Hacker News Reader

Comment by blurbleblurble | Hacker News Reader

People aren't going to tolerate this kind of stuff. These aren't cosmetic or aesthetic flaws. This is an area that deserves transparency.

I'm out on the road too, and I don't get to make "consumer choices" for other people I share the road with. People are putting their market power into companies that lack the basic integrity to build these technologies with safety and transparency as the first priority, who evidently see peoples' lives as necessary sacrifices.

Please remember that we are talking about vehicles speeding down the road at 70+ MPH.

View on HN

Nobody's forcing autopilot on anyone. I think instead, tesla will / should opt to disable autopilot earlier in non-ideal conditions like this - that way they won't be held liable either. ATM it really feels like they're being put on trial here.

All the other people on the road are having autopilot forced on them by reckless early adopters.

> by reckless early adopters.

That's a pretty important point. We aren't going to ban alcohol are we? Aren't we even trying to allow marijuana consumption? Both of theses put you in dangerous situation on the road, yet we aren't talking about blocking their consumption.

It still the responsibility of the adopters, just like it's the responsibility of the drinkers.

At least doing it safely actually improve security in long term. Theses systems NEED to be driven to improve their performances.

Drinking and driving is however banned.

At what cost do we need the supposed improved performance of self-driving cars?

if you crash while under a substance, you not only get arrested but you can lose your license and get huge fines.

if you crash while on autopilot, does the same happens?

Personally, I think the company selling the car with self-driving abilities should be responsible. In turn this requires a clear understanding of what the responsibility is: what is expected from a self-driving car; what situations should it handle; what kind of documentation is needed of their development process.

Like anything else which involves safety and environmental damage.

Not on public roads.

The market puts all business on trial, on a daily basis. Users discover flaws in a product, and don't buy it. We SHOULD be critical of flaws in things that we buy, and that are forced to interact with.

Ford was put on market trial after the Pinto started going up in flames. Tesla should be held to similar if not greater standards.

It's not any different than the situation with bad human drivers, but anyone on the same road is exposed to these systems.

It is different, though.

You can't push an update to stop humans from endangering themselves and/or others.

Tesla, however, is able to do exactly that with their cars.

That they haven't, when their technology has been proven to be fatally dangerous, is unconscionable.

And conversely, you can't push an update that causes humans to start endangering themselves. (Unless Tesla has some magic way of preventing regressions, which doesn't seem to be the case)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com