CDIO 2017 #Assignment 5 Law
# Basic Assignment - exploration of legal dimension for autonomous vehicles
As we have discussed in assignment 3, the ethnics of autonomous vehicle might impede its rapid development and make the public difficult to accept this new technology if they are misleaded by the bias and prejudice. More and more authority like government transportation agency or some organizations are working hard on issuing laws or regulations to determine the proportion of responsibility and liability. There are several intersting topics lying on this region. I would love to share some ideas about definition of driver.
Since autonomous vehicle drives itself instead of by driver, who should take responsibility if it is involved in accident. We knows the accident happened on Telsa last year that the driver dies in fatal crash when he was using autopilot mode [1]. As Telsa illustrated, the drivers have their freedom to choose the driving mode and even further detailed setting like aggressive driving mode. Although the actual driving decision during accident might be controlled by the vehicle itself, it is unacceptable by most people that the drivers are not liable when they are setting in the driver compartment. Autonomous vehicle cannot be a possible way to take away the reponsibility on drivers. Otherwise, AVs might be the next generation of killing weapon and more and more pedestrains are exposed in extremely high risk of being killed since no driver cares about whether he or she takes other's life so easily without taking any responsibiliy. The initial intention to propose autonomous vehicles is to free people from exhausting driving tasks and improve traffic efficiency and enhance safety for both driver, passenger and other road users like pedestrain instead of making it worser. Therefore, I hardly agree with the idea to remove the responsibility of drivers.
Theoritically, the algorithm that predefined in the automotive system is the one should be blame when vehicle is involved in accident. However, the vehicle itself cannot take any responsibility since we still treat as an object instead of a person with self-consciousness. Since customers cannot blame the vehicle itself, they will turn to manufacturer or system supplier to make compensation. To some extent, manufacturer should carry some part of responsibility since the system provided might cause damage on user. However, it is impossible to design a malfunction-free system to adapt for any scenarios happened in reality. Blame all the accident happened only on manufacturer? I do not think no one would like to speed uncountable amount of money to compensate only because they provide the product or service.
Meanwhile, we mentioned the possibility of being hacked for autonomous vehicle which makes the topic much more complicated. Since the existed vulnerability of AVs, legislation would love to sue the hacker for the caused accident. But if the criminal has never been spotted, the manufacturer will be the one to be a scapegoat because their cars cannot resist the hacking from others. Think about the situation that if you computer or cell phone is hacked, will you blame manufacturer of your computer or cell phone or the communication operators? I guess the answer is no. So the similar conclusion we might have in this situation as well.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/30/tesla-autopilot-death-self-driving-car-elon-musk
As we have discussed in assignment 3, the ethnics of autonomous vehicle might impede its rapid development and make the public difficult to accept this new technology if they are misleaded by the bias and prejudice. More and more authority like government transportation agency or some organizations are working hard on issuing laws or regulations to determine the proportion of responsibility and liability. There are several intersting topics lying on this region. I would love to share some ideas about definition of driver.
Since autonomous vehicle drives itself instead of by driver, who should take responsibility if it is involved in accident. We knows the accident happened on Telsa last year that the driver dies in fatal crash when he was using autopilot mode [1]. As Telsa illustrated, the drivers have their freedom to choose the driving mode and even further detailed setting like aggressive driving mode. Although the actual driving decision during accident might be controlled by the vehicle itself, it is unacceptable by most people that the drivers are not liable when they are setting in the driver compartment. Autonomous vehicle cannot be a possible way to take away the reponsibility on drivers. Otherwise, AVs might be the next generation of killing weapon and more and more pedestrains are exposed in extremely high risk of being killed since no driver cares about whether he or she takes other's life so easily without taking any responsibiliy. The initial intention to propose autonomous vehicles is to free people from exhausting driving tasks and improve traffic efficiency and enhance safety for both driver, passenger and other road users like pedestrain instead of making it worser. Therefore, I hardly agree with the idea to remove the responsibility of drivers.
Theoritically, the algorithm that predefined in the automotive system is the one should be blame when vehicle is involved in accident. However, the vehicle itself cannot take any responsibility since we still treat as an object instead of a person with self-consciousness. Since customers cannot blame the vehicle itself, they will turn to manufacturer or system supplier to make compensation. To some extent, manufacturer should carry some part of responsibility since the system provided might cause damage on user. However, it is impossible to design a malfunction-free system to adapt for any scenarios happened in reality. Blame all the accident happened only on manufacturer? I do not think no one would like to speed uncountable amount of money to compensate only because they provide the product or service.
Meanwhile, we mentioned the possibility of being hacked for autonomous vehicle which makes the topic much more complicated. Since the existed vulnerability of AVs, legislation would love to sue the hacker for the caused accident. But if the criminal has never been spotted, the manufacturer will be the one to be a scapegoat because their cars cannot resist the hacking from others. Think about the situation that if you computer or cell phone is hacked, will you blame manufacturer of your computer or cell phone or the communication operators? I guess the answer is no. So the similar conclusion we might have in this situation as well.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/30/tesla-autopilot-death-self-driving-car-elon-musk
Comments
Post a Comment