• warm@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    When autonomous cars are good enough to just drive people around then yeah the companies should be liable, but right now they’re not and drivers should be fully alert as if they are driving a regular vehicle.

    • monk@lemmy.unboiled.info
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      When autonomous cars are good enough to just drive people around

      they become autonomous cars. It’s not autopilot if I’m liable, simple as that.

    • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago
      1. Then don’t call it autopilot
      2. What’s the point of automated steering if you have to remain 100 % attentive? To spare the driver the terrible burden of moving the wheel a couple mm either way? It is well studied and observed that people are less attentive when they’re not actively driving, which, FUCKING DUH.

      Manufacturers provide this feature for the implicit purpose of enabling distracted driving. Yet they will not accept liability if someone drives distractedly.

      Next in We Are Not Liable For How Consumers Use Our Product, Elon will replace the speedometer by Candy Crush with small text that says “pwease do not use while dwiving UwU”.

    • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      There are already fully autonomous taxis in some cities. Tesla is nowhere near fully autonomous, but others have accomplished it.

        • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Fair, but when a company is given the authority to run fully autonomous taxis in cities that’s a huge accomplishment. Granted they are cities that don’t see things like snow storms and I’m sure there is a good reason for that.