Motorists in self-driving cars will be legally liable for crashes if they are on their mobile phones but blameless if they are watching films, a Highway Code amendment will say.
Drivers will be allowed to watch television programmes and movies hands-free on built-in screens while in “driverless mode”.
But, it will remain illegal to use mobile phones “given the greater risk they pose in distracting drivers”, the Department for Transport has said.
Mobile phones and driving are bad.
Therefore mobile phones and driving are bad.
Instead of actually thinking about the subject that is…..
They. Are. Insane.
So if I’m a passenger in a taxi or a bus, and the driver crashes it, I’m responsible?
What about if you’re reading a magazine at the time? Changing your shirt? Receiving some attention from a lady friend?
If there are grades to our level of inattention then let’s have the full menu.
Morons.
Pretty simple really. Either the car is driving itself and I’m just a passenger (therefore not liable for shit) or I’m driving the car and the usual rules apply.
After all, who the heck would get into a driverless taxi if they end up being liable for accidents, even deaths caused by faulty software.
Idiots, the lot of them.
“motorists must be ready to take back control of vehicles when prompted by the in-car technology”
I’m willing to give the Department of Transport more benefit of the doubt for the moment, and the reporters of this less. There are levels of automation. Level 3 is “eyes off”. Sounds like probably what is under discussion here.
Someone thinks you are more likely to respond to the vehicle telling you to intervene if you are watching TV than if you are texting on your phone. I’m not totally convinced but I can believe there is research showing this.
Also it’s clear they are talking about the driver in the driving seat, not passengers. So no, not passengers in a driverless taxi.
John Galt: After all, who the heck would get into a driverless taxi if they end up being liable for accidents, even deaths caused by faulty software.
That seems quite a compelling argument although millions of people have accepted injections on comparable grounds.
I note you call them “injections” rather than “vaccinations”. 🙂 I suspect topical treatments would be closer to the mark.
This whole farrago was always going to be about “who’s liable”. HM Gov and the local councils have got a nice little earner going between speed cameras, points-on-licenses and speed awareness courses. All of that is threatened with going on the scrapheap (along with the associated revenues) if they can’t make some poor schlepp inside the automated tin can liable for both speed and accidents.
I can kinda buy some transitional rules for semi-autonomous vehicles, but at some point in the not-too-distant future we’re going to have to have fully autonomous vehicles and the rules-and-regs designed to control human road users will have to be thrown in the trash.
We’re clearly not their yet though.
Semi-detached driving is a really bad idea. If the car is driving itself, with no need for driver action that’s fine though I don’t think we’re there yet.
But if the driver has to intervene from time to time the odds are high that he’ll be daydreaming at the critical moment- regardless of televisions, books or whatever.
The liability issue for fully autonomous vehicles will kill them stone dead unless it can be sorted. If you are liable for your autonomous vehicle, what’s the point. If it’s the manufacturer who’s liable, the costs to them will be enormous.
“HM Gov and the local councils have got a nice little earner going between speed cameras, points-on-licenses and speed awareness courses”
A year or two ago I read about a city in the States where self driving trials were being carried out. One of the most ardent critics was the local police force, who realised they could be deprived of lots of speeding fines..
Am I missing something here?
As things currently stand, one is liable for the damaged caused by one’s car, which is why we have insurance, and it does not matter whether you are driving sensibly or breaking the law by talking on a mobile phone.
It is your car, you are responsible and liable, and there is insurance.
Are they talking about a cessation of liability for driverless cars? Surely not. What am I missing?
Counting angels uupon the tip of a unicorn’s horn comes to mind.
Self driving cars. Hah. The technical challenge is immense, but the legal challenge is impossible.
Now then, these angels, Hexagonal-close-packed, or face-centred-cubic?
johnnybonk
What you seem to be missing is that, as driver, you are only liable if you are in some way negligent, i.e. the cause of damage is you, not your car. Unless using a driverless vehicle is judged to be intrinsically negligent, which rather defeats the point, drivers should not be responsible for failures of the vehicle.
The Highway Code is a code, not law or has something changed?
It is my understanding that video/tv screens that can be seen by the driver are not permitted in cars. Has this changed too?
James May was talking about this on the wireless when I was driving earlier today, and it’s actually less stupid than the Ministry press muppet makes it seem.
It doesn’t depend on what you are doing (movie, ‘phone call), but what you are doing it with – basically the proposal is that you can do things on your car’s own built in system, because the car will turn it off if it wants your attention. But you can’t do things on your ‘phone (or other gadget) because you might not stop looking at it if you are needed (or at least not quickly enough).
Actual information instead of supposition! Thanks, RichardT.
Yes, thank you RichardT, however, I think you place too much faith in the technology:https://nationalpost.com/news/world/tesla-stuck-doing-133-kph-on-california-highway-as-touchscreen-freezes-and-widgets-flash
Yet another example of policy and law being made on the basis of an as yet unrealised (and possibly unrealisable) fantasy (yawn, “climate change”, unreliables, heat pumps, milk floats etc etc)
Of course what people think of as a “self driving car” is not what is likely to be let loose.
@Tim the coder
Yes, a car that could genuinely drive itself in realistic traffic conditions. Nobody is even remotely close. All it would take is one court case demonstrating that there was some flaw in the software. Ban all of the specific make until its sorted (and likely others as I’m sure they wouldn’t be that different).
And then you would have the mother of class action suites, compensation, mis-selling etc.
Unless its a tossler of course.
It’s safer to be distracted by something that’s blocking your view, you see. No pun intended.
A built-in device can turn itself off at hairy moments, a third party device can’t.