Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

This doesn't seem unreasonable.

If you consider that it is the driver who is liable today for road traffic incidents (including failing to adapt to environmental conditions)... then why wouldn't the "driver" still be liable when the driver changes?

https://www.synopsys.com/automotive/autonomous-driving-level...

In this it's plain that Level 3 autonomy is the first level where it's considered that the car is the driver. This is what Mercedes are proposing, to accept that the sum of software and hardware that they provide at Level 3, assuming it's used in the situations and conditions described, is the driver and that they are liable.

Those caveats seem reflected in what they're proposing (if the article is accurate), and it seems reasonable.




Legal liability seems like a much cleaner way to define autonomy for the general public than the SAE levels. If the person is responsible anything the car is doing is assistance or aid. If the manufacturer owns liability it's some level of autonomous. There needs to be some kind of law about how long the car has to alert the driver before handing over liability, but beyond that it's a much cleaner divide.

This would also solve issues like Tesla naming their level 2 systems 'Autopilot' and 'Full Self Driving'. I love my Model 3, but those names are deeply misleading at best and downright fraudulent at worst. The FTC really needs to step in and regulate what manufacturers can claim based on liability.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: