3 ms·

We do not generally hold drivers responsible for slips in judgement when driving. Only in cases of extreme recklessness is it normal for a driver to be 'held re

We do not generally hold drivers responsible for slips in judgement when driving. Only in cases of extreme recklessness is it normal for a driver to be 'held responsible'. It is silly that we hold self driving cars to an astronomically higher standard. We all know they are safer than human drivers. And that is true even if they kill 50 people a day.

malfist 25d ago
Ah yes, we would never hold a driver accountable for running a stop sign and killing someone. It doesn't meet the bar for seriously reckless
- Footnote7341 25d ago
  Plenty of examples of this. In many jurisdictions even accidentally rolling through a stop sign does not even come close to 'serious recklessness'. https://www.gulfcoastnewsnow.com/article/12-year-old-dead-after-vehicle-hits-3-people-outside-del-prado-blvd-walmart/46747729 https://www.gulfcoastnewsnow.com/article/12-year-old-dead-af...
  - dghlsakjg 25d ago
    Yeah, but you asserted that we do not hold drivers responsible for slips in judgement. We regularly hold drivers responsible for minor infractions that are otherwise consequence free.
devindotcom 25d ago
what an assertion
- simondotau 25d ago
  You can disagree, and I do too, but it is the basis of an interesting discussion. Personally I think that fully autonomous vehicles need to be at minimum 100x safer than humans in order to maintain a social license to operate. I’m not saying the law needs to codify that. I’m saying that society could never accept a system which was merely 10x safer than humans. Imagine every vehicle in North America was replaced with a robotaxi and road deaths absolutely plummeted from 40,000 to just 1,000 per year. That’s still an article every day about “Elon Musk's river of blood”. Supervised systems do not need such extreme safety, because the human driver remains responsible. But here’s an idea: if you want to use supervised FSD, that’s fine, but every collision gets automatically uploaded to a repository that is searchable by law enforcement and insurance companies.
  - Footnote7341 25d ago
    I think you're right about having to be 100x safer, but it's definitely irrational and a bad thing.
    - simondotau 25d ago
      Sadly correct.
  - senordevnyc 24d ago
    Paradoxically, the lower the fatalities get the bigger news it would be! "One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic" and all that.
aceazzameen 25d ago
[flagged]
GrinningFool 25d ago
The thing is it's a hypothetical 50 humans a day killed by the same driver.
class3shock 25d ago
If you blow through a stop sign and cause an accident you will be held responsible, no '' needed.

malfist 25d ago

Ah yes, we would never hold a driver accountable for running a stop sign and killing someone. It doesn't meet the bar for seriously reckless

Footnote7341 25d ago
Plenty of examples of this. In many jurisdictions even accidentally rolling through a stop sign does not even come close to 'serious recklessness'. https://www.gulfcoastnewsnow.com/article/12-year-old-dead-after-vehicle-hits-3-people-outside-del-prado-blvd-walmart/46747729 https://www.gulfcoastnewsnow.com/article/12-year-old-dead-af...
- dghlsakjg 25d ago
  Yeah, but you asserted that we do not hold drivers responsible for slips in judgement. We regularly hold drivers responsible for minor infractions that are otherwise consequence free.

devindotcom 25d ago

what an assertion

simondotau 25d ago
You can disagree, and I do too, but it is the basis of an interesting discussion. Personally I think that fully autonomous vehicles need to be at minimum 100x safer than humans in order to maintain a social license to operate. I’m not saying the law needs to codify that. I’m saying that society could never accept a system which was merely 10x safer than humans. Imagine every vehicle in North America was replaced with a robotaxi and road deaths absolutely plummeted from 40,000 to just 1,000 per year. That’s still an article every day about “Elon Musk's river of blood”. Supervised systems do not need such extreme safety, because the human driver remains responsible. But here’s an idea: if you want to use supervised FSD, that’s fine, but every collision gets automatically uploaded to a repository that is searchable by law enforcement and insurance companies.
- Footnote7341 25d ago
  I think you're right about having to be 100x safer, but it's definitely irrational and a bad thing.
  - simondotau 25d ago
    Sadly correct.
- senordevnyc 24d ago
  Paradoxically, the lower the fatalities get the bigger news it would be! "One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic" and all that.

aceazzameen 25d ago

[flagged]

GrinningFool 25d ago

The thing is it's a hypothetical 50 humans a day killed by the same driver.

class3shock 25d ago

If you blow through a stop sign and cause an accident you will be held responsible, no '' needed.