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.
Thanks. Mr. Obvious (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
The National Transportation Safety Board conducted an independent investigation into the accident. In July 2015, the NTSB released a report which cited inadequate design safeguards, poor pilot training, lack of rigorous federal oversight and a potentially anxious co-pilot without recent flight experience as important factors in the 2014 crash. While the co-pilot was faulted for prematurely deploying the ship's feathering mechanism, the ship's designers were also faulted for not creating a fail-safe system that could have guarded against such premature deployment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People buy the cars knowing what they are getting, so the majority of the insurance should be on the consumer. However, there should be a split between Manufacturer and Consumer in the case of a defect.
No, if it's a manufacturing defect, the liability should be purely on the manufacturer.
Re: (Score:3)
The manufacture is going to call it a limitation, and the manufacture is going to have all of the data in a format that no one else can interpret without their help.
Like the Tesla crash, the engineers cannot cover every situation with the optimal solution in a finite amount of time. And even if they could, their would still be accidents that those who don't understand the technology will think is a obvious fault. If it is much safer overall than a human driver, it would be wrong to not release the softwar
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
In general, liability goes to the entity that could and should have done a better job avoiding the incident. So tell me, if an autonomous vehicle crashes, who could have done a better job avoiding that, the manufacturer that marketed the car as safe and their development team, or the 80 year old lady who bought the autonomous vehicle because she was no longer allowed to drive? What is it that you think the lady could and should have done better but failed at to attract a portion of the liability?
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least the cost of insurance will go down when foregoing manual mode becomes a genuine option.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now they need to create jails for cars, and tribunals with car/human translators so cars can defend themselves properly!!!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean this will be passed on to consumers, but perhaps only large incumbents will have the deep pockets required to get it off the ground.
Re:Thanks. Mr. Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, of course, everyone will have to pay for it. But it won't be via a high cost of purchase, it will rapidly be turned from auto-sales into auto-rentals or leases, where you won't be able to buy a car anymore, just hire it to go from a to b, or lease it for a period of time. As a bonus, the company will get to record and sell everything you "do" in the car, in order to optimize the ads being displayed to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, of course, everyone will have to pay for it.
The cost will be built into the price of the car, but it will likely be cheaper than the current system of individual insurance policies, due both to reduced administrative overhead, and lower accident rates.
Re:Thanks. Mr. Obvious (Score:4, Interesting)
Paying the insurance up front in the cost of the car raises some serious problems, like does the first own bear most of that brunt of the cost--and when it's resold does the value of the "insurance" effect the used car value linearly.
Also, how long to cars last, if you had to pay the insurance of the vehicle up front for it's entire life, how long is that going to be? 5 yrs, 10 yrs, 20 yrs. Some cars can last a long time.
This means consumers would ultimately be paying for 2 insurance premiums. 1 to the automaker for self driving insurance, and 1 for their normal insurance co. for manual mode driving. How is this supposed to be more affordable and better?
Re: (Score:3)
Good news! The automated cars will all drive with exactly identical assholishness, so you don't have to pay for it!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, of course, everyone will have to pay for it. But it won't be via a high cost of purchase, it will rapidly be turned from auto-sales into auto-rentals or leases, where you won't be able to buy a car anymore, just hire it to go from a to b, or lease it for a period of time. As a bonus, the company will get to record and sell everything you "do" in the car, in order to optimize the ads being displayed to you.
Does anybody genuinely think that autonomous cars will come without a huge feedback loop back to the mothership? Reporting any situation the AI had a low confidence solution for, not just accidents but incidents that caused agitation like honking and near-accidents for review and all sorts of statistics on what it's been doing. And the other way will be full of driving AI updates, sensor processing updates, recalls, map updates, traffic alerts, weather warnings and so on. Actually regarding traffic I expect
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The automakers have already formed one or two consortiums to share this data. You should be more worried, though, about the fact that they just won't shut up about V2V, road trains, etc. That's going to require that basically all cars get retrofitted with transponders.
