3 ms·
Sorry, I edited my comment as you were replying. Do you think it would be possible (and desirable) to split liability, or should it remain solely the manufactu
by solardev 3y ago
Sorry, I edited my comment as you were replying.
Do you think it would be possible (and desirable) to split liability, or should it remain solely the manufacturer's?
- lolinder 3y agoSince we're talking about traffic tickets, which are (currently) routine and generally try to avoid the court system as much as possible, I'd say that we need laws that provide no ambiguity, and I'd rather those laws place the blame on the party with the most control.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y agoThis isn't just a matter of ticketing for minor violations with no consequences. These are unregulated robots that have and will continue to kill people.
- gdk 3y agoWhat happens when the manufacturer folds after the first major accident they're found liable for and now the entire remaining fleet doesn't have anyone liable for it? If the regulators step in to remove the vehicles from the road then who makes the consumers whole now that their vehicle, and perhaps livelihood, is gone? I suspect certification is the only reasonable path. If the regulators believe these systems are safe for the road then they should build the framework for establishing that bar. If such a framework is not possible to build then I think that also answers that question.
- ceejayoz 3y agoAn FDIC-style insurance fund, where the manufacturers have to pay in for every vehicle sold, might work here.
- Snow_Falls 3y agoNot the person you relied too, but it should primarily be the manufacturers fault for pushing a dangerous update without adequate testing. However, if say, the new behaviour got in the news and the owner didn't update to the latest, safe update it could be their fault.