3 ms·

I'd go further than that. If a vehicle's automated systems caused or contributed to an accident or a road rule violation, the car manufacturer should be held re

I'd go further than that. If a vehicle's automated systems caused or contributed to an accident or a road rule violation, the car manufacturer should be held responsible. If your company's automated emergency braking, or lane assist, or adaptive cruise control - causes or contributes to a problem, someone from that company should be in court next to the driver facing judgement for the consequences. (I'd even go so far as to suggest if the existence of a system leads to a situation where an incident occurred because of the driver's assumption that the automated system would prevent it, then the company should need to justify why the driver should be held responsible instead of the software. If your advertising claims "autopilot!", you're going to be apportioned a significant portion of liability even if your fine print says "Drivers must keep alert and ready to take control at all times" - you should be judged based on a reasonable persons expectation from the language you use to promote your vehicles, not some w4easel words in your T&Cs.)

nickff 6y ago
Automation issues may fall into the category of manufacturer/developer negligence; you seem to be suggesting some sort of burden shifting. When you say that a manufacturer should be held liable if their system '... contributes to a problem...', it seems like you're suggesting adoption of the (notoriously problematic) 'if not but for' test. This sort of test is used in negligence cases, but can be useless, as almost anything satisfies it (i.e. slow service at a coffee shop may have been a necessary condition for the timing of that exact accident).
HALtheWise 6y ago
Unfortunately, pretty much every automobile safety improvement in the last century (which collectively have saved ~millions of lives) also occasionally kills people. Airbags can propel objects into people, seatbelts can trap someone in a burning car, antilock brakes perform worse on sand, etc. In practice, putting the responsibilty on auto manufacturers for every specific injury or death that happens due to a safety system, without somehow giving them "positive credit" for lives saved, massively delays or entirely prevents these sort of advancements from being made. We definitely need processes to verify that new features are actually functional, typically through recalls and product liability suits, but simply putting blame on manufacturers for all accidents is a terrible idea.

nickff 6y ago

Automation issues may fall into the category of manufacturer/developer negligence; you seem to be suggesting some sort of burden shifting. When you say that a manufacturer should be held liable if their system '... contributes to a problem...', it seems like you're suggesting adoption of the (notoriously problematic) 'if not but for' test. This sort of test is used in negligence cases, but can be useless, as almost anything satisfies it (i.e. slow service at a coffee shop may have been a necessary condition for the timing of that exact accident).

HALtheWise 6y ago

Unfortunately, pretty much every automobile safety improvement in the last century (which collectively have saved ~millions of lives) also occasionally kills people. Airbags can propel objects into people, seatbelts can trap someone in a burning car, antilock brakes perform worse on sand, etc. In practice, putting the responsibilty on auto manufacturers for every specific injury or death that happens due to a safety system, without somehow giving them "positive credit" for lives saved, massively delays or entirely prevents these sort of advancements from being made. We definitely need processes to verify that new features are actually functional, typically through recalls and product liability suits, but simply putting blame on manufacturers for all accidents is a terrible idea.