Slashdot Mirror
Self-Driving Cars Should Be Liable For Accidents, Not the Passengers: UK Government (arstechnica.co.uk)
"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.
Where's my car?
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I want to sue all the governments for interfering in my life. This of-course means I want to sue all of you for interfering in my life. Of-course my resources are vastly inadequate for this, but I would love to do just that. I do not want this government 'protection' (read interference and oppression) to exist. But I do feel this is probably going to happen anyway. Need a new planet / new world of some sort without all this in it.
You can't handle the truth.
It is the owner's responsibility to investigate the quality of the self-driving mechanism and be certain it is up to snuff until there are rules in place defining standards for self-driving mechanisms. If the owner doesn't deem it acceptable, he should drive the car himself. If he does, then he takes on the risk.
If you set your cruise control to 100 km/h then proceed to turn the car into a brick wall, it is not the car's fault, it is yours. Only if the cruise control actually fails to stay at the speed it is set at is it the car company's problem.
Until a self-driving car comes along that 100% guarantees perfect avoidance, the fault remains with the owner.
I have a saying. This universe is broken, let me know when there's a new universe ready to move to. I usually invoke it when someone says if you don't like something that is happening in the country that you don't like, move to some other country that you know very little about.
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.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Bet you insurance goes up tho.
It's an easy bet. Bet on greed.
Sounds to me like there should be some sort of public defense fund sort of thing for self driving cars. Two things will almost certainty be true of self driving cars: One, they will reduce total accidents and vehicular deaths, and two, they will have fatal accidents, even if there are less of them. It is therefore in the best interests of society at large to prevent this technology from becoming encumbered by lawsuits. I would think that the solution would be to have a public fund to dish out the accidental death payments, rather than have high profile lawsuits over the inevitable.
I think there's something similar for vaccination, where you also have something that is overwhelmingly in the best interests of society but which can also have very rare cases of injury.
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?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
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.
Then go move to Somalia where you can be completely free of government interference.
This universe is broken, let me know when there's a new universe ready to move to.
Because someone else should make a new universe ready for your benefit. You're a lazy selfish piece of shit, and I don't want to live in the same universe as you. I'm creating my own universe with hookers and blackjack.
Do ancient pussies still work or do they require artificial lubricant?
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?
and when renter is listed as the owner under an EULA so that auto drive uber get's off?
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.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
ha ha, you are so uninformed about the world in general and Somalia specifically it's hilarious.
You can't handle the truth.
What an amazing argument... NOT.
I think it's an awesome idea.
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.
"It is the owner's responsibility to investigate the quality of the self-driving mechanism" - yeah because we're all qualified and equipped to do that in any kind of effective manner. And your use of Cruise Control as an example is ridiculous: it would make only any kind of sense if the liability was for speeding, not for "crashing into a tree" - and you totally fail on this anyway as you claim it is the car company's problem if you are found speeding under cruise-control - and it is not. You talk like you know the facts about liability, but you are obviously just spouting an uninformed opinion.
So doing an jiffy lube vs paying dealer price for oil changes = unauthorized changes?
Right, so jiffy lube is software.
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
Even without the interference of the modern form of government you're familiar with, there's still the traditional legal system of xeer in which you will be held to account. Hope you're rich in camels to pay for your crimes.
It's a question of expectations. No one buys a toy airplane (I've been flying these for 30+ years) with the expectation that someone's life depends upon it (and yes I know they kill about 1 person a year). When you buy a car there is the expectation that it will do what it says it will do and not explode and kill off a small neighborhood.
Yes, just like aircraft.
Ten bucks says some "elite" motherfucker proposed this. Too rich to jail, amirite?
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.
> 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 case maybe you caused the bite.)
> the passengers won't be making any operational decisions; there may not even BE passengers in lots of cases.
> They aren't operating them except to have called it up and set a destination.
> Uber/Lyft/MyCityCabCompany/BigCityTrucking/Amazon?
If Amazon puts a log in the road, they are responsible for the results. If Amazon parks a regular truck in the middle of the road, they are responsible for the results. If they drive trucks with the new automatic emergency braking and their drivers completely rely on that to avoid accidents, they are responsible. Whatever Amazon puts on the road, they are responsible for the results of their actions in putting it there.
> 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.
