Thanks Tomi and Kazuhiro for leading me to this news report. http://www.businessinsider.com/self-driving-cars-have-a-long-way-to-go-in-the-us-according-to-this-chart-2015-5 1 in 3 Americans say they will never consider a self-driving car, according to a new poll Eugene Kim May 11, 2015, 4:14 PM 1,849 11 Self-driving cars may have a long road ahead before winning over mainstream American consumers. According to a Harris Poll survey, charted for us by BI Intelligence, 33% of all US adults indicated they will never consider buying or leasing a self-driving vehicle. The distaste for self-driving cars was even higher among older groups, with 36% of both Generation X (ages 38-49) and Baby Boomers (ages 50-68), and 50% of Matures (69+) indicating they would never buy/lease a self-driving vehicle. We're still years away from a time when self-driving cars are available to the general public. The fact that two-thirds of Americans are not completely averse to the technology is promising. Still, there are clearly concerns about the safety and reliability of self-driving vehicles — 22% of respondents said they would consider buying a self-driving car when the “bugs” have been worked out. All age groups except the Millennials cited concerns about technical bugs as the main reason for not buying a self-driving car. Google will have to allay those concerns if it wants its autonomous cars to catch on with the public. On Monday, Chris Urmson, the director of Google's self-driving car program, announced that the company's prototype vehicles have been involved in only 11 minor accidents , with no injuries, during 1.7 million miles of driving. “And not once was the self-driving car the cause of the accident,” Urmson noted, though he did not provide any details about the accidents. BI Intelligence Why You Shouldn’t Worry About Liability for Self-Driving Car Accidents By Mark Harris Posted 12 Oct 2015 | 20:00 GMT Share | Email | Print | Reprint Photo: VolvoHåkan Samuelsson—President CEO, Volvo Car Group Volvo president Håkan Samuelsson caused a stir earlier this week when he said that Volvo would accept full liability whenever its cars are in autonomous mode . Samuelsson went further, urging lawmakers to solve what he called “controversial outstanding issues” over legal liability in the event that a self-driving car is involved in a crash. “If we made a mistake in designing the brakes or writing the software, it is not reasonable to put the liability on the customer,” says Erik Coelingh, senior technical leader for safety and driver support technologies at Volvo. “We say to the customer, you can spend time on something else, we take responsibility.” This, says Samuelsson, makes Volvo, “one of the first car makers in the world to make such a promise.” Google and Mercedes Benz have recently made similar assurances. But does that mean if your future self-driving Tesla or Volkswagen gets into a crash instead, you’re going to be on the hook for all the damages? Not at all, says John Villasenor, professor of electrical engineering and public policy at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the author of a paper titled, “ Products Liability and Driverless Cars .” According to Villasenor, “Existing liability frameworks are well positioned to address the questions that will arise with autonomous cars.” He told IEEE Spectrum that, “If an autonomous car causes an accident, then the manufacturer was already going to be squarely in the liability chain.” The University of Washington’s Technology Law and Policy Clinic agrees. In a submission earlier this year to the Uniform Law Commission, a body that aims to standardize laws between U.S. states, the group said, “Product liability theories are highly developed, given the advance of technology in and out of cars for well over a century, and are capable of covering autonomous vehicles.” Photo: VolvoIntelliSafe Auto Pilot interface As cars have become increasingly automated, with antilock brakes, electronic stability control, crash prevention radars and lane-keeping assistance, legal precedents have naturally developed in step. U.S. law now provides multiple routes for anyone seeking redress for any defective product, whether a simple toaster or a fully autonomous SUV. For a start, manufacturers must exercise a reasonable degree of care when designing their products. It makes sense that any company selling a self-driving car that, for instance, was not tested in bad weather, might be sued for negligence if one crashed during a snowstorm. But that is, perhaps, a poor example. “Snow is difficult because it limits visibility,” says Volvo’s Coelingh. “And it is low friction and so limits braking ability. Snow’s not impossible but it’s really difficult.” Volvo intends to be one of the first carmakers to get self-driving vehicles into the hands of real customers, with a fleet of a hundred autonomous XC90 SUVs planned for the roads of Gothenburg, Sweden, by 