Who should be responsible?, The worried thing still happened! Unmanned vehicle "hit and run" vehicle | car | autonomous driving

Autonomous driving, what everyone was worried about finally happened.

Recently, a Weibo influencer uploaded a live video of a traffic accident involving an autonomous vehicle. A self driving vehicle belonging to the autonomous driving travel service platform collided with another normally driving vehicle during the lane change process. After the collision, the autonomous car paused for a moment and then drove away from the scene.

Subsequently, the platform informed the blogger, "The accident was caused by very minor contact with the tire of the vehicle, and it has been dealt with as soon as possible. We have also reached an agreement with the driver that there are no issues related to escape."

This car collision is a minor accident. However, some netizens have suggested that if autonomous vehicles collide with pedestrians and leave on their own, it may result in the injured not being able to receive timely treatment. So the question arises: Who should be responsible for an accident involving autonomous vehicles?

The opinions of the five schools of thought are fiercely debated

According to the analysis of China News Agency's direct train service, there are currently approximately five schools of thought regarding the above-mentioned issues, namely: "car owner faction", "manufacturer faction", "automotive faction", "negation faction", and "shelving faction".

Among them, the more traditional views are "owner oriented" and "manufacturer oriented", with the two opposing each other.

The car owner faction believes that the car owner is the commander and owner of the vehicle, and bears the main responsibility for the vehicle's operation and decision-making. Car owners should also bear corresponding responsibilities when enjoying the benefits brought by autonomous driving technology, namely the principle of equal rights and responsibilities.

The "manufacturer faction" advocates that the code and logic of autonomous vehicles are written by manufacturer programmers, and when the owner experiences this feature, they are only a passenger and cannot constantly control the vehicle's behavior. Therefore, for accidents caused by autonomous vehicles, car owners should not be regarded as directly responsible moral subjects, but should be borne by manufacturers.

In addition to the traditional views mentioned above, this discussion also raises some new perspectives:

"Auto faction" believes that when a autonomous vehicle collides with other vehicles, the responsibility should be borne by the car itself, not by the manufacturer or owner. In case of an autonomous vehicle accident, the AI shall be punished accordingly, such as prohibition of going on the road or immediate destruction. The reason is that with the development of science and technology, AI and autonomous vehicle should be regarded as having both moral and legal subjects. When explaining the behavior of complex systems, they can be seen as actors with intention and free will. This is not only concise and efficient, but also easier to understand and predict the behavior of AI.

But this avant-garde viewpoint has not yet formed a consensus.

The "negative school" proposed that when it comes to human life safety, the decision-making of autonomous vehicle is determined by pre programmed algorithms. Before an unexpected situation occurs, if the algorithm prioritizes saving more lives, the chosen deceased is not an accident, but rather a deliberate choice by the algorithm. Therefore, the "negative school" advocates not to rush to promote autonomous vehicle until the technical and ethical dilemmas are solved.

The "shelving faction" believes that with technological progress and social change, human ethics and morals are also constantly evolving. Traditional moral concepts may no longer be applicable to the present, so it is necessary to shelve old ethics and embrace new moral concepts. Therefore, it advocates dispersing responsibility among all relevant parties or society as a whole, rather than belonging to specific individuals.

Expert: Responsibility should be determined based on specific circumstances

China News Agency interviewed multiple experts and lawyers in the automotive industry, who generally believed that the current "autonomous driving" is just a type of driving assistance system that still requires drivers to fully and wholeheartedly participate in driving, relying on manual operation for necessary operations, and therefore cannot be considered truly autonomous driving.

Experts point out that according to current traffic regulations, the responsible parties for vehicles only include the vehicle owner and driver. For autonomous vehicles, traffic laws and regulations have not yet introduced specific rules and regulations. Before autonomous vehicle become mainstream, they also need to conduct adequate safety tests and technical verification to ensure their safety and stability on the road.

But if we are really injured due to an autonomous vehicle accident, or find that autonomous vehicle has obvious violations, how can we protect our legitimate rights and interests?

