4 ms·

Even if it was the EU doing, it has nothing to do with demanding perfect instead of good. It's about blaming who/what is doing the actual driving when an accide

Even if it was the EU doing, it has nothing to do with demanding perfect instead of good. It's about blaming who/what is doing the actual driving when an accident happens. I think it's perfectly sensible. Put in another way, I don't expect my taxi driver to be perfect, in fact I probably drive more safely than most of them. But if they get into an accident it's their fault, not mine.

judge2020 5y ago
That's the OP's point, if you blame it simply because it's driving, you're incentivizing the systems to only work when it thinks it's 100% safe to drive. It's how you get "you can only engage on pre-defined major highways and only during daylight".
- mrighele 5y ago
  If the automaker advertise a level of automation where I am not supposed to do anything while the car drives itself (which seems to be the case), of course I blame it in case of accident: what could I have done it to prevent it, except for not using the feature at all ? If instead we talk about driving assistance and I am supposed to keep an eye on the car, I am fine with being responsible for any accident.
brk 5y ago
But isn't the human always ultimately in control of the vehicle? Any time the car is set in motion, it is the result of a human request, they don't just randomly drive around for fun. Just because the human farms out some of the monotony of driving, does that absolve them from setting the vehicle in motion in the first place? For now I'm leaving aside things like "summon my car to me", or "tell the car to randomly drive around until it finds a parking spot" where no human would be present in the vehicle at all because I think those kinds of scenarios are still a very long long way off, where the vehicles can be expected to move with no supervision at all.
- Noughmad 5y ago
  But the "vehicle in motion" is not the problem. Accidents are a problem. Exactly the same way as in a taxi - if the taxi driver causes an accident, is it your fault because you told him where to go?

judge2020 5y ago

That's the OP's point, if you blame it simply because it's driving, you're incentivizing the systems to only work when it thinks it's 100% safe to drive. It's how you get "you can only engage on pre-defined major highways and only during daylight".

mrighele 5y ago
If the automaker advertise a level of automation where I am not supposed to do anything while the car drives itself (which seems to be the case), of course I blame it in case of accident: what could I have done it to prevent it, except for not using the feature at all ? If instead we talk about driving assistance and I am supposed to keep an eye on the car, I am fine with being responsible for any accident.

brk 5y ago

But isn't the human always ultimately in control of the vehicle? Any time the car is set in motion, it is the result of a human request, they don't just randomly drive around for fun. Just because the human farms out some of the monotony of driving, does that absolve them from setting the vehicle in motion in the first place? For now I'm leaving aside things like "summon my car to me", or "tell the car to randomly drive around until it finds a parking spot" where no human would be present in the vehicle at all because I think those kinds of scenarios are still a very long long way off, where the vehicles can be expected to move with no supervision at all.

Noughmad 5y ago
But the "vehicle in motion" is not the problem. Accidents are a problem. Exactly the same way as in a taxi - if the taxi driver causes an accident, is it your fault because you told him where to go?