7 ms·

Promoters claim self driving cars are safer than human drivers. This is based on a rosy interpretation that deflects the blame for most of the accidents they a

Promoters claim self driving cars are safer than human drivers. This is based on a rosy interpretation that deflects the blame for most of the accidents they are involved in. Self driving cars are in accidents much more frequently than human drivers. However, most of these accidents are rear end collisions --- naturally blamed on the human driver. But the reason human drivers rear end self driving cars is the fact that these cars are programmed to hit the brakes any time they can't comprehend the current situation --- which apparently happens quite a bit. The reality is, human drivers can't comprehend or anticipate a driverless car hitting the brakes for no apparent reason.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Self driving cars are in accidents much more frequently than human drivers Source? (I’ll believe it for Cruise.) > human drivers can't comprehend or anticipate a driverless car hitting the brakes for no apparent reason Human drivers tailgate. If you have a safe cushion in front of you, an erratic stop won’t cause a collision.
- meristohm 3y ago
  Yeah, the tailgating makes no sense unless preparing to pass. When I catch myself doing it it's because I'm emotional and feeling rushed, and I take a breath and remind myself to back off until it's safer to pass. During a freeway slowdown I try to dampen the brake-waves by going slow and not braking so much, but if I leave too much space in front of me (for coasting), another driver moves in and we're back to playing accordion. If all cars could sync up and move together like train cars on the freeway there'd be less brake dust and more efficient travel, but then I'd rather take a train anyway.
  - cjwilliams 3y ago
    Heroic. I try to do this too but everyone I know thinks I'm being neurotic when I explain it to them. I still see so many people accelerating into stoplights/brake scenarios.
    - earthling8118 3y ago
      I think it should be seen the other way around. Why should I have to stop moving, meaning using my brakes and subsequently the gas, just because the other drivers wanted to rush up to the light and wait? It's much easier for everyone if we do this smoothly
      - lsaferite 3y ago
        All those people you caused to miss a left turn light because you didn't feel the need to clear the turn-lane entry, because you wanted to keep slow-rolling, are cursing you. I have had that exaqct situation more times that I can count and every time I get angry at the other drive who thought "Why should I have to stop moving".
    - nerdbert 3y ago
      > I still see so many people accelerating into stoplights/brake scenarios. Every time I have to use the brake - rather than downshifting - for anything other than holding the car in place, makes me feel like I've committed a failure in planning and/or situational awareness.
      - drewbug01 3y ago
        My driver’s ed instructor explicitly framed it like this in class, and it’s made me a much better freeway driver.
  - lamontcg 3y ago
    > but if I leave too much space in front of me (for coasting), another driver moves in and we're back to playing accordion. stop caring about this and just slowly back off a little more. someone else will eventually leave your lane in front of you and make up for it.
- jqpabc123 3y ago
  >>> Source? <<< National Law Review (look it up or see associated link below). >>> Human drivers tailgate. If you have a safe cushion in front of you, an erratic stop won’t cause a rear-end collision. <<< That's the theory --- and the misinterpretation. It's true that almost all human driver's tailgate at some point --- but they do so while being involved in half the accidents that self driving cars are --- 4.1 accidents per million miles versus 9.1 for driverless. https://carsurance.net/insights/self-driving-car-statistics/ https://carsurance.net/insights/self-driving-car-statistics/
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > National Law Review (look it up or see associated link below) Your Carsurance source cites the National Law Review, which cites the Carsurance source for that statistic [1]. It’s important to consider from when they polled data and how they’re segregating by manufacturer. EDIT: Found the study [2]. It’s for 2012 to 2015. Given these are decade-old data, I’m actually surprised the gap is only 2x while fatality and injury rates were already lower. [1] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/dangers-driverless-cars https://www.natlawreview.com/article/dangers-driverless-cars [2] http://websites.umich.edu/~umtriswt/PDF/UMTRI-2015-34.pdf http://websites.umich.edu/~umtriswt/PDF/UMTRI-2015-34.pdf
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > Human drivers tailgate. If you have a safe cushion in front of you, an erratic stop won’t cause a collision. This is why in my state, if you rear-end someone then you are automatically presumed to be at fault. "They slammed on the brakes unexpectedly" is not a defense. You should have left adequate braking distance so that wouldn't cause an accident.
  - limaoscarjuliet 3y ago
    Same in Europe
  - bondarchuk 3y ago
    Downvoters need to stop tailgating.
  - shortcake27 3y ago
