6 ms·

I'd really like to see self-driving car liability treated the same way airline crashes are. Less "whose fault is this" and more "how can we prevent this same a

I'd really like to see self-driving car liability treated the same way airline crashes are. Less "whose fault is this" and more "how can we prevent this same accident from ever happening again?" The second is the really important question and the one we need to keep answering to reduce the toll of driving deaths. This will mean the cars driving on our roads getting more and more regulated over time but I'm quite OK with that.

freddie_mercury 8y ago
Airline crashes absolutely are treated as "whose fault is this". That's why airline crashes usually have lots of lawsuits, with millions of dollars of damages, filed after they happen. Every NTSB report has a "probable cause" section determining who or what was at fault. And then the FAA hands out fines and courts award additional damages largely based on that finding. It is true that the punishments aren't handled by the NTSB but that's more about separation of concerns & departmental remits than anything else. Is separating out "fault finding" from "punishments" a good idea? Maybe? I honestly don't know.
- lawguy 8y ago
  > Every NTSB report has a "probable cause" section determining who or what was at fault. And then the FAA hands out fines and courts award additional damages largely based on that finding. In case everyone is not aware, NTSB reports cannot be used in court to establish fault or otherwise be used as evidence when seeking compensation for damages. "No part of a report of the Board, related to an accident or an investigation of an accident, may be admitted into evidence or used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report." 49 USC 1154(b)
  - EGreg 8y ago
    I have a question.. In criminal cases what happens with inadmissible evidence? Like fruit of poisonous tree doctrine... what if you literally have video proof and tons of other graphic proof of a murder, you really just ignore it and let the perp go back into society?
    - Rylinks 8y ago
      if you have tons of proof about a murder, it's almost certain to fall under one of the exceptions to the doctrine. e.g, if law enforcement would have discovered the evidence anyway, it is not excluded.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      In principle, it’s inadmissible. So, theoretically, yes. The perp just goes free. Not very common for a lot of reasons.
    - admax88q 8y ago
      There are exceptions to the doctrine for exactly the reasons you mention. The legal system isn't as insane as people like to make it out to be.
- tehlike 8y ago
  The part you missed is probably the post mortem investigations are why air travel is the safest form of transportation.
bellerose 8y ago
> "how can we prevent this same accident from ever happening again?" It would be nice if society adopted this with all crimes. It's not like we can prove we're any different than the low level design of a machine; when it comes to the "free will" ideology currently the justice system is designed around.
- moises_silva 8y ago
  This. For me believing in free will is just another type of religion. It makes us feel safer and that we're in control. I think is useful for that, but we're deluding ourselves. And I just realized you're being downvoted. How surprising.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    Even if free will is an illusion it my be maladaptive to design a justice system without consequences for perceived faults.
    - bellerose 8y ago
      It may be the downfall of humanity progress as well and things may change.
    - moises_silva 8y ago
      I am not advocating a 'justice' system without consequences. You will have consequences. Consequences are just another input into our brains that do help deter some people from some behaviours. I don't kill people because I'd go to jail. I don't kill people because I don't want to hurt them (and that is on my programming, upbringing, possibly nature to a degree as well). I think the only way I'd kill someone is by accident or in a spur of the moment when emotionally disturbed by an incident (me or my family fear for our lives). Society has mostly accounted for those cases and I may not even go to jail if I did it, because people largely can relate to those situations and they agree it's not 'fair' send me to jail for them. However, there's several sectors of the population no one seems to be able or want to relate to (poor people that got little opportunities and guidance in life, abused people, mentally ill, psychopaths, a mix of all of that etc), and the people creating the rules therefore decide to 'punish' them in the name of justice for being bad and because we have not devised (and not invested enough time either) a better and more humane way to deal with them. In theory we want them to be reformed, in practice, is mostly about retribution and putting undesirables away.

freddie_mercury 8y ago

Airline crashes absolutely are treated as "whose fault is this". That's why airline crashes usually have lots of lawsuits, with millions of dollars of damages, filed after they happen. Every NTSB report has a "probable cause" section determining who or what was at fault. And then the FAA hands out fines and courts award additional damages largely based on that finding. It is true that the punishments aren't handled by the NTSB but that's more about separation of concerns & departmental remits than anything else. Is separating out "fault finding" from "punishments" a good idea? Maybe? I honestly don't know.

lawguy 8y ago
> Every NTSB report has a "probable cause" section determining who or what was at fault. And then the FAA hands out fines and courts award additional damages largely based on that finding. In case everyone is not aware, NTSB reports cannot be used in court to establish fault or otherwise be used as evidence when seeking compensation for damages. "No part of a report of the Board, related to an accident or an investigation of an accident, may be admitted into evidence or used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report." 49 USC 1154(b)
- EGreg 8y ago
  I have a question.. In criminal cases what happens with inadmissible evidence? Like fruit of poisonous tree doctrine... what if you literally have video proof and tons of other graphic proof of a murder, you really just ignore it and let the perp go back into society?
  - Rylinks 8y ago
    if you have tons of proof about a murder, it's almost certain to fall under one of the exceptions to the doctrine. e.g, if law enforcement would have discovered the evidence anyway, it is not excluded.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    In principle, it’s inadmissible. So, theoretically, yes. The perp just goes free. Not very common for a lot of reasons.
  - admax88q 8y ago
    There are exceptions to the doctrine for exactly the reasons you mention. The legal system isn't as insane as people like to make it out to be.
tehlike 8y ago
The part you missed is probably the post mortem investigations are why air travel is the safest form of transportation.

bellerose 8y ago

> "how can we prevent this same accident from ever happening again?" It would be nice if society adopted this with all crimes. It's not like we can prove we're any different than the low level design of a machine; when it comes to the "free will" ideology currently the justice system is designed around.

moises_silva 8y ago
This. For me believing in free will is just another type of religion. It makes us feel safer and that we're in control. I think is useful for that, but we're deluding ourselves. And I just realized you're being downvoted. How surprising.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  Even if free will is an illusion it my be maladaptive to design a justice system without consequences for perceived faults.
  - bellerose 8y ago
    It may be the downfall of humanity progress as well and things may change.
  - moises_silva 8y ago
    I am not advocating a 'justice' system without consequences. You will have consequences. Consequences are just another input into our brains that do help deter some people from some behaviours. I don't kill people because I'd go to jail. I don't kill people because I don't want to hurt them (and that is on my programming, upbringing, possibly nature to a degree as well). I think the only way I'd kill someone is by accident or in a spur of the moment when emotionally disturbed by an incident (me or my family fear for our lives). Society has mostly accounted for those cases and I may not even go to jail if I did it, because people largely can relate to those situations and they agree it's not 'fair' send me to jail for them. However, there's several sectors of the population no one seems to be able or want to relate to (poor people that got little opportunities and guidance in life, abused people, mentally ill, psychopaths, a mix of all of that etc), and the people creating the rules therefore decide to 'punish' them in the name of justice for being bad and because we have not devised (and not invested enough time either) a better and more humane way to deal with them. In theory we want them to be reformed, in practice, is mostly about retribution and putting undesirables away.