
abilities for example.; and
(4) The final layer of the model is the contents layer.
This layer contains the sounds, images and videos.
The autonomous vehicles store, extract and use to
act upon and improve their driving and understanding
of the environment. The contents layer also provides
metadata and directory information about the
content's origin, ownership, copyright, encoding
methods, content tags, geo-time stamps, and so on
(Yoo et al., 2010).

The consequence of layered modular architecture of

autonomous vehicles (and other digital technologies) is
that it enables the emergence and development of
platforms and ecosystems around a product and/or
certain modules of that product. Traditionally,
automotive vehicles were developed, manufactured
and maintained by traditional manufacturers.
Nowadays app developers and content creators can
help to develop more comprehensive product
experience for the consumers which creates a platform
around the product of autonomous vehicles.

Human factor challenges

Self-driving cars are already exploring the difficulties of
determining the intentions of pedestrians, bicyclists,
and animals, and models of behavior must be
programmed into driving algorithms. Human road users
also have the challenge of determining the intentions of
autonomous vehicles, where there is no driver with
which to make eye contact or exchange hand signals.
Drive.ai is testing a solution to this problem that
involves LED signs mounted on the outside of the
vehicle, announcing status such as "going now, don't
cross" vs. "waiting for you to cross".[60]
Two human-factor challenges are important for safety.
One is the handoff from automated driving to manual
driving, which may become necessary due to
unfavorable or unusual road conditions, or if the vehicle
has limited capabilities. A sudden handoff could leave
a human driver dangerously unprepared in the moment.
In the long term, humans who have less practice at
driving might have a lower skill level and thus be more
dangerous in manual mode. The second challenge is
known as risk compensation: as a system is perceived
to be safer, instead of benefiting entirely from all of the
increased safety, people engage in riskier behavior and
enjoy other benefits. Semi-automated cars have been
shown to suffer from this problem, for example with
users of Tesla Autopilot ignoring the road and using
electronic devices or other activities against the advice
of the company that the car is not capable of being
completely autonomous. In the near future, pedestrians
and bicyclists may travel in the street in a riskier
fashion if they believe self-driving cars are capable of
avoiding them.
In order for people to buy self-driving cars and vote for
the government to allow them on roads, the technology
must be trusted as safe.[61][62] Self-driving elevators
were invented in 1900, but the high number of people
refusing to use them slowed adoption for several
decades until operator strikes increased demand and
trust was built with advertising and features like the
emergency stop button.[63][64]

Testing

A prototype of Waymo's self-driving car, navigating public streets in

Mountain View, California in 2017

Testing vehicles with varying degrees of automation

can be done physically, in closed environments,[65] on
public roads (where permitted, typically with a license
or permit[66] or adhering to a specific set of operating
principles)[67] or virtually, i.e. in computer
simulations.[68][69] When driven on public roads,
automated vehicles require a person to monitor their
proper operation and "take over" when needed. For
example, New York State has strict requirements for
the test driver so that at all times the vehicle can be
corrected by a licensed driver; highlighted by Cardian
Cube Company's application and discussions with New
York State officials and the NYS DMV.[70]

Apple is currently testing self-driven cars, and has

increased the number of test vehicles from 3 to 27 in
January 2018,[71] and to 45 in March 2018.[72]

Russian internet-company Yandex started to develop

self-driven cars in 2016. In February 2018, they tested
the prototype of an unmanned taxi on the streets of
Moscow.[73] In June 2018 Yandex self-driving vehicle
completed a 485 mile (780 km) trip on a federal
highway from Moscow to Kazan, staying in
autonomous mode 99% of the time.[74][75] Yandex-taxi
in August 2018 start working with self-driven cars in
Innopolis (Republic of Tatarstan). On the territory of
Innopolis they will operate two unmanned vehicles with
five stops.[76] For the first time, the testing of an
unmanned vehicle Yandex outside Russia was held in
Las Vegas in January 2019. Testing continued during
the International Consumer Electronics Show (CES) 8–
11 January[77] Yandex received permission from the
Ministry of Transport of Israel to test a company's
unmanned vehicle on public roads in 2019.[78]

One way to assess the progress of automated vehicles

is to compute the average distance driven between
"disengagements", when the automated system is
turned off, typically by a human driver. In 2017, Waymo
reported 63 disengagements over 352,545 miles
(567,366 km) of testing, or 5,596 miles (9,006 km) on
average, the highest among companies reporting such
figures. Waymo also traveled more distance in total
than any other. Their 2017 rate of 0.18 disengagements
per 1,000 miles (1,600 km) was an improvement from
0.2 disengagements per 1,000 miles (1,600 km) in 2016
and 0.8 in 2015. In March 2017, Uber reported an
average of 0.67 miles (1.08 km) per disengagement. In
the final three months of 2017, Cruise Automation (now
owned by GM) averaged 5,224 miles (8,407 km) per
disruption over 62,689 miles (100,888 km).[79] In July
2018, the first electric driverless racing car "Robocar"
completed 1.8 kilometers track, using its navigation
system and artificial intelligence.[80]

Miles per disengagement[79]

2016
Maker Distance between
Distance
disengagements

Waymo 5,127.9 miles (8,252.6 km) 635,868 miles (1,023,330 km)

BMW 638 miles (1,027 km) 638 miles (1,027 km)

Nissan 263.3 miles (423.7 km) 6,056 miles (9,746 km)

Ford 196.6 miles (316.4 km) 590 miles (950 km)

General Motors 54.7 miles (88.0 km) 8,156 miles (13,126 km)

Delphi Automotive Systems 14.9 miles (24.0 km) 2,658 miles (4,278 km)

Tesla 2.9 miles (4.7 km) 550 miles (890 km)

Mercedes Benz 2 miles (3.2 km) 673 miles (1,083 km)

Bosch 0.68 miles (1.09 km) 983 miles (1,582 km)

Volkswagen 5.56 miles (8.95 km) 9 miles (14 km)

Fields of application
Autonomous trucks

Transport systems

In Europe, cities in Belgium, France, Italy and the UK are

planning to operate transport systems for automated
cars,[81][82][83] and Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain
have allowed public testing in traffic. In 2015, the UK
launched public trials of the LUTZ Pathfinder
automated pod in Milton Keynes.[84] Beginning in
summer 2015, the French government allowed PSA
Peugeot-Citroen to make trials in real conditions in the
Paris area. The experiments were planned to be
extended to other cities such as Bordeaux and
Strasbourg by 2016.[85] The alliance between French
companies THALES and Valeo (provider of the first
self-parking car system that equips Audi and Mercedes
premi) is testing its own system.[86] New Zealand is
planning to use automated vehicles for public transport
in Tauranga and Christchurch.[87][88][89][90]

In China, Baidu and King Long produce automated

minibus, a vehicle with 14 seats, but without driving
seat. With 100 vehicles produced, 2018 will be the first
year with commercial automated service in China.
Those minibuses should be at level 4, that is driverless
in closed roads.[91][92]

Potential advantages
Safety

Driving safety experts predict that once driverless

technology has been fully developed, traffic collisions
(and resulting deaths and injuries and costs), caused by
human error, such as delayed reaction time, tailgating,
rubbernecking, and other forms of distracted or
aggressive driving should be substantially
reduced.[93][94][95][96] Consulting firm McKinsey &
Company estimated that widespread use of
autonomous vehicles could "eliminate 90% of all auto
accidents in the United States, prevent up to
US$190 billion in damages and health-costs annually
and save thousands of lives".[97]

According to motorist website "TheDrive.com" operated

by Time magazine, none of the driving safety experts
they were able to contact were able to rank driving
under an autopilot system at the time (2017) as having
achieved a greater level of safety than traditional fully
hands-on driving, so the degree to which these benefits
asserted by proponents will manifest in practice cannot
be assessed.[98] Confounding factors that could reduce
the net effect on safety may include unexpected
interactions between humans and partly or fully
automated vehicles, or between different types of
vehicle system; complications at the boundaries of
functionality at each automation level (such as
handover when the vehicle reaches the limit of its
capacity); the effect of the bugs and flaws that
inevitably occur in complex interdependent software
systems; sensor or data shortcomings; and successful
compromise by malicious interveners.

To help reduce the possibility of these confounding

factors, some companies have begun to open-source
parts of their driverless systems. Udacity for instance is
developing an open-source software stack,[99] and
some companies are having similar
approaches.[100][101]

Welfare

Automated cars could reduce labor costs;[102][103]

relieve travelers from driving and navigation chores,
thereby replacing behind-the-wheel commuting hours
with more time for leisure or work;[93][96] and also would
lift constraints on occupant ability to drive, distracted
and texting while driving, intoxicated, prone to seizures,
or otherwise impaired.[104][105][106] For the young, the
elderly, people with disabilities, and low-income
citizens, automated cars could provide enhanced
mobility.[107][108][109] The removal of the steering wheel
—along with the remaining driver interface and the
requirement for any occupant to assume a forward-
facing position—would give the interior of the cabin
greater ergonomic flexibility. Large vehicles, such as
motorhomes, would attain appreciably enhanced ease
of use.[110]

Traffic

Additional advantages could include higher speed

limits;[111] smoother rides;[112] and increased roadway
capacity; and minimized traffic congestion, due to
decreased need for safety gaps and higher
speeds.[113][114] Currently, maximum controlled-access
highway throughput or capacity according to the U.S.
Highway Capacity Manual is about 2,200 passenger
vehicles per hour per lane, with about 5% of the
available road space is taken up by cars. One study
estimated that automated cars could increase capacity
by 273% (≈8,200 cars per hour per lane). The study also
estimated that with 100% connected vehicles using
vehicle-to-vehicle communication, capacity could reach
12,000 passenger vehicles per hour (up 545% from
2,200 pc/h per lane) traveling safely at 120 km/h
(75 mph) with a following gap of about 6 m (20 ft) of
each other. Currently, at highway speeds drivers keep
between 40 to 50 m (130 to 160 ft) away from the car
in front. These increases in highway capacity could
have a significant impact in traffic congestion,
particularly in urban areas, and even effectively end
highway congestion in some places.[115] The ability for
authorities to manage traffic flow would increase, given
the extra data and driving behavior predictability[116]
combined with less need for traffic police and even
road signage.

Lower costs

Safer driving is expected to reduce the costs of vehicle

insurance.[102][117]

Energy and environmental impacts

Vehicle automation can improve fuel economy of the
car by optimizing the drive cycle.[118] Reduced traffic
congestion and the improvements in traffic flow due to
widespread use of automated cars will translate into
higher fuel efficiency.[119] Additionally, self-driving cars
will be able to accelerate and brake more efficiently,
meaning higher fuel economy from reducing wasted
energy typically associated with inefficient changes to
speed. However, the improvement in vehicle energy
efficiency does not necessarily translate to net
reduction in energy consumption and positive
environmental outcomes. It is expected that
convenience of the automated vehicles encourages the
consumers to travel more, and this induced demand
may partially or fully offset the fuel efficiency
improvement brought by automation.[118] Overall, the
consequences of vehicle automation on global energy
demand and emissions are highly uncertain, and
heavily depends on the combined effect of changes in
consumer behavior, policy intervention, technological
progress and vehicle technology.[118]

Parking space
Manually driven vehicles are reported to be used only
4–5% of the time, and being parked and unused for the
remaining 95–96% of the time.[120][121] Autonomous
vehicles could, on the other hand, be used continuously
after it has reached its destination. This could
dramatically reduce the need for parking space. For
example, in Los Angeles, 14% of the land is used for
parking alone,[122] equivalent to some 17,020,594
square meters.[123] This combined with the potential
reduced need for road space due to improved traffic
flow, could free up tremendous amounts of land in
urban areas, which could then be used for parks,
recreational areas, buildings, among other uses;
making cities more livable.

Related effects

By reducing the (labor and other) cost of mobility as a

service, automated cars could reduce the number of
cars that are individually owned, replaced by
taxi/pooling and other car-sharing services.[124][125]
This would also dramatically reduce the size of the
automotive production industry, with corresponding
environmental and economic effects. Assuming the
increased efficiency is not fully offset by increases in
demand, more efficient traffic flow could free roadway
space for other uses such as better support for
pedestrians and cyclists.

The vehicles' increased awareness could aid the police

by reporting on illegal passenger behavior, while
possibly enabling other crimes, such as deliberately
crashing into another vehicle or a pedestrian.[126]
However, this may also lead to much expanded mass
surveillance if there is wide access granted to third
parties to the large data sets generated.

The future of passenger rail transport in the era of

automated cars is not clear.[127]

Potential limits or obstacles

The sort of hoped-for potential benefits from increased
vehicle automation described may be limited by
foreseeable challenges, such as disputes over liability
(will each company operating a vehicle accept that they
are its "driver" and thus responsible for what their car
does, or will some try to project this liability onto others
who are not in control?),[128][129] the time needed to turn
over the existing stock of vehicles from non-automated
to automated,[130] and thus a long period of humans
and autonomous vehicles sharing the roads, resistance
by individuals to having to forfeit control of their
cars,[131] concerns about the safety of driverless in
practice,[132] and the implementation of a legal
framework and consistent global government
regulations for self-driving cars.[133]

Other obstacles could include de-skilling and lower

levels of driver experience for dealing with potentially
dangerous situations and anomalies,[134] ethical
problems where an automated vehicle's software is
forced during an unavoidable crash to choose between
multiple harmful courses of action ('the trolley
problem'),[135][136][137] concerns about making large
numbers of people currently employed as drivers
unemployed (at the same time as many other alternate
blue collar occupations may be undermined by
automation), the potential for more intrusive mass
surveillance of location, association and travel as a
result of police and intelligence agency access to large
data sets generated by sensors and pattern-recognition
AI (making anonymous travel difficult), and possibly
insufficient understanding of verbal sounds, gestures
and non-verbal cues by police, other drivers or
pedestrians.[138]

Possible technological obstacles for automated cars

are:

Artificial Intelligence is still not able to function

properly in chaotic inner-city environments.[139]
A car's computer could potentially be compromised,
as could a communication system between
cars.[140][141][142][143][144]
Susceptibility of the car's sensing and navigation
systems to different types of weather (such as snow)
or deliberate interference, including jamming and
spoofing.[138]
Avoidance of large animals requires recognition and
tracking, and Volvo found that software suited to
 caribou, deer, and elk was ineffective with
kangaroos.[145]
Autonomous cars may require very high-quality
specialised maps[146] to operate properly. Where
these maps may be out of date, they would need to
be able to fall back to reasonable behaviors.[146][147]
Competition for the radio spectrum desired for the
car's communication.[148]
Field programmability for the systems will require
careful evaluation of product development and the
component supply chain.[144]
Current road infrastructure may need changes for
automated cars to function optimally.[149]

Social challenges include:

Government over-regulation, or even uncertainty

about potential future regulation, may delay
deployment of automated cars on the road.[150]
Employment – Companies working on the
technology have an increasing recruitment problem
in that the available talent pool has not grown with
demand.[151] As such, education and training by third-
 party organisations such as providers of online
courses and self-taught community-driven projects
such as DIY Robocars[152] and Formula Pi have
quickly grown in popularity, while university level
extra-curricular programmes such as Formula
Student Driverless[153] have bolstered graduate
experience. Industry is steadily increasing freely
available information sources, such as code,[154]
datasets[155] and glossaries[156] to widen the
recruitment pool.

