
Avoiding the Question of Who’s to Blame in Autonomous Vehicle Accidents - swalsh
https://transportevolved.com/2015/05/20/to-avoid-the-question-of-whos-to-blame-in-autonomous-vehicle-accidents-tesla-has-a-low-tech-solution/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=transportevolve&utm_content=To%20Avoid%20The%20Question%20of%20Who%27s%20To%20Blame%20in%20Autonomous%20Vehicle%20Accidents,%20Tesla%20Has%20a%20Low-Tech%20Solution
======
a3n
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
>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
How can one party be a "jackass" if both cars are autonomous?

~~~
drzaiusapelord
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
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
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
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.

------
dragonwriter
> 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.

------
ohitsdom
"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.

------
ihsw
> 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
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.

------
fredkbloggs
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.

