Self-Driving Cars Must Meet 15 Benchmarks in U.S. Guidance

When the manufacturers "can't explain" how the accident happened (after an audit was performed), they should be fined the maximum $10 million amount.

Why? Because for one assuming it's just a glitch and "they don't know" about it, then they should pay for incompetence. And two, if the car was hacked by a nation state, then their security sucks, and they should again pay the maximum amount so they have the maximum incentive to ensure digital security of self-driving cars.

Where third-party self-driving systems are involved (MobilEye, etc), the liability/fine should be split 50-50 between the car maker and the system vendor.

Give car makers these "incentives" and the other regulations are more or less pointless (other than establishing common V2V and V2I standards and whatnot). Then you'll see just how hard they scramble to make their systems safe.

EDIT: And here we go. Remote hack of Tesla Model S.

https://blog.kaspersky.com/tesla-remote-hack/13027/

We're only at the very beginning of self-driving cars. What happens when there are 100 million self-driving cars on the road? Will their security be as terrible as it is on our PCs?

People should get scared a lot faster about this stuff, before all car makers start writing their software and then refuse to write it from scratch again and just tack on to the poorly written systems new security features in the future as a response to such hacking.

Was that hyperbole? I would say the majority of regulations (at least in OECD countries) are sensible, and many that are not are intended to be, are outdated, or are politicized.

edit: as to SAE Level 2, it has this (and more) to say:

> Furthermore, manufacturers and other entities should place significant emphasis on assessing the risk of driver complacency and misuse of Level 2 systems, and develop effective countermeasures to assist drivers in properly using the system as the manufacturer expects. Complacency has been defined as, “... [when an operator] over-relies on and excessively trusts the automation, and subsequently fails to exercise his or her vigilance and/or supervisory duties” (Parasuraman, 1997).

also,

> Manufacturers and other entities should assume that the technical distinction between the levels of automation (e.g., between Level 2 and Level 3) may not be clear to all users or to the general public.