> Does that mean that expectation is all automated cars will go exactly the speed limit on the left lane of North American superhighways?

It’s already against road rules to stay in the passing lane when cars behind wish to pass, regardless of the speed limit, or if you’re already driving at it. If cars behind desire to overtake, give way. This is already codified. No need to blame the cars or the self-driving tech. It’s the human driver who bears responsibility for what the car does or doesn’t do, as are the only ones able to countermand the autopilot. Blaming Tesla for any of that seems like dogpiling and behind the point.

Not in California. Left lane fast, right lane slow isn't the law, and you can pass in whatever lane you'd like.

Studies show that, adjusted for congestion and weather, SF Bay Area drivers have some of the highest accidents per mile in the country.

> Not in California. Left lane fast, right lane slow isn't the law, and you can pass in whatever lane you'd like.

That sounds really unsafe and surely must make driving much more stressful than it needs to be.

Seriously? That feels unpredictable and stressful, whereas I feel driving should be as predictable as possible.

That depends on the jurisdiction. In my state (MA), I can use the left lane while passing other traffic even if there is traffic behind me who wishes to go faster than I am.

I don’t think that is contrary to my point or what I was trying to say. The left lane is for passing cars in the right lane, and for turning left across traffic in cases with no middle turning lane. The left lane is not meant for driving. I don’t think this varies by jurisdiction and may not be a regulation per se, it’s just the norms and rules of the road.

Yes. For a company to program illegality into a product opens them up to untold liability. Normal car companies program their speedometers to read slightly high (5% ish). This keeps them from being into lawsuits by people who claim that an inaccurate speedometer contributed to the severity of a crash. Any car company who programs a car to drive faster than the limit will be either liable or have to pay lawyers in every crash involving such cars. Even if their car doesn't cause the crash, the fact that it was speeding will contribute to the severity of the accident. It would be like programing a robotic bartender to serve kids who are underage but look old enough to pass for 21. Corporate lunacy.

>Yes. For a company to program illegality into a product opens them up to untold liability.

People have been saying this for years yet Tesla is not being sued into nonexistence. Presumably their contracts are written well enough that if the user tells the car to go above the speed limit that's on them.

Because incidents involving these programs are very small. At the moment there are very few Teslas on the road in comparison to other car companies. There would statistically only be a handful at most of such accidents. But give it a few years until there are 10x or 20x as many teslas on the road. Then the class actions will start. That is if, like here, Tesla hasn't already recalled all such vehicles.

What are your odds and the amount you'd be willing to bet that this is true? There are sums of money and odds that I would be willing to play this at.

There's a difference between the driver setting the cruise control above the speed limit, and a computer unilaterally deciding that it should run a stop sign.

> Does that mean that expectation is all automated cars will go exactly the speed limit on the left lane of North American superhighways?

In the vast majority of states this would also be illegal. If Tesla decides it safe, they should be able to just rewrite the rules, though, right?