8 ms·

The only regulation that really matters is making car manufacturers liable for accidents and they would have to pay a fine from $100,000 for the smallest accide

by mtgx 10y ago

The only regulation that really matters is making car manufacturers liable for accidents and they would have to pay a fine from $100,000 for the smallest accident (per car) up to $10 million per accident. When the manufacturers "can't explain" how the accident happened (after an audit was performed), they should be fined the maximum $10 million amount. Why? Because for one assuming it's just a glitch and "they don't know" about it, then they should pay for incompetence. And two, if the car was hacked by a nation state, then their security sucks, and they should again pay the maximum amount so they have the maximum incentive to ensure digital security of self-driving cars. Where third-party self-driving systems are involved (MobilEye, etc), the liability/fine should be split 50-50 between the car maker and the system vendor. Give car makers these "incentives" and the other regulations are more or less pointless (other than establishing common V2V and V2I standards and whatnot). Then you'll see just how hard they scramble to make their systems safe. EDIT: And here we go. Remote hack of Tesla Model S. https://blog.kaspersky.com/tesla-remote-hack/13027/ https://blog.kaspersky.com/tesla-remote-hack/13027/ We're only at the very beginning of self-driving cars. What happens when there are 100 million self-driving cars on the road? Will their security be as terrible as it is on our PCs? People should get scared a lot faster about this stuff, before all car makers start writing their software and then refuse to write it from scratch again and just tack on to the poorly written systems new security features in the future as a response to such hacking.

