3 ms·

> I think this level of automation in-between cruise-control and full self driving is incredibly dangerous and should be made illegal. It is well known that hum

> I think this level of automation in-between cruise-control and full self driving is incredibly dangerous and should be made illegal. It is well known that humans can't maintain focus on repetitive tasks for any significant length of time. I would rather see conditional-use licenses that require full automation. I.e. maybe Tesla gets a license that allows using Autopilot, but only on highways with a speed limit equal to or lower than 55 MPH, and only when it isn't raining or snowing. Then just require Autopilot to enforce those conditions. Have it refuse to engage if it's raining or snowing. If your route needs to take an offramp, have it loudly announce "Your route needs to take this exit, but I cannot drive there. Please take the wheel." If you don't take the wheel, it just keeps going down the highway or pulls over or something. Then let them slowly increase the situations they're licensed for through some kind of testing process. > My proposal would be to hold the manufacturer responsible for the behaviour of their products as soon as they pass a very basic form of automation While I agree, I think this is a significant dampener on user-owned self-driving cars. It's really unappealing to sell a product where you're liable for what end-users do with it. Especially a product the end-user has physical control of. On the tame side, what if they don't update it? On the more malicious side, what if they physically tamper with it? Or if they purposefully put it in terrible situations to see what it does? You just know there will be some kind of Tiktok fad involving doing stupid things with self-driving cars. Most of those are far less of an issue with company-owned cars you hire as a taxi. The user doesn't have physical control, and the company can maintain control of the route. Makes it a lot easier to avoid problem areas, and prevents users from doing dumb things with routes like trying to drive through an airport or something. I just wanted to bring up that that's probably the death knell for getting to own a self-driving car. Maybe it's still worthwhile.

kevincox 5y ago
> maybe Tesla gets a license that allows using Autopilot, but only on highways with a speed limit equal to or lower than 55 MPH, and only when it isn't raining or snowing. This is in line with my thinking of the manufacturer taking responsibility. If they can guarantee that it is safe only in certain conditions they can enable self-driving only in those certain conditions. If they can guarantee that it is safe everywhere, they can enable it everywhere. > It's really unappealing to sell a product where you're liable for what end-users do with it. Yes, this is a serious problem that would need to be addressed before implementing a system like this. It would make third-party repairs and modifications difficult. (They would probably have to take responsibility or disable the self-driving features. Of course maybe that is the right model, the repair shop takes responsibility but if they show the problem wasn't their fault then they can turn around and demand damages from the original manufacturer. Unfortunately now there is a lot of annoying legal work generated.) > On the tame side, what if they don't update it? This would be the manufacturer to decide. Maybe it refuses to self-drive if not updated. Of course the reasons that the feature would be removed would need to be made clear to the consumer (or they could get a refund). > I just wanted to bring up that that's probably the death knell for getting to own a self-driving car. Maybe it's still worthwhile. I don't think it is the death-knell, but it definitely blurs the line further between who owns the car and will likely slow down the adoption of individual self-driving cars. This does have downsides but to me it looks like these are likely better than letting this dangerous combination of insufficiently "smart" vehicle and distracted driver zoom around the roads.

kevincox 5y ago

> maybe Tesla gets a license that allows using Autopilot, but only on highways with a speed limit equal to or lower than 55 MPH, and only when it isn't raining or snowing. This is in line with my thinking of the manufacturer taking responsibility. If they can guarantee that it is safe only in certain conditions they can enable self-driving only in those certain conditions. If they can guarantee that it is safe everywhere, they can enable it everywhere. > It's really unappealing to sell a product where you're liable for what end-users do with it. Yes, this is a serious problem that would need to be addressed before implementing a system like this. It would make third-party repairs and modifications difficult. (They would probably have to take responsibility or disable the self-driving features. Of course maybe that is the right model, the repair shop takes responsibility but if they show the problem wasn't their fault then they can turn around and demand damages from the original manufacturer. Unfortunately now there is a lot of annoying legal work generated.) > On the tame side, what if they don't update it? This would be the manufacturer to decide. Maybe it refuses to self-drive if not updated. Of course the reasons that the feature would be removed would need to be made clear to the consumer (or they could get a refund). > I just wanted to bring up that that's probably the death knell for getting to own a self-driving car. Maybe it's still worthwhile. I don't think it is the death-knell, but it definitely blurs the line further between who owns the car and will likely slow down the adoption of individual self-driving cars. This does have downsides but to me it looks like these are likely better than letting this dangerous combination of insufficiently "smart" vehicle and distracted driver zoom around the roads.