Potential disadvantages
A direct impact of widespread adoption of automated
vehicles is the loss of driving-related jobs in the road
transport industry.[102][103][157] There could be
resistance from professional drivers and unions who
are threatened by job losses.[158] In addition, there
could be job losses in public transit services and crash
repair shops. The automobile insurance industry might
suffer as the technology makes certain aspects of
these occupations obsolete.[109] A frequently cited
paper by Michael Osborne and Carl Benedikt Frey found
that automated cars would make many jobs
redundant.[159]

Privacy could be an issue when having the vehicle's

location and position integrated into an interface in
which other people have access to.[160] In addition,
there is the risk of automotive hacking through the
sharing of information through V2V (Vehicle to Vehicle)
and V2I (Vehicle to Infrastructure)
protocols.[161][162][163] There is also the risk of terrorist
attacks. Self-driving cars could potentially be loaded
with explosives and used as bombs.[164]

The lack of stressful driving, more productive time

during the trip, and the potential savings in travel time
and cost could become an incentive to live far away
from cities, where land is cheaper, and work in the city's
core, thus increasing travel distances and inducing
more urban sprawl, more fuel consumption and an
increase in the carbon footprint of urban
travel.[118][165][166] There is also the risk that traffic
congestion might increase, rather than
decrease.[118][109] Appropriate public policies and
regulations, such as zoning, pricing, and urban design
are required to avoid the negative impacts of increased
suburbanization and longer distance travel.[109][166]

Some believe that once automation in vehicles reaches

higher levels and becomes reliable, drivers will pay less
attention to the road.[167] Research shows that drivers
in automated cars react later when they have to
intervene in a critical situation, compared to if they
were driving manually.[168] Depending on the
capabilities of automated vehicles and the frequency
with which human intervention is needed, this may
counteract any increase in safety, as compared to all-
human driving, that may be delivered by other factors.

Ethical and moral reasoning come into consideration

when programming the software that decides what
action the car takes in an unavoidable crash; whether
the automated car will crash into a bus, potentially
killing people inside; or swerve elsewhere, potentially
killing its own passengers or nearby pedestrians.[169] A
question that programmers of AI systems find difficult
to answer (as do ordinary people, and ethicists) is
"what decision should the car make that causes the
'smallest' damage to people's lives?" One proposed
solution is the implementation of ethics bots in self-
driving vehicles, which learn from user preferences to
ultimately guide autonomous instruments in
accordance with the owner's values and
preferences.[170]

The ethics of automated vehicles are still being

articulated, and may lead to controversy.[171] They may
also require closer consideration of the variability,
context-dependency, complexity and non-deterministic
nature of human ethics. Different human drivers make
various ethical decisions when driving, such as
avoiding harm to themselves, or putting themselves at
risk to protect others. These decisions range from rare
extremes such as self-sacrifice or criminal negligence,
to routine decisions good enough to keep the traffic
flowing but bad enough to cause accidents, road rage
and stress.

Human thought and reaction time may sometimes be

too slow to detect the risk of an upcoming fatal crash,
think through the ethical implications of the available
options, or take an action to implement an ethical
choice. Whether a particular automated vehicle's
capacity to correctly detect an upcoming risk, analyse
the options or choose a 'good' option from among bad
choices would be as good or better than a particular
human's may be difficult to predict or assess. This
difficulty may be in part because the level of automated
vehicle system understanding of the ethical issues at
play in a given road scenario, sensed for an instant
from out of a continuous stream of synthetic physical
predictions of the near future, and dependent on layers
of pattern recognition and situational intelligence, may
be opaque to human inspection because of its origins
in probabilistic machine learning rather than a simple,
plain English 'human values' logic of parsable rules.
The depth of understanding, predictive power and
ethical sophistication needed will be hard to implement,
and even harder to test or assess.

The scale of this challenge may have other effects.

There may be few entities able to marshal the
resources and AI capacity necessary to meet it, as well
as the capital necessary to take an automated vehicle
system to market and sustain it operationally for the
life of a vehicle, and the legal and 'government affairs'
capacity to deal with the potential for liability for a
significant proportion of traffic accidents. This may
have the effect of narrowing the number of different
system opertors, and eroding the presently quite
diverse global vehicle market down to a small number
of system suppliers.

Potential changes for different

industries
The traditional automobile industry is subject to
changes driven by technology and market demands.
These changes include breakthrough technological
advances and when the market demands and adopts
new technology quickly. In the rapid advance of both
factors, the end of the era of incremental change was
recognized. When the transition is made to a new
technology, new entrants to the automotive industry
present themselves, which can be distinguished as
mobility providers such as Uber and Lyft, as well as
tech giants such as Google and Nvidia. As new entrants
to the industry arise, market uncertainty naturally
occurs due to the changing dynamics. For example, the
entrance of tech giants, as well as the alliances
between them and traditional car manufacturers
causes a variation in the innovation and production
process of autonomous vehicles. Additionally, the
entrance of mobility providers has caused ambiguous
user preferences. As a result of the rise of mobility
providers, the number of vehicles per capita has
flatlined. In addition, the rise of the sharing economy
also contributes to market uncertainty and causes
forecasters to question whether private ownership of
vehicles is still relevant as new transportation
technology and mobility providers are becoming
preferred among consumers.

Taxis

With the aforementioned ambiguous user preference

regarding the private ownership of autonomous
vehicles, it is possible that the current mobility provider
trend will continue as it rises in popularity. Established
providers such as Uber and Lyft are already significantly
present within the industry, and it is likely that new
entrants will enter when business opportunities
arise.[172]

Healthcare, car repair, and car insurance

With the increasing reliance of autonomous vehicles on

interconnectivity and the availability of big data which
is made usable in the form of real-time maps, driving
decisions can be made much faster in order to prevent
collisions. Numbers made available by the US
government state that 94% of the vehicle accidents are
due to human failures. As a result, major implications
for the healthcare industry become apparent. Numbers
from the National Safety Council on killed and injured
people on U.S. roads multiplied by the average costs of
a single incident reveal that an estimated 500-billion-
dollar loss may be imminent for the US healthcare
industry when autonomous vehicles are dominating the
roads. It is likely the anticipated decrease in traffic
accidents will positively contribute to the widespread
acceptance of autonomous vehicles, as well as the
possibility to better allocate healthcare resources. As
collisions are less likely to occur, and the risk for
human errors is reduced significantly, the repair
industry will face an enormous reduction of work that
has to be done on the reparation of car frames.
Meanwhile, as the generated data of the autonomous
vehicle is likely to predict when certain replaceable
parts are in need of maintenance, car owners and the
repair industry will be able to proactively replace a part
that will fail soon. This "Asset Efficiency Service" would
implicate a productivity gain for the automotive repair
industry. As fewer collisions implicate less money
spent on repair costs, the role of the insurance industry
is likely to be altered as well. It can be expected that the
increased safety of transport due to autonomous
vehicles will lead to a decrease in payouts for the
insurers, which is positive for the industry, but fewer
payouts may imply a demand drop for insurances in
general. The insurance industry may have to create new
insurance models in the near future to accommodate
the changes. An unexpected disadvantage of the
widespread acceptance of autonomous vehicles would
be a reduction in organs available for transplant.[173]

Rescue, emergency response, and military

The technique used in autonomous driving also
ensures life savings in other industries. The
implementation of autonomous vehicles with rescue,
emergency response, and military applications has
already led to a decrease in deaths. Military personnel
use autonomous vehicles to reach dangerous and
remote places on earth to deliver fuel, food and general
supplies, and even rescue people. In addition, a future
implication of adopting autonomous vehicles could
lead to a reduction in deployed personnel, which will
lead to a decrease in injuries, since the technological
development allows Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) to
become more and more autonomous. Another future
implication is the reduction of emergency drivers when
autonomous vehicles are deployed as fire trucks or
ambulances. An advantage could be the use of real-
time traffic information and other generated data to
determine and execute routes more efficiently than
human drivers. The time savings can be invaluable in
these situations.[174]

Interior design and entertainment

For the interior design industry, there are exciting times
ahead. The driver is decreasingly focused on the actual
driving, this implies that the interior design- and media-
entertainment industry has to reconsider what
passengers of autonomous vehicles are doing when
they are on the road. Vehicles need to be redesigned,
and possibly even be prepared for multipurpose usage.
In practice, it will show that travelers have more time
for business and/or leisure. In both cases, this gives
increasing opportunities for the media-entertainment
industry to demand attention. Moreover, the
advertisement business is able to provide location
based ads without risking driver safety.[175]

Telecommunication and energy

All cars can benefit from information and connections,

but autonomous cars “Will be fully capable of operating
without C-V2X."[176] In addition, the earlier mentioned
entertainment industry is also highly dependent on this
network to be active in this market segment. This
implies higher revenues for the telecommunication
industry.
Since many autonomous vehicles are going to rely on
electricity to operate, the demand for lithium batteries
increases. Similarly, radar, sensors, lidar, and high-
speed internet connectivity require higher auxiliary
power from vehicles, which manifests as greater power
draw from batteries.[118] The larger battery requirement
causes a necessary increase in supply of these type of
batteries for the chemical industry. On the other hand,
with the expected increase of battery powered
(autonomous) vehicles, the petroleum industry is
expected to undergo a decline in demand. As this
implication depends on the adoption rate of
autonomous vehicles, it is unsure to what extent this
implication will disrupt this particular industry. This
transition phase of oil to electricity allows companies
to explore whether there are business opportunities for
them in the new energy ecosystem.

Restaurant, hotels, and airlines

Driver interactions with the vehicle will be less common

within the near future, and in the more distant future the
responsibility will lie entirely with the vehicle. As
indicated above, this will have implications for the
entertainment- and interior design industry. For
roadside restaurants, the implication will be that the
need for customers to stop driving and enter the
restaurant will vanish, and the autonomous vehicle will
have a double function. Moreover, accompanied with
the rise of disruptive platforms such as Airbnb that
have shaken up the hotel industry, the fast increase of
developments within the autonomous vehicle industry
might cause another implication for their customer
bases. In the more distant future, the implication for
motels might be that a decrease in guests will occur,
since autonomous vehicles could be redesigned as
fully equipped bedrooms. The improvements regarding
the interior of the vehicles might additionally have
implications for the airline industry. In the case of
relatively short-haul flights, waiting times at customs or
the gate imply lost time and hassle for customers. With
the improved convenience in future car travel, it is
possible that customers might go for this option,
causing a loss in customer bases for airline
industry.[177]
Elderly, disabled, and children

Autonomous vehicles will have a severe impact on the

mobility options of persons that are not able to drive a
vehicle themselves. To remain socially engaged with
society or even able to do groceries, the elderly people
of today are depending on caretakers to drive them to
these places. In addition to the perceived freedom of
the elderly people of the future, the demand for human
aides will decrease. When we also consider the
increased health of the elderly, it is safe to state that
care centers will experience a decrease in the number
of clients. Not only elderly people face difficulties of
their decreased physical abilities, also disabled people
will perceive the benefits of autonomous vehicles in the
near future, causing their dependency on caretakers to
decrease. Both industries are largely depending on
informal caregivers, who are mostly relatives of the
persons in need. Since there is less of a reliance on
their time, employers of informal caregivers or even
governments will experience a decrease of costs
allocated to this matter. Children and teens, who are
not able to drive a vehicle themselves, are also
benefiting of the introduction of autonomous cars.
Daycares and schools are able to come up with
automated pick up and drop off systems, causing a
decrease of reliance on parents and childcare workers.
The extent to which human actions are necessary for
driving will vanish. Since current vehicles require
human actions to some extent, the driving school
industry will not be disrupted until the majority of
autonomous transportation is switched to the emerged
dominant design. It is plausible that in the distant
future driving a vehicle will be considered as a luxury,
which implies that the structure of the industry is based
on new entrants and a new market.[178]

Incidents
Tesla Autopilot

In mid‑October 2015, Tesla Motors rolled out version 7

of their software in the U.S. that included Tesla
Autopilot capability.[179] On 9 January 2016, Tesla rolled
out version 7.1 as an over-the-air update, adding a new
"summon" feature that allows cars to self-park at
parking locations without the driver in the car.[180]
Tesla's automated driving features is currently
classified as a level 2 driver assistance system
according to the Society of Automotive Engineers' (SAE
International) five levels of vehicle automation. At this
level the car can be automated but requires the full
attention of the driver, who must be prepared to take
control at a moment's notice.[181][182][183][184] Autopilot
should be used only on limited-access highways, and
sometimes it will fail to detect lane markings and
disengage itself. In urban driving the system will not
read traffic signals or obey stop signs. The system also
does not detect pedestrians or cyclists.[185]

Tesla Model S Autopilot system in use in July 2016; it was only

suitable for limited-access highways, not for urban driving. Among
other limitations, it could not detect pedestrians or cyclists.[185]

