Especially with a name like "autopilot" the system is ripe for litigation. We would need new laws that specially protect automated driving if we wish to continue it. I imagine some cities and states may do it, but not others.
Now let's continue this thought. Which company, do you think will produce the safer vehicles: The one liable for the faults of it's technology or the one not liable?
Now maybe the interesting question is why so many people shill (against their own interest) for the company known for the least responsible way of dealing with the matter.
I wonder why it's still not a thing in the US
A lot of people, like a friend of mine, have put their entire life savings in tesla stock when was rocketing to the moon during covid, because they were bored of crypto and were worshiping Elon. They have the most to loose from this stuff, so my friend spends the morning bus ride to work arguing on Twitter and other social media with people why tesla is the best and any any evidence otherwise is fake news or tesla shorts trying to manipulate the stock. Poor guy.
It could be that such an army exists on HN as well that abuses the flag button to protect the image of the company and their investment. Just a hypothesis.
I'd be curious if dang has some analytics on this.
If someone sold you some kind of funky DIY autopilot system on ebay that turned the wheel for you and you decided to put it in your car and go in traffic, are you not responsible just because the seller assured you it's safe?
I hope dang can analyze past posts to see if manipulation is happening.
Maybe it is my european upbringing, but this is not my problem, but the problem of said company. I don't see why they should be allowed to test on public streets.
Just the insurance savings alone could give up to $800 billion back to rate payers in the US.
Let me guess, cars are king that's why we should sacrifice our kids to their cold hard steel bodies. /s
No seriously. This saving money doesn't mean they should be allowed to cut corners. If you truly want self driving you should be behind not using public roads as experimental tracks (with all the fallout that could come from that).
In the meantime, in the here and now, these things are obviously hazardous and shouldn't be on the public roads. Even if they would lead to a better future, no company has the right to endanger unconsenting others now to accomplish it.
When? What's the social cost to affording these companies public spaces to test their products?
Tesla's approach specifically is just hubris/greed with the commons footing the bill.
Public transport and car sharing are two sides of the same coin. They approach the same solution from two different avenues. Public transport does not address the "last mile" problem of getting to the bus stop. Solving this issue would require more stops and smaller busses with complex adaptable routes. This is cost prohibitive if you have to have drivers. Car sharing is expensive and inconvenient because cars often end up parked in places were they are not needed and parking itself is expensive. Self driving cars (which will naturally evolve to mini busses) solve all these problems. No parking, no making grandma, and expectant mothers walk a mile to the bus stop. Everyone gets a cheap chauffeur service. And massively reduced road fatalities.
No one even bats an eye when this happens on cruise control, and no the name autopilot doesn't make people think it's okay to be inattentive while driving. I have a Tesla and the number of nags warnings beeps admonishments you get is more than enough to let you know to pay attention.
Is that what happened here? No
If I drove into the side of a truck I would not blame my car.
You could easily extend the line of thinking in this article to all cars. All companies are aware their designs are flawed, but they let people use their cars anyway.
If a "self-driving" car plows into someone who is responsible?
If think that's making you unsafe too bad for you. I think it's vastly more unsafe to share the road with a million half blind geriatrics but nobody suing the AARP.
You seem to be either incredibly confused, or just making a bad-faith analogy.
>If a "self-driving" car plows into someone who is responsible?
If the car was driving itself, then I'd think the manufacturer of the self-driving feature would be. I still think there would be a proximate cause analysis in this situation too.
> AND makes you acknowledge that if you use it you are completely liable for any crashes
This is just Tesla's deficient legal wrangling - it's certainly not a good point for you to stand on. Tesla is a product manufacturer and cannot waive away their liability for selling a defective product, nor gross negligence.