5 ms·

Avoiding the Question of Who’s to Blame in Autonomous Vehicle Accidents

20 points by swalsh 11y ago

a3n 11y ago
For insurance purposes, universal no-fault is probably the only easily managed way. Some states have that. For criminal liability, the owner or operator of the car is subject. If you are driving an autonomous vehicle, that was your decision, and you're responsible for what it does in traffic, just as you're responsible for the car you drive today. So, no change. If the car itself is shown to be defective, then you sue the manufacturer. Scaling up, there's class actions, and recalls. So, no change. EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_insurance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_insurance
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  >universal no-fault s probably the only easily managed way Easy? Maybe. Best? Absolutely not. I don't like the idea of being punished financially because some jackass on the road won't drive correctly. Insurance companies love it because now they can raise both our rates and not bother with any kind of investigation. This doesn't mean its good for the consumer. Jackass driver loves it because he never has to reform his jackass ways. Your own link details these criticisms: Critics of no-fault argue that dangerous drivers not paying for the damage they cause encourages excessive risky behavior, with only raised premiums and a higher risk rating as the potential consequence, and no jury awards or legal settlements. Detractors of no-fault also point out that legitimate victims with subtle handicaps find it difficult to seek recovery under no-fault. Another criticism is that some no-fault jurisdictions have among the highest automobile-insurance premiums in the country, but this may be more a matter of effect than cause (e.g., the financial savings from no-fault may simply make it more popular in areas with higher automobile-accident risk, or high insurance rates may cause more drivers to go uninsured, increasing the attraction of a no-fault system).
  - josefresco 11y ago
    How can one party be a "jackass" if both cars are autonomous?
    - drzaiusapelord 11y ago
      My criticism is of no-fault used today. From a futurist perspective, I imagine there might be scenarios of people taking manual control and causing an accident or manufacturers writing bad software. Imagine if Toyota's newest update causes 10x as many crashes. Why should I subsidize their incompetence via my personal insurance premiums? If autonomy happens, ideally, the car companies should be paying insurance. The same way they pay for warranty. Its all in their control and its an incentive to keep them honest and care about making cars that don't crash.
      - tomjen3 11y ago
        That seems to be the solution. I hate no fault because I trust a stranger only as long as he will suffer consequences of his actions, and under no fault there are none. Even if we have a no fault insurance scheme for only unmodded autonomous cars that means the manufactures have no incentives to make their cars safer.
        a3n 11y ago
        Do people really drive differently depending on the insurance environment? I don't care what kind of insurance I have, I don't want my neck broken.
        drzaiusapelord 11y ago
        Moral hazards are real things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard I imagine there are many personality types who only behave because it would cost them too much to misbehave. My gut feeling is that this is probably 80% of the population.
      - 11y ago
- jonnycowboy 11y ago
