3 ms·

> That confidence is demonstrated by Mercedes’ decision to assume liability for the vehicle while Drive Pilot is in use. This is a huge step forward, and will

> That confidence is demonstrated by Mercedes’ decision to assume liability for the vehicle while Drive Pilot is in use. This is a huge step forward, and will hopefully encourage other automakers to move this direction, as well. Volvo said many years ago that they would assume responsibility if autonomous systems caused collisions, but they have yet to actually implement this in their terms, as far as I know.

SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
Indeed it's a "signal that's hard to fake" unlike, say, calling something a "autopilot (beta)"
kjksf 3y ago
Everyone, including Ars Technica, uncritically swallows this "assume liability" line. Even when you cause an accident, you don't pay. Your insurance company does. You might "pay" with increased future insurance rates. So what exactly does it mean that Mercedes "assumes liability"? What is the process and what happens? If that system causes an accident, how do you contact Mercedes? How do your prove you were running it within desired parameters? Are they going to reimburse insurance company? We all have (or supposed to have) mandatory insurance. We're already paying so what practical difference does it make to the owner of that car? Those are really basic question that no one seems to address. Everyone just repeats that vague marketing line like it means something.
- NegativeK 3y ago
  > We're already paying so what practical difference does it make to the owner of that car? Vehicle accidents can extend past body damage and minor injuries and go well over the limits your auto insurance covers. As an example, if the software severely injures or kills a pedestrian in a crosswalk in a way that the driver couldn't have reacted, the liability is going to matter a _lot_ more than just paying off insurance. Frankly, self driving cars aren't going to be worth more than slightly better (or slightly more stressful) cruise control until the company actually assumes liability -- which no one has done, until (presumably) now. So Mercedes stepping up could be a big deal. Also... Does regular auto insurance cover the case where the driver has their hands off the wheel and software is in control?
  - tialaramex 3y ago
    The self-driving taxis are, like other taxis, taking responsibility for their safety during the journey. Suppose Alice gets a Waymo to the bar, and Bob gets an Uber. On the way, bad luck they both crash into different idiots who don't think red lights apply to them. Neither Alice nor Bob are responsible. Waymo handles Alice's situation and I don't know whether Uber owns the problem or they put it on the driver, but they can't land it on Bob. Long before Waymo was available to the general paying customers, one of their demos was a blind man gets a free journey, because of course, no problem, blind people travel by taxi all the time, you don't need to see the traffic, the taxi driver does that, Waymo is just a taxi.
    - diebeforei485 3y ago
      A lot of taxi drivers discriminate against people with disabilities (some uber drivers do this too, they see you with your cane or walker and just drive past and cancel). Perhaps except in San Francisco where paratransit is a majority of taxi fares. Robotaxis don't discriminate. You can get banned after the fact if you do prohibited things like snorting coke or having sex in the robotaxi, but they don't see a cane and assume you're not going to pay the fare.
  - diebeforei485 3y ago
    > Also... Does regular auto insurance cover the case where the driver has their hands off the wheel and software is in control? Yes. If you're driving a Tesla, you're covered by your auto insurance even if it is in FSD mode.
    - NegativeK 3y ago
      Tesla FSD is decidedly not level three, though. They're obviously working on it, but they're adamant about how it isn't hands free.
- indymike 3y ago
  There are some liabilities that cannot be assumed. For example, if law enforcement decides that a death in an accident is manslaughter, all the insurance in the world will not prevent you from being prosecuted and potentially jailed.
- lallysingh 3y ago
