With self-driving cars, not only are you protected against your own idiocy, but everyone else's, too.
That would only apply if all cars were self-driving. If there are any human-driven cars on the road, the self-driving ones will have to be able to predict idiocy. How easy is it to make software idiot-proof?
And call me a cynic but I expect that if people have a choice between self-driving cars and driving themselves, it's the idiots who will be behind the wheel.
Well, ignoring the occasional tractor and slowing due to construction, obstacles and weather conditions, I'd say none. Since the opportunities to use self driving features that only operate at 25 mph and lower seem minuscule (traffic jams, driveways, some residential streets, etc.), what is Google thinking?
Decades ago, an engineering professor at our local university was developing a self-driving tractor, with a positioning system similar to GPS. Since it could work 24-7, the equipment it pulled could be much smaller, with corresponding lower costs for the farmer.
If anything, I'd say there's more potential for self-driving in commercial and industrial vehicles, not less. After all, cars are still successfully marketed as "fun to drive".
... but it does seem that "something" isn't right with this pedestrian. Perhaps a mental issue? Perhaps headphones? Perhaps an indignant "vehicles stop for me!" attitude? Perhaps a family emergency or other super-important issue is on this lady's mind at the moment? Something else?
Suicide by self-driving car? An ill-conceived bet that, "I can fool that thing."?
An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
Yeh but their incentive is to still have a business at all.
They'll melt down every whale and cut down every tree to make fuel before they go gentle into that good night. And the public will support them whole-heartedly. (Have you heard about the kerfuffle over pipelines in Canada?)