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.
Current law not appropriate for future technology! News at 11!
*nod* I could see the liability resting on your insurance carrier, then premiums being based off the model of car, version of software, or configuration.
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.
Cars should have a failsafe option when faced with a decision in dangerous circumstances. Something like "pull the fuck off the road without hitting shit then ask what to do". Sure, even a failsafe option can't account for everything, but it will probably still do a better job than your average human driver - alert or not.
If we always waited until 100% of the issues are ironed out, then we still wouldn't even be using fire. Personally, once machine drivers are statistically safer than human drivers, I'm all for adopting them as our vehicular overlords.
when it's time to collect, they weasel out.
Too true. Clearly we need insurance insurance.
Right. It needs to be strictly civil liability - the government could really hose this up if they attach criminal penalties.
The computer industry has set a terrible precedent here, which I hope is stopped. That person running an unpatched XP in a botnet should be just as liable as the person riding in his car, for the damage his car does and for the damage his PC does. Kaspersky should be selling combination AV/Insurance packages.
People wonder why linux doesn't catch on despite being so much more secure than Windows. One of the factors is that Windows doesn't have to be as good because liability is artificially limited by the government, and that's a direct subsidy. Absent that protection, either Windows would get better or it'd become too expensive to run.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Not to mention that people who have been using self-driving cars all their life will have 99% less driving experience. They will basically all be student drivers, but without a teacher in the car when something goes wrong.