jacquesm 10y ago
> Then you'll see just how hard they scramble to make their systems safe. Chances are they'd opt-out of the opportunity altogether and wait for someone else to take the heat.
- DSingularity 10y ago
  Those who opt out are those we don't want setting the bar in this domain. If it becomes acceptable for security and safety to be secondary to "getting the cars on the road ASAP and capturing as much of the market as possible" we -- as in the consumers -- will pay the price. I understand that some of the innovations and progress will only come when we get the cars on the road at scale, but we should still build a giant -- exactly how the comment or suggested -- to loom over the shoulders of these car companies.
- kalleboo 10y ago
  And then Volvo will take the whole market http://fortune.com/2015/10/07/volvo-liability-self-driving-cars/ http://fortune.com/2015/10/07/volvo-liability-self-driving-c...
mulletbum 10y ago
What other industries, that run mechanical equipment that can kill people, do you feel these are already applied in?
- paulmd 10y ago
  Erm, apart from the punitive damages this is pretty much any product liability suit. If you make life-critical systems and your product fails you are getting sued out the wazoo - which is why many products will specifically state that they are not to be used in life-critical systems. Most mechanical equipment is not reviewed on a case-by-case basis by a regulatory industry; however aircraft incidents are. Aircraft products - meaning any product that is used on an aircraft, right down to the bolts attaching the overhead bins - are expected to be serviceable in "expected conditions of flight". If they are not, the manufacturer is subject to compensatory and even punitive damages [1]. Manufacturers can even be liable for their design decisions, unless the design decisions are specifically constrained by regulations. Obtaining product certification is a strong indicator that a product is compliant, but it may nevertheless expose the manufacturer to liability [2]. These are obviously difficult standards to meet, but they are appropriate when life-critical systems are in question. [1] http://www.dailyreportingsuite.com/products-liability/news/_20_million_compensatory_damages_award_against_aircraft_engine_blade_maker_upheld_28_million_punitive_damages_award_restored http://www.dailyreportingsuite.com/products-liability/news/_... [2] http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/429650/Aviation/FAA+Weighs+In+On+Preemption+In+Product+Liability http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/429650/Aviation/FAA+Wei... > In response to the third and final question, the FAA explains that because an aircraft type certificate embodies the FAA's determination that an aircraft, engine, or propeller design complies with federal standards, it can play an important role in determining whether a manufacturer breached a duty owed to the plaintiff. The type certificate does not create a per se bar to suit, but ordinary conflict preemption principles apply to the particular design-defect claim. According to the FAA, the type certificate will preempt a state tort suit only where compliance with both the certificate and the claims made in the tort suit "is a physical impossibility" or where the claims "stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress."7 > Where the FAA has expressly approved the specific design aspect that a plaintiff challenges, that claim would be preempted. On the other hand, where the FAA has left a particular design choice to a manufacturer's discretion, and no other conflict exists, the type certificate does not preempt a design-defect claim. In other words, where the FAA has not made an affirmative determination with respect to the challenged design, and has left that design aspect to the manufacturer's discretion, the claim would proceed by reference to the federal standards of care found in the Act and its implementing regulations. ... > The difficulty in applying the FAA's views on preemption to product claims lies in the fact that aircraft design specifications rarely require a specific design, but are instead couched in terms of performance or safety outcomes. For example, the certification standards for a stall warning system in a Part 23 aircraft requires "a clear and distinctive stall warning, with the flaps and landing gear in any normal position, in straight and turning flight" by a system "that will give clearly distinguishable indications under expected conditions of flight."9 A type certificate issued for a Part 23 aircraft would presumptively mean the FAA determined that the aircraft complied with these standards at the time the design was certified. However, would the type certificate preclude all product liability claims based on a defective stall warning system? What if the certification was actually wrong and the system did not comply with the standard when the FAA already said that it did? Can this type of claim actually be litigated or is it preempted? > Additionally, what if the claimed defect was that the stall warning system did not provide a warning when operated outside certification limits such as weight, speed, or center of gravity? Are these conditions outside the "expected conditions of flight" and therefore no federal standard exists? The FAA's Letter Brief to the Third Circuit in Sikkelee does not provide clear answers in the context of product liability litigation. Courts will continue to struggle with deciding these difficult issues in the future.
Eric_WVGG 10y ago
There’s a lot of stupid to unwind here, but I'll just leave at this: your plan would leave a tremendous amount of ambiguity that skilled lawyers would wriggle through. That is, “what is an accident?” Is it an accident if the driver takes control of the automated system and drives straight into a wall? Is it an accident if a non-automated truck truck with a huge branch sticking out the back obscures the automated car’s cameras, leading to a crash? Maybe you're a cowboy coder like me who bristles at detailed project specs and prefers some sort of goal or vision to work for. I totally get that. But when it comes to accountability, nothing beats a checklist. Bad law can be either broad and vague to the point of endless litigation and uselessness (what you're proposing), or hopelessly detailed and self-contradictory (the kind of law you're likely reacting against). This article is celebrating a good, readable middle ground. That's exactly what we want out of law.
- paulmd 10y ago
  These are common questions of fault that are trivially resolved in any motor accident. Someone or something is in control of the vehicle and can be assigned fault. Or in some situations, everyone is at fault and the shares of fault are determined. If the system is operating autonomously, then the fault lies with the system. Failing to leave sufficient following distance is a common cause of accident and almost always results in fault being found with that driver. This would not change if the driver was a computer system. However - side note - objects that project from the rear of a vehicle must be flagged using a red cloth. So if the truck were operating with an unflagged load then they could be the party at fault! If the occupant takes the vehicle out of autonomous mode, then fault would lie with the occupant, unless it was to avoid some kind of impending accident in which cause the situation would have to be examined in detail.
intrasight 10y ago
>What happens when there are 100 million Bad shit is going to happen way before that. My expectation is that by the time there are even 10 million, all the major technical and regulatory issues will have been worked out. But of course the bad shit could totally derail this industry.
ams6110 10y ago
Disagree with almost all of this. Liability should be with the owner of the car, like it mostly is today. They are the ones buying it and operating it on the public roads. They should have insurance to cover this liability.
- pveierland 10y ago
  Given that for autonomous vehicles the human will be a passenger and not participate in vehicle control, it makes sense that it is the manufacturer of the autonomous vehicle who is liable for faults caused by its own operation. Take an example where you signal your car to come pick you up at a location. If the car were to get into an accident on its way to you, and a software bug in the vehicle implementation is the cause of the accident, it would make sense that the manufacturer is liable for this accident. Volvo is one manufacturer who have stated clearly that they will assume liability for the operation of their autonomous cars: https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/pressreleases/167975/us-urged-to-establish-nationwide-federal-guidelines-for-autonomous-driving https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/pressrele...
  - jonknee 10y ago
    Does it really matter in practice though? If someone else is driving your car without you in the vehicle you can still be liable. Car insurance for autonomous vehicles will be dramatically cheaper and will still be required (someone can ram into your autonomous car as Google has proven many times!) which can surely cover the liability for edge cases.
- krisoft 10y ago
  I'm worried about the following: Hapless Joe buys a nice, well reviewed, good looking and performant self-driving car. He enjoys it very much for a year, goes for all the required maintenance checks. Then suddenly as he is taking a nap on his usual daily commute the car swerves onto the sidewalk and runs over my wife. Turns out there is a very rare race condition in the path finding algorithm, which makes it do that with astronomically low probability. What I don't want: I don't want Hapless Joe's life to be ruined, he did nothing wrong. I also don't want my wife to become just a statistics. What I want: A crack team of industry veterans get to work. Both engineers from the self driving car company, and independent experts. Since accidents of this kind are so rare they have ample amount of resources to overturn every rock, develop new investigation techniques if must, and nail down all the nodes in the causality chain. Then they disseminate their findings and make all cars on the road, as well as the industry best practices, so much safer. Is this how you mean the owner's liability to work out? Because then I agree with you. If you want to punish Joe. Take away his savings, possibly his home. I don't see a point in that honestly.

