3 ms·

How is the required amount of vigilance any different than that of normal driving?

• freeone3000 6y ago
  In normal driving, the driver is continually taking actions. Making small adjustments, considering hypotheticals, checking mirrors and speed. If the user is continually engaging with the system, there's less of a risk of the user's attention lapsing. Once the user's input is no longer required, humans are very bad at paying attention to something that doesn't change, and very bad at reacting to the change when it does happen.
  • creddit 6y ago
    I fail to see what stops one of these car monitors from “considering hypotheticals, checking mirrors and speed.” I get that it’s boring but fail to see how that’s an excuse for not paying attention (or watching streaming video) to a dynamic system you’re expected to actively engage with. Many train systems are largely autonomous and far more static and yet we still expect train operators to not kill someone on the tracks. How do you feel about lifeguards as a job? Failure of pools and beaches to design a good system?
    • freeone3000 6y ago
      Please see the top comment for how lifeguard systems avoid these issues - 30-minute short shifts, overlapping responsibilities, and monitored attention. Train conductors do not require second-level reaction time. A train cannot stop in five seconds, no matter how quick the conductor is. People who are stopped on train tracks get killed, and the train operator is very rarely to blame.