2017. Initially, none will be allowed to drive in snowy conditions. Even if not pronounced negligent, manufacturers can still be found ‘strictly liable’ for any problems discovered in their final products, or can be sued for design or manufacturing defects. They can also be held liable if they fail to warn consumers of the risks of using (or misusing) products or services. To reduce the chance of any mishaps, Volvo intends to give its first customers special training for their self-driving cars. The company will seek out a diverse range of drivers representative of its customer base, including older motorists and those suspicious of new technology. “One of the really interesting things is to see if people who are skeptical in the beginning will change their minds once they have used it for a while,” says Coelingh. Judging by Volvo’s latest video featuring its Drive Me autonomous XC90s , motorists will be encouraged to watch television or do some work while the car is in charge. The video does not mention that the car might occasionally need to hand control back to the driver, as most experimental vehicles do today. For its pilot program in Gothenburg, says Coelingh, Volvo can even remotely disable the autonomous technology. “We might want to make the technology unavailable if something really critical occurs,” he says. But if a production self-driving car actually required more human oversight than a manufacturer claimed, and this led to an accident, the driver might have a legal case for misrepresentation. “There are grey areas, involving disputes regarding whether an accident was caused by a failure of autonomous technology, an error by the human driver, or some combination,” says Villasenor, “But these are not areas that pronouncement will resolve. But it’s still good to see manufacturers stepping up and recognizing their liability obligations.” The takeaway? While carmakers’ promises to accept liability are probably unnecessary, they’re not a signal to steer your old wreck into an autonomous Volvo in the hope of a fat payout. “We do not take responsibility for all potential crashes with a self-driving car,” warns Coelingh. “If a customer misuses the technology or if there is another road user that causes an accident, it’s not we or our customer who are to blame, it’s the third party.” Learn More Volvo XC90 driverless cars liability self-driving car Share | Email | Print | Reprint Comments Comment Policy Guest • 15 days ago The more interesting question, is when the self-driving car is forced to make an ethical decision to protect the driver vs protect pedestrian(s) in the road, what decision does it make? Should algorithms be written to preserve the maximum number of lives? or always prioritize the driver? 5 • Reply • Share › Alan Guest • 15 days ago Another interesting question: if all self-driving cars are designed to operate very conservatively, i.e. below speed limits and with large spacings between themselves and other cars, and this known behavior induces other drivers to frequently 'cut off' the self-driving cars, causing more disruptive / less safe driving on the highway - how will highway traffic regulators respond? 3 • Reply • Share › AMTbuff Alan • 15 days ago Large spacing means reduced total flow of cars. I thought self-driving cars were supposed to bunch close together, increasing capacity. There seems to be a transition challenge here. 1 • Reply • Share › marcioab Alan • 15 days ago That is my point in another post here. The overall speed limit should be reduced. Self-drive cars will respect and Human-drive car will be ticketed up to the point they will respect. In the end (low) SPEED and distance as you mention will be a key element. • Reply • Share › DStuff Guest • 15 days ago I think that (if the manufacturer is going to be financially responsible for injuries) they will be optimized to put the manufacturer on the hook for as little as possible. 2 • Reply • Share › Jeff Guest • 15 days ago That's an interesting point, and not one I've heard discussed. Thanks for your comment. • Reply • Share › keith12345 Guest • 15 days ago It should always be to preserve the maximum number of lives, with pedestrians getting higher priority in ambiguous situations. • Reply • Share › DStuff keith12345 • 15 days ago with pedestrians getting higher priority in ambiguous situations. -- And that will make the streets of New York a parking lot, as every pedestrian in the city need never fear stepping out into traffic ever again. As to the priority, I will be doing the research, and buy (paying more if I have to) to get the one that will prioritize the well being of my family over strangers. 