I'd agree it'll be a long long way away before anywhere is ready to take the legislative leap to generally accept the car is more in control than the driver (passenger?).
Long long time until we have truely automated cars?
- Thread starter BUDFORCE
- Start date
Deleted member 651465
Deleted member 651465
Well if it’s your car then you have to take responsibility? If you’re hiring (riding in) a rental car then obviously it’ll be the liability of the rental company.This is fundamentally the question being asked though isn't it - will we get to a point where the 'driver' of a driverless car isn't really the driver as the vehicle isn't 'under their control' it's under the control of the driverless software?
Evidently your take on it is 'never'
I can’t see the insurance companies ever saying the owner of the vehicle will be absolved of the responsibility. They’d go out of business.
If that's how the legislation develops, then we'll never get to genuinely driverless vehicles - who would want to be held legally responsible for the actions of a vehicle that controls its own actions?
Wouldn't interest me in the slightest
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
I still don't really understand who this does interest. Who actually *wants* a driverless car?
Me, if I can get into a car, and say to it, take me to X place, then I can watch a DVD, read a book, fall asleep etc then excellent.
So call a taxi?
Deleted member 651465
Deleted member 651465
I'm not talking about getting on a driverless taxi or bus, otherwise I'd agree that no one would want a piece of that... but if you're the driver and you're sitting in the back of your own car hammered and the car hits a kid...If that's how the legislation develops, then we'll never get to genuinely driverless vehicles - who would want to be held legally responsible for the actions of a vehicle that controls its own actions?
Wouldn't interest me in the slightest
You can get into a few fully automated trains.
Would you be ok that if there was a problem that no one had responsibility?
That's what you are suggesting as being the goal.
Deleted member 651465
Deleted member 651465
Well that's where I'd disagree. Just because a driverless car needs a responsible person doesn't mean it isn't capable of driving you to the park/work/gym in an autonomous way.
I'm not talking about the requirement for a driver to be present so that they can reach over and correct an issue with the automation software, I just thinking relying on getting in to a car hammered and expecting the law to absolve the "driver" of any and all blame if a bit of a stretch.
Planes can take off and land on autopilot. Who is to blame if the autopilot chucks it in the ocean?
The pilot probably would be ... Because it's not a 'pilotless' plane. It's a piloted plane with some level of autonomy.
Equally if the 'driver' is to be held accountable, it's not a driverless car because it needs a driver.
I think this ultimately presents a bit of a black hole where legislation and technology will struggle to meet. If I'm legally responsible for anything the car does, then I want the final say in what it does. But then the car won't be genuinely driverless, I'm still driving it. Who will ever want to relinquish control if they're still going to be accountable for everything?
There's a big leap to make to get to a point where the car is technically capable of driving itself but that the party considered responsible legally will permit it to be functionally useful.
I'm sure manufacturers will not entertain being responsible but in my eyes, as the manufacturer and developers of the software that will be controlling the vehicle they logically ought to be the people responsible. Making a private individual responsible for something they cannot influence doesn't sit right for me.
(for clarity, I'm approaching this topic from a theoretical perspective of proper full driverless cars, not things like Tesla autopilot etc. where a driver can and should take over control sometimes. That's what I understood the point of the thread topic to be - the situation as it is now is far simpler, the technology is not advanced enough to be responsible for itself yet and it's only sensible it should generally be supervised by a driver that is ultimately responsible)
Dude, I’d be pretty disappointed if my driverless car’s entertainment system was limited to 576p
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
If you can't see the difference in value proposition versus a taxi service then that's more on you.
And likewise, if you think you've reached peak motoring with a 520d or whatever you own, literally the Bosch dishwasher of cars, then again, that's more on you.
Not sure why it's so controversial to dismiss dismal car ownership in a motors forum. I'm not suggesting we should get rid of exotics, classics, or even ownership at all for those who want it.
But for the masses, it is an illogical prospect of unsafe money pits that eat income and line the pockets of financial houses.
The answer is never then.
We don't even have a concrete block existing without responsibility attached to it and it doesn't get much simpler.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
showing your age. "I can't understand why people don't want an old BMW diesel therefore everyone's opinion on this is wrong and not fit for a motors forum"
Until the law is changed to pass responsibility away from the driver for a driverless car, ultimately no one knows.
If it's a software fault for example, should it go back to the manufacturer. If the result of a crash is just damage then that's just an insurance claim. But if the result of a crash is the death of a pedestrian, for a normal driver that could be a custodial sentence. For a driverless car the law needs to decide who to hold accountable.
"I can't understand why people don't want an old BMW diesel therefore everyone's opinion on this is wrong and not fit for a motors forum"
Says the guy with an old E Class?
I asked a question in a discussion forum about cars - where do I say any other view isn't welcome? I'd like to understand just how many people genuinely want to be entirely removed from the driving process - especially as its becoming increasingly clear that it'll be all or nothing rather than a mix of driven and driverless cars.
Meanwhile this appears to be your single contribution to the entire discussion...
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
Let me know when you're finished with the edits ya?Says the guy with an old E Class?
I asked a question in a discussion forum about cars - where do I say any other view isn't welcome? I'd like to understand just how many people genuinely want to be entirely removed from the driving process - especially as its becoming increasingly clear that it'll be all or nothing rather than a mix of driven and driverless cars.
Meanwhile this appears to be your single contribution to the entire discussion...
Nobody is arguing for no responsibility at all, just where it should sit.
Using the concrete block example, I'd understand the owner of the block being responsible for insuring it (or say a wall built from it) but if the wall fell on someone due to a manufacturing defect of the block (or a driverless car crashes due to a software choice), should the owner of the wall be legally accountable for that or the block manufacturer? Who's in the dock for manslaughter charges?
That's the gap I don't see being filled because until the accountability is sat with the party in control (the manufacturer or software developer) who would ever want to be accountable for something they couldn't control?