Imagine someday soon you‘re riding comfortably along the highway while your electric car smoothly steers, accelerates and brakes on its own. No need to stress in traffic or get drowsy behind the wheel after your EV seamlessly handles the entire drive for you. Many automakers sell vehicles today with such autonomous self-driving capabilities. But the technology remains imperfect…
So what happens when one of these sci-fi vehicles causes a collision while operating independently? Who ultimately bears responsibility – the human onboard, the carmaker or someone else entirely?
As an auto industry insider, I often get asked about accident liability as self-driving cars go mainstream. Let‘s explore this issue‘s key dimensions so you can make informed decisions if considering a semi-autonomous EV.
Most Drivers Remain Wary of Self-Driving Car Safety
While the notion of kicking back while your vehicle chauffeurs you around sounds enticing, surveys show more than 60% of Americans still don‘t trust autonomous technology. Can you blame them though?
News headlines frequently highlight deadly mishaps involving semi-self-driving cars from Tesla, Uber, and other developers. Recent federal data tallied nearly 400 U.S. crashes over 10 months involving vehicles capable of autonomous operation.
Many accidents occurred while humans shared control with auto-steering systems or inattentively over-relied on error-prone automation. Most were minor fender benders – but some proved catastrophic.
Understandably drivers, insurers and safety advocates grow skeptical of manufacturer promises as crashes continue plaguing automated vehicles still requiring human monitoring at this stage. But who bears ultimate responsibility when things go wrong? Unpacking the autonomobile black box…
Self-Driving Tech 101
While visions of fully autonomous cars ferrying passengers like robotic chauffeurs fill pop culture, that reality remains years off. Today so-called "self-driving vehicles" rely on ever-advancing yet fallible machine assistance called ADAS (Advanced Driver Assistance Systems).
ADAS technology spans sensing equipment like cameras, radar and LIDAR feeding inputs to powerful vehicle computers. Algorithms then crunch this data to operate essential functions like:
- Automatic Emergency Braking
- Adaptive Cruise Control
- Lane Keeping Assist
- Automated Parking
- Actual Self-Driving (future)
The auto industry categorizes ADAS/autonomy capability across five levels:
| Level | Definition | Example Vehicles |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | No Assistance | Traditional Cars |
| 1 | Basic Assistance | Honda Civic |
| 2 | Partial Autonomy | Tesla Model 3 |
| 3 | Conditional Autonomy | Mercedes S-Class |
| 4-5 | Full Autonomy | Not Yet Released |
As this technology infiltrates mainstream models, understanding its maturity level helps set proper expectations around safety and crash liability. So far partial-automation like Tesla‘s infamous "Autopilot" causes the most ambiguity legally when accidents strike.
Self-Driving Crashes Keep Occurring
Over their flood of benefits, ADAS-equipped vehicles still crash surprisingly often. Tesla‘s multiple collisions while Autopilot engaged brought intense NHTSA scrutiny lately. However investigations largely blamed drivers misusing the tech versus intrinsic system defects. Some critics argue the automation encourages dangerous complacency instead of supplementing watchful humans though.
Reviewing NHTSA‘s latest figures on U.S. crashes involving ADAS or autonomous driving features proves illuminating:
Key takeaways:
- 392 total crashes logged over 10 months
- 273 incidents involved Teslas; 70% of overall crashes
- 6 fatalities confirmed
- Sample skews higher-severity due to relying on voluntary reporting
The data indicates semi-automated vehicles don‘t prevent all accidents as advertised. Yet pinning down exactly why these crashes persist, and who deserves fault, requires deeper digging…
Many Factors Determine Blame for Self-Driving Car Accidents
Teasing apart culpability for two traditional human-operated vehicles colliding already gives insurers headaches. Adding autonomous systems with minds of their own further complicates matters exponentially.
However liability investigations now consider several key questions:
How Well Was the ADAS System Working?
- Did sensors feed accurate, up-to-date environmental data to the vehicle computer?
- Were critical objects, obstacles or road conditions misinterpreted or missed entirely?
- Did the automation make appropriate driving decisions based on the inputs received?
- Or was it overwhelmed, experiencing errors or asked to exceed design limits?
To What Extent Was the Human Driver Involved?
- Were they alert and ready to intervene in the vehicle at all times as legally required?
- Or were they distracted – sleeping, texting, playing games, etc?
- Did they attempt to override or deactivate crucial ADAS features leading up to the crash?
How Much Did External Factors Play a Role?
- Adverse weather decreasing sensor visibility?
- Unexpected pedestrian behavior?
- Poorly marked construction zones?
- Other vehicles‘ reckless maneuvers?
Forensic investigators dig into vehicle computers and even witness accounts to recreate the seconds preceding impacts. They input findings into "liability scorecards" weighting the relative influence of automation deficiencies, human errors, and environmental variables based on crash specifics.
While this analysis isn‘t bulletproof, it narrows down likely primary culpability sources case-by-case. Think automotive CSI!
Of course even "open and shut" collisions still experience extended legal wrangles nowadays…
High-Profile Court Battles Set Early Liability Precedents
With so much ambiguity around autonomous vehicle fault, crashes involving ADAS regularly spur protracted lawsuits seeking legal clarity. Early verdicts establish precedent on this issue‘s evolution.
