4 ms·

Are you a judge? do you have any background in traffic laws and/or driver liabilities? Or is this just your two cents...

by mikeg8 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago
Just my two cents (though as someone with a JD). The idea that manufacturers would be liable for collisions is quite laughable. Is your computer manufacturer liable for the damage resulting from system crashes, bugs, etc? Of course not. Manufacturers are liable for design or manufacturing defects but a collision in a driverless car does not necessarily indicate a defect. They aren't magic--a certain number of errors are to be assumed. In some cases, it may not be physically possible to prevent a collision (computers react at the speed of electrons, but cars only at the speed of big heavy physical objects). No, I think driverless cars will be handled by extending the concept of "inherently dangerous instrumentalities." If you're say demolishing a building with explosives, your standard of liability is not whether you were doing so carefully. It's strict liability: it's an inherently dangerous process so you better carry sufficient insurance because if it goes wrong you're strictly liable. Cars will, and should, be considered the same way, and will likely be handled through no-fault insurance systems paid for by drivers.
- mikeg8 14y ago
  Interesting. Thanks for the response. One reason computer manufactures aren't liable is because a computer is an "open" system (so to speak) where a user can introduce all sorts of external variables that may affect it's performance/stability (viruses, malware etc). Ideally the software in the car is closed so malfunctions cannot be attributed to user intervention. And if one of the sole jobs of that software is preventing collisions thought a series or calculations, sensors etc, it seems like a failure would be more on the manufacture's end than the driver but thats just my opinion.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    > One reason computer manufactures aren't liable is because a computer is an "open" system (so to speak) where a user can introduce all sorts of external variables that may affect it's performance/stability (viruses, malware etc). That's not the legal reason (and manufacturers aren't any more liable on totally locked down platforms than on open ones). The legal reason is that we don't hold manufacturers liable for the ordinary dangerous of using their product (as opposed to the extra-ordinary dangers of using a defective product). I'd imagine most collisions in driverless cars won't be from real design defects in the software, but rather from the simple fact that the real world is very complicated. If a driverless car is going around a blind turn and has spotty cell reception, or a deer jumps out in the middle of the road, or the road is wet, the algorithm could be doing everything right and still get into an accident. Again, driverless cars aren't magic. I don't think there is any situation in where manufacturers are liable for something other than a major, reproducible, foreseeable defect in the software. The question is, if the manufacturer isn't liable, who is? Sometimes life sucks and nobody is liable, but the law tends to avoid that. Hence my prediction that the liability will fall to drivers as it does today, on the theory that "you should expect that your 3,000 lb hunk of metal barreling along at 60 mph could hurt somebody."
- stonemetal 14y ago
  liable for collisions is quite laughable. Without a root cause analysis of the accident I am not sure I would call it laughable. How would driverless unintended acceleration be any different from Toyota's recent unintended acceleration recall and liability? If root cause is a defect then they will certainly be liable. Now that isn't to say any and every crash involving a self driving car automatically becomes their problem, it will be on a case by case basis just like now.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Right, that's why I said manufacturers would certainly be liable for design or manufacturing defects, just as they are now. But I can't imagine they'll be liable for routine fender-benders that aren't the result of some systematic defect. I really don't see what's so hard about it. I think people are over-thinking the situation because they're anthropomorphizing the software. If a driverless car collides, the software isn't "at fault" instead of the "driver". Fault is a legal classification assigned to people. Rather, the car failed, just like cars can fail today, for all sorts of reasons. If that failure can be traced to some systematic problem the manufacturer could have foreseen, then the manufacturer might be liable. But if it failed for the various random reasons anything fails, because nothing is perfect and very complex things tend to be very much not perfect, then such failures will just be deemed an inherent risk of the vehicle, and whichever person owns and operates it will be liable, just as they are liable today for the inherent risks of the things they do.

