3 ms·
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 unintend
by 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 agoRight, 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.