[tonysdg]

> So the question here has to be whether the creator of the machine acted reasonably in designing the machine as they did.

I'm wary of this line of reasoning. No programmer outside of a terrorist organization will ever intentionally design a machine poorly. If a civil engineer -- specifically a Professional Engineer in the U.S. -- signs off on an unsafe bridge, and that bridge later collapses and kills someone, you can bet your arse they're getting sued and possibly charged with a crime. Unfortunately, we have no real equivalent to this in software engineering/programming -- the concept of a Professional Engineer doesn't exist, and so no one can be held accountable for faulty designs.

Yes, this would bring software development to a grinding halt. I for one don't necessarily consider that a bad thing. It doesn't have to be for every project too -- after all, you don't need a PE to sign off before you build a shed in your backyard. Likewise, a web browser or video game probably ain't gonna need that level of accountability. But for a self-driving car? If someone isn't willing to be held accountable for the software failing, I personally feel the system shouldn't be allowed on the road.

[wildmusings]

You don't need professional regulation to have accountability. Every day in America, people who negligently cause injury to others are held accountable by the tort system.

If a self-driving car hurts someone, the people who created and operated it can be hauled into court and forced to justify their decisions. Jurors will hear the testimony of experts in the relevant fields and then decide who should bear the burden of the injury.