this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
583 points (94.8% liked)
Technology
60081 readers
4203 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Generally, people are punished for causing an accident, purposefully or not. Their insurance will either raise their rates or drop them causing them to not be able to drive. That is a form of punishment you don't get with automated driving.
Of course you get the same with automated driving. Accidents will cause either the insurance rate of the whole company to raise, or the company will have to pay out of pocket. In both cases accidents have direct financial "punishment" and if a car company is seen to be "unsafe" (see cruise right now) they are not allowed to drive (or drive "less"). I don't see a big difference to normal people. After a while this is is my opinion even better, because "safer" companies will push out "less safe" companies.. Assuming of course that the gov properly regulates that stuff so that a minimum of safety is required.
Increased rates aren't a punishment they're a risk calculation and insurance (outside of maybe property insurance in case a tree falls on the car for example) may not even be needed someday if everything is handled automatically without driver input. Why are you so stuck on the punishment aspect when these systems are already preventing needless death?