re: #333 Quoth the raven, Covfefe.

Maybe we will agree to disagree. I think that when lives are lost (car, airplane, boat, gun, milling machines) due in major part to design flaws or technological culpability comes with real consequences. Manslaughter and civil liability are critical checks on bad design, dangerous technology going wrong etc. Built right, runs right and fails safely. Like what we demand of tanked water heaters. Computer monitor and control? Okay if you want but you will be keeping the pressure release valve or you won’t be allowed to have a pressure vessel in a residence.

There is a premise that autonomous cars are a good idea. Like the author I reject the idea. It’s fundamentally dangerous at the present time and foreseeable technological future. Arizona has already passed rules that allow the cars to not have a safety driver. Who, by the way given they have nothing to do for 99.99% of the time and therefore have very little chance of maintaining the situational awareness required.

Augmented driving like what we do (proven over time) in aviation is a far better plan. The heart of autonomous vehicle tech promotion is sales. The rationale will run from human error to making it hard to have a getaway car in a crime. “Save the children” from DUI drivers etc. What if 80 billion went into safety augmentation, road design and driver training? One can argue that is at least as good as Ai automony at freeway speeds at increasing safety.

The fundamental flaw, irreversible by definition here is that safety increases when humans are less aware. Less able to act. Less educated less trained.

Pilotless airliner anyone? A lot less cross traffic, zero pedestrians and we already take off and land hands off.