I was wondering about why the State was included but missed it being mentioned? At any rate, unless the car somehow malfunctioned, why should the makers be liable. The driver assumes the risk when he uses the car. I had a client tell me that he had an accident because ‘you know the beeping sound it makes when a car is too close? It didn’t make that sound.’ I wanted to ask him what was he doing that he didn’t notice he was getting too close to the other car???
We all understand the liability of manufacturers when a product fails when used within both their own and any gov regulations covering the use of their product. Only Firestone was to blame when their tires failed to meet mandated laws causing accidents under normal and legally operated conditions. What if laws allowed tires under development to be sold to the public w/o meeting sidewall certification or worse, waived sidewall certs? Driverless tech cos have ALL filed waivers to recognize motorcycles while lobbying for expanded jay walking laws. This isn’t about a beeping warning, but vehs allowed to use the roads WITHOUT seeing a large portion of road users. Shouldn’t law makers share liability? And j-walking laws? What about a child chasing a ball?
I think they are not saying the state will share in the liability. They are just using the lawmaker as an input into the game algorithm because their actions will affect how liability is split between the AV and the human driver.
They wrote: “The hierarchical game helped the team to understand the human drivers’ moral hazard”. What they described as to acceptance of risk is not MORAL hazard, it’s MORALE
hazard. That’s insurance 101 folks.
We all understand the liability of manufacturers when a product fails when used within both their own and any gov regulations covering the use of their product. Only Firestone was to blame when their tires failed to meet mandated laws causing accidents under normal and legally operated conditions. What if laws allowed tires under development to be sold to the public w/o meeting sidewall certification or worse, waived sidewall certs? Driverless tech cos have ALL filed waivers to recognize motorcycles while lobbying for expanded jay walking laws. This isn’t about a beeping warning, but vehs allowed to use the roads WITHOUT seeing a large portion of road users. Shouldn’t law makers share liability? And j-walking laws? What about a child chasing a ball?
Driverless tech cos have ALL filed waivers to recognize motorcycles while lobbying for expanded jay walking laws. This isn’t about a beeping warning, but vehs allowed to use the roads WITHOUT seeing a large portion of road users. Shouldn’t law makers share liability? And j-walking laws? What about a child chasing a ball?
I didn’t read the entire article closely. Does anyone know why the State of Arizona is legally liable for that accident?
https://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/tech/2019/11/19/driver-fatal-arizona-uber-crash-mostly-blame-ntsb-report-finds/4232936002/
This article says the State of Arizona has some liability due to lack of safety requirements for autonomous vehicles.
I was wondering about why the State was included but missed it being mentioned? At any rate, unless the car somehow malfunctioned, why should the makers be liable. The driver assumes the risk when he uses the car. I had a client tell me that he had an accident because ‘you know the beeping sound it makes when a car is too close? It didn’t make that sound.’ I wanted to ask him what was he doing that he didn’t notice he was getting too close to the other car???
We all understand the liability of manufacturers when a product fails when used within both their own and any gov regulations covering the use of their product. Only Firestone was to blame when their tires failed to meet mandated laws causing accidents under normal and legally operated conditions. What if laws allowed tires under development to be sold to the public w/o meeting sidewall certification or worse, waived sidewall certs? Driverless tech cos have ALL filed waivers to recognize motorcycles while lobbying for expanded jay walking laws. This isn’t about a beeping warning, but vehs allowed to use the roads WITHOUT seeing a large portion of road users. Shouldn’t law makers share liability? And j-walking laws? What about a child chasing a ball?
I think they are not saying the state will share in the liability. They are just using the lawmaker as an input into the game algorithm because their actions will affect how liability is split between the AV and the human driver.
It wasn’t my vehicle that was to blame for my accident?!
They wrote: “The hierarchical game helped the team to understand the human drivers’ moral hazard”. What they described as to acceptance of risk is not MORAL hazard, it’s MORALE
hazard. That’s insurance 101 folks.
Nice catch!
We all understand the liability of manufacturers when a product fails when used within both their own and any gov regulations covering the use of their product. Only Firestone was to blame when their tires failed to meet mandated laws causing accidents under normal and legally operated conditions. What if laws allowed tires under development to be sold to the public w/o meeting sidewall certification or worse, waived sidewall certs? Driverless tech cos have ALL filed waivers to recognize motorcycles while lobbying for expanded jay walking laws. This isn’t about a beeping warning, but vehs allowed to use the roads WITHOUT seeing a large portion of road users. Shouldn’t law makers share liability? And j-walking laws? What about a child chasing a ball?
Driverless tech cos have ALL filed waivers to recognize motorcycles while lobbying for expanded jay walking laws. This isn’t about a beeping warning, but vehs allowed to use the roads WITHOUT seeing a large portion of road users. Shouldn’t law makers share liability? And j-walking laws? What about a child chasing a ball?