Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation United Kingdom Government Software Technology

Self-Driving Cars Should Be Liable For Accidents, Not the Passengers: UK Government (arstechnica.co.uk) 250

"Electric charging points at all major motorway services and petrol stations, and the occupants of a self-driving car aren't liable in the case of an accident -- those are two of the measures proposed by a new law that the UK government hopes will let us reap the rewards of improved transport technology over the next few years," reports Ars Technica. "These changes are part of the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (VTAB), a draft law that is basically a shopping list of governmental desires." From the report: The first item on the bill involves automated vehicles, and how to ensure that the vehicle's owner (which may or may not be a driver) and potential accident victims are protected. The bill says that insurance companies must offer two types of protection: for when a vehicle is acting autonomously, but also if the human driver decides to takes control. Essentially, the government wants to make sure that an accident victim can always claim compensation from the insurance company, even if the car was acting autonomously. It would then be up for the insurance company to try and reclaim that money from the car maker through existing common law and product liability arrangements. In a somewhat rare display of tech savviness, there are two exemptions listed in the bill. If the vehicle owner makes unauthorized changes to the car's software, or fails to install a software update as mandated by their insurance policy, then the insurer doesn't have to pay. It isn't clear at this point which capabilities will be enough to classify a vehicle as "self-driving." The draft law asks the department for transport (DfT) to work it out, post haste, and then to determine which vehicles qualify for the new type of insurance. The planned law also outlines new governmental powers to improve the UK's electric charging infrastructure.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Self-Driving Cars Should Be Liable For Accidents, Not the Passengers: UK Government

Comments Filter:
  • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Thursday February 23, 2017 @10:37PM (#53921947) Homepage Journal

    But it's nice to see governments go in the right direction. Automakers are going to have to carry the liability insurance to cover automobiles while self-driving, at least initially.

    • Huh? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by s.petry ( 762400 )

      This will probably slow manufacturing of self driving cars. Cost will translate into massive fees on cars and "maintenance", which means people won't buy them. Government subsidies are just a way of waving hands and moving the fees to all tax payers instead of consumers.

      • by Desler ( 1608317 )

        Boohoo. If they're not willing to carry the liability for the safety of their product then their product is likely unsafe and shouldn't be sold to consumers.

      • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by thinkwaitfast ( 4150389 ) on Thursday February 23, 2017 @11:37PM (#53922105)

        Who should carry the liability if not the manufacturer? If you buy a car for your and a design defect causes it lock up at highway speed and explode, why would you not sue the manufacturer? If you buy a car, you can reasonably assume this is not supposed to happen. If you buy a self driving car you should reasonable assume that it's going to drive (and not into oncoming traffic).

        Didn't Ralph Nader build a career on this?

      • This will probably slow manufacturing of self driving cars.

        It will more likely have the opposite effect. By buying an SDC, people no longer have to deal with the hassle and cost of individual insurance policies. If they use "on demand" SDCs (which both Uber and Lyft are planning to provide), then the cost and hassle is even less. This legal clarity should speed adoption, at least in the UK, but other countries will likely have similar policies. How else would SDC liability work?

        • By buying an SDC, people no longer have to deal with the hassle and cost of individual insurance policies.

          Of course they will, do you think people won't want at least theft insurance? Never mind insurance to cover any third party injuries caused by manual use of the car?

          Agreed, if they just use taxi services like Uber they won't need insurance any more than someone taking a cab ride now does.

          • Yes, but look at the difference in cost to insure possessions versus what your car is worth and what you pay for its policy.
          • by sjames ( 1099 )

            At least the cost of insurance will go down when foregoing manual mode becomes a genuine option.

      • I doubt it. In case you haven't heard, Volvo has already committed to doing this prior to any government regulations. It seemed likely that most were going to have to take this step anyhow to bolster consumer confidence. Plus, this just makes sense. If manufacturers aren't willing to accept liability for real-life accidents caused by their software, then that software obviously isn't ready for deployment on a mass scale.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by javilon ( 99157 )

      Now they need to create jails for cars, and tribunals with car/human translators so cars can defend themselves properly!!!

