Autonomous car liability (or car liability without driver , self-driving car , or robot car ) is territorial development laws and policies that will determine who is responsible when an autonomous car causes physical damage to a person or property. When autonomous automobiles transfer human responsibility to autonomous car technology, there is a need for existing accountability laws to evolve in order to fairly identify the right solutions for damage and injury. Increased use of autonomous car technology (eg advanced driver assistance system) not only leads to a gradual shift in driving responsibilities but also reduces the frequency of road accidents. When higher levels of autonomy are introduced commercially (level 3 & 4), the insurance industry stands to see a greater proportion of commercial product lines and liabilities, while private vehicle insurance is shrinking.
Video Autonomous car liability
Current liability framework
The existing tort liability for drivers and insurance and product responsibility for manufacturers provides the current basis for managing crashes.
Tort Obligation
There are three basic theories of tort liability: traditional omissions, no errors, and strict liability.
According to the National Vehicle Vehicle Crash Causation Survey, more than 90% of accidents (representing about 2 million national accidents) involve the driver as the critical reason for the accident. Meanwhile, research from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) shows that Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems, seen as a stepping stone to Level 3 and 4 autonomy, has helped reduce accidents by using front-end collisions and automated braking. Given this trend, increased use of autonomous vehicle technology can reduce the number of accidents and prevent accident-related deaths. As a result, it is possible that cases of traditional negligence will fall and this in turn will reduce the cost of car insurance.
With the advent of fully autonomous cars, it is possible that the need for special auto insurance disappears and that health insurance and liability insurance of homeowners instead cover up car accidents, just as they cover a bicycle accident. In addition, when cases of traditional negligence decline, the insurance system without errors appears attractive considering the benefits. This will compensate the victim relatively quickly and the compensation will not depend on the identification of the guilty party. In such systems, individual drivers will be well protected and will encourage the use of autonomous cars for their safety and cost-related benefits.
Product responsibility
The product obligation regulates the manufacturer's responsibility in the event of negligence and strict liability.
Autonomous car manufacturers are given incentives by possible product lawsuits to reduce the danger of their products as much as possible within a reasonable cost structure. Strict responsibilities cover a wide range of potential dangers that manufacturers may find difficult to avoid; rather than reducing less cost-effective risks, manufacturers may at some stage continue the potential cost of liabilities to consumers through higher prices.
Furthermore, product responsibility cases differentiate between different types of defects.
Under a manufacturing defect, the plaintiff needs to show that the autonomous car fails to function as determined by the manufacturer. However, in the case of autonomous cars, this presents a big hurdle because there is no court that implements manufacturing defects in the software, which is not something real produced. The performance of the wrong system technology is called "malfunction", which means there is an encoding error in the system that caused the crash. When there is an encoding error, the system may not work as designed earlier. If the crash comes from software errors, then the traditional product liability law on manufacturing defects may not be enough. Greater understanding of how software will be treated under this law of responsibility, especially when software errors cause damage to the physical part, needs to be explored.
Historically, courts have used two tests for design defectiveness: consumer expectations and cost-benefits.
Consumer expectations: "A defective product in design or formulation when it is more dangerous than the average consumer expected when used in expected or expected ways.In addition, the question of what ordinary consumers expect in terms of the risks posed by the product is generally one for the trier of facts. "
On the other hand, the cost-benefit test imposes a benefit on the cost of a product in determining whether a design is damaged. With autonomous cars, plaintiffs may argue that different designs, whether in the vehicle's physical features or in software that controls the movement of vehicles, can make the vehicle safer. For the plaintiff, this creates a high burden of proof and also makes it difficult to find a qualified expert.
Maximize accountability
In asking "who am I suing," a plaintiff in a traditional car accident will blame the driver or car manufacturer, depending on the cause of the accident. In an accident involving an autonomous car, a plaintiff may have four options to pursue.
1) Vehicle carrier : in Florida and Nevada, the operator is defined as the person causing the autonomous technology to be involved, regardless of whether the person is physically inside the vehicle. California, on the other hand, stipulates that the operator as "the person sitting in the driver's seat, or, if no one in the driver's seat, causes autonomous technology to get involved."
The continuity of claims against operators will determine at the level of autonomy. For example, if autonomous technology allows passengers to surrender full control to vehicles, then passengers are unlikely to be found guilty of accidents caused by technology.
2) Car manufacturer : with this option, the plaintiff needs to determine whether the manufacturer has a role in installing autonomous technology into the vehicle. Countries like Florida, however, provide protection by limiting product liability to producers.
3) The company that created the completed autonomous car : Volvo is an example of a manufacturer who has pledged to take full responsibility for the accident caused by its self-driving technology.