Maybe such a thing will be sold some day. Right now, cruise control amd automatic braking aren't anywhere near what you've described. When that happens, of it ever does, Tesla will tell *UPS* "buy our self-driving trucks, you can pay fewer drivers." Tesla will show *UPS* under what conditions the trucks can be safely deployed (snow and ice?). UPS will make a decisiom for the purpose of saving themselves money, based on their discussions with Tesla. Note I'm not part of those discussions. I don't know of Tesla told UPS "these trucks can handle dry pavement autonomously. When there is ice on the road or other dangerous conditions you'll need drivers." As far as I know, Tesla may have told UPS "these trucks have driver assist to reduce driver fatigue."
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. 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.
> 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? I don't think collision detection removes my responsibility to avoid creating an impending collision in the first place. I expect that, like safety belts, it will often reduce the injuries for certain common types of collisions.
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 unsophisticated and this area in particular might cause problems. For example, does "modified" include the operator downloading apps from the vehicle manufacturer 'App Store'?
I mean, it's not like insurance companies would ever play dirty to get out of paying out on a claim, is it?
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 control of a car? At first we will be told it is to stop car thefts. Then we will be told that it is to prevent multi-car pile-ups. We will never be told that it is a convenient way of capturing or arresting people (how they would love it if a wanted person got in to an automated vehicle as Caxton did in the Heinlein story).
I am not suggesting any law like this is inherently bad, just that it is always a good idea to read the small print...
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 will be needed.
Sometimes the user is at fault. Maybe that means not updating software. Maybe that means after-market software or hardware modifications. Maybe that means extreme neglect of maintenance leading to mechanical failure (which happens now with non-self driving cars), assuming that self-maintaining cars will be way off in the future.
Sometimes the environment is at fault, such as falling trees, sinkholes, flash floods, deer on the highway, etc.
Sometimes other people are at fault, such as drunk drivers, kids shining lasers onto car cameras, saboteurs who mess with inter-car communications, saboteurs who mess with software updating procedures, people who intentionally cause accidents to collect insurance money, etc.
What an amazing argument... NOT.
What a stella counter. You really showed 'em. QED.
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.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
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.
See that "Preview" button?
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.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Wanna see 'em hangin'!
As here
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.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
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 on my behalf, and then when i demonstrate to my insurance company that the car was properly maintained so its not a negligent maintenance issue by the owner they'll turn around and sue the manufacturer...
And the government is saying, yeah, that's who is going to be ultimately liable here.
So when the government says we want to make the manufacturer responsible, i don't think that necessarily means in an accident the victim goes straight to suing the manufacturer bypassing the owner... but as the process winds through the system, the owners of the self-driving vehicles ARE going to be able to successfully sue the manufacturers for accidents the vehicles have.
I'm not sure it does need to be case by case. If I'm a passenger in a taxi, I'm not liable for any accident. If I'm a "passenger" in a self driving car I should also not be liable.
The car should know if it hasn't been maintained appropriately. If it needs servicing, it can go get it.
Hacking the software is the only thing that should move that liability, because I'm removing the car manufacturers ability to ensure the car is safe.
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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 could have prevented had they been fulfilling their job. And if they weren't doing their job was that because they were drunk off their ass, playing on their phone or otherwise doing something that means they share blame for an accident?
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.
A self driving car is a tool.
In the days before we began to lose our collective societal mind, the wielder of the tool was completely liable for any damage resulting from his wielding of ANY tool, no matter who owned or manufactured that tool.
But greedy lawyers, looking for deep pockets to pick have slowly but surely taken us to the place we are now ...
The one with the deepest pocket is liable of course -- otherwise how would the lawyers ever make an 'honest' living ?
I feel like a frog in a pot of cool water ... Is it me or is it getting warm in here ?
-- kjh
...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 model - I see good things, not dead people.
I am looking forward to Self-Driving Cars and hope Google and other companies will be able to make it on the market as soon as possible. I like it just because it would be much safer that human drivers as I see too many car accidents just because of the drivers' careless driving, drunk driving,furious driving and answering phones while driving. There are too many problems to solve, but safety should always come first and it means a lot to me, to you, to our families and friends.
So doing an jiffy lube vs paying dealer price for oil changes = unauthorized changes?
Right, so jiffy lube is software.
No, it's a Tinder like dating app for people with really strange fetishes.
Or early access done right...
People will depend on the car being autonimously "self driving" and treat it as such.
And rightly so.
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 they have held the electronics/autopilot liable for the malfunction or if they have shifted it onto the mariner in all cases.