1 • Reply • Share › keith12345 DStuff • 15 days ago So your solution is just to have the cars automatically run them down and kill them? Really? Wow. I also find your notion that your family's lives are somehow worth more than other people's lives, simply because you don't know them, to be rather odious. Sorry, but no, you are not better than everyone else, just because you happen to think so. • Reply • Share › Tom Billings keith12345 • 14 days ago Not a question of DStuff thinking others are worth less. It's a question of who is he responsible for protecting. His family has the strongest call on his protection. I would not trust anyone with supervising a child who did not view that child in such a manner. While we are all equal before the law, we are *not* equally responsible for all others. 1 • Reply • Share › keith12345 Tom Billings • 14 days ago Which is exactly why this type of decision can't be left to individual drivers to do as they please. Naturally, people will look to maximize saving their own hide, everyone else be damned. They'll select/program their cars so that they will plow into 8 pedestrians if they have to, just as long as it saves their own life. Self-driving car protocols must come from the top down, and be uniformly applied across the board so that drivers don't endanger countless others in order to maximize their own personal safety. Saving the maximum number of lives in any situation should always be the mandated protocol. 2 • Reply • Share › DStuff keith12345 • 14 days ago And when the car buyer fully understands that the car he's buying will not put his/her children's safety first and foremost, they will walk away and buy the competition's car that will. If by force of law (and the guns that back it up) it is required that all cars discount the customer's safety, buyers won't buy (see the Volt and other mandated flops). • Reply • Share › keith12345 DStuff • 14 days ago So, you are by yourself, alone in your self-driving car. You encounter a situation where you (and only you) are probably going to die unless your car veers off the road and into a large crowd of pedestrians waiting on the sidewalk. Several of those pedestrians will die, and several more will be severely injured as a result. But you will live. Do you think it's OK for your car to be programmed to take that course of action, in order to put YOUR safety first and foremost? • Reply • Share › DStuff keith12345 • 14 days ago Yep, I have the right of self preservation, and I expect my equipment to assist me in exercising that right. I also expect my estate to go after the manufacturer of a defective product if said product (self driving car in this case) fails to assist and instead inhibits those efforts. But I also expect that a computer will not be able to do sufficiently complex ethical calculus to do anything more than freeze up in the moment of crisis, and Blue Screen of Death (literally) / reboot. • Reply • Share › keith12345 DStuff • 14 days ago It's a pretty universally accepted principle that one's individual rights extend only up to the line where they begin to infringe upon another's rights, and then they stop. You may have the right to self-preservation, but you certainly do not have the right to kill and maim innocent people to exercise it, because then you are quite clearly infringing on their rights. Frankly it's sickening and appalling that you are just fine with killing a whole bunch of innocent people just to save yourself. Society would not accept this behavior, and yes, there would eventually be legislation prohibiting such wanton, reckless and self-serving actions. If not from the get-go, then certainly soon after the first incidents where innocent people are killed by the actions of self-driving cars that are trying to save their drivers without any regard for the safety of anyone else. 1 • Reply • Share › DStuff keith12345 • 13 days ago And the day that legislation goes into effect, I'll start making some serious cash opening a grey market shop that alters the programming. Probably won't even be that hard, it'll most likely be 4th rate code done in 3rd world code shops. Human Nature will always override Utopian pipe dreams. • Reply • Share › marcioab keith12345 • 14 days ago That is for sure. And if that means the streets will became a parking lot, so they will be. And at that point, we will recognize the city needs a new architecture. • Reply • Share › DStuff marcioab • 14 days ago Or the self driving cars will go un bought. • Reply • Share › marcioab DStuff • 14 days ago The new generation do not want to spend time driving anymore. They want to spend that time interacting with their smartphones and let the car get the destination ( leaded by Waze ). Get there 10, 20 or 30 minutes sooner or later, does not matter. The only problem is that this safety-first driver-less technology is 10 years delayed. • Reply • Share › GManJamin • 14 days ago There are a couple of things that article like this never address. So are these cars going to be fully autonomous or is a human required to be back up? It mentioned about not being able to drive in the snow but what does that exactly mean? Does the car just pull over and stop or does a human have to take over immediately? If the a human has to also be ready to take over when ever the computer faces an issue it can't solve (like ice, snow, hydroplaning, deer jumping out) it would really put a damper on demand. What if the human behind the wheel falls sleep? The same issue is why there are still human pilots in airplanes. There is also the question of maintenance? Would this be fully covered for the life of the car at purchase? What happens 5-10 years in and sensors start failing? Does the manufacture still have liability in that situation? Would this potentially mean that people truly would not own the car but just rent it from the manufacture so the manufacture guarantees it is maintained to a certain standard? 