Hacker News Reader

Comment by epistasis | Hacker News Reader

In this case the consumer should of course still be held responsible, and if they think it's wrong they can join in on the class action lawsuit against the manufacturer.

Or, owners should enter into a pre-existing legal relationship with the manufacturer to get reimbursed for any manufacturer error that gets pushed out.

Those who choose to operate driverless vehicles must have some skin in the game in order for this to be fair at all. Bringing your driverless vehicle into an area is the customer's choice, after all.

View on HN

That's the mostly overly American thing I've read this year... Make consumers file a class action against car manufacturers (good luck with a Tesla and mandatory arbitration), all to avoid doing the sensible thing: Make some rules for this market.

The likes of Musk will moan and bitch about it, but regulation is a perfectly good solution for this.

Well if you read to the second paragraph, you will see I'm not attached to class action lawsuits, and alternatively suggest other legal arrangements.

My point is that operators must bear some of the responsibility for their operation of these vehicles.

Going to repeated class action lawsuits every time there is a bad software update sounds like an inefficient use of the court system to me.

I think most people will eventually want the manufacturer to be the defendant in court cases that result from crashes due to a manufacturer updating cars. I can only imagine NHTSA (US Auto Regulator) will evolve to make this the case.

So basically the eventual outcome here is known (industry regulation) but we must take every step to do it the hardest way possible? Intentionally start with a free-for-all then have deaths, a social movement, lawsuits, court cases, politicians talking about it, campaigns, legislative debates, etc to arrive at what we all know is the end game to begin with?

I think there may be some optimization steps here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com