3 ms·

> So they finally figured out that "self driving" was really just a divisionary/marketing tactic with lots of legal liability? > When a "self driving" car kill

by Closi 4y ago

> So they finally figured out that "self driving" was really just a divisionary/marketing tactic with lots of legal liability? > When a "self driving" car kills someone, guess who shares legal responsibility? When a rollercoaster crashes who takes legal responsibility? (Answer in UK law: The rollercoaster owners are responsible for negligence if they do not maintain the rollercoaster adequately or follow safety rules. The rollercoaster's builders are responsible for negligence if there was a design fault or if the rollercoaster was fundamentally unsafe. The rollercoaster operators can be responsible if they do not follow operating procedures which they would be reasonably able and could be reasonably expected to follow and have been trained in). Similar ideas have been established in self driving cars already with Mercedes taking legal responsibility in Germany if it's cars crash while in Level 3 driving mode (assuming operators are following the safety rules, for instance making sure that they are sober and able to take over driving if required).

jqpabc123 4y ago
When a rollercoaster crashes who takes legal responsibility? Typically not the manufacturer. Because a roller coaster operates in a fixed and controlled environment within which it's design can usually be shown to be inherently safe. The same can not be said for a "self driving" auto. Given the current state of technology, one could make a convincing legal argument in many jurisdictions that just marketing an auto as "self driving" is itself a deceptive and inherently negligent act.
- Closi 4y ago
  I don't buy the idea that in a world where self-driving cars are safer, we should have 'less safe' human drivers just because we can blame them when they kill someone. Car manufacturers shouldn't have to show something is perfectly safe, and IMO they should just have to show that something is reasonably safe (e.g. as safe or safer than a human driver in the same condition). There isn't a requirement that someone has to take legal responsibility for every accident that happens in the world, just that people act with reasonable care and attention within the law.
  - jqpabc123 4y ago
    and IMO they should just have to show that something is reasonably safe As it currently exists, it would probably be much easier to show that "self driving" is reasonably unsafe --- e.g. less safe than the average human driver.

by Closi 4y ago

jqpabc123 4y ago

When a rollercoaster crashes who takes legal responsibility? Typically not the manufacturer. Because a roller coaster operates in a fixed and controlled environment within which it's design can usually be shown to be inherently safe. The same can not be said for a "self driving" auto. Given the current state of technology, one could make a convincing legal argument in many jurisdictions that just marketing an auto as "self driving" is itself a deceptive and inherently negligent act.

Closi 4y ago
I don't buy the idea that in a world where self-driving cars are safer, we should have 'less safe' human drivers just because we can blame them when they kill someone. Car manufacturers shouldn't have to show something is perfectly safe, and IMO they should just have to show that something is reasonably safe (e.g. as safe or safer than a human driver in the same condition). There isn't a requirement that someone has to take legal responsibility for every accident that happens in the world, just that people act with reasonable care and attention within the law.
- jqpabc123 4y ago
  and IMO they should just have to show that something is reasonably safe As it currently exists, it would probably be much easier to show that "self driving" is reasonably unsafe --- e.g. less safe than the average human driver.