1 • Reply • Share › Salva • 15 days ago My only concern in the light of the VW innuendo is what would be the best way to ensure the algorithms are always doing what they are suppose to do vs. gaining questionable competitive advantage for the company? As engineer I always though doing the right thing was cheaper for the company on the long run as VW case is now demonstrating again, and yet a corporate culture was capable of doing the misapplication of technology systematically. 1 • Reply • Share › Biff Henerson • 17 days ago Simple minds need a simple example. If an accident occurs with a self driving Volvo car and it is the car's fault, Volvo will accept all liability. This is a misleading way of saying that all Volvo car customers will have to pay for all damages related to said liability. There's no free lunch folks. If Volvo pays, they simply pass the cost onto the Customer. It doesn't cost Volvo anything other than a tarnished brand which is generally short lived. Perhaps they need to face a fine of 5% of the net worth of the company. Then they might spend a few extra hours reviewing their software and hardware. 1 • Reply • Share › djb72 Biff Henerson • 15 days ago That's a pretty dumb idea. When a human being causes a car crash we don't fine them 5% of their net worth so they learn to drive more responsibly. 3 • Reply • Share › DStuff Biff Henerson • 15 days ago I'm sure that some insurance company will be happy to take money to cover the infinitesimal chance that a program will get something wrong. That's a no brainier compared to covering most human drivers. 1 • Reply • Share › keith12345 Biff Henerson • 15 days ago So if that cost becomes too high, you can choose not to buy Volvo. Not really a life-altering event. Unlike being hit with liability in an accident which can ruin someone financially. For a lot of people having that security insurance may be well worth a modest increase in the cost of the car. 1 • Reply • Share › Stephen Bieda • 15 days ago It is going to be interesting to see what happens to the auto insurance business over the next 10-20 years with increasing driverless functionality. Rates should go down and maybe auto insurance won't event need to exist at some point. • Reply • Share › Morgan Folland Stephen Bieda • 14 days ago Theft, damage from nature or weather, fire, etc. There will be some liability on owner/operator. • Reply • Share › Pete_EE • 15 days ago Suppose you've been drinking and ask your car to take you home. While you are between towns (or in a rough neighborhood) it starts to snow. What to do? Where is the legal responsibility? • Reply • Share › costume • 15 days ago Wonder what happens to driver skills if they atrophy while most of their time is spent as passenger. What if you live in LA and are driven everywhere for 11 months and then suddenly have to drive because it rains? And every other car on the road is now piloted by equally poor drivers? • Reply • Share › marcioab • 17 days ago Max speed limit in my town (Sao Paulo) is 50 Km/h. If a self-drive car stays at 40 Km/h, that is reasonable slow to avoid accidents and even in case they happen by some malfunction, it will not be that bad and will be fixed, even if that means the speed needs to go down to 30 Km/h. • Reply • Share › Donald S Brant Jr marcioab • 15 days ago Please have a friend hit you/run you down with their car at 30Km/h and let us know exactly how not that bad it is and how well you will be fixed. • Reply • Share › marcioab Donald S Brant Jr • 15 days ago Sure there will be damage. It must be. By definition there is no 100% safety system. But at 30 Km/h it is exponentially smaller (or not that bad) than at 90 Km/h. In the city I live, the speed limit was reduced from 90 Km/h to 50 Km/h and the number of accidents were reduced significantly (officially confirmed). But my point here is: (low) Speed will be the key factor. • Reply • Share › PMiranda • 15 days ago Makes sense. The carmaker was going to get sued anyway, so they might as well lean in and accept some liability so they can get the ball rolling. Over time, I expect it will pay off since an autonomous car should get into fewer accidents and carmakers already get sued in major accidents.