  I live in Quebec where we have no-fault insurance for what you would consider "criminal liability". ie: if somebody accidentally or incidentally hits your car, and you can no longer work for the rest of your life, the state (province) pays. Upside is insurance rate are very low. Downside is license plates (state income) are very high (2-300$ for car plates/year and up to 1200$/year in motorcycle plates). For car insurance itself, you can still have at fault but it just determines who's insurance pays and who's insurance rates will go up.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    > Downside is license plates (state income) are very high (2-300$ for car plates/year and up to 1200$/year in motorcycle plates). For car insurance itself, you can still have at fault but it just determines who's insurance pays and who's insurance rates will go up. Huh, so costs are properly internalized. Again, well done Canada.
ohitsdom 11y ago
"From the way in which it designs custom circuit boards to exactly meet its expectations rather than rely on off-the-shelf components from tier one automotive suppliers to its innovative mall-based Tesla Stores and post-purchase over-the-air software updates, Tesla Motors is known for thinking outside the box." That is one mess of an opener.
digital-rubber 11y ago
Google.
ihsw 11y ago
> automakers won’t be able to afford to produce autonomous cars if each and every car sold could theoretically land it in court Absolute nonsense -- put a black box into each vehicle. They already collect mountains of telemetry, and having that will pretty much ensure indemnification.
- Someone1234 11y ago
  Based on what legal theory? Indemnification is actually really hard to get, and simply adding a black box within itself wouldn't immediately grant that. It certainly doesn't for the airline industry.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Cars already have black boxes: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/03/20/174827589/yes-your-new-car-has-a-black-box-wheres-the-off-switch http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/03/20/174... TL;DR Its tied to the air bag, and records critical metrics to flash when an accident occurs.
fredkbloggs 11y ago
The headline is deeply misleading. The technique discussed applies only to a specific driving situation, and only to a specific failure mode: that in which the firmware decides it is safe to overtake on a freeway when in fact it is not. There are thousands of other driving situations in which firmware, due to bugs, inadequate inputs, or the innate shortcomings of any algorithm, could cause a collision. There are also many other failure modes that could cause a collision when overtaking on a freeway. Problem not solved. Sorry.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> automakers won’t be able to afford to produce autonomous cars if each and every car sold could theoretically land it in court Each and every car made can theoretically land an automaker in court under existing liability laws even when they aren't autonomous, and yet automakers can still afford to make autos. > To force the driver of its luxury Model S electric sedan to initiate any autonomous overtaking maneuvers by tapping the turn signal. That way, in the event of an accident, it was the person — not the car — which ultimately deemed the overtaking maneuver safe. That's not going to do much to immunize the manufacturer from liability if the system executing the maneuver is defective in a way which causes a collision in a condition in which it should have been safe to overtake, or even if the defect is simply that it fails to detect that the situation is unsafe when it is signaled to be safe, when it has sufficient sensor coverage from which it reasonably should have been able to determine that the situation was not safe. The article here seems to be largely based on a fantasy (or perhaps a Tesla press release) that is detached from the principles of liability that have been applied to product manufacturers in general, and auto manufacturers in particular.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