Re: (Score:2)
As a bonus, the company will get to record and sell everything you "do" in the car,
... so you'll be shipped back to London, even if you park your car well out of sight
Re: (Score:3)
"I think you mean this will be passed on to consumers"
Every cost is passed on to consumers. Consumers pay for everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Automakers are going to have to carry the liability insurance to cover automobiles while self-driving, at least initially.
Translation: Large incumbent automakers probably sponsored this law, if they didn't actually write it, because an insurance requirement will impose a steep barrier to entry to any newcomers.
Yes, because obviously there would be a whole cottage industry of small start ups mass manufacturing self-driving automobiles, just like there is now for manual ones. Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't so much as thought about halfbakery in years.
Happy to see it's still going.
Re: (Score:2)
Car makers are selling Autopilot knowing full well that the people behind the wheel will be texting/surfing on their phones or in car entertainment systems.
Car makers are selling cars without Autopilot knowing full well that the people behind the wheel will be texting/surfing on their phones or in car entertainment systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Car makers are selling Autopilot knowing full well that the people behind the wheel will be texting/surfing on their phones or in car entertainment systems.
Car makers are selling cars without Autopilot knowing full well that the people behind the wheel will be texting/surfing on their phones or in car entertainment systems.
And the manufacturer then doesn't have any liability. It sounds like you are in agreement with parent.
Re: (Score:2)
The National Transportation Safety Board conducted an independent investigation into the accident. In July 2015, the NTSB released a report which cited inadequate design safeguards, poor pilot training, lack of rigorous federal oversight and a potentially anxious co-pilot without recent flight experience as important factors in the 2014 crash. While the co-pilot was faulted for prematurely deploying the ship's feathering mechanism, the ship's designers were also faulted for not creating a fail-safe system that could have guarded against such premature deployment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
That's the way it works in the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it goes far beyond that. I worked in human factors engineering [wikipedia.org] for a decade so TMI for a public message board. It is a very well studied field and puts limits on what a human, even a well trained one, can do and how they can be expected to behave in certain situations.
When glass cockpits first came out, flight crews had problems because they were expected to sit there for 6-8 with absolutely nothing to do(*), but be expected to take over in an emergency. And plane emergencies unfold over the course
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean "initially".
What I mean is that eventually, when the bugs have been worked out and only automated cars are allowed to use most of the lanes on the interstate and the accident rate stabilizes (hopefully near zero) then the burden will be shifted from the automakers to the customers, who will pay for it along with the rest of their mandatory liability insurance. The insurers aren't going to deal with insuring vehicles individually until the risk is reasonably estimable.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean "initially".
What I mean is that eventually, when the bugs have been worked out and only automated cars are allowed to use most of the lanes on the interstate and the accident rate stabilizes (hopefully near zero) then the burden will be shifted from the automakers to the customers, who will pay for it along with the rest of their mandatory liability insurance. The insurers aren't going to deal with insuring vehicles individually until the risk is reasonably estimable.
Why should the customer *ever* be liable for a malfunctioning car? If it is supposed to self-drive and it doesn't, then that's not my fault, it's the fault of the manufacturer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter how low the accident rate for SDC's go if they do not go to absolute zero.
If you, the customer, want to allow the manufacturer to dodge the liability in their product, then fine - go ahead and do it. However, if that product then harms me on a public road, the manufacturer doesn't get to claim "Well, our customer agreed to the EULA".
The "low accident rate makes it moot" only makes it moot for those who accept it - i.e. the SDC customer. Unfortunately for the manufacturer, any defect in the
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Rather than traditional auto insurance, the better model may be medical malpractice insurance.
Medical care has inherent risks, and when a patient dies or has serious complications, the question becomes whether those were the result of errors made during the treatment process or essentially bad luck. If the doctor should have done better, then you are talking malpractice. If the patient had a drug allergy that could not reasonably have been detected in advance, that is bad luck.
Self driving cars may be in
Re: (Score:2)
At that point, with very few accidents *caused by* the self-driving vehicle, there won't be a financial incentive to shift the burden away from the manufacturer and onto the customer. The PR hit alone probably wouldn't be worth it.
Keep in mind that "acts of god" and other stuff for which the manufacturer can't be blamed is still going to require individual insurance.
