It does not have to be this way, and these companies and their leadership deserve every bit of reputational damage they will get out of this.
In the end it's a regulation problem, not a Tesla problem (even though yes, the specific decision to exercise their options is theirs) - do you allow unlicensed drivers to perform this on-road testing of unfinshed vehicles or not?
It's not quite a deliberate information hiding campaign as with MCAS (as far as we know). But it is pre-production testing of experimental engineering on safety-critical equipment. Experiments not guaranteed to pan out, and engineering lacking a mature certification process.
"It might fire in random directions at arbitrary intervals 5% of the time, but that's just how innovation goes folks. You don't like that, do you hate progress?"
People are arguing, with a straight face, that we are ruining (aspects of) humanity by not letting Tesla be laisez-faire with such things (and lets be real, it's predominantly Tesla who is just in full Cowboy/YOLO mode... other players in this field certainly aren't perfect, but they are at least trying to be conservative and cautious).
As long as Tesla can demonstrate a similar or better rate of serious harm than human drivers, why should we stop them? It's up to government to do their job and outline exactly what price society should bear in the pursuit of this paradigm shift (because let's not kid ourselves, FSD is a complete shift in paradigm for society).
Because it can't, or won't. Instead they release statistics that _imply_ that it is better, that they have to know are absolutely misleading, because anyone who did high school statistics would be aware thereof.
Everything else, they refuse to release.
This is another major regulatory failure. Government should lay out the minimum data that the companies must publish, so we can get a better idea of their performance. (It's still a chicken and egg scenario though. You can't get that kind of data anywhere but on public roads in uncontrolled environments.)
I assure you that 15 year old young adults drive much better than a Tesla "self driving" computer with millions of miles and millions of hours of training.
You’re a regular Yaroslav Kudrinsky, just with better luck. But I suppose one can go around swinging swords in a crowd, hit no one, and convince oneself of one’s good judgment.
The process of not wanting to impact something and attempting to avoid it can occupy so much attention that hitting that thing becomes inevitable. People tend to go where they are looking.
This is a thing. They give marketing samples to organizations they want to sell to on a "try 'em out and let us know if you want to buy more" basis.
Giving organizations stuff you haven't 100% nailed down yet expecting them to come back with stuff they want changed in order to buy is pretty par for the course in the firearms industry. That's as close to a public beta as you're gonna get.
It would be more akin to handing out prototype weapons to police departments, which doesn't happen specifically because they might fire themselves or blow up or fail in some annoying but not spectacular way like failing to feed new rounds.
At the end of the day the analogy isn't great and we're building a castle in a swamp here.
In fact, there were licensure processes for this sort of thing already in place in California iirc, so this is less gray area, more "lets outsource testing to the end user".
Frankly, it's downright disturbing.
Are you joking? If you’re the one causing the problem, you’re the problem.
No regulation can prevent me from kicking someone in the shins. This isn’t a regulation problem, it’s a me problem.
The car problem presented here is quite a bit more shades of gray and we absolutely need to set acceptable parameters for the technology.
You don’t need a regulation telling you not to be a jerk — unless of course you are a jerk. And even then, you’d probably still be a jerk, regulation or not.
It's also very likely that this system can pass a standard driving test: AIs are really good at handling fixed test cases. So any regulation you do pass has a complicated assurance problem: how does it prove the system is safe?
Pretend Tesla just knocked "beta" off the name and said "this is a limited self driving system, Tesla exclusive" - then you wind up in the same bucket with the same "it's the drivers responsibility problem".
People see this footage and assume Tesla self drive does this all the time - but it wouldn't. It probably passes this scenario in testing 100% of the time: but the issue of course is the test is not quite whatever this circumstance is, and the system has a dramatic failure.
There is absolutely a regulation problem.
Can the software automatically make lane changes? Can it initiate turns? Can it decide to make non-emergency stops at lights and signs? Can it accelerate from a stop? What is the expected level of human intervention?
The question I'm posing is, how do you prove it works to an independent authority?
It would be extremely reasonable for us to regulate along these lines, but I'm also absolutely willing to bet that Tesla and every other system would get through an approval process just fine.
Which sort of loops around too a wider issue: if self driving is a priority, then it needs to be a government, collective priority for public safety and development.
I.e. independent reading institutes, a suite of diverse randomised tests and yes: because this is no longer "on the driver" for accidents then both the government and company will be taking responsibility for failures.
