4 ms·

I'm interested in the argument for this!

• dvh 4y ago
  When your neighbor Joe in his 1987 Buick run over your cat, you know he has 2 mortgages on his house and wife with cancer. When a self driving car runs over your cat or ding your fence post, you will gladly sue the multi billion dollar company, just for the settlement money. It will unleash the neverending stream of lawsuits and companies will be forced to stop offering self driving or go bankrupt. Yeah, they can afford best lawyers, but not 500 new lawsuits every day.
  • leononame 4y ago
    Wouldn't car companies just lobby for some law changes that would make the "drivers" responsible rather than the manufacturers? Or alternatively, allow self driving only on highways and such, where it's much safer? I don't think progress is stopped that easily
  • szemy2 4y ago
    There was a case with Ford in the 70s were they calculated that a retribution cost per person would be around 200k - calculated the likely effect of the cars busting into flames because they had an design flaw. They realised they are still better off than to recall all vehicles. As the story illustrates, there might be situations were expecteded litigation is worth it. I'm not saying this is morally right, but companies will try to maximize their profit anyway, even if there are (calculable) risks involved. In the case of self-driving this might mean being a profitable car manufacturer vs becoming a niche, enthusiast car producer for people who still enjoy driving as a leisure. Here is one of essay on this: https://studymoose.com/a-utilitarian-argument-in-the-ford-pinto-case-essay https://studymoose.com/a-utilitarian-argument-in-the-ford-pi...
  • 972811 4y ago
    I'm not sure the capability for FSD will be ready by 2030, but I don't think these reasons are compelling. Insurance will solve these problems