3 ms·

>> The drivers can’t blame a multinational automaker if something goes wrong. They have to admit that they modified their car with an aftermarket device that h

>> The drivers can’t blame a multinational automaker if something goes wrong. They have to admit that they modified their car with an aftermarket device that hasn’t been safety tested. Comma even provides disclaimers that their product isn’t production ready. If it fails, the customer doesn’t have much incentive to broadcast to the world that they bought, installed, and used a product on public roads that was advertised as being not ready for prime time. Well this is just terrifying. I'm wondering if there have been any serious accidents where a driver was using his software and got taken to court over the repercussions of the accident. Thinking about tens of thousands of people using this software on the road is pretty scary.

giobox 6y ago
The situation in say a Tesla or any other new car isn't much better under most driving rule regimes out there today. Fault for accident is virtually always the driver, regardless of whether automated or assist systems in use. This includes Tesla's Autopilot when used in the United States, you don't get to blame Tesla at least not today. Personally, I can't wait for wider adoption of mature "assisted driving" products in the future - I find the idea of that future a lot less scary than the millions of not so great human drivers we have to deal with right now. The biggest problem I have with Comma is that the quality of the camera installation will vary enormously between users even if we assume the software to be perfect. At least in a car certified for production you can mandate the cameras, sensors etc be attached permanently to the vehicle in relatively sound locations, vastly reduced risk of them falling off and causing a bad steering or other control input.