...
...
There is no reason why an AV should be any smarter than a hammer. After all an AV is a tool. A sophisticated tool but a tool nevertheless. An AV should stick to the traffic rules and (if possible) don't hit anything. Still want common sense? Put a monitoring device inside an AV so a (human) call center operator can deal with 'situations'.
We are actually on the same page. My argument is not whether AV should have that capability or not. Instead, I was arguing about our expectations.
You know to not to expect (in your words) AV smarter than a hammer, where as, many others expect AV to be rather smart, perhaps even smarter than human.
My point is, we should expect it to be a rather dumb tool lacking common sense. That deficit in turn makes it to be lacking the real intelligence of a real driver. It will therefore will make mistakes that human with our common sense could easily avoid.
...
We are not on the same page. Common sense is different between people.
...
It doesn't take a sophisticated AV to drive better than the average human driver.
Also, on another point, since this was essentially a "test vehicle", I'm curious whether or not Volvo's own safety systems (city safety etc...) were disabled and the control of the car was relying solely on third-party sensors, cameras, software etc... Volvo's technology (whilst still being a computer and not 100% fool proof) is designed to detect and avoid exactly this kind of collision. Those cars are also fitted with pedestrian air bags which lift the bonnet and deploy around the windscreen. There did not appear to be any evidence of this system activating.
Now that is an interesting question.
It doesn't take a sophisticated AV to drive better than the average human driver.I've heard this repeated like clockwork every time the safety issue comes up. But an AV system that cost over a billion dollars has killed a pedestrian after roughly 2 million vehicle-miles. The average human driver would have to drive half a billion miles to kill a pedestrian (12.5 fatalities per billion vehicle-miles in the US in 2016, of which 15% were pedestrians). All self-driving systems put together have only done 20 million miles or so, with multiple fatalities. Are you calling systems with many billions of dollars of development costs unsophisticated?
I think at this point it's safe to retire "AVs don't have to be very good to be better than humans" as a discredited argument.
I don't really see how you can draw any comparisons in the crash / mile driven rate between humans and AVs.
Are AVs driving in snow? How about in pouring rain with high wind? Dirt roads without lane markers? AVs are only driving in ideal locations, under ideal weather, aka perfect conditions. This isn't the case for human drivers that still need to get to work when its snowing.
These comparisons are rubbish.
Just to make it clear. The Volvo lorries in the video is not made by the same company that makes Volvo cars. They have nothing to do with each other. Volvo Cars is owned by the Chinese company Geely and Volvo Trucks is a company in Volvo Group.
Volvo Cars has not belonged to Volvo Group since 1999 when it was sold to Ford.
Just to make it clear. The Volvo lorries in the video is not made by the same company that makes Volvo cars. They have nothing to do with each other. Volvo Cars is owned by the Chinese company Geely and Volvo Trucks is a company in Volvo Group.
Volvo Cars has not belonged to Volvo Group since 1999 when it was sold to Ford.
I'm fully aware of this, and despite being independent entities, it would be naive to think that technology and design aren't being shared or co-developed. For example, the earlier Volvo S40 and the Ford Focus are essentially the same car.
Shocked I say, shocked. Someone massaging the numbers?
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1107109_teslas-own-numbers-show-autopilot-has-higher-crash-rate-than-human-drivers
Clearly nothing about the inherent foolhardiness of gross extrapolation.
Arizona Uber crash driver was 'watching TV'
The police report suggests the car's driver was streaming an episode of talent show The Voice rather than monitoring the car's progress.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44574290
Arizona Uber crash driver was 'watching TV'
The police report suggests the car's driver was streaming an episode of talent show The Voice rather than monitoring the car's progress.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44574290
Biased as hell. According to Dave's video, she was watching the console monitor.
Keep in mind it was dark and hard to see and according to Uber themselves, their system not only has NO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT WHATSOEVER, no emergency brake, no emergency alarms...NOTHING!
That would be like a bar manager getting sued for using a third party robot to serve drinks and it starts throwing glasses at people.
"you should have been serving for it, it can't serve drinks!" (despite being advertised as so)
"What can it do then?"
"Uhhh...no comment!"
Uber was determined to be at fault. Finally.
Federal investigators split the blame for the fatal Uber self-driving crash between the ride-hailing company, the safety driver in the vehicle, the victim, and the state of Arizona
Get in front of a car expecting it to brake.
[...]
Get in front of a car expecting it to brake.
Die.
Get in front of a car expecting it to brake.
[...]A lot of drivers seem to take it for granted that the rest of the world will stop for them as they cheerfully poke their noses into the traffic without bothering to wait for a gap.