Mercedes assume legal liabilities when car self drives.

[Blumlein 88]

Mercedes To Accept Liability When Autonomous Drive Pilot Is Engaged

One major barrier to the adoption of automated driving assistants is where the responsibility will fall if there's a crash; the driver or the technology?

insideevs.com

Level 3 self driving. Driver can amuse themselves and MB has it covered if a crash happens.

 

[dasdoing]

so the ceo goes to jail if it kills someone? lol

 

[Tom C]

You have to travel 40 MPH or slower, so not legal on US interstate. Must be divided highway without stoplights or other traffic control systems. Does such a road exist?

 

[5-pot-fan]

You have to travel 40 MPH or slower, so not legal on US interstate. Must be divided highway without stoplights or other traffic control systems. Does such a road exist?

Some autobahn sections, perhaps?

 

[mhardy6647]

40 MPH or slower sounds like most US interstates... during rush hour.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Article states they still have to get USA certification.

I think it is important because full self driving will never get somewhere until the liabilities issue is resolved. One path, one I'm surprised by is for the maker to assume liabilities for the system in use. It indicates confidence in the system. So while rather restricted right now it is a path forward.

 

[Slayer]

I suspect the fine print from the legal team will be very long and with lots of wiggle room for MB.

 

[Tks]

What does this even mean "accepting liability", if they accept liability in the same fashion as if a Mercedes employer was literally transposed into the car.. Thus someone's going to jail if there is a manslaughter incident. That's fine.

But if it's simply "we will pay for warranty and health insurance damages only after having the system engaged on a road with no greater turn radius than two degrees, and only one Sundays". The heck outta here with this kindergarten level of legal nonsense.

 

[JJB70]

I can see a legal minefield and profound question about autonomous driving in that the manufacturer will be liable while the system is in control. What happens at the interface if the system decides it isn't in control? Does the 'driver' have to be ready to take control at all times? Who is liable if there's a fatal crash in the period between the autonomous system dropping out and the driver getting sufficient situational awareness and taking control of the car? If you have to be basically shadow driving ready to immediately take over from the car then I am not really sure what advantage their is in autonomous systems.
And as stated already in the thread, there's a question around liability. If you as a driver cause an incident the legal consequences can be direct and of great consequence such as lengthy prison sentences. Which is as it should be if careless driving results in injury or death for someone. I suspect this will reduce it to a financial transaction and companies will calculate their responses based on cost benefit.

 

[Chrispy]

Driver should still be responsible IMO. Don't see true corporate responsibility happening here, altho I suppose a legal possibility.

 

[Doodski]

In British Columbia Canada the Insurance Corporation of BC (A monopoly as it's the only vehicle insurance available in the province.) lobbied the government to eliminate the ability of a no-fault driver to sue the insurance company for personal injury because the insurance corporation decided to become a for-profit government corporation. To make a profit required eliminating the ability to sue the insurance corporation in court. The insurance company was awarded that legal loophole and now there is no suing for no-fault personal injury. The insurance corporation is in charge of mediation, determining who is at fault, deciding how much the medical and injury claim is worth and basically everything right down to doling out physical therapy. If a automated vehicle is operating and is insured under ICBC's rules then a no-fault driver cannot sue for damages and physical injury and life long pain and suffering. The driver would be required to play along with the insurance corporation until all avenues of recourse are exhausted and then possibly sue the car manufacturer. That could take 10 maybe 20+ years. There is more to the big picture than the picture and the real details are in the shadow behind the picture or even in the shadow of the shadow as the old saying goes. For a corporation to state it will accept fault one better check the details before buying into that. Buyer beware!

 

[Ron Texas]

Too many conditions to be worth anything. It's really just marketing at this point. The real deal is when the autopilot is the driver in all circumstances and the car can take you home from a bar while over the blood alcohol limit, and there is no human criminal liability.

 

[restorer-john]

The real deal is when the autopilot is the driver in all circumstances and the car can take you home from a bar while over the blood alcohol limit, and there is no human criminal liability.

That feature alone will sell more autonomous cars than anything else.

 

[mhardy6647]

Aircraft fly and even land themselves all of the time -- who's legally responsible for oopsies in commercial aircraft incidents?