4 ms·

Daimler explicitly assumes liability if something goes wrong when driving autonomously. That is the key difference to other popular automakers that market thems

by foepys 5y ago

Daimler explicitly assumes liability if something goes wrong when driving autonomously. That is the key difference to other popular automakers that market themselves as pioneers but do not assume liability for their level 2 system.

jpalomaki 5y ago
How does this work in practise? I think there must be something in the legislation as well. I don't see the driver and car manufacturer could just transfer the liabilities to the manufacturer with mutual contract. Monetary liabilities maybe, but there can be also criminal charges on the table.
- lazyjones 5y ago
  Knowing past practices at Daimler (regarding emissions) I expect them to disengage the L3 system right before impact.
- nabla9 5y ago
  The same way insurance does.
yawaworht1978 5y ago
Wow, didn't know this. Polar opposite of what Tesla is doing. If they can't match this, that's the whole German fsd market gone for them, possibly whole EU, as they will harmonize the Requirements.
alfor 5y ago
Tesla is going the fastest route possible to complete autonomy. What we are seeing now is the beta program to get there as fast as possible. No one is forced into buying it. I am really happy that they have the gusto to push things forward, if it weren't for them we wouldn’t have an EV race, a autonomy race, a rocket race.
- zaptrem 5y ago
  I don't see why Tesla can't do both. Production Autopilot is easily the most advanced ADAS on the market right now, why not add an L3 "mode" with the same limits (traffic jams only) and liability guarantees as Daimler?
- MereInterest 5y ago
  > No one is forced into buying it. This may be interpreted as the purchaser accepting known risks from a product, but no such consent exists from those around the car. Safety standards exist to protect people outside the car as well as inside, and may not be unilaterally waived on the part of those inside the car. Even assuming that the purchaser is fully informed about the risks when given consent, and is not misled by Tesla's erroneous use of "Full Autopilot" to describe something that requires continuous human oversight, not even that shred of consent exists from pedestrians struck/killed by self-driving cars (e.g. link below). https://www.newsweek.com/tesla-lawsuit-model-x-autopilot-fatal-crash-japan-yoshihiro-umeda-1501114 https://www.newsweek.com/tesla-lawsuit-model-x-autopilot-fat...

by foepys 5y ago

jpalomaki 5y ago

How does this work in practise? I think there must be something in the legislation as well. I don't see the driver and car manufacturer could just transfer the liabilities to the manufacturer with mutual contract. Monetary liabilities maybe, but there can be also criminal charges on the table.

lazyjones 5y ago
Knowing past practices at Daimler (regarding emissions) I expect them to disengage the L3 system right before impact.
nabla9 5y ago
The same way insurance does.

yawaworht1978 5y ago

Wow, didn't know this. Polar opposite of what Tesla is doing. If they can't match this, that's the whole German fsd market gone for them, possibly whole EU, as they will harmonize the Requirements.

alfor 5y ago

Tesla is going the fastest route possible to complete autonomy. What we are seeing now is the beta program to get there as fast as possible. No one is forced into buying it. I am really happy that they have the gusto to push things forward, if it weren't for them we wouldn’t have an EV race, a autonomy race, a rocket race.

zaptrem 5y ago
I don't see why Tesla can't do both. Production Autopilot is easily the most advanced ADAS on the market right now, why not add an L3 "mode" with the same limits (traffic jams only) and liability guarantees as Daimler?
MereInterest 5y ago
> No one is forced into buying it. This may be interpreted as the purchaser accepting known risks from a product, but no such consent exists from those around the car. Safety standards exist to protect people outside the car as well as inside, and may not be unilaterally waived on the part of those inside the car. Even assuming that the purchaser is fully informed about the risks when given consent, and is not misled by Tesla's erroneous use of "Full Autopilot" to describe something that requires continuous human oversight, not even that shred of consent exists from pedestrians struck/killed by self-driving cars (e.g. link below). https://www.newsweek.com/tesla-lawsuit-model-x-autopilot-fatal-crash-japan-yoshihiro-umeda-1501114 https://www.newsweek.com/tesla-lawsuit-model-x-autopilot-fat...