Google's driverless cars may eventually put humans out of the driver's seat, says Mark Goldfeder.
Google's driverless cars may eventually put humans out of the driver's seat, says Mark Goldfeder.

Story highlights

Google's driverless cars are very good drivers, says Mark Goldfeder

They could change what it means to be a "reasonable driver" under the law, he says

Goldfeder: Your grandkids won't drive because computer-driven cars will be too safe to allow humans to take over

Editor’s Note: Mark Goldfeder is senior lecturer at Emory Law School and senior fellow at the Center for the Study of Law and Religion. He teaches law and technology, among other courses. The opinions expressed here are his own.

(CNN) —  

Google’s driverless car just caused its first crash. To the casual observer this may seem to vindicate the doubters. In fact, all it does is prove that the future is now.

After more than a million miles of autonomous driving, Google’s vehicle reached an intersection where it arguably had the right of way. The car assumed that an approaching bus would yield to let it pass, and when the bus did not slow down the driverless car – going at a speed of about 2 mph – made contact with the side of the bus, which was traveling at 15 mph.

No one was harmed, and Google has already released a statement affirming that the car learned from its mistake, and now understands that buses are less likely to yield than other types of vehicles. It should also be noted that the passenger who was in the car at the time said that he, a licensed reasonable person, would have made the same mistake the car did.

Mark Goldfeder
Mark Goldfeder

The incident comes on the heels of last month’s announcement by U.S. safety regulators that for the purposes of federal law they would consider the “‘driver”’ in Google’s new self-driving car, to be … the car itself.

That small doctrinal shift could eventually completely change the world as we know it, and this crash only serves to prove that point.

The law uses the “reasonable driver” standard in evaluating negligence liability. Simply put, if a driver can show he took as much care as a “reasonable driver” should have taken, he is generally not held liable in case of an accident.

Until now, that just meant comparison to a reasonable person. But if a “driver” can now be defined both as a “reasonable person” and as a computer – one that can react on the roadway 10 times faster than the average human being – then what does it mean to say “reasonable driver” anymore?

PHOTO: From Google
Now playing
03:44
2014: Google's driverless cars
GM announces semi-automatic cars_00000009.jpg
GM announces semi-automatic cars_00000009.jpg
Now playing
01:07
GM plans 'semi-automatic' cars
cnn$ bmw self driving car can't crash_00003603.jpg
cnn$ bmw self driving car can't crash_00003603.jpg
Now playing
02:00
I can't crash this BMW
driverless car marsh dnt lead_00001926.jpg
driverless car marsh dnt lead_00001926.jpg
Now playing
01:58
Take a ride in a driverless car
israel driverless car burke pkg_00010711.jpg
PHOTO: CNN
israel driverless car burke pkg_00010711.jpg
Now playing
02:20
Israeli tech firm leads driverless car push
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEPTEMBER 25: A reporter looks at a Google self-driving car at the Google headquarters on September 25, 2012 in Mountain View, California. California Gov. Jerry Brown signed State Senate Bill 1298 that allows driverless cars to operate on public roads for testing purposes. The bill also calls for the Department of Motor Vehicles to adopt regulations that govern licensing, bonding, testing and operation of the driverless vehicles before January 2015. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
PHOTO: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEPTEMBER 25: A reporter looks at a Google self-driving car at the Google headquarters on September 25, 2012 in Mountain View, California. California Gov. Jerry Brown signed State Senate Bill 1298 that allows driverless cars to operate on public roads for testing purposes. The bill also calls for the Department of Motor Vehicles to adopt regulations that govern licensing, bonding, testing and operation of the driverless vehicles before January 2015. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Now playing
03:09
Google: Driverless cars only in 11 accidents
An early version of Google's self-driving car prototype was revealed on May 27, 2014.
PHOTO: Google
An early version of Google's self-driving car prototype was revealed on May 27, 2014.
Now playing
02:19
Quest: Google's car is the 'future'
samuelson interview volvo tackling hacking_00022020.jpg
PHOTO: Volvo Car Group
samuelson interview volvo tackling hacking_00022020.jpg
Now playing
02:52
Volvo leads charge to tackle car-hacking
The Google self-driving car maneuvers through the streets of Washington
PHOTO: Karen Bleier/AFP/Getty Images
The Google self-driving car maneuvers through the streets of Washington
Now playing
02:36
Driverless cars could let you sleep
simon google driverless car_00003924
simon google driverless car_00003924
Now playing
01:02
Driverless car now legal in California
tsr todd google self driving car _00015822
tsr todd google self driving car _00015822
Now playing
03:20
CNN test-drives 'self-driving car'
tomkins volvo driverless car_00002324.jpg
tomkins volvo driverless car_00002324.jpg
Now playing
02:43
Can driverless cars improve road safety?
PHOTO: YOUTUBE.COM/GOOGLE
Now playing
02:00
Driverless car takes blind man for spin
bts.google.driverless.car_00012718
bts.google.driverless.car_00012718
Now playing
02:14
Google's self driving Prius

