I like the clarity you describe in the German system, but the introduction of autonomous-mode-enabling infrastructure adds a point of "technical failure" that is way outside the vehicle owner's maintenance responsibility.
The concept of "damage my car does" becomes murky if an infrastructure-level failure causes my vehicle to come in contact with another, especially if both vehicles are provably-in-autonomous-mode at the time of the accident.
Which isn't to say that owner-pays wouldn't work, but we do want the system provider to have skin in the game, and such a policy could dramatically slow adoption of the technology by anyone who doesn't also want to assume liability for something they probably just massively funded through taxes (for example).
A solvable problem, in any case, and it's great that the tech is getting to the point where details like insurance effects are worth working on.
I think with autonomous cars it’s even easier to just split liability 50:50 (or any other way) when there is doubt about the cause. That already happens now, and if there are no egos but only machines involved I’m guessing it’s even easier.
I do agree that manufacturers have to have skin in the game, but that doesn’t necessarily have to happen through liability (though that’s certainly a possibility). I would imagine that there will, for example, be very tight and thorough certification of any new autonomous car.
This is in any way a very interesting topic to think about and I think that all the legal hurdles are very solvable once the technology is solid.
(By the way, I only added the remark about the German system because it’s the only one I know. I was under the impression that there are similar systems in place elsewhere, I’m just not sure about that.)
The concept of "damage my car does" becomes murky if an infrastructure-level failure causes my vehicle to come in contact with another, especially if both vehicles are provably-in-autonomous-mode at the time of the accident.
Which isn't to say that owner-pays wouldn't work, but we do want the system provider to have skin in the game, and such a policy could dramatically slow adoption of the technology by anyone who doesn't also want to assume liability for something they probably just massively funded through taxes (for example).
A solvable problem, in any case, and it's great that the tech is getting to the point where details like insurance effects are worth working on.