[bradtemp]

That's not correct, they are no more liable than carmakers are if you are using cruise control.

Unless you can show in court that their system was defective. It is designed to not be able to do the full driving task, to need interventions. It performs as designed.

[ajross]

Isn't that what I said? The logic above would work the same for cruise control. If you ship a bad cruise control or other automation system, you get sued and lose. Toyota paid out more than a billion dollars a few years back due to[1] problems with their fly-by-wire accelerator design. It's not like you can't punish an automaker for safety issues. They get sued all the time, successfully.

Except, notably, the one you want to yell about the most. I'm just saying that should maybe be part of your analysis.

Look. The cars are safe. We've been having the same argument, again and again, for years and years now. People show up in these threads just taking as a given that these systems are unsafe, and refuse to adjust that prior as these cars become some of the most popular products as a market.

[1] What were perceived as -- IIRC it's since been argued that the problem in the suit didn't actually exist. And they settled anyway!