Reading today's Journal Science (below) made me wonder: How can we deal with natural diversity? Can you tell me what is not heterogeneity (difference, changes)? Somehow, population scientists advocate for sustaining the diversity. Cancer is of heterogeneity: spatial and time-dependent. We human beings of course are different. What is the driving force for heterogeneity? Evolution? Survival? or God? Why? The way, like said in this Science article, one cell at a time is non-sense. That is simple, you got a cell at now, but it changes the minute you measure. What is the point? Chasing your own tail. Real-time measurement? Are you really real-time? What is the cause? Turn back the clock? Slow down the clock? or Else? Science 16 August 2013: Vol. 341 no. 6147 pp. 726-727 DOI: 10.1126/science.1235884 PERSPECTIVE NEUROSCIENCE Mapping Neuronal Diversity One Cell at a Time Hynek Wichterle 1 , David Gifford 2 , Esteban Mazzoni 3 + Author Affiliations 1 Departments of Pathology and Cell Biology, Neurology, and Neuroscience, Center for Motor Neuron Biology and Disease, Columbia Stem Cell Initiative, Columbia University Medical Center, 630 168 Street, New York, NY 10032, USA. 2 Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 32 Vassar Street, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. 3 Department of Biology, New York University. 100 Washington Square East, New York, NY 10003, USA. E-mail: hw350@columbia.edu How many types of nerve cells are there in the mammalian central nervous system (CNS)? We still do not have a satisfactory answer to this deceptively simple question, and yet the precise assignment of nerve cells to well defined subtype categories is critical both for elucidating the function of neural circuits and for the success of neural regenerative medicine. Amid the anatomical, electrophysiological, and biochemical diversity of nerve cells, the field is struggling to devise simple and clear criteria for neuronal classification. A universally applicable classification system should be based on traits that are objectively quantifiable, sufficiently diverse, and reproducible in independent laboratories. Such a classification method would provide new insights into CNS organization, development, and function, and might reveal unexpected relationships between neuronal subtypes.
A range of policy options are available for driving green growth. This document outlines these options and summarises many of the issues that need to be taken into account when embarking on a green growth strategy. Diagnose key constraints to green growth As discussed in Towards Green Growth, there are a range of constraints which can prevent the emergence of greener growth. These will vary from country to country and depending on particular environmental issues at stake. Figure 1 develops a diagnostic framework for identifying key constraints to greening growth. It characterises constraints to green growth as factors which limit returns to “green” investment and innovation i.e. those activities which can foster economic growth and development while ensuring that natural assets continue to provide the resources and environmental services on which our well-being relies. These constraints are divided into two categories: The first is low overall economic returns, encapsulating factors which create inertia in economic systems (i.e. fundamental barriers to change and innovation) and capacity constraints, or “low social returns”. The second is low appropriability of returns. This is where market and government failures prevent people from capturing the full value of improved environmental outcomes and efficiency of resource use. Examples include fossil fuel subsidies (government failure) or a lack of incentives for constructing energy efficient buildings (split incentives) or reducing air pollution (negative externalities). Low economic returns which are a function of inertia constrain the expansion of new or innovative production techniques, technologies and patterns of consumption. These constraints to green innovation are a mixture of market failure and market imperfection. Low returns to RD are a market failure. Network effects (e.g. barriers to entry that arise from increasing returns to scale in networks) and the bias in the market towards existing technologies are examples of market imperfection. The exception to this is that government failure can arise from attempts to deal with these market failures (e.g. regulatory barriers to competition and government monopolies in network industries). “Low social returns” implies the absence of enabling conditions for increasing returns