7 ms·

While I agree that liability will be assessed the same way it is now, the answer isn't always: If it's your car, you are at fault. There are examples of sit

While I agree that liability will be assessed the same way it is now, the answer isn't always: If it's your car, you are at fault. There are examples of situations where a car producer/manufacturer was at fault for accidents, caused by bad software. The question is where that line will be in the myriad of situations that will be more complex due to the the introduction of automation. The control system itself is then a part of the car, which will dramatically increase the likelihood that it is at-fault in the case of an accident. It presumably would have to be audit-able in the case of an accident to identify whether it made the 'correct' decisions or not, adding additional legal and technical complexity. If privately owned, would there be regular sensor cleaning/calibration tasks that need to be met before the manufacturer is deemed liable? What about tire pressure? There will be a lot of factors that could go into deciding whether the user or manufacturer was at fault in the case of an accident that simply wouldn't be a problem now, because the user of the vehicle is also the one responsible for maintenance.

Already__Taken 12y ago
> would there be regular sensor cleaning/calibration tasks that need to be met before the manufacturer is deemed liable? What about tire pressure? As someone from the UK, I'm amazed that isn't the case. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOT_test#Overview_of_the_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOT_test#Overview_of_the_test
- joncrocks 12y ago
  I'm actually from the UK as well, and am constantly surprised that in some US states there are no mandatory inspections of roadworthy-ness.
roc 12y ago
> " The question is where that line will be in the myriad of situations that will be more complex due to the the introduction of automation." It will be determined via litigation, as it is now. Technological complexity of subject matter has yet to present any serious roadblock, or cause any significant change, in the prosecution of the law. Similarly, whether neglected maintenance (or third-party modifications/parts) contributed to a collision will be determined in court, just as it is now. As a side note: given the service opportunities afforded by self-driving vehicles, I would be surprised if operators and insurers didn't subsidize or operate "while you sleep" maintenance service plans. e.g. Once a month or so, while you sleep, your car will drive itself to the shop to get checked out, ensure updates are received, recall services performed, etc. Manufacturers would add a revenue stream and lower their legal costs/exposure and consumers would have yet-another-hassle of car ownership removed.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  Technological complexity of subject matter has yet to present any serious roadblock, or cause any significant change, in the prosecution of the law. Ridiculous. To cite only one counterexample, self-driving cars will make the controversy over the EU's "right to be forgotten" law look like a polite discussion over a beer. That said, the problems are solvable and we'll all ultimately be better off for facing them.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    >> has yet to present any serious roadblock > To cite only one counterexample, self-driving cars will make... Hey, something's not right... ;). Please clarify your point with a non-circular example.
    - CamperBob2 12y ago
      I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're asking.
      - TeMPOraL 12y ago
        I read your comment as following: > ... it has yet to happen ... Ridiculous. To cite only one counterexample, it will happen.
        CamperBob2 12y ago
        Correct, that's what I said. The OP claimed that technical implementation problems were not considered a stumbling block for legislation, and I mentioned the "right to be forgotten" mess as a counterexample, where a fundamentally unfair, unworkable law has created a new human right out of thin air, one that's causing a lot of trouble for Google and other search engine providers.
  - willyt 12y ago
    I expect it will be just like what happens when billion pound construction projects go wrong. There is already a specialised civil court that decides on these types of cases in the UK; the Technology and Construction Court.
ignostic 12y ago
This is hardly the first case of distributed liability. It's just not that complicated, and certainly not an obstacle to such a beneficial technology.

Already__Taken 12y ago

> would there be regular sensor cleaning/calibration tasks that need to be met before the manufacturer is deemed liable? What about tire pressure? As someone from the UK, I'm amazed that isn't the case. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOT_test#Overview_of_the_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOT_test#Overview_of_the_test

joncrocks 12y ago
I'm actually from the UK as well, and am constantly surprised that in some US states there are no mandatory inspections of roadworthy-ness.

roc 12y ago

> " The question is where that line will be in the myriad of situations that will be more complex due to the the introduction of automation." It will be determined via litigation, as it is now. Technological complexity of subject matter has yet to present any serious roadblock, or cause any significant change, in the prosecution of the law. Similarly, whether neglected maintenance (or third-party modifications/parts) contributed to a collision will be determined in court, just as it is now. As a side note: given the service opportunities afforded by self-driving vehicles, I would be surprised if operators and insurers didn't subsidize or operate "while you sleep" maintenance service plans. e.g. Once a month or so, while you sleep, your car will drive itself to the shop to get checked out, ensure updates are received, recall services performed, etc. Manufacturers would add a revenue stream and lower their legal costs/exposure and consumers would have yet-another-hassle of car ownership removed.

CamperBob2 12y ago
Technological complexity of subject matter has yet to present any serious roadblock, or cause any significant change, in the prosecution of the law. Ridiculous. To cite only one counterexample, self-driving cars will make the controversy over the EU's "right to be forgotten" law look like a polite discussion over a beer. That said, the problems are solvable and we'll all ultimately be better off for facing them.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  >> has yet to present any serious roadblock > To cite only one counterexample, self-driving cars will make... Hey, something's not right... ;). Please clarify your point with a non-circular example.
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're asking.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      I read your comment as following: > ... it has yet to happen ... Ridiculous. To cite only one counterexample, it will happen.
      - CamperBob2 12y ago
        Correct, that's what I said. The OP claimed that technical implementation problems were not considered a stumbling block for legislation, and I mentioned the "right to be forgotten" mess as a counterexample, where a fundamentally unfair, unworkable law has created a new human right out of thin air, one that's causing a lot of trouble for Google and other search engine providers.
- willyt 12y ago
  I expect it will be just like what happens when billion pound construction projects go wrong. There is already a specialised civil court that decides on these types of cases in the UK; the Technology and Construction Court.

ignostic 12y ago

This is hardly the first case of distributed liability. It's just not that complicated, and certainly not an obstacle to such a beneficial technology.