The traditional fear has been that cars driven by computers would not be as safe as those driven by people. That’s why California drafted a law requiring that all vehicles – including driverless cars – have a built-in steering-wheel and a licensed human passenger capable of taking control. This assumes it is safer to allow a human driver to grab the wheel in the event of an emergency.

But that assumption is far from clear. The average U.S. driver has one accident roughly every 165,000 miles. Google’s driverless cars are already doing much better, and constantly improving. It is becoming clear after millions of miles of research, that it is safer to simply let the computer drive – even in the event of an emergency. Google is so sure of this that there is no steering wheel in their latest design. And the federal government seemed to agree when it officially recognized the computer as a “capable driver” in the fullest legal sense of the word – even in the Google car, where a human cannot possibly take over.

So – getting back to our original question – if sooner or later half the cars on the road are driven by computers, what happens to the “reasonable driver” standard? If an average guy in an average car has an accident which the average “reasonable person” could not have avoided, should he now be held liable because a driverless car would have easily avoided it?

The assumption used to be that when driverless cars started to get into accidents, much of the legal wrangling would revolve around driverless car owners – or other responsible parties such designers, programmers, and manufacturers – having to prove that their vehicles met the “reasonable driver” standard. But increasingly, it appears that the technology is so good that the opposite will eventually be true: Human drivers will have the burden of proving that they met the new “reasonable” standard.

Will two separate standards evolve? If not, what happens when the skill of computer drivers is simply too far out of reach for the average human being to be considered safe under the same “reasonable” standard?

Will people simply be forced to give up driving on the open road? Don’t laugh – it’s not out of the question.

Consider how the law treats drunk drivers: We ban drunk drivers because they cannot meet the “reasonable driver” standard. We don’t compare them to a “reasonable drunk driver” because the law assumes a “reasonable driver” who is drunk would not drive in the first place.

It is quite possible that in a matter of years the empirical evidence will be clear: When a stone sober human gets behind the wheel instead of letting the car drive itself, the danger to others increases so drastically that doing so will be barred by law, the same way we bar people who are drunk or otherwise impaired.

In other words, a human being – just by virtue of being human – simply won’t meet the new legal standard for a “reasonable driver.”

And that might not be such a bad thing: 33,000 Americans die annually in automobile accidents, 93% of which are caused by human error.

As cars have taken small steps toward becoming smarter over the last 15 years, with the additions of sensors and vehicle-to-vehicle communications among other innovations, the frequency of accidents has fallen over 50%. If we remove the ability for a human – a tired, distracted, drunk, angry, or simply slow-reacting human – to take over, experts believe that accident frequency could drop by an additional, and astounding, 80%.

And computer drivers are getting better, not worse. As the incredible savings in human lives becomes clear, it will become more difficult to rationalize allowing human beings on the open road. Americans love to drive it’s true – but if they could save 33,000 lives every year by letting the computer drive instead, they may well choose to do it.

That’s why I think the writing is on the wall: Human drivers will soon be one of those things – like the rotary phone or the typewriter – that you will have to tell your grandkids about. Not only will human driving be unnecessary – many assume that by 2040 self-driving cars will be the norm – but it may well be considered genuinely unsafe, not to mention against the law!

Not to worry though, the legal acceptance of the artificial driver will only hasten the reconciliation of facts with people’s feelings, and the development of new social norms. In other words, by the time your grandkids are barred from driving, they probably won’t much care.

Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.

Read CNNOpinion’s Flipboard magazine.