2 ms·
If you are not in control of the car at the moment of the accident, then the manufacturer is liable for providing faulty equipment. Good intentions does not do
by drivingmenuts 14y ago
If you are not in control of the car at the moment of the accident, then the manufacturer is liable for providing faulty equipment.
Good intentions does not do away with liability.
For that matter, why would you even purchase insurance for a vehicle like that. It should be supplied by the manufacturer.
Possibly even the car should not be owned by you, since you are not 100% in control at all times. But that's debatable, since people are attached to car ownership.
- stonemetal 14y agois liable for providing faulty equipment. If a street racer modifies their car? If you didn't perform routine car washing so the sensors where unable to sense? The car was in a wreck last month and the repair shop didn't do as good a job as they should have? The car is 30 years old and stuff naturally wears out? There are so many variables that manufacturer pays maybe a first approximation to an answer but no where near the whole answer.
- drivingmenuts 14y agoAll of that is part of the reason why I will never own a robot car until they hammer out those details. Currently, when I buy a car, the manufacturer/dealer specifies what they are responsible for and how long. The rest is on me. So I have to purchase driver's insurance. A robot car? I'm not the driver. The manufacturer is, by robot proxy. So, perhaps the manufacturer should be insuring the car. After all, at that point, I'm just a passenger.