3 ms·
I think there is a good argument that now is a good time for a liability shift for certain types of accidents with TACC. TACC should never be rear ending people
by _ea1k 5y ago
I think there is a good argument that now is a good time for a liability shift for certain types of accidents with TACC. TACC should never be rear ending people.
- mistrial9 5y agoa bad actor can easily create an accident of this description, no?
- _ea1k 5y agoHow? Hard braking shouldn't do it. Cutting in front potentially could, but that'd be a different problem.
- sokoloff 5y agoIt’s a driver aid, not a driver replacement. I’m responsible for where my airplane autopilot takes the airplane (in large part because I’ll be the first one to arrive at the accident scene). Why shouldn’t the driver be responsible for accidents in the car they’re driving at the current level of driver assist technology?
- _ea1k 5y agoYeah, I know, but I'm starting to think that we've reached a point that this shouldn't be an excuse for straight up rear end collisions. They should be forced to make the black box available and take liability if the driver didn't take over. There's no reason that TACC shouldn't be able to handle the basic job of not running into the car in front of it in the vast majority of circumstances.