>If autonomous cars can drive at the skill level of average drivers - and not get drunk or angry or distracted by forwarding cat videos - then they will signifi

>If autonomous cars can drive at the skill level of average drivers - and not get drunk or angry or distracted by forwarding cat videos - then they will significantly outperform humans. As long as you use the word "if" you can say pretty much anything you want. >Additional evidence in the form of reason... autonomous drivers have better sensors than humans. Human drivers have limited vision, that only points in one direction at a time. That is not evidence. It is your own opinion. Nothing of the sort has been proven to work reliably. >Autonomous drivers won't have that problem. They can see out the back and to the sides, 360 degrees at all times. (I'll note that some of the first deployed autonomous tech was cars that can parallel-park themselves.) They can't "see". They can only sense what they have been programmed to sense. The envelope of what they can process is tiny. Sensors have flaws, humans programming those sensors have flaws. The human eye and visual cortex has been evolving for millions of years. >I can go on and on, but really, I'm gonna throw a bullshit card here. The biggest "bullshit" here is that you are claiming fantastical things that autonomous cars can do that have not been proven in the slightest. You implying that other people are stupid for being apprehensive about unproven tech is quite rich...