Sure, but who HASN’T done that?
Comment on Cruise halts SF service as Calif. DMV shuts down driverless car permits
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 year agoReally sounds like it was more that the company tried to hide that their car started driving again with someone trapped underneath.
AcornCarnage@lemmy.world 1 year ago
burliman@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Yeah, this incident and response makes more sense. But it is another case in point of the difficulties driverless companies will have. I drive a lot and I see the stupidest things. I’m sure we all have stories. With this story it is very easy to imagine a clueless driver doing the same.
But the best way to avoid crashes is to be predictable. Isn’t much more predictable than a bunch of self driven cars with no emotions.
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
True. But if a clueless driver tried to hide that they started driving again with someone trapped underneath, we view that as a criminal act.
I could totally see and even understand not knowing they were under the car and so trying to clear the scene of the accident.
It’s the specific attempt to obscure that it happened. If a human did that, loosing their license is basically the bare minimum I’d expect.
This isn’t an issue with the technology, but an issue with the company not being able to be relied upon to develop the technology in public in a safe fashion.
burliman@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Agreed, hiding it was a terrible idea and should be punished.