Who’s Responsible When No One’s Responsible for Driving?

We do really good and universal self driving is coming fast.  Yet no system can be made human proof.  Decades ago, my brother had bought a new car and was driving consciously safe when he did a right turn properly into the inside lane.  All good, except a lad, high as a kite, literally threw himself in front of his car to get run over.  WTF.  No system is kamakazi proof.

I will be very happy when all our transportation is self driving.  Then everything on the road is working with you and that includes convoying on the freeway at up to 150 mph as well.

of course we may well need foul weather driver attention.  unless a computer can do a better job of skid recovery on black ice.  You become a real fan of snowbanks.  that also needs to be well trained.

Who’s Responsible When No One’s Responsible for Driving?

By eric

-August 4, 2025

Tesla has just been found liable for the death of one person and the severe injury of another after one of its “self driving” cars ran over and killed a couple back in 2019. Twenty-two-year-old Naibel Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, were out watching the night sky by the side of the road when the “self-driving” Tesla ran them down, killing Leon and almost killing Angulo. A Florida jury has ordered Tesla to pay the victims $243 million in damages.

There are several interesting things about the case, the first thing being that – somehow – Tesla “lost” the video recording of the crash and also the data stream recorded by the car. A “mistake” was made, Tesla claimed. The same kind of mistake that was made the night Epstein didn’t kill himself, probably.

The more interesting thing, however, is the liability precedent that has – at last – been set. Tesla has until now wriggled out of liability for the other crashes that have happened when a “self-driving” Tesla ran into something or someone by pointing out that it has always made it clear that the driver must “pay constant attention” and “be prepared to act immediately” at all times when the self-driving system is engaged – so as to be able to apply the brakes or steer when the tech fails to recognize/react to another vehicle (or person) in the path of the vehicle.

The italics are there to point out the hypocrisy of Tesla.

One the one hand, the company touts the capability of its cars to drive themselves. It is one of the major “sells” used to persuade people to buy a Tesla. Not said – but very obviously implied – is that the driver can offload responsibility for driving the car. He can take a snooze while the car drives him to whatever destination has been entered into the system. He can text a friend, maybe get some work done.

It’s the whole point of “self driving.”

Put another way, if the driver – per Tesla – must “pay constant attention” and “be prepared to act immediately” at all times then there is no point to the thing, except as a gimmick. If you must keep your eyes on the road at all times and be ready to steer or brake to avoid running into something (or someone) then you are still effectively the driver, even if your hands aren’t actually on the wheel at the moment.

Tesla has encouraged people to believe it isn’t a gimmick.

The lawyer-ese about “be(ing) prepared to act immediately” is exactly that. Everyone knows the score. Wink, wink. Kind of like the old Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell policy that allowed homosexuals to serve in the military provided they weren’t openly blatant about it. The whole point of the thing was to let homosexuals openly serve in the military.

The Florida jury’s decision sets a new standard that seems to be based upon fitness for use, which is a legal term that basically means the buyer gets what the seller advertised. That it is “suitable for a specific use or need.” The specifically advertised use or need. For example, if you buy hammer, the assumption is that it can be used to hammer nails. Implicit in this assumption is that it is safe to use the hammer to hammer nails. If the hammer’s head comes off while you’re hammering nails – and maybe hits you in the face – the liable party is obvious.

Tesla markets its “self driving” tech as being fit for use and implicit in that is that it is safe to use. Assuming -paradoxically – that the driver is “prepared to act immediately” and “paying constant attention” at all times – even though everyone understands the system encourages precisely the opposite.

The Florida jury apparently called bullshit on that.

The driver (sic) of the “self driving” Tesla was busy texting when the car ran down the young couple, Tesla’s lawyers whined. Of course. Why not? The idea that the person in the left seat of a “self-driving” Tesla ought to be “paying constant attention” and “prepared to act immediately” – i.e., not texting or sleeping – is as fatuous as the warning label on the box the catalytic converter “test pipe” came in that it is for “testing” and “off-road” use only.

Everyone who bought one of those things knew exactly what they were buying and what for. It wasn’t to “test” the converter. It was to replace it with a hollow section of pipe, which is what a “test pipe” was.

In the Tesla case, people thought they were buying a car that could drive itself. And they used it to do just that.

Astoundingly, Tesla says the jury’s judgment “only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla’s and the entire industry’s efforts to develop and implement lifesaving technology.”

Italics added.

“Lifesaving technology” that takes life. Specifically, the lives of people who didn’t choose to avail themselves of this “technology” but rather had it forced on them. More finely, had the consequences of other people’s choices imposed upon them. The young couple that was out watching the evening stars wasn’t even driving. But they did get driven over. By a driver (sic) who was encouraged to believe he didn’t need to be driving because his car was safe to drive itself when it obviously wasn’t.

Tesla’s lawyers say the driver – who clearly was not paying any attention at all and wasn’t “prepared to act immediately” – “admitted and accepted responsibility.” Good on him for having a conscience.

When will Tesla grow one?

Never, of course.

Because were it to do that, it would undermine the main “sell” it has. Take away “self driving” – as in the car actually being fit for that use and safe for the driver to go to sleep or text – and all you’re left with is another gimmick and another device and that is a harder sell.