Motorcyclist sues GM over crash with self-driving car

[FeedBot]

In a case that could potentially set a landmark precedent, a motorcyclist is taking GM to court for its role in a 2017 collision between the rider and a self-driving Chevrolet Bolt EV. The vehicle involved is part of GM’s self-driving Cruise Anywhere ride-sharing fleet that it hopes will soon be available to members of the general public...

View the full article

[Frosty]

While I see the broader implications to GM and other autonomous vehicle makers that can result in crashes between human driven vehicles versus computer controlled ones (this lawsuit would've inevitably happen somewhere IMO), I have to wonder if this guy would be suing GM if it wasn't an autonomous vehicle (albeit with a human backup) that' is involved in the first place. If it was a regular car, driven by a human being, would he sue GM or the car owner instead....even though the police placed him 100% at fault for the accident?

Edited January 25, 2018 by Frosty

[Professur]

14 minutes ago, Frosty said:

. If it was a regular car, driven by a human being, would he sue GM or the car owner instead....even though the police placed him 100% at fault for the accident?

He'd still say it was the car's fault. That's their narrative. I have a bike permit myself. I always watch for them ... but I don't ride anymore myself because the insurance is too costly. Because 90% of the riders on the road today are as bad as 90% of the car drivers ... and it's always someone else's fault.

Quebec at least knows this. And they punish it. Plates for a bike include 'no fault' insurance. For a bike over 500cc, you're looking at $500 to plate it. UNLESS it's classed as a 'sport bike'. If that's the case ... DOUBLE IT!! $1000 for plates for a 3 season vehicle. Why? Because if you're buying a 'sport bike', you're buying it to be stupid. Can't say I've seen anything to make me disagree with them.

[Ringo64]

Yeah, this is an interesting scenario.

[Frosty]

17 minutes ago, Professur said:

He'd still say it was the car's fault. That's their narrative. I have a bike permit myself. I always watch for them ... but I don't ride anymore myself because the insurance is too costly. Because 90% of the riders on the road today are as bad as 90% of the car drivers ... and it's always someone else's fault.

Quebec at least knows this. And they punish it. Plates for a bike include 'no fault' insurance. For a bike over 500cc, you're looking at $500 to plate it. UNLESS it's classed as a 'sport bike'. If that's the case ... DOUBLE IT!! $1000 for plates for a 3 season vehicle. Why? Because if you're buying a 'sport bike', you're buying it to be stupid. Can't say I've seen anything to make me disagree with them.

Pro - I agree with you. Stupidity is never at fault when lawyers get involved (that almost sounds contradictory).

Since I know nothing of owning motorcycle and I have no desire to ride or own one, I defer to you experience with the costs associated with owning one. I must admit the logic is sound behind the fact that if you own a sport bike, we know you are going to be REALLY, REALLY, REALLY stupid on it, then you get to pay more for insurance for that privilege to be stupid and wrong. However, this is similar to what happened in the late 60s and early 70s when certain muscle cars like the GTO, 442, GSX, Road Runner, etc. were tagged by insurance companies as muscle cars and they had to pay a kings ransom for coverage (sometimes more than their car payment a month). However, buying a Lemans, Cutlass, Skylark, and Satellite with the same engine/suspension packages avoided all those charges. In today's politically correct world, some would argue that this profiling or discrimination.  Yeah, it is. Too bad. It's (currently) legal.

Edited January 25, 2018 by Frosty