Hacker News Reader

Comment by modzu | Hacker News Reader

of course its unreasonable, but thats a liability clause added by a lawyer.

How is it unreasonable if the things are already having collisions? This looks like a half-baked feature not even close to ready to be pushed out. Tesla is becoming a meme at this point and it has to be coming from the erratic man at the top. An engineer worth anything wouldn’t launch something like this.

Sorry if I’m fired up about this but he just reminds me of a bad boss I had that only cared about hype and how things looked and expected the laws of mathematics and physics to bow to his delusions.

It’s possible many of these collisions are caused by other drivers.

I mean even parked cars get hit by drivers every day.

There is a bit of news hysteria effect happening here.

There’s literally only two examples in the post and one is an example of the car stopping before a collision. The other example is another car backing into the Tesla.

In the first video from the article, the Tesla would be found to be at fault in most jurisdictions as the driver backing out was well into the backing out maneuver before the Tesla even rounded the corner. The Tesla without question did not have the right away at that point.

In most jurisdictions, the vehicle traveling in reverse is always the give-way vehicle. Practically, I expect that the insurance companies would agree to each pay their own driver’s costs and count it as an at-fault accident on both sides.

A self-driving car's fender bender is more newsworthy than a fatal accident with a human driver.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com