by mtgx 10y ago

jacquesm 10y ago

> Then you'll see just how hard they scramble to make their systems safe. Chances are they'd opt-out of the opportunity altogether and wait for someone else to take the heat.

DSingularity 10y ago
Those who opt out are those we don't want setting the bar in this domain. If it becomes acceptable for security and safety to be secondary to "getting the cars on the road ASAP and capturing as much of the market as possible" we -- as in the consumers -- will pay the price. I understand that some of the innovations and progress will only come when we get the cars on the road at scale, but we should still build a giant -- exactly how the comment or suggested -- to loom over the shoulders of these car companies.
kalleboo 10y ago
And then Volvo will take the whole market http://fortune.com/2015/10/07/volvo-liability-self-driving-cars/ http://fortune.com/2015/10/07/volvo-liability-self-driving-c...

mulletbum 10y ago

What other industries, that run mechanical equipment that can kill people, do you feel these are already applied in?

paulmd 10y ago
Erm, apart from the punitive damages this is pretty much any product liability suit. If you make life-critical systems and your product fails you are getting sued out the wazoo - which is why many products will specifically state that they are not to be used in life-critical systems. Most mechanical equipment is not reviewed on a case-by-case basis by a regulatory industry; however aircraft incidents are. Aircraft products - meaning any product that is used on an aircraft, right down to the bolts attaching the overhead bins - are expected to be serviceable in "expected conditions of flight". If they are not, the manufacturer is subject to compensatory and even punitive damages [1]. Manufacturers can even be liable for their design decisions, unless the design decisions are specifically constrained by regulations. Obtaining product certification is a strong indicator that a product is compliant, but it may nevertheless expose the manufacturer to liability [2]. These are obviously difficult standards to meet, but they are appropriate when life-critical systems are in question. [1] http://www.dailyreportingsuite.com/products-liability/news/_20_million_compensatory_damages_award_against_aircraft_engine_blade_maker_upheld_28_million_punitive_damages_award_restored http://www.dailyreportingsuite.com/products-liability/news/_... [2] http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/429650/Aviation/FAA+Weighs+In+On+Preemption+In+Product+Liability http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/429650/Aviation/FAA+Wei... > In response to the third and final question, the FAA explains that because an aircraft type certificate embodies the FAA's determination that an aircraft, engine, or propeller design complies with federal standards, it can play an important role in determining whether a manufacturer breached a duty owed to the plaintiff. The type certificate does not create a per se bar to suit, but ordinary conflict preemption principles apply to the particular design-defect claim. According to the FAA, the type certificate will preempt a state tort suit only where compliance with both the certificate and the claims made in the tort suit "is a physical impossibility" or where the claims "stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress."7 > Where the FAA has expressly approved the specific design aspect that a plaintiff challenges, that claim would be preempted. On the other hand, where the FAA has left a particular design choice to a manufacturer's discretion, and no other conflict exists, the type certificate does not preempt a design-defect claim. In other words, where the FAA has not made an affirmative determination with respect to the challenged design, and has left that design aspect to the manufacturer's discretion, the claim would proceed by reference to the federal standards of care found in the Act and its implementing regulations. ... > The difficulty in applying the FAA's views on preemption to product claims lies in the fact that aircraft design specifications rarely require a specific design, but are instead couched in terms of performance or safety outcomes. For example, the certification standards for a stall warning system in a Part 23 aircraft requires "a clear and distinctive stall warning, with the flaps and landing gear in any normal position, in straight and turning flight" by a system "that will give clearly distinguishable indications under expected conditions of flight."9 A type certificate issued for a Part 23 aircraft would presumptively mean the FAA determined that the aircraft complied with these standards at the time the design was certified. However, would the type certificate preclude all product liability claims based on a defective stall warning system? What if the certification was actually wrong and the system did not comply with the standard when the FAA already said that it did? Can this type of claim actually be litigated or is it preempted? > Additionally, what if the claimed defect was that the stall warning system did not provide a warning when operated outside certification limits such as weight, speed, or center of gravity? Are these conditions outside the "expected conditions of flight" and therefore no federal standard exists? The FAA's Letter Brief to the Third Circuit in Sikkelee does not provide clear answers in the context of product liability litigation. Courts will continue to struggle with deciding these difficult issues in the future.

