Eh... if it already has start-stop (which I hate), then this is just a few extra lines of code. Sure, it’s not a big deal, but why not? I could see it being a useful feature for the once every few months I stall (almost exclusively when parking).

That’s why I’ve kept my stable running, need to provide jobs for the coach-driver, stable boys, blacksmith, wagon builder, etc.

With the “double yellow line problem,” worst case scenario the car decides it can’t cross the line, and it will stop before it reaches the road crew and come to an impasse, big whoop. And clearly, if there were a collision that were going to happen, the car would be programmed to avoid that above all else.

Exactly. Like we’re all perfect arbiters of what’s right and can also act on that within fractions of a second, and have the necessary skill to do so!

I’m not sure if this is the case here, but there are plenty of systems that once installed are not connected to the network, and have no usb ports accessible. They just run one (or a few) programs and interface with limited hardware. Then a lack of support doesn’t really matter.

The data that currently exists after accidents: some eye witness reports, maybe some “black box data,” MAYBE a dashcam from one angle.

Why would we treat this any differently than mechanical failures of well maintained vehicles driven by humans?

This is great news that automakers are just putting this out there, but isn’t this just a foregone conclusion? I mean I know the legal framework doesn’t exist yet, but who would ever claim responsibility for a vehicle they’re not controlling?

I think even you’re not being forward thinking enough. What are we going to do when almost all jobs are rendered obsolete? That’s not so far off!

I’m going with a joke. Especially as Chris Mills complained about how arbitrary the imperial system is.

You’re assuming that the two systems intercept at zero.

I think the point of the ridiculously tight parking spot demo was just to get pageviews, and demonstrate that those doors are not going to be your limiting factor in fitting in a parking spot. I’m sure the first thing many people say when they see those doors is “those will hit a car parked next to it.”

Sure, I didn’t think of that, but that wouldn’t be a DUI nowadays anyways.

I would not use an autonomous car unless it was capable of legally being the responsible “driver.” Once a car is fully autonomous, it would be preposterous for the owner to have any legal responsibility for its safe driving. If you’re riding on a train drunk and that train crashes on account of nothing you did, do you…

Well, if the accident rate drops down to zero, I don’t see much a reason not to do this! (Apart from common decorum.)

But would a dealer be required to apply the fix if they work on the car for any other reasons?

“Your love for cars doesn’t supersede the lives of 1.2 million people who die in automobile accidents every year.”

No, that all makes sense. My point is simply that JoeLiebig was right, that no real-world emissions is complete bunk, and there’s simply no local emissions. That doesn’t mean that the Model X is “dirty,” or that it isn’t still the most efficient SUV available, it just means that the article contained a completely…

I don’t think he implied that at all. Merely he said that what was asserted in the article, “No real world emissions” is patently false.

I did read to the end. The conclusion would be that, per the article, and this math, that standard cars also have “No real world emissions.” Basically, proving the OP’s point, that there’s no *local* emissions.