4 ms·
Driverless car users will not be prosecuted for fatal crashes in UK
- falalalala 3y agoTldr: the little guys will be pitted against megacorps with infinite money to assert their rights in a court of law.
- multjoy 3y agoIt'll be the insurance megacorps vs the automotive megacorps. There's no suggestion that the obligation to maintain 3rd party insurance will disappear.
- FrankWilhoit 3y agoThe purpose of "driverless cars" and ultimately of any automation is to obscure responsibility and prevent accountability.
- dbbk 3y agoThe strapline of the article literally says that the manufacturer would be held accountable.
- acd 3y agoDystopian future
- dbbk 3y agoI mean, it makes sense. What could you prosecute them for? They have no control.
- jakeogh 3y agoThey chose to use a machine, ignoring personal responsibility to control it, killing someone because they bought into marketing hype.
- gruez 3y agoBut if you get into an uber and it kills someone that's fine? Why does putting an overworked and easily distracted human in control absolve you of consequences more than putting an occasionally broken ai?
- jakeogh 3y agoYour assumption that 'AI' can replace a human in this context is wrong. I realize most people have grown up with a relentless anthropomorphization of computers, so I understand why one might make it. Despite the hype, they don't work, and aren't going to any time soon. The FPGA link here is an interesting window into why: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37552365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37552365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33402603 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33402603
- zardo 3y agoIf an auto maker is running a scam by selling features that don't work, doesn't it make more sense to go after the scammers for the deaths their scam lead to?
- RecycledEle 3y agoSo that's how you get rid of your ex-wife and the alimony payments?
- fargle 3y agothis is exactly why we're never getting full self-driving cars, whether or not they are actually safer. no manufacturer is going to take on strict liability for 100,000's of auto-driving cars let loose in the hands of legally immune "operator"/customers. but what's the point of even having self-driving cars if you the user are still on the hook for some hallucination or oversight of the product of that manufacturer? you would never cede full control in this case. and why pay $10K, $20K extra for the privilege of something you can't use? exactly. there's no point.
- timthorn 3y agoInsurance companies do. The human driver is only free of liability when the autonomy is activated so the hands of the customer are not so relevant