4 ms·

And in the event of an accident, who would be liable — the person behind the wheel or the maker of the software? The insurance company, just like today. Possib

And in the event of an accident, who would be liable — the person behind the wheel or the maker of the software? The insurance company, just like today. Possibly paid for by the manufacturer and entirely included in the sales price, or possibly paid for by the driver/owner like today.

alalonde 16y ago
Either way, expect a discount, at least after the technology is proven. I know I'd rather insure a robot than an often sleepy, distracted, intoxicated human!
borism 16y ago
> The insurance company, just like today. Possibly paid for by the manufacturer and entirely included in the sales price, or possibly paid for by the driver/owner like today. duh, of course! The question is - at what premium? Because you know, actually it's customer in the end who pays the price.
- olefoo 16y ago
  The first few years the premium would probably be much higher, especially since these would be luxury cars and you just know there would be attempts to fool the cars into compromising situations (or simply steal them). After the adoption curve hits the early majority the premium balance will shift the other direction (you'll pay more if your car doesn't have the safety feature of being able to drive itself). And at some point it will (assuming that automatic cars are in fact safer) become illegal to operate a vehicle manually on a public road unless it's an emergency. Also fully automated taxis start to look like a mass transit system, and if Zip car offered to pick you up at your house...
  - Someone 16y ago
    Looking ahead, I fear that insurance premiums would decline, provided that you run anti-virus software on your car at $$$ a month. Of course, there also will be a government required back door to stop cars that are being used in terrorist attacks.
  - skorgu 16y ago
    Well the obvious solution is to make the cars paranoid. http://www.vanemden.com/books/neals/jipi.html http://www.vanemden.com/books/neals/jipi.html
alextgordon 16y ago
Civil liability is only half the issue. What about criminal liability? If your autonomous vehicle runs someone down because of a bug, who goes to jail?
- kijinbear 16y ago
  Same as today, I guess -- whoever is responsible for the bug, but only if criminal negligence can be proven.
- ajju 16y ago
  What happens when this is due to a hardware bug, like with the Toyotas recently? I don't think criminal liability is involved except in special circumstances. Why should software be any different. IANAL however.
  - alextgordon 16y ago
    I think the difference between this and the Toyota incident is that the driver still maintains absolute control over the autonomous google car. So it could be argued that anything the AI does is still ultimately the driver's responsibility.
- jfager 16y ago
  We deal with that issue today. Who is liable when brakes fail? It's usually determined on a case-by-case basis. Why would this system be any different?
  - ajays 16y ago
    Failure is one aspect. But what if there's a bug? Suppose there's an extreme edge case where a bicyclists fluorescent jacket appears as a road to the car; so the car chases down the cyclist and runs him over. This is not a hardware failure, but an active decision made by the car to cause injury to a person. So in such a situation, who would be responsible? I guess it is a question for technolawyers to decide.
dreeves 16y ago
For years, even decades, I've heard this cited as if it's a legal can of worms that makes the whole notion of automated driving a political impossibility, so to speak, in the foreseeable future. Sure, it would save a lot of lives, the argument goes, but the rare failures would bring down a deluge of lawsuits that would crush any manufacturer foolish enough to try to mass-produce something like this. I don't think that's the case, even taking as a given America's disgusting obsession with lawsuits. There's an obvious answer to the liability question, and one that I think Google is already depending on in allowing their robot cars to drive all over California: The person in the driver's seat is responsible as always. That person can choose to press the autopilot button but it's not fundamentally different than cruise control. Touching the brakes (or the steering wheel) immediately transfers control back to the driver. The car is doing what it does, as always, strictly as the driver's proxy. Now of course it will happen that some driver sues the manufacturer because there was an accident they believe wouldn't have happened if they'd never gone on autopilot. Just like there have been (I blithely presume) lawsuits over cruise control. But the manufacturer will weather those lawsuits and reasonable legal precedent will be established soon enough. But now suppose you press autopilot, go to sleep, and wake up to find you've committed vehicular homicide. That's a scary thought, but is it a potential dealbreaker in bringing this to the mass market? I think the answer is no, because we've already established the liability question: You were, officially and legally speaking, criminally negligent to go to sleep. Unofficially it might well have been a perfectly reasonable risk to have taken, if the probability of it ending in tragegy is sufficiently low. Logically, you could argue, citing statistics on human and robot drivers, that going to sleep with the car on autopilot was markedly less negligent than not putting the car on autopilot at all. I don't know if that would fly in court. But as far as legal obstacles to adoption of robot cars, I don't see it as much of an issue. PS: I'm not a lawyer.

