Self-Driving Cars Are Still Cars–Which Means They Won't Improve Your Commute

Re:Self-Driving Cars Are Still Cars–Which Means They Won't I... by WalterBright on Sunday June 01, 2014 @06:43PM (#7830968)

I trot out the power generation industry as an example. People sue nuke plants out of existence, despite them being far less damaging than coal - in both lives and environmental destruction.

There's also the vaccine industry. Some vaccinations result in severe adverse reactions in a handful of people. But the public health benefit is so vast that the government has stepped in to shield vaccine makers from the lawsuits.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Self-Driving Cars Are Still Cars–Which Means They Won't I... by TheCowboy on Sunday June 01, 2014 @07:17PM (#7831067)

As far as I know, nuclear power and the disposal of nuclear waste is more of a NIMBY problem than a problem of excess punitive damages or other alleged problems with lawsuits. This could also be an example of public shock putting pressure on politicians and public utilities to shy away from nuclear power.

The vaccine point suggests to me that it's not so black and white about if self-driving cars are doomed. If the public safety benefit of self-driving cars becomes so great, then maybe the government will be pressured to ensure they're here to stay. I think there will definitely need to be changes in the law to accommodate this tech, but it's not impossible.

[ Parent | on HN ]