    I’m genuinely surprised “human drivers can't comprehend or anticipate a driverless car hitting the brakes for no apparent reason” is an argument people can relate to. You absolutely should be expecting the driver in front to slam on the brakes at full force without warning. There’s an infinite number of things that could cause any driver - human or autonomous - to do this. If you drive without this expectation then you’re a very dangerous driver and I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near you on the road.
    - standardUser 3y ago
      There seems to be a cabal of downvoters who, I assume, truly believe they are entitled to drive like complete jackasses.
      - SftwrSvior81 3y ago
        A lot of drivers tend to drive like assholes so this isn't too surprising.
      - wholesomepotato 3y ago
        It's fault of the person who didn't have enough room to stop. Full stop. It doesn't change the fact though that human drivers don't slam the brakes out of the blue because their "AI" got confused about nothing in particular, and that it is dangerous.
scarface_74 3y ago
In the US, it’s always considered the fault of the person who read ends someone.
- mwint 3y ago
  Not always - if you have dashcam footage that proves brake checking or other poor behavior, it can be decided in the rear car’s favor.
- Guvante 3y ago
  Don't brake check someone and rely on this as you will end up partially at fault for creating a dangerous situation. But braking for safety is always allowed and the person behind you is supposed to leave room to allow that.
- justin66 3y ago
  > In the US, it’s always considered the fault of the person who read ends someone. This is simply false. Brake checking is explicitly a traffic offense in some states, and can get you cited under something like reckless driving in some other states. Your insurance company is not obligated to find the other driver at fault if you're cited for brake checking.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Yes I’m sure that driverless cars are purposefully trying to cause rear end accidents by brake checking. Your reply is totally relevant in the context of someone blaming driverless cars for stopping when it doesn’t know what to do.
    - justin66 3y ago
      First, post something false, prepare to be corrected. "In the US, it’s always considered the fault of the person who read ends someone" just isn't how things work. Second, I'd expect Cruze to at least have civil liability if their cars glitch and brake spontaneously, resulting in an accident. Since spontaneous braking is something autonomous vehicles have struggled with (Tesla at least), yes, it's relevant.
melling 3y ago
“ A pedestrian crossing a San Francisco street on Monday night was hospitalized in critical condition after she was hit by two cars — first a regular vehicle which hurled her into the path of a driverless taxi that then ran her over, stopping on top of her as she screamed in pain, according to witnesses, investigators and the autonomous taxi company.” It’s a little difficult from the description to know what a human would have done in the second car. Can’t tell how much time there was to stop. Also, when driving behind someone you should always be prepared to stop. It doesn’t matter why the car in front stops.
- lucozade 3y ago
  It's fair to argue that a human driver may well have hit her. It's less obvious that they would have parked on top of her until someone came to lever the car off of her.
  - B1FF_PSUVM 3y ago
    Not that also running her over with the rear wheels looks like a good choice ...
  - sulam 3y ago
    You'd keep going and roll over her a second time?
    - ericbarrett 3y ago
      No, you'd get out, realize what was happening, and get back in the car and put it in neutral or otherwise gently move it 6" to stop crushing the person.
      - jrmg 3y ago
        Aren’t you not meant to do that until paramedics arrive in case the removal of pressure from the injuries makes the situation worse?
standardUser 3y ago
Every driver should be prepared to hit the breaks at any given moment with enough room not to hit whatever is in front of them. Period. The fact that so many cannot is a great example of how driverless vehicles will easily surpass human drivers in the not-too-distant-future.
dekhn 3y ago
Folks reading this comment should scroll down in the thread to see that the data source for this claim is not useful, being from roughly a decade ago.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
jsemrau 3y ago
Swiss Re's opinion is that self-driving cars are safer -> https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.01206 https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.01206 Summary:https://jdsemrau.substack.com/p/paper-review-comparative-safety-performance https://jdsemrau.substack.com/p/paper-review-comparative-saf...
- xiphias2 3y ago
  It's specifically Waymo. Google generally seems to be much more safety oriented than Cruise. The Cruise experiment should just be stopped at this point.
andrewmutz 3y ago
Youre citing old data. Autonomous cars are currently safer than human drivers when measured by accidents per miles driven: > Accidents per million miles driven for Waymo self-driving cars are 0.59, compared to the general U.S. rate of 2.98. https://blog.gitnux.com/self-driving-cars-safety-statistics/ https://blog.gitnux.com/self-driving-cars-safety-statistics/ Furthermore, we should expect a constant stream of news headlines about self-driving cars being involved in accidents, even when self-driving cars are safer than humans because they are newsworthy and interesting. No one writes "dog bites man" articles, they just cover "man bites dog" stories.
