[msb-alumni] When self-driving vehicles crash, who's to blame?

From: Steve <pipeguy920@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <msb-alumni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:14:25 -0400

BlankWhen self-driving vehicles crash, who's to blame? Megan Cassidy, The
Arizona Republic

Stop me if you've heard this one. Why did the police officer cross
the road? To jump off his motorcycle and flee to safety before the autopiloted
car could strike. The car reportedly was on autopilot at least that's what
the Tesla Model X driver told police, who investigated the collision involving
the Tesla and a Pheonix police officer last week. Police can't really confirm
that the driver wasn't in control and probably never will get to the bottom of
it. It was such a minor incident, and no probe is planned. By collision
standards, it barely qualified for a police report. There were no injuries, no
damages. Sgt. Alan Pfohl, a Phoenix police spokesman, called the contact
between the two vehicles a "tap. But the driver's allegation opens the door to
questions in the emerging and still-murky legal realm of automated and
driver-assisted
vehicles. An accident involving an Uber self-driving car and a vehicle turning
left in front of it in Tempe, Arizona, raised more issues. The Arizona Republic
asked a series of questions about the future of these cars and what their
presence on the road could mean for driver and manufacturer liability. A series
of experts provided answers. Kind of. To get a general idea of where technology
stands and what it's capable of, take a look at the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration and Society of Automotive Engineers' six levels of
driving
automation. Zero denotes full human control and five is a fully autonomous
vehicle. One is generally considered cruise control, and two, "partial
automation," is about the limit of technology on roadways today, according to
the
society. These cars have the capabilities to intelligently steer, accelerate
and
decelerate. The human driver, however, is expected to fully monitor the
driving environment and "perform all remaining aspects of the dynamic driving
task," according to SAE's definition. Where technology stands today at level
two or below it's the driver, said Bryant Walker Smith, an assistant law
professor at the University of South Carolina. "Anything that's below level 3,
it's clearly a human that's supposed to be doing part of the driving," Smith
said. Smith, who recently authored a 74-page report on automated driving and
product liability, stressed that liability isn't a binary concept. There can be
multiple parties at fault in any given collision, and multiple parties
can be sued. THE FUTURE IS NOW: What we know about self-driving cars in Arizona
| Self-driving truck makes first trip a 120-mile beer run | Poll reveals
fear of travel in self-driving cars | Ford bets $1B on self-driving car startup
But it should be noted, he said, that the vast majority of crashes are
caused by human error. And many crashes involving driver-assisted cars are
caused by the other vehicle. Automated cars are forecast to reduce the
likelihood
of human error, making driving much safer than it is today. But as cars become
more and more autonomous, Smith said, it is believed that liability will
shift from driver to car. "Which means that, in the future, if automated
driving
is in fact safer, then manufacturers will bear a greater share," he said.
"Manufacturers will have hopefully a bigger slice of a smaller pie of the total
crashes. In the future, automated cars likely will be programmed not to
speed, run lights or commit other common traffic offenses. Kevin Biesty, deputy
director for policy for the Arizona Department of Transportation, said
in cars with dual modes, it's going to be a matter for law enforcement to
investigate whether car or human is in control of the vehicle. But if it's in
autonomous mode, where would the citation go? What does it mean to be in
control? Can you still be cited for a DUI? These are questions that Biesty said
are ripe for court consideration. "These are things that, in my opinion, are
going to be decided by case law," he said. Not necessarily, Biesty said. To
date, there are no special drivers' licenses for driver-assisted vehicles.
Rather, there could be some instructions given by the dealership, just like
they would offer for any advanced feature on a new car. Biesty said more of the
driving regulations, however, could shift from driver to car, and therefore
from state to federal government. It's the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration that currently approves new technologies in vehicles, and Biesty
said this protocol shift likely could continue as technology advances.
PREVIOUSLY: Who was at fault in self-driving Uber crash? | Official: Tesla
'autopilot'
car hits Phoenix police motorcycle | Uber's self-driving cars back on the road
after Friday crash in Tempe Eventually, Biesty said, this could strip state
motor vehicle departments of one of their core functions licensing drivers.
"There are numerous conversations going on, about, 'At what point does the
MVD become a registration of vehicles and an identification agency? Biesty
said.
"At this point we don't really see a need for it, specifically for our
department," Biesty said. However, there's a possibility that other agencies
may
want to distinguish these vehicles from others. Biesty noted that this
was the case when alternative fuel vehicles emerged. It was the first
responders
who asked for these designations since there would be differences in how
to deal with an electric vehicle versus gasoline. "But for right now," Biesty
said, "nobody has asked.

Follow-Ups:
- [msb-alumni] Re: When self-driving vehicles crash, who's to blame?
  - From: Chris Rasmussen

[msb-alumni] When self-driving vehicles crash, who's to blame?

Other related posts: