>We did implement checks for what seemed to us as more common failure scenarios, but the devil here was that this one first appeared during the run and we did n

>We did implement checks for what seemed to us as more common failure scenarios, but the devil here was that this one first appeared during the run and we did not cover it at the analytical analysis stage. Sounds like the kind of stage where you might wonder if analytical uncertainty is being multiplied. >And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why self-driving is hard. That's not all, computer programming on its own can be pretty hard to do as outstandingly as average people drive their cars to begin with. And that's just average and that's not good enough either. Not to mention the hopelessly dangerous drivers. Some reckless in addition, just for the hell of it. Might even be driving an 18-wheeler with some _interesting_ scenery painted in realistic scale on the trailer. That's always distracting but I don't think a machine will be processing this type of distraction very much like an ordinary person any time soon. There will always be occasional vehicles rapidly assuming trajectory in a way completely unpredictable by either human or machine. Perhaps also beyond the capability of either to avoid a tragic outcome. Perhaps not, and what's the difference might be even more difficult to yield a predictable outcome.