±Forensic Focus Partners

Become an advertising partner

±Your Account


Username
Password

Forgotten password/username?

Site Members:

New Today: 0 Overall: 34714
New Yesterday: 0 Visitors: 263

±Follow Forensic Focus

Forensic Focus Facebook PageForensic Focus on TwitterForensic Focus LinkedIn GroupForensic Focus YouTube Channel

RSS feeds: News Forums Articles

±Latest Articles

±Latest Webinars

Autonomous Vehicle L5 crash

Computer forensics discussion. Please ensure that your post is not better suited to one of the forums below (if it is, please post it there instead!)
Reply to topicReply to topic Printer Friendly Page
Forum FAQSearchView unanswered posts
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next 
  

Autonomous Vehicle L5 crash

Post Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 2:00 pm

Imagine the confrontation between an Autonomous Vehicle AV-L5 and a Human Vehicle HV. An accident occurs. Both parties normally get interviewed. The HV by the officer and the AV by OBDII downloading the report.

The AV proofs, speed, angles, video in short all sensors data logged. But does not reveal how the decision making (driving policy) was made - Algo knows.

In the focus is the problem of interpretation of the traffic reality. Tech beats human in almost all aspects only by same forward looking view angle and visual information they are equal. More eyes see more than two human eyes - but there is greater brain for interpretation.

Actually law does not adapt to AVs. And also no prison cells for AVs. The car manufacturers now start a dialogue of mutual agreed law improvement. Humans should say the 'new law' is common sense and socially unquestioned accepted.

The today's traffic laws around the globe are not harmonized but defined nationally as they reflect invisible factors based on history and experience. Lets assume an AV crosses a national boarder. The AV has to switch the legal layer. But who than judges of a certain country can provide the interpretation of law? A very actual layer of national law has to be fed into the car. If you count all possible accident situations for 360 degree mapped to different street situations you may get a sense of how a 'dangerous situation' is possible. If the 'dangerous situation' causes an accident then guilty. See here a nice try to mathematical crack the nut

arxiv.org/pdf/1708.06374.pdf

There is one crucial question now and in 2021 full AVs arrive (Level 5):

Who caused the accident (and is therefore guilty)?

The tools to find: Car Forensics - and interviewing. Hang-in Smile  

RolfGutmann
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: Autonomous Vehicle L5 crash

Post Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:54 pm

Legally I would suggest this is uncharted territory. Lets say you have two diverless cars. I have no idea how these things are programmed, but lets say the speed limit is 55MPH. Does the car adjust to "driving conditions" seeing how most folks drive 70MPH in a 55? Or does the driver have any input in how fast the vehicle can travel above 55MPH?

In a wreck who is at fault? Who can get sued? And what data is available? Everyone points fingers and the maker of the driverless car either says.

1. That information is not retained
2. That information can't be released because it is proprietary
3. Oops. Jokes on you! We have that data, but since it is retained overseas your domestic legal process can't legally compel us to provide it.
_________________
Ed

I'm not a cellular technology expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. 

hcso1510
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: Autonomous Vehicle L5 crash

Post Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:01 am

Very good aspects to take into consideration. Shall we focus on our job to proof forensic evidence of the TWO cars involved in an AV-H (AV-Human) crash? What situations LEO gets called to proof the 'technical cause of failure'? In public opinion killed little children are the worst in perception. For further speculation lets assume a little child jumps on the street and gets killed by an AV. What questions occur (as the expectation against an AV, as more technical equipped is higher)?

#1 - Why was the AV not able to brake to avoid?
%1 - "AVs are not better than humans, I never believed that!"

#2 - Was the AV better than H to avoid?
§2 - "They just say that to look positive, I do not believe it."

#3 - Is the car manufacturer guilty?
§3 - "Yes, the AV should have to brake" (not possible but over-expected by Hs)

#=probable questions to Hs
§=probable answers by Hs

Its clear that the public opinion influences the sale of AVs and the Fortune 500s' stock extremely.

If I get called to investigate the AV in the mentioned case, what comes first? Faraday the car, as the eSIM is probably on the safest location (No, just disassemble the shark-fin antenna, No, the wire to the roof is antenna enough)?

Black-Thinking: AVs should highly avoid areas with little kids and convince the passenger that it was faster this way. Baby-David will kill Goliath.

Whats next?  

RolfGutmann
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: Autonomous Vehicle L5 crash

Post Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:34 am

L5 has no driver involved, it is purely an autonomous vehicle (AV).

L2+ requires 'shadow' human driver.
_________________
Institute for Digital Forensics (IDF) - www.linkedin.com/groups/2436720
Mobile Telephone Examination Board (MTEB) - www.linkedin.com/groups/141739
Universal Network Investigations - www.linkedin.com/groups/13536130
Mobile Telephone Evidence & Forensics trewmte.blogspot.com 

trewmte
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: Autonomous Vehicle L5 crash

Post Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:57 am

L5 no driver, correct. Therefore passenger named and not driver.  

Last edited by RolfGutmann on Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:19 am; edited 1 time in total

RolfGutmann
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: Autonomous Vehicle L5 crash

Post Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:16 am

My two year research into 'autonomous' deployed at e.g. NASA, aerospace, F1, UAV, missiles, etc. is that simulations are run millions of times before effective deployment (even then things can still go wrong). At this stage AV at consumer level is attempting to establish the principles, technicality, technology-context and presence, and safety is being developed alone side it.

Full AV (e.g. L5) large industrial vehicles on mining sites can use L5 (in tandem with a control tower) and they do a pretty good job under very limited and restricted circumstances.

From all the presentations and research to date (L5 doesn't exist at the moment in consumer terms that is). L5 could possibly, when available, be a local limited-distribution bus or delivery service etc. Passengers on a bus, for instance are most unlikely to have any liability at all.

Liability may either rest with the vehicle operator, the AV manufacturer or both. Insurance will be the main factor and regulators are making it clear the pay outs will be sky-high.
_________________
Institute for Digital Forensics (IDF) - www.linkedin.com/groups/2436720
Mobile Telephone Examination Board (MTEB) - www.linkedin.com/groups/141739
Universal Network Investigations - www.linkedin.com/groups/13536130
Mobile Telephone Evidence & Forensics trewmte.blogspot.com 

trewmte
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: Autonomous Vehicle L5 crash

Post Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:30 am

Great input. On the scale of Level 0 - 5 only two are safe: 0 or 5 as mixed-responsibilities ever fail somehow.

But the market needs scalability to cash-in after investments. They actually fear an 'AV winter' (see Amnon Shashua paper) and dont like to end in a science project dead-end. They highly strive to bring L2+ (crowdsourced RoadBook) to the masses.

But back to reality: Car Forensics on a L2 car to bring-out the separate responsibilities is like smog and the disclaimers at-buy-or-lease-or-rent a car clearly towards no-guilty for the manufacturer ever.

On thing remains. What can Car Forensics really proof and what not? We search and test for what we can proof and is court-hard.

What can Car Forensics never proof (then we can stop research)?  

RolfGutmann
Senior Member
 
 

Page 1 of 4
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next