2 ms·

You would hope so. But you cannot deny that the system will have to be different. The interconnected nature of the cars will matter. People may object to insuri

You would hope so. But you cannot deny that the system will have to be different. The interconnected nature of the cars will matter. People may object to insuring the manufacturer of the software responsible for the crash. There is a lot to sort out that makes it a pretty tricky subject for the insurance companies, manufacturers and owners. I'm sure it can be done, but it's a big thing. I'm thinking int he context where every car is driverless. It's probably even more complex when they aren't all driverless.

dragonwriter 14y ago
> People may object to insuring the manufacturer of the software responsible for the crash. What people? The manufacturer either self-insures or buys insurance on the open market, just like everyone else that has a civil liability risk, and builds the cost of that insurance into the price they pay to the work. I mean, public opposition could, in theory, lead to a law against third-party insurance for this use (though its hard to see, given the wide range of things for which insurance is marketed -- if public opposition was going to ban insuring industries, there are a lot of existing industries that you'd think would run into problems way before vehicle-control-software manufacturers), but nothing can stop them from self-insuring. There is really nothing special or unusual about this. > I'm thinking int he context where every car is driverless. It's probably even more complex when they aren't all driverless. Its probably not at all that complex in either case. As now, the operator is probably liable for damages resulting from operation outside of the bounds of legal parameters -- including failure to maintain the vehicle in safe operating condition, and the manufacturer is probably liable from harms from manufacturing defects, and these liabilities often overlap. The particular types of manufacturing defects that are possible change, but that doesn't really change the basic equation.

dragonwriter 14y ago

> People may object to insuring the manufacturer of the software responsible for the crash. What people? The manufacturer either self-insures or buys insurance on the open market, just like everyone else that has a civil liability risk, and builds the cost of that insurance into the price they pay to the work. I mean, public opposition could, in theory, lead to a law against third-party insurance for this use (though its hard to see, given the wide range of things for which insurance is marketed -- if public opposition was going to ban insuring industries, there are a lot of existing industries that you'd think would run into problems way before vehicle-control-software manufacturers), but nothing can stop them from self-insuring. There is really nothing special or unusual about this. > I'm thinking int he context where every car is driverless. It's probably even more complex when they aren't all driverless. Its probably not at all that complex in either case. As now, the operator is probably liable for damages resulting from operation outside of the bounds of legal parameters -- including failure to maintain the vehicle in safe operating condition, and the manufacturer is probably liable from harms from manufacturing defects, and these liabilities often overlap. The particular types of manufacturing defects that are possible change, but that doesn't really change the basic equation.