    • by jez9999 ( 618189 )

      I may be missing something here, but why do manufacturers have to take on the liability? Why can't insurance companies do that? You're merely taking the human factor out of the car insurance quote.

      • I may be missing something here, but why do manufacturers have to take on the liability?

        Because the automobile insurers are unlikely to assume the full risk before they know what the risk is, unless they are forced. And as we know, nobody is forcing the insurance companies to do anything. The automakers are very much going to be putting their own pocketbooks on the line when they release self-driving cars, which is why you aren't seeing half-assed attempts at level 4 or 5 hit the streets now. If you were willing to accept human-like levels of collisions, fatalities etc., you could probably get

  • by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Thursday February 23, 2017 @11:26PM (#53922087)

    so non dealer service or not paying for software updates = car manufacturers get's off.

    So doing an jiffy lube vs paying dealer price for oil changes = unauthorized changes?

    What if an software update needs a high cost CPU update or an new car as updates end after say 2-3 years? What if updates need an dealer install at dealer shop prices?

    • by bidule ( 173941 )

      So doing an jiffy lube vs paying dealer price for oil changes = unauthorized changes?

      Right, so jiffy lube is software.

    • Yes, just like aircraft.
    • so non dealer service or not paying for software updates = car manufacturers get's off.

      So doing an jiffy lube vs paying dealer price for oil changes = unauthorized changes?

      What if an software update needs a high cost CPU update or an new car as updates end after say 2-3 years? What if updates need an dealer install at dealer shop prices?

      Shouldn't fault be determined on a case by case basis? It seems obvious that the self-driving car manufacturer cannot be held liable for all accidents involving their cars.

      Sometimes the manufacturer is at fault through intentional design or manufacturing decisions. Sometimes failures occur because driving failures rates to very low rates may require car costs to rise to the level of general unaffordability, so some acceptable level of design safety based on industry standards or government regulations wil

    • Apparently "tech savvy" now means "grant three wishes to the lobbyist's owners". We fought tooth and nail for decades to pry servicing away from the dealerships. I'm not eager to give it back.

      • by Calydor ( 739835 )

        I don't see servicing mentioned in the exemptions. I see unauthorized SOFTWARE changes, which basically means you don't get to jailbreak your car without paying up if the jailbreaking causes your car to plow into a group of kids. Does your car drive better with the jailbreak? No one will find out about it if there's no accident.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Under UK law any defects that would result in safety issues or voided warranty if not addressed would likely be covered by consumer protection law, and thus have to be done for free.

    • by mjwx ( 966435 )

      so non dealer service or not paying for software updates = car manufacturers get's off.

      So doing an jiffy lube vs paying dealer price for oil changes = unauthorized changes?

      What if an software update needs a high cost CPU update or an new car as updates end after say 2-3 years? What if updates need an dealer install at dealer shop prices?

      Actually its worse.

      Cars will now come with a used by date. A date where they will fall out of support and stop working.

      But this move will just stymie autonomous cars as the manufacturers do not want to accept the risk. So they'll install sensors in the steering wheel and in order to use the autonomous features the passenger will have to keep their hands on the wheel, thus pushing the onus back onto the passenger.

      So I think this is the wrong move. Do we make knife manufacturers responsible for how people use

  • This is the only way it can be. If automakers want to drive you around then they are the bus driver. I don't get insurance when I ride a bus. The service accepts liability.
  • Beyond stupid - the people in charge of children and livestock are found culpable so why let people in charge of something with less brains than either off?

    When we've got an A.I. like the fictional ones of HAL or Colossus it's time to revise the rules, but finding a lookup table culpable? Beyond stupid.
    • by EzInKy ( 115248 )

      Yes, exactly. Just as a dog owner is held responsible for actions of a dog, an autonomous car owner should be held responsible for the actions of a car. It should be the responsibility of the owner of said vehicle to litigate against the manufacturer, not the victim.

