Self parking cars and the law

Self parking cars and the law

Author
Discussion

Mad Jock

Original Poster:

1,272 posts

261 months

Saturday 24th January 2015
quotequote all
Where does the law stand on the issue of cars that can park themselves? I forget who, but one car manufacturer is running an ad campaign at the moment with the strap line "Look, no hands".

I know that driverless cars will require a change in the law through the Road Traffic Act, but this is not quite the same. There is plenty of evidence of drivers being prosecuted for not being incontrol of their vehicle, like eating an apple for example, so if we were to park our cars with the "Look, no hands" option fitted, what would be the reaction of a passing policemen. Are any laws being broken? If so, are the manufacturers guilty of promoting an illegal act?

Over to you, PH lawyers.............

OldGermanHeaps

3,801 posts

177 months

Saturday 24th January 2015
quotequote all
And what happens if it goes tits up and someone gets squished between a parked car and self parking car?

Slidingpillar

761 posts

135 months

Saturday 24th January 2015
quotequote all
The person sat in the drivers seat - is the driver, so responsible for anything the car might do. Don't see a self parking car accident as anything different from, say, splashing a pedestrian by driving through a puddle.

Well, that is my take, and I'd hope the courts will see it that way. Suppose the parking car hits a pedestrian, and the guilty party is the car manufacturer. So the pedestrian has to sue, say, Mercedes for an incident they had no control over. Not going to happen, is it?

Mad Jock

Original Poster:

1,272 posts

261 months

Saturday 24th January 2015
quotequote all
Just to be clear, I'm not questioning the aftermath of an accident, merely the act of parking with no hands on the wheel.

marshalla

15,902 posts

200 months

Saturday 24th January 2015
quotequote all
I'd have thought that something like a DWDCA charge would be in order. The driver has a responsibility to oversee the actions of the automated system and override it when necessary. No different to cruise control and running into the back of someone because you didn't touch the brake pedal.



backwoodsman

2,463 posts

128 months

Saturday 24th January 2015
quotequote all
Slidingpillar said:
Suppose the parking car hits a pedestrian, and the guilty party is the car manufacturer. So the pedestrian has to sue, say, Mercedes for an incident they had no control over. Not going to happen, is it?
Gun manufacturers in America have been sued, as the gun they built, was used to kill someone.

I can see the same happening, if a pedestrian is killed, while the car is self parking.

LouD86

3,278 posts

152 months

Saturday 24th January 2015
quotequote all
The steering does all its own thing, however the driver is still in control of the throttle, and brake, and all observations. So aslong as they are being observant, there should be no issue

ging84

8,828 posts

145 months

Saturday 24th January 2015
quotequote all
Same as what would happen if they knew someone was driving with no feet because they had cruse control on. Nothing

Slidingpillar

761 posts

135 months

Saturday 24th January 2015
quotequote all
backwoodsman said:
Gun manufacturers in America have been sued, as the gun they built, was used to kill someone.
True enough, but they sue anyone in America. McDonalds for serving coffee that burns your legs? Kching!

thescamper

920 posts

225 months

Saturday 24th January 2015
quotequote all
Did I dream the advert showing the brake and throttle being controlled from a smart phone app with the "driver" should that read operator stood some distance away.

b0rk

2,289 posts

145 months

Saturday 24th January 2015
quotequote all
Fully automotmus out of car self parking systems would fall under the same category as driver less cars. So not currently legal.

"App" based self parking where you still control the throttle and brake are no different conceptually to the current systems so you as the driver would be deemed to be in control. Anyway most of these systems have various safeguards that disable automatic movement if for example the parking sensors believe that the car is about to hit something.

Jimmyarm

1,962 posts

177 months

Saturday 24th January 2015
quotequote all
Slidingpillar said:
True enough, but they sue anyone in America. McDonalds for serving coffee that burns your legs? Kching!
If you look into that case properly, you might find that the lady was actually morally correct for taking the action she did.

As for self parking cars, as has been said above, they only do the steering bit. Throttle and braking are still the responsibility of the driver.

Kawasicki

13,041 posts

234 months

Saturday 24th January 2015
quotequote all
Jimmyarm said:
If you look into that case properly, you might find that the lady was actually morally correct for taking the action she did.

As for self parking cars, as has been said above, they only do the steering bit. Throttle and braking are still the responsibility of the driver.
I looked at the case. It's daft. Hot coffee is hot.

rscott

14,690 posts

190 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
Kawasicki said:
Jimmyarm said:
If you look into that case properly, you might find that the lady was actually morally correct for taking the action she did.

As for self parking cars, as has been said above, they only do the steering bit. Throttle and braking are still the responsibility of the driver.
I looked at the case. It's daft. Hot coffee is hot.
And the McDonalds coffee was even hotter - 30f hotter than pretty much any other coffee shop. About 700 cases of burns by it reported before the 79 year old woman suffered 3rd degree burns.

blueST

4,378 posts

215 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
I went to a seminar, hosted by a major component supplier, about the benefits and limitations of all these semi-autonomous systems. So park assist, active cruise control, the thing that stops you wandering out of lanes etc. The car makers are acutely aware of the liability issue and is why all these systems currently require driver input and supervision. They are carefully designed so that liability still sits with the driver. All of these systems could be more autonomous than they are, but they are holding back for that reason, we were told.

They didn't cover what would happen in the future with autonomous vehicles, but based on what they said, I imagine there is lot of work being done to find a way to keep the liability with driver.