Reply to post: Diversionary Tactics

Humble civil servant: Name public electric car chargers after me


Diversionary Tactics

I don't understand why the article is headlined for a minor, discardable comment made in introducing a far more serious and significant debate around the issue of liability.

I also don't understand how we reach the conclusion that liability is placed on a driver *or an insurance company*, if the driver is insured. This is a specious misinterpretation of what is proposed which is that the DRIVER is the one held liable. The insurance company is there as a back stop to the driver liability, just as they are when a driver screws up and causes an accident.

What makes no sense at all is that if the insurance is for the driver in the case of the driver causing an accident, how is it the drivers responsibility to insure against the manufacturer of the vehicle causing the accident through a defect in the control software ?

If an accident is caused by a failure in a mechanical system resulting from a manufacturing defect in the vehicle then the manufacturer is liable, not the driver and so the driver's insurance is not claimed upon (or may recover their losses from the vehicle manufacturer).

Why is this different when the defect is located in software ?

I suspect the answer is to be found in the power of the lobby.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019