> There is no excuse for this when there are plenty of lower speed locations available. They should have used a large parking lot or similar.

At some point you probably want to test it at highway speeds. I agree that a closed course would be the only responsible option, however.

They are not testing it, they are showing it.

Reckless yes and still probably not enough....

I believe people will need to be killed, or get their cars destroys before the rest of the population takes enough of a stance against "neglecting" security.

Nowhere near as reckless as missing oncoming traffic by mere feet at speed differentials exceeding 100MPH. Happens billions of times a day without anyone expressing the slightest concern. People are regularly killed and cars destroyed; the rest of the population doesn't care.

You're officially wrong per Federal Certifications (some courtesy Jeep, some the dealer,) so that's the Safe way for researchers to have approached it; mountains and no easement would've brought it down to rules for scratch journalists (please try to recover my GoPro...) State (etc.) laws are 80% hate speech against cyclists. Not even tagged Florida; my car's entertainment system made me climb a tree and launch t-shirts at traffic, blister, etc. If they'd done it as a vetted demo in a lot that could have been a Federal lot...insert stdSecLetter, stdClearance, stdDeclarationOfInterest...meh.