to low environmental impact activities. These constraints reduce the choices of consumers and producers to pursue “green” activities. For example, inadequate electricity or water sanitation infrastructure may lead to water pollution or the use of high emission fuels or inefficient production of electricity. They can also include insufficient human capital such that people are not aware of alternative sources of energy or there is insufficient technical know-how to deploy them. In addition, at low levels of development, a mixture of poor infrastructure with low human capital and institutional quality can mean heavy reliance on natural resource extraction and little incentive for improved natural resource use like sustainable forestmanagement. These constraints reflect a mixture of government failure, market failures and market imperfections. 原文见 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/48/48012326.pdf
Boston is often acclaimed as the most exciting city in America in which to drive. Who would argue? Herewith, for newcomers and visitors, are a few basic rules: 1. To obtain a general idea of how to drive in Boston, go to a Celtics game and carefully watch the fast break. Then get behind the wheel of your car and practice it. 2. It’s traditional in Boston to honk your horns at cars that don’t move the second the light changes 3. There is no such thing as a shortcut during rush-hour traffic in Boston. 4. Never put your faith in signs that purport to provide directions. They are put there to confuse people. 5. Taxicabs should always have the right of way, unless you are bent on suicide. 6. Double-park in the North End or Chinatown of Boston, unless triple-parking is available. 7. Learn to swerve abruptly. Boston is the home of slalom driving, thanks to the Registry of Motor Vehicles, which puts potholes in key locations to test drivers’ reflexes and keep them on their toes. 8. Never take a green light at face value. Always look right and left before proceeding. 9. Also, always look both ways when running a red light. 10. When in doubt, accelerate. 11. Teenage drivers believe they are immortal. Don’t yield to the temptation to teach them otherwise. 12. The first parking space you see will be the last parking space you see. So grab it. 13. While it is possible to fit a 15-foot car into a 15-foot parking space, it is seldom possible to fit a 16-foot car into a 15-foot parking space. Sad but true. 14. Drivers whose cars have “I Brake for Animals” bumper stickers may brake for animals, but they may not brake for you. 15. Steer clear of people with anti-nuclear, anti-war, “Save our earth” etc. bumper stickers. They are interested in preserving mankind, which is admirable. But they are not necessarily interested in preserving you, or themselves, for that matter. They have more important things to think about. 16. Never drive behind a person whose head doesn’t reach the top of the steering wheel. 17. Never get in the way of a car that needs extensive body work. 备注：照片来源于网络。
2011年7月《美国科学院院报》（PNAS）刊登了由中国科学院北京基因组研究所吴仲义先生及其团队与国立台湾大学医学院陈培哲先生合作研究结果“Rapid growth of a hepatocellular carcinoma and the driving mutations revealed by cell-population genetic analysis of whole-genome data”（July 5, 2011；http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/07/01/1108715108.abstract）。该研究运用崭新的细胞群体微进化分析理念，通过比较不同癌细胞和正常细胞的基因组，获得癌细胞中发生突变的基因。同时，也可以了解这些突变发生的先后顺序，并结合演化的观点更为直接地推断肿瘤的演化过程。具体的讲，该研究通过追踪一例肝癌病人肿瘤细胞的DNA改变过程，对改例病例的原位以及肝内转移肿瘤进行了全基因组测序，并鉴定该例病例中基因突变及其发生的先后顺序。虽然肿瘤细胞通常积累了成千上万的突变，通过演化的观点分析研究，界定出3个与肿瘤细胞群体迅速膨胀相关的关键基因突变。 此外，以往认为复发肿瘤一般是由原位肿瘤细胞的后代发展而来，在这一例的研究中研究人员观察的2个复发肿瘤的基因组发现，复发肿瘤1的确是原位癌的直接后代，而“复发肿瘤2”实际上是原位癌的兄弟克隆，而非子代克隆。而这意味着在原位癌获得快速生长能力之前，肿瘤细胞就发生了转移，而这也丰富了我们对“复发肿瘤”的认识。 癌症的危害和重要性为世人关注。肿瘤发生是一个动态过程，是基因突变不断累积的结果，并具有高度个体特异性。癌症发生和转移机制、个体化的医疗手段，已成为当代医学研究急需解决的问题。2009年在国家自然科学基金和中科院知识创新工程等项目的支持下，中国科学院基因组学研究启动了“肝癌癌症基因组合作研究计划”，经过2年的合作研究，已经获得了一些重要研究进展，此次发表的学术论文则报告了该计划的第一例肝癌全基因组最新研究成果。 （转载自国家自然科学基金网站 2011-7-28）
Odd news from the US NYC cabbie drives 2 guys across US — for $5,000 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110422/ap_on_fe_st/us_odd_cross_country_taxi_ride I don’t understand why anyone even wanted to be bothered to write such news. It’s no fun to sit in the back of a car for a long ride, not to mention across the country. I would rather drive the car myself, as I did from D.C. to Seattle in the 1990s. I did sightseeing, visited a friend in Madison, WI, and made it to Seattle in six days. A few friends hoped to ride back with me, but I moved to Hawaii.
标签: driving
![[转载]波士顿行车与交通指南（搞笑版）](http://image.sciencenet.cn/album/201110/12/161946a9nqamb3v28mdsjn.png.thumb.jpg)
