I see statistics that current autonomous cars are safer than human-driven
cars. That said, all cars get into accidents, including autonomous ones
even less frequently. I'm wondering about liability. If an autonomous
car [in full-driving mode] gets into an accident who is responsible? Is
the drive of the autonomous car, because they should have been monitoring
what the software was doing? Is the car maker, on the theory that they
made a defective car. [analogy: if the car maker had a defective master
brake cylinder and a car couldn't stop and got into an accident. In that latter case I assume that the car maker would be liable.]

/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 07:33:22 -0800 (PST), Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:

I see statistics that current autonomous cars are safer than human-driven >cars. That said, all cars get into accidents, including autonomous ones >even less frequently. I'm wondering about liability. If an autonomous
car [in full-driving mode] gets into an accident who is responsible? Is
the drive of the autonomous car, because they should have been monitoring >what the software was doing? Is the car maker, on the theory that they
made a defective car. [analogy: if the car maker had a defective master >brake cylinder and a car couldn't stop and got into an accident. In that >latter case I assume that the car maker would be liable.]

But when is an autonomous car really an autonomous car?

Not just when the advertising says it is, apparently:

<https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-video-promoting-self-driving-was-staged-engineer-testifies-2023-01-17/>

Nick

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/17/2023 7:33 AM, Bernie Cosell wrote:

I see statistics that current autonomous cars are safer than human-driven cars. That said, all cars get into accidents, including autonomous ones even less frequently. I'm wondering about liability. If an autonomous
car [in full-driving mode] gets into an accident who is responsible? Is
the drive of the autonomous car, because they should have been monitoring what the software was doing? Is the car maker, on the theory that they
made a defective car. [analogy: if the car maker had a defective master brake cylinder and a car couldn't stop and got into an accident. In that latter case I assume that the car maker would be liable.]

If the car is built to have a human driver, then the human driver is at fault(1)(2)

But if the car is fully autonomous, then any

(1) unless the car somehow prevents him from avoiding the accident. For example, if the car's computer overrides the human's attempt to stop the
car or steer away from the danger.

(2) But even if the human driver is the primary cause, if the accident
"should" have been prevented by the car's computer, the carmaker will be
liable if the human driver's insurance and assets are insufficient. In a
tort with several people/entities at fault, all of them are ultimately responsible.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Bernie Cosell" wrote in message news:fg8dsht00riike3f3uq3db9ku4siekcvfh@4ax.com...

I see statistics that current autonomous cars are safer than human-driven >cars. That said, all cars get into accidents, including autonomous ones >even less frequently. I'm wondering about liability. If an autonomous
car [in full-driving mode] gets into an accident who is responsible? Is
the drive of the autonomous car, because they should have been monitoring >what the software was doing? Is the car maker, on the theory that they
made a defective car. [analogy: if the car maker had a defective master >brake cylinder and a car couldn't stop and got into an accident. In that >latter case I assume that the car maker would be liable.]

/Bernie\

I don't see why this would be any different from an accident in a regular
car caused by some malfunction like a defective master cylinder that the
driver did not know about and couldn't reasonably have known about. If the self-driving car gets into an accident because of a software error and the driver did not get any warnings or have any reason to know there was a
problem, then I think the auto maker is at fault. But if the software had flashed some kind of warning or error message and the driver ignored it,
then you could have a different situation.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/17/2023 4:35 PM, Nick Odell wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 07:33:22 -0800 (PST), Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:

I see statistics that current autonomous cars are safer than human-driven
cars. That said, all cars get into accidents, including autonomous ones
even less frequently. I'm wondering about liability. If an autonomous
car [in full-driving mode] gets into an accident who is responsible? Is
the drive of the autonomous car, because they should have been monitoring
what the software was doing? Is the car maker, on the theory that they
made a defective car. [analogy: if the car maker had a defective master
brake cylinder and a car couldn't stop and got into an accident. In that
latter case I assume that the car maker would be liable.]

But when is an autonomous car really an autonomous car?

Not just when the advertising says it is, apparently:

<https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-video-promoting-self-driving-was-staged-engineer-testifies-2023-01-17/>

That's the kind of advertising that can get you into a lot of trouble.

First from the Federal Trade Commission, which deals with "false or
misleading advertising". This definitely qualifies.

Second, an ad like that can lead to liability for Tesla. Even if they
have the disclaimer about it being only an "assist" on the purchase
contract and the front page of the owner's manual *and* on a sticker
(that you would need to remove to use it comfortably) on the steering wheel.

The driver stops paying attention to the outside world and zones out
listening to music -- or worse yet, reads a book or watches videos on
his cellphone, and the car kills or injures somebody, if the driver's
liability insurance limit isn't high enough to cover the damage
(likely), the victim (or his estate) can will sue Tesla and probably
succeed. Just show that ad to the jury, follow it up with a persuasive argument, and Tesla ends up paying $2,000,000 or more.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:35:36 -0800 (PST), Nick
Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 07:33:22 -0800 (PST), Bernie Cosell ><bernie@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:

I see statistics that current autonomous cars are safer than human-driven >>cars. That said, all cars get into accidents, including autonomous ones >>even less frequently. I'm wondering about liability. If an autonomous >>car [in full-driving mode] gets into an accident who is responsible? Is >>the drive of the autonomous car, because they should have been monitoring >>what the software was doing? Is the car maker, on the theory that they >>made a defective car. [analogy: if the car maker had a defective master >>brake cylinder and a car couldn't stop and got into an accident. In that >>latter case I assume that the car maker would be liable.]

But when is an autonomous car really an autonomous car?

Not just when the advertising says it is, apparently:

<https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-video-promoting-self-driving-was-staged-engineer-testifies-2023-01-17/>

Nick

LIke the reuters article says, the video is still there https://www.tesla.com/videos/full-self-driving-hardware-all-tesla-cars
and it has no verbal text, only the song "Paint It Black" by the Rolling Stones, more raucous than I remember it. That seems if anything to
make the car seem dangerous, not safe.

It shows the driver's hands just below the wheel. I can't remember what
I do that is similar -- I don't mean something as big as a car -- but it
is harder to stand by and watch and respond when something needs to be
stopped or controlled than it is to control it the whole time in the
first place.

Except when he gets out and the car goes alone to find a parking place.
So if you are supposed to be there, why isn't he there?

I wonder about those statistics. Even if true, are they taking
self-driving cars and comparing them with a mix of good drivers and some
bad drivers, and the bad drivers could be identified (by their history
of accidents and traffic tickets) and if you took them out of the sample
and only compared good drivers with self-driving, wouldn't the good
drivers do better? If so, then to allow a driver to use the
self-driving feature, he'd have to show a record of being a bad driver.
Then if he was bad enough, like forcing him to blow into the dashboard drunk-o-meter, maybe we'd force him to buy a Tesla.

This video has legal effect for those who saw it in advertising and
relied on it, but for others who only saw it because they sought it out
on the web, does it hurt Tesla?

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)