• cm0002@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    You’re liable for your car no matter what

    Nope, it should be law that if an auto manufacturer sells an autonomous driving system that they advertise being able to use while driving distracted then they are liable if someone uses it as advertised and per instructions.

    What you wrote is probably an auto manufacturer executive’s wet dream.

    “You used our autonomous system to drive you home after drinking completely within advertised use and per manufacturer instructions and still got in an accident? Oh well tough shit the driver is liable for everything no matter what™️”

    • warm@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      When autonomous cars are good enough to just drive people around then yeah the companies should be liable, but right now they’re not and drivers should be fully alert as if they are driving a regular vehicle.

      • monk@lemmy.unboiled.info
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        When autonomous cars are good enough to just drive people around

        they become autonomous cars. It’s not autopilot if I’m liable, simple as that.

      • cm0002@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        but right now they’re not and drivers should be fully alert as if they are driving a regular vehicle.

        Which is what would be per manufacturer instructions, which still falls under my definition

        • warm@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Replies aren’t always in disagreement! I agree with what you are saying, just adding on my thoughts on information further up the thread too.

      • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        There are already fully autonomous taxis in some cities. Tesla is nowhere near fully autonomous, but others have accomplished it.

          • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            Fair, but when a company is given the authority to run fully autonomous taxis in cities that’s a huge accomplishment. Granted they are cities that don’t see things like snow storms and I’m sure there is a good reason for that.

      • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago
        1. Then don’t call it autopilot
        2. What’s the point of automated steering if you have to remain 100 % attentive? To spare the driver the terrible burden of moving the wheel a couple mm either way? It is well studied and observed that people are less attentive when they’re not actively driving, which, FUCKING DUH.

        Manufacturers provide this feature for the implicit purpose of enabling distracted driving. Yet they will not accept liability if someone drives distractedly.

        Next in We Are Not Liable For How Consumers Use Our Product, Elon will replace the speedometer by Candy Crush with small text that says “pwease do not use while dwiving UwU”.

        • warm@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          You choose to activate that mode, while I understand your sentiment and do agree, it’s not as cut and dry as ‘company liable’ or ‘driver liable’, both can be at fault. Taking blame off drivers entirely could make people even less attentive and the safety of lives is more important than some fines to a car manufacturer. The real problem is that mode being allowed to exist at all. It’s clearly not ready for use on public roads and companies are just abusing advertising to try and pin their ‘autopilot’ as something it isn’t.

          Also note: Some manufacturers (Volvo & Mercedes, that I know of) have already said they will claim full responsibility for their cars in self-driving mode.

        • warm@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          It’s still in its infacy, eventually it will replace humans entirely and the roads will be much safer. Right now it’s just like improved cruise control and kind of pointless.
          Some manufacturers have already said they will claim full responsibility for their cars in self-driving mode, which makes sense to do.

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            I’ll clarify: what is the actual purpose of giving customers access to this infantile technology? It doesn’t make following traffic laws easier like cruise control does, it doesn’t make drivers better at driving or safer behind the wheel, and it merely encourages distracted driving.

            So why did they ship this product? Again, it just seems like a dangerous toy.

    • lugal@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      So I say it is law last time I’ve checked (which is a while back tbh), and you say “no, it should be law” in your opinion. You see it, right?

      Autonomous systems aren’t that trustworthy yet and you shouldn’t drive drunk with them. Are they really advertised that way?