Re: Thanks. Mr. Obvious (Score:2)
so non dealer service or not paying for software u (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
So doing an jiffy lube vs paying dealer price for oil changes = unauthorized changes?
Right, so jiffy lube is software.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Automatic knives (usually power tools, chainsaws, etc) have to have certain safety precautions built into them these days. If a manufacturer makes the tool so it hurts people and the issue wasn't pure user incompetence, or it can be shown that the tool was clearly lacking in safety features, you can damn well bet the manufacturer's going to be held responsible.
That is when the tool is shown to be faulty and dangerous, not for when the tool is used improperly.
Taking this attitude with autonomous cars will kill their development as you cant make something perfect and car manufacturers will not accept liability when they cant control how their vehicles are used.
At the very best, they will install sensors and systems to ensure the operator is liable for not stopping the vehicle in an accident.
Hey, but as someone who enjoys driving and loves a manual gearbox
Re: (Score:2)
Well they can say the car only comes with 2 years of free map updates and that maps 2025 needs car os 2024 and to upgrade it may need an $2K+ main cpu box change (put in some fake can bus bs) (not really but we make a lot cash that way as it just really needs an bigger HDD that is easy to swap but we can people going out a buying an $50 HDD no they have it done at dealer with an $100 500GB 5400 RPM hdd + an $250 install fee)
Only way (Score:2)
Beyond stupid (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
No, I wrote a judgement about the headline based upon the headline and very clearly wrote that I was doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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]
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously incorrect because the story says something other than what I was critical of.
The Legal Exclusions (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Small Print - Trading Freedoms (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
So when is the passenger a passenger? (Score:2)
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
Not "tech savvy" at all. (Score:3)
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.
The auto companies are already... (Score:2)
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
How does it work legally for boats? (Score:2)
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
Insurance companies should always pay (Score:2)
Their jobs is to be a safety net for times we are not paying attention, neglect something or are incompentent/irresponsib
Re: Insurance companies should always pay (Score:2)
liability is the key (Score:2)
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
Which is better, 'for' or 'of'? (Score:2)
Who is liable (Score:2)
if a self driving car hits a bicyclist in Portland OR?
I am, and should be, liable. Also implied warranty (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a toy plane and toy quadcopter, also known as drones. I fly them (tell them to fly themselves?) at an athletic park, in the middle of several soccer fields. Surrounding the soccer fields are open, undeveloped land. Sometimes the wind picks up unexpectedly or there is a mechanical problem and they crash. Then I have to go find it in the trees or whatever.
If I chose to send my drone (toy) flying around a busy parking lot and a gust of wind sent it crashing into a baby stroller, I would be responsible. I sent the drone flying, I'm responsible for any consequences. (On the other hand, if I use it to assist in a search and rescue mission, somebody may give me credit for doing that.) Anyway, I bought it and chose a time and a place to put it in the air, and where to direct it to go. I hold the "off" switch and the "abort, come home" switch. It's my responsibility.
Also, if my drone suddenly flies off course at full speed and crashes into something fragile AND other owners of the same model report the same type of malfunction, I'm going to ask the manufacturer to reimburse me for any damages I had to cover. There are implied warranties they would be in breach of.
I see "self driving" cars exactly the same. If I buy one, I can let it drive on a road in Arizona that's straight for 45 miles at a time and I only see another car once every 20 minutes, or I can turn on "self driving" mode on a busy freeway. I can keep my hands on the wheel and my eyes on the road ready to respond to emergencies or I can choose to watch Youtube in busy traffic. I'm responsible for how I use the device (via my insurance company, whom I pay to absorb the risk). If the car suddenly accelerates at full throttle in a traffic jam, I'm going to hold the manufacturer responsible for the defect, but as far as other drivers are concerned, my car hit them. My car is my responsibility.
Re:I am, and should be, liable. Also implied warra (Score:5, Interesting)
If I chose to send my drone (toy) flying around a busy parking lot and a gust of wind sent it crashing into a baby stroller, I would be responsible.
Ok, that's a reasonable analogy. But I think its 'wrong' on two points.
First, it fails the scale test.