The issue is that the law of the land is: these systems aren't illegal, and the driver is responsible for how the car handles including any automation they engage.
To make any progress you have to break driver responsibility - or use that bright line and just outlaw the whole lot.
It would be Diesel Gate all over again. The testing would have to be documented somewhere and the car could just be trained for the test scenarios. Considering how often Tesla like to massage their numbers (nurburgring data, sales figures in basically every country, most recently Australia, the big asterisk next to their 1.9s 0-60 run, etc etc) I can't trust they wouldn't train directly for the test and neglect everything else just so they can have the best headlines once again.
This makes it even harder to assess the safety of the system - other drivers are helping it along as well.
It's very apples to oranges here, but loosely relevant wrt/ information/documentation and in the cameras-vs-LIDAR/sensor fusion debate.
I don’t think it’s a regulation problem as much as it is an acceptance by regulators that driving is inherently dangerous and autopilot isn’t dramatically worse. It’s not even obvious if on net more people would have died if Tesla had never released autopilot.
Note also that other drivers are learning behaviors such as keeping their distance from Tesla's, etc., making it harder to assess the system functionally.
Edit: Actually, there are docs for the scoring, sans changelog though: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30267858
2. How many times has autopilot disengaged and would've caused injury without human intervention?
Did you delete your link to tesladeaths.com because you realized the fine print about sketchy autopilot data contradicted your point? Oops!
I am sure I have seen comment links without the http:// but might have just gotten so used to it than I stopped seeing it.
[0] https://jalopnik.com/feds-tesla-autosteer-safety-investigati...
I just don’t have data showing it’s terrible.
Further the only reasonable standard is roughly average human competency. As soon as a tired driver can turn on self driving and be safer on the road then banning that technology has a real cost.
The general public doesn’t use products like you might assume. For example toilet plungers have killed or seriously injured people and not because they where used as a weapon.
Then came Autopilot and later FSD, and Tesla threw the concept of safety was thrown out the window. An autonomous Tesla decapitated a man in 2016, and Tesla continued unabated! What actionable steps did Tesla take as a result of that incident to make sure it never happens again. Even today in 2022 you can find videos of Teslas on public roads just completely failing to detect and colliding with stationary objects. The culture at Tesla seems to not care this is happening, as it continues to happen.
It used to be that when your robot did a single thing wrong or caused the most minor of injuries, let alone it killed someone, then you engineered the hell out of it and implemented safety protocols to make sure that failure mode would never happen again. Not at Tesla, apparently.
I get the utilitarian argument that maybe self driving cars could reduce traffic accidents in the future by being better than humans on average. But safety doesn’t happen unless you really work at it, with intention. Using your customers to beta test your 2 ton robots on public roads is not a safety-focused mindset. Tesla is not a company that values safety first when it comes to their autonomous car project.
- SCADA always had hot, hardware backups and failure detection. To the extent that I thought this was dogma.
- Physical automation (like car construction equipment and robotics, pick and place machines, etc) have safety zones that humans aren't allowed in or near. Same thing for Amazon warehouse robotics.
I'm not sure how we leapt to, "beta test cars on the street" from there.
Everyone who has ever written code for a robot knows you should treat every pinch point as a finger blender, but the cars look nothing like them.
Tesla's branding may make that excusable for the layman, but for the employees at Tesla, that branding is incredibly irresponsible
This keeps being touted (by Elon and others), but is a long way away: https://twitter.com/Tweetermeyer/status/1488673180403191808
Tesla uses misleading stats (like not excluding highway miles, which are inherently safer) to try and make it seem like autopilot is any good.
I keep harping on it but the decapitation incident in 2016 is just so illustrative of what kind of culture Tesla is fostering. Here's a situation where reckless engineering choices by Tesla literally caused a customer to lose his head. The solution which would fix this problem would be to add more orthogonal sensor modalities, so that any blind spot in one sensor can be compensated for by another (e.g. LIDAR will not see a glass wall, but SONOR will).
But what did Tesla do? They actually doubled down! They removed existing orthogonal sensors and they made everything worse! Now basically the entire thing is driven by vision, and it's still predictably exhibiting the same failure mode of running into broad and stationary objects as it did 5 years ago (which by the way was approximately the amount of time Elon Musk predicted it would take for them to get to level 5 autonomous driving. Instead they've bumbled around for half a decade and failed to make any significant progress).
