2 ms·
Frequent, randomly scheduled disengagements should keep the driver quite on edge, preventing them from becoming a passenger. But each and every one of them woul
by usrusr 9y ago
Frequent, randomly scheduled disengagements should keep the driver quite on edge, preventing them from becoming a passenger. But each and every one of them would create additional risk, so the net improvement might be negative. There is just no way to get this right, except for being reluctant of pushing to scale. With all the hype, wishful thinking and investor pressure, this clearly isn't happening.
- stordoff 9y agoI've been thinking about this for the last couple of days, and it's definitely a hard problem -- even with steering wheel sensors and eye tracking, it doesn't stop people zoning out and not being ready to react. I did wonder if you could require the driver to make control inputs that aren't actually used to control the car but are monitored for being reasonably close to how the computer is controlling the car, and then the automation disengages (with a warning) if the driver is not paying sufficient attention. I then realised that may be _worse_ - in the event of a problem, the driver would have to switch to real inputs that override, which may delay action and not be something they do automatically. It would mean they are paying attention more to see if the automation is making errors where they have more time to react though (e.g. sensor failure that is causing erratic behaviour but not led to an emergency situation). I wonder if a hybrid approach might be viable -- fake steering is used to ensure that the driver is alert and an active participant, but the driver hitting the brakes immediately takes effect and disengages the automation.