3 ms·
Yes but that's very different. Most accidents aren't the suing a company but a driver. This would be more like someone suing a car manufacturer because they mad
by Houshalter 10y ago
Yes but that's very different. Most accidents aren't the suing a company but a driver. This would be more like someone suing a car manufacturer because they made a faulty steering wheel or something. And I based that on the economic value of life, as estimated by various government agencies to be around that number: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#Life_Value_in_the_US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#Life_Value_in_th... But it should also include legal fees which aren't cheap at all.
- dexterdog 10y agoYou're also assuming fatalities which are not common. You're also assuming that the software company will be able to be found liable after both a waiver and a proven history of safety testing. Currently we have about 15 fatalities per 100k drivers. 40% of those are alcohol related so I'm going to count those as saves right away. Many of the rest are weather/sleeping/texting/etc that are easily savable. Even if we pretend those will all still happen, the goal is a 10x safety increase which would mean .9 per 100k. Even at your outlandish 10M number that would not kill the company, but the reality is closer to 1/10 that amount and even less if the legal hurdles are properly-managed.