4 ms·
Your argument allows for certain driverless cars in which a human is present to provide dynamic input for situations that require it. This is currently the lega
by SlipperySlope 14y ago
Your argument allows for certain driverless cars in which a human is present to provide dynamic input for situations that require it. This is currently the legal requirement in Nevada.
Admitting that driverless cars cannot be truely perfected, does not preclude mass adoption - because they merely need to be safer and cheaper to operate than the current human-only traffic situation. I think we are less than a decade away from that tipping point. Does anyone else agree?
- bborud 14y agoI would be careful to conclude without data. For instance insurance companies have data that suggests that systems for warning the driver of lane drift make cars significantly more likely to have accidents. I can't remember if they had figured out why, but this is the sort of counter-intuitive results you have to expect when you are dealing with a field that isn't adequately understood. And large populations of autonomous cars in obviously something we have zero experience with so we can't really know if there will be unexpected dominant factors.