Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Who To Blame
If and when cars become driverless, who will get the blame for an accident.
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
"If and when cars become driverless,.
14:58 Fri 12th Apr 2019
It will be exactly as it is now. After the accident evidence will be taken from both cars, which will have a "Black Box" fitted; unlike people the black boxes will not lie. The evidence will be examined and blame allocated. The software will then be upgraded to ensure that the same incident does not happen again, unlike in the case of human drivers, many of which seen incapable of learning or caring about their actions.
"If and when cars become driverless,..."
I think the first word is the most pertinent as far as this question goes. But there's far more to it than insurance liabilities. There's the question of just what "driverless" really means. I don't think Parliament has yet decided the interpretation. I think there are many issues to consider with Road Traffic legislation. If the vehicle contravenes any road traffic laws (e.g. by speeding, ignoring traffic signals, etc. is nobody to blame?) Furthermore, supposing the car is directed to stop by a police officer (and it presumably will not recognise that it has to do so) who is responsible for that? I cannot see Parliament allowing driverless vehicles on the road where nobody is responsible for its safe operation or where they (the occupant) is not expected to remain fit and alert. Can the occupant be drunk? Can he be asleep? Can he read the paper or watch the telly? I think "driverless" is going to have to be very tightly defined and the role and responsibility of the occupant clearly defined.
I think the first word is the most pertinent as far as this question goes. But there's far more to it than insurance liabilities. There's the question of just what "driverless" really means. I don't think Parliament has yet decided the interpretation. I think there are many issues to consider with Road Traffic legislation. If the vehicle contravenes any road traffic laws (e.g. by speeding, ignoring traffic signals, etc. is nobody to blame?) Furthermore, supposing the car is directed to stop by a police officer (and it presumably will not recognise that it has to do so) who is responsible for that? I cannot see Parliament allowing driverless vehicles on the road where nobody is responsible for its safe operation or where they (the occupant) is not expected to remain fit and alert. Can the occupant be drunk? Can he be asleep? Can he read the paper or watch the telly? I think "driverless" is going to have to be very tightly defined and the role and responsibility of the occupant clearly defined.
The concept has little value until it is truly driverless and you can have a nap in the back on route. Companies aren't investing on the assumption of having no market. Meanwhile there has to be different grades of 'driverless'. Maybe someday all road accidents will be 'no fault' and bills paid from the insurance kitty we all have to pay into.
"Its understood that if the accident caused by driver less car and the car which is hit by driver less car and it had the video in its dash cam and its got proven than company should be responsible who made that driver less car and bring it on the road."
Really? Who is that understood by, because I've seen nothing to suggest such a thing. Presumably the company that makes a carving knife is responsible if somebody uses it to stab somebody else.
Really? Who is that understood by, because I've seen nothing to suggest such a thing. Presumably the company that makes a carving knife is responsible if somebody uses it to stab somebody else.
if I took even the thickest human and put them in my kitchen and said make a cup of tea with no other instructions, assuming all the things they needed were in there, they would. We cannot even begin to write the algorithm for that let alone one to handle the roads and their contents. This is a phlogiston episode.
1 to 19 of 19