Are you a judge? do you have any background in traffic laws and/or driver liabilities? Or is this just your two cents...

by mikeg8 14y ago

Are you a judge? do you have any background in traffic laws and/or driver liabilities? Or is this just your two cents...

rayiner 14y ago

Just my two cents (though as someone with a JD). The idea that manufacturers would be liable for collisions is quite laughable. Is your computer manufacturer liable for the damage resulting from system crashes, bugs, etc? Of course not. Manufacturers are liable for design or manufacturing defects but a collision in a driverless car does not necessarily indicate a defect. They aren't magic--a certain number of errors are to be assumed. In some cases, it may not be physically possible to prevent a collision (computers react at the speed of electrons, but cars only at the speed of big heavy physical objects). No, I think driverless cars will be handled by extending the concept of "inherently dangerous instrumentalities." If you're say demolishing a building with explosives, your standard of liability is not whether you were doing so carefully. It's strict liability: it's an inherently dangerous process so you better carry sufficient insurance because if it goes wrong you're strictly liable. Cars will, and should, be considered the same way, and will likely be handled through no-fault insurance systems paid for by drivers.

mikeg8 14y ago
Interesting. Thanks for the response. One reason computer manufactures aren't liable is because a computer is an "open" system (so to speak) where a user can introduce all sorts of external variables that may affect it's performance/stability (viruses, malware etc). Ideally the software in the car is closed so malfunctions cannot be attributed to user intervention. And if one of the sole jobs of that software is preventing collisions thought a series or calculations, sensors etc, it seems like a failure would be more on the manufacture's end than the driver but thats just my opinion.
- rayiner 14y ago
  > One reason computer manufactures aren't liable is because a computer is an "open" system (so to speak) where a user can introduce all sorts of external variables that may affect it's performance/stability (viruses, malware etc). That's not the legal reason (and manufacturers aren't any more liable on totally locked down platforms than on open ones). The legal reason is that we don't hold manufacturers liable for the ordinary dangerous of using their product (as opposed to the extra-ordinary dangers of using a defective product). I'd imagine most collisions in driverless cars won't be from real design defects in the software, but rather from the simple fact that the real world is very complicated. If a driverless car is going around a blind turn and has spotty cell reception, or a deer jumps out in the middle of the road, or the road is wet, the algorithm could be doing everything right and still get into an accident. Again, driverless cars aren't magic. I don't think there is any situation in where manufacturers are liable for something other than a major, reproducible, foreseeable defect in the software. The question is, if the manufacturer isn't liable, who is? Sometimes life sucks and nobody is liable, but the law tends to avoid that. Hence my prediction that the liability will fall to drivers as it does today, on the theory that "you should expect that your 3,000 lb hunk of metal barreling along at 60 mph could hurt somebody."
stonemetal 14y ago
liable for collisions is quite laughable. Without a root cause analysis of the accident I am not sure I would call it laughable. How would driverless unintended acceleration be any different from Toyota's recent unintended acceleration recall and liability? If root cause is a defect then they will certainly be liable. Now that isn't to say any and every crash involving a self driving car automatically becomes their problem, it will be on a case by case basis just like now.
- rayiner 14y ago
  Right, that's why I said manufacturers would certainly be liable for design or manufacturing defects, just as they are now. But I can't imagine they'll be liable for routine fender-benders that aren't the result of some systematic defect. I really don't see what's so hard about it. I think people are over-thinking the situation because they're anthropomorphizing the software. If a driverless car collides, the software isn't "at fault" instead of the "driver". Fault is a legal classification assigned to people. Rather, the car failed, just like cars can fail today, for all sorts of reasons. If that failure can be traced to some systematic problem the manufacturer could have foreseen, then the manufacturer might be liable. But if it failed for the various random reasons anything fails, because nothing is perfect and very complex things tend to be very much not perfect, then such failures will just be deemed an inherent risk of the vehicle, and whichever person owns and operates it will be liable, just as they are liable today for the inherent risks of the things they do.