• FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    A key distinction is that you can hold human drivers accountable and bring them to court. But nobody wants to die because of a glitch.

    • Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’d argue that human drivers are absolutely not held accountable in the US. When my buddy was killed by a driver texting in a giant SUV they gave the driver a small fine and called it an “accident”.

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I would respond that in court, the traffic laws are the traffic laws. It looks like the pedestrian is the accountable party here. But from a pedestrian perspective, cars that are only dangerous if you’re jaywalking are objectively an upgrade.

      • Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Reminder that paint isn’t infrastructure so if you want people to use the “crosswalk” then it needs to be raised up and it needs a protected middle if you have to cross multiple lanes. If you make the crosswalk actually safer to use then people will use it.