AV makers should be held responsible for accidents, says UK Law Commission

[diplomat33]

Who is responsible when there is no one in the car? A fully autonomous system can operate without anyone in the vehicle.

So let's say, for example, you have your car drop you off at work. On the way to work, in your example, the occupant of the car (you) is responsible for any accidents. After you are dropped off at work, the car returns to your house to take your wife to work. During this driving segment, are you responsible for any accidents? Is your wife? Is the car?

The car would be responsible since it was fully autonomous.

That's the whole idea of autonomous driving: the car can drive without anyone in the vehicle. So, the autonomous car is the driver. Hence, it is responsible.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I think you are being naive. If the makers have liability they are going to shut the systems down .. all of them, even the mild "lane keeping" systems. Period. Net result .. no driver assists, more deaths.

No L3 or above self-driving car is ever going to be foolproof. But if they can be shown to be significantly safer than the average human driver, then there is a clear advantage to their widespread deployment. In saved lives, reduced injuries, and fewer overall accidents.

But pushing all liability onto the makers raises the bar for deployment way beyond just being better than a human driver. In fact, it probably raises the bar so high the system would need to be near perfect, which is unrealistic for the foreseeable future and given the nature of AI/NN technology.

If/when Tesla release FSD you can be sure that they will make it clear that the driver is responsible for safety.

The liability is for autonomy, not for driver assistance.
Companies will perform the same calculation as they always do: if income > cost then do it.
Being in an AV is just like riding in a taxi. If the taxi driver crashes, you aren't at fault. If the AV crashes, you aren't at fault. For L3 or L4 the AV has to figure out whether autonomous operation is safe and be able to give enough warning to the driver or monitor to switch back to assistance.

And yes, FSD will be deployed as driver assistance. That's why it's FSD, not FA.

 

[EVNow]

Now that UK is not part of EU, if they pass some laws that other countries/blocks don’t pass - manufacturers will just not deploy the features. Ofcourse in this case law is just codifying something fairly obvious.

 

[diplomat33]

Found this website from the Scottish Law Commission with details:

Our recommendations include the setting up of a new system of legal accountability. Under this system a vehicle would need to be authorised by a regulatory agency as self-driving. Before granting authorisation the agency would apply a new safety standard to ensure that self-driving vehicles are at least as safe as human drivers.

Under our proposals, if a vehicle is authorised by the regulatory agency as having “self-driving features” and those features are switched on, the person in the driving seat would become a “user-in-charge” rather than a driver. As such they would not be responsible legally for the way the vehicle drives while the system is engaged. Instead, the company or body that obtained the authorisation (an “Authorised Self-Driving Entity” or “ASDE”) would face regulatory sanctions if the vehicle breached laws relating to how a vehicle is driven (e.g. exceeding speed limits or operating without the due care and attention that a human driver would show in keeping a safe distance).

Scottish Law Commission :: Automated vehicles

www.scotlawcom.gov.uk

 

[Battpower]

"exceeding speed limits or operating without the due care and attention"

Hmm!

Wonder how they would approach defaced / damaged/ obscured / missing / irrelevant signs (like on agacent street) or incorrect map sourced data?

 

[diplomat33]

"exceeding speed limits or operating without the due care and attention"

Hmm!

Virtually all AVs are programmed to never exceed the speed limit. So I don't think that would be a big issue. The second part "operating without the due car and attention" could be tricky, I imagine that could be a reference to an AV doing something deemed reckless like not giving enough space to a pedestrian or cyclist.

 

[Battpower]

Virtually all AVs are programmed to never exceed the speed limit.

You are obviously correct. I was thinking about the percentage of drivers who would put up with it!

In UK there are so many speed traps / cameras that especially on unfamiliar routes it's way safer to actually stick to the limit - as long as the limit is correctly posted (signs / maps etc).

 

[Battpower]

not giving enough space to a pedestrian or cyclist.

iirc our 'Highway Code' states 1.5m - pretty much a car's width - when passing a cyclist.

 

[drtimhill]

Found this website from the Scottish Law Commission with details:

Scottish Law Commission :: Automated vehicles

www.scotlawcom.gov.uk

Have you seen the way scotsmen drive???