評論
打印
How liable should driverless-car companies be for accidents?
無人駕駛汽車公司對事故應(yīng)負(fù)多大責(zé)任?
By Mark Geistfeld
文/馬克·蓋斯菲爾德
There is a paradox in the ascension of autonomous vehicles (AVs).
自動駕駛車輛(AVs)的崛起存在著一個悖論。
By eliminating the human driver, AVs can greatly reduce the number of crashes.
通過淘汰人工駕駛，自動駕駛汽車可以大大降低交通事故的發(fā)生率。
But to reach this level of performance, driverless cars will first kill some of us.
但要達(dá)到這種性能水平，無人駕駛汽車會先要了我們部分駕駛員的性命。
In fact, they must be allowed to do so.
事實上，我們也必須允許出現(xiàn)這樣的情況。
As we begin to see the first deaths from crashes caused by AV testing on public roads,
隨著第一批在公共道路上進(jìn)行自動駕駛測試導(dǎo)致的車禍的發(fā)生，
we will need to balance encouraging companies to develop these technologies by not making the costs prohibitively high
如何權(quán)衡鼓勵企業(yè)開發(fā)這些技術(shù)，不讓成本變得過高，
and also protecting the rights of those forced into harm’s way during testing.
和保護(hù)那些被迫在測試過程中利益受到傷害的人的權(quán)利的問題也就擺在了我們的面前。
A bill pending in the U.S. Senate fails this standard.
美國參議院正在審議的一項法案不僅未能達(dá)到這一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，
Instead, it eliminates individuals’ abilities to sue AV companies until the vehicles are governed by federal standards—likely years from now.
還裁撤了個人在這些公司受到聯(lián)邦標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的監(jiān)管——很可能是幾年以后的事情了——之前起訴自動駕駛汽車制造公司的能力。
There is a better model: the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986,
其實，自動駕駛還有一個更好的榜樣：1986年的《國家兒童疫苗傷害法案》，
which compensates (through a tax on vaccines) those injured, who in exchange waive their tort rights.
該法案(通過對疫苗征稅)對那些利益受損的人群予以補(bǔ)償，作為交換，這些人要放棄他們?yōu)樽约旱臋?quán)利受到侵犯申訴的機(jī)會。
The streamlined process reduces litigation costs and insurance premiums for manufacturers while protecting people.
簡化后的流程不僅能保護(hù)了大家，還能降低制造商的訴訟成本和保險費(fèi)。
It proves we can encourage the development of a lifesaving tech without devaluing the well-being of those risking their lives to help make that better world a reality.
也證明了我們可以在不損害那些冒著生命危險幫助建設(shè)美好世界的人的福祉的情況下，鼓勵開發(fā)能夠挽救生命的技術(shù)。
譯文由可可原創(chuàng)，僅供學(xué)習(xí)交流使用，未經(jīng)許可請勿轉(zhuǎn)載。
