Discussion in 'WDW Parks News, Rumors and Current Events' started by 21stamps, Apr 22, 2017.
If an autonomous car is at fault in an accident, who is liable?
If a human being is at fault who is liable?
At times it is super obvious and easily provable. At other times, it's not so obvious, or, if it's clear that someone is at fault, it would be very difficult to prove if you try to sue that person for recovery of damages.
And so, most car insurance is no-fault. It doesn't matter that you're at fault, your insurance covers damages. And your premiums go up.
So, who is liable for covering damages of a human driver? Insurance companies who find that it is almost always cheaper to settle than fight a claim in court.
So, it won't be any different with an autonomous car. Insurance companies will pay... and gladly because autonomous car accidents will happen less often and the damages done will be less severe and less expensive.
Additionally, it is likely that autonomous cars will have 'black boxes' which can show that the car followed correct programming... or, it was the one at fault. They'll be, in effect, a recording of the accident. Blame can actually be assigned and unsafe human drivers or unsafe brands of autonomous cars can be targeted for... correction, bringing accident rates down even further.
Initially the lawyers will go after the owner and every company involved in the manufacture and operation of the car. When these cars start becoming available to the general public there will definitely be a period of crazy litigation when something goes wrong.
Which is likely to continue forever given the example of the medical field, Lawyers have created the expectation that for every 'accident' there is active negligence involved. Which is not true in the majority of cases.
Yes economic losses should be covered but in most 'Morgan and Morgan' type cases the Lawyers make far more from the case than the plaintiffs ever receive.
So far Volvo, Mercedes, and Google have claimed they will accept liability:
Why You Shouldn’t Worry About Liability for Self-Driving Car Accidents
Sorry, I'll have to see proof of that. As I understand it, most of the issue on I-4 is the off-ramps to the feeder roads and the traffic light cycles -- I don't see how autonomous cars are going to fix that...
I love how the thumbnail is using a decade-old photo.
And if the cars are connected they will be vulnerable to hacking. Just imagine a peloton of autonomous vehicles on I-4 hacker gains access, Shuts down engines puts brakes into emergency application mode and suppresses brake light activation and any OBD IV intervehicle signalling.
Can you say mass casualty event. I want NOTHING to do with a 'connected' car.
This is what can happen TODAY using a connected car's diagnostic system.
Not having the diagnostics restricted to the OBD II port on the car and requiring a direct physical connection to these systems borders on criminal in my mind.
I have seen that video, the driver of the Tesla was looking in his rear view mirrors and noticed that the Prius was coming at a fast speed and might crash in to him, so he mashed the "gas pedal", it wasn't the car that did that for him.
I have been in many driving situation where I know a self driving car just wouldn't cut it. For example, I can cut across this parking lot and be there quicker, or let me move into this lane early to make things easier since cars are merging ahead... I think that self driving cars only will work well on interstates with clear fresh pavement markings and that's about it. Also there is the "fun" aspect of it lol, a few weeks ago when the weather was nice I test drove the Mazda MX-5 with the manual transmission and I was in automotive heaven, I kid you not.
Don't know what state you live in, but in New Jersey, that's a fine and/or jail time with 2 points on your insurance. That's dangerous.
Preventing someone from cutting across a parking lot is a good thing, that is dangerous. Self driving cars have been testing in conditions outside of the highway, but personally I think there are still a lot of edge cases they will need to deal with before they are ready for the general public to use.
Mainly in the fact that people drive horribly and cause all the backups. Once you have cars that drive the way you should pretty much all traffic jams will be a thing of the past. No more gawking at accidents, no more people going two lanes over causing everyone to hit their brakes etc etc. It will be a different world for sure.
Here's the Tesla Model X self driving in a demo on real roads.
Yea the words I typed didn't exactly match what i was thinking lol, I didn't mean zooming across a gas station parking lot at 40mph to bypass an intersection, the example I had in my mind was Roosevelt Field Mall in Long Island. I go there a lot and there are a few large parking lots that have multiple small access roads, I have seen the main access road clogged, and the smaller roads completely clear. Hopefully that will be a scenario that the computer can navigate, I am very skeptical though.
These posts touch on an important subject. Technology isn't the issue with autonomous vehicles, lawyers are. What is inevitable is that every time an autonomous vehicle is involved in an accident, some ambulance chaser will file a lawsuit against the manufacturer.
The fact that the autonomous vehicle is better at avoiding accidents than a human is irrelevant. The manufacturer is a big, rich, evil corporation and therefore they are liable. The cost of these suits will either drive up the cost of the vehicles or cause the manufacturers to stop making autonomous vehicles.
As to the first quote about using uber, etc. to take away your insurance costs, that isn't completely true. They will have to purchase insurance and, like with any business, they will pass the insurance cost on to you. Theoretically, your cost per mile travelled will be lower because your car isn't used most of the time while an uber car can be in use most of the time. However, if people start using uber/lyft autonomous vehicles for commuting this will no longer be true. They will need a huge fleet to cover the peak times that isn't needed at other times.
Also, when you own your own vehicle and use it a lot, you keep things in it throughout the day. An uber (with or without a driver) doesn't work for typical suburban living. If you go to work, then need to pick some stuff up at home depot at lunch time and groceries on the way home, it doesn't really work.
You'd have to bring your fertilizer and topsoil into work with you. Then load it into your after work ride. Then either unload at the grocery store and drag it around with you or pay for the car to wait for you. Unless, you are in the utopian future where everybody spends all free time cooped up in an apartment and gets everything they buy delivered by amazon. Of course, in that future nobody will be able to afford to take uber because there won't be enough jobs and the country will collapse into some kind of a high tech/3rd world hybrid and end up in civil war.
There is an Aldous Huxley quote that is very pertinent to this topic:
"The worst enemy of life, freedom and the common decencies is total anarchy; their second worst enemy is total efficiency"
The autonomous vehicle, delivery drone, non-brick and mortar retail tech utopia gets us very close to the "total efficiency" feared by Mr. Huxley.
Personally enjoy driving, after all these years only one ticket and never an accident. I will not put my family in one of those little self driving cars that are not much more than a lawn mower with a shell around it and bigger tires. No thanks but for those that that think self driving cars are great I say go for it. I won't.
You mean like this?
I feel you could slap the ghost busters logo on the side of that sucker.
Separate names with a comma.