ChatterBank0 min ago
Why Would A Passenger In A Driverless Car Have To Prove They Are Not At Fault?
28 Answers
http://
..and so it begins, I've said many times that the tech is close but the real problems will be insurance and legal. This is the start of it. If we can be blamed when not driving what's the point?
..and so it begins, I've said many times that the tech is close but the real problems will be insurance and legal. This is the start of it. If we can be blamed when not driving what's the point?
Answers
Yes, no manual controls at all is the aim, anything other would be pointless and dangerous. The danger comes when there is a mix of driverless and autonomous vehicles. Once the roads are 100% driverless we will all be much safer.
17:03 Wed 23rd Nov 2016
You appear to have posted a link which actually confirms the simplicity of resolving the very issue which you are questioning:
'The Association of British Insurers wants cars to collect a basic set of core data which would be made available after an accident. The data would cover a period 30 seconds before and 15 seconds after any incident. It would include the exact location of the vehicle, whether it was in autonomous mode or under the control of the driver, and whether the motorist was in the driver's seat and had a seatbelt on.
The ABI's Director General Huw Evans says this data "would offer public reassurance by protecting motorists from being incorrectly blamed if something fails with their car, helping police investigations and supporting prompt insurance payouts."
'The Association of British Insurers wants cars to collect a basic set of core data which would be made available after an accident. The data would cover a period 30 seconds before and 15 seconds after any incident. It would include the exact location of the vehicle, whether it was in autonomous mode or under the control of the driver, and whether the motorist was in the driver's seat and had a seatbelt on.
The ABI's Director General Huw Evans says this data "would offer public reassurance by protecting motorists from being incorrectly blamed if something fails with their car, helping police investigations and supporting prompt insurance payouts."
The Insurance Companies want this data because it is very valuable. I see no reason to withhold information from them, be they must pay. The cost of gathering this information is expensive, and the owner of the vehicle has to pay for those systems when they buy the car.
Many people are using dash cams which gather information. It should be entirely voluntary that this information is submitted by the vehicle owner. It should be the same for electronic data gathered by a autonomous cars.
The insurers are being cheeky demanding this for nothing.
Many people are using dash cams which gather information. It should be entirely voluntary that this information is submitted by the vehicle owner. It should be the same for electronic data gathered by a autonomous cars.
The insurers are being cheeky demanding this for nothing.
The idea that the driver needs to prove they were not at fault is meaningless if there was no driver. But insurance companies need to control and know everything don't they. All they need to know is that the car was driving and they should be covering the no-driver-fault accidents.
It would be unwise not to make cars capable but not exclusively auto-pilot, since to do otherwise restricts the market for a particular car, and ensures when the auto-pilot fails the driver can not take over to drive it home.
I get the impression folk are making as almost as many excuses for delaying the progress of auto-pilot cars as they do for Brexit; and that's saying something.
It would be unwise not to make cars capable but not exclusively auto-pilot, since to do otherwise restricts the market for a particular car, and ensures when the auto-pilot fails the driver can not take over to drive it home.
I get the impression folk are making as almost as many excuses for delaying the progress of auto-pilot cars as they do for Brexit; and that's saying something.
this seems to be about cars that aren't totally driverless - ones where the "driver" can override the robots. If they find, for instance, that the problems are all caused by drivers, and none by the cars, then they can adjust their premiums accordingly when fully driverless cars come in.
The insurers say drivers need to be able to prove that they're not at fault if the technology goes wrong.
I don't understand that bit. As ZM says, defendants don't normally have to prove their innocence. Either the insurers or the BBC must have got that wrong?
The insurers say drivers need to be able to prove that they're not at fault if the technology goes wrong.
I don't understand that bit. As ZM says, defendants don't normally have to prove their innocence. Either the insurers or the BBC must have got that wrong?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.