> What if some crashes are unavoidable? e.g. somebody darts out in front of a mobile vehicle. It should brake as much as possible. Even if the collision is una

> What if some crashes are unavoidable? e.g. somebody darts out in front of a mobile vehicle. It should brake as much as possible. Even if the collision is unavoidable, reducing the kinetic energy available for the collision is still a good idea. > We accept that trains are not at fault for striking “trespassers” on their railways. When a train "detects" an "obstacle" (the train driver sees the "trespasser"), it goes into emergency braking. > Also, when we all drive cars with collision avoidance systems, who gets sued by whom? If my car e-brakes for no reason and I get rear-ended, is the guy who hits me still at fault like usual? When we all drive cars with enough automation, the automation should keep enough distance that the following car can brake without colliding. > but it’s interesting to see it implemented in cars as emergency help versus in modern commercial airliners (where autopilot and landing control systems are ubiquitous) when it is only relied on for the most routine and straight-shot ability. Airplanes have the unfortunate property that they can't simply stop in an emergency; stopping would be an even bigger emergency. Cars (and trains) can simply stop, they won't fall from the sky in that case. But even then, airplanes do have emergency help from their automation: the TCAS has a similar purpose to a car's automated emergency braking, that is, to prevent a collision.