Who's Responsible if a Tesla on Autopilot Kills Someone?

[Smarti5051]

I think 99.99% of Tesla owners know enough about the current limitations of the self-driving technology. Anybody that has logged more than 100 miles with Tesla on auto-pilot knows it is not a "set it and forget it" experience. I believe it does greatly reduce the stress of driving (particularly long distances), but you would have to be a special kind of stupid to think the current system is foolproof. The drivers pointing fingers at Tesla for causing accidents are just trying to deflect from their own negligence.

Hopefully, someday the technology will be there to literally take a nap in the car while it drives and charges itself cross-country. At that point, I suspect the company will be liable for any damages, and the company would have an insurance policy covering all of the cars it issues. So, the cost of the insurance will be built into the price of the car. But, this should be more than offset by the savings on the car buyer, since he would no longer be responsible for carrying auto insurance personally (unless he intends to continually manually driving automobiles).

[vintagetoppsguy]

If a pilot is responsible for a plane that crashes while on autopilot, then I would assume a driver that crashes a vehicle while on autopilot is as well.

[irv]

U.S. clears way for truly driverless vehicles without steering wheels. Federal vehicle safety regulators have cleared the way for the production and deployment of truly driverless vehicles that do not include manual controls such steering wheels or pedals.3 days ago
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/11/us-c...20or%20pedals.

U.S. eliminates steering wheel requirement for fully automated vehicles
The country's safety regulator is revising rules that made human controls in cars mandatory, in light of the rise of new tech
https://driving.ca/auto-news/technol...mated-vehicles

[steve B]

Originally Posted by irv

U.S. clears way for truly driverless vehicles without steering wheels. Federal vehicle safety regulators have cleared the way for the production and deployment of truly driverless vehicles that do not include manual controls such steering wheels or pedals.3 days ago
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/11/us-c...20or%20pedals.

U.S. eliminates steering wheel requirement for fully automated vehicles
The country's safety regulator is revising rules that made human controls in cars mandatory, in light of the rise of new tech
https://driving.ca/auto-news/technol...mated-vehicles

Is there some sort of service override control? Like if it breaks down while the wheels are in a turn, moving it around the lot at a service place will be challenging.

The tech is cool, but I'll keep doing my own driving.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by steve B

Is there some sort of service override control? Like if it breaks down while the wheels are in a turn, moving it around the lot at a service place will be challenging.

The tech is cool, but I'll keep doing my own driving.

Unfortunately, that doesn't help if the car in the lane next to you is a driverless car that suddenly has a failure, and takes you out.

If they begin building cars that have no manual controls for the passengers, then clearly any accidents caused by them are not the fault of the passengers. Unless the passenger/owner was supposed to keep up some maintenance/repair regime that a manufacturer can claim they failed to do and thus push the fault (and liability) over to the owner/passenger. And we all know that will be one of the first things any manufacturer, and their insurance company, will try to do.

And in the end, that "cost" will be considered as nothing more than a cost of doing business, and will ultimately be passed on to consumers buying driverless vehicles. Someone will come up with statistics that show that fewer people end up dying or being hurt from driverless vehicles than from drunk or distracted drivers, and therefore the additional costs are all worth it. Meanwhile, big business saves money by no longer having to employ people to drive trucks and delivery vehicles, operate taxis or Ubers, nor deliver food to people's door, and such, and now even more people are out of jobs.

Technology is great, until it isn't. While technology and computers can make our lives easier and better, and tremendously increase production and efficiency, they also put people out of work, make us more dependent on them, and make all of us subject to much greater overall harm and damage, not if, but when, such technology and their related systems ultimately do fail or break down.

From what I've seen, we finally need to amend the list of certainties in everyone's lives from not just death and taxes, but now include that any technology being used will eventually get hacked and/or fail!

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobC

And in the end, that "cost" will be considered as nothing more than a cost of doing business, and will ultimately be passed on to consumers buying driverless vehicles.