- Eji1700 3y ago
  This is a bad faith comparison not using apples to apples. Humans drive in all sorts of conditions that self driving cars flat out don't, and this data doesn't control for that at all.
  - Proziam 3y ago
    Exactly. Wake me up when the ice road trucks (half joking) are self-driving.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      Given the right away privileges ice road trucks are given (vs. normal cars...since they can't stop easily!), it seems like this would be a better first application of self driving than more chaotic environments.
  - andrewmutz 3y ago
    It's fine to point out the flaws in this data, but do you have any better data to point to? The humans five times worse in that data. That is a very large gap. Even after adjusting for driving conditions, with a gap that large, self-driving cars are likely safer. Also, don't assume a comparison is made in bad faith, just because it has flaws.
    - 3y ago
shortcake27 3y ago
> Promoters claim self driving cars are safer than human drivers. And opposers always ignore or brush off the fact that humans have proved themselves to be terrible drivers. A human driver ran over this woman first yet you didn’t even recognise this anywhere in your argument against autonomous vehicles.
- Guvante 3y ago
  Everyone is saying "is AI better" not saying humans are good. As terrible as humans are we do have a very important trait. Being able to handle unexpected information efficiently. All the current AI models do have ways of slightly generalizing but only slightly. You still need to effectively train "when there are cones you need to switch lanes" and "when there are barriers you can drive on the line" kinds of things. And while yes everyone mostly talks about low stakes examples that is mostly because the high stakes ones haven't been handled by AI yet. E.g. a Tesla driving under a semi because it thought it was a billboard. I look forward to any replacement to human drivers (although eliminating cars from Metro areas would be much more efficient I digress..) but autonomous vehicles need to be better before they can be that.
  - pb7 3y ago
    >As terrible as humans are we do have a very important trait. Being able to handle unexpected information efficiently. You’re joking right? The human driver didn’t handle the “unexpected information” of a human being on the road when the light was green. The human driver didn’t handle the “unexpected information” of running over a human being and drove off instead. Humans are awful at unexpected information. This is exactly the moment that emotions take over and emotions are what makes humans really bad at tasks like driving.
    - Guvante 3y ago
      Computers are worse. The only way we have gotten any semblance of safety is "slam on breaks if unrecognized" which happens quite frequently.
  - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
vel0city 3y ago
> However, most of these accidents are rear end collisions --- naturally blamed on the human driver. Rear end accidents are practically always the fault of the person who didn't stop in time. If someone rear ends a driverless car, even if it stopped because of some glitch, that driver is at fault. They shouldn't be driving around city streets with such speeds and limited following distance that they couldn't stop in time.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  It’s easy to say that but you can’t just ignore the reality that this is how people drive, and self driving cars in that environment do lead to more crashes.
  - vel0city 3y ago
    I'd argue we should bar people from driving who collide with stopped vehicles without any other extenuating circumstances. Maybe adding self-driving cars to the mix will increase these collisions for a few years, but if we bar people from driving for doing these kinds of accidents we'll quickly weed out these massively unsafe drivers from the driving population and be much safer overall. Maybe we'll finally start decreasing the pedestrian fatality rate instead of increasing it. If you refuse to drive safely you have no place to be on the road. We shouldn't just accept people driving in massively unsafe fashion.
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      I wouldn't mind this but it's completely politically unfeasible. There is absolutely no chance of political support for banning people from driving for anything other than a DUI. Even "accidentally" killing people or being so old that you can't see enjoys wide support of still being allowed to drive. As long as that is true self driving cars need to be able to handle bad drivers.
- SftwrSvior81 3y ago
  Exactly. The car in front might be reacting to some road hazard that just appeared that is not visible from behind it or it may have some mechanical failure. It doesn't matter why it comes to a stop, it is always and all times the responsibility of the trailing car to maintain enough distance to be able to come to a complete stop given the speed and road conditions.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Self driving cars are in accidents much more frequently than human drivers Source? (I’ll believe it for Cruise.) > human drivers can't comprehend or anticipate a driverless car hitting the brakes for no apparent reason Human drivers tailgate. If you have a safe cushion in front of you, an erratic stop won’t cause a collision.

