This is why I have doubts about self driving cars, it changes the accountability from the driver to the manufacturer. And I have a hard time believing the manufacturer would want that liability, no matter how well they sold.
This is also the main reason for promoting chip cards, sure they are more secure, but the real reason the banks like it, is that it moves credit card fraud accountability from the banks problem to your problem.
Same with identity theft, there is no such thing as identity theft, it is bank fraud. But by calling it identity theft it changes the equation from a bank problem to your problem.
Companies hate accountability. And to be fair, everyone hates accountability.
If this becomes a thing, very quickly you'll quickly see insurance products created for those manufacturers to derisk themselves. And if the self-driving cars are very unlikely to cause accidents - or more accurately, if the number of times they get succesfully sued for accidents is low - it will be only a small part of the cost of a car.
The competitive advantage is too big for them to just not offer it when a competitor will, especially when the cat's out of the bag when it comes to development of such features. Look at how much money Tesla made from the fantasy that if you buy their car, in a few years it would entirely drive itself. There's clearly demand.
Another method is to create a lot of small companies that can go up in smoke when sued.
Supermarket delivery here is like that: the online supermarket does not own any delivery vans themselves and do not hire any delivery workers. Everything is outsourced to very small companies so problems with working conditions and bad parking is never the fault of the online supermarket.
In California (one of the few places that's issued an L3 permit) the regulations place all of the requirements on the manufacturer. There is probably a workaround where the sacrificial company "installs" the self driving system (i.e. plugs in a USB drive) but then they would be the manufacturer and get saddled with tons of other regulations. Just for L3 driving alone they would need to get their own permit and their own proof of insurance or bond worth $5,000,000. Even then IDK if this would work given the department has a lot of leeway to reject applications on the basis of risk to public safety.
Well, as we have just seen, California doesn't have a handle on risk management or insurance pricing. So I wouldn't look for them to set the standard for the industry.
> This is why I have doubts about self driving cars, it changes the accountability from the driver to the manufacturer. And I have a hard time believing the manufacturer would want that liability, no matter how well they sold.
Under current laws, perhaps. But you can always change the laws to redirect or even remove liability.
For example, in BC, we recently switched to "no-fault insurance", which is really a no-fault legal framework for traffic accidents. For example, if you are rear-ended, you can not sue the driver who hit you, or anyone for that matter. The government will take care of your injuries (on paper, but people's experiences vary), pay you a small amount of compensation, and that's it. The driver who hit you will have no liability at all, aside from somewhat increased insurance premiums. The government-run insurance company everyone has to buy from won't have any liability either, aside from what I mentioned above. You will get what little they are required to provide you, but you can't sue them for damages beyond that.
At least, you may still be able to sue if the driver has committed a criminal offence (e.g. impaired driving).
This drastic change was brought upon for us to save, on average, a few hundred dollars per year in car insurance fees. So now we pay slightly less, but the only insurance we can buy won't come close to making us whole, and we are legally prevented from seeking any other recourse, even for life-altering injuries or death.
So, rest assured, if manufacturers' liability becomes a serious concern, it will be dealt with, one way or another. Bigger changes have happened for smaller reasons.
>So now [...] the only insurance we can buy won't come close to making us whole
"So"? I don't see what one thing has to do with the other. Why would a lack of liability imply an insurance that doesn't fully compensate a claim? It's not a given, for example for insurance against natural events.
EDIT: Sorry, I think I misread your question. Let me answer it more directly:
Driver insurance in BC is offered by ICBC, a "crown corporation", i.e. a monopoly run by the government. You have to buy this insurance to drive in BC. This insurance gives you some benefits (healthcare and some small compensation) in case you get in an accident. As a matter of fact, those benefits are often not enough to make you whole. They pay much less for pain and suffering, loss of income, etc. than a court would grant you if you could sue. But – you can't sue anymore. So, who is there to make sure that the government-run insurance monopoly will make you whole? Nobody. Because you don't have the legal right to be made whole anymore. And since there are no checks on the government, the government does not pay enough. Because, why would they, if they don't have to? They only have to pay you as much as their policy says they should pay you. You can not challenge the policy on the basis that it does not make you whole, because you don't have the right to be made whole anymore.
--- Original comment:
Natural events are nobody's fault, that's why you aren't made whole, that's why you can't sue anyone for them, with or without insurance. [ETA: you can only sue your private insurance company for what they promised you, which may or may not make you whole, depending on coverage].
BC government made the "idiot rear ending you" scenario into a "natural event", so to speak, so that you can't sue the idiot, or their insurance, or anyone, to recover damages. You will only get what the government-run insurance monopoly will give you, which is not much.
