[lkesteloot]

> Uber is the MOST likely to push it too fast

Sure, I think that's a plausible scenario. It's also plausible that Uber will succeed (they've succeeded a lot!) and this will light a fire under everyone's butt and create amazing competition, pushing all car makers into this space earlier than they would have otherwise.

Of course we don't know, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't guess. My scenario above seems most likely to me, and therefore stopping Uber lets car makers rest of their laurels a bit longer.

And by the way I would take this further: I'd like to government to provide immunity to self-driving car manufacturers for the next few years while they develop their technology, the same way that vaccine makers are immune to health damages from their products.

Remember that we should be willing to kill hundreds of people with self-driving cars just to push the technology forward even one week. (600 people per week die in the U.S. in cars.) Of course I agree with you that this is politically untenable, but it's still what should be done.

[EnFinlay]

> Remember that we should be willing to kill hundreds of people with self-driving cars just to push the technology forward even one week

I will never agree to that. A negligent death is a negligent death. We are not on the same page and I don't feel there is any potential benefit to a continued discussion. Good day.

[notahacker]

There's a reason why the legal system judges people on harm they actually cause and not the hypothetical best case scenario from allowing them to continue causing harm.