It might well be interesting, if TRN comes to the conclusion: that it can no longer 'be purposed by present and continuing market supply conditions' . . . to promote and obtain reasonable science . . . and thus to guarantee a reasonable and normal product presentation profitably.
Then, we shall see who will be willed to undertake such.
Surely foreign made crash guard-rails will prove enlightening,
as to specific contract standards.
Why would any normally intelligence management and BODs be inclined to brother, promoting its mission as to fund and stand behind a technology that is so marginal, to its overall corporate goal and image?
Then, let the Feds and the States 'raddle on' amongst themselves, as to how and who will replace the 'suspect' guard-rail needed in the future.
And, of course, we might just find the needy parties having to publicly fund in-house against future guard-rail mishaps (as private insurers could find it 'of a hazard' and negatively skewed to their corporative image being continually involved in the public media, in a negative associative context)?
Further, will the DC crowd sponsors, want Highway Improvement Funding going to pull out reasonably proper guard rails, or rather to patch and re-road their hillbilly roadway mess nationwide developing?
Then, Oh the pain, of claims from driver-less vehicles 'miss-acting'. One might ponder, in all due respect to the legal profession cross-section, can a robot system be a subject of legality? I Robot . . . and all. Sky Net shall surely take issue with an illogical processing outcome?
TRN could quite well find itself, with a very favorable settlement of issue, out-of-court?
Practically, when the vaunted offended parties find no one stepping into their replacement nightmare can-of-worms.