On 20 January 2016, the first known fatal crash of a

Tesla with Autopilot occurred in China's Hubei province.
According to China's 163.com news channel, this
marked "China's first accidental death due to Tesla's
automatic driving (system)". Initially, Tesla pointed out
that the vehicle was so badly damaged from the impact
that their recorder was not able to conclusively prove
that the car had been on Autopilot at the time; however,
163.com pointed out that other factors, such as the
car's absolute failure to take any evasive actions prior
to the high speed crash, and the driver's otherwise good
driving record, seemed to indicate a strong likelihood
that the car was on Autopilot at the time. A similar fatal
crash occurred four months later in Florida.[186][187] In
2018, in a subsequent civil suit between the father of
the driver killed and Tesla, Tesla did not deny that the
car had been on Autopilot at the time of the accident,
and sent evidence to the victim's father documenting
that fact.[188]

The second known fatal accident involving a vehicle

being driven by itself took place in Williston, Florida on
7 May 2016 while a Tesla Model S electric car was
engaged in Autopilot mode. The occupant was killed in
a crash with an 18-wheel tractor-trailer. On 28 June
2016 the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) opened a formal investigation
into the accident working with the Florida Highway
Patrol. According to the NHTSA, preliminary reports
indicate the crash occurred when the tractor-trailer
made a left turn in front of the Tesla at an intersection
on a non-controlled access highway, and the car failed
to apply the brakes. The car continued to travel after
passing under the truck's trailer.[189][190] The NHTSA's
preliminary evaluation was opened to examine the
design and performance of any automated driving
systems in use at the time of the crash, which involved
a population of an estimated 25,000 Model S cars.[191]
On 8 July 2016, the NHTSA requested Tesla Motors
provide the agency detailed information about the
design, operation and testing of its Autopilot
technology. The agency also requested details of all
design changes and updates to Autopilot since its
introduction, and Tesla's planned updates schedule for
the next four months.[192]

According to Tesla, "neither autopilot nor the driver

noticed the white side of the tractor-trailer against a
brightly lit sky, so the brake was not applied." The car
attempted to drive full speed under the trailer, "with the
bottom of the trailer impacting the windshield of the
Model S". Tesla also claimed that this was Tesla's first
known autopilot death in over 130 million miles
(210 million kilometers) driven by its customers with
Autopilot engaged, however by this statement, Tesla
was apparently refusing to acknowledge claims that
the January 2016 fatality in Hubei China had also been
the result of an autopilot system error. According to
Tesla there is a fatality every 94 million miles
(151 million kilometers) among all type of vehicles in
the U.S.[189][190][193] However, this number also includes
fatalities of the crashes, for instance, of motorcycle
drivers with pedestrians.[194][195]

In July 2016, the U.S. National Transportation Safety

Board (NTSB) opened a formal investigation into the
fatal accident while the Autopilot was engaged. The
NTSB is an investigative body that has the power to
make only policy recommendations. An agency
spokesman said "It's worth taking a look and seeing
what we can learn from that event, so that as that
automation is more widely introduced we can do it in
the safest way possible."[196] In January 2017, the NTSB
released the report that concluded Tesla was not at
fault; the investigation revealed that for Tesla cars, the
crash rate dropped by 40 percent after Autopilot was
installed.[197]

According to Tesla, starting 19 October 2016, all Tesla

cars are built with hardware to allow full self-driving
capability at the highest safety level (SAE Level 5).[198]
The hardware includes eight surround cameras and
twelve ultrasonic sensors, in addition to the forward-
facing radar with enhanced processing capabilities.[199]
The system will operate in "shadow mode" (processing
without taking action) and send data back to Tesla to
improve its abilities until the software is ready for
deployment via over-the-air upgrades.[200] After the
required testing, Tesla hopes to enable full self-driving
by the end of 2019 under certain conditions.

Waymo
Google's in-house automated car

Waymo originated as a self-driving car project within

Google. In August 2012, Google announced that their
vehicles had completed over 300,000 automated-
driving miles (500,000 km) accident-free, typically
involving about a dozen cars on the road at any given
time, and that they were starting to test with single
drivers instead of in pairs.[201] In late-May 2014, Google
revealed a new prototype that had no steering wheel,
gas pedal, or brake pedal, and was fully automated .[202]
As of March 2016, Google had test-driven their fleet in
automated mode a total of 1,500,000 mi
(2,400,000 km).[203] In December 2016, Google
Corporation announced that its technology would be
spun off to a new company called Waymo, with both
Google and Waymo becoming subsidiaries of a new
parent company called Alphabet.[204][205]
According to Google's accident reports as of early
2016, their test cars had been involved in 14 collisions,
of which other drivers were at fault 13 times, although
in 2016 the car's software caused a crash.[206]

In June 2015, Brin confirmed that 12 vehicles had

suffered collisions as of that date. Eight involved rear-
end collisions at a stop sign or traffic light, two in which
the vehicle was side-swiped by another driver, one in
which another driver rolled through a stop sign, and one
where a Google employee was controlling the car
manually.[207] In July 2015, three Google employees
suffered minor injuries when their vehicle was rear-
ended by a car whose driver failed to brake at a traffic
light. This was the first time that a collision resulted in
injuries.[208] On 14 February 2016 a Google vehicle
attempted to avoid sandbags blocking its path. During
the maneuver it struck a bus. Google stated, "In this
case, we clearly bear some responsibility, because if
our car hadn't moved, there wouldn't have been a
collision."[209][210] Google characterized the crash as a
misunderstanding and a learning experience. No
injuries were reported in the crash.[206]
Uber

In March 2017, an Uber test vehicle was involved in a

crash in Tempe, Arizona when another car failed to
yield, flipping the Uber vehicle. There were no injuries in
the accident.[211]

By 22 December 2017, Uber had completed 2 million

miles (3.2 million kilometers) in automated mode.[212]

On 18 March 2018, Elaine Herzberg became the first

pedestrian to be killed by a self-driving car in the United
States after being hit by an Uber vehicle, also in Tempe.
Herzberg was crossing outside of a crosswalk,
approximately 400 feet from an intersection.[213] This
marks the first time an individual outside an auto-
piloted car is known to have been killed by such a car.

The first death of an essentially uninvolved third party

is likely to raise new questions and concerns about the
safety of automated cars in general.[214] Some experts
say a human driver could have avoided the fatal
crash.[215] Arizona Governor Doug Ducey later
suspended the company's ability to test and operate its
automated cars on public roadways citing an
"unquestionable failure" of the expectation that Uber
make public safety its top priority.[216] Uber has pulled
out of all self-driving-car testing in California as a result
of the accident.[217] On 24 May 2018 the National
Transport Safety Board issued a preliminary report.[218]

Navya automated bus driving system

On 9 November 2017, a Navya automated self-driving

bus with passengers was involved in a crash with a
truck. The truck was found to be at fault of the crash,
reversing into the stationary automated bus. The
automated bus did not take evasive actions or apply
defensive driving techniques such as flashing its
headlights, or sounding the horn. As one passenger
commented, "The shuttle didn't have the ability to move
back. The shuttle just stayed still."[219]

Policy implications
Urban planning
According to a Wonkblog reporter, if fully automated
cars become commercially available, they have the
potential to be a disruptive innovation with major
implications for society. The likelihood of widespread
adoption is still unclear, but if they are used on a wide
scale, policy makers face a number of unresolved
questions about their effects.[149]

One fundamental question is about their effect on

travel behavior. Some people believe that they will
increase car ownership and car use because it will
become easier to use them and they will ultimately be
more useful.[149] This may, in turn, encourage urban
sprawl and ultimately total private vehicle use. Others
argue that it will be easier to share cars and that this
will thus discourage outright ownership and decrease
total usage, and make cars more efficient forms of
transportation in relation to the present situation.[220]

Policy-makers will have to take a new look at how

infrastructure is to be built and how money will be
allotted to build for automated vehicles. The need for
traffic signals could potentially be reduced with the
adoption of smart highways.[221] Due to smart
highways and with the assistance of smart
technological advances implemented by policy change,
the dependence on oil imports may be reduced
because of less time being spent on the road by
individual cars which could have an effect on policy
regarding energy.[222] On the other hand, automated
vehicles could increase the overall number of cars on
the road which could lead to a greater dependence on
oil imports if smart systems are not enough to curtail
the impact of more vehicles.[223] However, due to the
uncertainty of the future of automated vehicles, policy
makers may want to plan effectively by implementing
infrastructure improvements that can be beneficial to
both human drivers and automated vehicles.[224]
Caution needs to be taken in acknowledgment to public
transportation and that the use may be greatly reduced
if automated vehicles are catered to through policy
reform of infrastructure with this resulting in job loss
and increased unemployment.[225]

Other disruptive effects will come from the use of

automated vehicles to carry goods. Self-driving vans
have the potential to make home deliveries significantly
cheaper, transforming retail commerce and possibly
making hypermarkets and supermarkets redundant. As
of right now the U.S. Government defines automation
into six levels, starting at level zero which means the
human driver does everything and ending with level five,
the automated system performs all the driving tasks.
Also under the current law, manufacturers bear all the
responsibility to self-certify vehicles for use on public
roads. This means that currently as long as the vehicle
is compliant within the regulatory framework, there are
no specific federal legal barriers to a highly automated
vehicle being offered for sale. Iyad Rahwan, an
associate professor in the MIT Media lab said, "Most
people want to live in a world where cars will minimize
casualties, but everyone wants their own car to protect
them at all costs." Furthermore, industry standards and
best practice are still needed in systems before they
can be considered reasonably safe under real-world
conditions.[226]

Legislation
The 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic,
subscribed to by over 70 countries worldwide,
establishes principles to govern traffic laws. One of the
fundamental principles of the Convention has been the
concept that a driver is always fully in control and
responsible for the behavior of a vehicle in traffic.[227]
The progress of technology that assists and takes over
the functions of the driver is undermining this principle,
implying that much of the groundwork must be
rewritten.

Legal status in the United States

U.S. states that allow testing of driverless cars on public roads

In the United States, a non-signatory country to the

Vienna Convention, state vehicle codes generally do not
envisage — but do not necessarily prohibit — highly
automated vehicles.[228][229] To clarify the legal status
of and otherwise regulate such vehicles, several states
have enacted or are considering specific laws.[230] In
2016, 7 states (Nevada, California, Florida, Michigan,
Hawaii, Washington, and Tennessee), along with the
District of Columbia, have enacted laws for automated
vehicles. Incidents such as the first fatal accident by
Tesla's Autopilot system have led to discussion about
revising laws and standards for automated cars.

In September 2016, the US National Economic Council

and Department of Transportation released federal
standards that describe how automated vehicles
should react if their technology fails, how to protect
passenger privacy, and how riders should be protected
in the event of an accident. The new federal guidelines
are meant to avoid a patchwork of state laws, while
avoiding being so overbearing as to stifle
innovation.[231]

In June 2011, the Nevada Legislature passed a law to

authorize the use of automated cars. Nevada thus
became the first jurisdiction in the world where
automated vehicles might be legally operated on public
roads. According to the law, the Nevada Department of
Motor Vehicles (NDMV) is responsible for setting
safety and performance standards and the agency is
responsible for designating areas where automated
cars may be tested.[232][233][234] This legislation was
supported by Google in an effort to legally conduct
further testing of its Google driverless car.[235] The
Nevada law defines an automated vehicle to be "a
motor vehicle that uses artificial intelligence, sensors
and global positioning system coordinates to drive
itself without the active intervention of a human
operator". The law also acknowledges that the operator
will not need to pay attention while the car is operating
itself. Google had further lobbied for an exemption
from a ban on distracted driving to permit occupants to
send text messages while sitting behind the wheel, but
this did not become law.[235][236][237] Furthermore,
Nevada's regulations require a person behind the wheel
and one in the passenger's seat during tests.[238]

In April 2012, Florida became the second state to allow

the testing of automated cars on public roads,[239] and
California became the third when Governor Jerry Brown
signed the bill into law at Google Headquarters in
Mountain View.[240] In December 2013, Michigan
became the fourth state to allow testing of driverless
cars on public roads.[241] In July 2014, the city of Coeur
d'Alene, Idaho adopted a robotics ordinance that
includes provisions to allow for self-driving cars.[242]

A Toyota Prius modified by Google to operate as a driverless car

On 19 February 2016, Assembly Bill No. 2866 was

introduced in California that would allow automated
vehicles to operate on the road, including those without
a driver, steering wheel, accelerator pedal, or brake
pedal. The Bill states the Department of Motor Vehicles
would need to comply with these regulations by 1 July
2018 for these rules to take effect. This bill has yet to
pass the house of origin.[243]

In September 2016, the U.S. Department of

Transportation released its Federal Automated Vehicles
Policy,[244] and California published discussions on the
subject in October 2016.[245]

In December 2016, the California Department of Motor

Vehicles ordered Uber to remove its self-driving
vehicles from the road in response to two red-light
violations. Uber immediately blamed the violations on
"human-error", and has suspended the drivers.[246]

Legislation in Europe

In 2013, the government of the United Kingdom

permitted the testing of automated cars on public
roads.[247] Before this, all testing of robotic vehicles in
the UK had been conducted on private property.[247]

In 2014, the Government of France announced that

testing of automated cars on public roads would be
allowed in 2015. 2000 km of road would be opened
through the national territory, especially in Bordeaux, in
Isère, Île-de-France and Strasbourg. At the 2015 ITS
World Congress, a conference dedicated to intelligent
transport systems, the very first demonstration of
automated vehicles on open road in France was carried
out in Bordeaux in early October 2015.[248]

In 2015, a preemptive lawsuit against various

automobile companies such as GM, Ford, and Toyota
accused them of "Hawking vehicles that are vulnerable
to hackers who could hypothetically wrest control of
essential functions such as brakes and steering."[249]

In spring of 2015, the Federal Department of

Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications in
Switzerland (UVEK) allowed Swisscom to test a
driverless Volkswagen Passat on the streets of
Zurich.[250]

As of April 2017, it is possible to conduct public road

tests for development vehicles in Hungary, furthermore
the construction  of a closed test track, the Zala Zone
test track,[251] suitable for testing highly automated
functions is also under way near the city of
Zalaegerszeg.[252]

Legislation in Asia
In 2016, the Singapore Land Transit Authority in
partnership with UK automotive supplier Delphi
Automotive Plc will launch preparations for a test run of
a fleet of automated taxis for an on-demand automated
cab service to take effect in 2017.[253]

Liability

Self-driving car liability is a developing area of law and

policy that will determine who is liable when an
automated car causes physical damage to persons, or
breaks road rules.[254] When automated cars shift the
control of driving from humans to automated car
technology, there may be a need for existing liability
laws to evolve in order to fairly identify the parties
responsible for damage and injury, and to address the
potential for conflicts of interest between human
occupants, system operator, insurers, and the public
purse.[109] Increases in the use of automated car
technologies (e.g. advanced driver-assistance systems)
may prompt incremental shifts in this responsibility for
driving. It is claimed by proponents to have potential to
affect the frequency of road accidents, although it is
difficult to assess this claim in the absence of data
from substantial actual use.[255] If there was a dramatic
improvement in safety, the operators may seek to
project their liability for the remaining accidents onto
others as part of their reward for the improvement.
However, there is no obvious reason why they should
escape liability if any such effects were found to be
modest or nonexistent, since part of the purpose of
such liability is to give an incentive to the party
controlling something to do whatever is necessary to
avoid it causing harm. Potential users may be reluctant
to trust an operator if it seeks to pass its normal liability
on to others.

