3 ms·
How about instead of thinking about it from a statistical perspective we think of it from a liability one. A human driver has direct liability for the motor veh
by jinkiesScoob 3y ago
How about instead of thinking about it from a statistical perspective we think of it from a liability one. A human driver has direct liability for the motor vehicle they operate. Meanwhile Cruise is a social construct literally designed to avoid liability.
If a human kills someone accidentally they are almost certain to apologize and be obviously distraught. Cruise will deny everything, never apologize. While that is technically valueless by your metric, in the real world that has a lot of intangible value for those involved.
- phpisthebest 3y agoIn what way are they not liable, or designed to avoid liability. >human kills someone accidentally they are almost certain to apologize and be obviously distraught you start out wanting to use reason, then quickly jump to an emotional argument. I really dont care if if they feel distraught or not, I really do not care if they apologize or not. I care if they are likely to be a danger to others in the future, I care if there is a pattern of dangerous behavior, and I care that they (to the extent possible) make the victims hole. None of which requires them to express remorse, or be "obviously distraught" nor should any that be different between human and automated drivers. For example new laws in TN and TX will require someone that kills a person while driving drunk to pay child support if the victim has a child. That concept could also easily be adopted to automated driving. We do not need special laws, special regulations, etc. Human drivers and automated drivers should be held to the same standard. the Same standard.