4) Companies that create autonomous car technologies : Companies under this option can include those who develop software behind autonomous cars and those who create sensor systems that allow the vehicle to detect its surroundings.
Possible defense
To maintain that responsibility, autonomous vehicle manufacturers can make arguments of comparative omissions, product misuse and state of the art. By comparative negligence, driver or passenger interference is seen as part of the cause of damage and injury. By misuse of the product, the driver or passenger may be mistaken for not paying attention to directions or changing the vehicle by affecting the proper performance of the vehicle. With the state of the art, manufacturers can make an argument that no alternative design is safe at the time of manufacture.
Cyber ​​Liability â € <â € <
As automobiles become more interconnected and autonomous, the potential for hacking the car's system to obtain data and cause danger poses a serious risk. For manufacturers and developers of autonomous technologies, the exposure of responsibilities arises from the collection and storage of personal data and information in vehicles and in the cloud. Currently, manufacturers require compensation from vendors and subcontractors (dealers, repair/installation facilities, etc.) and this practice is likely to be extended to autonomous technology developers.
The transport system is essential for autonomous vehicles because they serve as commanders and with many autonomous vehicle systems used to improve efficiently, the risk of exposure to malicious attacks will increase dramatically. To protect the system, the cyberphysical system must be implemented with an autonomous dynamic subsystem to ensure decision, interaction and control
Maps Autonomous car liability
Policy (AS) considerations
Manufacturers boast of cost
As stated in the article "Collisions That Happen Between Autonomous Vehicles and Responsibility Systems" by Gary Marchant and Rachel Lindor, it is impossible for manufacturers to anticipate all scenarios that autonomous cars may be facing. While the manufacturer will design the system to minimize the risk of the anticipated situation, the most damaging and expensive accidents are failing to anticipate by the manufacturer. This makes the manufacturer particularly vulnerable to design flaws, especially the cost-benefit test.
In this light, Marchant and Lindor argue that "this technology is potentially doomed... because the burden of obligations on manufacturers may be a barrier to further development, so even if an autonomous vehicle may be safer overall than a conventional vehicle, it will transfer responsibility for accidents, and therefore responsibility, from driver to producer.Shift will encourage producers away from socially optimal results - to develop autonomous vehicles. "
As a result, policymakers need to be cautious of arrogant manufacturers with potential costs and potential consequences, such as higher consumer costs and delays in introducing autonomous car technology. In the Automotive Vehicle Technology report by Rand Corporation, the authors recommend that policymakers take into account various approaches such as preemption tort, federal insurance assistance, and long-term cost-benefit analysis of legal standards for fairness. These approaches seek to harmonize the private and public costs of autonomous car technology so that adoption does not need to be postponed and one party is not overly responsible.
NHTSA guidelines
In September 2016, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released a policy report to accelerate the adoption of autonomous car technology (or HAV, highly automated vehicles) and provide guidance for the initial regulatory framework. A summary of the key points is given below:
o The State is responsible for determining the liability rules for HAV. Countries should consider how to allocate liabilities among HAV owners, operators, passengers, producers and others when an accident occurs.
o The determination of who or what a "driver" of HAV in certain circumstances does not necessarily determine the liability for an accident involving the HAV.
o Rules and laws that allocate tort responsibilities can have a significant impact on consumer acceptance of HAV and its extent. Such rules can also have a major influence on the extent and incidence of the insurance car liability insurance fees in the jurisdictions in which the HAV operates.
o In the future, the United States can identify additional responsibility issues and seek to develop consistent solutions. It may be desirable to create a commission to study liability and insurance issues and make recommendations to America.
H.R. 3388, SELF DRIVE Act of 2017
DPR on September 6, 2017 unanimously passed H.R. 3388, SELF DRIVE Act of 2017
o Improve security by prioritizing consumer protection.
oMake sure the roles and responsibilities of the federal and state governments.
o Update the Federal Vehicle Safety Standard to take account of the highly automated technological and evolutionary vehicle advancements,
The Federal Government with the passage of the LISTENING LITERATURE Act limits the role of the State and this may signal a change in the future of the law of accountability. With the Federal Government also asserting that consumers will be protected, manufacturers may be in loss of liability and lose surplus. Updating the Federal Vehicle Safety Standard will have an impact on the law of liability. This law will continue to protect consumers when placing more stringent standards on producers. The Federal Government has not yet announced specific autonomous vehicle liability legislation..
Artificial intelligence and responsibility
More broadly, any software with access to the real world, including autonomous vehicles and robots, can cause property damage, injury, and death. This raises questions about civil liability or criminal liability.
In 2018, University of Brighton researcher John Kingston analyzed three legal theories of criminal liability that can be applied to entities controlled by artificial intelligence.
