3 ms·

It was inevitable, so I'm sure they're quite pleased it was a minor issue and not something catastrophic. Someday in the future a self driving car is going to h

It was inevitable, so I'm sure they're quite pleased it was a minor issue and not something catastrophic. Someday in the future a self driving car is going to hurt or kill a person and then the real legal tests will begin, but this is the first step on the pathway to normalcy. My personal fear is that Google and maybe one or two others will get self driving cars right, but then the imitations from other manufacturers will fall short. The liability needs to end up on the manufacturer of the self driving car system, this is not something to be taken lightly at all.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
I expect self driving car liability to end up similar to vaccine liability. A fund and adjudication process is created to compensate those who have an adverse outcome. http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/ http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/
- ghaff 11y ago
  Which are controversial in some circles because they're a rare example of a "get out of jail free" card for big companies. (I'm not agreeing with that POV but noting that it's pretty widespread.) I actually agree that vaccines (and really drugs more broadly) are a rather unusual example of products that can be used as directed and things can still go bad--without the manufacturer necessarily being "at fault." [Edit: Where it's not the fault of the user or other human.]
  - cornellwright 11y ago
    Another way to do it would be for each manufacturer to have to price in liability coverage to their vehicle. This could be done as a yearly or monthly software license fee that the current owner/operator of the vehicle has to pay. It creates the right incentive for manufacturers because they can charge less (or make more money) if their cars are safer and have fewer claims. We'd probably also need some amount of limits on full tort liability though since the manufactures would be bigger targets for lawyers than individuals.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      > We'd probably also need some amount of limits on full tort liability though since the manufactures would be bigger targets for lawyers than individuals. This is the exact problem I'm targeting. You need to cut attorneys out of the mix.
      - cornellwright 11y ago
        I wouldn't necessarily say cut out attorneys, but provide sane liability limits so that awards don't go much beyond costs actually incurred. The only exception I'd make to that would be cases of withholding a known defect, like the self driving car equivalent of the Takata exploding airbag fiasco.
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  The only difference is the vaccine fund doesn't have to be proven and a large, large amount of cases they receive are highly unlikely to have been caused by vaccine issues. But a car crash will be very easy to figure out who's at fault. Why would such a fund exist for something that can be pin-pointed directly at the party at fault?
  - ghaff 11y ago
    >But a car crash will be very easy to figure out who's at fault. There are lots of scenarios where a person avoids an accident that isn't clearly another driver's fault--skidding on ice, debris on road... Also cases involving pedestrians and bicyclists where it's arguably their fault but drivers still generally have the responsibility to not hit a child running out into the road.
    - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
      Correct and in today's society that is covered through insurance. Are we saying we're eliminating the insurance industry for vehicles? That's essentially what this would do (the government basically assumes the role as insurance company).
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        > Are we saying we're eliminating the insurance industry for vehicles? That's essentially what this would do (the government basically assumes the role as insurance company). Sort of. Self-driving vehicle manufacturers would self-insure.
      - ghaff 11y ago
        The difference is that today, it's normally the case that it clearly isn't the car's fault--whatever combination of humans, pedestrians, bicyclists, and just acts of God it is. If the car's brakes don't work properly even though they've been properly maintained or an ignition switch fails, the manufacturer gets sued. The wrinkle with the scenario in question is that it's not normally the case that programmed instructions in a machine can play a role in an accident and that's considered to not be a fault of the company programming the machine. I assume there would still be insurance. But if my self-driving car causes an accident, I certainly shouldn't be "at fault" from the perspective of my insurance premiums nor should I be able to be sued--as would be the case today.
cubano 11y ago
It would seem to me that Google's autonomous car insurance, which they must have bought from somewhere, would take care of this in pretty much the same way as other insured drivers are currently protected. It really shouldn't be very different from, say, a fatal accident from a driver in a corporate-owned car. Sure...PIP attorneys are going to go after Alphabet and make a big ruckus, but in the end, Alphabet has to have all this covered already as part of the plan.

toomuchtodo 11y ago

I expect self driving car liability to end up similar to vaccine liability. A fund and adjudication process is created to compensate those who have an adverse outcome. http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/ http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/

ghaff 11y ago
Which are controversial in some circles because they're a rare example of a "get out of jail free" card for big companies. (I'm not agreeing with that POV but noting that it's pretty widespread.) I actually agree that vaccines (and really drugs more broadly) are a rather unusual example of products that can be used as directed and things can still go bad--without the manufacturer necessarily being "at fault." [Edit: Where it's not the fault of the user or other human.]
- cornellwright 11y ago
  Another way to do it would be for each manufacturer to have to price in liability coverage to their vehicle. This could be done as a yearly or monthly software license fee that the current owner/operator of the vehicle has to pay. It creates the right incentive for manufacturers because they can charge less (or make more money) if their cars are safer and have fewer claims. We'd probably also need some amount of limits on full tort liability though since the manufactures would be bigger targets for lawyers than individuals.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    > We'd probably also need some amount of limits on full tort liability though since the manufactures would be bigger targets for lawyers than individuals. This is the exact problem I'm targeting. You need to cut attorneys out of the mix.
    - cornellwright 11y ago
      I wouldn't necessarily say cut out attorneys, but provide sane liability limits so that awards don't go much beyond costs actually incurred. The only exception I'd make to that would be cases of withholding a known defect, like the self driving car equivalent of the Takata exploding airbag fiasco.
BinaryIdiot 11y ago
The only difference is the vaccine fund doesn't have to be proven and a large, large amount of cases they receive are highly unlikely to have been caused by vaccine issues. But a car crash will be very easy to figure out who's at fault. Why would such a fund exist for something that can be pin-pointed directly at the party at fault?
- ghaff 11y ago
  >But a car crash will be very easy to figure out who's at fault. There are lots of scenarios where a person avoids an accident that isn't clearly another driver's fault--skidding on ice, debris on road... Also cases involving pedestrians and bicyclists where it's arguably their fault but drivers still generally have the responsibility to not hit a child running out into the road.
  - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
    Correct and in today's society that is covered through insurance. Are we saying we're eliminating the insurance industry for vehicles? That's essentially what this would do (the government basically assumes the role as insurance company).
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      > Are we saying we're eliminating the insurance industry for vehicles? That's essentially what this would do (the government basically assumes the role as insurance company). Sort of. Self-driving vehicle manufacturers would self-insure.
    - ghaff 11y ago
      The difference is that today, it's normally the case that it clearly isn't the car's fault--whatever combination of humans, pedestrians, bicyclists, and just acts of God it is. If the car's brakes don't work properly even though they've been properly maintained or an ignition switch fails, the manufacturer gets sued. The wrinkle with the scenario in question is that it's not normally the case that programmed instructions in a machine can play a role in an accident and that's considered to not be a fault of the company programming the machine. I assume there would still be insurance. But if my self-driving car causes an accident, I certainly shouldn't be "at fault" from the perspective of my insurance premiums nor should I be able to be sued--as would be the case today.

cubano 11y ago

It would seem to me that Google's autonomous car insurance, which they must have bought from somewhere, would take care of this in pretty much the same way as other insured drivers are currently protected. It really shouldn't be very different from, say, a fatal accident from a driver in a corporate-owned car. Sure...PIP attorneys are going to go after Alphabet and make a big ruckus, but in the end, Alphabet has to have all this covered already as part of the plan.