[atoav]

Seems like you are pointing out one obvious challenge to any company that wants to develope such technology.

Maybe it is my european upbringing, but this is not my problem, but the problem of said company. I don't see why they should be allowed to test on public streets.

[enslavedrobot]

You should care because it will save the average western family ~$5k/year and reduce the 1.5million fatal accidents and >10million serious injuries that result from car crashes worldwide.

Just the insurance savings alone could give up to $800 billion back to rate payers in the US.

[atoav]

And how would that fare against something like decent public transport?

Let me guess, cars are king that's why we should sacrifice our kids to their cold hard steel bodies. /s

No seriously. This saving money doesn't mean they should be allowed to cut corners. If you truly want self driving you should be behind not using public roads as experimental tracks (with all the fallout that could come from that).

[enslavedrobot]

The saving money comes from saving lives, not the other way around.

Public transport and car sharing are two sides of the same coin. They approach the same solution from two different avenues. Public transport does not address the "last mile" problem of getting to the bus stop. Solving this issue would require more stops and smaller busses with complex adaptable routes. This is cost prohibitive if you have to have drivers. Car sharing is expensive and inconvenient because cars often end up parked in places were they are not needed and parking itself is expensive. Self driving cars (which will naturally evolve to mini busses) solve all these problems. No parking, no making grandma, and expectant mothers walk a mile to the bus stop. Everyone gets a cheap chauffeur service. And massively reduced road fatalities.

[JohnFen]

You say this as if it were fact, when it's really speculation of a possible future. Not unfounded speculation, but speculation nonetheless.

In the meantime, in the here and now, these things are obviously hazardous and shouldn't be on the public roads. Even if they would lead to a better future, no company has the right to endanger unconsenting others now to accomplish it.

[enslavedrobot]

If they are shown to be endangering people you have a point. If some drunk asshole plows into someone on autopilot I don't put that on Tesla.

No one even bats an eye when this happens on cruise control, and no the name autopilot doesn't make people think it's okay to be inattentive while driving. I have a Tesla and the number of nags warnings beeps admonishments you get is more than enough to let you know to pay attention.

[freejazz]

>If some drunk asshole plows into someone on autopilot I don't put that on Tesla.

Is that what happened here? No

[enslavedrobot]

Some guy drove into the side of a truck. Tesla is highly aware that the system is not perfect, that's why it nags you, beeps and flashes at you, kicks you off autopilot for repeatedly ignoring warnings AND makes you acknowledge that if you use it you are completely liable for any crashes.

If I drove into the side of a truck I would not blame my car.

You could easily extend the line of thinking in this article to all cars. All companies are aware their designs are flawed, but they let people use their cars anyway.

[freejazz]

He didn't drive into the truck, Autopilot did.

> AND makes you acknowledge that if you use it you are completely liable for any crashes

This is just Tesla's deficient legal wrangling - it's certainly not a good point for you to stand on. Tesla is a product manufacturer and cannot waive away their liability for selling a defective product, nor gross negligence.

[x86x87]

Nah. It's either autopilot or ot's not. You cannoy take the credit when it works and blame the driver when it fails. That's not how life works and how self driving cars should work. It's not self-driving and the stupid deceptive marketing makes it hard for legit tech to actually get adopted.

[x86x87]

If a drunk asshole plows into someone, the drunk asshole is responsible. Period.

If a "self-driving" car plows into someone who is responsible?

[freejazz]

I'm not sure that's true. Even if the cops show up and give someone a DUI, I'd imagine civil courts would still do a proximate cause analysis in a negligence case.

>If a "self-driving" car plows into someone who is responsible?

If the car was driving itself, then I'd think the manufacturer of the self-driving feature would be. I still think there would be a proximate cause analysis in this situation too.

[freejazz]

>You should care because it will save the average western family ~$5k/year and reduce the 1.5million fatal accidents and >10million serious injuries that result from car crashes worldwide.

When? What's the social cost to affording these companies public spaces to test their products?

[enslavedrobot]

Drivers are testing the product. I use FSD all the time. It's my choice.

If think that's making you unsafe too bad for you. I think it's vastly more unsafe to share the road with a million half blind geriatrics but nobody suing the AARP.

[x86x87]

You are sharing the road. So if your car does something stupid that gets me killed you cannot claim that "hey bro, i'm just testing it". Also, I am not sure that you are qualified to test a car and not sure that legally you are allowed to test things on public roads.

[enslavedrobot]

I accept all liability and my insurance is happy to accept my payments. If I don't pay attention and kill you it's my fault. Just like if I drink and drive.

[freejazz]

Does your insurer actually know you aren't driving your car?

[freejazz]

> I think it's vastly more unsafe to share the road with a million half blind geriatrics but nobody suing the AARP

You seem to be either incredibly confused, or just making a bad-faith analogy.

[olyjohn]

Self driving barely works in the US as it is. Go to a country where there are billions of people and shoddy infrastructure. Those places will take even longer to get self driving cars. And as it is now, those places are overcrowded with vehicles, and many of them have the majority of people on scooters and motorbikes. If all those people end up in cars, it'll be the end of those places, as congestion will be completely unbearable. There just isn't room for more cars in most places around the world. So I'm not sure how self driving cars will end all accidents world wide, other than clogging the roads up so badly, that nobody will want to go anywhere.