This isn't directly about insurance. This is about the government declaring that liability for most traffic accidents does not exist anymore. Which is the part that is relevant to this conversation. If liability can be extinguished wholesale for all drivers like this, then this can surely be done for self-driving cars. Not saying that it's a good idea, just that this option is on the table.
The old system was horrible though, you had to sue to get compensation, and could get sued for a fender-bender. The old system was _great_ for lawyers.
In the old system, you only had to sue for compensation if / when the government wasn't offering you what you were due. It was entirely the government's choice to drag so many cases through the courts instead of paying. But at least the judicial system eventually made you whole, if you were able to navigate it. If the government cared about us so much that they wanted to fix the system, they could have simply chosen to pay what was due from the start, saving everyone the time and the legal expenses. But they didn't.
Fraud was another concern. Huge payouts from parking lot whiplash were indeed not uncommon, with the help of lawyers. However, I fail to see how the new system was the best solution for that. They went from one extreme, where fraud was rampant, to another extreme, where we have no rights. At least the first extreme cost us only a few hundred bucks per year on average. The new extreme saves you a bit of money but leaves people injured for life with no meaningful compensation for the harm done to them.
Kind of beside the point though, regarding self-driving cars.
Clearly, eh? Spoken like someone who didn't get debilitating whiplash for years from being rear ended on a highway. My friend's vestibular system has been shot for 8 years and counting from that accident, and she still can't drive / bike / do much requiring balance/hand-eye coordination anymore. She was "lucky" this accident happened under the old system, she will at least get compensation ("will", because it's only now getting to trial, because the government insurance wouldn't pay what is due on its own, and the same government wouldn't fund the courts to provide a speedier resolution). If this accident happened today, she would have gotten peanuts that aren't enough to even offset the increased costs of life, let alone get any meaningful compensation for pain and suffering.
Do you want to tell me more about how you saving ~$500/year outweighs people like her being absolutely shafted under the new system? Please don't, I don't care. That's not why I commented.
The main purpose of my original comment wasn't to say that the new ICBC system is shitty – enough was said about that elsewhere already. It was to illustrate with a real life example that laws regarding liability can and are changed in very significant ways when the situation calls for it. Petty political reasons being as good a call as any, apparently, so I'm not worried about self-driving cars being stiffled by that. There's a sprinkle of "be careful what you wish for" in there as well, for those who see manufacturers' liability as a problem.
You could spend the rest of your life, writing anecdotes and stories, but how it will be meaningful in determining the net sum of upsides and downsides…?
That's good optics, but can you actually do that though? Like you can declare "I claim responsibility!", but in real-life, doesn't a court have to actually find you liable?
Basically yes, it's effectively just a promise, but statements like this could probably be used as evidence if it came to that. Your insurance would talk to their insurance and tell their insurance to talk to Volvo. Volvo would settle or maybe fight the case but they pinky promise not to try to push it back to you or your insurance.
Isn't that precisely what Mercedes advertises as a selling point with their self-driving technology? "Manufacturer assumes liability when Drive Pilot is on"
inb4: Drive Pilot disengages when the situation is deemed unsaveable demanding manual input and it was on until 250ms before the crash. It was mentioned on page 436 of the ToS so get bent unless it's a tiny fender bender.
Its a funny idea but we have the manual for Drive Pilot and any reasonable reading shows there is no exception like that. When the system is active the person in the driver's seat is considered the "fallback-ready user" and is explicitly encouraged to watch videos or do work while the system is active. In the event of a takeover request the user is told to first "gather your bearings" before taking over, and there is a "maximum allotted time of 10 seconds" to respond before the vehicle puts on hazards and comes to a stop.
In California, where Drive Pilot is approved, the manual is required to be included in the permit application and any "incorrect or misleading information" would at the absolute minimum be grounds for revocation of MB's permit.
Firstly thanks for the manual. It was a nice read but it's iffy. I mean...
"NOTES ON SAFE USE OF THE DRIVE PILOT
The person in the driver's seat when DRIVE PILOT is activated is designated as the fallback-ready user and should be ready to take over control of the vehicle.
The fallback-ready user must always be able to take control of the vehicle
when prompted by the system."
"WARNING
Risk of accident due to lack of readiness or ability to take over
control by the fallback-ready user.
The fallback-ready user, when prompted by the system, must be ready
to take control of the vehicle immediately.
DRIVE PILOT does not relieve you of your responsibilities beyond the
dynamic driving task when using public roads.
