←back to thread

410 points jjulius | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.865s | 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 #
stormfather ◴[] No.41890189[source]
That would be good because it would incentivize all FSD cars communicating with each other. Imagine how safe driving would be if they are all broadcasting their speed and position to each other. And each vehicle sending/receiving gets cheaper insurance.
replies(2): >>41890733 #>>41899496 #
1. Terr_ ◴[] No.41890733[source]
It goes kinda dsytopic if access to the network becomes a monopolistic barrier.
replies(1): >>41896451 #
2. tmtvl ◴[] No.41896451[source]
Not to mention the possibility of requiring pedestrians and cyclists to also be connected to the same network. Anyone with access to the automotive network could track any pedestrian who passes by the vicinity of a road.
replies(1): >>41899155 #
3. Terr_ ◴[] No.41899155[source]
It's hard to think of a good blend of traffic safety, privacy guarantees, and resistance to bad-actors. Having/avoiding persistent identification is certainly a factor.

Perhaps one approach would be to declare that automated systems are responsible for determining the position/speed of everything around them using regular sensors, but may elect to take hints from anonymous "notice me" marks or beacons.