3 ms·
A human breaks the rolling stop rule on a case by case basis and is responsible for the consequences, while a rolling-stop-avoidance feature acts on your behalf
by deegles 5y ago
A human breaks the rolling stop rule on a case by case basis and is responsible for the consequences, while a rolling-stop-avoidance feature acts on your behalf and Tesla is responsible for it. An analogy might be that it's the difference between getting food poisoning from home cooking vs. from a restaurant. Even though you're consuming food in both instances, the liability is assigned differently.
- lamontcg 5y ago> A human breaks the rolling stop rule on a case by case basis and is responsible for the consequences Not really. You can fail to see a pedestrian and cripple them and you won't see a whole lot of consequences for your "accident" (negligence). Breaking rules on a case-by-case basis is also how the normalization of deviance occurs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljzj9Msli5o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljzj9Msli5o If you break rules when you think you don't need to follow them you'll find that you're not 99.9% perfect and you will inevitably cause a crash. If you follow the rules all the time you won't make that error. The reason why computers should ultimately replace human drivers is precisely because we're dangerously incompetent and overconfident and shouldn't be breaking any rules.
- FireBeyond 5y agoOh, according to Tesla, not so. Their perspective is that you're absolutely and solely liable in either case. Their legal department works studiously to handwave away every marketing statement. "The driver is only in the seat for legal purposes. The car is driving itself." - "You are entirely responsible for driving the vehicle." "Use Summon to bring your car to you while dealing with a fussy child." - "Pay attention to vehicle at all times."