For Tesla, though, FSD is still such a front and center thing that I'm having trouble seeing how it ever plans on saving face as it gets more and more bad press from incidents like this.
Remember that guy in southern California who got arrested for sleeping in the back of his Tesla while it drove him home, and he said he did it many times and would do it again? The system works well enough that he did it many times before he got caught.
That guy is an idiot, but think about that story from another angle: You can fall asleep while driving any car. The difference is, if that car is a Tesla, you might not die.
As a driver aid for non-crazy people FSD is a good system and Tesla owners like it. It's far from being vaporware.
Right. Similarly, the fast Prime delivery guarantees from Amazon are backed by warehouse workers working their asses off, and I'm sure we've all heard about the bad rep Amazon gets for worker treatment and the subsequent attrition challenges they've been facing.
It feels like Tesla is setting itself up to be stuck between a rock and a hard place, being reliant on their FSD marketing to make money but simultaneously tainting their brand beyond salvation by this very same reliance.
Amazon doesn't seem to be hurting either, despite the bad press they get about their warehouses.
Based on the videos I’m seeing of FSD in action, I have my doubts. Wouldn’t be surprised if this was a publicity stunt. Elon Musk has a very loose relationship with ethics and the truth. They’re just obstacles for him.
Kind of almost 1 meter, ( 3 feet) wide.
So it thinks the tiny patch between the bollard, and the right most white line, is the right driving side of the road.
everyday driving comes down to that same acceptance of risk
Let's not be perfect be the enemy of the good: a self-driving highway system can probably be achieved with current technology that beats human drivers for long distances. I wish that was the priority rather than the robotaxi obsession.
Self-driving highway systems would produce immediate profit and economic savings that could fund the drive-grandma-to-Taco-Bell systems, as well as the convergent infrastructure, common signaling systems, embedded sensors, better signage and standards, improved and predictable construction signals and routing, etc.
Following the usual hype cycle, it will be highway logistics that smooths over the "despair" portion and does the practical incremental improvement.
Furthermore, no self-driving system will be perfect even in a mature stage of development. People will still die, and they may die because of mistakes a human driver would not have made.
If society isn't willing to accept that sacrifice, then let's just ban self-driving cars.
But let's not try to have it both ways -- let's not allow self-driving while also holding the view that risk of death is unacceptable.
Generally speaking, the average human driver causes a “ding” every 100k miles, a insurance worthy event every 250k miles, a police worthy event every 500k miles, and a fatality every 60M miles. Assuming an average driving speed of 60 mph, which is obviously an overestimation, those are 1.6k, 4k, 8k, and 1M hours respectively.
Evaluating a L2 autonomy system is somewhat challenging since in truth you are evaluating a human+autonomous system, so you should expect the overall safety to increase unless the autonomy system is actively making things more dangerous. However, for a L4/L5 autonomy system, which is Tesla’s goal, we can reasonably approximate the quality by miles per intervention as an intervention is a failure of the autonomy.
As a reasonable baseline based on video evidence of FSD, we can assume that each intervention prevents at least a “ding”. Therefore, we can evaluate the quality of FSD relative to a minimal L4 system as the ratio of time per disengagement versus 1.6k hours. Using those same videos as evidence, we see the FSD system requiring intervention every few minutes, i.e. <10 minutes, on average. That is 1/10,000 of the minimal quality expected from a fully functional L4 system.
So, for Tesla to create a minimal acceptable L4 autonomy solution that would actually usher in a age of safe self driving systems, they need to improve the core functionality of their beta product by 10,000x. It is that gap between what they are delivering and what they still need to achieve that is outrageous.
In the mean time, we could start to get a better handle on the safety profile of these systems by better classifying the interventions.
Something like these:
* Intervention due to unreadable conditions (e.g. unpainted lines, a new area with no training data, failure of LIDAR / camera, w/e)
* Human intervention due to not feeling safe
* Intervention due to unsafe condition (e.g. imminent collision, or just hit something)
* Human intervention for other reason (e.g. human is bored, or human changing destination, or human wanting to take another route)
---
#1 could certainly lead to #2 and #3, but is more of an indicator that the car is in novel conditions not trained for, or has hardware failure. #1 is the low hanging fruit (relatively speaking), and #2 is where the majority of the work lies.
#3 is where the system has actually failed.
And #4 need to just be discarded.
> we can assume that each intervention prevents at least a “ding”.
