3 ms·

Those aren't comparable things though. Our driver training just flat-out isn't robust enough to support a similar system, and there's only one person in contro

Those aren't comparable things though. Our driver training just flat-out isn't robust enough to support a similar system, and there's only one person in control of the car. He's also leaving out checklist-driven procedure, which is a huge component of airplane safety that is entirely absent from car driving.

base698 7y ago
A scan where you verify what the computer is telling you and cross checking it with what you're seeing could be. Maybe they have a UI showing the path the computer is taking and bounding boxes of all the potential obstacles overlayed on the screen. If there is a disagreement the human takes over. Similar to how if on an instrument approach the altitude doesn't agree with the vertical guidance. You can check other systems to see which instrument has failed and whether it's the vertical guidance or altimeter. Of course, this method of driving and having to pay more attention doesn't jive with the fantasy of getting wasted and having a computer take you home.
- magduf 7y ago
  >Of course, this method of driving and having to pay more attention doesn't jive with the fantasy of getting wasted and having a computer take you home. Which is why the system you're describing will never come to cars: American drivers would never use it correctly. If it isn't something that complete morons can jump in and use with zero training, it's just not going to work here. What you're describing requires a competent pilot with training, and that's a completely unrealistic expectation for a car in America.
- JamesBarney 7y ago
  But then what's the point of an autonomous car? I'd much rather drive than constantly be checking car instruments.
  - base698 7y ago
    I'd rather not be decapitated due to a bug. Somewhere down the list is rather not checking instruments all the time.
kljhsdfkhjdf 7y ago
OP's point wasn't that we should make cars that require trained pilots to monitor the computer, just that the culture of safety is extremely different and concerning.

base698 7y ago

A scan where you verify what the computer is telling you and cross checking it with what you're seeing could be. Maybe they have a UI showing the path the computer is taking and bounding boxes of all the potential obstacles overlayed on the screen. If there is a disagreement the human takes over. Similar to how if on an instrument approach the altitude doesn't agree with the vertical guidance. You can check other systems to see which instrument has failed and whether it's the vertical guidance or altimeter. Of course, this method of driving and having to pay more attention doesn't jive with the fantasy of getting wasted and having a computer take you home.

magduf 7y ago
>Of course, this method of driving and having to pay more attention doesn't jive with the fantasy of getting wasted and having a computer take you home. Which is why the system you're describing will never come to cars: American drivers would never use it correctly. If it isn't something that complete morons can jump in and use with zero training, it's just not going to work here. What you're describing requires a competent pilot with training, and that's a completely unrealistic expectation for a car in America.
JamesBarney 7y ago
But then what's the point of an autonomous car? I'd much rather drive than constantly be checking car instruments.
- base698 7y ago
  I'd rather not be decapitated due to a bug. Somewhere down the list is rather not checking instruments all the time.

kljhsdfkhjdf 7y ago

OP's point wasn't that we should make cars that require trained pilots to monitor the computer, just that the culture of safety is extremely different and concerning.