3 ms·
On the one hand I'd say give it to the NTSB, because historically they are really good at this sort of thing. On the other hand, I'd wonder if increasing NTSB
by dmoy 9y ago
On the one hand I'd say give it to the NTSB, because historically they are really good at this sort of thing.
On the other hand, I'd wonder if increasing NTSB scope this much would drastically decrease the average quality of NTSB's work. Scaling ain't easy.
- jeiting 9y agoYeah, pilot here. NTSB is the right organization to handle this. The investigators over there do an amazing job of determining root cause from forensic evidence. I assume that will be the process here.
- kortex 9y agoNTSB is there to handle civilian transportation accident investigations. Most automotive accidents are not very "surprising", which leaves them mostly dealing with non-personal transportation accidents. We are about to have a rapid increase in surprising, non-personal transportation accidents, so I seriously hope they are afforded the resources to deal with the influx as AVs come online.
- martin_bech 9y agoShouldnt this actually be pretty easy? The system on the Uber, should have a massive amount of cameras, and lidar. Basicly dashcams on speed, recording multiple angles of the accident. I would assume that everything is beeing recorded, for debug/Testing purposes.
- gowld 9y agoNTSB should expand to launch an automotive division. Bonus: Job creation to replace the jobs lost to automation
- 0xffff2 9y agoNTSB already has jurisdiction here, as well as on all rail accidents involving injuries, in addition to aviation accidents.