In any case, a well-advised person who is not

controlling a car at all (Level 5) would be
understandably reluctant to accept liability for
something out of their control. And when there is some
degree of sharing control possible (Level 3 or 4), a well-
advised person would be concerned that the vehicle
might try to pass back control at the last seconds
before an accident, to pass responsibility and liability
back too, but in circumstances where the potential
driver has no better prospects of avoiding the crash
than the vehicle, since they have not necessarily been
paying close attention, and if it is too hard for the very
smart car it might be too hard for a human. Since
operators, especially those familiar with trying to ignore
existing legal obligations (under a motto like 'seek
forgiveness, not permission'), such as Waymo or Uber,
could be normally expected to try to avoid responsibility
to the maximum degree possible, there is potential for
attempt to let the operators evade being held liable for
accidents while they are in control.

As higher levels of automation are commercially

introduced (level 3 and 4), the insurance industry may
see a greater proportion of commercial and product
liability lines while personal automobile insurance
shrinks.[256]

Vehicular communication systems

Vehicle networking may be desirable due to difficulty
with computer vision being able to recognize brake
lights, turn signals, buses, and similar things. However,
the usefulness of such systems would be diminished
by the fact current cars are equipped with them; they
may also pose privacy concerns.

Individual vehicles may benefit from information

obtained from other vehicles in the vicinity, especially
information relating to traffic congestion and safety
hazards. Vehicular communication systems use
vehicles and roadside units as the communicating
nodes in a peer-to-peer network, providing each other
with information. As a cooperative approach, vehicular
communication systems can allow all cooperating
vehicles to be more effective. According to a 2010
study by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, vehicular communication systems
could help avoid up to 79 percent of all traffic
accidents.[257]

There have so far been no complete implementation of

peer-to-peer networking on the scale required for traffic:
each individual vehicle would have to connect with
potentially hundreds of different vehicles that could be
going in and out of range.
In 2012, computer scientists at the University of Texas
in Austin began developing smart intersections
designed for automated cars. The intersections will
have no traffic lights and no stop signs, instead using
computer programs that will communicate directly with
each car on the road.[258]

In 2017, Researchers from Arizona State University

developed a 1/10 scale intersection and proposed an
intersection management technique called Crossroads.
It was shown that Crossroads is very resilient to
network delay of both V2I communication and Worst-
case Execution time of the intersection manager.[259] In
2018, a robust approach was introduced which is
resilient to both model mismatch and external
disturbances such as wind and bumps.[260]

Among connected cars, an unconnected one is the

weakest link and will be increasingly banned from busy
high-speed roads, predicted a Helsinki think tank in
January 2016.[261]

Public opinion surveys

 This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail
that may interest only a particular audience. Learn more

In a 2011 online survey of 2,006 US and UK consumers

by Accenture, 49% said they would be comfortable
using a "driverless car".[262]

A 2012 survey of 17,400 vehicle owners by J.D. Power

and Associates found 37% initially said they would be
interested in purchasing a "fully autonomous car".
However, that figure dropped to 20% if told the
technology would cost $3,000 more.[263]

In a 2012 survey of about 1,000 German drivers by

automotive researcher Puls, 22% of the respondents
had a positive attitude towards these cars, 10% were
undecided, 44% were skeptical and 24% were
hostile.[264]

A 2013 survey of 1,500 consumers across 10 countries

by Cisco Systems found 57% "stated they would be
likely to ride in a car controlled entirely by technology
that does not require a human driver", with Brazil, India
and China the most willing to trust automated
technology.[265]
In a 2014 US telephone survey by Insurance.com, over
three-quarters of licensed drivers said they would at
least consider buying a self-driving car, rising to 86% if
car insurance were cheaper. 31.7% said they would not
continue to drive once an automated car was available
instead.[266]

In a February 2015 survey of top auto journalists, 46%

predict that either Tesla or Daimler will be the first to
the market with a fully autonomous vehicle, while (at
38%) Daimler is predicted to be the most functional,
safe, and in-demand autonomous vehicle.[267]

In 2015 a questionnaire survey by Delft University of

Technology explored the opinion of 5,000 people from
109 countries on automated driving. Results showed
that respondents, on average, found manual driving the
most enjoyable mode of driving. 22% of the
respondents did not want to spend any money for a
fully automated driving system. Respondents were
found to be most concerned about software
hacking/misuse, and were also concerned about legal
issues and safety. Finally, respondents from more
developed countries (in terms of lower accident
statistics, higher education, and higher income) were
less comfortable with their vehicle transmitting
data.[268] The survey also gave results on potential
consumer opinion on interest of purchasing an
automated car, stating that 37% of surveyed current
owners were either "definitely" or "probably" interested
in purchasing an automated car.[268]

In 2016, a survey in Germany examined the opinion of

1,603 people, who were representative in terms of age,
gender, and education for the German population,
towards partially, highly, and fully automated cars.
Results showed that men and women differ in their
willingness to use them. Men felt less anxiety and more
joy towards automated cars, whereas women showed
the exact opposite. The gender difference towards
anxiety was especially pronounced between young men
and women but decreased with participants' age.[269]

In 2016, a PwC survey, in the United States, showing the

opinion of 1,584 people, highlights that "66 percent of
respondents said they think autonomous cars are
probably smarter than the average human driver".
People are still worried about safety and mostly the
fact of having the car hacked. Nevertheless, only 13%
of the interviewees see no advantages in this new kind
of cars.[270]

A Pew Research Center survey of 4,135 U.S. adults

conducted 1–15 May 2017 finds that many Americans
anticipate significant impacts from various automation
technologies in the course of their lifetimes—from the
widespread adoption of automated vehicles to the
replacement of entire job categories with robot
workers.[271]

Moral issues
This section's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone
used on Wikipedia. Learn more

With the emergence of automated automobiles, various

ethical issues arise. While the introduction of
automated vehicles to the mass market is said to be
inevitable due to a (presumed but untestable) potential
for reduction of crashes by "up to" 90%[272] and their
potential greater accessibility to disabled, elderly, and
young passengers, a range of ethical issues have not
been fully addressed. Those include, but are not limited
to: the moral, financial, and criminal responsibility for
crashes and breaches of law; the decisions a car is to
make right before a (fatal) crash; privacy issues
including potential for mass surveillance; potential for
massive job losses and unemployment among drivers;
de-skilling and loss of independence by vehicle users;
exposure to hacking and malware; and the further
concentration of market and data power in the hands of
a few global conglomerates capable of consolidating AI
capacity, and of lobbying governments to facilitate the
shift of liability onto others and their potential
destruction of existing occupations and industries.

There are different opinions on who should be held

liable in case of a crash, especially with people being
hurt. Many experts see the car manufacturers
themselves responsible for those crashes that occur
due to a technical malfunction or misconstruction.[273]
Besides the fact that the car manufacturer would be the
source of the problem in a situation where a car
crashes due to a technical issue, there is another
important reason why car manufacturers could be held
responsible: it would encourage them to innovate and
heavily invest into fixing those issues, not only due to
protection of the brand image, but also due to financial
and criminal consequences. However, there are also
voices that argue those using or owning the vehicle
should be held responsible since they know the risks
involved in using such a vehicle. Experts suggest
introducing a tax or insurances that would protect
owners and users of automated vehicles of claims
made by victims of an accident.[273] Other possible
parties that can be held responsible in case of a
technical failure include software engineers that
programmed the code for the automated operation of
the vehicles, and suppliers of components of the
AV.[274]

Taking aside the question of legal liability and moral

responsibility, the question arises how automated
vehicles should be programmed to behave in an
emergency situation where either passengers or other
traffic participants like: pedestrians, bicyclists and
other drivers are endangered. A moral dilemma that a
software engineer or car manufacturer might face in
programming the operating software is described in an
ethical thought experiment, the trolley problem: a
conductor of a trolley has the choice of staying on the
planned track and running over five people, or turn the
trolley onto a track where it would kill only one person,
assuming there is no traffic on it.[275] When a self-
driving car is in following scenario: it's driving with
passengers and suddenly a person appears in its way.
The car has to decide between the two options, either
to run the person over or to avoid hitting the person by
swerving into a wall, killing the passengers.[276] There
are two main considerations that need to be addressed.
First, what moral basis would be used by an automated
vehicle to make decisions? Second, how could those be
translated into software code? Researchers have
suggested, in particular, two ethical theories to be
applicable to the behavior of automated vehicles in
cases of emergency: deontology and utilitarianism.[277]
Asimov's three laws of robotics are a typical example
of deontological ethics. The theory suggests that an
automated car needs to follow strict written-out rules
that it needs to follow in any situation. Utilitarianism
suggests the idea that any decision must be made
based on the goal to maximize utility. This needs a
definition of utility which could be maximizing the
number of people surviving in a crash. Critics suggest
that automated vehicles should adapt a mix of multiple
theories to be able to respond morally right in the
instance of a crash.[277]

Many 'Trolley' discussions skip over the practical

problems of how a probabilistic machine learning
vehicle AI could be sophisticated enough to understand
that a deep problem of moral philosophy is presenting
itself from instant to instant while using a dynamic
projection into the near future, what sort of moral
problem it actually would be if any, what the relevant
weightings in human value terms should be given to all
the other humans involved who will be probably
unreliably identified, and how reliably it can assess the
probable outcomes. These practical difficulties, and
those around testing and assessment of solutions to
them, may present as much of a challenge as the
theoretical abstractions.

While most trolley conundrums involve hyperbolic and

unlikely fact patterns, it is inevitable mundane ethical
decisions and risk calculations such as the precise
millisecond a car should yield to a yellow light or how
closely to drive to a bike lane will need to be
programmed into the software of autonomous
vehicles.[278] Algorithms dictate, for example, how
closely to drive to a bike lane or the precise moment an
autonomous car should yield to a yellow light.[278]
Mundane ethical situations may even be more relevant
than rare fatal circumstances because of the specificity
implicated and their large scope.[278] Mundane
situations involving drivers and pedestrians are so
prevalent that, in the aggregate, produce large amounts
of injuries and deaths.[278] Hence, even incremental
permutations of moral algorithms can have a notable
effect when considered in their entirety.[278]

Privacy-related issues arise mainly from the

interconnectivity of automated cars, making it just
another mobile device that can gather any information
about an individual. This information gathering ranges
from tracking of the routes taken, voice recording, video
recording, preferences in media that is consumed in the
car, behavioral patterns, to many more streams of
information.[279][280] The data and communications
infrastructure needed to support these vehicles may
also be capable of surveillance, especially if coupled to
other data sets and advanced analytics.

The implementation of automated vehicles to the mass

market might cost up to 5 million jobs in the US alone,
making up almost 3% of the workforce.[281] Those jobs
include drivers of taxis, buses, vans, trucks, and e-
hailing vehicles. Many industries, such as the auto
insurance industry are indirectly affected. This industry
alone generates an annual revenue of about $220
billion, supporting 277,000 jobs.[282] To put this into
perspective – this is about the number of mechanical
engineering jobs.[283] The potential loss of a majority of
those jobs will have a tremendous impact on those
individuals involved.[284] Both India and China have
placed bans on automated cars with the former citing
protection of jobs.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has

animated the trolley problem in the context of
autonomous cars in a website called The Moral
Machine.[285] The Moral Machine generates random
scenarios in which autonomous cars malfunction and
forces the user to choose between two harmful
courses of action.[285] MIT’s Moral Machine experiment
has collected data involving over 40 million decisions
from people in 233 countries to ascertain peoples’
moral preferences. The MIT study illuminates that
ethical preferences vary among cultures and
demographics and likely correlate with modern
institutions and geographic traits.[285]

Global trends of the MIT study highlight that, overall,

people prefer to save the lives of humans over other
animals, prioritize the lives of many rather than few, and
spare the lives of young rather than old.[285] Men are
slightly more likely to spare the lives of women, and
religious affiliates are slightly more likely to prioritize
human life. The lives of criminals were prioritized more
than cats, but the lives of dogs were prioritized more
than the lives of criminals.[286] The lives of homeless
were spared more than the elderly, but the lives of
homeless were spared less often than the obese.[286]

People overwhelmingly express a preference for

autonomous vehicles to be programmed with utilitarian
ideas, that is, in a manner that generates the least harm
and minimizes driving casualties.[287] While people
want others to purchase utilitarian promoting vehicles,
they themselves prefer to ride in vehicles that prioritize
the lives of people inside the vehicle at all costs.[287]
This presents a paradox in which people prefer that
others drive utilitarian vehicles designed to maximize
the lives preserved in a fatal situation but want to ride
in cars that prioritize the safety of passengers at all
costs.[287] People disapprove of regulations that
promote utilitarian views and would be less willing to
purchase a self-driving car that may opt to promote the
greatest good at the expense of its passengers.[287]

Bonnefon et al. conclude that the regulation of

autonomous vehicle ethical prescriptions may be
counterproductive to societal safety.[287] This is
because, if the government mandates utilitarian ethics
and people prefer to ride in self-protective cars, it could
prevent the large scale implementation of self-driving
cars.[287] Delaying the adoption of autonomous cars
vitiates the safety of society as a whole because this
technology is projected to save so many lives.[287] This
is a paradigmatic example of the tragedy of the
commons in which rational actors cater to their self-
interested preferences at the expense of societal
utility.[288]

Anticipated launch of cars

In December 2015, Tesla CEO Elon Musk predicted that
a completely automated car would be introduced by the
end of 2018;[289] in December 2017, he announced that
it would take another two years to launch a fully self-
driving Tesla onto the market.[290]Waymo launched a
ride hailing service in Phoenix in December, 2018. It
seems the clear leader in self driving cars, although its
crash rate in California is still higher than a novice
driver. Drive.ai is doing a trial run in Frisco, TX and
Arlington TX.

