“U.S. insurers say they currently do not have sufficient data to validate auto industry promises of safety benefits from automated driving systems, citing automakers’ reluctance to provide detailed information on models sold with those features,…”
US insurers are most definitely a credible source of research and data used in ratemaking and research. So, why would Tesla etc. NOT want them to have the data needed to validate their claims?
I expect a contrived reply from ‘R’, with a demand that I goo-gul something myself to find the answer to my RHETORICAL question above. With that said, I anticipate such and ask in a pre-emptive measure: “why don’t supporters of Tesla, etc. – without sufficient data to do so – goo-gul something to support widespread use of AI vehicles BEFORE they have been thoroughly tested off-road?”
Once again, why are you looking for fights Polar? Your straw man argument about what I may say causes me to defend myself before we even get the discussion started.
Why are you attacking me and looking for fights?
Make your post.
Ask your questions.
Wait for a reply before attacking someone, and don’t attack unless you’re attacked first.
Anyway, the article is pretty clear as to why Tesla “does not want” them to have the data — personal privacy and current state law. To wit:
“‘It really comes down to case law, and how much of the data we can utilize. It would have to be a state-by-state proposition,’ Edmonds said.”
So if state law says Tesla can’t release the information or can’t release it unless it gets driver/owner permission first, Tesla would be opening themselves up for lawsuits if they don’t comply with those laws.
As for why there can be supporters of Tesla’s vehicles before they’re “thoroughly tested” – first I ask you to define what YOU consider “thoroughly tested” to mean? But even without that answer, I can tell you one thing … I’d much rather have Autopilot doing its thing instead of a drunk driver or someone who is texting or eating or fiddling with their vehicle’s technology options (maps, radio, etc) and constantly not showing proper lookout.
I mean, for someone that constantly whines about posts not reflecting the IJ terms of service, he pretty much is just trying to start a fight right now. And yet he’s one of the ones who whines at me for responding in turn. Either way, God I hate when old people try to internet.
Excerpt:
“U.S. insurers say they currently do not have sufficient data to validate auto industry promises of safety benefits from automated driving systems, citing automakers’ reluctance to provide detailed information on models sold with those features,…”
US insurers are most definitely a credible source of research and data used in ratemaking and research. So, why would Tesla etc. NOT want them to have the data needed to validate their claims?
I expect a contrived reply from ‘R’, with a demand that I goo-gul something myself to find the answer to my RHETORICAL question above. With that said, I anticipate such and ask in a pre-emptive measure: “why don’t supporters of Tesla, etc. – without sufficient data to do so – goo-gul something to support widespread use of AI vehicles BEFORE they have been thoroughly tested off-road?”
Once again, why are you looking for fights Polar? Your straw man argument about what I may say causes me to defend myself before we even get the discussion started.
Why are you attacking me and looking for fights?
Make your post.
Ask your questions.
Wait for a reply before attacking someone, and don’t attack unless you’re attacked first.
Anyway, the article is pretty clear as to why Tesla “does not want” them to have the data — personal privacy and current state law. To wit:
“‘It really comes down to case law, and how much of the data we can utilize. It would have to be a state-by-state proposition,’ Edmonds said.”
So if state law says Tesla can’t release the information or can’t release it unless it gets driver/owner permission first, Tesla would be opening themselves up for lawsuits if they don’t comply with those laws.
As for why there can be supporters of Tesla’s vehicles before they’re “thoroughly tested” – first I ask you to define what YOU consider “thoroughly tested” to mean? But even without that answer, I can tell you one thing … I’d much rather have Autopilot doing its thing instead of a drunk driver or someone who is texting or eating or fiddling with their vehicle’s technology options (maps, radio, etc) and constantly not showing proper lookout.
I mean, for someone that constantly whines about posts not reflecting the IJ terms of service, he pretty much is just trying to start a fight right now. And yet he’s one of the ones who whines at me for responding in turn. Either way, God I hate when old people try to internet.