4 ms·
> As long as the resulting package (flawed self driving system + the average driver) isn't significantly more dangerous than the average unassisted human driver
by TacticalCoder 5y ago
> As long as the resulting package (flawed self driving system + the average driver) isn't significantly more dangerous than the average unassisted human driver...
Shouldn't that compared to "average driver + myriad of modern little safety features" instead of "average unassisted driver"? The one who has the means to drive a Tesla with the "full driving" mode certain has the means to buy, say, a Toyota full of assistance/safety features (lane change assist, unwanted lane change warning and whatnots).
- politician 5y agoWhy isn’t defeating the self-driving attention controls a crime like reckless driving? Isn’t that the obvious solution?
- rcxdude 5y agoGonna be pretty difficult to enforce. Many US states don't even enforce a minimum roadworthiness of cars on the roads.
- politician 5y agoDoes that even matter? If the state doesn’t care to enforce its laws against reckless driving, why should the manufacturer be encumbered with that responsibility?
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y agoIt almost certainly is, at least when combined with the intentional inattention that follows. Making it a crime isn't an "obvious solution" to actually make it not happen. Drunk driving is a crime and yet people keep doing it. Same with texting and driving.
- politician 5y agoThe problem is determining who is liable for damages, not prevention. Shifting the liability for willfully disabling a safety control puts them on notice. Prevention as a goal is how we end up with dystopia.