If a sat nav directs a user through an inappropriate use, it would seem that liability should rest with the sat nav producer for giving incorrect information. However, there is a strong argument to suggest that logic should prevail and drivers should be required to take some responsibility for their own actions. Can it really be said that if a driver follows a sat nav’s instructions blindly and drive the wrong way down a one way street or drives along a street which is too narrow for their vehicle that liability should rest with the sat nav manufacturer?
On occasion there have been stories where people follow sat nav directions in lieu of paying attention to road signs. If a driver disobeys a road sign whilst following a sat nav and ends up in the creek without a boat would liability lie entirely with them or should the sat nav producer take some responsibility for wrong directions?
There is an argument that both have been negligent. In both situations, at best this would surely be contributory negligence? I think there is a strong argument that liability in such circumstances should lie with the driver of the vehicle.
Whatever happened to common sense; has it been replaced by the computer?
However the UK Highway Code (General Advice 144) suggests that:
ReplyDelete'You MUST NOT
•drive dangerously
•drive without due care and attention'
As well as Section 148:
'Safe driving and riding needs concentration.
Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as
•loud music (this may mask other sounds)
•trying to read maps'
So if we think of sat nav as an electronic map of sorts or even 'a distraction', the onus is still on the driver to drive with due care, following the road signs.
On your last comment regarding common sense gone missing, the changes last year to the UK Practical Driving Test to now include 'Independent Driving' seem to go toward that reliance that we see all too often with drivers today and sat nav:
'Why you can't use sat nav
You can't use a sat nav for independent driving as it gives you turn-by-turn prompts. Independent driving tests how you make your own decisions.'
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/LearnerAndNewDrivers/PracticalTest/DG_189979
I agree completely - whether the map is paper or electronic, the final responsibility should rest with the driver. However, I would also agree that a satnav manufacturer should not able to discharge all responsibility, particularly in a consumer situation, for providing inaccurate mapping or route navigation capability; the more advanced a product claims to be, the more one can reasonably expect the manufacturer to have taken care in the product's development and creation. However, just like software, maps have errors - I recall that Ordnance Survey intentionally introduces errors into its maps, to help them detect copyright infringement.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I am not sure for how long it will be possible to argue that the driver should be responsible. Given the work that is being done into autonomous transport — in effect, driverless vehicles — the software dealing with the navigation will be far more responsible for the direction of the vehicle than the driver. In the early days, the driver may still have some override capability, to be able to control the car manually, but, as fully-autonomous systems enter the market, the driver will be little more than a passenger; it would be very hard to place blame on a driver where their vehicle misbehaves, and far more likely that the manufacturers, perhaps even suppliers, or such systems will have an increased risk portfolio to price into their products.
"However, I would also agree that a satnav manufacturer should not able to discharge all responsibility, particularly in a consumer situation, for providing inaccurate mapping or route navigation capability."
ReplyDeleteOne of the barriers in the current technology (mistakes intentional or otherwise aside), however, is that as the roads and subsequently the sat nav routes are updated, however, the consumers remained tied to their older versions, deemed 'good enough' of a fit for purpose. If liability were to shift to the consumer who failed to update his product, perhaps we'd see a different story, in particular in Shelley's example...
The sensible solution would be for ultimate liability to rest with the driver as they are at the coal face as it were. However I think it is fair to say, as Neil points out, that the shift towards driverless vehicles will alter this balance.
ReplyDeleteWhere the consumer fails to update their sat nav, I don’t think it’s simply a case that liability will rest with the consumer. I think it will be important for manufacturers to show that they have done what they can to ensure that the consumer is aware that updates are necessary and that the consumer can update their product.
What happens for instance, where the technology in the software surpasses the technology in the hardware, so that the “old” sat nav will no longer run the latest software update?
Further, manufacturers must ensure that the update process is as simple as it can possibly be, so that consumers can update their sat nav.
Then there is the cost; that realistically has to be a commercial decision, although I think if the cost was the only issue, liability might fall on the consumer’s shoulders. That said, some sat navs now come with free updates for life. On that note, maybe I should update my sat nav as I received as a gift a few years ago and haven’t updated it since!
I was just looking into updating my sat nav a found this on the website:
ReplyDelete"Truck-friendly navigation"
"No more narrow country lanes or impossible maneuvers with the nüvi 465TF – our first nüvi designed specifically for trucking professionals. Featuring a preloaded U.K. truck attribute database*, specialized routing options and truck-friendly points of interest, this full-featured navigator was made for life on the road. The nüvi 465TF can save multiple vehicle profiles which can be tailored to what you’re driving and what you’re hauling."
https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=275&pID=62759
This would surely have an impact on where liabilty lies?
> I think it will be important for manufacturers to show that they have done what they can to ensure that the consumer is aware that updates are necessary and that the consumer can update their product.
ReplyDeleteHowever, to look into the "old" world of navigation, it is clear that a paper map is only accurate as of the date it was printed; updates are obviously not expected. Whilst there could be a discussion of liability if the map was inaccurate at the point of publication, I'd have thought it would be difficult to impose liability on a map provider for changes to the road network after the map was published.
One view, then, would be that software-based mapping is just that; the representation of mapping in a different form. If the road has changed after the publication of the software, then, applying the same principles as with physical mapping, holding the provider liability would be an interesting interpretation. Equally, one might argue that the ability to update mapping is improved - it is now possible - and that this should increase the liability; conversely, this is an addition service, and so could be justified as an extra charge.
Perhaps there is also a difference between the accuracy of the mapping, and the accuracy / appropriateness of the routing capability. The mapping may be accurate, but the route planned by the logic in the device might be either entirely faulty - for example, driving down an incorrectly-designated one way street in the wrong direction - or else inappropriate for the vehicle in question - routing an HGV through a small mountainside village.
The nüvi system addresses this particular aspect of the problem - the appropriateness of the routing for the vehicle in question. If it started producing routes which were not appropriate for the particular truck profile, one might argue an increased liability on the part of the company. Conversely, the truck driver remains the driver, and so should not be entirely without blame, and it would be more than likely that the EULA would attempt to exclude liability; if most units are sold to truckers in the course of their trade, under English law, such an exclusion may well be valid.
It might be worth my adding that there have been similar concerns in recent years among the airborne community. I used to fly with a GPS but it was always understood that these were a backup, and not a substitute for "proper" "dead-reckoning navigation". Part of captaincy training is that you take responsibility and make the necessary decisions. It's good to see that coming into the driving test as independent driving! Maps hard or soft will always have errors, and the pilot or driver will make errors. I guess ultimately its a question of fact as well as law so there is no unique answer to the liability issue. Oh by the way GPS is easily jammed so you may lose it occasionally!
ReplyDelete