new Sealion 7 in Europe, BYD expects sales to pick up rapidly. BYD’s new mid-size electric SUV will challenge top-selling EVs in Europe, including the Tesla Model Y.
some nice pics of it in the news story
nice pics of the new vehicle in the news article
Tesla gets more competitive.
There’s no hiding it. Tesla is not doing well in Europe this year.
It turns out that not everybody wants to ride the Tesla infotainment train.
Screens inside new cars are better than ever. They’re huge, they have great resolution and the software behind them is usually snappy and well thought out. But after years of shoving what are essentially TVs on dashboards, it turns out that people don’t really like dealing with them, especially if accessing often-used features like climate control or volume settings means digging through menus on a screen while driving.
That could be dangerous as eyes are off the road.
Funny how we periodically get someone saying that screens might be dangerous, but we neither get much actual users complaining about them, nor accident statistics assigning blame. If there are complaints from users, they are mostly about some detail, not the overall use of the screen … and sometimes the detail gets fixed with a software update.
Why is it deemed “too dangerous” to use a handheld cell phone in a car, thus banned in places like Michigan, but having to putz around with an in-dash screen to adjust the heat is fine?
Despite significant evidence that shifting away from physical controls was a major factor in the uptick in automobile accidents witnessed since 2015, the industry has been eager to retain touch controls.
Screens are likely just a temporally transition for controls before people just use voice. Why use a screen or flipper to change the temp or turn on the wipers? Maybe they can be used as a backup system if you are slurring your speech as your car drives home
iirc, there is an upcoming reg to require all new cars to have a system built in to assess whether the driver is impaired, and, if so, disable the car.
It will be interesting to see of the insurance industry’s wish list is implemented, in the middle of an anti-big gummit wave.
Who is the insured? Insurance is designed to protect the insured’s financial status in case of accidents. Who is the insured party with self driving cars? The owner of the car or the self driving technology provider? Regulation and legislation have to catch up with the changing technology and state of the world. Once regulation and legislation determine who the responsible party is, the insurance industry can create the required insurance policies.
Exactly. A question I have been asking since “self-driving” because plausible. Normally, a manufacturer blames the driver for an accident. But seems the manufacturer who installed the self driving system in the car would be liable if the system makes an error. Of course, liability like that would be a “burden” for the manufacturer. We will probably see a law that lays all the liability to monitor the system’s operation on the operator, and holds the manufacturer harmless. So “self-driving” won’t really be “self-driving” because the operator is required to be just as alert as if he was actually driving.
Not if there is no human operator. The vehicle “operator” is the AI. The vehicle user can hold the mfr AND the AI company jointly-and-severally liable. Let them fight it out in court who pays, and how much. Far more “deep pockets” to sue.
You missed the point: protecting the “JCs” from liability. If you want to buy or lease a car, one of the forms will have a clause where you agree to indemnify the manufacturer, and hold them harmless for any errors in judgement the AI system makes, because the operator is the one in the car, therefore responsible.
If someone is alleging that the damages caused by the car are due to a defect in the car’s design or operation, the suit would be against the manufacturer (for simplicity, I’m assuming that there’s one company that makes the car and the driver system). That’s what happens today, if an accident is caused by something wrong with the car and not the driver. Since the manufacturer is the defendant - and on the hook for the damages - then it would be their corporate insurance that covers the defense and costs.
If the damages are alleged to have been caused by something the owner did (failure to maintain brakes, failure to replace tires, that sort of thing), then they would be the defendant - and if they lose, then their insurance would cover. And of course, it’s entirely possible that both would be alleged.
That is, of course, assuming that the legislature in a given state hasn’t stepped in to change the above. Which they are perfectly capable of doing, if they choose.
Doesn’t someone still own the self-driving car? Albaby’s analysis seems like it would still hold since someone or some owner entity would be still be responsible for maintenance, right?
Right. It’s the same thing. Who covers the accident depends on what caused the accident.
If the accident is caused by the driver AI, then the company responsible for making the AI will ultimately be responsible for the accident if it was due to a problem with the AI.
But not all accidents involving FSD will be caused by the FSD. The accident might be caused by owner failure to maintain the car - FSD can’t change the tires when the tread gets too worn to brake properly. Or the accident might be caused by another driver, not the FSD. Or by happenstance - if the car is struck by lightning, or a tire blows out from roadway debris. All of those types of damages would be the responsibility of the owner to either pay for or insure (or a third party) - not the AI maker.
So even if FSD is driving, it will depend on what caused the accident.
AFAIK, there aren’t any - at least on this point. Many states have adopted changes to their traffic code/operational regulations dealing with the conditions under which AV’s can be operated. But I’m not aware of any that have changed their insurance or liability regulations. Most likely because there aren’t any independently owned Level 4/5 systems yet (FSD is not, and Waymo/Cruise are company-owned).
I don’t see any particular reason why they would, though. AV’s don’t present any real problems for the existing framework. The AV driver would simply be considered a non-covered driver for your insurance. If the AV driver causes a crash, then the company that made the AV driver - not you as the owner - would be liable for any negligence. No different than crashes caused by mechanical or design defects today, so no need to change the rules.
I think it’s very likely that insurers might adjust to provide collision damage (ie. cover damage to the car) if the AV is engaged - but that’s a change to the contract, not the rules. I don’t think they’ll offer liability coverage to the AV driver - the company that makes the car will be expected to cover those damages.
The only regulatory change that seems likely in some states is a change to the products liability laws to provide strict liability for AV drivers. IOW, if the AV driver causes a crash, then the AV maker is responsible - the injured parties don’t have to provide that the AV program is defective or has a design flaw. Maybe some tweaks to laws governing the data that the car collects, so that there’s an obligation to keep and share the data on the crash.
But by and large, there’s nothing particularly unique or special about AV’s that would require significant changes to the general liability and insurance framework. We already know how to deal with situations where something with the car, rather than the driver, caused the crash.