Eric_WVGG 10y ago

There’s a lot of stupid to unwind here, but I'll just leave at this: your plan would leave a tremendous amount of ambiguity that skilled lawyers would wriggle through. That is, “what is an accident?” Is it an accident if the driver takes control of the automated system and drives straight into a wall? Is it an accident if a non-automated truck truck with a huge branch sticking out the back obscures the automated car’s cameras, leading to a crash? Maybe you're a cowboy coder like me who bristles at detailed project specs and prefers some sort of goal or vision to work for. I totally get that. But when it comes to accountability, nothing beats a checklist. Bad law can be either broad and vague to the point of endless litigation and uselessness (what you're proposing), or hopelessly detailed and self-contradictory (the kind of law you're likely reacting against). This article is celebrating a good, readable middle ground. That's exactly what we want out of law.

paulmd 10y ago
These are common questions of fault that are trivially resolved in any motor accident. Someone or something is in control of the vehicle and can be assigned fault. Or in some situations, everyone is at fault and the shares of fault are determined. If the system is operating autonomously, then the fault lies with the system. Failing to leave sufficient following distance is a common cause of accident and almost always results in fault being found with that driver. This would not change if the driver was a computer system. However - side note - objects that project from the rear of a vehicle must be flagged using a red cloth. So if the truck were operating with an unflagged load then they could be the party at fault! If the occupant takes the vehicle out of autonomous mode, then fault would lie with the occupant, unless it was to avoid some kind of impending accident in which cause the situation would have to be examined in detail.

intrasight 10y ago

>What happens when there are 100 million Bad shit is going to happen way before that. My expectation is that by the time there are even 10 million, all the major technical and regulatory issues will have been worked out. But of course the bad shit could totally derail this industry.

ams6110 10y ago

Disagree with almost all of this. Liability should be with the owner of the car, like it mostly is today. They are the ones buying it and operating it on the public roads. They should have insurance to cover this liability.

pveierland 10y ago
Given that for autonomous vehicles the human will be a passenger and not participate in vehicle control, it makes sense that it is the manufacturer of the autonomous vehicle who is liable for faults caused by its own operation. Take an example where you signal your car to come pick you up at a location. If the car were to get into an accident on its way to you, and a software bug in the vehicle implementation is the cause of the accident, it would make sense that the manufacturer is liable for this accident. Volvo is one manufacturer who have stated clearly that they will assume liability for the operation of their autonomous cars: https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/pressreleases/167975/us-urged-to-establish-nationwide-federal-guidelines-for-autonomous-driving https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/pressrele...
- jonknee 10y ago
  Does it really matter in practice though? If someone else is driving your car without you in the vehicle you can still be liable. Car insurance for autonomous vehicles will be dramatically cheaper and will still be required (someone can ram into your autonomous car as Google has proven many times!) which can surely cover the liability for edge cases.
krisoft 10y ago
I'm worried about the following: Hapless Joe buys a nice, well reviewed, good looking and performant self-driving car. He enjoys it very much for a year, goes for all the required maintenance checks. Then suddenly as he is taking a nap on his usual daily commute the car swerves onto the sidewalk and runs over my wife. Turns out there is a very rare race condition in the path finding algorithm, which makes it do that with astronomically low probability. What I don't want: I don't want Hapless Joe's life to be ruined, he did nothing wrong. I also don't want my wife to become just a statistics. What I want: A crack team of industry veterans get to work. Both engineers from the self driving car company, and independent experts. Since accidents of this kind are so rare they have ample amount of resources to overturn every rock, develop new investigation techniques if must, and nail down all the nodes in the causality chain. Then they disseminate their findings and make all cars on the road, as well as the industry best practices, so much safer. Is this how you mean the owner's liability to work out? Because then I agree with you. If you want to punish Joe. Take away his savings, possibly his home. I don't see a point in that honestly.