←back to thread

410 points jjulius | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
AlchemistCamp ◴[] No.41889077[source]
The interesting question is how good self-driving has to be before people tolerate it.

It's clear that having half the casualty rate per distance traveled of the median human driver isn't acceptable. How about a quarter? Or a tenth? Accidents caused by human drivers are one of the largest causes of injury and death, but they're not newsworthy the way an accident involving automated driving is. It's all too easy to see a potential future where many people die needlessly because technology that could save lives is regulated into a greatly reduced role.

replies(20): >>41889114 #>>41889120 #>>41889122 #>>41889128 #>>41889176 #>>41889205 #>>41889210 #>>41889249 #>>41889307 #>>41889331 #>>41889686 #>>41889898 #>>41890057 #>>41890101 #>>41890451 #>>41893035 #>>41894281 #>>41894476 #>>41895039 #>>41900280 #
Arainach ◴[] No.41889128[source]
This is about lying to the public and stoking false expectations for years.

If it's "fully self driving" Tesla should be liable for when its vehicles kill people. If it's not fully self driving and Tesla keeps using that name in all its marketing, regardless of any fine print, then Tesla should be liable for people acting as though their cars could FULLY self drive and be sued accordingly.

You don't get to lie just because you're allegedly safer than a human.

replies(4): >>41889149 #>>41889881 #>>41890885 #>>41893587 #
jeremyjh ◴[] No.41889149[source]
I think this is the answer: the company takes on full liability. If a Tesla is Fully Self Driving then Tesla is driving it. The insurance market will ensure that dodgy software/hardware developers exit the industry.
replies(4): >>41889184 #>>41890181 #>>41890189 #>>41890241 #
1. KoolKat23 ◴[] No.41890241[source]
That's just reducing the value of a life to a number. It can be gamed to a situation where it's just more profitable to mow down people.

What's an acceptable number/financial cost is also just an indirect approximated way of implementing a more direct/scientific regulation. Not everything needs to be reduced to money.

replies(1): >>41890691 #
2. jeremyjh ◴[] No.41890691[source]
There is no way to game it successfully; if your insurance costs are much higher than your competitors you will lose in the long run. That doesn’t mean there can’t be other penalties when there is gross negligence.
replies(1): >>41891750 #
3. KoolKat23 ◴[] No.41891750[source]
Who said management and shareholders are in it for the long run. Plenty of examples where businesses are purely run in the short term. Bonuses and stock pumps.