[bko]

> If you can prove that the hardware or software is “unreasonably dangerous” in design or implementation, you may have standing to sue Volvo

I imagine this is true for comma as well. I don't think their little waiver and notice that it should only be used in a research setting would hold up in court. Much like "incense" were banned despite being marked "not for human consumption".

> My beef is that Comma-the-product imposes an externality on our roads by bringing experimental driver assistance software to the mass market that is not backed by the software product’s developers (or any other entity).

I think their product is safe and I'm glad it exists out there. They claim 35 million miles driven and I am yet to see one serious accident. So I think the risk is overstated.

People like Thiel often complain about the lack of innovation. This is real innovation and could transform society. I think we should applaud the people that have the audacity to tackle hard problems that can change people's lives. The only way you'll get there is real miles driven on real roads. As a society, we should not have a zero risk attitude, otherwise nothing would ever get built.

[Piskvorrr]

In the technical aspect you are correct. In the legal aspect, nope. Even if (for the sake of the example) this were identical technology under the hood w/ Volvo and Comma, there's a world of difference between "I bought a stock car that is certified to be street-legal" and "I installed some aftermarket thing into my car, despite being warned that it might void the car's street-legality."

It's not just what you think, not least because your driver's license is a permit, not a right. (On the other hand, I agree that the bar requested for computer driving safety is at least an order of magnitude higher than for human driving safety, and that the elephant in the room is the risky road environment that we pretend doesn't exist for humans.)