3 ms·
But not, IMHO, a useful one, because it assumes the problems we see today will be the actual real problems in practice. If that's true, i'd go so far to ventur
by DannyBee 10y ago
But not, IMHO, a useful one, because it assumes the problems we see today will be the actual real problems in practice.
If that's true, i'd go so far to venture a guess that these vehicles will have completely failed.
Do people truly believe no one is working on solving the problem of better emergency braking, crash foams, etc?
The reason they aren't used is mainly because expense vs value is not there (for manufacturers), not because they don't exist.
For example, metal foams (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/studies/idea/finalreports/highspeedrail/hsr-34final_report.pdf http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/studies/idea/fi... and friends), etc.
or hell, making barriers that aren't just concrete!
The truth is, if the "moral cost" is high enough, we'll just solve the problem of people dying when they crash in X% of cases, until people/companies feel good about X vs what they pay for X.
- asimuvPR 10y agoI was careful to challenge the usefulness of the exercise. Mostly because I took it as a personal challenge. However, you make an important point. This exercise assumes the problem set will be identical in the future. This sounds like a sensible approach that ends up undermining all of the technological improvements a self driving vehicle will posses. Things like redundant control systems, [V2V, V2I, V2C] networking, run flat tires, and others. The self driving car will be closer to an airplane with a robotic agent as the traffic controller than anything else.
- nyxtom 10y agoPrecisely, if it's a problem of trying to get the vehicle to stop, perhaps focus on areas that can increase that probability first (i.e. running flat tires would be a great one to immediately get the car to slow down).