meristohm 3y ago
Yeah, the tailgating makes no sense unless preparing to pass. When I catch myself doing it it's because I'm emotional and feeling rushed, and I take a breath and remind myself to back off until it's safer to pass. During a freeway slowdown I try to dampen the brake-waves by going slow and not braking so much, but if I leave too much space in front of me (for coasting), another driver moves in and we're back to playing accordion. If all cars could sync up and move together like train cars on the freeway there'd be less brake dust and more efficient travel, but then I'd rather take a train anyway.
- cjwilliams 3y ago
  Heroic. I try to do this too but everyone I know thinks I'm being neurotic when I explain it to them. I still see so many people accelerating into stoplights/brake scenarios.
  - earthling8118 3y ago
    I think it should be seen the other way around. Why should I have to stop moving, meaning using my brakes and subsequently the gas, just because the other drivers wanted to rush up to the light and wait? It's much easier for everyone if we do this smoothly
    - lsaferite 3y ago
      All those people you caused to miss a left turn light because you didn't feel the need to clear the turn-lane entry, because you wanted to keep slow-rolling, are cursing you. I have had that exaqct situation more times that I can count and every time I get angry at the other drive who thought "Why should I have to stop moving".
  - nerdbert 3y ago
    > I still see so many people accelerating into stoplights/brake scenarios. Every time I have to use the brake - rather than downshifting - for anything other than holding the car in place, makes me feel like I've committed a failure in planning and/or situational awareness.
    - drewbug01 3y ago
      My driver’s ed instructor explicitly framed it like this in class, and it’s made me a much better freeway driver.
- lamontcg 3y ago
  > but if I leave too much space in front of me (for coasting), another driver moves in and we're back to playing accordion. stop caring about this and just slowly back off a little more. someone else will eventually leave your lane in front of you and make up for it.
jqpabc123 3y ago
>>> Source? <<< National Law Review (look it up or see associated link below). >>> Human drivers tailgate. If you have a safe cushion in front of you, an erratic stop won’t cause a rear-end collision. <<< That's the theory --- and the misinterpretation. It's true that almost all human driver's tailgate at some point --- but they do so while being involved in half the accidents that self driving cars are --- 4.1 accidents per million miles versus 9.1 for driverless. https://carsurance.net/insights/self-driving-car-statistics/ https://carsurance.net/insights/self-driving-car-statistics/
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > National Law Review (look it up or see associated link below) Your Carsurance source cites the National Law Review, which cites the Carsurance source for that statistic [1]. It’s important to consider from when they polled data and how they’re segregating by manufacturer. EDIT: Found the study [2]. It’s for 2012 to 2015. Given these are decade-old data, I’m actually surprised the gap is only 2x while fatality and injury rates were already lower. [1] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/dangers-driverless-cars https://www.natlawreview.com/article/dangers-driverless-cars [2] http://websites.umich.edu/~umtriswt/PDF/UMTRI-2015-34.pdf http://websites.umich.edu/~umtriswt/PDF/UMTRI-2015-34.pdf
JohnFen 3y ago
> Human drivers tailgate. If you have a safe cushion in front of you, an erratic stop won’t cause a collision. This is why in my state, if you rear-end someone then you are automatically presumed to be at fault. "They slammed on the brakes unexpectedly" is not a defense. You should have left adequate braking distance so that wouldn't cause an accident.
- limaoscarjuliet 3y ago
  Same in Europe
- bondarchuk 3y ago
  Downvoters need to stop tailgating.
- shortcake27 3y ago
  I’m genuinely surprised “human drivers can't comprehend or anticipate a driverless car hitting the brakes for no apparent reason” is an argument people can relate to. You absolutely should be expecting the driver in front to slam on the brakes at full force without warning. There’s an infinite number of things that could cause any driver - human or autonomous - to do this. If you drive without this expectation then you’re a very dangerous driver and I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near you on the road.
  - standardUser 3y ago
    There seems to be a cabal of downvoters who, I assume, truly believe they are entitled to drive like complete jackasses.
    - SftwrSvior81 3y ago
      A lot of drivers tend to drive like assholes so this isn't too surprising.
    - wholesomepotato 3y ago
      It's fault of the person who didn't have enough room to stop. Full stop. It doesn't change the fact though that human drivers don't slam the brakes out of the blue because their "AI" got confused about nothing in particular, and that it is dangerous.

