The human in the front seat of a L3 car isn't the driver. They're the scapegoat.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/154193121360142...
The human in the front seat of a L3 car isn't the driver. They're the scapegoat.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/154193121360142...
Polar opposite of what Tesla is doing. If they can't match this, that's the whole German fsd market gone for them, possibly whole EU, as they will harmonize the Requirements.
I am really happy that they have the gusto to push things forward, if it weren't for them we wouldn’t have an EV race, a autonomy race, a rocket race.
This may be interpreted as the purchaser accepting known risks from a product, but no such consent exists from those around the car. Safety standards exist to protect people outside the car as well as inside, and may not be unilaterally waived on the part of those inside the car. Even assuming that the purchaser is fully informed about the risks when given consent, and is not misled by Tesla's erroneous use of "Full Autopilot" to describe something that requires continuous human oversight, not even that shred of consent exists from pedestrians struck/killed by self-driving cars (e.g. link below).
https://www.newsweek.com/tesla-lawsuit-model-x-autopilot-fat...
Do you have a link that leads to that actual study?
Found it, though unfortunately I couldn't find any non-paywall links.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/154193121360142...