I wonder what the impact on car insurance would be. And would anyone need a drivers' license?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I wonder what the impact on car insurance would be. And would anyone need a drivers' license?

Great questions. I would assume anyone purchasing their own driverless car would still be responsible for purchasing insurance on it in case it does any damage to others or their property. As to the potential impact on the cost of that insurance, lord knows. Would likely depend a lot on how the courts view responsibility and liability in cases involving driverless vehicles, and I'm guessing we haven't seen enough to fully determine where that will all end up in the near future.

As for driver's licenses, if you have a vehicle you truly aren't actively driving, I'd have to believe a driver's license wouldn't be needed. However, a big difference may be in if you actually purchase and own a driverless vehicle, as opposed to just hiring and using them like an Uber or a taxi. As the owner of a driverless vehicle, I would assume the state would require someone, either the owner or manufacturer, to have the driving system periodically checked and tested to make sure it is properly updated for current rules and regulations, and that it operating in accordance with required rules and laws. There will likely still be some type of driving license for the vehicle to still be required, but who will be responsible for getting and paying for it, that may be another question.

As for people that now have and operate a vehicle with assisted/driverless systems, what I would like to know is why states still seem to only require a standard driver's license to own and operate one? If we are really going forward with such a dramatic change in how vehicles will be operated on our streets in the future, wouldn't you think that the states should have immediately jumped on getting a whole new set of tests and requirements for licensing people to own and operate such driverless and driving assisted vehicles? Like the story earlier told about the woman who put her vehicle on cruise control, and then went to make a cup of tea, there are a lot of things people don't obviously know or always understand about operating such vehicles. You would think (hope) the states would have realized that they should have immediately instituted new training, tests and licensing procedures for this entirely new type of vehicle, and its operation and it's operators, that is going to become the norm whether we all like it or not.

[GasHouseGang]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

I think 99.99% of Tesla owners know enough about the current limitations of the self-driving technology. Anybody that has logged more than 100 miles with Tesla on auto-pilot knows it is not a "set it and forget it" experience.

While I would agree with you, some people certainly haven't gotten the message. Here's a link to a video about multiple wrecks caused by this behavior, and one driver and his passenger totally asleep behind the wheel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHUZxeSUFUk

[Smarti5051]

People fall asleep and get in accidents in all vehicles. The only difference with Tesla is that the idiot driver can try and dupe non-Tesla owners into believing they were misled into believing the car drives itself so well it is perfectly fine to be literally asleep at the wheel or having sex in the back seat. Even they know the claim is BS, but people eat it up. In the case of Tesla, they have been so successful the past decade that it has become a sport to find things wrong with the cars, whether it be the build, the technology, the environmental impact, or the cause of accidents.

In America, no matter how stupid one is, someone else is always the reason for any problem.

[GasHouseGang]

Unfortunately it's not just Tesla owners.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bovqT3PDiCU

This women set the cruise control in her RV and went to make a cup of tea!

[UKCardGuy]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

Unfortunately it's not just Tesla owners.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bovqT3PDiCU

This women set the cruise control in her RV and went to make a cup of tea!

There's a runner up candidate for the Darwin Awards

[Casey2296]

Unfortunately the government, corporations, and lawyers, have sent the message for the last 40 years that we're not responsible for our actions. It's shameful and a cancer on our society.

[icurnmedic]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Unfortunately the government, corporations, and lawyers, have sent the message for the last 40 years that we're not responsible for our actions. It's shameful and a cancer on our society.

Damn, that was well said!!

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Unfortunately the government, corporations, and lawyers, have sent the message for the last 40 years that we're not responsible for our actions. It's shameful and a cancer on our society.

Supported by "The electric vehicle manufacturer clearly places the onus of safety on the driver, but research suggests that humans are susceptible to automation bias, an over-reliance on automated aids and decision support systems."

And why we have disclaimers such as 'do not take this medication if you are allergic to it' as well. Seriously? People have to be told that?