[Kontact]

Originally Posted by MattTuck

Yeah, I'm with you on most of this. Medicine has this idea of informed consent. That, hey, something might be potentially dangerous, but if you understand the risks, we consider it fair because there may be some benefit to you or society.

This woman is essentially the victim of a 21st century Tuskeegee Study. That said, you can only test this technology so much in the lab before it needs real life experience to get better, and in that context, accidents are sure to happen. Even with more regulation, there is no guarantee that this stuff will work -- and even if it does work in general and make the streets safer than with human drivers, they may not drive accidents to zero... so there will still be costs.

That's why I think the best thing other than clear communication is a regulatory structure that makes companies pay up front for the eventual cost that is born by the victims. For each mile of road that your autonomous vehicle drives, it is $x (not sure of the exact amount) would be one approach. Another would be a flat fee for a license to test an autonomous vehicle within your city. I prefer the first, because it makes companies carefully consider how they will deploy, monitor and examine their test data. If you allow them to costlessly roam the city, each incremental mile matters very little, and so you have much more lax safety measures.

Maybe they should be street testing the technology with vehicles built out of pillows with bright flashing lights rather than 5000 pound Volvos.