In a victory for consumers, California regulators stuck down a suggested plan that would have limited automaker’s liability with regards to self-driving cars, The Associated Press reported last Saturday.
The plan, suggested by General Motors, would have left consumers and riders in self-driving cars responsible in the event of a crash in certain circumstances. For example, if the owner hadn’t cleaned the sensors properly and a wreck ensued, the owner would be responsible. Non-profit advocacy group Consumer Watchdog called it a “major victory for consumers.”
The suggested rule is a far cry from GM’s recent public stance on self-driving car liability. GM’s head of innovation, Warwick Stirling, said in October, “If the driver is not driving, the driver is not liable. The car is driving.”
The California Department of Motor Vehicles will continue to take comments on the new changes until December 15, but the new rules will go into effect early next year.
Comments
I find that decision confusing. So if a regular car has worn wipers or bad headlights, and the driver crashes because of poor visibility, it is the manufacturer’s blame, too? If the autonomous car manufacturer is getting all the blame, then they have to add self-testing diagnostics to confirm all sensors are functioning if the owner doesn’t check or clean them. That will make them more expensive. I see that hiring a human driver will still be cheaper than owning an autonomous car.
Yup, let’s get the consumer back in charge of the vehicle. Let’s get rid of starter motors (that’s $2000), self-oiling (another $2500), get rid of the canopy and all that dangerous glass (saving $10,000), seat belts-&-tensioners ($3000), big wheels and wide pneumatic tires have to go ($7500), why bother with gearboxes, just set the final drive at 5:1 (saving $15,000, well until you get to the gas station anyway), no need for upholstery ($7500), no air-con ($3000)…
We could save so much money if we just took care of everything ourselves, right? Y’know, we could just use our feet and not spend anything at all.
Read Cycle World’s Kevin Cameron on the subject of “useless tech” and see what he thinks…
Yes, because no one should ever be held accountable for their actions or omissions, even if it causes an accident, there is always someone else to blame.
Whoever has the deepest pockets!
Dear Raymondjram, What you say makes sense. By the way, the Chevy Bolt has a rear camera that cleans itself when you turn on the rear window spray cleaner. A sensor could easily be installed to clean each camera lens automatically if it senses that it is dirty. This is just an evolution of autonomy similar in vain to adaptive cruse control where the car that has Adaptive cruse control slows down automatically if the car in front slows down. Of course, if the car senses that the camera is dirty and has run out of cleaning fluid then the self-driving car should not allow itself to drive. I can see hoodlums putting black tape over the camera lenses of a car in a parking lot and then when you command you car via your phone app to pick you up, it won’t be able to. I can see a future were cameras on self-driving cars will become obsolete, replaced with non-optical sensors that can not be thwarted. Yes, initially self-driving cars will be very expensive, but as with all technology the price will go down. I did love riding the Chicago EL train to work and not have to worry about driving. I could just take a nap. That is what I’d like to do in a self-driving car, but that is at least 4 years away and more when it becomes affordable.
Communists are like that, blame the whole world’s problems on companies.
this should help kill the self driving cars in calif. looks like the manufactures did not come thru with donations to the pols campaigns.
This is going to be a major issue moving forward.
The fights are going to be between mfg, owners and other drivers all passing the buck. Then insurance companies will try to pass the buck to who ever they do not insure.
Just as sure car rust autonomous will also crash. The only winners in this will be lawyers.
Next what will happen too is at some point freedom of movement will come into play. The Governent will give you slots to travel we’re and when they want you to go. Just as air traffic controllers we will have traffic controllers.
The odds are good you may get off work at 5 pm but you will not get a slot till 6 pm. Or you may want to go home by a certain place to shop but they may not let you go there.
You know they will term this all for the greater good you know.
Your freedoms will be restricted at some point because the governent know better.
“Your freedoms will be restricted at some point because the governent know better.”
And you’re incapable of walking, using a bike, or taking a bus? Do you know that car ownership is not a right?
The government can already restrict your use of a car that you legally own if you’re breaking the law, so why would you get bent out of shape if they do so now? They can suspend or revoke your licence due to your failure to observe traffic laws. If you’re a DUI offender you may be required to use an ignition inter-lock system before you use your car. Your car can fail smog and safety inspections. Driving without snow tires can also be grounds for a government to keep you from driving.
I think your mistake is in your thinking that driving is a legal right, and that legal rights are equatable to constitutional freedoms. The right of free travel isn’t exclusive to the operation and ownership of a car within the United States. It describes the movement of people independent of their means of transport.
Driving isn’t a right or a freedom. It’s a privilege. Abuse the privilege of driving, and a government has the legal authority to take your driving privileges away from you, either for a period of time or indefinitely.
Lastly, even if the ‘slot’ idea of yours is true (I don’t think it is because V2V communications as developed by the manufactures wouldn’t allow for slots to occur in the first place), you have other means of travel that aren’t restricted by the government.
Dear Grawdaddy, That is a good point. Let me add that the government requires everyone to have liability auto insurance, you can not drive a car without it and for good reason. I hear so many people complain about too many government regulations, but most of those regulations are there to protect you, the consumer, the citizen. Having a well run government with common sense regulations is a good thing, not a bad thing. If we don’t have government then we have chaos and we would live like the cavemen did before civilization.
Generally, and I would think it’s the same for any first world nation, nobody really “likes” their nation’s government. They are, in some ways, a ugly tumour that comes with every civilization, and from that tumour grows curly hairs of corruption or pustulantances of hypocrisy or painful swelling of influence peddling.
Then there are tumours that are beign and harmless that end up becoming birthmarks and moles. You can think these as the regulatory actions of government that protects public safety and the safety of the nation as a whole, of which such marks describe the skin of a civilization unto the world.
So yeah, not all tumours are bad, and neither is everything a government does. A mole can be a distinguishing characteristic of person as much as the protected right of voting is to a nations identity. It’s those tumours or governments that creep up quickly that you need to be wary of.
This has to be expected until the software accumulates sufficient number of hours that demonstrate itself as being as good (if not better) as human drivers because a small mistake can cause death and mayhem on the roads.