Hacker News Reader

> " The question is where that line will be in the myriad of situations that will be more complex due to the the introduction of automation."

It will be determined via litigation, as it is now. Technological complexity of subject matter has yet to present any serious roadblock, or cause any significant change, in the prosecution of the law.

Similarly, whether neglected maintenance (or third-party modifications/parts) contributed to a collision will be determined in court, just as it is now.

As a side note: given the service opportunities afforded by self-driving vehicles, I would be surprised if operators and insurers didn't subsidize or operate "while you sleep" maintenance service plans. e.g. Once a month or so, while you sleep, your car will drive itself to the shop to get checked out, ensure updates are received, recall services performed, etc.

Manufacturers would add a revenue stream and lower their legal costs/exposure and consumers would have yet-another-hassle of car ownership removed.

Technological complexity of subject matter has yet to present any serious roadblock, or cause any significant change, in the prosecution of the law.

Ridiculous. To cite only one counterexample, self-driving cars will make the controversy over the EU's "right to be forgotten" law look like a polite discussion over a beer.

That said, the problems are solvable and we'll all ultimately be better off for facing them.

>> has yet to present any serious roadblock

> To cite only one counterexample, self-driving cars will make...

Hey, something's not right... ;).

Please clarify your point with a non-circular example.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're asking.

I read your comment as following:

> ... it has yet to happen ...

Ridiculous. To cite only one counterexample, it will happen.

Correct, that's what I said. The OP claimed that technical implementation problems were not considered a stumbling block for legislation, and I mentioned the "right to be forgotten" mess as a counterexample, where a fundamentally unfair, unworkable law has created a new human right out of thin air, one that's causing a lot of trouble for Google and other search engine providers.

I expect it will be just like what happens when billion pound construction projects go wrong. There is already a specialised civil court that decides on these types of cases in the UK; the Technology and Construction Court.

> "self-driving cars will make the controversy over the EU's "right to be forgotten" law look like a polite discussion over a beer."

You misunderstand me. Of course self-driving cars will generate many and expensive legal fights. But those lawsuits will look much like any of our current lawsuits.

That the courts don't understand the technology will not stop jury trials from deciding liability, just as courts not understanding genetic evidence doesn't stop them from throwing people in jail for life based on misunderstandings.

That legislators don't understand the technology will not stop laws from being written any more than their not understanding criminal justice stops them from writing self-defeating "tough on crime" laws and "prison as punishment" regulations that only increase recidivism and multiply the social cost of crimes.

My point is that courts and legislators not having an understanding, let alone answers, is not a stumbling block to self-driving cars. It won't prevent self-driving cars from moving forward until and unless it's addressed.

They'll just blunder through it, making a mess, making mistakes, as they've done with everything else.

> would there be regular sensor cleaning/calibration tasks that need to be met before the manufacturer is deemed liable? What about tire pressure?

As someone from the UK, I'm amazed that isn't the case. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOT_test#Overview_of_the_test

I'm actually from the UK as well, and am constantly surprised that in some US states there are no mandatory inspections of roadworthy-ness.

This is hardly the first case of distributed liability. It's just not that complicated, and certainly not an obstacle to such a beneficial technology.