In fiction
This section gives self-sourcing popular culture examples without
describing their significance in the context of the article.Learn more
Minority Report's Lexus 2054 on display in Paris in October 2002

In film

The automated and occasionally sentient self-driving

car story has earned its place in both literary science
fiction and pop sci-fi.[291]

A VW Beetle named Dudu features in the 1971 to

1978 German Superbug (film series) of movies
similar to Disney's Herbie, but with an electronic
brain. (Herbie, also a Beetle, was depicted as an
anthropomorphic car with its own spirit.)
In the film Batman (1989), starring Michael Keaton,
the Batmobile is shown to be able to drive to
Batman's current location with some navigation
commands from Batman and possibly some
automation. In the 1992 sequel Batman Returns the
Batmobile's self-driving system is hijacked by The
Penguin, who wrecks havoc through the city to frame
Batman until Bruce undoes the sabotage.
The film Total Recall (1990), starring Arnold
Schwarzenegger, features taxis called Johnny Cabs
controlled by artificial intelligence in the shape of an
android bust, while still possessing a joystick for
manual control.
The film Demolition Man (1993), starring Sylvester
Stallone and set in 2032, features vehicles that can
be self-driven or commanded to "Auto Mode" where a
voice-controlled computer operates the vehicle.
The film Timecop (1994), starring Jean-Claude Van
Damme, set in 2004 and 1994, has automated cars.
Another Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, The 6th Day
(2000), features an automated car commanded by
Michael Rapaport.
The film Minority Report (2002), set in Washington,
D.C. in 2054, features an extended chase sequence
involving automated cars. The vehicle of protagonist
John Anderton is transporting him when its systems
are overridden by police in an attempt to bring him
into custody.
 The film The Incredibles (2004), Mr. Incredible makes
his car automated while it changes him into his
supersuit when driving to catch up to a car of robbers
on the run.

I, Robot's Audi RSQ at the CeBIT expo in March 2005

The film I, Robot (2004), set in Chicago in 2035,

features automated vehicles driving on highways,
allowing the car to travel safer at higher speeds than
if manually controlled. The option to manually
operate the vehicles is available.
In the film Eagle Eye (2008) Shia LaBeouf and
Michelle Monaghan are driven around in a Porsche
Cayenne that is controlled by ARIIA (a giant
supercomputer).
Geostorm (2017), set in 2022, features a self-driving
taxi stolen by protagonists Max Lawson and Sarah
Wilson to protect the President from mercenaries
and a superstorm.
 The film Logan (2017), set in 2029, features fully
automated trucks.
Blade Runner 2049 (2017) opens with LAPD
Replicant cop K waking up in his modern Spinner (a
flying police car, now featuring automatic driver and
separable surveillance roof drone) on approach to a
protein farm in northern California.
Upgrade (2018), set in a not too distant future,
highlights the hazardous side to automated cars as
their driving systems can get hijacked and imperil the
passengers.
In the film Child's Play (2019) Chucky hijacks a self-
driving "Kaslan Car" for the murder of Mike's mother.

In literature

Intelligent or self-driving cars are a common theme in

science fiction literature. Examples include:

In Isaac Asimov's science-fiction short story, "Sally"

(first published May–June 1953), automated cars
have "positronic brains" and communicate via
honking horns and slamming doors, and save their
human caretaker. Due to the high cost of the brain,
 few can afford a personal vehicle, so buses have
become the norm.
Peter F. Hamilton's Commonwealth Saga series
features intelligent or self-driving vehicles.
In Robert A Heinlein's novel, The Number of the Beast
(1980), Zeb Carter's driving and flying car "Gay
Deceiver" is at first semi-automated and later, after
modifications by Zeb's wife Deety, becomes sentient
and capable of fully autonomous operation.
In Edizioni Piemme's series Geronimo Stilton, a
robotic vehicle called "Solar" is in the 54th book.
Alastair Reynolds' series, Revelation Space, features
intelligent or self-driving vehicles.
In Daniel Suarez' novels Daemon (2006) and
Freedom™ (2010) driverless cars and motorcycles
are used for attacks in a software-based open-source
warfare. The vehicles are modified for this using 3D
printers and distributed manufacturing[292] and are
also able to operate as swarms.

In television
"Gone in 60 Seconds" season 2, episode 6 of 2015
TV series CSI: Cyber features three seemingly normal
customized vehicles, a 2009 Nissan Fairlady Z
Roadster, a BMW M3 E90 and a Cadillac CTS-V, and
one stock luxury BMW 7 Series, being remote-
controlled by a computer hacker.
"Handicar", season 18, episode 4 of 2014 TV series
South Park features a Japanese automated car that
takes part in the Wacky Races-style car race.
KITT and KARR, the Pontiac Firebird Trans-Ams in the
1982 TV series Knight Rider, were sentient and
autonomous. The KITT and KARR based Ford
Mustangs from Knight Rider were also sentient and
autonomous, like their Firebird counterparts.
"Driven", series 4 episode 11 of the 2003 TV series
NCIS features a robotic vehicle named "Otto", part of
a high-level project of the Department of Defense,
which causes the death of a Navy Lieutenant, and
then later almost kills Abby.
The TV series Viper features a silver/grey armored
assault vehicle, called The Defender, which
masquerades as a flame-red 1992 Dodge Viper
 RT/10 and later as a 1998 cobalt blue Dodge Viper
GTS. The vehicle's sophisticated computer systems
allow it to be controlled via remote on some
occasions.
Black Mirror episode "Hated in the Nation" briefly
features a self-driving SUV with a touchscreen
interface on the inside.
Bull has a show discussing the effectiveness and
safety of self-driving cars in an episode call E.J.[293]

See also
Automated guideway transit
Automatic train operation
Automobile safety
Automotive navigation system
Autopilot
Autotech
Connected car
DARPA Grand Challenge: 2004, 2007
DARPA Robotics Challenge (2012)
Dutch Automated Vehicle Initiative
 Death by GPS
Driverless tractor
Hybrid navigation
Intelligent transportation system
Mobility as a service (transport)
Personal rapid transit
Platoon (automobile)
Retrofitting
Technological unemployment
Unmanned ground vehicle
Unmanned aerial vehicle
Vehicle infrastructure integration
Vision processing unit
Measurement of Assured Clear Distance Ahead
Electronic stability control
Precrash system

