On Wed 09/01/13 19:36, clipka wrote:
> Am 09.01.2013 16:31, schrieb scott:
>
>> You need to weigh up how many accidents it will avoid vs how many
>> additional it will create. There's no reason why development should slow
>> down on such vehicles, and surely they will get to a point where it's
>> beneficial overall (I don't know if we're there yet or not).
>
> There yet? Far from it!

I don't have any data, but my guess is the sort of car in that paper 
would prevent a lot of common accidents scenarios. My point was whether 
that would outweigh any additional accidents it caused that a human 
usually would be able to avoid. Obviously the car will need to do a lot 
better than that before it's generally accepted.

> They called it "urban challenge", but "small-town suburban challenge"
> seems to be closer to the mark. With the trunk cram-packed with
> computers, and yet still needing to be told beforehand where the roads
> and lanes are supposed to be.

More recently Google's car has done better (the one with the driving 
license) but I couldn't find any detailed technical information on that one.

> I suspect that sophisticated computers will prove valuable to prevent
> drivers from doing stupid things, but that experienced human drivers
> will continue to prove invaluable to do smart things.

We are already on this path, I think computers will provide more and 
more assistance to the driver but it will still be a long time before no 
qualified driver is needed to oversee the computer.

Post a reply to this message