I agree with what you say. Ultimately, the system (with all it's faults) only has to save more lives than without it before it has a net positive. I think wha

I agree with what you say. Ultimately, the system (with all it's faults) only has to save more lives than without it before it has a net positive. I think what I found interesting is that the liability could shift onto the truck when they were not the one who took a dangerous action to overtake with oncoming traffic. I guess it's similar to me signalling to the car behind it's safe to overtake, when in fact it might not be. I could cause the accident. Aids to improve safety are good because it's the last line of defense, and if everything went as planned, they wouldn't be activated. Aids that help people participate in new risks opens up new questions. Cars behind have the choice not to overtake and that could in most cases would be the safest option (albeit tedious and boring). I'm all for this technology making roads safer, but I think it should be very clearly set out who is liable for it's failure. I don't want to be held responsible for my automatic breaking system failing, causing me to come to an unexpected complete stop on a motorway resulting in a multi-car pileup.