If the driverless car is a passenger car and it has a specific owner

[tanjimajuha20]

These are quite reasonable restrictions, but they do not solve the main problem. It is clear that an accident can happen on any road and with any car, including a driverless one. The Ministry of Transport proposes to prohibit the registration of the European protocol in the event of an accident with a driverless car: that is, the participants in the accident are obliged to wait for the arrival of the traffic police car. This is quite logical. The main culprit in an accident causing harm to life, health, property of third parties and the environment will be considered the owner of the car. Unless he proves that the victim or the costa rica whatsapp number database car manufacturer is at fault. In the event that there was no dispatch control, the dispatcher should be held responsible, according to the bill - the one who remotely monitors the state of the driverless car and turns off the autopilot.

- a private individual, he can be held accountable for the accident as the owner of any regular car. However, there is still some difference between a real driver who inadvertently injured or killed other people with his car and one who did the same with a driverless car. Who is the killer if a driverless car killed a person? Is it possible to give the owner of the car, who was not in the cabin, the manufacturer's representatives (if the design defect is to blame) or the dispatcher the same term as a living driver of a regular car?

Who will be at fault if an accident is caused by a driverless truck, and the company that owns it is registered to several people or is owned by other companies? Will companies that use driverless vehicles for cargo transportation deliberately register such vehicles to fictitious people in order to avoid liability for accidents with a tragic outcome? What about possible hacker attacks on driverless cars? It is quite possible to imagine a situation where hackers, against the will of the owners and the dispatcher of the driverless vehicle, try to make the driverless car uncontrollable and provoke accidents.

In general, although there are always people "at the ends" of any technology who must control "soulless algorithms" and "smart robots", unmanned vehicles, given the quality of Russian roads and driving habits (even trucks often speed along our few modern highways where unmanned vehicles are planned to be used), could become a serious additional problem for road safety.

So, in addition to the most detailed and clearly spelled out legal liability of the parties and the procedure for compensation for damages for accidents with unmanned vehicles, serious technological control will clearly be needed. Otherwise, an unmanned car on a Russian highway may be more dangerous than even a driver who is subject to the popularly known "three D rule": give way to a fool.