This is why we need AVs. The humans are the problem.
I went back and read many of the pre-2017 reports.This is why we need AVs. The humans are the problem.
The minute that AV mode is safer than the average driver is the time to start deploying it. It will never be perfect. But if the goal is to reduce accidents, injuries, and deaths, then AVs will be improve auto safety, which sadly is in a state of decay right now.The problem is that at this point the AV is safer than a human driver unless it's not. Essentially there will be situations in which the human driver is better. You just don't know when that will be the case. But overall I think AVs will be safer if only because they won't take unwarranted risks and won't be influenced by emotional things like fights with significant others or running late for work. Plus they don't doze off ... .
I have a strong suspicion that there is going to be quite a significant spike in people rear-ending AVs until drivers become more generally aware of their more conservative driving style. When I'm in traffic I've become more and more aware of whether or not the person behind me seems to be paying attention, and if they're not I will tend to stop with more than the normal amount of distance in front of me to make sure I have somewhere to go "just in case".The minute that AV mode is safer than the average driver is the time to start deploying it. It will never be perfect. But if the goal is to reduce accidents, injuries, and deaths, then AVs will be improve auto safety, which sadly is in a state of decay right now.
The minute that AV mode is safer than the average driver is the time to start deploying it.
When the first one kills this all gets turned on its head. Ideals go out the window. "When machines kill" or some similar headline will follow right behind the ambulance chasers. Schumer and Blumenthal will be calling for senate hearings....... you know the drill.So 1 AV at fault, 12 other vehicles at fault. AVs are 12:1.