# Remain receptive: Pay attention to information and messages;
take over control of the vehicle when requested to do so.
# Take over control of the vehicle if irregularities are detected
aside from the dynamic driving task.
# Always maintain a correct seating position and keep your seat
belt fastened. In particular, the steering wheel and pedals
must be within easy reach at all times.
# Always ensure you have a clear view, use windshield wipers
and the airconditioning system defrost function if necessary.
# Ensure appropriate correct lighting of the vehicle, e.g. in fog."
and then we come to
"When the DRIVE PILOT is active, you can use the driving time effectively, *taking into account the previous instructions*. The information and communication
systems integrated in the vehicle are particularly suitable for this purpose, and
are easily negotiated from the control elements on the steering wheel and on
the central display."
so you can fuck around but "taking into account the previous instructions" you still "must be ready to take control of the vehicle immediately."
And crash imminent kinda sounds like it'd fit here:
"SYSTEM LIMITS
If DRIVE PILOT detects a system limit or any of the conditions for activation
are not met, it will not be possible to activate the system or the fallback-ready user will be prompted to take control of the vehicle immediately."
The "take control" of "take control of the vehicle immediately." has a defined sequence of steps of "1. Keep your eyes on the roadway and gather your bearings. 2. Put your hands on the steering wheel. 3. Steer, brake or accelerate as needed, or press one of the two buttons." Only after this sequence is completed is drive pilot disabled: "The message DRIVE PILOT Off appears on the driver display."
It strains credulity to me that MB would try to argue that "gathering your bearings" is something that a user could be expected to do instantaneously, but either way its not really necessary to speculate. California regs require that the system satisfy SAE L3 which states "At Level 3, an ADS is capable of continuing to perform the DDT (Dynamic Driving Task) for at least several seconds after providing the
fallback-ready user with a request to intervene."
There is an exception which is what MB is referencing here: "Take over control of the vehicle if irregularities are detected aside from the dynamic driving task." from J3016: "For Level 3 ADS features, a human fallback-ready user (in-vehicle or remote) is expected to respond to a request to intervene or a kinesthetically apparent vehicle failure". Basically the ADS system is not required to maintain control for a handoff for non-ADS related failures along the lines of a tire blowout or a tie-rod failure.
> This is also the main reason for promoting chip cards, sure they are more secure, but the real reason the banks like it, is that it moves credit card fraud accountability from the banks problem to your problem.
It depends on the jurisdiction. Banks like it because it improves the security, i.e. the card was physically present for the transaction, if not the cardholder or the cardholder's authority. It eradicates several forms of fraud such as magnetic stripe cloning. Contactless introduced opportunities for fraud, if someone can get within a few cm of your card, but it's generally balanced by how convenient it is, which increased the overall volume of transactions and therefore fees. It's more secure from fraud than a cardholder-not-present transaction... and for CNP, you can now see banks and authorities mandating 2FA to improve their security too.
Liability is completely seperate, and depends on how strong your financial regulator is.
Banks obviously would like to blame and put the liability on customers for fraud, identity theft, etc., it's up to politicians not to let them. For example, in the UK we have country-wide "unauthorised payments" legislation: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/752/regulation/77 -- for unauthorised payments (even with a chip and pin card), if it is an unauthorised payment, the UK cardholder is only liable for a £35 excess, and even then they are not liable for the excess if they did not know the payment took place. The cardholder is only liable if they acted fraudulently, or were "grossly negligent" (and who decides that is the bank initially, then the Financial Ombudsman if the cardholder disagrees)
There is similarly a scheme now in place even for direct account-to-account money transfers, since last October: https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2023/12/banks-scam-fr... -- so even if a crook scams you into logging into your bank's website and completely securely transferring money to them, banks are liable for that and must refund you up to £415,000 per claim, but they're allowed to exclude up to £100 excess per claim, but they can't do that if you're a "vulnerable customer" e.g. old and doddery. Also, the £100 excess is intentionally there to prevent moral hazard where bank customers get lax if they think they'll always get refunded. Seems to me like the regulator has really thought it through. The regulator also says they'll step in and change the rules again if they see that the nature of scamming changes to e.g. lots of sub-£100 fraudulent payments, so the customer doesn't report it because they think they'll get nothing back.
This is also the main reason for promoting chip cards, sure they are more secure, but the real reason the banks like it, is that it moves credit card fraud accountability from the banks problem to your problem.
Same with identity theft, there is no such thing as identity theft, it is bank fraud. But by calling it identity theft it changes the equation from a bank problem to your problem.
Companies hate accountability. And to be fair, everyone hates accountability.