[Detrytus]

>If a child is "folded in half" by someone looking at their phone, no one accepts that as "good enough"

But of course we do. Yes, we punish the individual driver that did it, but we still allow humans to drive cars. We accept the fact that driving a car carries sone risks, but we value the convenience of getting to our destination easily more than we value lives of those kids that will get killed from time to time.

[saghm]

Okay, but what about the hundreds of clones of this driver who have identical education, behavior, no sense of individual identity to attribute their actions to separately? Certainly we don't wait for every one of them to kill a child before doing something more drastic than firmly instructing them "killing children is bad!"

[stephenr]

> Yes, we punish the individual driver that did it, but we still allow humans to drive cars.

Yes because bad drivers aren't representative of all drivers. You also missed the part where laws are changed, safety laws are strengthened.

Oh wait. You're American aren't you.

In most of the world, laws are put in place to protect people. The Cybertruck for example, cannot be legally driven (regardless of not being for sale) in many countries because it doesn't meet pedestrian safety standards.

In my home state it's a finable offence to touch or even have your phone sitting in your lap while driving a car, and they've put detection cameras in place to enforce these laws.

So maybe define who you mean by "we" before claiming that people think kids being mutilated by negligent drivers of either the robotic or fleshy kind, is "good enough".

[throwaway2037]

    > In my home state it's a finable offence to touch or even have your phone sitting in your lap while driving a car, and they've put detection cameras in place to enforce these laws.

I never heard about this. Where?

[stephenr]

South Australia. Possibly other Australian states too, I haven't checked (I live overseas currently)