CNBC AI News – July 5th: A recent incident involving a Huawei M9 owner in Changsha has ignited a heated debate online, highlighting the complexities and expectations surrounding advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS). The owner, Mr. Zhang, reported that while his M9 was engaged in its intelligent driving mode, the vehicle made an unexpectedly wide turn to avoid a subway construction barrier, resulting in a collision with a business vehicle approaching from his rear right.
The ensuing police report from the Changsha Public Security Bureau Traffic Police Detachment assigned full responsibility to Mr. Zhang, citing his violation of traffic safety laws requiring drivers to operate vehicles with due care and adherence to operational standards. The driver of the other vehicle was deemed to have no fault.
Following the accident, Mr. Zhang presented a series of demands to the vehicle manufacturer. Initially, he sought a full refund for the vehicle, disclaiming any responsibility for the accident, or alternatively, a brand new M9 along with compensation totaling 1.5 million yuan. This compensation package reportedly included 500,000 yuan for car replacement, 500,000 yuan for emotional distress, and another 500,000 yuan due to perceived risks of cancer development following the incident. A third option proposed was the original vehicle being restored to factory specifications, with guaranteed resale value and a 2.5 million yuan payout, which included a 1.5 million yuan claim for threefold compensation on the repair cost, plus the 500,000 yuan for emotional distress and cancer risk.
Mr. Zhang justified his initial claims by referencing Article 24 of China’s Consumer Rights Protection Law, which allows for “return one, compensate three” in certain circumstances. However, due to the substantial amount and the multifaceted nature of his demands, negotiations have stalled.
In an effort to reach a resolution, Mr. Zhang has since revised his demands. He is now proposing a “return one, compensate three” model based on the vehicle’s purchase price and associated expenses. He has also expressed a willingness to negotiate directly with the manufacturer. Meanwhile, local market regulatory authorities have reportedly stepped in to investigate the matter.
The incident has predictably sparked considerable online discussion, with many netizens asserting that the driver bears sole responsibility and that the compensation demands are excessive, bordering on extortion. A common sentiment echoed by many is that Level 2 ADAS systems still place the ultimate responsibility on the driver, who must remain vigilant and ready to intervene. The argument is that expecting manufacturers to cover damages when the driver fails to manage the system properly shifts blame inappropriately.
One widely shared comment highlighted this perspective: “It’s baffling why this is even up for debate. The driver is still responsible for L2 assisted driving systems. Expecting the manufacturer to shoulder the burden when you fail to take responsibility for your own safety is misplaced. If you’re going to blame someone for not letting the system drive itself, then blame the person who convinced you of that. This has nothing to do with the car manufacturer or the ADAS provider. Clearly, the ‘driver and car co-pilot’ concept hasn’t been mastered. Drivers are being too casual with safety. The remaining compensation demands are comical. I suggest a counterclaim for extortion.”
What’s your take on this situation?
Original article, Author: Tobias. If you wish to reprint this article, please indicate the source:https://aicnbc.com/4056.html
