Hacker News Reader

> I love Tesla, but make Tesla liable for this.

This is such a slippery slope, especially in lawsuit crazy USA.

> I wouldn't be a "beta tester" of self-driving technology for at least the first 10 years.

Yes, I totally agree.

> Make them pay for every accident that happens because of their technology, and you'll see how quickly they improve it and how carefully they release the technology.

I don't agree that the civil legal system is the right way to solve this. I also don't believe software developers for Tesla should be criminally charged for the death of drivers if it's shown that the software developers were not negligent.

What I really want to see happen, is that any autonomous cars have their software independently and fully audited before they're shipped in production vehicles.

This way, there is a neutral third party, certified by the NTSB, that certifies whether a self-driving car is road legal.

We hold drivers responsible if they kill someone while behind the wheel. I think that we're setting ourselves for a dangerous precedent if we also expect to hold software developers criminally liable. This is why the software in self driving cars must be audited and certified. This means there is a legal burden on software developers to provide safe software, and it removes the criminal liability component should there be a crash.

Treat self driving car crashes less like a witch hunt, and more like an airplane accident. In airplane accidents, no one is trying to point the finger, everyone is simply trying to determine the cause, and how it can be avoided in the future.

> Other regulations may not be sufficient on their own anyway, and the auto-makers will just do the minimum necessary to comply with them

Exactly. This is why tougher regulations are needed. IIRC even ECU code in ICE cars is currently audited. This emerged during the Toyota accelerator lawsuit.[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9643204

Part of the issue, of course, in America, is... who's going to pay everything necessary to get an injured person's life back on track?

> Make them pay for every accident that happens because of their technology, and you'll see how quickly they improve it and how carefully they release the technology.

...or you'll see how quickly the industry dies off instead of pursuing the technology. I am not sure I want driverless car tech to go the way nuclear tech did in the 70's (via fear, banned tech, and large introduction of costly regulations). Some kind of balance is needed. An extreme solution won't be beneficial in the long run.

Actually, the semi driver is almost certainly liable.[0]

[0] http://www.salterhealy.com/blog/who-is-at-fault-in-a-left-ha...

Sorry, but I disagree entirely.

>Autopilot has been used for more than 130 million miles, noting that, on average, a fatality occurs every 94 million miles in the US and every 60 million miles worldwide.

This technology, even if imperfect, serves to make driving safer for the user, not the other way around. It's your choice not to be a beta tester; certainly no one will be forcing you.

And as others have said, the one at fault in this particular accident is the (very human) semi truck driver.

I disagree. Tesla should only be liable if it made false promises (i.e. advertising "read a book while driving"), but that does not seem to be the case.

By that logic, it is your vehicle and completely your choice to use the technology included or not.

Should manufacturers be liable if a driver using cruise control rear ends someone?