    • Beyond stupid - the people in charge of children and livestock are found culpable so why let people in charge of something with less brains than either off?

      The people in charge of the SDC is the manufacturer, not the passenger. The manufacturer determines how the car drives. The passenger only determines the destination. Do you also think that you are liable if you're in a taxi that gets involved in an accident?

      • by dbIII ( 701233 )
        In what way is that making the self driving car liable?
        The headline is beyond stupid.
        The machine itself should IMHO not liable whether the manufacturer, programmer, passenger or mapmaker is or not. If someone fucks up the lookup table that people call an A.I. then that person or their employer should be liable instead of some stupid fiction about a car being able to make choices and found to be responsible.

        When we have a clue what intelligence actually is and can replicate it in a machine it's time for th
        • In what way is that making the self driving car liable?

          It's making the manufacturer liable. Seriously, did you even RTFA?

          Where the manufacturer is found to be liable, the insurer will be able to pursue a subrogated claim against the manufacturer under existing common law and product liability arrangements and recover their costs from the manufacturer.

          Now do you understand?

          The headline is beyond stupid.

          Then to avoid misconceptions you should have maybe read the article. Even the summary makes the point that if the passenger is not liable then the manufacturer is.

          I note that initially you didn't specifically call out the headline as being stupid, you just generally called the story stupid.

          The machine itself should IMHO not liable whether the manufacturer, programmer, passenger or mapmaker is or not. If someone fucks up the lookup table that people call an A.I. then that person or their employer should be liable instead of some stupid fiction about a car being able to make choices and found to be responsible.

          That fiction is only in the headline. The article *and* the summary clarifies things. You make judgements about all articles based

          • by dbIII ( 701233 )

            Seriously, did you even RTFA

            Did you even read my post? It was not about the article.
            The headline is beyond stupid.
            If you wish to reply to something other than what I wrote then feel free, but don't be critical of me for it.

            You make judgements about all articles based on clickbait headlines?

            No, I wrote a judgement about the headline based upon the headline and very clearly wrote that I was doing so.

            • Seriously, did you even RTFA

              Did you even read my post? It was not about the article. The headline is beyond stupid. If you wish to reply to something other than what I wrote then feel free, but don't be critical of me for it.

              You make judgements about all articles based on clickbait headlines?

              No, I wrote a judgement about the headline based upon the headline and very clearly wrote that I was doing so.

              This does not look like a critique of the headline:

              Beyond stupid - the people in charge of children and livestock are found culpable so why let people in charge of something with less brains than either off? When we've got an A.I. like the fictional ones of HAL or Colossus it's time to revise the rules, but finding a lookup table culpable? Beyond stupid.

              That's word for word what you wrote - here's the link. [slashdot.org]

              • by dbIII ( 701233 )
                You wrote yourself that my words had nothing to do with the article, so why this silly "bet both ways"?

                There seems to be a lot of misplaced anger just because you made a mistake about what I was writing about. Why remain angry after I have spelt it out very clearly?
              • by dbIII ( 701233 )

                This does not look like a critique of the headline

                Read it again and relate it to "Self-Driving Cars Should Be Liable For Accidents, Not the Passengers". Note words like "finding a lookup table culpable" in the portion you quoted. Pretty obvious now isn't it?
                Now haven't you got better things to do than be critical of my trivial whining about misleading editiorial bullshit and how it implies an incredibly stupid cargo cult attitude to A.I?

          • by dbIII ( 701233 )

            you just generally called the story stupid

            Obviously incorrect because the story says something other than what I was critical of.

  • I was particularly interested to read about the exclusions in the proposed law - specifically the one which says that the manufacturer of a self- driving vehicle would not be held liable in the event that the operator of the vehicle had modified it. I presume they mean modified the software....

