2 ms·
> They empirically validated that removing radar improved the systems performance. Then did so. Anecdotally, I haven't had a false-positive break check while go
by JamesSwift 4y ago
> They empirically validated that removing radar improved the systems performance. Then did so. Anecdotally, I haven't had a false-positive break check while going under an underpass since then
If the failure mode is well known and the system is advanced enough to interpret what it sees, why wouldn't it factor in that they are about to be in an underpass to adjust the reliability factors of the sensors? What sense does it make to completely remove the other sensor to avoid a possible-to-predict edge-case?
- JoshCole 4y agoIf you rely on radar when you shouldn't rely on radar, people can die. So the answer to half your question is that even a minuscule probability of misidentification has intolerable consequences. If you rely on radar, because you can't rely on vision, people can also die. You are driving while blind to things like stop lights. Unless vision conditions improve it isn't safe to drive. Also there are going to be the same edge cases where radar failed, but now vision won't be able to compensate for them. Since radar can also fail by failing to detect something there, not just detecting something that isn't there, this is a fatality waiting to happen. In every other case, since the error bars are lower on vision than they are on radar, you ought to be relying on vision. Therefore, since in every conditional case in which driving is reasonable, vision is demanded, engineering effort is better directed toward vision than radar.