> So they finally figured out that "self driving" was really just a divisionary/marketing tactic with lots of legal liability?
> When a "self driving" car kills someone, guess who shares legal responsibility?
When a rollercoaster crashes who takes legal responsibility?
(Answer in UK law: The rollercoaster owners are responsible for negligence if they do not maintain the rollercoaster adequately or follow safety rules. The rollercoaster's builders are responsible for negligence if there was a design fault or if the rollercoaster was fundamentally unsafe. The rollercoaster operators can be responsible if they do not follow operating procedures which they would be reasonably able and could be reasonably expected to follow and have been trained in).
Similar ideas have been established in self driving cars already with Mercedes taking legal responsibility in Germany if it's cars crash while in Level 3 driving mode (assuming operators are following the safety rules, for instance making sure that they are sober and able to take over driving if required).
When a rollercoaster crashes who takes legal responsibility?
Typically not the manufacturer. Because a roller coaster operates in a fixed and controlled environment within which it's design can usually be shown to be inherently safe.
The same can not be said for a "self driving" auto.
Given the current state of technology, one could make a convincing legal argument in many jurisdictions that just marketing an auto as "self driving" is itself a deceptive and inherently negligent act.
I don't buy the idea that in a world where self-driving cars are safer, we should have 'less safe' human drivers just because we can blame them when they kill someone.
Car manufacturers shouldn't have to show something is perfectly safe, and IMO they should just have to show that something is reasonably safe (e.g. as safe or safer than a human driver in the same condition).
There isn't a requirement that someone has to take legal responsibility for every accident that happens in the world, just that people act with reasonable care and attention within the law.
and IMO they should just have to show that something is reasonably safe
As it currently exists, it would probably be much easier to show that "self driving" is reasonably unsafe --- e.g. less safe than the average human driver.
> So they finally figured out that "self driving" was really just a divisionary tactic with lots of legal liability?
I don't think people get how utterly behind and unsafe the legacy carmakers products are.
I've rented current-year Cadillacs, Audis, BMWs, and it's all a terrible gimmick. They can't keep the vehicle in the center of the lane, "adaptive cruise control" repeatedly tries to kill you by accelerating into semi-trucks and trailers, the autonomous systems repeatedly disengage, and they certainly can't navigate around on city streets, can't change lanes, basically need 100% of your attention to operate in a remotely safe way.
Tesla may have their QC issues and their Elon issues, but the technology is a decade ahead. You can punch in an address and FSD Beta literally navigates you through the city with pedestrians, traffic, and so on to your destination in a fairly predictable manner. The adaptive cruise control, lane changing, and highway functions are predictable and reliable enough to handle a regular commute. It's easy to stand on the sidelines and be a critic but if you go out into the real world and actually drive all these vehicles it's obvious who is innovating and who is desperately playing catch-up.
My experience here is the opposite. I have an Audi A8 and my girlfriend drives a Tesla Model 3. In my experience, the Audi is way, way more reliable when it comes to the features. The features just work for me.
I've never had any problems with the lane assist, for example, and I drive between 1000km and 1500km a week through Germany (not sure if the features are different depending on the location). I'd like if I didn't have to put my hands on the steering wheel that often but that's pretty much it.
Tesla's offerings are a real letdown. And they don't work as advertised either, which is why they're not allowed to advertise them in the same way anymore. It's missing way, way too many things that the car should notice. It's kind of like Siri. When it works, it's amazing. It often doesn't so you can't really rely on it.
We also had to replace a rim on the right hand side because the car simply didn't turn the wheel back. Girlfriend won't use the feature anymore now because she's kind of scared.
The summons feature doesn't work reliably either even when the conditions are perfect. The car just stops and you stand there and don't know why it's not doing anything at all.
I can't speak for BMW or Cadillac but calling FSD a decade ahead is ridiculous. It fails at so many simple things and all videos online confirm this and they don't seem to be able to really fix this. Every new Beta shows the exact same problems again and again.
Like I said; the features don't work reliably. I've driven thousands of KM in a Model 3 and the features are impressive but not reliable. I'd go for less impressive but more reliable every single day.
FSD as a product is a gimmick. It is an advanced automation but nevertheless a gimmick because driving and sharing the road with humans requires capabilities that synthetic AI has not yet achieved, and there is no clear roadmap on when and how it's going to be achieved. The way FSD is marketed is borderline misrepresentation.
> FSD as a product is a gimmick.
> The way FSD is marketed is borderline misrepresentation.
Only one of these two statements is correct.
FSD is a gross misrepresentation of the function’s capabilities.
FSD is not, however, a gimmick. If it was simply renamed “advanced cruise control”, it would be very accurate, and Tesla’s product would be at the high end of quality for advanced cruise control.
No. It's not. Legacy automakers are decades of ahead of Tesla in measuring/controlling quality and reliability as part of their long-term cost structure. Tesla is a VC hack that wasn't even founded by Musk.
Insurance companies exist, so it's clearly possible for a corporation to take responsibility for liabilities arising from car crashes, and collect enough money from car owners to cover those liabilities.
Surely that is true. The legal landscape will have to be settled before self-driving becomes common.
E.g. should a self-driving car leave the road to avoid sudden accident? What if it then hits a pedestrian?
One advantage to software-driven decision making is, we can make a rule and they will all follow it. I.e. the law can decide no self-driving car should leave the road.
It's logical that the manufacturer would bear the liability--assuming the car has been properly maintained, software is current, etc. The driver (passenger really) doesn't have any real agency while the vehicle is driving itself.
It's also a sort of unusual situation in that we can reasonably expect an AI that is a far safer driver than humans will still kill people. That's not a normal expectation for products sold to consumers and used/maintained as directed.
> One advantage to software-driven decision making is, we can make a rule and they will all follow it. I.e. the law can decide no self-driving car should leave the road.
Rigid adherence to a law like that is a pretty major disadvantage to saving lives though...
It's one of those things where it's not ideal, but it's the only way to prevent legal liability. Basically if the AI acts in accordance to the law governing such behavior then the manufacturers are not at fault. Else you'll have different vehicle manufacturers doing what they believe is right (think of all the debate over the "trolley" problem), and each case will have to go through the courts.
There are all sorts of subtle ways you need to "break the law" while driving though. Right now, one sees tons of delivery vehicles pulled over to make deliveries and you have to carefully go over the double yellow line in the middle to get around.
Well, they could try not to leave the road. Just like humans the software can and will have errors. Then you still have the issue of who to charge for breaking the leaving the road law.
The fly in the self-driving ointment is accidents are NOT 100% unavoidable for humans assisted by any technology.
People can jump in front of cars or intentionally interfere with said tech, for example.
There will be accidents, and the AI systems can predict with great certainty that a crash will occur before the human at the wheel does. In Tesla's case, it disingages before the time of impact to mitigate Tesla's culpability. (seemingly)
> When a "self driving" car kills someone, guess who shares legal responsibility?
When a rollercoaster crashes who takes legal responsibility?
(Answer in UK law: The rollercoaster owners are responsible for negligence if they do not maintain the rollercoaster adequately or follow safety rules. The rollercoaster's builders are responsible for negligence if there was a design fault or if the rollercoaster was fundamentally unsafe. The rollercoaster operators can be responsible if they do not follow operating procedures which they would be reasonably able and could be reasonably expected to follow and have been trained in).
Similar ideas have been established in self driving cars already with Mercedes taking legal responsibility in Germany if it's cars crash while in Level 3 driving mode (assuming operators are following the safety rules, for instance making sure that they are sober and able to take over driving if required).