I don't think we can be sure that the vehicle wouldn't have corrected itself in time, nor how many would have been much worse than a "ding". This is where some closed course testing with simulated pedestrians and bicycles etc may give more evidence. In evaluating self driving software, knowing what the consequences of a failure are is important. As you point out, safety drivers prevent this assessment.
> based on video evidence of FSD
I think that there is selection bias in the readily available footage. Firstly, the short clips are likely to be where there is an incident. The longer ones are usually beta testers deliberately choosing tricky routes to test the FSD. I don't see anyone posting videos of a 3 hour freeway drive where nothing happens.
But my point is just that this is complex, and we should be much more careful than we are being.
It's not like Tesla has to release new features every year, they just feel they need to to continue to pump up and justify their stock price.
EDIT:
I misread the parent comment, I’m not opposed to just banning self driving cars as self driving cars likely won't make everyday folks' life better.
Just because this instance was regarding a bicyclist doesn't mean it's only a danger to bicyclists, there are still ways for people to die if the car were only interacting with other Teslas.
I'm more of the mind that cars should become the second-class citizens they ought to be in cities and that I should be able to bike around the city without constant threat of death, that dream remains far off in american cities.
Why is that fire codes and aviation regulations are written in blood, but traffic violence is treated as a normal, necessary cost of modern life? When a biker is killed by a driver who wasn't signaling and cut them off on a right turn (as happens to me on a daily basis in SF), that should trigger immediate redesigns of intersections and streets across the city, for that was an entirely preventable death.
But nope. Go ahead and test your fundamentally flawed, unproven death machine on public roads.
I gotta say, I am really not that keen on being killed by a white tesla.
What rules did Tesla break?
Also, remember that time Waymo killed a pedestrian?
waymo never killed a pedestrian
Yeah, it was Uber, my mistake.
But that's an example another self-driving company that killed people. It could have easily been any of them -- they have all had accidents that could have resulted in death, and just got lucky. Tesla is not special here.
Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30182141
It's to be expected that people will occasionally die in car accidents. Some things are hard to avoid. If someone on a bicycle comes shooting out into a busy street when they don't have the right away and no one could see them coming, they're probably going to get run over. My general expectation for self-driving vehicles is: don't create unsafe situations that weren't there before, don't behave in unpredictable ways, and if you can't avoid running someone over at least do it in a way that the consequences fall on the person doing risky things. In the above example, swerving to miss the biker is fine if it can be done safely, but swerving to miss the biker and instead running over someone on the sidewalk instead is not. (Or, in other words: if you can't avoid an accident, at least be predictable and try to obey the general principles of right-of-way.)
Swerving at a bike for no reason as in the video above should result in suspension of self-driving features (assuming the video is real and wasn't staged in some way).
I can see this being a reason to ban a system from operating at SAE level 3 or above, but isn't the entire difference between level 2 and level 3 that things like that are expected to happen at level 2 and below, hence the reason for drivers having to always be ready to immediately intervene at those levels?
However, self driving is definitely guaranteed to fail if it can't be tested on public roads. And that's really the challenge here -- it can only succeed if society is willing to take the risk.
Sensible legislation is needed to balance innovation and safety for self driving cars on public roads, but not zero. We don’t even accept zero pedestrian hit and run deaths yet…
California, Texas, and Michigan legislators have already bought in to the benefits that these companies will bring.
That's equivalent to a ban.
>If entities want to innovate, let them innovate within safety parameters.
Sure, but the safety parameters have already been established[0] at 40,000 deaths a year, or less, for transportation equivalently convenient and functional as compared to a manually-driven car.
[0]By the crowd-sourced wisdom of democracy.
Are you saying that, despite transit alternatives that do not lead to excess deaths, that deaths due to self-driving cars is worth the cost? We have existing solutions that don't result in these excess deaths, but because of some reason, we don't want those solutions _and_ we want to kill more people just to birth this technology? _Why_?
> [0]By the crowd-sourced wisdom of democracy.
... Which bill are you talking about? I don't remember my Rep or Senator voting on allowing me to be a casualty of the self-driving industry. The fact that automobiles in the US result in 40k deaths is itself a travesty. Even Canada is doing better than the US here. Pointing to the worst driving safety record in the G8 and one of the worst in the G20 isn't exactly proof positive that the American automobile system is safe, it's just proof that we have grandfathered an extremely unsafe system here.
