Between anti-Musk sentiment, competition in self driving and the proven track record of Lidar, I think we’ll start seeing jurisdictions from Europe to New York and California banning camera-only self-driving beyond Level 3.

▲

general1465 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Nah, you don't need to ban anything. Just force the rule, that if company sells self driving, they are also taking full liability for any damages of this system.

▲

ojosilva an hour ago | parent | next [-]

That's a legal non-starter for all car companies. They would be made liable for every car incident where self-driving vehicles were spotted in close vicinity, independently of the suit being legit. A complete nightmare and totally unrelated to the tech. Makes would spend more time and tech clearing their asses in court than building safe cars.

▲

JumpCrisscross an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> if company sells self driving, they are also taking full liability for any damages of this system

This is basically what we have (for reasonable definitions of full).

▲

kelipso 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why is it preferable to wait for people to die and then sue the company instead of banning it in the first place?

▲

bluGill 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

People die in car crashes all the time. Self driving can kill a lot of people and still be vastly better than humans.

▲

VerifiedReports 2 hours ago | parent [-]

But who gets the ticket when a self-driving car is at fault?

▲

JumpCrisscross an hour ago | parent [-]

> who gets the ticket when a self-driving car is at fault?

Whoever was in control. This isn’t some weird legal quagmire anymore, these cars are on the road.

	▲	VerifiedReports 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Apparently it IS still a legal conundrum: https://www.motortrend.com/news/who-gets-a-ticket-when-a-way... And will continue to be until every municipality implements laws about it.

▲

tim333 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They don't have to die first. The company can avoid the expense by planning how not to kill people.

If you charged car makers $20m per pedestrian killed by their cars regardless of fault you'd probably see much safer designs.

▲

stirfish 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> They don't have to die first. The company can avoid the expense by planning how not to kill people.

This is an extremely optimistic view on how companies work

	▲	tim333 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I can think of one example where something similar works. The requirements from insurance companies on airline pilots are considerable tougher than the government ones because they are on the hook for ~$200m if they crash. A big reason car companies don't worry much about killing pedestrians at the moment is it costs them ~$0.

▲

plagiarist 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We cannot even properly ban asbestos, expecting people to die first is just having a realistic perspective on how the US government works WRT regulations.

▲

JBlue42 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This doc from 1999 has an answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiB8GVMNJkE

▲

cyanydeez 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Usually its capitalism, because in America, they can just buy carveouts after the fact.