Imagine a police officer pulls your car over as you head home from the annual office party. You, the lone occupant, reek of alcohol and slur, "Wasssh-up offisher?'
You were not actually driving the car, but was it still under your control?
Back to the Future got it wrong about the flying cars by 2015, but driverless cars could soon be rounding the corner. The Conference Board of Canada released a report this year estimating self-driving cars (not just prototypes) could be on the road by 2020-25.
It got one University of Regina professor pondering the implications for police and the law.
"If you can sit in a car that doesn't have a steering wheel or an accelerator and it takes you to where you want to go, you could technically be impaired and it not be a crime. But would it be a crime?" asks Rick Ruddell.
A justice studies professor and Law Foundation of Saskatchewan Chair in Police Studies, he notes the law may have to be rewritten.
Current impaired driving laws not only refer to operating a vehicle while drunk, but having "care or control" of it. It's why someone passed out behind the wheel with the keys in the ignition could still be in trouble.
In a self-driving car, can you text to your heart's content and not be a distracted driver? What about dozing at the wheel? Will speed traps be obsolete? Those are just a few of the questions that crossed Ruddell's mind after his interest was sparked at a presentation a couple years ago.
He noted vehicles are already available that can automatically stop if there's a perceived danger, and some parallel park assist programs do it better than humans.
"You start looking at all this and you think, well, this is today. We're maybe not all that far from the autopilot in some of these vehicles."
This spring, auto parts maker Delphi sent a driverless car on a 5,500-kilometre trip across the U.S.; a person stayed in the front seat ready to take the wheel if needed, only about one per cent of the time.
Ruddell's musings on driverless cars, the law and policing fuelled an informational poster for a recent conference in Regina. While the poster was meant as a bit of futuristic fun, some of the implications are serious.
For example, much like the rest of Canada, in Saskatchewan four times as many people die in vehicle crashes compared to homicides.
"We know that most accidents happen from human error," Ruddell said.
Driverless cars are estimated to reduce collisions by around 80 per cent.
They don't get distracted or drive aggressively; technology makes them more alert and responsive; and challenges like poor eyesight or reflexes aren't a factor.
"You're at higher risk if you're driving compared to if you're letting the machine run itself," Ruddell said.
That could affect everything from insurance to legal liability.
He said police resources could also change, noting 30 per cent of RCMP activities are focused on traffic enforcement.
"Technically, if these vehicles are that good, there will be no reason to pull anyone over."
While officers may be free for other crime fighting, ticket revenues could drop.
Ruddell also projects other job implications, such as less need for taxi drivers, autobody shops (if there are fewer crashes) and long-haul truckers.
This spring, some Saskatchewan officials attended a conference in North Dakota examining the feasibility of an autonomous vehicle corridor hauling goods from the Southern U.S. into Canada along Route 83.
"How's that going to impact jobs? There's maybe a dark side there," Ruddell said. If more people are out of work because of robocars, crime could increase. bpacholik@leaderpost.com
Source: Prof. ponders impact of driverless cars
No comments:
Post a Comment