References
1. Maki, Sydney; Sage, Alexandria (19 March 2018).
"Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman
crossing street" . Reuters. Retrieved 14 April 2019.
2. Thrun, Sebastian (2010). "Toward Robotic Cars".
Communications of the ACM. 53 (4): 99–106.
doi:10.1145/1721654.1721679 .
3. Gehrig, Stefan K.; Stein, Fridtjof J. (1999). Dead
reckoning and cartography using stereo vision for
an automated car. IEEE/RSJ International
Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. 3.
Kyongju. pp. 1507–1512.
doi:10.1109/IROS.1999.811692 . ISBN 0-7803-
5184-3.
4. Lassa, Todd (January 2013). "The Beginning of the
End of Driving" . Motor Trend. Retrieved
1 September 2014.
5. European Roadmap Smart Systems for
Automated Driving Archived 12 February 2015 at
the Wayback Machine, European Technology
Platform on Smart Systems Integration (EPoSS),
2015.
6. "Self-driving trucks are here — here's how they will
transform the trucking industry" (Video). CNBC
Videos. 13 April 2019. Retrieved 14 April 2019 –
via Yahoo.
 7. " 'Phantom Auto' will tour city" . The Milwaukee
Sentinel. 8 December 1926. Retrieved 23 July
2013.
8. Vanderblit, Tom (6 February 2012). "Autonomous
Cars Through The Ages" . Wired. Retrieved 26 July
2018.
9. Marc Weber. "Where to? A History of Autonomous
Vehicles" . Computer History Museum. Retrieved
26 July 2018.
10. "Carnegie Mellon" . Navlab: The Carnegie Mellon
University Navigation Laboratory. The Robotics
Institute. Retrieved 20 December 2014.
11. Kanade, Takeo (February 1986). Autonomous land
vehicle project at CMU . CSC '86 Proceedings of
the 1986 ACM Fourteenth Annual Conference on
Computer Science. Csc '86. pp. 71–80.
doi:10.1145/324634.325197 .
ISBN 9780897911771.
12. Wallace, Richard (1985). "First results in robot
road-following" (PDF). JCAI'85 Proceedings of the
9th International Joint Conference on Artificial
Intelligence. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6
August 2014.
13. Schmidhuber, Jürgen (2009). "Prof. Schmidhuber's
highlights of robot car history" . Retrieved 15 July
2011.
14. Turk, M.A.; Morgenthaler, D.G.; Gremban, K.D.;
Marra, M. (May 1988). "VITS-a vision system for
automated land vehicle navigation". IEEE
Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine
Intelligence. 10 (3): 342–361.
doi:10.1109/34.3899 . ISSN 0162-8828 .
15. University, Carnegie Mellon. "Look, Ma, No Hands-
CMU News - Carnegie Mellon University" .
cmu.edu. Retrieved 2 March 2017.
16. "Navlab 5 Details" . cs.cmu.edu. Retrieved
2 March 2017.
17. Crowe, Steve. "Back to the Future: Autonomous
Driving in 1995 - Robotics Trends" .
roboticstrends.com. Retrieved 2 March 2017.
18. "NHAA Journal" . cs.cmu.edu. Retrieved 5 March
2017.
19. Council, National Research (2002). Technology
Development for Army Unmanned Ground
Vehicles . doi:10.17226/10592 .
ISBN 9780309086202.
20. Ackerman, Evan (25 January 2013). "Video Friday:
Bosch and Cars, ROVs and Whales, and Kuka
Arms and Chainsaws" . IEEE Spectrum. Retrieved
26 February 2013.
21. "Audi of America / news / Pool / Reaffirmed
Mission for Autonomous Audi TTS Pikes Peak" .
AudiUSA.com. Archived from the original on 10
July 2012. Retrieved 28 April 2012.
22. "Nissan car drives and parks itself at Ceatec" .
BBC. 4 October 2012. Retrieved 4 January 2013.
23. "Toyota sneak previews self-drive car ahead of
tech show" . BBC. 4 January 2013. Retrieved
4 January 2013.
24. Rosen, Rebecca (9 August 2012). "Google's Self-
Driving Cars: 300,000 Miles Logged, Not a Single
Accident Under Computer Control" . The Atlantic.
Retrieved 10 August 2012.
25. "Vislab, University of Parma, Italy – 8000 miles
driverless test begins" . Archived from the
original on 14 November 2013. Retrieved
27 October 2013.
26. "VisLab Intercontinental Autonomous Challenge:
Inaugural Ceremony – Milan, Italy" . Retrieved
27 October 2013.
27. Selyukh, Alina. "A 24-Year-Old Designed A Self-
Driving Minibus; Maker Built It In Weeks" . All Tech
Considered. NPR. Retrieved 21 July 2016.
28. Novak, Matt. "The National Automated Highway
System That Almost Was" . Smithsonian.
Retrieved 8 June 2018.
29. "Back to the Future: Autonomous Driving in 1995 –
Robotics Business Review" . Robotics Business
Review. 3 April 2015. Retrieved 8 June 2018.
30. "This Is Big: A Robo-Car Just Drove Across the
Country" . WIRED. Retrieved 8 June 2018.
31. Ramsey, John (1 June 2015). "Self-driving cars to
be tested on Virginia highways" . Richmond
Times-Dispatch. Retrieved 4 June 2015.
32. McAleer, Michael (11 July 2017). "Audi's self-
driving A8: drivers can watch YouTube or check
emails at 60km/h" . The Irish Times. Retrieved
11 July 2017.
33. Hawkins, Andrew J. (7 November 2017). "Waymo
is first to put fully self-driving cars on US roads
without a safety driver" . theverge.com. Retrieved
7 November 2017.
34. "Early rider program - FAQ – Early Rider Program –
Waymo" . Waymo. Retrieved 30 November 2018.
35. "On the Road – Waymo" . Waymo. Retrieved
27 July 2018.
36. "Waymo launches nation's first commercial self-
driving taxi service in Arizona" . Washington Post.
Retrieved 6 December 2018.
37. Leggett, Theo (22 May 2018). "Who is to blame for
'self-driving car' deaths?" . BBC News – via
www.bbc.co.uk.
38. Cellan-Jones, Rory (12 June 2018). "Insurers
warning on 'autonomous' cars" . BBC News – via
www.bbc.co.uk.
39. Antsaklis, Panos J.; Passino, Kevin M.; Wang, S.J.
(1991). "An Introduction to Autonomous Control
Systems" (PDF). IEEE Control Systems Magazine.
11 (4): 5–13. doi:10.1109/37.88585 . Archived
from the original (PDF) on 16 May 2017. Retrieved
21 January 2019.
40. Wood, S. P.; Chang, J.; Healy, T.; Wood, J. "The
potential regulatory challenges of increasingly
autonomous motor vehicles" . 52nd Santa Clara
Law Review. 4 (9): 1423–1502.
41. "Autonomous Emergency Braking – Euro NCAP" .
euroncap.com.
42. "self-driving car Definition from PC Magazine
Encyclopedia" . pcmag.com.
43. "Self-Driving Cars Explained" .
44. Epstein, Zach (21 July 2016). "Tesla Autopilot
Crash Avoidance Model S Autopilot saves man's
life" . BGR. Retrieved 26 August 2016.
45. "AdaptIVe system classification and glossary on
Automated driving" (PDF). Archived from the
original (PDF) on 7 October 2017. Retrieved
11 September 2017.
46. "AUTOMATED DRIVING LEVELS OF DRIVING
AUTOMATION ARE DEFINED IN NEW SAE
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD J3016" (PDF). 2017.
Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 November
2016.
47. "U.S. Department of Transportation Releases
Policy on Automated Vehicle Development" .
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 30
May 2013. Retrieved 18 December 2013.
48. SAE International
49. "Wayback Machine" (PDF). 3 September 2017.
Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 September
2017.
50. Zhao, Jianfeng; Liang, Bodong; Chen, Qiuxia (2
January 2018). "The key technology toward the
self-driving car". International Journal of Intelligent
Unmanned Systems. 6 (1): 2–20.
doi:10.1108/IJIUS-08-2017-0008 . ISSN 2049-
6427 .
51. Zhu, Wentao; Miao, Jun; Hu, Jiangbi; Qing, Laiyun
(27 March 2014). "Vehicle detection in driving
simulation using extreme learning machine".
Neurocomputing. 128: 160–165.
doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2013.05.052 .
52. Durrant-Whyte, H.; Bailey, T. (5 June 2006).
"Simultaneous localization and mapping". IEEE
Robotics & Automation Magazine. 13 (2): 99–110.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.135.9810 .
doi:10.1109/mra.2006.1638022 . ISSN 1070-
9932 .
53. Huval, Brody; Wang, Tao; Tandon, Sameep; Kiske,
Jeff; Song, Will; Pazhayampallil, Joel (2015). "An
Empirical Evaluation of Deep Learning on Highway
Driving". arXiv:1504.01716 [cs.RO ].
54. Peter Corke, Jorge Lobo, Jorge Dias (1 June
2007). "An Introduction to Inertial and Visual
Sensing". The International Journal of Robotics
Research. 26 (6): 519–535.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.93.5523 .
doi:10.1177/0278364907079279 .
55. "How Self-Driving Cars Work" . 14 December 2017.
Retrieved 18 April 2018.
56. Schmidhuber, Jürgen (January 2015). "Deep
learning in neural networks: An overview". Neural
Networks. 61: 85–117. arXiv:1404.7828 .
doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2014.09.003 .
PMID 25462637 .
57. Hawkins, Andrew J. (13 May 2018). "MIT built a
self-driving car that can navigate unmapped
country roads" . theverge.com. Retrieved 14 May
2018.
58. Connor-Simons, Adam; Gordon, Rachel (7 May
2018). "Self-driving cars for country roads: Today's
automated vehicles require hand-labeled 3-D
maps, but CSAIL's MapLite system enables
navigation with just GPS and sensors" . Retrieved
14 May 2018.
59. Reuters, Thomson, No lights, no signs, no
accidents - future intersections for... , retrieved
26 November 2018
60. "What's big, orange and covered in LEDs? This
start-up's new approach to self-driving cars" . NBC
News.
61. Gold, Christian; Körber, Moritz; Hohenberger,
Christoph; Lechner, David; Bengler, Klaus (1
January 2015). "Trust in Automation – Before and
After the Experience of Take-over Scenarios in a
Highly Automated Vehicle". Procedia
Manufacturing. 3: 3025–3032.
doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.847 . ISSN 2351-
9789 .
62. "Survey Data Suggests Self-Driving Cars Could Be
Slow To Gain Consumer Trust" . GM Authority.
Retrieved 3 September 2018.
63. "Remembering When Driverless Elevators Drew
Skepticism" . NPR.org.
64. "Episode 642: The Big Red Button" . NPR.org.
65. "Mcity testing center" . University of Michigan. 8
December 2016. Retrieved 13 February 2017.
66. "Adopted Regulations for Testing of Autonomous
Vehicles by Manufacturers" . DMV. 18 June 2016.
Retrieved 13 February 2017.
67. "The Pathway to Driverless Cars: A Code of
Practice for testing" . 19 July 2015. Retrieved
8 April 2017.
68. "Automobile simulation example" . Cyberbotics.
18 June 2018. Retrieved 18 June 2018.
69. Hallerbach, Sven; Xia, Yiqun; Eberle, Ulrich;
Koester, Frank (3 April 2018). "Simulation-based
Identification of Critical Scenarios for Cooperative
and Automated Vehicles" . Toolchain for
simulation-based development and testing of
Automated Driving. SAE World Congress 2018.
SAE Technical Paper Series. 1. pp. 93–106.
doi:10.4271/2018-01-1066 . Retrieved
22 December 2018.
70. "Apply for an Autonomous Vehicle Technology
Demonstration / Testing Permit" . 9 May 2017.
71. Krok, Andrew. "Apple increases self-driving test
fleet from 3 to 27" . Roadshow. Retrieved
26 January 2018.
72. Hall, Zac (20 March 2018). "Apple ramping self-
driving car testing, more CA permits than Tesla
and Uber" . Electrek. Retrieved 21 March 2018.
73. Ведомости (16 February 2018). " 'Яндекс'
испытал беспилотное такси на заснеженных
улицах Москвы" . vedomosti.ru. Retrieved
23 January 2019.
74. "A Year of Yandex Self-Driving Milestones" .
yandex.com. Retrieved 1 May 2019.
75. "Yandex Self-Driving Car. First Long-Distance
Ride" . youtube.com. Retrieved 1 May 2019.
76. " 'Яндекс' представил беспилотный
автомобиль: новые разработки российской
компании" . priumnojay.ru. Retrieved 23 January
2019.
77. "Яндекс, Испытания, Беспилотный
автомобиль, Лас-Вегас" . abctv.kz. Retrieved
23 January 2019.
78. "Беспилотники Яндекса испытают в Израиле" .
robotrends.ru (in Russian). Retrieved 23 January
2019.
79. Wang, Brian (25 March 2018). "Uber' self-driving
system was still 400 times worse [than] Waymo in
2018 on key distance intervention metric" .
NextBigFuture.com. Retrieved 25 March 2018.
80. "First self-driving race car completes 1.8 kilometre
track" . euronews. 16 July 2018. Retrieved 17 July
2018.
81. "Driverless cars take to the road" . E.U.CORDIS
Research Program CitynetMobil. Retrieved
27 October 2013.
82. "Snyder OKs self-driving vehicles on Michigan's
roads" . Detroit News. 27 December 2013.
Retrieved 1 January 2014.
83. "BBC News – UK to allow driverless cars on public
roads in January" . BBC News. 30 July 2014.
Retrieved 4 March 2015.
84. Burn-Callander, Rebecca (11 February 2015). "This
is the Lutz pod, the UK's first driverless car" . Daily
Telegraph. Retrieved 11 February 2015.
85. "Autonomous vehicle: the automated driving car of
the future" . PSA PEUGEOT CITROËN. Archived
from the original on 26 September 2015.
Retrieved 2 October 2015.
86. Valeo Autonomous iAV Car Driving System CES
2015 . YouTube. 5 January 2015.
87. Hayward, Michael (26 January 2017). "First New
Zealand autonomous vehicle demonstration kicks
off at Christchurch Airport" . stuff.co.nz. Retrieved
23 March 2017.
88. "Self-driving car to take on Tauranga traffic this
week" . Nz Herald. Bay of Plenty Times. 15
November 2016. Retrieved 23 March 2017.
89. "NZ's first self-drive vehicle demonstration
begins" . stuff.co.nz. 17 November 2016.
Retrieved 23 March 2017.
90. Frykberg, Eric (28 June 2016). "Driverless buses: 'It
is going to be big' " . Radio New Zealand. Retrieved
23 March 2017.
91. "China's first Level 4 self-driving shuttle enters
volume production" . newatlas.com.
92. LLC, Baidu USA (4 July 2018). "Baidu Joins Forces
with Softbank's SB Drive, King Long to Bring
Apollo-Powered Autonomous Buses to Japan" .
GlobeNewswire News Room.
93. "[INFOGRAPHIC] Autonomous Cars Could Save
The US $1.3 Trillion Dollars A Year" .
businessinsider.com. 12 September 2014.
Retrieved 3 October 2014.
94. Miller, John (19 August 2014). "Self-Driving Car
Technology's Benefits, Potential Risks, and
Solutions" . theenergycollective.com. Archived
from the original on 8 May 2015. Retrieved 4 June
2015.
95. Whitwam, Ryan (8 September 2014). "How
Google's self-driving cars detect and avoid
obstacles" . ExtremeTech. Retrieved 4 June 2015.
96. Cowen, Tyler (28 May 2011). "Can I See Your
License, Registration and C.P.U.?" . The New York
Times.
97. Ramsey, Mike (3 May 2015). "Self-Driving Cars
Could Cut Down on Accidents, Study Says" . The
Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 29 October 2016.
98. Ramsey, Jonathon (8 March 2017). "The Way We
Talk About Autonomy Is a Lie, and That's
Dangerous" . thedrive.com. Retrieved 19 March
2018.
99. "An Open Source Self-Driving Car" . Udacity.
Retrieved 12 July 2017.
100. Fazzini, Kate (13 August 2018). "Elon Musk: Tesla
to open-source some self-driving software for
safety" . cnbc.com.
101. Staff, Ars (24 April 2018). "This startup's CEO
wants to open-source self-driving car safety
testing" . Ars Technica.
102. Light, Donald (8 May 2012). A Scenario" The End
of Auto Insurance (Technical report). Celent.
103. Mui, Chunka (19 December 2013). "Will The
Google Car Force A Choice Between Lives And
Jobs?" . Forbes. Retrieved 19 December 2013.
104. Gosman, Tim (24 July 2016). "Along for the ride:
How driverless cars can become commonplace" .
Brand Union. Retrieved 29 October 2016.
105. Dudley, David (January 2015). "The Driverless Car
Is (Almost) Here; The self-driving car — a godsend
for older Americans — is now on the horizon" .
AARP the Magazine. Retrieved 30 November
2015.
106. "Driver licensing system for older drivers in New
South Wales, Australia" . NSW Government. 30
June 2016. Retrieved 16 May 2018.
107. Stenquist, Paul (7 November 2014). "In Self-
Driving Cars, a Potential Lifeline for the Disable" .
The New York Times. Retrieved 29 October 2016.
108. Curry, David (22 April 2016). "Will elderly and
disabled gain most from autonomous cars?" .
ReadWrite. Retrieved 29 October 2016.
109. James M. Anderson; Nidhi Kalra; Karlyn D. Stanley;
Paul Sorensen; Constantine Samaras; Oluwatobi
A. Oluwatola (2016). "Autonomous Vehicle
Technology: A Guide for Policymakers" . RAND
Corporation. Retrieved 30 October 2016.
110. Simonite, Tom (1 November 2014). "Self-Driving
Motorhome: RV Of the Future?" . Archived from
the original on 5 January 2016. Retrieved
1 November 2015.
111. "Get ready for automated cars" . Houston
Chronicle. 11 September 2012. Retrieved
5 December 2012.
112. Simonite, Tom (25 October 2013). "Data Shows
Google's Robot Cars Are Smoother, Safer Drivers
Than You or I" . MIT Technology Review. Retrieved
15 November 2013.
113. O'Toole, Randal (18 January 2010). Gridlock: Why
We're Stuck in Traffic and What To Do About It .
Cato Institute. p. 192. ISBN 978-1-935308-24-9.
114. "Future Car Focus: Robot Cars" . MSN Autos.
2013. Retrieved 27 January 2013.
115. Ackerman, Evan (4 September 2012). "Study:
Intelligent Cars Could Boost Highway Capacity by
273%" . Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE). IEEE Spectrum. Retrieved
29 October 2016.
116. Gibson, David K. (28 April 2016). "Can we banish
the phantom traffic jam?" . BBC.
117. "Autonomous Intersection Management – FCFS
policy with 6 lanes in all directions" . YouTube. 12
June 2009. Retrieved 28 April 2012.
118. Taiebat, Morteza; Brown, Austin; Safford, Hannah;
Qu, Shen; Xu, Ming (2018). "A Review on Energy,
Environmental, and Sustainability Implications of
Connected and Automated Vehicles".
Environmental Science & Technology. 52 (20):
11449–11465. doi:10.1021/acs.est.8b00127 .
PMID 30192527 .
119. Pyper, Julia (15 September 2015). "Self-Driving
Cars Could Cut Greenhouse Gas Pollution" .
Scientific American. Retrieved 25 December 2018.
120. "Spaced Out parking report" . racfoundation.org.
Retrieved 3 September 2018.
121. " "Cars are parked 95% of the time". Let's check!" .
reinventingparking.org. Retrieved 3 September
2018.
122. Chester, Mikhail; Fraser, Andrew; Matute, Juan;
Flower, Carolyn; Pendyala, Ram (2 October 2015).
"Parking Infrastructure: A Constraint on or
Opportunity for Urban Redevelopment? A Study of
Los Angeles County Parking Supply and Growth".
Journal of the American Planning Association. 81
(4): 268–286.
doi:10.1080/01944363.2015.1092879 .
ISSN 0194-4363 .
123. "See Just How Much Of A City's Land Is Used For
Parking Spaces" . Fast Company. 20 July 2017.
Retrieved 3 September 2018.
124. Woodyard, Chris (5 March 2015). "McKinsey study:
Self-driving cars yield big benefits" . USA Today.
Retrieved 4 June 2015.
125. "Self-driving cars: The next revolution" (PDF).
kpmg.com. 5 September 2013. Retrieved
6 September 2013.
126. Miller, Owen. "Robotic Cars and Their New Crime
Paradigms" . Retrieved 4 September 2014.
127. Wiseman, Yair (February 2018). "In an Era of
Autonomous Vehicles, Rails are Obsolete" (PDF).
International Journal of Control and Automation.
11 (2): 151–160. doi:10.14257/ijca.2018.11.2.13
– via semanticscholar.
128. Nicholas, Negroponte (1 January 2000). Being
digital. Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0679762904.
OCLC 68020226 .
129. Adhikari, Richard (11 February 2016). "Feds Put AI
in the Driver's Seat" . Technewsworld. Retrieved
12 February 2016.
130. Nichols, Greg (13 February 2016). "NHTSA chief
takes conservative view on autonomous vehicles:
"If you had perfect, connected autonomous
vehicles on the road tomorrow, it would still take
20 to 30 years to turn over the fleet." " . ZDNet.
Retrieved 17 February 2016.
131. "New Allstate Survey Shows Americans Think
They Are Great Drivers – Habits Tell a Different
Story" . PR Newswire. 2 August 2011. Retrieved
7 September 2013.
132. Henn, Steve (31 July 2015). "Remembering When
Driverless Elevators Drew Skepticism" . NPR.
Retrieved 14 August 2016.
133. "Will Regulators Allow Self-Driving Cars In A Few
Years?" . Forbes. 24 September 2013. Retrieved
5 January 2014.
134. "Reliance on autopilot is now the biggest threat to
flight safety, study says" . 18 November 2013.
Retrieved 19 November 2013.
135. Patrick Lin (8 October 2013). "The Ethics of
Autonomous Cars" . The Atlantic.
136. Tim Worstall (18 June 2014). "When Should Your
Driverless Car From Google Be Allowed To Kill
You?" . Forbes.
137. Alexander Skulmowski; Andreas Bunge; Kai
Kaspar; Gordon Pipa (16 December 2014).
"Forced-choice decision-making in modified trolley
dilemma situations: a virtual reality and eye
tracking study" . Frontiers in Behavioral
Neuroscience. 8: 426.
doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00426 . PMC 4267265 .
PMID 25565997 .
138. Gomes, Lee (28 August 2014). "Hidden Obstacles
for Google's Self-Driving Cars" . MIT Technology
Review. Retrieved 22 January 2015.
139. SingularityU The Netherlands (1 September 2016),
Carlo van de Weijer on real intelligence , retrieved
21 November 2016
140. "Hackers find ways to hijack car computers and
take control" . 3 September 2013. Retrieved
7 September 2013.
141. Philip E. Ross (11 April 2014). "A Cloud-Connected
Car Is a Hackable Car, Worries Microsoft" . IEEE
Spectrum. Retrieved 23 April 2014.
142. Moore-Colyer, Roland (12 February 2015).
"Driverless cars face cyber security, skills and
safety challenges" . v3.co.uk. Retrieved 24 April
2015.
143. Petit, J.; Shladover, S.E. (1 April 2015). "Potential
Cyberattacks on Automated Vehicles". IEEE
Transactions on Intelligent Transportation
Systems. 16 (2): 546–556.
doi:10.1109/TITS.2014.2342271 . ISSN 1524-
9050 .
144. Ron Tussy (29 April 2016). "Challenges facing
Autonomous Vehicle Development" . AutoSens.
Retrieved 5 May 2016.
145. Zhou, Naaman (1 July 2017). "Volvo admits its
self-driving cars are confused by kangaroos" . The
Guardian. Retrieved 1 July 2017.
146. Boyd, Cybel (13 April 2019). "Self drive car for self-
