nitsuj said:Wouldn't the law certainly say the person in the drivers seat was driver?
Vanadium 50 said:I posted exactly what the law said in message #274.
mfb said:The courts don't find it silly exactly because the laws can be ambiguous - they were not written with such a case in mind.
"Actual physical control" may be subject to lawyering, but is "person?" Unless you want to argue that the car's programming is a person, either the check driver was in control or no one was.Vanadium 50 said:looked it up. The legal term is "operator" and the legal definition is . "Operator" means a person who drives a motor vehicle on a highway, who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle on a highway or who is exercising control over or steering a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle.
I think the phrase "actual physical control" is subject to lawyering,
Not the programming, the programmer.TeethWhitener said:"Actual physical control" may be subject to lawyering, but is "person?" Unless you want to argue that the car's programming is a person, either the check driver was in control or no one was.
russ_watters said:Not the programming, the programmer.
Apparently this was a staged crash that the media fell for.mfb said:Self-driving car hits self-driving robot
The robot wars have begun.
A robot got lost following other robots and ended up on a street where a Tesla pushed it to the side. The driver said he was aware of the robot but didn't brake - probably because no human was in danger. The robot fell over and got damaged.
While it is interesting to learn how the robot made it to the street: The car should have avoided the robot, and it will be interesting to see Tesla's reaction to it.
256bits said:One can actually see a rope on the robot's arm.
Yes, this is a key open question. The collision avoidance and other automation features that are becoming widespread carry disclaimers in the owner's manuals that tell the driver they are responsible and not to rely on those features. It does logically make sense because those features should only kick in after the human has failed to act when they should. But that's just what their lawyers tell them to write. I don't know if they've been tested in litigation.nsaspook said:What are the limits of "Actual physical control" by a person?
As was discussed earlier in this thread, would the programmer(s) be negligent if the programming resulted in a reasonably prudent person (human level per current law) driving? If beyond human driving capabilities like LIDAR, night vision or even emergency auto-braking fail to prevent a fatal 'accident', what would be the liability if a reasonably prudent human driver would also fail without those advanced driving capabilities?
electrek wrote an article about it: A robot company stages Tesla crash as a PR stunt, media buys itCWatters said:Apparently this was a staged crash that the media fell for.
When it comes to human fault, the report noted that Herzberg had a “high concentration of methamphetamine” (more than 10 times the medicinal dose) in her blood which would alter her perception. She also had some marijuana residue. She did not look to her right at the oncoming vehicle until 1 second before the crash.
There was also confirmation that the safety driver had indeed pulled out a cell phone and was streaming a TV show on it, looking down at it 34% of the time during her driving session, with a full 5 second “glance” from 6 to 1 seconds prior to the impact.
Normally, a pedestrian crossing a high speed street outside a crosswalk would exercise some minimal caution, starting with “look both ways before crossing the street” as we are all taught as children. By all appearances, the crash took place late on a Sunday night on a largely empty road, exactly the sort of situation where a person would normally hear any approaching car well in advance, and check regularly to the right for oncoming traffic, which would be very obvious because of its headlights – obvious even in peripheral vision. Herzberg crossed obliviously, looking over just one second before impact. NTSB investigators attributed this to the meth in her system. They did not know if the concentration in her blood was going up (due to recently taken doses) and altering perception, or coming down (causing unusual moods.)