And why not give drivers responsibility for maintaining safety?
Shouldn’t they try to be safe, and carry responsibility when they are fully in control?
A few thoughts here: (1) I didn't propose otherwise, I just pointed out that it's deficient (at least, legally) to say "I can be negligent because others are negligent", or to put it another way "other people's negligence should put you on warning with regards to my negligence", (2) I don't think it's my burden to satisfy this problem, regardless, even granting your point, it doesn't have to proceed the way Tesla has so far, it certainly hasn't with regards to other similar companies making similar products.
>And why not give drivers responsibility for maintaining safety?
Because the manufacturer of a self-driving product should be primarily responsible for how it functions. How exactly is that controversial to you? To whatever extent the driver is jointly liable might be a question, but, given how Tesla's self driving feature works, Tesla is clearly responsible for how it functions, including when it determines that the driver must take over. I've seen nothing that indicates that this function occurs in a way that always allows a driver to establish a safe response to whatever the self-driving couldn't handle. So, to be honest, your question seems a bit absurd to me.
>Shouldn’t they try to be safe, and carry responsibility when they are fully in control?
Yeah, but no one here is talking about when the driver is driving, we are talking abotu when the self-driving feature is driving. You are farcically insisting that the driver is driving even when self-driving is enabled. Can't have it both ways.
Hold on right there. There is no self-driving product in the picture or in the conversation. Other than one in your imagination maybe. It is a beta which is not yet self driving.
>should be primarily responsible for how it functions.
By your logic, should Toyota pay for all accidents that happen in Toyotas? No, because Toyotas are not fully self driving? I have news for you. Neither are Teslas.
>How exactly is that controversial to you?
Your hypothetical sounds reasonable in theory, but it’s predicated on an imaginary situation that does not exist.
They sell it, it's a product. You can call it a beta product. This is entirely pointless semantics.
>By your logic, should Toyota pay for all accidents that happen in Toyotas? No, because Toyotas are not fully self driving? I have news for you. Neither are Teslas.
You are going in a loop. That's not logic, and certainly not my logic. Toyota doesn't sell self-driving cars, so why would Toyota be responsible for how the cars drive. If there is a defect in their cars, they would be responsible for that. You are once again playing semantics. Tesla sells cars with a self driving product. You are trying to play a semantic game by saying it's not "full self driving" because some aspect of its function, but what words we call it is besides the point, what matters is how its functions. Tesla is liable for how the product functions because it's in control of how the product functions, not because its "full" or "partial" self driving.
>Your hypothetical sounds reasonable in theory, but it’s predicated on an imaginary situation that does not exist.
You literally just keep making up nonsense in order to justify your positions. Like saying "it's a beta" so it's not a product. You can buy it. It's a product. They are already facing lawsuits over it. Get real. Hands down one of the most pointless conversations I've had here when you are engaging like this.
