Hacker News Reader

And we were allowed to steer the car.

If we have to give that up to save 1.35 million people's lives a year in car crashes then it's worth it.

Accepting such a giant restriction ('not allowed' implies no override) would mean you are at the mercy of whoever controls the self-driving cars. They can kidnap you any time you enter a car, or prevent you from using your car to escape, or just subtly make your life very difficult.

Historically, people that allowed themselves to completely fall into someone else's hands have not fared well. The words 'slavery' and 'genocide' tend to come up when describing their fate.

If we have to give that up to save 1.35 million people's lives a year in car crashes then it's worth it.

If you're really serious about getting death statistics down, outlaw alcohol and a dozen other things globally and save even more.

While criminal botherders are in a sense "more" responsible for the damage, Microsoft also has some liability in their negligence when then wrote vulnerable software. But it's relatively easy to hold MS accountable for their part than to extract damages from botherders. So MS either covers their butts by locking down the software or pays out the nose for damages.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com