Their jobs is to be a safety net for times we are not paying attention, neglect something or are incompentent/irresponsible, if the law lets insurance companies choose to pay only if there are absolutely no fault of the driver, they would only pay when the car was struk by a meteor or something.
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 a reputation for being vicious prosecutors. If you cause an accident you'll find your insurance notified before you can call them. The police too. In the case of a hit and run the car could report you to the police before you even turned the corner with pictures showing that you were texting.
If you have a habit of cutting autonomous cars off, perhaps they will begin lowering your rating as a driver. You may find that they often swarm to passively box you in and force you to behave on the freeway. What are you going to do about that? An AI swarm could be the king of malicious compliance.
bend like the reed
Not only can this be out of the user's control, it should be. The car should be constantly monitoring itself, and the car - being self driven - is capable of driving itself to be serviced, or calling a tow truck if it isn't capable of driving, with core functionality disabled if the car detects a state that means it can't guarantee a safe journey.
There's absolutely no reason not to take this out of the hands of the car "owner". The car doesn't have to be capable of servicing itself, it just needs to be capable of getting qualified people to provide that servicing.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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 them. No, then why do the same with car manufacturers.The owner and/or operator (depending on circumstance) needs to remain responsible for what they do, even if it is just ordering around a 1.5 ton machine.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
This... all of this discussion and argument and opinion and BS is why self driving cars will die a death. You can only implement self driving cars into a complete self driving ecosystem. You'll never be able to mix completely self driving and human driving vehicles. Human drivers just won't be able to afford to insure their car to be able to cover the cost of an accident with a self driving car that has the insurance backing of a vast corporation that will be liable for the self driving car.
Insurance companies will be forced to make human driving car insurance uneconomically high. This will be seen as forcing human drivers off the roads and there's a lot of human drivers that just won't allow that so it'll be "self drive" versus "human drive" as to who will 'own' the road - people versus corporations. It'll be a cultural and political shambles.
Self drive will have to drive only on self drive approved roads with other self drive cars and likewise human drivers on human roads with other human drivers. They won't be allowed to mix. And who gets to decide what roads... I'll wager it'll be the corporations as they'll have to guarantee that their self driving car is safe on a particular road and has it's maps and systems fully programmed for that road layout and all possible weather conditions and obstacle scenarios that could possibly be foreseen.
And this all supposes that manufacturers can even provide a fully self driving car for known road/weather and obstacle conditions in the first instance, which, today and for the foreseeable future they cannot.
I'm no sure who's dream it is for self driving cars, but I think the reality will actually be fairly nightmarish.
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.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The US has Departments of Transportation. The UK has a Department for transportation. Is one grammatically/semantically better than the other?
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.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
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 (even in peak hour traffic), I fully welcome your hardline stance that will ensure that I'll be able to drive for the rest of my expected lifespan.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
waitthinkdontpostsofast, you haven't outlined a difference at all. Nor does your post appear to differentiate between normal and self-driving cars, nor do you have a point that I can find.
Self driving cars make their own decisions on what way to turn and how fast to go. Your toy helicopter does not.
Somehow pushing a button to tell a car to go to work doesn't really pass as responsibility for the car's software choices. People aren't particularly compelled to drive their cars in the middle of abandoned fields. The cars will be on the public streets.
One notion of law and policy is to consider the effects of particular policies. So a self-driving car has a crash. What different action can the passenger take in order to avoid a future accident? Not use the car? What different action can the automaker take in order to avoid a future accident? Review and improve the software and hardware systems?
Your notions lead to inaction and ineffectiveness. A sure sign they are misguided. I'd suggest you think this through again.
If the manufacturer must "update" the car (ie replace hardware in order for the car to be safe) then it is entirely the manufacturer's responsibility to pay for the job AND the inconvenience. Putting out an unsafe product then expecting the customer to pay to later make it safe is not at all consistent with motor safety standards nor with societal standards of responsible behavior.
What happens? Red-Line or Passport scanning K band. We already know because it's obnoxious when your radar pegs our fuzz busters. Smash.....oh....my neck.....
Insurance will cut this one off pretty fast.
if a self driving car hits a bicyclist in Portland OR?
Rick B.
So doing an jiffy lube vs paying dealer price for oil changes = unauthorized changes?
Actually, taking a car to Jiffy Lube is more like consenting to having your car vandalized, but I guess that could fall under "unauthorized changes.". And it isn't really any cheaper than taking it to the dealership.
> 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. 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 -- a lot of tort law is about sorting out which causes are legally relevant and which aren't.
Example: if you run over a pedestrian because you were drinking a soda and not paying attention to the road, a plaintiff generally can't bring a successful action against the shop that sold you the soda. Yes, the fact that you were distracted due to the soda was a cause of the accident, but it wasn't a legally relevant cause, because you were the one driving poorly, and your choice of distraction isn't the fault of the soda shop.
On the other hand, if you run over a pedestrian because you were drinking a bottle of whiskey, and you had bought that bottle after walking into a liquor store noticeably drunk, and surveillance footage has you on camera saying, "Yes, I'm gonna drink this and I'm gonna be drivin' all over town tonight -- I'd do give a crap if I hit someone..." -- well, in that case, the pedestrian who was struck might actually have a case to sue the liquor store, because they sold a dangerous item to someone already in a state unable to handle it and someone declaring he was going to use it improperly.
We could just as easily create scenarios with your "log in the road" example too where one person bears primary legal responsibility, or another party, or both. The problem with accidents and driving is that, unlike most other tort cases, the pervasive and required "insurance" has led to default assumptions about where liability must lie in almost all scenarios. Thus, even in cases where a provable manufacturer defect was the primary cause of a crash, you'll frequently still see insurance companies of the drivers arguing over having to pay damages too. That's just not always the case in most other legal scenarios -- in some cases, the product manufacturer may be primarily liable and a suit against the user could NOT be successful (and would even be summarily dismissed by a court) depending on the assumptions of "normal" product use and what happened.
According to your legal theory of negligence, consumers in fact could NEVER sue product manufacturers, since the "results of your action are the results"... and you're apparently solely responsible for them, even if the product blows up unexpectedly on you -- it was your fault for using it in the first place.
Maybe such a thing will be sold some day. Right now, cruise control amd automatic braking aren't anywhere near what you've described.
Then the cars aren't actually "self-driving." Until a car has the ability to handle ALL reasonably foreseeable road conditions as well as (or better than) a human driver, it should not be sold as a "self-driving car." And note that "reasonably foreseeable" has to do with the legal issue again. Just like the soda shop can't reasonably foresee that you'd hold a soda cup up in front of your face for a full 10 seconds while driving before plowing into a pedestrian, there are likely going to be scenarios where people try to operate "self-driving cars" in situations that a car manufacturer might never consider. But there will also be plenty of conditions it WILL consider "reasonable," and if the car causes an accident in those circumstances, they sh
Aircraft are worse. Both the manufacturer and every mechanic are 100% liable. Yes, it's completely within the intent of the law that after your spouse kills themselves through gross negligence that you sue 15 different entities and get awarded 5x the made up damages from your spouses negligence. And it routinely happens.
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. The manufacturer is responsible for the results of their actions. It may be that their action was telling their customer (UPS in this example) "this truck can safely drive itself under all conditions". It may also be that their action was telling UPS "this truck has driver assistance features, which reduce the likelihood of crashes when the driver fails to see something up ahead." I, the third-party driver on the road, wasn't part of that conversation between Tesla and UPS, so I don't even know what Tesla said. I do know that UPS sent the truck out on an ice-covered road, with a certain number of deliveries to make on the shift (implying it has to go a certain speed). If UPS's truck hits me, again I expect UPS to pay for the damages. UPS thinks Tesla misled them about the truck's capabilities, they can turn around and collect from Tesla.
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)
>> 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.
You know they wont bother with doing that. They'll just see it as an opportunity to raise the cost of everyone elses insurance to more than cover their losses.
But it's nice to see governments go in the right direction. But still, automakers are going to have to pass on to the consumer the cost of carrying the liability insurance to cover automobiles while self-driving, at least initially.
You'll still pay for it if you dumb enough to want one.
Who knows how much it will cost. Prolly an arm and a leg.
Maybe your life.
I'll drive my own car, thank you very much.
That's why it's granny buttsex day.
Cars should go to jail for cheating on tests,
not our honorable corporate citizens who are just out there doing their best for us all.
I understand what you're saying. But understand that there are people (not as many as they'd like you to believe) who think that you and I should be living in a world where your 'car' has no steering wheel or other controls, you just strap yourself into the seat in your four-wheeled deathtrap and hope against all hope that the damned thing doesn't go completely berserk on you and get you killed, along with however many other people. In that case the manufacturer of the car would be 100% liable, since you have precisely 0% control over the vehicle -- not that it would matter, you'd likely be dead and therefore unable to sue anyone, and your next-of-kin would likely be tied up in civil court for years and years. Of course that scenario is insane, I have not spoken to a single person (in real life, mind you, the Internet doesn't count) that did anything other than respond with a look of horror and fear in their eyes at the mere idea that there could be such a contraption they'd be required to ride in. In the real-world case of so-called 'self driving cars' it'll be more like a 'driver assist' or 'autopilot' that you can turn on and off -- and in the case of an accident, I'm sure there'll be logfiles they'll download from your vehicle (enjoy your complete lack of privacy, by the way) to prove whether or not the vehicle was under computer control or human control at the time of an accident.
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, combined with right-to-repair.
The part about Insurance companies not being responsible if 'updates aren't applied' is HUGE in respect to privacy if not handled properly. If you're REQUIRED to accept an update to maintain insurance, what stops a company from throwing all kinds of objectionable things in to the software on the basis that you will be required to install it? Yes, this is a somewhat different question then just the accident/liability coverage but you can't make these types of laws 'in a vacuum', there may be other laws protecting consumer privacy but they can easily be in conflict so any law about insurance that requires 'mandatory updates' must consider the privacy/security implications directly.
Not only can this be out of the user's control, it should be. The car should be constantly monitoring itself, and the car - being self driven - is capable of driving itself to be serviced, or calling a tow truck if it isn't capable of driving, with core functionality disabled if the car detects a state that means it can't guarantee a safe journey.
There's absolutely no reason not to take this out of the hands of the car "owner". The car doesn't have to be capable of servicing itself, it just needs to be capable of getting qualified people to provide that servicing.
I think that self-maintaining cars would be really convenient. However, I can imagine that self-maintaining cars can be quite challenging. A self-maintaining car needs to balance the schedule of all users of the car, the availability of service providers, the economics of service and part selection based on the financial situation of the car owner, relative trust in available service providers, etc. And the owner would need to have trust in the car manufacturer that the car hasn't been programmed to maximize parts and service revenue for service providers (not that such a thing would ever happen ...).
I'm not sure it does need to be case by case. If I'm a passenger in a taxi, I'm not liable for any accident. If I'm a "passenger" in a self driving car I should also not be liable.
What if I do something intentionally or unintentionally to distract or incapacitate the taxi driver, like hitting or arguing with the driver or shaking his seat, cranking up my boom box (yes, I'm from the 80's) really loud, etc.?
The car should know if it hasn't been maintained appropriately. If it needs servicing, it can go get it.
I think that self-maintaining cars would be really convenient. However, I can imagine that self-maintaining cars can be quite challenging. A self-maintaining car needs to balance the schedule of all users of the car, the availability of service providers, the economics of service and part selection based on the financial situation of the car owner, relative trust in available service providers, etc. And the owner would need to have trust in the car manufacturer that the car hasn't been programmed to maximize parts and service revenue for service providers (not that such a thing would ever happen ...).
What do you mean sue the government because you don't use it? You mean use a tax payer paid for and government operated legal system...?
Meanwhile, do you relinquish all property rights and police protection established in that legal framework? If so, tell us where you live so we can liberate you of those burdens. No? Then your a pussy whiner. Rise up and kill the cops or shut up other than in the legally permitted ways. Hypocrisy online won't get you anywhere.
No one cares if you drive the uninsured vehicle on private land you own. If you want to be on the highway or local streets, where you could kill or cripple forty elementary school kids on the side of the road on a field trip in half a second, then you better have insurance sufficient to cover it. The most efficient way of getting that would seem to be by putting it on the manufacturer.
I guarantee that if you could buy a 3,000 lb drone that travels at 100mph+ for $5k used, you would need more than a drivers license and half stack of hundreds.
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.
Fine, then we shouldn't be trying to make autonomous cars work yet. We should try again when we can build test simulations sufficient enough to make them perfect off of public roads.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
In this Corporate controlled world we have turned over yet another part of our lives. Good luck on going up against a large Corporation in Court. They will tear you to pieces!
I hear Mars is beautiful around this time of year and there's plenty of land to grab. There's no formal government or any type of regulations present. It's like the Wild Wild West! Why not volunteer yourself for a one-way ticket? I'm sure NASA and some other countries are looking for test subj---err space travelers.
Think of it as an opportunity of a lifetime!