drive cars" Check |url= value (help).
https://selfdrivencaringoa.blogspot.com .
Retrieved 12 December 2018. External link in
|publisher= (help)
147. Denaro, Bob (1 April 2019). "self drive car in goa"
(PDF). Civil Maps – Automated Vehicle: Myth vs.
Reality. ITS International. Retrieved 22 March
2019.
148. Glenn Garvin (21 March 2014). "Automakers say
self-driving cars are on the horizon" . Miami
Herald. Retrieved 22 March 2014.
149. Badger, Emily (15 January 2015). "5 confounding
questions that hold the key to the future of
driverless cars" . Wonk Blog. The Washington
Post. Retrieved 22 January 2015.
150. Brodsky, Jessica (2016). "Autonomous Vehicle
Regulation: How an Uncertain Legal Landscape
May Hit the Brakes on Self-Driving Cars" . Berkeley
Technology Law Journal. 31 (Annual Review
2016): 851–878. Retrieved 29 November 2017.
151. [1] Article on The Next Web by David Silver
152. " 'Year in review' by DIY Robocars creator Chris
Anderson" .
153. [2] Article on IEEE
154. "udacity/self-driving-car" . GitHub. 31 December
2018.
155. "Berkeley Deep Drive" . bdd-data.berkeley.edu.
156. "Glossary – Level Five Jobs" . levelfivejobs.com.
27 July 2018.
157. "Mass unemployment fears over Google artificial
intelligence plans" . London. 29 December 2013.
Retrieved 29 December 2013.
158. Dvorak, John C. (30 September 2015). "There's a
Bumpy Road Ahead for Driverless Cars" . PCMag.
Retrieved 30 September 2015.
159. Benedikt Frey, Carl; Osborne, Michael A. (1
January 2017). "The future of employment: How
susceptible are jobs to computerisation?".
Technological Forecasting and Social Change.
114: 254–280. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.395.416 .
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019 . ISSN 0040-
1625 .
160. Neumann, Peter G. (September 2016). "Risks of
Automation: A Cautionary Total-system
Perspective of Our Cyberfuture". Commun. ACM.
59 (10): 26–30. doi:10.1145/2988445 .
ISSN 0001-0782 .
161. Acharya, Anish (16 December 2014). "Are We
Ready for Driver-less Vehicles? Security vs.
Privacy – A Social Perspective". arXiv:1412.5207
[cs.CY ].
162. Patrick Lin (22 January 2014). "What If Your
Autonomous Car Keeps Routing You Past Krispy
Kreme?" . The Atlantic. Retrieved 22 January
2014.
163. Glielmo, Luigi. "Vehicle-to-Vehicle/Vehicle-to-
Infrastructure Control" (PDF).
164. Mark Harris (16 July 2014). "FBI warns driverless
cars could be used as 'lethal weapons' " . The
Guardian.
165. Smith, Noah (5 November 2015). "The downside
of driverless cars" . The Sydney Morning Herald.
Retrieved 30 October 2016.
166. Ufberg, Max (15 October 2015). "Whoops: The
Self-Driving Tesla May Make Us Love Urban
Sprawl Again" . Wired. Retrieved 28 October 2016.
167. Sparrow, Robert; Howard, Mark (2017). "When
human beings are like drunk robots: Driverless
vehicles, ethics, and the future of transport".
Transportation Research Part C: Emerging
Technologies. 80: 206–215.
doi:10.1016/j.trc.2017.04.014 .
168. Natasha Merat and A. Hamish Jamson. "HOW DO
DRIVERS BEHAVE IN A HIGHLY AUTOMATED
CAR? Archived 5 November 2016 at the
Wayback Machine " Institute for Transport Studies
University of Leeds. Quote: "Drivers' response to
all critical events was found to be much later in
the automated driving condition, compared to
manual driving."
169. Spangler, Todd. "Self-driving cars programmed to
decide who dies in a crash" . USA Today. Detroit
Free Press. Retrieved 29 November 2017.
170. Etzioni, Amitai; Etzioni, Oren (December 2017).
"Incorporating Ethics into Artificial Intelligence".
The Journal of Ethics. 21 (4): 403–418.
doi:10.1007/s10892-017-9252-2 .
171. Goodall, Noah (June 2016). "Can you program
ethics into a self-driving car?". IEEE Spectrum. 53
(6): 25–28. doi:10.1109/MSPEC.2016.7473149 .
172. "You can take a ride in a self-driving Lyft during
CES" . The Verge. Retrieved 26 November 2018.
173. Adams, Ian (30 December 2016). "Self-Driving
Cars Will Make Organ Shortages Even Worse" .
Slate. Retrieved 9 November 2018.
174. Snow, Shawn (29 August 2017). "The US Army is
developing autonomous armored vehicles" . Army
Times. Retrieved 26 November 2018.
175. "Driver-less car design: Sleep-walking into the
future?" . 5 April 2016. Archived from the original
on 5 April 2016. Retrieved 26 November 2018.
176. Company, Ford Motor (7 January 2019). "How
'Talking' and 'Listening' Vehicles Could Make
Roads Safer, Cities Better" . Medium. Retrieved
8 June 2019.
177. "Volvo's Fully Autonomous 360c Concept Vehicle
Even Lets You Sleep In It" . 6 September 2018.
Retrieved 26 November 2018.
178. McParland, Tom. "Why Autonomous Cars Could
Be The Change Disabled People Need" . Jalopnik.
Retrieved 26 November 2018.
179. Nelson, Gabe (14 October 2015). "Tesla beams
down 'autopilot' mode to Model S" . Automotive
News. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
180. Zhang, Benjamin (10 January 2016). "ELON MUSK:
In 2 years your Tesla will be able to drive from
New York to LA and find you" . Automotive News.
Retrieved 12 January 2016.
181. Charlton, Alistair (13 June 2016). "Tesla Autopilot
is 'trying to kill me', says Volvo R&D chief" .
International Business Times. Retrieved 1 July
2016.
182. Golson, Jordan (27 April 2016). "Volvo
autonomous car engineer calls Tesla's Autopilot a
'wannabe' " . The Verge. Retrieved 1 July 2016.
183. Korosec, Kirsten (15 December 2015). "Elon Musk
Says Tesla Vehicles Will Drive Themselves in Two
Years" . Fortune. Retrieved 1 July 2016.
184. "Path to Autonomy: Self-Driving Car Levels 0 to 5
Explained" . Car and Driver. 3 October 2017.
Retrieved 1 January 2019.
185. Abuelsamid, Sam (1 July 2016). "Tesla Autopilot
Fatality Shows Why Lidar And V2V Will Be
Necessary For Autonomous Cars" . Forbes.
Retrieved 1 July 2016.
186. Horwitz, Josh; Timmons, Heather (20 September
2016). "There are some scary similarities between
Tesla's deadly crashes linked to Autopilot" .
Quartz. Retrieved 19 March 2018.
187. "China's first accidental death due to Tesla's
automatic driving: not hitting the front bumper" .
China State Media (in Chinese). 14 September
2016. Retrieved 18 March 2018.
188. Felton, Ryan (27 February 2018). "Two Years On, A
Father Is Still Fighting Tesla Over Autopilot And
His Son's Fatal Crash" . jalopnik.com. Retrieved
18 March 2018.
189. Yadron, Danny; Tynan, Dan (1 July 2016). "Tesla
driver dies in first fatal crash while using autopilot
mode" . The Guardian. San Francisco. Retrieved
1 July 2016.
190. Vlasic, Bill; Boudette, Neal E. (30 June 2016). "Self-
Driving Tesla Involved in Fatal Crash" . The New
York Times. Retrieved 1 July 2016.
191. Office of Defects Investigations, NHTSA (28 June
2016). "ODI Resume – Investigation: PE 16-007"
(PDF). National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA). Retrieved 2 July 2016.
192. Shepardson, David (12 July 2016). "NHTSA seeks
answers on fatal Tesla Autopilot crash" .
Automotive News. Retrieved 13 July 2016.
193. "A Tragic Loss" (Press release). Tesla Motors. 30
June 2016. Retrieved 1 July 2016. "This is the first
known fatality in just over 130 million miles where
Autopilot was activated. Among all vehicles in the
US, there is a fatality every 94 million miles.
Worldwide, there is a fatality approximately every
60 million miles."
194. Abuelsamid, Sam. "Adding Some Statistical
Perspective To Tesla Autopilot Safety Claims" .
195. Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety.
"FARS Encyclopedia" .
196. Alan Levin; Jeff Plungis (8 July 2016). "NTSB to
scrutinize driver automation with probe of Tesla
crash" . Automotive News. Retrieved 11 July 2016.
197. "Fatal Tesla Autopilot accident investigation ends
with no recall ordered" . The Verge. 19 January
2016. Retrieved 19 January 2017.
198. "All Tesla Cars Being Produced Now Have Full
Self-Driving Hardware" . 19 October 2016.
199. "Autopilot: Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars" .
Tesla Motors. Retrieved 21 October 2016.
200. Guess, Megan (20 October 2016). "Teslas will now
be sold with enhanced hardware suite for full
autonomy" . Ars Technica. Retrieved 20 October
2016.
201. Self-driving Car Logs More Miles , googleblog
202. A First Drive . YouTube. 27 May 2014.
203. "Google Self-Driving Car Project, Monthly Report,
March 2016" (PDF). Retrieved 23 March 2016.
204. "Waymo" .
205. Davies, Alex (13 December 2016). "Meet the Blind
Man Who Convinced Google Its Self-Driving Car Is
Finally Ready" . Wired.
206. "For the first time, Google's self-driving car takes
some blame for a crash" . Washington Post. 29
February 2016.
207. "Google founder defends accident records of self-
driving cars" . Associated Press. Los Angeles
Times. 3 June 2015. Retrieved 1 July 2016.
208. VISHAL MATHUR (17 July 2015). "Google
Autonomous Car Experiences Another Crash" .
Government Technology. Retrieved 18 July 2015.
209. "Google's Self-Driving Car Caused Its First Crash" .
Wired. February 2016.
210. "Passenger bus teaches Google robot car a
lesson" . Los Angeles Times. 29 February 2016.
211. "Uber to Suspend Autonomous Tests After Arizona
Accident" . 25 March 2017 – via
www.bloomberg.com.
212. "Uber's Self-Driving Cars Hit 2 Million Miles As
Program Regains Momentum" . 22 December
2017 – via www.forbes.com.
213. Bensinger, Greg; Higgins, Tim (22 March 2018).
"Video Shows Moments Before Uber Robot Car
Rammed Into Pedestrian" . Wall Street Journal.
Retrieved 25 March 2018.
214. Lubben, Alex (19 March 2018). "Self-driving Uber
killed a pedestrian as human safety driver
watched" . Vice News. Retrieved 19 March 2018.
215. "Human Driver Could Have Avoided Fatal Uber
Crash, Experts Say" . 22 March 2018 – via
www.bloomberg.com.
216. The Associated Press; abc15.com staff (27 March
2018). "Governor Ducey suspends Uber from
automated vehicle testing" . KNXV-TV. Retrieved
27 March 2018.
217. Said, Carolyn (27 March 2018). "Uber puts the
brakes on testing robot cars in California after
Arizona fatality" . San Francisco Chronicle.
Retrieved 8 April 2018.
218. "Preliminary Report Released for Crash Involving
Pedestrian, Uber Technologies, Inc., Test Vehicle"
(PDF). 24 May 2018.
219. Gibbs, Samuel (9 November 2017). "Self-driving
bus involved in crash less than two hours after Las
Vegas launch" . The Guardian. Retrieved
9 November 2017.
220. Lee, Timothy (31 January 2015). "Driverless cars
will mean the end of mass car ownership" . Vox.
Retrieved 31 January 2015.
221. O'Toole, Randal, Policy Implications of
Autonomous Vehicles (18 September 2014). Cato
Institute Policy Analysis No. 758. Available at
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2549392
222. Pinto, Cyrus (2012). "How autonomous vehicle
policy in California and Nevada addresses
technological and non-technological liabilities".
Intersect: The Stanford Journal of Science,
Technology and Society. 5.
223. Badger, Emily (15 January 2015). "5 confounding
questions that hold the key to the future of
driverless cars" . Washington Post. ISSN 0190-
8286 . Retrieved 27 November 2017.
224. Guerra, Erick (1 June 2016). "Planning for Cars
That Drive Themselves: Metropolitan Planning
Organizations, Regional Transportation Plans, and
Autonomous Vehicles". Journal of Planning
Education and Research. 36 (2): 210–224.
doi:10.1177/0739456X15613591 . ISSN 0739-
456X .
225. Litman, Todd. "Autonomous vehicle
implementation predictions." Victoria Transport
Policy Institute 28 (2014).
226. Humphreys, Pat (19 August 2016). "Retail
Revolution" . Transport and Travel. Retrieved
24 August 2016.
227. "GAR – 1968 Vienna Convention" . 1 December
2017. Archived from the original on 1 December
2017.
228. Bryant Walker Smith (1 November 2012).
"Automated Vehicles Are Probably Legal in The
United States" . The Center for Internet and
Society (CIS) at Stanford Law School. Retrieved
31 January 2013.
229. Canis, Bill (19 September 2017). Issues in
Autonomous Vehicle Deployment (PDF).
Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Retrieved 16 October 2017.
230. Bryant Walker Smith. "Automated Driving:
Legislative and Regulatory Action" . The Center for
Internet and Society (CIS) at Stanford Law School.
Retrieved 31 January 2013.
231. Kang, Cecilia (19 September 2016). "Self-Driving
Cars Gain Powerful Ally: The Government" . The
New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 . Retrieved
28 September 2016.
232. "Nevada enacts law authorizing autonomous
(driverless) vehicles" . Green Car Congress. 25
June 2011. Retrieved 25 June 2011.
233. Alex Knapp (22 June 2011). "Nevada Passes Law
Authorizing Driverless Cars" . Forbes. Archived
from the original on 28 June 2011. Retrieved
25 June 2011.
234. Christine Dobby (24 June 2011). "Nevada state
law paves the way for driverless cars" . Financial
Post. Retrieved 25 June 2011.
235. John Markoff (10 May 2011). "Google Lobbies
Nevada To Allow Self-Driving Cars" . The New York
Times. Retrieved 11 May 2011.
236. "Bill AB511 Nevada Legislature" (PDF). Nevada
Legislature. Retrieved 25 June 2011.
237. Tim Healey (24 June 2011). "Nevada Passes Law
Allowing Self-Driving Cars" . Motor Trend.
Retrieved 25 June 2011.
238. Cy Ryan (7 May 2012). "Nevada issues Google first
license for self-driving car" . Las Vegas Sun.
Retrieved 12 May 2012.
239. Ana Valdes (5 July 2012). Florida Embraces Self-
Driving Cars Archived 12 April 2013 at the
Wayback Machine Retrieved 31 March 2013.
240. John Oram (9-27-2012). Governor Brown Signs
California Driverless Car Law at Google HQ
Retrieved 31 March 2013.
241. "New Law Allows Driverless Cars On Michigan
Roads" . CBS Detroit. 28 December 2013.
Retrieved 2 November 2014.
242. CDA Press (8 July 2014). Aye, robot: Cd'A City
Council approves robot ordinance
243. "Bill Text – AB-2866 Autonomous vehicles" .
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. Retrieved 21 April 2016.
244. "Federal Automated Vehicles Policy" . Department
of Transportation. 14 September 2016. Retrieved
20 October 2016.
245. "Public Workshop Autonomous Vehicles" (PDF).
19 October 2016. Retrieved 20 September 2017.
246. Levin, Sam (15 December 2016). "Uber blames
humans for self-driving car traffic offenses as
California orders a halt" . The Guardian. Retrieved
15 December 2016.
247. "UK to road test driverless cars" . BBC. 16 July
2013. Retrieved 17 July 2013.
248. "Des véhicules autonomes sur route ouverte à
Bordeaux en octobre 2015" . usine-digitale.fr.
249. Greenblatt, Nathan (19 January 2016). "Self-
Driving Cars Will Be Ready Before Our Laws Are" .
IEEE Spectrum.
250. "Swisscom reeals the first driverless car on Swiss
roads" . Swisscom. 12 May 2015. Archived from
the original on 28 September 2015. Retrieved
1 August 2015.
251. "Zalazone home page" . zalazone.hu. Retrieved
24 January 2018.
252. "Hungary as one of the European hubs for
automated and connected driving" (PDF). Zala
Zone. Retrieved 23 January 2018.
253. Maierbrugger, Arno (1 August 2016). "Singapore to
launch self-driving taxis next year | Investvine" .
Retrieved 9 August 2016.
254. Slone, Sean. "State Laws on Autonomous
Vehicles" . Retrieved 11 December 2016.
255. "Ten ways autonomous driving could redefine the
automotive world" . Retrieved 11 December 2016.
256. "Marketplace of change: Automobile insurance in
the era of autonomous vehicles" . Archived from
the original on 13 April 2018. Retrieved 1 January
2019.
257. "Frequency of Target Crashes for IntelliDrive
Safety Systems" (PDF).
258. "No lights, no signs, no accidents – future
intersections for driverless cars (video)" .
Reuters.com. 22 March 2012. Retrieved 28 April
2012.
259. Andert, Edward; Khayatian, Mohammad;
Shrivastava, Aviral (18 June 2017). "Crossroads" .
Crossroads: Time-Sensitive Autonomous
Intersection Management Technique. Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. pp. 1–6.
doi:10.1145/3061639.3062221 .
ISBN 9781450349277.
260. Khayatian, Mohammad; Mehrabian,
Mohammadreza; Shrivastava, Aviral (2018).
"RIM" . RIM: Robust Intersection Management for
Connected Autonomous Vehicles. Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. pp. 35–
44.
261. "Mobility 2020" . Nordic Communications
Corporation. 8 January 2016.
262. "Consumers in US and UK Frustrated with
Intelligent Devices That Frequently Crash or
Freeze, New Accenture Survey Finds" . Accenture.
10 October 2011. Retrieved 30 June 2013.
263. Yvkoff, Liane (27 April 2012). "Many car buyers
show interest in autonomous car tech" . CNET.
Retrieved 30 June 2013.
264. "Große Akzeptanz für selbstfahrende Autos in
Deutschland" . motorvision.de. 9 October 2012.
Archived from the original on 15 May 2016.
Retrieved 6 September 2013.
265. "Autonomous Cars Found Trustworthy in Global
Study" . autosphere.ca. 22 May 2013. Retrieved
6 September 2013.
266. "Autonomous cars: Bring 'em on, drivers say in
Insurance.com survey" . Insurance.com. 28 July
2014. Retrieved 29 July 2014.
267. "Autonomous Vehicle Predictions: Auto Experts
Offer Insights on the Future of Self-Driving Cars" .
PartCatalog.com. 16 March 2015. Retrieved
18 March 2015.
268. Kyriakidis, M.; Happee, R.; De Winter, J. C. F.
(2015). "Public opinion on automated driving:
Results of an international questionnaire among
5,000 respondents". Transportation Research Part
F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 32: 127–140.
doi:10.1016/j.trf.2015.04.014 .
269. Hohenberger, C.; Spörrle, M.; Welpe, I. M. (2016).
"How and why do men and women differ in their
willingness to use automated cars? The influence
of emotions across different age groups".
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice. 94: 374–385.
doi:10.1016/j.tra.2016.09.022 .
270. Hall-Geisler, Kristen (22 December 2016).
"Autonomous cars seen as smarter than human
drivers" . TechCrunch. Retrieved 26 December
2016.
271. Smith, Aaaron; Anderson, Monica (4 October
2017). "Automation in Everyday Life" .
272. "Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles:
Opportunities, barriers and policy
recommendations". Transportation Research Part
A: Policy and Practice. 77.
273. "Responsibility for Crashes of Autonomous
Vehicles: An Ethical Analysis". Sci Eng Ethics. 21.
274. "The Coming Collision Between Autonomous
Vehicles and the Liability System". Santa Clara
Law Review. 52.
275. "The Trolley Problem". The Yale Law Journal. 94
(6).
276. Himmelreich, Johannes (17 May 2018). "Never
Mind the Trolley: The Ethics of Autonomous
Vehicles in Mundane Situations". Ethical Theory
and Moral Practice. 21 (3): 669–684.
doi:10.1007/s10677-018-9896-4 . ISSN 1386-
2820 .
277. Meyer, G.; Beiker, S (2014). Road vehicle
automation . Springer International Publishing.
pp. 93–102.
278. Himmelreich, Johannes (2018). "Never Mind the
Trolley: The Ethics of Autonomous Vehicles in
Mundane Situations". Ethical Theory and Moral
Practice. 3: 669.
279. Lafrance, Adrienne (21 March 2016). "How Self-
Driving Cars Will Threaten Privacy" . Retrieved
4 November 2016.
280. Jack, Boeglin (1 January 2015). "The Costs of
Self-Driving Cars: Reconciling Freedom and
Privacy with Tort Liability in Autonomous Vehicle
Regulation" . Yale Journal of Law and Technology.
17 (1).
281. Greenhouse, Steven. "Autonomous vehicles could
cost America 5 million jobs. What should we do
about it?" . latimes.com. Retrieved 7 December
2016.
282. Bertoncello, M.; Wee, D. "Ten ways autonomous
driving could redefine the automotive world" .
McKinsey & Company. Retrieved 7 December
2016.
283. "Employment by detailed occupation" . bls.gov.
United States Department of Labor. Retrieved
7 December 2016.
284. Fagnant, D. J.; Kockelman, K. (2015). "Preparing a
nation for autonomous vehicles: Opportunities,
barriers, and policy recommendations".
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice. 77: 167–181.
doi:10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.003 .
285. Edmond Awad, Sohan Dsouza, Richard Kim,
Jonathan Schulz, Joseph Jenrich, Azim Shariff, &
Jean-François Bonnefon, & Iyan Rahwan (2018).
"The Moral Machine Experiment". Nature. 563
(7729): 59–64. Bibcode:2018Natur.563...59A .
doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6 .
PMID 30356211 .
286. Hornigold, Thomas. "Building a Moral Machine:
Who Decides the Ethics of Self Driving Cars?" .
Singularity Hub.
287. Jean-François Bonnefon, Azim Shariff, & Iyad
Rahwan (2016). "The Social Dilemma of
Autonomous Vehicles". Science. 352 (6293):
1573–6. arXiv:1510.03346 .
Bibcode:2016Sci...352.1573B .
doi:10.1126/science.aaf2654 . PMID 27339987 .
288. Rawhwan, Iyad. "The Social Dilemma of Driverless
Cars" . Youtube. TedXCambridge.
289. Lambert, Fred (21 December 2015). "Tesla CEO
Elon Musk drops his prediction of full autonomous
driving from 3 years to just 2" . electrek.co.
Retrieved 23 May 2018.
290. Lambert, Fred (8 December 2017). "Elon Musk
updates timeline for a self-driving car, but how
does Tesla play into it?" . electrek.co. Retrieved
23 May 2018.
291. Britt, Ryan. "The 5 Best (and Worst) Autonomous
Cars in All of Sci-Fi" .
292. "3D-Drucker: Warum die Industrie wieder einen
Trend verschläft" (in German). t3n News.
Retrieved 22 January 2017.
293. " 'Bull' episode 10 preview: The self-driving car
case and Ginny Bretton" . 3 January 2017.