scarface_74 3y ago

In the US, it’s always considered the fault of the person who read ends someone.

mwint 3y ago
Not always - if you have dashcam footage that proves brake checking or other poor behavior, it can be decided in the rear car’s favor.
Guvante 3y ago
Don't brake check someone and rely on this as you will end up partially at fault for creating a dangerous situation. But braking for safety is always allowed and the person behind you is supposed to leave room to allow that.
justin66 3y ago
> In the US, it’s always considered the fault of the person who read ends someone. This is simply false. Brake checking is explicitly a traffic offense in some states, and can get you cited under something like reckless driving in some other states. Your insurance company is not obligated to find the other driver at fault if you're cited for brake checking.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Yes I’m sure that driverless cars are purposefully trying to cause rear end accidents by brake checking. Your reply is totally relevant in the context of someone blaming driverless cars for stopping when it doesn’t know what to do.
  - justin66 3y ago
    First, post something false, prepare to be corrected. "In the US, it’s always considered the fault of the person who read ends someone" just isn't how things work. Second, I'd expect Cruze to at least have civil liability if their cars glitch and brake spontaneously, resulting in an accident. Since spontaneous braking is something autonomous vehicles have struggled with (Tesla at least), yes, it's relevant.

melling 3y ago

“ A pedestrian crossing a San Francisco street on Monday night was hospitalized in critical condition after she was hit by two cars — first a regular vehicle which hurled her into the path of a driverless taxi that then ran her over, stopping on top of her as she screamed in pain, according to witnesses, investigators and the autonomous taxi company.” It’s a little difficult from the description to know what a human would have done in the second car. Can’t tell how much time there was to stop. Also, when driving behind someone you should always be prepared to stop. It doesn’t matter why the car in front stops.

lucozade 3y ago
It's fair to argue that a human driver may well have hit her. It's less obvious that they would have parked on top of her until someone came to lever the car off of her.
- B1FF_PSUVM 3y ago
  Not that also running her over with the rear wheels looks like a good choice ...
- sulam 3y ago
  You'd keep going and roll over her a second time?
  - ericbarrett 3y ago
    No, you'd get out, realize what was happening, and get back in the car and put it in neutral or otherwise gently move it 6" to stop crushing the person.
    - jrmg 3y ago
      Aren’t you not meant to do that until paramedics arrive in case the removal of pressure from the injuries makes the situation worse?

standardUser 3y ago

Every driver should be prepared to hit the breaks at any given moment with enough room not to hit whatever is in front of them. Period. The fact that so many cannot is a great example of how driverless vehicles will easily surpass human drivers in the not-too-distant-future.

dekhn 3y ago

Folks reading this comment should scroll down in the thread to see that the data source for this claim is not useful, being from roughly a decade ago.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

jsemrau 3y ago

Swiss Re's opinion is that self-driving cars are safer -> https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.01206 https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.01206 Summary:https://jdsemrau.substack.com/p/paper-review-comparative-safety-performance https://jdsemrau.substack.com/p/paper-review-comparative-saf...

xiphias2 3y ago
It's specifically Waymo. Google generally seems to be much more safety oriented than Cruise. The Cruise experiment should just be stopped at this point.

andrewmutz 3y ago

Youre citing old data. Autonomous cars are currently safer than human drivers when measured by accidents per miles driven: > Accidents per million miles driven for Waymo self-driving cars are 0.59, compared to the general U.S. rate of 2.98. https://blog.gitnux.com/self-driving-cars-safety-statistics/ https://blog.gitnux.com/self-driving-cars-safety-statistics/ Furthermore, we should expect a constant stream of news headlines about self-driving cars being involved in accidents, even when self-driving cars are safer than humans because they are newsworthy and interesting. No one writes "dog bites man" articles, they just cover "man bites dog" stories.

