• Hacksaw
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    8 months ago

    No. I don’t think this is a good solution. Companies will put a price on your life and focus on monetary damage reduction. If you’re about to cause more property damage than your life is worth (to Mercedes) they’ll be incentivized to crash the car and kill you rather than crash into the expensive structure.

    Your car should be you property, you should be liable for the damage it causes. The car should prioritise your life over monetary damage. If there is some software problem causing the cars to crash, you need to be able to sue Mercedes through a class action lawsuit to recover your losses.

    • Adanisi@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      You’ve been downvoted, but I don’t get why. Are people in denial that corpos will put money above all else?

      • Hacksaw
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Oh, there are a lot of Tesla/self driving cars fanboys out here. They’re caught up in the idea that these corporations will save us from traffic congestion/paying taxes for public transit/car accidents/climate change/car ownership/ you name it and self driving cars will solve it. They don’t tend to like it when you try to bring reality to their fantasy.

        Self driving cars are a really cool technology. Electric cars as well. However, they don’t solve the fundamental problem of transporting a 200lb person using a 3000lb vehicle. So they’re at best a partial solution. I also don’t really want a future where corporations own more of our stuff and force into monthly payments for heated car seats and “prioritise human life” premium options.

        Fanboys gonna fanboy I guess!