{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/2/2015 12:47:35 AM
11
The Auto industry as a whole would also suffer. The difference between makes would be aesthetics only. I'm assuming the software for these cars would be outsourced to a specialized company.
What I don't understand is this:
I see the profit in making these cars, but why do it if all of the liability is now put on you, the automaker? If someone gets in an accident, they will hold you responsible.
English
-
The liability will be an argument in the beginning. On one hand, the owner/occupant of the vehicle did nothing wrong and should not be liable for the accident. On the other hand, the owner agreed to use their product and would assume all risk associated with that product. Personally, I think there should be something in the lease/title that gives all responsibility to the owner of the vehicle instead of the company. It's the owners job to maintain the equipment and take control incase of a malfunction.
-
I find it hard to believe that in this day and age that people would willingly take on liability and responsibility. They don't take on basic responsibilities on a daily basis.
-
People willingly take on responsibility and liability already. Many people enjoy having kids. They don't have to have them but they feel a sense of need for sharing love and compassion for someone else that they are responsible for. With certain freeware that is available, the publisher is protected from all risk due to equipment failure on your preferred device ,but we as consumers still use those products. It all boils down to how bad you want it and are you willing to shoulder the responsibility in order for convenience. I think most people would take that trade off. Just to clarify I'm not pointing out that kids are a commodity in any way. I was just using that as an example of how people like to feel responsible.
-
My point was more of how parents have more kids by accident now, and only take care of them as an obligation. They raise them poorly and find the first person to blame if something goes wrong never taking it upon themselves to fix or prevent an issue. Probably the biggest hurdle for autonomous cars (which I am vehemently against) is trying to share a road with human controlled vehicles. People don't exactly drive to the handbook and you must use experience to avoid accidents in some cases.
-
Take Google cars for example. They have driven 1.7 million miles. They have been involved in 12 accidents. All light damage and no injuries and ALL 12 caused by human drivers around them. It's within the realm of reason that during those 1.7 million miles if the car only encountered other automated cars, it's number of accidents could of been 0. Now I'm not saying the technology is perfect or that it'll be right on the very first deployment, but I am saying that an automated vehicle with eyes that are 360 degrees 24/7 has better odds of not getting into an accident than a human whose mental state and state of awareness are always changing.
-
I understand the potential safety implications of automated cars, but I still don't agree with the concept of widespread use.
-
Widespread use will occur quickly. Because of one major factor. Convenience. That is the ultimate selling point
-
There will be plenty of people who transfer slowly. Automated cars won't slice and dice through traffic 10+ MPH over the speed limit to get home 5 minutes quicker. And you know they want that.
-
That need to dash home won't be as great when you can sleep, get online etc in your vehicle. Also as we get more automated cars on the road, traffic will vanish
-
Noted. I love to drive. I do it to clear my head or just take in the scenes . The thought of one day manual driving being against the law scares me ,but if it means less people loses their life because of drunk drivers or people driving the wrong way on the road, I guess it's a sacrifice I'll just have to make.
-
You don't [b][i]have[/i][/b] to make that sacrifice. I don't believe that people should lose rights because the misuse of that right by others. Autonomous cars should be an option for people. Elderly, disabled, and blind people would now have the ability to go where they need without being dependent on others. But that doesn't mean that they [b][i]have[/i][/b] to ban manual driving cars, or even that they should. An understated benefit of manual cars is part of the maturation process of youths. They have to make an investment in their car, maintain it, and care for it. If they wreck it, they have to learn the repercussions of doing so. It helps yeah responsibility for young adults moving into the world. Of course, you can't understate the people lie myself who just have a passion for cars. There would probably be a full-scale rebellion if you told gearheads they couldn't drive their babies anymore.
