4 ms·
It's quite logic and an easy rule to take responsible the driver no matter whether they have a driver assist feature on or not. Then the driver could sue the m
by rvnx 5y ago
It's quite logic and an easy rule to take responsible the driver no matter whether they have a driver assist feature on or not.
Then the driver could sue the manufacturer for any defect or if the manufacturer misled the user into thinking the system was safe and didn't need human attention.
This way, if a system is unreliable, users will start blaming the system and stop using the feature or buying this car.
Also, it allows manufacturers to roll-out features faster and learn faster from the real world.
If the manufacturer is directly responsible when driver assist features are engaged, but not the driver, then the manufacturer will get scared to roll anything, and progress will be much slower, and there will be more victims because the drivers think "I don't care, I'm not responsible, it's even better if the auto mode is on, even if less safe, cause I won't be responsible"
- thfuran 5y ago>Also, it allows manufacturers to roll-out features faster and learn faster from the real world. I don't think that "move fast and break things" is the approach we want for self-driving cars.
- eru 5y ago> It's quite logic and an easy rule to take responsible the driver no matter whether they have a driver assist feature on or not. That doesn't work in general. We'd want kids to be able to use self-driving cars. And really old people, and people without a licence, or who are mentally challenged enough that they don't have legal responsibility. > If the manufacturer is directly responsible when driver assist features are engaged, but not the driver, then the manufacturer will get scared to roll anything, [...] Google's Waymo specifically lobbies for getting the legal liability on themselves, not on the driver or owner.