You always voice the same concerns, I always hear the same concerns. It's crazy to me that people get hung up on the liability issue.
1) Liability is assessed exactly as it is now. We use the same system to determine which car was at fault. If it's your car, you are at fault. Someone will insure a self-driving car, especially once the safety record is established. Your current provider might not, but someone will. If you were using the self-driving system improperly (e.g. in weather it can't handle well in yet), you may also be subject to different rules or even criminal prosecution.
Vendors may also be willing to pay for that insurance as part of a monthly fee just to shut people up over this very easy-to-solve "concern."
If no one is willing to insure your self-driving car, I'll start that business. I could charge a premium for a service that costs me less to provide!
2) People seem to think self-driving cars should be perfect before they're introduced. They won't be. Neither are we. It just has to be better (under given weather/traffic conditions) than we are to save lives. We'll have steering wheels in the cars for a long time which you'll have to use when the car can't safely drive itself.
The Wired article is just clickbait using the fear angle. We face the same decisions every day, and "unavoidable" accidents will be even more rare than it is now as this technology evolves.
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.
> " 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.
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.
> "self-driving cars will make the controversy over the EU's "right to be forgotten" law look like a polite discussion over a beer."
You misunderstand me. Of course self-driving cars will generate many and expensive legal fights. But those lawsuits will look much like any of our current lawsuits.
That the courts don't understand the technology will not stop jury trials from deciding liability, just as courts not understanding genetic evidence doesn't stop them from throwing people in jail for life based on misunderstandings.
That legislators don't understand the technology will not stop laws from being written any more than their not understanding criminal justice stops them from writing self-defeating "tough on crime" laws and "prison as punishment" regulations that only increase recidivism and multiply the social cost of crimes.
My point is that courts and legislators not having an understanding, let alone answers, is not a stumbling block to self-driving cars. It won't prevent self-driving cars from moving forward until and unless it's addressed.
They'll just blunder through it, making a mess, making mistakes, as they've done with everything else.
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.
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.
Agreed. This is one area where existing market mechanisms already work pretty well and are likely to accommodate change pretty smoothly. From an insurer's point of view, autonomous cars are probably a pretty attractive risk - even where the technology does fail and they incur liability, it's probably much less than the liability they incur from insuring drivers who drive while impaired/ angry/ distracted/ late but whose actual liability can't be established.
I don't think (1) is all that clear. I'd say it depends on what happens when the liable driver sues the vendor. That said, even if the vendors are found to be liable, I don't think that will change anything much, except maybe slightly raise the price of cars.
1) Liability is assessed exactly as it is now. We use the same system to determine which car was at fault. If it's your car, you are at fault. Someone will insure a self-driving car, especially once the safety record is established. Your current provider might not, but someone will. If you were using the self-driving system improperly (e.g. in weather it can't handle well in yet), you may also be subject to different rules or even criminal prosecution.
Vendors may also be willing to pay for that insurance as part of a monthly fee just to shut people up over this very easy-to-solve "concern."
If no one is willing to insure your self-driving car, I'll start that business. I could charge a premium for a service that costs me less to provide!
2) People seem to think self-driving cars should be perfect before they're introduced. They won't be. Neither are we. It just has to be better (under given weather/traffic conditions) than we are to save lives. We'll have steering wheels in the cars for a long time which you'll have to use when the car can't safely drive itself.
The Wired article is just clickbait using the fear angle. We face the same decisions every day, and "unavoidable" accidents will be even more rare than it is now as this technology evolves.