Why does it have to be a driverless car revolution? It seems more likely we'll get there incrementally, adding pieces of the experience one by one as safety features. Eventually, with all the safety features enabled, the car will be able to drive itself.
There was a post about this a couple weeks ago about why incremental change might actually be less safe than a "revolution". Basically, if a car can handle 90% of the scenarios it faces, the human driver would zone out and have difficulty responding to the remaining 10%, especially if there's little to no warning of when that 10% will happen.
Yes. Also, when a company knows it needs to design a 100% driverless car, safety will necessarily be the primary concern when designing the firmware. While that's theoretically the case regardless, recent Toyota fallout[1] shows that car companies perhaps aren't paying enough attention to this given that they have a human driver ultimately making the decisions.
Comments
Why does it have to be a driverless car revolution? It seems more likely we'll get there incrementally, adding pieces of the experience one by one as safety features. Eventually, with all the safety features enabled, the car will be able to drive itself.
There was a post about this a couple weeks ago about why incremental change might actually be less safe than a "revolution". Basically, if a car can handle 90% of the scenarios it faces, the human driver would zone out and have difficulty responding to the remaining 10%, especially if there's little to no warning of when that 10% will happen.
Yes. Also, when a company knows it needs to design a 100% driverless car, safety will necessarily be the primary concern when designing the firmware. While that's theoretically the case regardless, recent Toyota fallout[1] shows that car companies perhaps aren't paying enough attention to this given that they have a human driver ultimately making the decisions.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6636811