20 points by swalsh 11y ago

a3n 11y ago

For insurance purposes, universal no-fault is probably the only easily managed way. Some states have that. For criminal liability, the owner or operator of the car is subject. If you are driving an autonomous vehicle, that was your decision, and you're responsible for what it does in traffic, just as you're responsible for the car you drive today. So, no change. If the car itself is shown to be defective, then you sue the manufacturer. Scaling up, there's class actions, and recalls. So, no change. EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_insurance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_insurance

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
>universal no-fault s probably the only easily managed way Easy? Maybe. Best? Absolutely not. I don't like the idea of being punished financially because some jackass on the road won't drive correctly. Insurance companies love it because now they can raise both our rates and not bother with any kind of investigation. This doesn't mean its good for the consumer. Jackass driver loves it because he never has to reform his jackass ways. Your own link details these criticisms: Critics of no-fault argue that dangerous drivers not paying for the damage they cause encourages excessive risky behavior, with only raised premiums and a higher risk rating as the potential consequence, and no jury awards or legal settlements. Detractors of no-fault also point out that legitimate victims with subtle handicaps find it difficult to seek recovery under no-fault. Another criticism is that some no-fault jurisdictions have among the highest automobile-insurance premiums in the country, but this may be more a matter of effect than cause (e.g., the financial savings from no-fault may simply make it more popular in areas with higher automobile-accident risk, or high insurance rates may cause more drivers to go uninsured, increasing the attraction of a no-fault system).
- josefresco 11y ago
  How can one party be a "jackass" if both cars are autonomous?
  - drzaiusapelord 11y ago
    My criticism is of no-fault used today. From a futurist perspective, I imagine there might be scenarios of people taking manual control and causing an accident or manufacturers writing bad software. Imagine if Toyota's newest update causes 10x as many crashes. Why should I subsidize their incompetence via my personal insurance premiums? If autonomy happens, ideally, the car companies should be paying insurance. The same way they pay for warranty. Its all in their control and its an incentive to keep them honest and care about making cars that don't crash.
    - tomjen3 11y ago
      That seems to be the solution. I hate no fault because I trust a stranger only as long as he will suffer consequences of his actions, and under no fault there are none. Even if we have a no fault insurance scheme for only unmodded autonomous cars that means the manufactures have no incentives to make their cars safer.
      - a3n 11y ago
        Do people really drive differently depending on the insurance environment? I don't care what kind of insurance I have, I don't want my neck broken.
        drzaiusapelord 11y ago
        Moral hazards are real things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard I imagine there are many personality types who only behave because it would cost them too much to misbehave. My gut feeling is that this is probably 80% of the population.
    - 11y ago
jonnycowboy 11y ago
I live in Quebec where we have no-fault insurance for what you would consider "criminal liability". ie: if somebody accidentally or incidentally hits your car, and you can no longer work for the rest of your life, the state (province) pays. Upside is insurance rate are very low. Downside is license plates (state income) are very high (2-300$ for car plates/year and up to 1200$/year in motorcycle plates). For car insurance itself, you can still have at fault but it just determines who's insurance pays and who's insurance rates will go up.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > Downside is license plates (state income) are very high (2-300$ for car plates/year and up to 1200$/year in motorcycle plates). For car insurance itself, you can still have at fault but it just determines who's insurance pays and who's insurance rates will go up. Huh, so costs are properly internalized. Again, well done Canada.

ohitsdom 11y ago

"From the way in which it designs custom circuit boards to exactly meet its expectations rather than rely on off-the-shelf components from tier one automotive suppliers to its innovative mall-based Tesla Stores and post-purchase over-the-air software updates, Tesla Motors is known for thinking outside the box." That is one mess of an opener.

digital-rubber 11y ago

Google.

ihsw 11y ago

> automakers won’t be able to afford to produce autonomous cars if each and every car sold could theoretically land it in court Absolute nonsense -- put a black box into each vehicle. They already collect mountains of telemetry, and having that will pretty much ensure indemnification.

Someone1234 11y ago
Based on what legal theory? Indemnification is actually really hard to get, and simply adding a black box within itself wouldn't immediately grant that. It certainly doesn't for the airline industry.
toomuchtodo 11y ago
Cars already have black boxes: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/03/20/174827589/yes-your-new-car-has-a-black-box-wheres-the-off-switch http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/03/20/174... TL;DR Its tied to the air bag, and records critical metrics to flash when an accident occurs.

fredkbloggs 11y ago

The headline is deeply misleading. The technique discussed applies only to a specific driving situation, and only to a specific failure mode: that in which the firmware decides it is safe to overtake on a freeway when in fact it is not. There are thousands of other driving situations in which firmware, due to bugs, inadequate inputs, or the innate shortcomings of any algorithm, could cause a collision. There are also many other failure modes that could cause a collision when overtaking on a freeway. Problem not solved. Sorry.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> automakers won’t be able to afford to produce autonomous cars if each and every car sold could theoretically land it in court Each and every car made can theoretically land an automaker in court under existing liability laws even when they aren't autonomous, and yet automakers can still afford to make autos. > To force the driver of its luxury Model S electric sedan to initiate any autonomous overtaking maneuvers by tapping the turn signal. That way, in the event of an accident, it was the person — not the car — which ultimately deemed the overtaking maneuver safe. That's not going to do much to immunize the manufacturer from liability if the system executing the maneuver is defective in a way which causes a collision in a condition in which it should have been safe to overtake, or even if the defect is simply that it fails to detect that the situation is unsafe when it is signaled to be safe, when it has sufficient sensor coverage from which it reasonably should have been able to determine that the situation was not safe. The article here seems to be largely based on a fantasy (or perhaps a Tesla press release) that is detached from the principles of liability that have been applied to product manufacturers in general, and auto manufacturers in particular.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]