Eji1700 3y ago
This is a bad faith comparison not using apples to apples. Humans drive in all sorts of conditions that self driving cars flat out don't, and this data doesn't control for that at all.
- Proziam 3y ago
  Exactly. Wake me up when the ice road trucks (half joking) are self-driving.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    Given the right away privileges ice road trucks are given (vs. normal cars...since they can't stop easily!), it seems like this would be a better first application of self driving than more chaotic environments.
- andrewmutz 3y ago
  It's fine to point out the flaws in this data, but do you have any better data to point to? The humans five times worse in that data. That is a very large gap. Even after adjusting for driving conditions, with a gap that large, self-driving cars are likely safer. Also, don't assume a comparison is made in bad faith, just because it has flaws.
  - 3y ago

shortcake27 3y ago

> Promoters claim self driving cars are safer than human drivers. And opposers always ignore or brush off the fact that humans have proved themselves to be terrible drivers. A human driver ran over this woman first yet you didn’t even recognise this anywhere in your argument against autonomous vehicles.

Guvante 3y ago
Everyone is saying "is AI better" not saying humans are good. As terrible as humans are we do have a very important trait. Being able to handle unexpected information efficiently. All the current AI models do have ways of slightly generalizing but only slightly. You still need to effectively train "when there are cones you need to switch lanes" and "when there are barriers you can drive on the line" kinds of things. And while yes everyone mostly talks about low stakes examples that is mostly because the high stakes ones haven't been handled by AI yet. E.g. a Tesla driving under a semi because it thought it was a billboard. I look forward to any replacement to human drivers (although eliminating cars from Metro areas would be much more efficient I digress..) but autonomous vehicles need to be better before they can be that.
- pb7 3y ago
  >As terrible as humans are we do have a very important trait. Being able to handle unexpected information efficiently. You’re joking right? The human driver didn’t handle the “unexpected information” of a human being on the road when the light was green. The human driver didn’t handle the “unexpected information” of running over a human being and drove off instead. Humans are awful at unexpected information. This is exactly the moment that emotions take over and emotions are what makes humans really bad at tasks like driving.
  - Guvante 3y ago
    Computers are worse. The only way we have gotten any semblance of safety is "slam on breaks if unrecognized" which happens quite frequently.
- 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

vel0city 3y ago

> However, most of these accidents are rear end collisions --- naturally blamed on the human driver. Rear end accidents are practically always the fault of the person who didn't stop in time. If someone rear ends a driverless car, even if it stopped because of some glitch, that driver is at fault. They shouldn't be driving around city streets with such speeds and limited following distance that they couldn't stop in time.

HDThoreaun 3y ago
It’s easy to say that but you can’t just ignore the reality that this is how people drive, and self driving cars in that environment do lead to more crashes.
- vel0city 3y ago
  I'd argue we should bar people from driving who collide with stopped vehicles without any other extenuating circumstances. Maybe adding self-driving cars to the mix will increase these collisions for a few years, but if we bar people from driving for doing these kinds of accidents we'll quickly weed out these massively unsafe drivers from the driving population and be much safer overall. Maybe we'll finally start decreasing the pedestrian fatality rate instead of increasing it. If you refuse to drive safely you have no place to be on the road. We shouldn't just accept people driving in massively unsafe fashion.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    I wouldn't mind this but it's completely politically unfeasible. There is absolutely no chance of political support for banning people from driving for anything other than a DUI. Even "accidentally" killing people or being so old that you can't see enjoys wide support of still being allowed to drive. As long as that is true self driving cars need to be able to handle bad drivers.
SftwrSvior81 3y ago
Exactly. The car in front might be reacting to some road hazard that just appeared that is not visible from behind it or it may have some mechanical failure. It doesn't matter why it comes to a stop, it is always and all times the responsibility of the trailing car to maintain enough distance to be able to come to a complete stop given the speed and road conditions.