The existing solutions <As chosen by the collective will of the American people> cause 40,000 dead Americans every year. Other 'Solutions' are not. Don't ask me why they are not, ask your neighbor, and your congressman -- but they are not. Also ask yourself how many collective minutes spent waiting for a bus is a traffic fatality worth? This isn't rhetorical, the answer is a number.
>Which bill are you talking about?
Lets start with the United States Department of Transportation, followed shortly thereafter by your state's department of transportation.
>it's just proof that we have grandfathered an extremely unsafe system here.
All the reason why a potentially new system should have to meet the safety standard of 'less unsafe' and not 'perfect'. Literally every day the adoption of self driving is delayed kills 109.6 people[0] because that's one more day of the status quo. To save lives we should be damn near throwing people in front of Teslas to help them train instead of wringing our hands over the matter.
[0]As much as, divided by the relative eventually safety of a fully developed self driving. As Americans, more globally of course.
Americans choose automobiles because of zoning laws mandating massive setbacks and minimum parking requirements. There's nothing in the DoT or my state's DoT that mandates use of a car. It's all due to American city planning, which is driven by auto friendly city planning policy. So again, why is transit out of the question here?
Self-driving cars aren't an incremental improvement away. We have no idea how many more deaths are needed to mature the technology. So why are we bending over backwards for it when there are proven solutions to move people without casualty? If self driving can innovate without casualty, then be my guest.
You would kill tens of thousands of people a year with that policy decision.
The unstated assumption in this is that self-driving is feasible with current technology and without enough training will be better than human drivers.
That's just not realistic, not even in Europe.
Why wouldn't it be realistic?
If a state government or the US Federal government tried to ban cars, they would be out of power very quickly, even in the most liberal parts of the country.
All of the companies that are testing self-driving cars have had accidents with other cars and pedestrians. Some of them resulted in death. Others did not, but easily could have, and eventually their luck will run out and they will also cause deaths.
Who would invest millions of dollars into developing a technology when a single mistake could flush all that money down the drain?
People are some of the worst drivers around, they cause all kinds of problems with cluelessness and inattention and they crash and die and kill and injure in all sorts of stupid ways. They get drunk, high, check their phone, fall asleep, speed, show off
I think it's great that there are still companies out there throwing research into moonshot types of research projects like this. Automobile deaths are perhaps the biggest and most persistent pandemic we've faced, we've been facing for a hundred years, and it kills and maims young and old alike. Millions of people dead over the years.
Many were willing to relax some of the protocols around vaccine testing to bring the covid vaccines in to use earlier, put mandates and coercion around them, and yes some suffered adverse reactions and even died from them. Still, it was thought to be a reasonable compromise by many.
I hope we don't go the other way on other technology that can advance society and potentially save lives just because not everything goes perfectly from the start, or we get stuck in the pharmaceutical corporations = bad mindset.
Not to say there perhaps shouldn't be more regulation around it, but a serious and careful study of risks and benefits I think is appropriate rather than handwringing and outrage.
1 fatality per 100 million miles driven is relatively good, to be honest.
This seems to me like a good argument for the public funding of electric rail lines instead of self-driving cars that perpetuate all of the problems personal vehicles are responsible for.
Handwringing about someone carefully testing a car and not hitting a cyclist in the process is really pretty rich. I'll happily take actual data and statistics but for every one of these I can also post a video of a driver doing something stupid that a computer would not.
A 1 out of 100 to 1 out of 1,000 fatality rate for COVID depending on demographics is quite literally several orders of magnitude higher than a 1 out of 100,000,000 fatality rate for driving. You're comparing apples to atoms.
So no, it's more like apples to watermelons. The watermelons being bigger, the ones which have killed far more people and will continue to kill far more people.
So even COVID-19 wasn’t enough to “move fast and break things” (though I remember hearing many such calls to “move fast and break things” from the same contrarian-sphere community that is now Very Concerned about vaccine injuries). If COVID-19 wasn’t bad enough to completely remove our safety guardrails, certainly the never ending promise of FSD (watch any Musk video compilation where he promises FSD is just around the corner, going on five years now) isn’t enough.
Edit: I just looked up the numbers and it’s 102 deaths/day average in the USA. I think it’s a horrific problem and support many initiatives that will take cars off the road and calm traffic.
102 deaths every day in the USA alone is staggering, and many children and young people! Are you trying to it's not? How many people has self driving cars and their research and development killed? Vanishingly few by comparison.
The situation is very analogous to covid and vaccines.
