4 ms·
The point is that humans who have poorer sensors and do even stupider things are allowed to drive. So the bar for self-driving is a lot lower than people around
by aianus 9y ago
The point is that humans who have poorer sensors and do even stupider things are allowed to drive. So the bar for self-driving is a lot lower than people around here make it sound.
- perennate 9y agoI actually believe that the kind of situation shown in the video (pedestrian walking across road at night in the path of a car, where car has to brake hard to avoid a collision) happens much more frequently than most people think. And most of the time the pedestrian comes out fine because most drivers are looking ahead most of the time, and someone walking across the road is a big abnormal event that is easy for a human to notice and react to. I don't have any data to support this, other than a vague memory of doing something similar many years ago. Although if I remember correctly, that was a more major road that was probably better lit. But I still find it hard to believe that human vision would have been as lousy as the camera's.
- brokenmachine 9y agoI agree. I can remember quite a few times I've had to slow down. One time there was a bar fight that spilled onto the road I was driving along. I slowed down as I could see the commotion on the sidewalk, and lucky I did because they ended up in the path of my car. This self driving car would have killed quite a few people in that case it seems.
- brokenmachine 9y agoStupider things - I'll give you. But where is the evidence that humans have poorer sensors? All I saw is a car plowing into a person without even applying the brakes. That strongly implies to me that the car wasn't even aware the person was there, as reflexes should not be an issue. Most humans would see that person directly in front of them. So I contend that the car's sensors are poorer than a humans.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]