[ergothus]

> its worth approaching this exciting new technology with a slightly less cavalier attitude

While I'm a huge fan of vehicle automation, I have plenty of concern that it not be commonly used until it is in fact safer overall (I allow that come circumstances become less safe while others become more). I'm not sure what "cavalier" attitude you refer to? Where, exactly, are people claiming there is no concern for safety? What legislation has been passed that is seeing through rose-colored glasses?

Heck, the death referenced in the headline got lots of attention, both in criticism and in praise of automation, so I can see a lot of conclusions from that but "cavalier" isn't one of them. Looks to me like all sorts of caution is being considered, proclaimed, and hammered.

So what cavalier attitude is there that this article, with it's admittedly weak arguments, is good to be fighting?

[thinkmoore]

I think the idea of releasing a vehicle safety system that you apparently have little enough faith in to call a "beta," and marketing said system under the name "Autopilot" and then acting surprised when people treat it as a reliable autonomous control system are pretty cavalier. I was also referring to the attitude (evident in this thread) that since there was a warning it is completely the drivers fault. I certainly think this technology will improve safety. But we should certainly consider what role the technology itself played in accidents---whether because driver's aren't using it as intended or it has a design defect (no sensing at windscreen height).

I get the sense that a lot of people feel like since the intent is good and driver's are opting in that basically anything goes---which seems pretty cavalier to me.