[LINK] Robot cars and the fear gap

[Michael]

On 14 July 2016 at 18:13, David Lochrin <dlochrin at key.net.au> wrote:

>
> <snip>
> The core question is to what extent people are to be held responsible for
> their actions.  Is a driverless car which kills someone the responsibility
> of the owner, the maunfacturer, the agency which approved it, or nobody?
>

I think we can answer this.
Consider the simple cruise control feature of modern cars.
If you engage it, then carelessly collide with somebody, you cannot
reasonably argue that the manufacturer or government is to blame for
allowing the tool.
Now consider an advanced cruise control that provides steering and breaking
in some circumstances. Again, we can simply state the driver is responsible
if they do not take adequate care in its operation.

Extrapolate to a circumstance where the car effectively does all the
driving and the person in the front seat is really just a passenger, yet
they retain a steering wheel, brakes etc.
Even if the driver lets the car drive itself 100% of the time, we can still
hold the driver responsible for making that choice should the robot driver
drive poorly because we expect the human to be supervising.

Extrapolate yet again to a future where self-driving cars have dramatically
lowered road crash incidence, and everyone places almost complete faith in
their superior driving ability. Perhaps the mechanism is as reliable as an
automatic transmission is today. We don't insist on a manual clutch in case
the auto transmission fails. We, rightly, expect it to perform flawlessly
all the time. But on rare occasions, auto transmissions do fail. And it is
possible that failure might cause an accident.

Such a circumstance needn't hold the manufacturer liable, if they were not
negligent, and would be highly unlikely to see the driver charged, as an
unforeseen mechanical failure of such rarity can't be readily blamed on the
driver's negligence. For calculations of fault, etc. we would likely agree
the driver's insurance must pay for repairs, medical bills etc. But being
'at fault' does not mean the driver was negligent.

So I can see a circumstance where insurers absorb the risk of a failed
robot driver mechanism as part of the bundle of risks they insure against.
And I can also see them clamouring to do so, if indeed the robot drivers
prove safer over time.

Best regards,
Michael Skeggs