Further reading

Wikimedia Commons has media related to

Unmanned automobiles.

O'Toole, Randal (18 January 2010). Gridlock: Why

We're Stuck in Traffic and What To Do About It . Cato
Institute. ISBN 978-1-935308-24-9.
Macdonald, Iain David Graham (2011). A Simulated
Autonomous Car (PDF) (thesis). The University of
Edinburgh. Retrieved 17 April 2013.
Knight, Will (22 October 2013). "The Future of Self-
driving Cars" . MIT Technology Review. Retrieved
22 July 2016.
Taiebat, Morteza; Brown, Austin; Safford, Hannah; Qu,
Shen; Xu, Ming (2018). "A Review on Energy,
Environmental, and Sustainability Implications of
Connected and Automated Vehicles". Environmental
Science & Technology. 52 (20): 11449–11465.
doi:10.1021/acs.est.8b00127 . PMID 30192527 .
Glancy, Dorothy (2016). A Look at the Legal
Environment for Driverless Vehicles (PDF) (Report).
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Legal Research Digest. 69. Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board. ISBN 978-0-309-
37501-6. Retrieved 22 July 2016.
Newbold, Richard (17 June 2015). "The driving forces
behind what would be the next revolution in the
haulage sector" . The Loadstar. Retrieved 22 July
2016.
Bergen, Mark (27 October 2015). "Meet the
Companies Building Self-Driving Cars for Google and
Tesla (And Maybe Apple)" . re/code.
John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems
Center (March 2016). "Review of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for Automated
Vehicles: Identifying potential barriers and challenges
for the certification of automated vehicles using
existing FMVSS" (PDF). National Transportation
Library. U.S. Department of Transportation.
Slone, Sean (August 2016). "State Laws on
Autonomous Vehicles" (PDF). Capitol Research –
Transportation Policy. Council of State Governments.
Retrieved 28 September 2016.
Steve Henn (31 July 2015). "Remembering When
Driverless Elevators Drew Skepticism" .
James M. Anderson; et al. (2016). "Autonomous
Vehicle Technology: A Guide for Policymakers"
(PDF). RAND Corporation.

Gereon Meyer, Sven Beiker (Eds.), Road Vehicle

Automation , Springer International Publishing 2014,
ISBN 978-3-319-05990-7, and following issues: Road
Vehicle Automation 2 (2015), Road Vehicle
Automation 3 (2016), Road Vehicle Automation 4
(2017), Road Vehicle Automation 5 (2018). These
 books are based on presentations and discussions at
the Automated Vehicles Symposium organized
annually by TRB and AUVSI.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=Autonomous_car&oldid=906265778"

Last edited 6 days ago by Dicklyon

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted.