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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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?
So you're saying every person that drives the car should inspect the billions of lines of code that go into the AI? That's fucking insane.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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.
> 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.
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.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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 on clickbait headlines?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
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.
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.
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?
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 software, even if it has obvious limitations that will eventually result in a accident.