4 ms·
> If a human being had done that they would have absolutely had the book thrown at them. Really? If they had been in a car accident caused by another driver, a
by dkarl 3y ago
> If a human being had done that they would have absolutely had the book thrown at them.
Really? If they had been in a car accident caused by another driver, and took a few seconds to pull over because they were unaware they were dragging a person initially hit by the other driver, they would have been charged?
It's very hard to hold people responsible, and it's telling that you had to cite such a grisly and outrageous example. Unless you're drunk or it's a hit-and-run, you're unlikely to face any charges beyond a traffic violation.
> You watch, someone will start offering insurance for that liability.
Of course? Exactly like we've mandated for human drivers since the 1970s?
All this hand-wringing about things that we've accepted our whole lives with human drivers.
I'll say it again: we need data-driven approach to figuring out when autonomous vehicles reach the threshold of becoming less deadly than human drivers. If we jump the gun and allow widespread adoption too soon, people will die unnecessarily. If we drag our feet and allow widespread adoption too late, people will die unnecessarily.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago> Really? If they had been in a car accident caused by another driver, and took a few seconds to pull over because they were unaware they were dragging a person initially hit by the other driver, they would have been charged? unless you believe this person stayed completely silent during this, the answer is yes. The measuring stick that the law tends to use for liability like this is the reasonable person test and no reasonable person drives 20 feet with someone screaming in pain after having HIT their car. Are there circumstances in which someone would NOT be charged? sure, there have been cases of toddlers running out in front of cars and it was determined the driver couldn't possible have seen them due to their height. Since you apparently misunderstood, the point about the insurance is that maybe we shouldn't allow companies to insure themselves against killing people. We as a society absolutely went after Ford for choosing not to do recalls because the estimated cost of the recall exceeded the estimated payout for the deaths and injuries. Under no circumstances should we allow companies to make decisions like this.
- dml2135 3y agoSorry but this just comes off as completely out of touch to me. Yes, I agree that there would be a legal case to charge someone in such a scenario. But what actually happens, at least in NYC, is that the cops and prosecutors will bend over backwards to give a driver the benefit of the doubt.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agoSounds to me like you have an axe to grind somewhere and it's affecting your judgement on this issue.
- lozenge 3y agoCruise showed the DMV a video that cut out just before their car dragged (ran over) the pedestration. Effectively they were trying to do a hit and run as well by not showing footage of their car's behaviour that caused the injuries.