alalonde 16y ago

Either way, expect a discount, at least after the technology is proven. I know I'd rather insure a robot than an often sleepy, distracted, intoxicated human!

borism 16y ago

> The insurance company, just like today. Possibly paid for by the manufacturer and entirely included in the sales price, or possibly paid for by the driver/owner like today. duh, of course! The question is - at what premium? Because you know, actually it's customer in the end who pays the price.

olefoo 16y ago
The first few years the premium would probably be much higher, especially since these would be luxury cars and you just know there would be attempts to fool the cars into compromising situations (or simply steal them). After the adoption curve hits the early majority the premium balance will shift the other direction (you'll pay more if your car doesn't have the safety feature of being able to drive itself). And at some point it will (assuming that automatic cars are in fact safer) become illegal to operate a vehicle manually on a public road unless it's an emergency. Also fully automated taxis start to look like a mass transit system, and if Zip car offered to pick you up at your house...
- Someone 16y ago
  Looking ahead, I fear that insurance premiums would decline, provided that you run anti-virus software on your car at $$$ a month. Of course, there also will be a government required back door to stop cars that are being used in terrorist attacks.
- skorgu 16y ago
  Well the obvious solution is to make the cars paranoid. http://www.vanemden.com/books/neals/jipi.html http://www.vanemden.com/books/neals/jipi.html

alextgordon 16y ago

Civil liability is only half the issue. What about criminal liability? If your autonomous vehicle runs someone down because of a bug, who goes to jail?

kijinbear 16y ago
Same as today, I guess -- whoever is responsible for the bug, but only if criminal negligence can be proven.
ajju 16y ago
What happens when this is due to a hardware bug, like with the Toyotas recently? I don't think criminal liability is involved except in special circumstances. Why should software be any different. IANAL however.
- alextgordon 16y ago
  I think the difference between this and the Toyota incident is that the driver still maintains absolute control over the autonomous google car. So it could be argued that anything the AI does is still ultimately the driver's responsibility.
jfager 16y ago
We deal with that issue today. Who is liable when brakes fail? It's usually determined on a case-by-case basis. Why would this system be any different?
- ajays 16y ago
  Failure is one aspect. But what if there's a bug? Suppose there's an extreme edge case where a bicyclists fluorescent jacket appears as a road to the car; so the car chases down the cyclist and runs him over. This is not a hardware failure, but an active decision made by the car to cause injury to a person. So in such a situation, who would be responsible? I guess it is a question for technolawyers to decide.

dreeves 16y ago

For years, even decades, I've heard this cited as if it's a legal can of worms that makes the whole notion of automated driving a political impossibility, so to speak, in the foreseeable future. Sure, it would save a lot of lives, the argument goes, but the rare failures would bring down a deluge of lawsuits that would crush any manufacturer foolish enough to try to mass-produce something like this. I don't think that's the case, even taking as a given America's disgusting obsession with lawsuits. There's an obvious answer to the liability question, and one that I think Google is already depending on in allowing their robot cars to drive all over California: The person in the driver's seat is responsible as always. That person can choose to press the autopilot button but it's not fundamentally different than cruise control. Touching the brakes (or the steering wheel) immediately transfers control back to the driver. The car is doing what it does, as always, strictly as the driver's proxy. Now of course it will happen that some driver sues the manufacturer because there was an accident they believe wouldn't have happened if they'd never gone on autopilot. Just like there have been (I blithely presume) lawsuits over cruise control. But the manufacturer will weather those lawsuits and reasonable legal precedent will be established soon enough. But now suppose you press autopilot, go to sleep, and wake up to find you've committed vehicular homicide. That's a scary thought, but is it a potential dealbreaker in bringing this to the mass market? I think the answer is no, because we've already established the liability question: You were, officially and legally speaking, criminally negligent to go to sleep. Unofficially it might well have been a perfectly reasonable risk to have taken, if the probability of it ending in tragegy is sufficiently low. Logically, you could argue, citing statistics on human and robot drivers, that going to sleep with the car on autopilot was markedly less negligent than not putting the car on autopilot at all. I don't know if that would fly in court. But as far as legal obstacles to adoption of robot cars, I don't see it as much of an issue. PS: I'm not a lawyer.