[nikitaga]

> This is why I have doubts about self driving cars, it changes the accountability from the driver to the manufacturer. And I have a hard time believing the manufacturer would want that liability, no matter how well they sold.

Under current laws, perhaps. But you can always change the laws to redirect or even remove liability.

For example, in BC, we recently switched to "no-fault insurance", which is really a no-fault legal framework for traffic accidents. For example, if you are rear-ended, you can not sue the driver who hit you, or anyone for that matter. The government will take care of your injuries (on paper, but people's experiences vary), pay you a small amount of compensation, and that's it. The driver who hit you will have no liability at all, aside from somewhat increased insurance premiums. The government-run insurance company everyone has to buy from won't have any liability either, aside from what I mentioned above. You will get what little they are required to provide you, but you can't sue them for damages beyond that.

At least, you may still be able to sue if the driver has committed a criminal offence (e.g. impaired driving).

Don't believe me? https://www.icbc.com/claims/injury/if-you-want-to-take-legal...

This drastic change was brought upon for us to save, on average, a few hundred dollars per year in car insurance fees. So now we pay slightly less, but the only insurance we can buy won't come close to making us whole, and we are legally prevented from seeking any other recourse, even for life-altering injuries or death.

So, rest assured, if manufacturers' liability becomes a serious concern, it will be dealt with, one way or another. Bigger changes have happened for smaller reasons.

[fluoridation]

>So now [...] the only insurance we can buy won't come close to making us whole

"So"? I don't see what one thing has to do with the other. Why would a lack of liability imply an insurance that doesn't fully compensate a claim? It's not a given, for example for insurance against natural events.

[nikitaga]

EDIT: Sorry, I think I misread your question. Let me answer it more directly:

Driver insurance in BC is offered by ICBC, a "crown corporation", i.e. a monopoly run by the government. You have to buy this insurance to drive in BC. This insurance gives you some benefits (healthcare and some small compensation) in case you get in an accident. As a matter of fact, those benefits are often not enough to make you whole. They pay much less for pain and suffering, loss of income, etc. than a court would grant you if you could sue. But – you can't sue anymore. So, who is there to make sure that the government-run insurance monopoly will make you whole? Nobody. Because you don't have the legal right to be made whole anymore. And since there are no checks on the government, the government does not pay enough. Because, why would they, if they don't have to? They only have to pay you as much as their policy says they should pay you. You can not challenge the policy on the basis that it does not make you whole, because you don't have the right to be made whole anymore.

--- Original comment:

Natural events are nobody's fault, that's why you aren't made whole, that's why you can't sue anyone for them, with or without insurance. [ETA: you can only sue your private insurance company for what they promised you, which may or may not make you whole, depending on coverage].

BC government made the "idiot rear ending you" scenario into a "natural event", so to speak, so that you can't sue the idiot, or their insurance, or anyone, to recover damages. You will only get what the government-run insurance monopoly will give you, which is not much.

This isn't directly about insurance. This is about the government declaring that liability for most traffic accidents does not exist anymore. Which is the part that is relevant to this conversation. If liability can be extinguished wholesale for all drivers like this, then this can surely be done for self-driving cars. Not saying that it's a good idea, just that this option is on the table.

[zerd]

The old system was horrible though, you had to sue to get compensation, and could get sued for a fender-bender. The old system was _great_ for lawyers.

[nikitaga]

In the old system, you only had to sue for compensation if / when the government wasn't offering you what you were due. It was entirely the government's choice to drag so many cases through the courts instead of paying. But at least the judicial system eventually made you whole, if you were able to navigate it. If the government cared about us so much that they wanted to fix the system, they could have simply chosen to pay what was due from the start, saving everyone the time and the legal expenses. But they didn't.

Fraud was another concern. Huge payouts from parking lot whiplash were indeed not uncommon, with the help of lawyers. However, I fail to see how the new system was the best solution for that. They went from one extreme, where fraud was rampant, to another extreme, where we have no rights. At least the first extreme cost us only a few hundred bucks per year on average. The new extreme saves you a bit of money but leaves people injured for life with no meaningful compensation for the harm done to them.

Kind of beside the point though, regarding self-driving cars.

[MichaelZuo]

But clearly the positive of preventing scoundrels/maniacs/etc. from dragging ordinary people through the courts on every fender bender is huge…?

You need to actually form a credible argument for why the downsides outweigh the upsides, or else nobody will know who to believe.

[nikitaga]

Clearly, eh? Spoken like someone who didn't get debilitating whiplash for years from being rear ended on a highway. My friend's vestibular system has been shot for 8 years and counting from that accident, and she still can't drive / bike / do much requiring balance/hand-eye coordination anymore. She was "lucky" this accident happened under the old system, she will at least get compensation ("will", because it's only now getting to trial, because the government insurance wouldn't pay what is due on its own, and the same government wouldn't fund the courts to provide a speedier resolution). If this accident happened today, she would have gotten peanuts that aren't enough to even offset the increased costs of life, let alone get any meaningful compensation for pain and suffering.

Do you want to tell me more about how you saving ~$500/year outweighs people like her being absolutely shafted under the new system? Please don't, I don't care. That's not why I commented.

The main purpose of my original comment wasn't to say that the new ICBC system is shitty – enough was said about that elsewhere already. It was to illustrate with a real life example that laws regarding liability can and are changed in very significant ways when the situation calls for it. Petty political reasons being as good a call as any, apparently, so I'm not worried about self-driving cars being stiffled by that. There's a sprinkle of "be careful what you wish for" in there as well, for those who see manufacturers' liability as a problem.

[MichaelZuo]

You could spend the rest of your life, writing anecdotes and stories, but how it will be meaningful in determining the net sum of upsides and downsides…?