Google blames human, not robot for California car accident
Posted on Tuesday, August 9th, 2011
Late last week, one of the Google gives robot powered cars a minor car accident in the vicinity of Web mega-company's campus in mountain view, California. The accident involved five other vehicles, including a different Google robot-powered car, but the company was quickly complete their technology from any responsibility for the crash of futuristic, say that a man drove the car at fault at the time. The accident indicates that Google potential problems, the setting is astronaut experiment of stage for a brave new world of the street, that the question of legal liability for an accident could make much more complex.
Google wrote "Security is our top priority", in a statement last week. "One of our goals is electrified like this to prevent that a person manually the car drove occurred." Google spokesman Jay Nanacarrow added that their robot-powered cars have driven more than 160,000 km across the country claim-free before the last week. This is an impressive accomplishment, but the accident raises important questions about the future of technology, the control of vehicles on our roads and highways. Even if the car for errors of a people were expelled, such as question me, whether the other Google car crash avoided can, if it were a person behind the wheel.
About personal injury lawyer blog, writes Alan Crede on the Boston that accidents such as this increase serious questions of legal liability. Crede believes that robots powered cars nothing short of are inevitable, and that our legal system of liability should begin before, rather than revision, they take over. Take the example of theoretical a car crash with a robot car, which has not been overridden by the human driver. Is the person really blame here? Crede writes:
It would be difficult, the error involved in an accident human "driver" under the regime to keep fault-based negligence, which currently governs car accidents. After all, the behavior of the driver, which receives the accident (always in the car, the car of goal programming) caused not by the implementation of the driver, in a car, programs is its goal and safely arrives at the destination. It's hard to see how the behavior of the former rider who got in an accident can be considered negligence, in view of the fact, that our Anglo-American concept negligence requires, and that is a person for negligence have been, "unreasonable" and the driver was involved in the accident which played in the same manner as the driver, whose Reise was quite uneventful.Last week Google car accident was not the fault of the technology, it is clear that this focus on technology will lead to future dilemmas when it comes to road safety and car-accident liability. Let's just hope that we have a system for dealing with these problems, before they confuse or overwhelm the courts.
Photo credit: Racum
