• @amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    21 year ago

    Bill the manufacturer 100%, IMO. Thats why I think self driving cars beg an unanswerable legal question, as when the car drives for you, why would you be at fault? How will businesses survive if they have to take full accountability for accidents caused by self-driving cars?

    I think its almost always pointless to hold back innovation, but in this case I think a full ban on self driving cars would be a great move.

    • Skull giver
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      [This comment has been deleted by an automated system]

      • @sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m pretty sure there are autonomous cars driving around San Francisco, and have been for some time.

        EDIT: Here’s an uplifting story about San Francisco-ians(?) interacting with the self-driving cars.

    • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The responsible party should be the owner of the vehicle, not the manufacturer or passenger. If a company runs an automated ride share service, for example, that company should be liable. Likewise if you own a car and use the self-driving feature, you are at fault it it goes wrong, so you should use it at your own risk.

      That said, for the owner to be truly responsible, they need ownership of the self-driving code, as well as diagnostics for them to be able to monitor it. If they don’t have that, do they truly own the car?

      That said, there’s nothing stopping a manufacturer or dealer from making a deal to cover self-driving fines.

      • @amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Well exactly, I see no way that all the self driving source code will be FOSS (I don’t think corporations would ever willingly sign onto this). So the responsible party in the case of a malfunction should therefore be the company, because in a full self driving setup the occupant is not controlling the vehicle, and has no reasonable way to ensure the safety of the code.

        • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          Which is why it should be dual responsibility. The owner of the vehicle chose to use the feature, so they have responsibility. If it malfunctions when the driver was following the instructions, the manufacturer has responsibility. Both are culpable, so they should share responsibility.

    • @DauntingFlamingo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The most basic driving like long stretches of highway shouldn’t be banned from using AI/automated driving. The fast paced inner city driving should be augmented but not fully automatic. Same goes for driving in inclement weather: augmented with hard limits on speed and automated braking for anything that could result in a crash

      Edit: I meant this statement as referring to the technology in it’s current consumer form (what is available to the public right at this moment). I fully expect that as the technology matures so will the percentage of incidents decline. We are likely to attain a largely driverless society one day in my lifetime

      • Dudewitbow
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Its why im all for automated trucking. Truck drivers is a dwindling source and living the lifestyle of a cross country truck driver isnt highly sought after job. The self driving should do the large trip from hub to hub, and each hub ahould do the last few miles. Keeps drivers local and fixes a problem that is only going to get worse.

        • @DauntingFlamingo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That would be the augmented part and the AI. ANYTHING that presents a potential hazard already takes a vehicle out of automated driving in most models, because after a few Teslas didn’t stop people started suing

      • snooggums
        link
        fedilink
        01 year ago

        “Self driving with driver assist” or whatever they call it when it isn’t 100% automated is basically super fancy cruise control and should be treated as such. The main problem with the term autopilot is that for airplanes it means 100% control and very misleading when used for fancy cruise control in cars.

        I agree that it should be limited in use to highways and other open roads, like when cruise control should be used. People using cruise control in the city without being in control to brake is the same basic issue.

        Not 100% fully automated with no expectation of driver involvement should be allowed when it has surpassed regular drivers. To be honest, we might even be there with how terrible human drivers are…

        • Amju Wolf
          link
          fedilink
          01 year ago

          Autopilot in aircraft is actually kinda comparable, it still needs a skilled human operator to set it up and monitor it (and other flight controls) all of the time. And in most modes it’s not even really all that autonomous - at most it follows a pre-programmed route.

            • Amju Wolf
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              They can, but the setup is still non-trivial and full auto landing capability isn’t used all that much even if technically available. It also isn’t just the capability of the aircraft, it requires a shitton of supporting infrastructure on the ground (airport) and many airports don’t support this.

              That would be equivalent to installing new intersections where you’d also have a broadcast of what the current signals are for each lane, which would help self-driving cars immensely (and regular cars eventually too, with assistive technologies to help drivers drive more safe), but that’s simply not a thing yet.