Tesla Hangzhou crash sparks controversy
Responsibility for self-driving traffic accidents to be clarified
Our reporter Zhao Yuhan
The car crashed, but the driver claimed that he was sitting in the co-pilot, and the problem was the automatic driving system.
Recently, such a car accident happened in Hangzhou, which aroused public attention and discussion.
With the development of science and technology, more and more vehicles have appeared with functions such as automatic assisted driving, automatic parking, and intelligent summoning. However, the definition of responsibility for accidents in these new scenarios has become an "extraordinary problem" in the current law.
On August 1 this year, Shenzhen's first local regulations on the management of intelligent connected vehicles in China became an important step for regulations to "catch up" with technology.
Drivers drink and drive "throwing pot" automatic driving
On the evening of July 29, in the Xixi Wetland in Hangzhou, a Tesla car rushed out of the road and knocked over a light pole on the side of the road.
At the time of the incident, the driver had been drinking, but he did not admit that he was drunk driving.
The driver claimed that he was sitting in the co-pilot at the time of the incident, and that the vehicle was in a collision after the automatic assisted driving function was turned on.
However, the driver's claim was quickly refuted by Tesla.
Relevant personnel said that the vehicle can only turn on the automatic assisted driving function when there is someone in the main driving position holding the steering wheel. If the driver is sitting in the co-pilot, the vehicle cannot be driven automatically.
However, some netizens questioned this statement.
Because some netizens have posted test videos before, by placing certain heavy objects on the main driving position and the steering wheel, they can "deceive" the vehicle and turn on the automatic assisted driving function.
Yesterday, the latest investigation conclusion of the accident was released. The preliminary investigation conclusion of the Hangzhou traffic police department showed that the driver was sitting in the driver's seat the whole time at the time of the accident, not the "people in the co-pilot" as he previously claimed.
At the same time, the driver's blood test showed that he was driving under the influence of alcohol, and a case has been filed for investigation on suspicion of dangerous driving.
In fact, even if the car owner is really in the co-pilot, it is difficult to escape the guilt with automatic driving.
Zhang Zongbao, a lawyer from Guangdong Weiran Law Firm, analyzed that at present, my country's intelligent networked vehicles are divided into three types, namely "conditional autonomous driving", "highly autonomous driving" and "completely autonomous driving".
Among these three types, "conditional autonomous driving" and "highly autonomous driving" all require the driver to take over and stand by in a timely manner in certain situations.
At present, the consumer cars legally sold and on the road in my country actually belong to the two categories of "conditional autonomous driving" and "highly autonomous driving". The driver shall be liable for compensation.”
The definition of accident responsibility under the new technology is beyond the outline
Although the incident has come to an end, the controversy surrounding car accidents in new technological scenarios such as autonomous driving is still ongoing.
Tesla car Mr. Zhang told an experience of using Smart Summon.
"It was in a closed parking lot at the time, and I was not in the car. After I turned on Smart Summon with the mobile phone app, the car started to drive autonomously at a lower speed." At that time, Mr. Zhang saw that the car almost smashed into a small tree, Immediately use the APP to "call to stop" the vehicle.
Afterwards, he found that many car owners of different brands reported on the Internet that they had a scratch accident when using automatic parking or smart summoning, but the car company was not responsible for it.
This made him dare not try this function again.
Mr. Zhang, who has many years of experience in dealing with various types of traffic accidents, said frankly when facing the problem of responsibility definition under this new technology: "This kind of problem is a bit 'out of line'. The current laws and regulations are blank, and it is difficult to directly determine judicially. Can analyze specific problems in detail.”
Lawyer Zhang Zongbao analyzed that in terms of the specific attribution of responsibilities, the reference legal rules are still "the driver is responsible for compensation for the responsibility of the ICV", which means that in fact, the law does not consider whether it is driving Whether the person is driving or the driving system is driving, when discussing the responsibility to the third party, in the remote summoning scenario, the question of "whether the owner is driving the vehicle" is not the core consideration that affects the determination of responsibility.
But he also said that if the car owner uses the summon function in full compliance with the car company's agreement and has an accident, it is reasonable to claim the car company.
Shenzhen takes an important step to catch up with regulations
The law cannot keep up with the progress of science and technology, so it is necessary to "catch up".
Recently, the Standing Committee of the Shenzhen Municipal People's Congress reviewed and approved the "Shenzhen Special Economic Zone Intelligent Connected Vehicle Management Regulations", which became the first local regulations on the management of intelligent connected vehicles in my country.
Zhang Zongbao believes that the "Regulations" refer to the provisions of existing laws and regulations, learn from the experience of other countries, and separately stipulate the handling of traffic violations and traffic accidents according to the responsible subjects and their behavior patterns. The principle of adapting to obligations has been innovated to a certain extent by using the legislative power of special economic zones.
The "Regulations" define responsibilities for accidents that occur in intelligent networked vehicles under different circumstances.
Among them, if an intelligent network-connected vehicle with a driver has a traffic violation or a responsible accident, the driver shall be responsible for the violation and compensation.
In the event of a traffic violation or a responsible accident in a fully autonomous ICV without a driver, in principle, the vehicle owner and manager shall bear the liability for the violation and compensation, but the penalty for the offender does not apply to the driver's score. related terms.
In addition, in a traffic accident, if the damage is caused by the defect of the intelligent networked vehicle, the driver or owner or manager of the vehicle may claim compensation from the manufacturer or seller according to the law after making compensation in accordance with the above provisions.
In the view of lawyer Zhang Zongbao, the above-mentioned legislation is both inherited and forward-looking, and has established a clear responsibility assumption and liability recovery mechanism for the handling of civil liabilities.
The relevant legislative rules not only prevent the vehicle owner and manager from claiming to escape liability from the victim by using the vehicle defect or the automatic driving system defect as a shield, but also help the vehicle owner and manager to claim compensation to the manufacturer and seller after compensation. Request compensation and urge producers and sellers to better protect their own products and services.