    In the US in particular, but elsewhere in the world, I have read about car companies that use laws such as the DMCA to prosecute people who try to modify the software in their cars. But the law is notoriously unsop
    • by Luthair ( 847766 )
      Consider - the user could modify the suspension or change the tires which has an impact on how the car handles, or even just have a heavy load.
  • Anyone who has read the Robert Heinlein novel, "Stranger In A Strange Land" will immediately understand why I am making this point. In the book, a reporter by the name of Ben Caxton starts making enquires, from an automated, self-driving cab. As his phone calls produced, the government detect what he is up to - and the cab is remotely redirected to a detention centre...

    Now, that might be a doomsday scenario, but can anyone not see governments salivating at the thought of being able to remotely take contr
  • Charging points in Britain require that you have the right card for that charging point and there are several different cards. Each card has a membership fee and given that you would normally charge at home and only use a charging point in an out of normal situation you have no way of knowing in advance which card to get. This is a serious problem.
  • Are we talking about fully autonomous vehicles where the passenger has virtually no control over the car's choices? Maybe there is a stop button or similar for emergencies but little else?

    Or are we talking about a semi-autonomous vehicle where the driver is expected to be alert, unimpaired, overseeing the vehicle's progress and capable of intervening for any reason?

    Because for the latter it seems like there will be plenty of blame to spread around if the car does something stupid that the human overseer

  • by gnasher719 ( 869701 ) on Friday February 24, 2017 @03:50AM (#53922623)
    The reason for compulsory 3rd party liability insurance is to make sure that victims will _always_ be compensated. The two exceptions mentioned (not paying if the owner modifies the car, not paying if the owner doesn't install required updates) open a gap here, where an innocent bystander can get badly injured without compensation. That's not tech savvy, that is idiotic.

    Obviously if these two exceptions happen, then the car is not safe, so the police should be able to scrap the car, and if an accident happens, then the insurance company should pay and take the last penny off the owner, and then the police should scrap the car and throw them into jail. As they should do with anyone driving without insurance.
  • ...primarily financial services companies.

    This ruling, which is totally obvious, will spell the end to auto insurance companies, they'll be swallowed up by the big auto companies, and will be just another part of their businesses. I say that's a good thing, since the manufacturer carries *all* the risk for their product, instead of the current model, where they (implicitly) lay the risk off to the insurance company.

    As long as consumer protection laws are enforced - and adjusted for this new business m
  • Many larger recreational vessels (say, 30' and over) have been available with combination systems (radar, depth sounders, chartplotters, autopilots) which integrate to make the boat self-piloting.

    Surely at some point there have been problems where these systems didn't work as intended and there were accidents that resulted.

    For most boats, though, at best the control system (electronics and autopilot) might come from one vendor, the hull from another, and the primary propulsion from a third.

    But I wonder if t

  • To me insurance companies should ALWAYS pay, especially to third party victims, the only time they should be covered is fraud, , such as deliberate accident, and even then injured bystanders should get compensation, for the rest, if the insurance company feels they shouldn't pay for some reason (in this case a software update not applied), they should go to court and let a judge decide.

    Their jobs is to be a safety net for times we are not paying attention, neglect something or are incompentent/irresponsib

  • For the auto maker to be found liable for an accident their vehicle would have to be the cause of the accident.

    By their very nature self driving cars are roadcam powerhouses, every possible angle is accounted for and recorded, so not only will a self driving car never willfully make a decision that could cause them liability they would _always_ be able to prove that the other driver was at fault in an accident, by virtue of having every moment of the accident caught on video!

    Self driving cars could even get

  • The US has Departments of Transportation. The UK has a Department for transportation. Is one grammatically/semantically better than the other?
  • if a self driving car hits a bicyclist in Portland OR?

Those who do things in a noble spirit of self-sacrifice are to be avoided at all costs. -- N. Alexander.

Working...