3 ms·
In that case, why hand over control at all? It's not like the driver is going to be able to stop the car more efficiently than the control system or anything.
by WJW 6y ago
In that case, why hand over control at all? It's not like the driver is going to be able to stop the car more efficiently than the control system or anything.
- chrisseaton 6y ago> In that case, why hand over control at all? Well that's my point. The car doesn't know how to navigate it. Neither will the driver. There are some cases where you can neither navigate nor safely hand over control. So 'there will be exception cases we don't know how to navigate, but we have a plan to safely transfer control to the driver in them' cannot be a true statement.
- bryanlarsen 6y ago> Well that's my point. The car doesn't know how to navigate it. Neither will the driver. I certainly hope both know how to handle it. In your scenario there is no "good" option, but there definitely is a least-bad option. Likely it's to stand on the brakes and scrub off as much speed as you can before hitting the pedestrian. It might change the collision from a fatal one into "just" broken bones.
- chrisseaton 6y agoI don't think ploughing into someone can really count as successfully 'navigating' a situation.
- gowld 6y agoAnd the car can't dodge bullets or land mines either. It's taken as given that cars can't do the impossible