Hacker News Reader

Comment by testfoobar | Hacker News Reader

Really impressive tech. I don't understand the insurance ramifications of installing and using this system.

Comma's website links to a 7 year old reddit thread: https://comma.ai/support#will-my-insurance-cover-my-car-with...

As a driver, if in an accident, could someone reasonably assert that you were not paying attention?

  - InsureCo, how may I help you?
  - Hey, I want to ask about installing a self driving module in my car...
  - Sure, you mean Tesla upgrade?
  - No, another one.
  - Another one?
  - Yeah, you remember that kid that hacked Playstation?

I think it was xbox?

No: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment_Am...

Perhaps you're thinking of Bunnie Huang, who wrote a book about reversing the xbox. I love Bunnie because he seems to be in it for the joy and the sharing of information.

Geohot (IIUC) hacked the iphone because apple didn't allow devs to run their own code at launch, and the playstation because sony removed the ability to run linux on the console. I love geohot because he seems to be in it to stick it to the man.

I think his iphone hack only involved hacking the cellular chip, so that it would work with networks other than Cingular/AT&T.

Then a Russian guy traded him a BMW for it.

At the moment in every jurisdiction I’m aware of the driver is always considered as “in charge” of the vehicle no matter what assistance functions are being used. It’s the driver’s responsibility to avoid collisions in all cases.

If you have a collision and your vehicle is judged at fault by whatever authority does it in your area the you are liable.

What if there is no driver because the car is self driving?

I assume the same as if the car owner put a brick on the gas pedal and there was no driver when it had an accident

Found the Chief Legal Officer for Waymo

"Your honor, I don't know how to explain this to you any more simply. I wasn't driving, there was a brick on the gas pedal. It's not my responsibility, not my fault!"

Okay but what if I install servos and ask Claude Code to operate the vehicle for me?

Well that will depend on your local laws, but to my knowledge except for certain authorised pilot programs all cars on the road must have a driver.

Where I live if you are in the driver’s seat no matter if you were actually actively driving you are considered to be the driver. This has been well established here in drink-driving cases, but you’d have to ask a lawyer for your area.

Mercedes Drive Pilot (“SAE Level 3”) is certified on some very specific stretches of insterstate in California to not require the driver to be responsible.

https://www.mbusa.com/en/owners/manuals/drive-pilot

Requirements:

- Stop and go traffic (or less than 40mph?)

- On some specific sections of highway

- Driver doesn’t need to monitor but must be ready to take over with 15(?) seconds of the system requesting

> Mercedes-Benz is assuming liability for any crashes or incidents that occur while the autonomous system is active

that's really dumb of Mercedes take on that liability for little benefit - sell more cars, make more profit? My prediction is MB drops this or goes bankrupt in the next 10 years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiB8GVMNJkE

Not sure you understand how "The Formula" works. The profit generated by adding this feature will outweigh the cost of any resulting accidents that they take liability for.

A less pessimistic way of phrasing it is that within the boundaries they've defined, their self driving system is so much better than a human that they're willing to assume responsibility for crashes deemed "at-fault" while using the system.

Not intentionally trying to compare that with other automakers, but Mercedes is the only "you can buy now" vehicle (ignoring robotaxis/Waymo/others) that assumes liability with those capabilities. Until other automakers provide that legal guarantee, they're parlor tricks at best that will continue to get folks killed in scenarios that they otherwise wouldn't had they been actually paying attention.

They need to take on that liability to let the human driver stop paying attention, and being able to do that is huge.

That’s what SAE L3/L4/L4 autonomous driving systems are about. The car takes full responsibility for a given set of conditions (ODD).

It's a marketing gimmick. The conditions under which it can be used are so restrictive that it's really not useful which means it will be rarely used so Mercedes exposure to liability is really quite small.

That last criterion most assuredly will not be matched here.

In an accident, culpability cannot transfer to a computer ostensibly running under your supervision. As a driver, you likely sign away all claims to blaming CommaAI when you accept the EULA & ToS updates.

I'd be more concerned about insurance being voided due to an undeclared modification to the vehicle.

In the UK any third-parties will still be compensated, but the first-party will get nothing and will struggle to get car insurance in the future.

Does Comma.AI require modifications to the vehicle? I thought it just plugged in to the CAN bus or diagnostics port.

Any competent court would find that is a modification to the prescribed operation of the vehicle.

I guess it would be like open source cruise control. In that they could assert some probability of incorrect installation that caused the accident.

No, Comma has best in class driver monitoring

I mean, just like with a Tesla, the driver is responsible for the actions taken by the car, which means you do need to be paying attention, hands on the wheel, ready to take over at all times.

We don't yet have the legal framework to say 'Sue company x, it wasn't my fault!' You get sued, then you have a very uphill battle to turn around and try to sue the company that provided the 'self driving' functionality because companies put all sorts of 'I totally accept liability for using this' in the T&C of their products.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com