On Sunday, 17 March 2019 15:17:20 AEDT Stephen Loosley wrote:
The Tesla Team 1 March, 2019
https://www.tesla.com/en_AU/blog/upgrading-autopilot-and-full-self-driving-capability
[...]
Full Self-Driving capability includes Navigate on Autopilot, Advanced Summon,
Auto Lane Change, Autopark and, later this year, will recognize and respond to
traffic lights.
On 17/3/19 4:53 pm, David wrote:
So does "full self driving" mean I can sit on the back set and read a book? I suspect
that phrase is just marketing hyperbole, but the mere possibility makes me feel "incredibly
excited".
It means whatever the reader wants it to mean. The lawyers will have
ensured that there are just enough weasel-words just close enough to the
marketing fluff that accusations of constructive misrepresentation will
fail, i.e. it's officially vacuous and non-credible.
Does anyone know how Australian legislation regards self-driving vehicles? How would
criminal and/or civil responsibility be partitioned between a human "driver"
and their vehicle in the event of an accident?
Does an injured party have any _practical_ recourse against whatever legal
entities (manufacturer, subcontractors, service agents, government type
approval agencies, etc.) are associated with the vehicle? Or would the
argument get mired in proprietary algorithms?
You could even imagine a dispute between the manufacturer and a
local-government authority about whether a road was suitable for driverless
vehicle operation.
> But I suppose we'll see another example of the socialisation of
corporate liability, this time via compulsory third-party insurance.
The third para. of s.4.2 of this paper says:
http://rogerclarke.com/EC/AIR.html#LS
>In relation to autonomous motor vehicles, a number of jurisdictions
have enacted laws. See Palmerini et al. (2014, pp.36-73), Holder et al.
(2016), DMV-CA (2018), Vellinga (2017), which reviews laws in the USA at
federal level, California, United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, and
Maschmedt & Searle (2018), which reviews laws in three States of
Australia. Such initiatives have generally had a strong focus on
economic motivations, the stimulation and facilitation of innovation,
exemptions from some existing regulation, and limited new regulation or
even guidance. One approach to regulation is to leverage off natural
processes. For example, Schellekens (2015) argued that a requirement of
obligatory insurance was a sufficient means for regulating liability for
harm arising from self-driving cars.
So check Maschmedt & Searle (2018) at:
>https://www.kwm.com/en/au/knowledge/insights/driverless-vehicle-trial-legislation-nsw-vic-sa-20180227
(I've just finalised and submitted those three papers - and thanks to
the couple of people who offered comments! I haven't gone into the
specific question any further than the above - but my cynicism is at
exactly the same level as David L.'s
--
Roger Clarke mailto:[email protected]
T: +61 2 6288 6916 http://www.xamax.com.au http://www.rogerclarke.com
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law University of N.S.W.
Visiting Professor in Computer Science Australian National University
_______________________________________________
Link mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
