[mannykannot]

In fact, the driver should have had his eyes on the road, in order to have the degree of attentiveness that Tesla always claims was missing whenever this sort of crash occurs. Tesla cars are unable to detect whether the driver is doing that, and if they did, it would make clear that this technology is nowhere near as complete as Tesla claims.

[yeahitslikethat]

They can drive a car automatically but not tell if a driver is awake and alert and looking at the road?

Seems that would be easier to me.

[saalweachter]

Would you buy a car that had a camera pointed at you constantly, recording for use in an accident investigation, uploading periodic short videos to Tesla for use in their training data?

[sjwright]

Absolutely yes, because I don't drive like a stupid idiot—and if I ever did I'm not going to deny responsibility.

However I don't see why having a camera pointed at my face necessarily means that Tesla have to willingly provide information to insurance companies. As long as it is only available to law enforcement after being granted a court order, I'm fine with that.

(Note: I do not live in the USA. I trust the law enforcement in my country. My answer would be very different if I were in the US resident. I've heard enough about law enforcement in the US to know that I'd never live there, and if I did, I wouldn't ever trust the police.)

[mannykannot]

Firstly, no-one has a right to drive distracted, any more that they have the right to drive drunk. Secondly, monitoring the attentiveness of a driver, as a backstop for weaknesses in the automation, does not require recording. Thirdly, this might be a good point to remind ourselves that this is, according to Tesla, a beta-testing program. The goal should be to get to the point where constant driver attentiveness is not necessary, but until that is achieved, additional safety measures are justified.