The online edition of The New York Times, today, discusses the legislative issues related to driverless cars. The article pointed out that in today's mature autonomous driving technology, how to define the legal responsibilities related to this new technology has become a top priority.
The following is an excerpt from the New York Times article "When a driverless car smashes a red light":
Undoubtedly, driverless car technology is almost mature enough for the public to use. Google recruited reporters in Mountain View on Tuesday to prepare for public display of their auto products. Automakers such as BMW and Toyota are also preparing to sell cars that can be driven by themselves.
However, for driverless cars, a bigger problem comes from the legal side: Who should be legally responsible when things go wrong?
It stands to reason that a driverless car should be much safer than a normal car because it does not make the mistakes humans make. However, this does not seem to be enough to avoid traffic accidents. What should I do if a driverless car hits someone? Or take less serious things as an example. If the driverless car does not notice the parking sign prohibiting; if the Google map navigation is wrong, the driverless car will be retrograde on the one-way line, then who should pay the ticket?
As robots become mainstream applications, legislators must figure out how to manage machines and how to hold software accountable. In the United States, only four states and the District of Columbia have laws that regulate driverless cars. Some places only allow manufacturers to test cars, and no one is prepared for all legal issues that may arise.
But lawyers, academics, and car designers say that all of these issues are unlikely to stop driverless cars from getting on the road. The reason is that the current liability law has given some specifications. The bigger obstacle than the law may actually be the public's own instinct to the robot.
Things might be like this. After receiving the ticket, the owner will probably pay the fine, even if the car is illegal and not the owner.
In the more serious traffic accidents that cause casualties, although the parties involved may sue each other, it is ultimately the responsibility of car manufacturers such as Google and BMW to bear at least the responsibility for civil compensation.
The manufacturer is responsible for defective products, which is called the Product Liability Act. John Villasenor, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles and a member of the Brookings Institution, wrote in an article last month on the guiding principles of driverless car legislation, this law and new technology Adapted.
Vivorsino writes that after the product is sold, the responsibility of the manufacturer to find the problem is less clear, such as a flawed software upgrade to the self-driving car. But there are legal precedents, especially those with legal precedents for cars, and those who pay attention to the recent frequent recalls of cars know this.
“I often joked that the big losers in the future would be defense lawyers,†the professor said.
Vivosno said that insurance companies can also benefit from it, and even reward users who use driverless cars. Ryan Calo, who studies robotics at the University of Washington Law School, predicts that trouble-free car insurance will reappear. According to the regulations of this insurance, the insurer is responsible for compensation regardless of who is at fault.
Criminal punishment is another matter. The reason is simple. Robots cannot be charged with crime.
Carlo said: "The criminal law must investigate the criminal intent. This is a specific state of mind - see if this person is intentional. If no one drives a car, it is difficult to judge."
When a major accident first occurs, it may be the public relations department of the car manufacturer, not the lawyer.
Bryant Walker Smith, a researcher at the Center for Automation Research at Stanford University, said: "What makes people fear is the headline "Machine kills children," instead of 30,000 people dying every year in a car accident. Numbers. This is the fear of robots. What is even more intimidating is that a machine malfunctions and takes control from people. We have already seen this in the accidental acceleration of Toyota cars, and the parties will tell you that they have lost. The control of the car is a terrible thing."
However, robot cars are no more scary than other new technologies. According to data from the Pew Research Center, nearly half of Americans said they could accept driverless cars. Driverless cars are much more popular than drones and implantable chips.
So the biggest question about driverless cars is: When can we get on one?
Pcb Pluggable Terminal Block Connector ,Pluggable Terminal Block,Contact Pluggable Terminal Blocks ,Pluggable Screw Terminal
Cixi Xinke Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. , https://www.cxxinke.com