Slashdot Mirror
Who Is Liable When a Self-Driving Car Crashes?
innocent_white_lamb writes "Current laws make the driver of a car responsible for any mayhem caused by that vehicle. But what happens when there is no driver? This article argues that the dream of a self-driving car is futile since the law requires that the driver is responsible for the operation of the vehicle. Therefore, even if a car is self-driving, you as the driver must stay alert and pay attention. No texting, no reading, no snoozing. So what's the point of a self-driving car if you can't relax or do something else while 'driving?'"
A self driving car would be less likely to rubberneck, or cause other issues relating to a human driver. Cars could in theory go faster. etc.
I would think the point would be that machines, once properly programmed, can be the worlds safest drivers...statistically. You, as a human, will still be responsible for taking over when the machine doesn't know what to do. But, for the other 99.5% of the time, the self-driving car will make the best decisions and always be completely alert.
Self-Driving cars, I believe, have the ability to drastically reduce deaths caused by motor vehicle accidents...one of the highest causes of death in the USA.
There's an industry that manages risk.
Regulation (e.g., insurance) always develops spontaneously, because there is a market for reducing chaos.
Current law not appropriate for future technology! News at 11!
But with nothing to do behind the wheel 99% of the time your not going to be alert. Your going to be super bored. So when your supposed to take over you won't be prepared to do so.
The manufacturer will have an EULA which absolves them from guilt.
It won't be the people who sold it, because they'll also have a contract term which says they are absolved from guilt.
So, it will come down to the owner, who will be entirely dependent on the quality of the product, as delivered by two entities who have already said "not us".
So, if you privately buy an autonomous car, and it crashes, you will likely be on the hook for it. If you merely hire them (as in a Taxi), then I'm sure the people who rent them will also absolve themselves from guilt in some strange way -- likely through arms length 3rd parties who do the actual operation.
This won't be so much "buyer beware" as "everyone else on the roadway beware", because you'll have a vehicle driving around that if it crashes, there's a long line of people who have already made sure their asses are covered.
The lawyers for the companies making and selling these will have covered their asses before it ends up in the hands of anybody else.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Just from memory:
Montreal Metro is driven by autopiloting with someone in the cab for door management.
Vancouver Skyline doesn't even have a driver anywhere, it's all automated.
Several airports (Orlando was the last one I went to), have automated trains/monorails to shuffle people between terminals.
Most flights you take are done almost entirely on autopilot.
So far, it seems that mass transit is increasingly automated. So why is non-mass transit any different?
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
The change will happen slowly, organically, over time. A self driving car will behave statistically as a very safe driver. Ownership of a self driving car should bestow upon you lower insurance rates. If the current insurance companies balk at the idea, the private market will take over and "self driving only" insurance companies will gladly take their place. Eventually, as more and more share of vehicles are self driving the size of the insurance industry will shrink significantly.
I see no reason to change the liability burden away from the "Driver". It may seem counter intuitive, but you are gaining economic advantage by using your self driving car. For that advantage, you accept the risks, and insure yourself against them. That said, operating a self driving car will/should carry significantly less risk and liability then driving yourself around does now.
That does not mean that the car makers are off the hook. Just like today, if a vehicle mechanically malfunctions in a way that the car maker is found responsible, the insurance company may attempt to subrogate the claim to them.
There are two distinct things: One is that you are officially the driver even if the car drives itself, and you are responsible. But the whole point of a self driving car is that it is safer driving in a self-driving car with your eyes closed than in a non-self driving car with open eyes. You are responsible, but nobody is going to say "you are responsible because you used a self driving car without watching". They will say "you are responsible because your self-driving car caused the crash". Which will happen less often than if you drove yourself.
Right now you have to (a) watch out what you are doing and (b) pray that you don't have an accident. With a self driving car you don't need to watch out what you or the car are doing; you still have to pray that you don't have an accident.
And the whole idea of taking control in unexpected situations is nonsense. In the very best case, you would have to (1) do something to take control away from the computer and (2) react to the problem. In situations where there is enough time for that, the computer can handle things just fine. And people may think they are good in unexpected situations, but they are not.