4 ms·
It boils down to property rights and contracts. The decided to buy the car, they decided to operate it, they decided where to go and when.
by aaronhoffman 10y ago
It boils down to property rights and contracts.
The decided to buy the car, they decided to operate it, they decided where to go and when.
- mixedCase 10y agoThat's only in a libertarian dystopia with "Caveat Emptor" as its motto and no contract in place to guarantee safety as long as the car works properly. In the real world, it depends on the situation. In this particular situation, if the car was driving so fast it does not have time to break for, the fault most likely falls to the manufacturer for writing software that defaults to reckless driving in an urban environment, and inmediately after some of the fault might fall to the city or the inspectors that approved the manufacturer if it is concluded that the approval was given either knowing the software was like this, or failing to account for it in their testing procedure. If there was a mapping error, it depends on the map provider's license to the car manufacturer. All other situations (car breaking down due to lack of maintenance, breaking down unexpectedly, pedestrian making an illegal move, etc,...) are already handled by current law (obligatory "some exceptions may apply").
- aaronhoffman 10y agoI agree that in our current situation voluntary interaction is considered harmful. But even in your description, it still boils down to Property Rights and Contacts (not described in those terms however). It may be that the programmers or business owners will be forced into contracts that hold them liable. IMO, that would be unfortunate.