The guardrails that the typical trial process has, see e.g.,:
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/vaccines/timeline
https://www.ncirs.org.au/phases-clinical-trials
> AFAIK none were removed, it's just steps were done in parallel at great $expense.
No, the far greater expense is the typical 5-10 years that clinical trials require.
> It appears you are trying to imply that it's fine if Tesla skips safety testing and pops a few skulls like watermelons in pursuit of $FSD. I'm not saying perfection is possible, but certainly Tesla can do better than it's doing. If anything, Tesla threatens to set everything back with its sloppiness. One bad accident could create enough bad PR to set self-driving cars back for years.
It doesn't appear that I'm trying to imply that at all, it appears you're just making things up.
Again, you’re claiming vaccine guardrails were removed but posting no evidence. Do they do 5-10 year trials on the annual flu vaccine? Please show me an authoritative medical source concerned about major shortcuts taken bringing the mRNA vaccine to market. Should be a piece of cake.
I don't know what you mean by guardrail either. Vaccine trials were significantly accelerated from typical vaccines, long term data was foregone and emergency use authorizations were used to deploy them. I don't know what you're trying to argue or whether you're actually trying to deny that reality.
From other communities I could buy the "fear of the unknown" bit. But here, most of us are involved in the production of software in some form. It's not the unknown that we fear, it's the known. We fully understand what modern software is actually capable of, and we know that it's not ready for prime time in these kinds of environments.
Further, many of us have been in a chaotic public beta before, and seeing those patterns play out during a beta test of lethal machinery is really scary. Rapid chaotic iteration is fine when it's a simple SaaS product. Not so much with Tesla.
Compared to which other species?
We don't need new technology, we need new leaders.
You're not the first one to have thought it's a good idea or that we should try to do something about it. It's not like it's easy and people have just decided not to.
Honest question: If beta testing speeds up the transition to FSD by x months/years and causes y deaths during the intervening period but FSD ultimately reduces the number of road deaths by z per day. For what values of x, y and z is it an acceptable trade off?
Zeroism is often overly simplistic. y being non-zero might be hugely net-positive in the long run.
Even if FSD is mature and 1000x safer than human driving then there will still be deaths. Are you suggesting that if FSD is 1000x safer then it still shouldn't be allowed on the road because there is the possibility of deaths?
I'm not claiming that FSD should or shouldn't be allowed on the road right now. My point is that we shouldn't wait for the chances of death to be zero.
This is a solved problem with experimental design. Experiments are designed and reviewed by ethics boards, and participants are gathered after getting their informed consent and giving them just compensation for the risks involved.
"Testing of FSD solutions in the real world" can follow the same path in their experimental designs, but they don't, because executives and shareholders don't want to pay for expensive ethical experimentation. They'd rather move fast and break bodies.
Most modern life saving devices and treatments have gone through exactly this type of ethical experimentation. There's no reason Tesla's products couldn't, as well.
“Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.“
Tesla's self-driving beta is unethical because most of the participants in this "experiment" did not opt in. Most of the people killed by Tesla won't be their customers. It will be the cyclist or the pedestrian that gets killed because the driver thought "full self driving" meant the car was fully driving itself. They didn't even know they were part of an experiment that day, yet they were the sacrifice that Tesla was willing to make.
Just so we're talking about the same term:
> The belief that all individuals, or nearly all individuals, can succeed on their own and that government help for people should be minimal.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rugged-individualism
Typically, the rugged individualists are the ones who say that the government should stay out of all this and people can take care of themselves. Basically the opposite of what I'm saying.
Neither ethic would approve of systematically killing people for the greater good, but they're two very different ethics in most other respects. For example, I could arrive at "vaccination should be mandated" from a sanctity-of-life perspective, but I never could from a rugged individualism perspective.
- Beta tests critical software in the public which has lead to actual customer deaths;
- Refuses to follow industry best practices when it comes to safety sensors;
- Refuses to seriously investigate safety incidents and implement technological and cultural fixes to prevent them from happening in the future;
...will lead us into a utopia of automotive safety. At best what they're liable to do is create a climate where mega corporations feel free to use public spaces as their own personal laboratories, because the ends justify the means after all (don't pay attention to the decapitations, we're doing it for the safety of us all). We will all pay the price for that.
- willfully misrepresents data to imply a better safety record than they actually do have
https://twitter.com/Tweetermeyer/status/1488673180403191808 (I've posted this elsewhere on this thread too)
Many of “us” are already dying, and it saves lives in the future.
/s