• HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    7 months ago

    While it might be possible to remotely control a production car, cars now are safe enough that you’d need to have a lot of systems fail in order to ensure that an accident would be fatal. Things like, all the crumple zones not working as intended, airbags not going off, seat belts not locking properly, all at once. Or you could, I dunno, design the car so that the doors were only controlled electronically, and then ensure that if there was a fire or the car was submerged, the electronics failed (e.g., Teslas).

    • yamanii@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      Too high level, it’s way cheaper to just hire a dude to cause an accident with a big vehicle like a truck, no passenger car can survive.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yeah, guaranteeing a crash fatal is pretty hard. But doing anything weird to a car while it’s traveling 70 on a highway with traffic has a pretty good chance of killing occupants. If you could make the brakes on just one wheel lock suddenly, you’d have quite a hairy situation.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        I hit <<something>> on my motorcycle in a hard corner at 55+mph, maybe three years ago? Someone I was riding with said it might have been a turtle. :'(

        Somehow I managed to not go down, and that should have been a perfect recipe for a slide into oncoming traffic.

        I’m just saying that if you really want to kill someone, you’d want something a lot more certain than a remote-controlled accident.

    • Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Coming from experience, I would think a car being submerged sounds like the least convenient time for it to stop working.