Before invention of computer aid drafting?

[RidingOnRailz]

Originally Posted by Stealthee

That's the dumbest take ever. Dumbest.

In denial, are we?

Classic courtroom response when there is no defense...

"Are you crazy?" "That's the dumbest thing I've heard" etc..

[Stealthee]

There is zero correlation. The "self-driving" mode is supposed to be constantly maintained by the driver, so that the driver is in control. Even with a "defect" the driver would still be able to avoid an accident.

That has nothing to do with exploding gas tanks.

[RidingOnRailz]

Originally Posted by Stealthee

There is zero correlation. The "self-driving" mode is supposed to be
constantly maintained by the driver, so that the driver is in control. Even with
a "defect" the driver would still be able to avoid an accident.
That has nothing to do with exploding gas tanks.

Invalid argument.

No product is perfect, even brand news. A defect is a defect is a defect!

And if a driver still has to monitor their vehicle's performance, even with feet and hands off the controls, then what’s the point of autonomous vehicles in the first place?

My carefully used and cleaned toaster this morning just burned a hole through my kitchen ceiling. It’s “my fault” because the toaster developed a slow fault, and I didn’t stand over the toaster while it was toasting. The 1/10th of one percent of toaster users that do stand and watch their toasters probably belong in Five South, if you get me.

Man I’d hate to live in your planet’s form of justice!

[Stealthee]

You are the only one living in your own little world.

[RidingOnRailz]

Originally Posted by Stealthee

You are the only one living in your own
little world.

You believe what you want.

I believe in an imperfect world where any product can malfunction or possess defects.

You know what? Your whole tone of the last five posts sounds like you have a financial interest in autonomous vehicles.

[shorod]

Owning and driving a Pinto that explodes when rear ended is not the fault of the Pinto driver, but it IS 100% the fault of the driver that rear ended the Pinto! So the Pinto exploding is still 100% the fault of a careless driver, just NOT the Pinto driver.

It's too bad Tesla opted to call their system "auto pilot" since people seem to think that means it can be totally hands-off. But I suspect if one were to look into "auto pilot" in commercial aircraft even that system is NOT intended to be 100% hands off. A pilot and/or co-pilot are still expected to be alert, aware, and ready to take over command of the aircraft at ANY moment. Hmm, sounds pretty similar to Tesla's disclaimer and position for their system.

And the integration of the "auto pilot" or any other driver's aid, while it becomes much more efficient with the use of CAD modeling, could still be done old-school (relating to the original topic).

-Rod

[RidingOnRailz]

Originally Posted by shorod

Owning and driving a Pinto that explodes when
rear ended is not the fault of the Pinto driver, but it IS
100% the fault of the driver that rear ended the Pinto!
So the Pinto exploding is still 100% the fault of a careless
driver, just NOT the Pinto driver.

-Rod

Yeah... Now I see where your's and Stealthee's thought patterns come from. Corporate Autocracy at it's finest!

Never blame the product - always blame the user/operator/driver/etc.

Som insight, in the case you two weren't alive when the whole Pinto/Bobcat matter happened:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto

[shorod]

So is there any record of a Pinto catching fire due to a fuel tank rupture that was not due to some driver's negligence? But who's going to sue the driver when there's an opportunity to sue a large company with millions or billions of dollars after determining than the tank placement was less than ideal?

Back then there probably weren't great CAD and simulation software tools to model what might happen in an accident, and maybe (I don't know, just speculating) crash testing wasn't performed with fluids in the vehicles under test.