AFAIK, Google lobbied for that lack of reporting requirements, so removing vital safety protections was a big part of this. Similarly, it isn't "testing" cars to put passengers in them, that's putting people's lives in the hands of beta hardware.
The fact that a significant amount of California politicians have been bought and paid for by Google and are still resistant to adopting Google's preferred legislation on self-driving cars shows some level of how reckless Google has been here.
> The fact that a significant amount of California politicians have been bought and paid for by Google and are still resistant to adopting Google's preferred legislation on self-driving cars shows some level of how reckless Google has been here.
Alternatively, the fact that they are unwilling to adopt Google's preferred legislation disproves your premise that they are bought and paid for by Google, collapsing your entire argument.
What vital safety protections do you believe are missing?
>The fact that a significant amount of California politicians have been bought and paid for by Google and are still resistant to adopting Google's preferred legislation on self-driving cars shows some level of how reckless Google has been here.
Erm, there are about 30 conjectures in this statement. I don't know how I can have a good faith conversation with you when you say stuff like this that I can best describe as made up nonsense. Its tautological and impossible to even imagine a counterargument. Just to be clear, here's what you're assuming:
- Google's vehicles are unsafe (if they weren't what they are doing wouldn't be reckless, by definition)
- Google has significant control of the CA legislature
- Google is resistant to this regulation for safety reasons, and not some other reason (for example: competative advantage)
- California's regulations don't harm Google's advances in areas unrelated to safety
Just as a simple counterexample: Waymo wants to beta test the infrastructure for scaling out its fleet without safety drivers. There have been 0 disengagements in the last N,000 miles (where, say, N is suitably large), and the cars appear able to drive themselves in all circumstances they encounter in Phoenix. In such a case, continuing to require safety drivers (as in CA) would be harmful to their goals, and wouldn't actually have an impact on safety.
To summarize: your entire argument that Google is being reckless is predicated on their vehicles being unsafe. If they arne't unsafe, nothing else follows. You don't trust Google. But I don't understand where "don't trust" becomes "actively assume malice at every point". That seems, strange.
Some description of how your employer does business in this space can be found here: http://googletransparencyproject.org/articles/google-enliste...
The fact that a significant amount of California politicians have been bought and paid for by Google and are still resistant to adopting Google's preferred legislation on self-driving cars shows some level of how reckless Google has been here.