Cars are not a small hobby toy. And car accidents happen far more frequently than windblown drones crashing into baby strollers.
In other words, the analogy isn't applicable because if you scaled it up society would NOT be content with the status quo... that of simply holding you liable for your bad decision.
If it were happening thousands of time per day we'd surely see all kinds of new restrictions, regulations, licensing, and mandatory training and insurance for hobby drones. Drone manufacturers would be regulated to automatically detect and land and refuse to fly in windy weather. Perhaps even the outright ban of private citizens owning hobby drones.
Second, your analogy fails because the idea of it being your operational decision ... choosing to watch youtube in busy traffic or driving yourself is really missing the obvious endgame. We already know various industries (taxi/trucking/delivery/..) all want self driving cars, there won't be drivers -- only passengers, and the passengers won't be making any operational decisions; there may not even BE passengers in lots of cases. When there are passengers, they may not even be able to drive. They be drunk, or sleeping, or children...
Who is liable for the accidents those vehicles cause?
The passenger? Surely not. They aren't operating them except to have called it up and set a destination.
Uber/Lyft/MyCityCabCompany/BigCityTrucking/Amazon?
What error in judgement did they make that makes them liable? Provided they maintained the vehicles to the manufacturers specifications how are they responsible for car accidents resulting for deficiencies in the vehicles programming/sensor coverage/testing?
Chrysler/GM/VW/Tesla? It makes sense. They foisted the vehicles on the public. If they crash, it is because the vehicle wasn't sufficiently able to cope with doing the thing it was made to do. Operating in traffic in the real world safely is their function. That includes windy days, or in traffic jams, or during a police road closure or construction detour. If they are not fit to operate reliably, predictably, and safely in all these scenarios then they shouldn't be sold as self-driving cars.
I can choose to watch Youtube in busy traffic.
*Right now*, yes, there is this notion that the 'driver' is still operating the vehicle and could be responsible for whether or not the vehicle is operating autonomously or not... but that's today right now, this minute. We're in the beginning of a transition phase. Next year the cars will cope with more scenarios and do it better. The year after that even more still. 20 years from now, situations they can't safely cope with will be much rarer, and the idea that the person sitting in the front seat is responsible minute by minute for whether the car should operate itself or not will be ridiculous.
We need to consider the future. Because this little stitch in time where cars can drive themselves safely... but only sometimes and only when its really easy... is going to be quite temporary.
Drone has no passenger at all. Results, not error (Score:3)
> What error in judgement did they make that makes them liable?
That's not the legal, or fair, standard. The results of my actions are the results, whether I made an error in judgement or just got unlucky. Of my action causes damage, I'm responsible for the results of my actions. Heck, even og my dog bites you, I'm responsible for the medical bill etc because it's my dog - you don't have to prove that I knowingly kept a dangerous dog or made some other error. (Unless perhaps you're trespassing, in which
Re: (Score:3)
If UPS's truck rear-ends me on an ice-covered road, I'm going to sue UPS. I don't know what Tesla told UPS about what conditions are safe and which are unsafe for the trucks.
Right. That makes sense.
If UPS also sues Tesla for selling them bunk trucks, that's none of my business. That's all about the discussions and contract between UPS and Tesla.
But I think that's the point, UPS *is* going to sue Tesla for selling them bunk trucks, and the government stance on it that UPS *should* sue them, because the government feels that Tesla is going to be ultimately responsible, not UPS, not Amazon, and not the passengers.
So yeah, i think you are right... if my self driving car hits you, youre insurance covers you for the injurty/damage. And then promply sues me because its my car, and then my insurance company jumps in and pays yours
Re: (Score:2)
> What error in judgement did they make that makes them liable?
That's not the legal, or fair, standard. The results of my actions are the results, whether I made an error in judgement or just got unlucky.
Actually, you probably will want to read up on tort law, specifically standards for negligence [wikipedia.org]. In the most detailed legal analysis, there are a number of elements to proving negligence. Along the line, you must establish that a defendant had a "duty" to act in a certain way and then "breached" that duty in some way. But you also not only need to prove that the defendant's actions caused something, but that they were a direct and legally relevant cause of the harm. Events always have multiple causes --
Yes there may be more than one cause (Score:2)
That's certainly true that there may be more than one cause, and there is a well-developed body of law in this area. Including "but-for" and "last clear chance". I don't believe discussing that is necessary for the present question.