  Your insurance is paying for you for errors when you drive. MB's effectively (and probably literally) got an insurance policy for errors when the software drives. The process is the same for any auto accident: figure out who's driving and contact their insurance (or sue if there's no insurance). Two drivers may argue for who was driving - human/human or human/software driver.
  - tialaramex 3y ago
    There's a fair chance they're self-insured unless that's somehow illegal in Nevada or California. Mercedes can afford whatever the sort of minimums are likely to be, because they're a large car company, not an individual. Self-insurance is almost invariably cheaper if it's an option. I guess an insurer might give you a very attractive rate to get some exposure/ experience in an emerging market, but probably not.
- gwoplock 3y ago
  > Even when you cause an accident, you don't pay. Your insurance company does. You might "pay" with increased future insurance rates. The way I understand auto insurance is, you're always liable for the damage caused, assuming you're at fault. You have a contract with the insurance carrier to transfer the liability from you to the insurance company for a specific damage amount and causes. > So what exactly does it mean that Mercedes "assumes liability"? You have a contract to transfer liability in when the system is active, similar to the contract you have with your insurance. > Are they going to reimburse insurance company? That is possible, it is also possible Mercedes will pay first. >We all have (or supposed to have) mandatory insurance. We're already paying so what practical difference does it make to the owner of that car? Potentially lower insurance costs.
- enragedcacti 3y ago
  > Even when you cause an accident, you don't pay. You do pay a deductible in addition to your almost guaranteed substantial rate increase > What is the process and what happens? We don't know but we do know that Mercedes was required to provide proof of insurance or a $5 million bond to the CA DMV as a condition of the permit. > Are they going to reimburse insurance company? probably. Even in a normal crash, you contact your own insurance company and they will try to see if they can push liability to someone else, usually the other party or parties in the crash. Drive Pilot just adds another party they can attempt to push liability to. They will negotiate on your (really their) behalf and try to assign blame. In cases where your insurance and Mercedes disagree then it would likely go to court. > We're already paying so what practical difference does it make to the owner of that car? Even if you assume $0 deductible and $0 increase, the assumption of liability is a very strong signal that Mercedes is very confident in the system. You can also peruse the regulation that they are licensed under which provides a lot of information: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/autonomous-vehicles/autonomous-vehicle-deployment-program/ https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/auto... https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/news-and-media/california-dmv-approves-mercedes-benz-automated-driving-system-for-certain-highways-and-conditions/ https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/news-and-media/california-dmv-...
diebeforei485 3y ago
It isn't a huge step forward until this is actually tested. It means they're paying insurance premiums, but nothing more than that until we actually have case law precedent around this. You're in the driver's seat with the car in Level 3 mode, the car kills someone, their family sues you, then what? We have no idea.
kramerger 3y ago
> Volvo said many years ago that they would assume responsibility if autonomous systems caused collisions, Volvo has a car model with some sort of crash avoidance technology that has so far had ZERO accidents resulting in human injury (or maybe death, I dont remember). They are slowly getting there.
- jwestbury 3y ago
  Don't get me wrong -- I love Volvo. I've owned a 240, a 740, an S70, and an XC70, and I tried to buy an S60 in 2021 (but the dealer promised they could get me one, strung me along for three months, and then finally admitted they didn't have any allocated). Volvo's target of zero fatal collisions is absolutely admirable. They're the only auto company I'm aware of to set this kind of ambitious target and announce it to the public. Mercedes is probably the only other automaker with a track record of safety innovation on par with Volvo.

SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago

Indeed it's a "signal that's hard to fake" unlike, say, calling something a "autopilot (beta)"

kjksf 3y ago

Everyone, including Ars Technica, uncritically swallows this "assume liability" line. Even when you cause an accident, you don't pay. Your insurance company does. You might "pay" with increased future insurance rates. So what exactly does it mean that Mercedes "assumes liability"? What is the process and what happens? If that system causes an accident, how do you contact Mercedes? How do your prove you were running it within desired parameters? Are they going to reimburse insurance company? We all have (or supposed to have) mandatory insurance. We're already paying so what practical difference does it make to the owner of that car? Those are really basic question that no one seems to address. Everyone just repeats that vague marketing line like it means something.

NegativeK 3y ago
> We're already paying so what practical difference does it make to the owner of that car? Vehicle accidents can extend past body damage and minor injuries and go well over the limits your auto insurance covers. As an example, if the software severely injures or kills a pedestrian in a crosswalk in a way that the driver couldn't have reacted, the liability is going to matter a _lot_ more than just paying off insurance. Frankly, self driving cars aren't going to be worth more than slightly better (or slightly more stressful) cruise control until the company actually assumes liability -- which no one has done, until (presumably) now. So Mercedes stepping up could be a big deal. Also... Does regular auto insurance cover the case where the driver has their hands off the wheel and software is in control?
- tialaramex 3y ago
  The self-driving taxis are, like other taxis, taking responsibility for their safety during the journey. Suppose Alice gets a Waymo to the bar, and Bob gets an Uber. On the way, bad luck they both crash into different idiots who don't think red lights apply to them. Neither Alice nor Bob are responsible. Waymo handles Alice's situation and I don't know whether Uber owns the problem or they put it on the driver, but they can't land it on Bob. Long before Waymo was available to the general paying customers, one of their demos was a blind man gets a free journey, because of course, no problem, blind people travel by taxi all the time, you don't need to see the traffic, the taxi driver does that, Waymo is just a taxi.
  - diebeforei485 3y ago
    A lot of taxi drivers discriminate against people with disabilities (some uber drivers do this too, they see you with your cane or walker and just drive past and cancel). Perhaps except in San Francisco where paratransit is a majority of taxi fares. Robotaxis don't discriminate. You can get banned after the fact if you do prohibited things like snorting coke or having sex in the robotaxi, but they don't see a cane and assume you're not going to pay the fare.
- diebeforei485 3y ago
  > Also... Does regular auto insurance cover the case where the driver has their hands off the wheel and software is in control? Yes. If you're driving a Tesla, you're covered by your auto insurance even if it is in FSD mode.
  - NegativeK 3y ago
    Tesla FSD is decidedly not level three, though. They're obviously working on it, but they're adamant about how it isn't hands free.
indymike 3y ago
There are some liabilities that cannot be assumed. For example, if law enforcement decides that a death in an accident is manslaughter, all the insurance in the world will not prevent you from being prosecuted and potentially jailed.
lallysingh 3y ago
Your insurance is paying for you for errors when you drive. MB's effectively (and probably literally) got an insurance policy for errors when the software drives. The process is the same for any auto accident: figure out who's driving and contact their insurance (or sue if there's no insurance). Two drivers may argue for who was driving - human/human or human/software driver.
- tialaramex 3y ago
  There's a fair chance they're self-insured unless that's somehow illegal in Nevada or California. Mercedes can afford whatever the sort of minimums are likely to be, because they're a large car company, not an individual. Self-insurance is almost invariably cheaper if it's an option. I guess an insurer might give you a very attractive rate to get some exposure/ experience in an emerging market, but probably not.
gwoplock 3y ago
> Even when you cause an accident, you don't pay. Your insurance company does. You might "pay" with increased future insurance rates. The way I understand auto insurance is, you're always liable for the damage caused, assuming you're at fault. You have a contract with the insurance carrier to transfer the liability from you to the insurance company for a specific damage amount and causes. > So what exactly does it mean that Mercedes "assumes liability"? You have a contract to transfer liability in when the system is active, similar to the contract you have with your insurance. > Are they going to reimburse insurance company? That is possible, it is also possible Mercedes will pay first. >We all have (or supposed to have) mandatory insurance. We're already paying so what practical difference does it make to the owner of that car? Potentially lower insurance costs.
enragedcacti 3y ago
> Even when you cause an accident, you don't pay. You do pay a deductible in addition to your almost guaranteed substantial rate increase > What is the process and what happens? We don't know but we do know that Mercedes was required to provide proof of insurance or a $5 million bond to the CA DMV as a condition of the permit. > Are they going to reimburse insurance company? probably. Even in a normal crash, you contact your own insurance company and they will try to see if they can push liability to someone else, usually the other party or parties in the crash. Drive Pilot just adds another party they can attempt to push liability to. They will negotiate on your (really their) behalf and try to assign blame. In cases where your insurance and Mercedes disagree then it would likely go to court. > We're already paying so what practical difference does it make to the owner of that car? Even if you assume $0 deductible and $0 increase, the assumption of liability is a very strong signal that Mercedes is very confident in the system. You can also peruse the regulation that they are licensed under which provides a lot of information: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/autonomous-vehicles/autonomous-vehicle-deployment-program/ https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/auto... https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/news-and-media/california-dmv-approves-mercedes-benz-automated-driving-system-for-certain-highways-and-conditions/ https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/news-and-media/california-dmv-...

diebeforei485 3y ago

It isn't a huge step forward until this is actually tested. It means they're paying insurance premiums, but nothing more than that until we actually have case law precedent around this. You're in the driver's seat with the car in Level 3 mode, the car kills someone, their family sues you, then what? We have no idea.

kramerger 3y ago

> Volvo said many years ago that they would assume responsibility if autonomous systems caused collisions, Volvo has a car model with some sort of crash avoidance technology that has so far had ZERO accidents resulting in human injury (or maybe death, I dont remember). They are slowly getting there.

jwestbury 3y ago
Don't get me wrong -- I love Volvo. I've owned a 240, a 740, an S70, and an XC70, and I tried to buy an S60 in 2021 (but the dealer promised they could get me one, strung me along for three months, and then finally admitted they didn't have any allocated). Volvo's target of zero fatal collisions is absolutely admirable. They're the only auto company I'm aware of to set this kind of ambitious target and announce it to the public. Mercedes is probably the only other automaker with a track record of safety innovation on par with Volvo.