Traffic accidents happen all the time, so how to weigh driverless .

A legal subject is a person who is active in the law, has rights, obligations and responsibilities. In China, the subjects of legal relations generally include the state, institutions and organizations, and citizens.

A lawyer said: "Driverless autonomous vehicles are a new concept, and the law has not changed yet. However, according to common sense, I believe that if an accident occurs, it should be the owner of the car, or the person who gave the car instructions where to go, because the driverless automatic car will only be driven by human instructions, so the person who gave the instructions must be responsible.

Unless the owner of the car can prove that there was a problem with the car's computer system that caused the accident, then the manufacturer is liable. ”

There are also those who feel that the responsibility itself is obvious, and it has nothing to do with whether it is a robot driving or not. Driverless cars are a product in their own right, and if they have a problem, they will be held accountable according to the product. There is nothing controversial about this.

Now the responsibility for driverless cars on the road has been set on the non-human subject - the enterprise. Weaver claims that making robots independent legal subjects may help us clarify the role they play in our lives. Therefore, a driverless car – as a subject of law – should have its own insurance against traffic accidents that may occur during its operation.

This means that the damage in a traffic accident should be paid by the subject of the law – the car.

Another option is for a company like Google to develop a new business model that reduces and takes the corresponding risks. For example, Google doesn't sell its driverless cars to anyone, but assembles a super-safe fleet of driverless cars on its own. The design of Google's cars – small, lightweight, and speed limited – shows that Google has worked hard to ensure that no serious traffic accidents occur.

One might argue that the example of robot subject qualification shows that our existing legal system has failed to keep pace with the development of modern society, business, or robots. Perhaps, instead of giving robots subject qualifications, we should reform the existing concept of legal subject qualifications.

If there is no way to achieve zero traffic accidents without driving, then safety measures must be taken.

He must strengthen the continuous improvement, continue to make breakthroughs to strengthen the safety management can.

I believe that autonomous driving requires efforts to ensure transportation.

The current law has not been changed to this condition.

Unmanned driving technology is still immature and cannot be applied to roads too early.

Autonomous driving requires a multifaceted test run.

Driverless autonomous vehicles are a new concept and the law has not changed yet.

There are still many difficulties to overcome in unmanned driving.

Autonomous driving needs to be further technologically advanced.

It can take a long time to test.

Driver. Because the driverless technology is not mature enough and requires manual intervention, the driver's responsibility is counted as the accident accident.

Responsibilities of the car owner. Because it's unmanned. But the car is still owned by the owner, so it should be the owner's responsibility.

The main responsibility of the manufacturer is because the manufacturer has high requirements for the quality of the car, and if the quality is not up to standard, it is the manufacturer's problem.

It depends on the car parked in **, if it is on the street, he needs to bear 10% of the responsibility, if it is parked in the community, it has nothing to do with the owner of the car.

If there is a car accident, the owner of the car should be held responsible, and this is a fair solution.

If it's not the fault of the system, but the driver's, who cares about you?

The system is responsible for driving the driver, and the accident caused by the system should be borne by the company.

In the event of an accident involving a self-driving vehicle, the company will be responsible for all the consequences.

Of course, it is necessary for the driverless company to bear it.

In fact, the pioneers of autonomous driving technology are making changes.

It has to be this driverless company.

It's understandable, of course, it's to find a R&D company.

It must be the company that will take care of the research and development.

The company that designed this, after all, because of this problem.

To encourage driverless car projects, Obama** asked the U.S. Department of Transportation to come up with nationwide test proposals and safety standards by this summer.

After an unmanned vehicle is involved in a traffic accident, who should be held responsible? What is the rationale?

Hello, dear, I am asking the legal advice teacher, I am happy to answer for you! The traffic police will determine the responsibility according to the actual situationAfter determining the responsibility of the normal traffic accident, if the responsibility of the other party is excluded, then the responsibility of the accident will be determined to be the responsibility of the driverless car, but as for the car manufacturer, the autonomous driving system provider or the business operator to be liable, it is necessary to divide the responsibility according to the business model and the determination of the cause of the accident at the scene. But there will be a problem of the lack of legal responsibility here.

Under normal circumstances, almost every accident will have a special person responsible for it, most of them are illegal drivers, but once replaced by driverless cars, then there is no such legal responsibility. Because it is impossible to sue the owner of a driverless car, after all, he did not drive, and it is impossible to sue the engineer who designed the self-driving algorithm, and the engineer is not a person, and the cause of the accident cannot be attributed to a certain line of people. So, does it come down to the company that provides the autonomous driving system?

No other company would be willing to take such a huge risk. Perhaps in the future, there will be a joint responsibility of the parties and the insurance company for autonomous vehicles, and these manufacturing, design, and operation parties will bear a corresponding proportion of the insurance premium according to the size of the liability, and the self-driving private car owner (it is estimated that there will be few individuals) will also pay a certain insurance fee in the purchase of services, forming a pool of insurance assets to deal with possible accidents. At the same time, a set of AI calculation systems has been formed internally to determine specific responsibilities based on the vehicle damage of different car manufacturers, the accident rate of different autonomous driving algorithms, and the operation strategies of operators, so as to determine the future premiums of different entities.

For example, some car manufacturers prioritize the safety of passengers in the car, so after an accident causes damage to pedestrians, companies based on this strategy will have to pay more premiums; If some manufacturers give priority to the safety of pedestrians and passengers, and there is an injury or fatal accident for the passengers in the car, they will have to pay more and pay more compensation for the passengers in the car. It is foreseeable that after the popularization of autonomous vehicles, there will be an endless stream of cases of liability determination in various complex situations. We must start thinking and trying to legislate before we can do so.

Instead of waiting until something happens before you start figuring it out. Don't be like the Uber case, where you can only end up putting the blame on this irresponsible human and being helpless against the autonomous driving algorithm system. Strict regulations on driverless cars don't mean we're not bullish on the industry.

In my opinion, the future of driverless cars is very bright. Despite the occurrence of such and such extreme accidents, autonomous driving will certainly be safer than the current human-driven travel situation in the future. Dear, I hope mine is helpful to you, and I wish you a happy life! 

Legal analysis: As we all know, if a traffic accident occurs in the traditional driving mode, it is nothing more than involving the following subjects: motor vehicles, non-motor vehicles, passengers, and pedestrians.

However, after the advent of unmanned driving, the main body of motor vehicles will no longer be "pure". Instead, it should be divided into ordinary motor vehicles and driverless motor vehicles. Because in the process of ordinary motor vehicles, the decisive factor is the driver's driving ability and adaptability.

However, in driverless vehicles, the decisive factor is no longer the driver, but the artificial intelligence of autonomous driving technology systems. Therefore, a change in the decisive factor in the process of driving will lead to a change in the subjects involved in the traffic accident.

Legal basis: Insurance Law of the People's Republic of China Article 26 The statute of limitations for the insured or beneficiary of insurance other than life insurance to claim compensation or payment of insurance money from the insurer shall be two years, which shall be calculated from the date on which the insured knows or should have known that the insured has occurred. The statute of limitations for the insured or beneficiary of life insurance to claim payment of insurance money from the insurer is five years, calculated from the date on which the insured knew or should have known of the occurrence of the insured event.