> According to your legal theory of negligence, consumers in fact could NEVER sue product manufacturers, since the "results of your action are the results"...
In fact I said the purchaser WOULD sue the manufacturer. The manufacturer took some actions, which had some results.
Re: (Score:2)
You expect your car to safely drive itself on ice? (Score:3)
> No one buys a toy airplane with the expectation that someone's life depends upon it
Did you buy a car with the expectation that it'll autonomously drive itself on ice-covered, twisty mountain passes safely, while you watch a movie and drink whiskey? I didn't. Some cars now feature automatic emergency braking. *When* the car senses an impending collision, it'll automatically apply the brakes. I don't expect that it will predict every possible accident and prevent me from getting in a wreck. Do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Did you buy a car with the expectation that it'll autonomously drive itself on ice-covered, twisty mountain passes safely, while you watch a movie and drink whiskey? I didn't.
Nor has anyone else yet. The point is that if I buy something which says it is a self driving car, then yes I would expect it to be able to do just that.
Whatever spin car manufacturers try to put on it, saying "it can cope adequately with driving on an empty straight road in sunshine" is NOT the same as it being self driving.
and when renter is listed as the owner in EULA (Score:2)
and when renter is listed as the owner under an EULA so that auto drive uber get's off?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is the owner's responsibility to investigate the quality of the self-driving mechanism and be certain it is up to snuff
Except that the "mechanism" is 99.9% software, and fewer than 0.00001% of the population would be qualified to disassemble and analyse it enough to "be certain it is up to snuff". Pushing product liability for SDCs onto individual owners makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the owner being liable is that if a self-driving car does serious injury to someone else then most people won't be able to afford to pay; then the burden will end up on the taxpayer.
The important thing is that whether you are driving a self-driving car or not, you carry valid liability insurance. Then it's up to the market to decide what to price the insurance premiums at.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of whom the law holds responsible, this is going to be an actuarial nightmare for the insurance company. A manufacturer might have a stellar track record for decades, then one day a security update introduces a bug that causes a lot of crashes. How can the insurance companies take account of that in their pricing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why most people will probably have a ride sharing membership with some sort of millage allotment with Uber, Lyft, Google, Apple, Chevy, Ford, Nissan, Lexus, etc. I will pay the company for 1000 miles of transportation about what my cost of owning the same vehicle will be. (There will be lots of competition, there will be a lot of incentive to undercut competitors for market share, so the price should be about the same as owning my own vehicle.) I'll never have to stop for gas, take it in for mai
Re: (Score:2)
(There will be lots of competition, there will be a lot of incentive to undercut competitors for market share, so the price should be about the same as owning my own vehicle.)
Actually, this is an interesting question. What will the price be like? I would imagine that it would actually be a lot cheaper, because of the competition. It's going to be a lot cheaper to provide you a share of a car than your own car, especially because presumably the owner is going to be an automaker or dealer for the foreseeable future. That means they'll have the opportunity to really service these vehicles in a way that doesn't normally happen with privately owned ones; even owners of expensive bran
Re: (Score:2)
If insurance goes up and the cost of accidents does not or goes down, another insurance company will undercut. Once again, bet on greed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It has been scrapped since it killed a pedestrian.
Re: (Score:2)
Please stop taking advantage directly or indirectly from roads, hospitals, education, electricity not generated by yourself, water and food also not generated by yourself (to the full extent, no buying supplies for a well or seeds for planting that has in any way had contact with government) and so on.
Internet too, you don't get to use that anymore because it was originally started by the military which falls under government.
Re: (Score:2)
I absolutely want the government interfering with a manufacturer that wants to risk my life so someone can text on their phone. There's even a precedent for it - you do own a drivers license?
For people like the OP drivers' licenses are simply government interference in the free market. You should be free to drive whatever you want, and the courts will decide liability when you kill someone because you're blind. Or something.