|
|
|
|
|
by shkkmo
1715 days ago
|
|
The entire way we approach driver liability in general is insane. The Attorney General of South Dakota was looking at his phone, swerved into the shoulder, killed man and then left the scene. He claimed he thought he hit a deer, even though the victim's head went through the windshield and the victims glasses were later found inside the car. What consequences did the Attorney General face? Was his licence revoked or suspended? Did he serve any jail time? Did he resign? The answer to all of these is "No." The only result was two misdemeanors and a 500 dollar fine. So yes, accepting occaisonal inhuman errors from a system that is 10x safer (hypothetical, no current systems have this record) than human drivers may also be insane but it would still be far more sane than the current approach to human drivers. |
|
Take a look at the best possible examples, instead, and try to improve over that, then we're talking.
You cannot be a shitty doctor and bring out an excuse like "Oh, but wait, this guy has lost more patients than me, so I'm fine".
You really don't want to have a race to the bottom where human lives are at stake.