Examine a couple key cases:
Tesla Slams Into Overturned Truck – Fault Undetermined
The Crash: A speeding Tesla Model S crashed into an overturned truck on a Taiwan highway in 2018 while Autopilot engaged, killing the Tesla driver. The vehicle didn‘t brake for the obstruction.
Legal Details: Victim‘s family sued Tesla arguing Autopilot failed alerting to stalled vehicle. But Tesla countered no system could‘ve detected the unique overturned object in the given conditions. Inconclusive ruling to date.
Uber PROTOTYPE Kills Pedestrian – multidirectional blame
The Crash: Homeless woman Elaine Herzberg fatally struck crossing street at night during Uber‘s 2018 Arizona self-driving test. The backup safety driver seemed distracted.
Legal Details: National Transportation Safety Board assigned INTERMEDIATE liability between all involved parities – Uber, backup driver, victim, regulators. But delayed criminal trial still ongoing as of 2022 with no charges yet filed.
The prolonged battle for justice after such incidents shows why many victims and consumer groups demand legislators mandate greater autonomous vehicle oversight and minimum performance standards sooner rather than later. But as long as semi-self-driving cars depend on watchful humans working symbiotically with AI, hammering out everyone‘s responsibilities following the inevitable crashes remains tricky business.
How Insurers Respond to the Unknowns
Given the myriad unresolved questions around assigning blame for ADAS accidents, insurance providers grow increasingly uneasy with risks associated with semi-autonomous vehicles. Actuaries can‘t yet confidently predict future claim volumes or payouts, meaning policies stay quite restrictive.
Some carriers now allow add-on coverage for autonomous tech accidents with many limitations. Compared to ordinary policies however, self-driving car insurance features strikingly less generous terms:
|| Traditional Car Insurance | Self-Driving Car Insurance |
|-|-|-|
|Premium Cost | Base Rate | +15% Surcharge |
|Payout Limits|Typically Equal to Liability Limits| Sparse Sub-Limits |
|Exclusions | Standard Exclusions Like DUI | New Exclusions Like "Failure to Monitor" |
Consumers face paying more for less coverage that may prove insufficient in a serious crash. So motorists eager adopting ADAS must weigh higher financial liability risks the same as physical ones.
Insurers say greater legal clarity around accident fault would enable pricing products more affordably. But until technology and regulations mature, underwriters lean cautiously. Autonomy-related claims also frequently involve costly processing and payouts thanks to their technical complexity compared to fender benders.
As actuary Jean Lemaire explains, "Insurers feel in the dark today guessing at liability for autonomy suites assisting drivers to wildly varying degrees. Time may reveal patterns around system strengths, limitations and ideal human oversight minimizing losses. For now however we simply can‘t confidently rate the risk of the latest vehicle automation features."
So while ADAS technology remains young and still-evolving, expect insurance offerings to stingily straddle the line between profitability and denial. But eventually mature autonomous platforms should theoretically all but eliminate unsafe driving behaviors and drastically simplify accident liability. Until then however, buyer beware!
How Can Responsibility Be Better Determined?
As ADAS collision litigation clogs courts alienating consumers, how could liability be assigned more smoothly? Streamlining resolutions benefits all parties through reducing legal costs and uncertainty that currently stifle adoption.
Many experts believe self-driving systems must get treated akin to commercial operators like airlines or industrial equipment makers. Reason being passengers entrust their safety to the programmed decisions of artificial intelligence beyond their comprehension or control.
That differs from traditional vehicles where drivers consciously control outcomes moment-to-moment. So ensuring developers build autonomous functionality to strict safety standards seems prudent rather than allowing them to beta test half-baked tech on public motorways. Policymakers just need digesting these distinctions to enact apt reforms.
Ideally future formal regulations would:
-
Institute minimum performance benchmarks for sensory acuity and driving response times preventing many systemic deficiencies currently blamed for crashes
-
Standardize unambiguous terminology around operability domains to appropriately set user expectations and ensure proper feature engagement
-
Incentivize automakers voluntarily sharing opaque vehicle data to resolve questions around control authority and precise accident triggers after the fact
-
Loosen restrictions on currently-scarce AV insurance products as predictable risks get priced more accurately over time
Additionally, clearly delineating remaining responsibility across human users and artificial systems based on their relative accident contributions would simplify quarreling over fractions of blame today. Apportioned liability matches makers to oversight capabilities.
Through such measures, over time self-driving technology could transform transportation‘s safety and accessibility enormously. But achieving that potential requires public and private sectors proactively addressing the transitional growing pains currently eroding confidence.
While crashes likely can‘t get eliminated entirely as autonomous cars proliferate, ensuring fair blame attribution would help consumers, automakers and insurers all realize this technology‘s societal benefits with minimal disruption. But progress hinges on these various factions communicating concerns constructively rather than pointing fingers when the inevitable yet solvable setbacks occur.
And that brings us full circle! I hope surveying the myriad interlocking policy dimensions around liability in ADAS crashes better equips your personal judgment as a motorist and consumer. Progress never follows straight lines, but some bumps along the road ahead may prove less jarring through cooperation and compassion.
Let me know if any other autonomous vehicle topics pique your interest. Perhaps next we could overview interior sensor capabilities or machine ethics programming. Self-driving cars promise profoundly improving mobility freedom and safety if communities embrace progress pragmatically together. So buckle up and enjoy the ride!
