I think this is all a distraction. The law, and Tesla's non-marketing communication, are clear: unless in a pilot scheme, there needs to be a driver, and the driver is responsible and just remain in control and able to take over if the car fucks up.

Tesla is guilty of using misleading product badges ("full self driving") which invites illegal use, but this is not a problem with driver's education or their technical communication. Irresponsible owners ignore the technical communication and let the car drive while doing something else and being unable to take over. This is not a conceptual problem needing a radical new notion of "driver in command" though. It just needs manufacturers to describe their features accurately also when naming them. And it requires drivers to actually adhere to the rules which of course will never happen.

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I'm thinking bigger than that. There are companies right now operating robotic taxis on American roads with no human operators on board. A car that may or may not even have a steering wheel arrives, a human passenger climbs into the back seat, and the car drives off with them. Who is legally responsible for the operation of that car? If it hurts someone, who do they sue? If it commits a crime, who do we punish?

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 points 13 hours ago

I was under the impression those were pilot schemes.

But that's fair enough, in that situation - which is not the "Tesla driver playing video games" I think was under discussion before - someone does need to be declared responsible. I don't know the details of the agreements but I can imagine there isn't.