3 ms·

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 i

by 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."

by mikeg8 14y ago

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."