Hacker News Reader

Comment by snarf21 | Hacker News Reader

I agree that there is a significant monetary incentive to "move fast and kill people". In the end, paying out a few $MM to random families is financially minimal compared to the $BBB that are up for grabs. We will never really have executives going to jail for things like this. We've built a system of profits > anything else.

View on HN

This has been the status quo for the whole car industry for decades.

If executives were jailed for car accidents people we would have trains and trams in every corner.

Ordinary cars are testable, we understands quality of merials, corrosion, etc.

When it comes to AI droving, noone has a fucking clue what it will do in next 50 milliseconds. Teslas literally mis-classified a semi trailer for an underpass

The opportunity for shenanighans is endless

... and if makers of kitchen implements were jailed for knife accidents/crime then we'd be eating soup with plastic spoons for every meal.

It doesn't make sense to have universal product liability in that way: there are too many creative idiots.

In terms of complexity and security features a car is much closer to an airplane than a knife.

It's very disingenuous to compare it to a knife.

Not really; the fact is that sharp objects and heavy objects moving at speed are both inherently hazardous because of the basic nature of the physical world, but those same attributes make them extremely useful.

I don't object at all to holding manufacturers accountable for defective products; but it makes no sense to say "if your product is involved in an accident, you go to jail", which was the premise of the comment to which I responded.