5 ms·

Until liability switches away from the driver to the manufacturer, no driving system should be considered "safe"

by nojito 6y ago

derekp7 6y ago
I don't think that really will, or should happen, if you compare to similar systems. For example, the owner of an aggressive dog breed will be held liable for attacks from that dog, even though the dog is acting "autonomously". But the dog breeder typically isn't held liable, even if they are responsible for selecting for certain aggressive traits. So the question is: is a manufacture of (semi) autonomous systems really much different? Now this can be different if the autonomous car is owned by an entity other than the primary user (for example, an auto cab -- the passengers in a regular cab aren't responsible for the cab driver, so they wouldn't be liable for a computerized cab driver either).
jmpman 6y ago
Until Elon is willing to let X Æ A -12 cross the freeway in front of a bunch of Tesla’s driven on autopilot by drunk frat boys, no driving system should be considered “safe”.
criddell 6y ago
I was thinking the exact opposite - that manufacturers working on self-driving cars should have some legal immunity. In the US 100 people every day die in car accidents. Say self driving systems could cut that number in half. As we all know, every complex system has bugs so imagine that bugs in the self-driving cars are responsible for 1000 deaths every year. If we don't shield manufacturers from big legal bills for those 1000 deaths, we might not get the systems that could save 10,000 lives.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  If they are safer in net, the total liability costs will be less, even if they are concentrated in the manufacturers, so that the total cost of ownership will be less (as the operators will have lower insurance costs, which will offset the additional costs the manufacturers will need to charge in purchase prices to insure, most likely self-insure, for defect liability.) I suppose that if you want to keep the sticker prices of vehicles low, you could transfer liability to a government entity in exchange for stronger government oversight and pre-approval of design and manufacturing, and tax vehicle owners (which still should be lower than current costs when added to their insurance costs) to pay for the liability pool. If you just shield the manufacturers without transferring liability, you are essentially transferring the costs to the injured.
  - dllthomas 6y ago
    I think a risk is that courts make a habit of awarding significant penalties because the mistakes the cars are making are less understandable, and so seen as worthy of more blame even though there is less damage actually being done.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      There's well-established rules for what a driver is required to do, and they clearly apply to machines that replace drivers. In general, liability for failure to follow traffic laws and for manufacturers defects are strict liability, so how easy it is to understand the error doesn't really have much room to play a factor in assigning liability, nor is it normally a legal component of assessment of damages once liability were assigned. If we were talking about liability in a negligence/recklessness regime, “hard to understand innocent errors => more liability awards” is a reasonable model, but in a strict liability regime, that an error is innocent (which being easy to understand makes more likely that a trier of fact, perhaps especially a jury, will find) isn't a mitigation.
      - dllthomas 6y ago
        That's somewhat reassuring :)
  - criddell 6y ago
    > you could transfer liability to a government entity That sounds like a good idea. Legislate a fixed payout schedule and manage it centrally. Society in general benefits and so it makes sense that society in general should be responsible for the harms.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Until liability switches away from the driver to the manufacturer, no driving system should be considered "safe" Strict liability for manufacturing defects already rests with the manufacturer of the defective product (and everyone in the chain of commerce for the defective product, though with Tesla's direct-to-consumer sales model, there are fewer parties there than is typically the case with autos.)

Until liability switches away from the driver to the manufacturer, no driving system should be considered "safe"

by nojito 6y ago

Until liability switches away from the driver to the manufacturer, no driving system should be considered "safe"

I don't think that really will, or should happen, if you compare to similar systems. For example, the owner of an aggressive dog breed will be held liable for attacks from that dog, even though the dog is acting "autonomously". But the dog breeder typically isn't held liable, even if they are responsible for selecting for certain aggressive traits. So the question is: is a manufacture of (semi) autonomous systems really much different? Now this can be different if the autonomous car is owned by an entity other than the primary user (for example, an auto cab -- the passengers in a regular cab aren't responsible for the cab driver, so they wouldn't be liable for a computerized cab driver either).

jmpman 6y ago

Until Elon is willing to let X Æ A -12 cross the freeway in front of a bunch of Tesla’s driven on autopilot by drunk frat boys, no driving system should be considered “safe”.

criddell 6y ago

I was thinking the exact opposite - that manufacturers working on self-driving cars should have some legal immunity. In the US 100 people every day die in car accidents. Say self driving systems could cut that number in half. As we all know, every complex system has bugs so imagine that bugs in the self-driving cars are responsible for 1000 deaths every year. If we don't shield manufacturers from big legal bills for those 1000 deaths, we might not get the systems that could save 10,000 lives.

dragonwriter 6y ago
If they are safer in net, the total liability costs will be less, even if they are concentrated in the manufacturers, so that the total cost of ownership will be less (as the operators will have lower insurance costs, which will offset the additional costs the manufacturers will need to charge in purchase prices to insure, most likely self-insure, for defect liability.) I suppose that if you want to keep the sticker prices of vehicles low, you could transfer liability to a government entity in exchange for stronger government oversight and pre-approval of design and manufacturing, and tax vehicle owners (which still should be lower than current costs when added to their insurance costs) to pay for the liability pool. If you just shield the manufacturers without transferring liability, you are essentially transferring the costs to the injured.
- dllthomas 6y ago
  I think a risk is that courts make a habit of awarding significant penalties because the mistakes the cars are making are less understandable, and so seen as worthy of more blame even though there is less damage actually being done.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    There's well-established rules for what a driver is required to do, and they clearly apply to machines that replace drivers. In general, liability for failure to follow traffic laws and for manufacturers defects are strict liability, so how easy it is to understand the error doesn't really have much room to play a factor in assigning liability, nor is it normally a legal component of assessment of damages once liability were assigned. If we were talking about liability in a negligence/recklessness regime, “hard to understand innocent errors => more liability awards” is a reasonable model, but in a strict liability regime, that an error is innocent (which being easy to understand makes more likely that a trier of fact, perhaps especially a jury, will find) isn't a mitigation.
    - dllthomas 6y ago
      That's somewhat reassuring :)
- criddell 6y ago
  > you could transfer liability to a government entity That sounds like a good idea. Legislate a fixed payout schedule and manage it centrally. Society in general benefits and so it makes sense that society in general should be responsible for the harms.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Until liability switches away from the driver to the manufacturer, no driving system should be considered "safe" Strict liability for manufacturing defects already rests with the manufacturer of the defective product (and everyone in the chain of commerce for the defective product, though with Tesla's direct-to-consumer sales model, there are fewer parties there than is typically the case with autos.)