Zhang Xiang, a researcher of the Automotive Industry Innovation Research Center of North China University of Technology, said in an interview with the China News Service Guoshi Direct, that after a traffic accident involving autonomous vehicle, the responsibility should be determined according to the specific situation. If there is no safety officer for the autonomous vehicle, the responsibility shall be borne by the vehicle owner. If the vehicle is owned by the operating company, the company is responsible for it; If it is a private car, it is the responsibility of the private car owner.

In his view, traffic accidents involving autonomous vehicles require a responsibility determination from the traffic management department. If an autonomous vehicle experiences a rear end collision, the responsibility belongs to the rear end vehicle; If the vehicles are crossing and pressing the line causing a traffic accident, the responsibility shall be borne by the crossing vehicles.

If a traffic accident is clearly caused by defects in autonomous driving software or product quality, Zhang Xiang reminds the car owner to save relevant video materials for post-processing and submit evidence to the traffic management department, so that the car company can take over the certification and identification process of accident responsibility.

According to Guo Yining, an automotive blogger from the "Old Guo Machinery Bureau", in an interview with China News Agency's Guoshi Direct Car, the highest legal limit for the level of autonomous driving technology in China is currently L2. From the perspective of household use of autonomous vehicle, at L2 level, no matter whether the functions related to autonomous driving are used or not, all accident responsibilities are identified in accordance with existing laws and regulations, which have nothing to do with the vehicle enterprises, and the responsibility belongs to the owners.

Adjustment of autonomous driving legislation

The time window has not yet arrived

According to data from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, in 2022, the penetration rate of L2 level passenger cars with combined driving assistance function in China has reached 34.5%. How to improve current traffic regulations in response to the new trend of more and more "smart" vehicles driving on the road?

Zhang Ming, a partner and lawyer at Beijing Jingshi Law Firm, stated in an interview with China News Service Guoshi Direct that the "Shenzhen Special Economic Zone Intelligent Connected Vehicle Management Regulations" officially implemented in Shenzhen on August 1, 2022 can be seen as an exploration of future legislation, but the time window for adjusting autonomous driving legislation has not yet arrived.

Article 51 of the above regulations clearly stipulates that if a driver's intelligent connected vehicle violates road traffic safety laws, the traffic management department of the public security organ shall handle the driver in accordance with the law. If a fully autonomous intelligent connected vehicle violates road traffic safety regulations during the period without a driver, the traffic management department of the public security organ shall handle the vehicle owner and manager in accordance with the law. According to the provisions of the second paragraph of this article, the punishment for traffic violations shall not be subject to the relevant provisions on driver scoring.

Article 53 of this regulation also clearly stipulates that if a driver's intelligent connected vehicle causes damage in a traffic accident and falls under the responsibility of one party of the intelligent connected vehicle, the driver shall be liable for compensation. If a fully autonomous intelligent connected vehicle causes damage in a traffic accident during the period without a driver, and it is the responsibility of one party of the intelligent connected vehicle, the vehicle owner and manager shall bear the compensation liability.

Regarding the differences in views among different factions mentioned earlier, Zhang Ming believes that the determination of the responsible party in the Road Traffic Safety Law only applies to road traffic participants. Although the AI mentioned by the "Automobile Faction" is indispensable, it is only a part of the entire vehicle. Automobile manufacturers are the more direct subject, and AI is only an indirect subject. The viewpoint of the "negation faction" does not conform to the trend of modern technological development. Avoiding accident liability by preventing the development of autonomous driving technology is equivalent to giving up on food due to choking. As for the "shelving faction", it is even less advisable. Social conflicts and disputes should be resolved in a timely manner, and should not be shelved. Legislation and judiciary need to be constantly adjusted according to social development and keep up with the times.

When it comes to whether car manufacturers should be responsible for autonomous driving accidents, Zhang Ming said that if car manufacturers are included in the scope of responsibility, it may be necessary to break through the long-standing principle of "fault presumption+fault liability" in the Road Traffic Safety Law. The responsibility borne by manufacturers essentially belongs to product quality responsibility. If product quality responsibility is introduced too early on the basis of existing traffic laws, it may greatly limit the development of automotive manufacturers in autonomous driving technology. In addition, L5 level fully autonomous driving has not yet been widely popularized and promoted, so the time window for legislative adjustment has not yet arrived.