- Performers through another - the programmer (software designer) or user can be held accountable for directly instructing the AI ​​entity to commit the crime. It is used in conventional law when a person instructs or directly causes an animal or person who is not capable of criminal liability (such as a young person or person with severe mental handicap) commits a crime.
- Natural and possible consequences - the programmer or user may be liable for causing the AI ​​entity to commit a crime as a consequence of its natural operation. For example, if a human is blocking the workings of the factory robot and AI decides to pressure humans as the easiest way to remove obstruction to continue working, if these results are possible and the programmer knows or should know that, the programmer can be held criminally liable.
- Direct accountability - the AI ​​system has demonstrated the criminal elements of a recognized liability theory in criminal law. Strict violation of liability (such as speeding) requires only action ( actus reus ), but "conventional" violations (such as murder) require intent (similar to mens rea ). Criminal negligence involves non-performance duties in the face of possible hazard evidence. By law, the court may be able to under existing law to establish criminal liability for the AI ​​system of existing self-driving cars to accelerate; However, it is not clear that this will be a useful thing for the court to do.
Possible defenses include unexpected damage or infection with malware, which has been successfully used in the UK in the case of denial-of-service attacks.
Kingston identifies two legal areas, depending on the type of entity:
- For products, product responsibility laws apply, including enforcement of warranties.
- For services, tort negligence may apply if the system fails to perform its task.
The NHTSA investigation of a fatal 2016 accident involving Tesla Autopilot takes place as a security investigation of car products, and stipulates that although the accident was no defect requiring a recall (although Tesla works to improve software to avoid similar accidents). Autopilot only gives cars limited autonomy, and human drivers are expected to maintain situational awareness and take over as needed.
With fully autonomous vehicles, software and vehicle manufacturers are expected to be liable for accidents (under existing car product liability laws), rather than the owner's occupants, owners, or insurance companies. Volvo has announced that it will pay for injury or damage caused by fully autonomous software, which is expected to go on sale by 2020. Beginning in 2012, several US states have issued special laws or regulations regarding automotive car testing, certification, and sales, with some issuance of special driver licenses; this remains an active area of ​​legislation. The human inhabitants will still be responsible for the actions they direct, such as choosing a parking lot (and thus for parking tickets).
University of South Carolina law expert Bryant Walker Smith points out that with automated systems, more data will generally be available than with human driver accidents, allowing a more reliable and detailed assessment of responsibilities. He also predicted that a comparison between how the system automatically responds and how humans will or should respond will be used to help determine the error.
Country-level rule
According to NHTSA, states retain their responsibility for motor vehicle insurance and liability programs, among other traditional responsibilities such as vehicle licensing and registration as well as traffic law and law enforcement. Some states, such as Michigan and Nevada, and Washington D.C. explicitly provide a provision on how accountability will be treated.
Autonomous vehicle laws enacted
New Republican Governor Doug Ducey's regulation, implemented on March 1, lists the specific licensing and registration requirements for autonomous car operators. Specifically, Ducey's orders specify that "persons" are subject to legislation including any company incorporated in Arizona.
Shift in automotive insurance market
In a white paper entitled "Market Change: Car Insurance in the Autonomous Vehicle Era," KPMG estimates that private cars account for 87% of insurance losses, while commercial cars account for 13% by 2013. By 2040, private cars are projected to fall to 58% , while automated commercials rose to 28% and the product gained 14% profit. This reflects the view that personal responsibility will fall as the driving responsibilities shift to the vehicle and the mobility demanded will be even greater. In addition, with the view that the whole cake representing the losses covered by the policy of responsibility will shrink as autonomous cars cause fewer accidents.
Although KPMG cautions that the elimination of this overcapacity will bring significant changes to the insurance industry, 32% of insurance company leaders expect that unlicensed vehicles will not have a material impact on the insurance industry over the next 10 years. Not acting by big players has opened up opportunities for newcomers. For example, Metromile, an insurance company established in 2011, has begun offering low-mileage driver-based insurance and designing policies to complement Uber's commercial driver coverage.
Public statement from carmaker
In 2015, Volvo issued a press release claiming that Volvo will accept full responsibility whenever its car is in autonomous mode. President and Chief Executive Volvo Cars HÃÆ'  ¥ Samuelsson further urged "regulators to cooperate with automakers to solve controversial controversial issues such as the question of legal liability in the case that self-driving cars are involved in accidents or hacked by parties third criminal. "
In the IEEE article, senior technical leaders for safety and driver support technologies at Volvo repeat the same sentiment that says, "if we make a mistake in designing the brakes or writing software, it makes no sense to put the customer in charge... we say to customers, you can spend time on other things, we are responsible. "
See also
- History of autonomous cars
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments