Forum menu
It’s machine learning, completely different kettle of fish.
Not really.
"Machine Learning" covers a whole range of different technologies with varying amounts of direct intervention. The pure machine learning is also mostly restricted to the recognition tools as opposed to the what to do option.
You might have a NN to recognise that its a)traffic light and b)its red but the instructions for what to do will be written into it.
An example would be Mercedes and their comments about who they would have the system prioritise. The driver/passengers or a bystander.
No way will a manufacturer produce a vehicle that goes faster than our current cras Jimjim. The only reason they produce cars that will go far too fast now is that the ethical dilemmas are with the drivers not the manufacturers.
" Here is the nature of the dilemma. Imagine that in the not-too-distant future, you own a self-driving car. One day, while you are driving along, an unfortunate set of events causes the car to head toward a crowd of 10 people crossing the road. It cannot stop in time but it can avoid killing 10 people by steering into a wall. However, this collision would kill you, the owner and occupant. What should it do? "
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/542626/why-self-driving-cars-must-be-programmed-to-kill/
I’m saying they can not only do better than the average driver right now (the one who isn’t even paying any attention to the child),
Oh I see, "your saying". well I'm convinced 🙂
Lets let them loose now -
who needs facts, evidence and testing when you have sayings
Most cars can go faster than the speed limit already though. So it's more a case of raising the limits than producing higher performance cars.
[i]ndthornton wrote:[/i]
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">who needs facts, evidence and testing when you have sayings</span>
Wow - so your argument is now reduced to pedantry over wording?
Are you suggesting that the average SMIDSY driver will be doing a better job of observing the child than the computer with its array of sensors and lack of interest in FB? Do you think the evidence for that isn't available? That's where the argument is, not over whether it's possible for the computer to do better than a driving god.
[i]Edukator wrote:[/i]
there will be fatalities – maybe less than with humans at the wheel but a whole lot less acceptable
Yes, because it's a whole lot better to be killed by a human driver. You're still trying to run faster than the bear here.
[i]Edukator wrote:[/i]
” Here is the nature of the dilemma. Imagine that in the not-too-distant future, you own a self-driving car. One day, while you are driving along, an unfortunate set of events causes the car to head toward a crowd of 10 people crossing the road. It cannot stop in time but it can avoid killing 10 people by steering into a wall. However, this collision would kill you, the owner and occupant. What should it do? ”
Which is something which has to be considered, but it's an edge case, an edge case which may never ever occur in reality, because as discussed already the autonomous car would judge the situation so that it never found itself speeding towards a group of 10 people. The answer isn't to solve such dilemmas but to ensure they don't arise in the first place, which is entirely plausible.
Of course autonomous cars will be better than humans. The problem is that people expect them never to get anything wrong - not once, not ever. I would take 10 deaths a year from autonomous vehicles vs the current ~1700 but those 10 will get a lot of coverage.
because as discussed already the autonomous car would judge the situation so that it never found itself speeding towards a group of 10 people
Read the whole article I linked, the car may never find itself speeding towards 10 people (but might) but it's quite likely to find itself speeding towards one or two, and fail which is where this thread started. A self-driving car had an accident which whatever the spin, an alert driver anticipating what a person with a bike dripping with plastic bags might do could have done better than all that fancy software and sensors.
I did read the whole article - you're the one who chose to quote the sensationalist edge case in an attempt to make your point.
As for the real case here, I'm less than convinced from what's been reported that I'd have done better than the computer there, and it's possible I may be a little better at paying attention to pedestrians and cyclists than the average driver - you may think you would have done better and I'll admit I'd rather take my chances with you driving than with me, but I'm still not convinced of that, despite you probably being way, way better and safer than the average driver.
There is an interesting point here that it may be possible for the computer to do better and that they need to program better for such scenarios, so that they can avoid those ethical dilemmas in the first place. I very much doubt that it's impossible for a computer to consider the situation the same way as you.
Are you suggesting that the average SMIDSY driver will be doing a better job of observing the child than the computer with its array of sensors and lack of interest in FB?
Well...
Yeah - I mean you have massively oversimplified and missed the point as usual and I refuse to Google what SMIDSY means - but essentially yes
You could maybe (and its a big maybe) design a system to react better than a human in this very specific scenario that you have described. To do just this one thing. That is what computers are great at, doing one or a small number of very well defined tasks with very well specified boundaries. They can repeat these tasks with high levels of accuracy and repeatability and they can do them thousands of times faster than a human.
That's what they are good at - but unfortunately that's not the task. The task is to respond to a limitless number of possible scenarios none of which have clear boundaries. You cant code for an infinite number of possibilities. What you need is an AI - what you really need is a human brain - and we are nowhere near (I have doubts its even possible).
So in answer to your question - you might be able to anticipate the child better than a human - but you might kill the old lady on the bicycle in the process.
Ah, because you're thinking computers are incapable of doing/observing two things at once - something humans are notoriously excellent at?
No, you don't have to specifically program it to avoid Gladys who lives at number 42 separately from little Johnny who lives at number 13. I'm not sure you have much idea at all of how these things work.
Wait - what - no
Oh I give up
Lets see what happens shall we
If they become available in my lifetime I will buy you one - how about that?
I’m not sure you have much idea at all of how these things work.
Pot calling the crystal glass decanter black.
The chat above about train staff- driverless isn't the same as staffless, the train's software can't stop a fair dodger or a fight or a sexual assault, or intervene in a medical emergency, or escort people out of the train along the track in an accident or similar. I'd rather have a guard and no driver than a driver and no guard.
It's worth noting that in the real world, even "skilled" drivers are not actually very good, because accident scenarios are incredibly rare.
I spent 5 years at Prodrive, where they ran Driver Training programs for Emergency service drivers (and for general "company car" drivers too) and even for trained Police drivers, who spend a lot of time driving, in reality, probably under 10% could react to a sudden emergency stop situation with a decent response time/level. Considering that we were on a Proving Ground, doing Advanced Driving, how many members of the general driving public, on their average commute, on wet tuesday afternoon on a back road in Swindon, do you think could "ace" a brake n' swerve around a cyclist suddenly appearing from between parked cars into there path? In my experience, something like 75% won't have even got their foot off the accelerator, let alone nailed a perfect ABS stop, or well judged handwheel input when they hit said cyclist.....
Just to be clear, is there anyone here arguing that self-drive cars are not going to be massively safer than human-driven ones?
No, but the human in Swindon might have decided to give the parked cars a wide birth to improve visibity because there was nothing else on the road so didn't feel obliged to stay in lane (unlike the stupid computer car), realised the stopping distances had increased and reduced speed, and had most of his attention focused on the parked cars as that's where the greatest unknown lay so covered the brake within half a second of the bicylce tyre showing (well in advance of the computer that just had it down as environmental noise), hit the brakes as half the bicycle wheel appeared (the computer still had it in the "falling leaves nothing to worry about" category) and thank to ABS (which means zero skill is required for an emergency stop) and an instinctive swerve (which remained controlled thanks to said ABS) avoided the cyclist completely - but the computer wouldn't have.
No way will a manufacturer produce a vehicle that goes faster than our current cras Jimjim.
Of course they will. If all cars are fully autonomous, homogeneous grey boxes you instantly kill the premium/luxury half of the car industry which is worth hundreds of billions a year. No one is going to pay £40,000 to sit passively in an Audi at an autonomously driven, GPS limited 60mph when a £20,000 Skoda will do the same. When people are removed from the equation there's no logical reason to adhere to speedlimits based on human reaction times.
The only reason they produce cars that will go far too fast now is that the ethical dilemmas are with the drivers not the manufacturers. Here is the nature of the dilemma. Imagine .............
Nope. People have always been willing to pay more to travel faster or in more luxury than the next guy. The reason we can buy a 1000bhp car (if money wasn't a barrier) is nothing to do with ethics, in many ways it's completely unethical, it's because there's a market there. The ethical concerns / trolley tests have been discussed here in multiple threads going back years. It's a red herring. The reality will be that AV's will kill and when they do it'll because they interpreted their data one way, not another and acted in what they percieved to be the best way. It'll be a novel headline, which slowly becomes reality. There are much bigger and potentially more insidious implications of Ai systems makig decisions which no one is discussing because they're not as obvious, or as superficially dramatic.
To answer your question, the captain, I think self-drivng cars will be no better or worse than driver driven cars with a GSP tracker/speed limiter, the same level of driver aids as the driverless car (alcotest ignition lock, auto emergency braking, blind spot warnings etc.) At the same level of technology I'm convinced that the railways and airlines have already shown us the best solution: a human driving or flying but automatic systems to help them.
No, but the human in Swindon might have decided
From a random sample of drivers on a round trip from Manchester to Rugby not many would have done any of that, plenty would have gone through red lights, gambled on Amber, passed too close and not seen most of what was around them.Your assessment of the Human driver is optimistic to say the least, mostly as if they were doing all that you suggested they would probably miss what was coming from the other side or drive into the back of the car in front.
Edukator
At the same level of technology I’m convinced that the railways and airlines have already shown us the best solution: a human driving or flying but automatic systems to help them.
That's a terrible idea.
Speed limits aren't based on reaction times, they're based on the consequences of collisions in different environments. In France at least the limits correspond to:
50kmh urban limit - most pedestrians survive being hit at less than 50kmh. There are move in many cities to go down to 30kmh to improve survivability and not just around schools. Kids have poor survival rate when hit at over 30kmh which jusifies the lower limits around schools but there are kids everywhere to a blanket 30kmh limit in residential areas is being enforced in more and more towns.
90kmh (soon to be 80kmh) extra-urbain limit - survivble collisions between on-coming cars or cars hitting roadside obstacles
110kmh non-autoroute dual carriageways - no risk of head ons and safer run off
130km - the speed at which most autoroute collisions reamin within the barriers. Germany suffer much higher accident rates and many more cross-over accidents on its unlimited sections.
None of that changes for driverless cars so there's no reason to allow them to go faster. Indeed, because they have more trouble picking out potential risks from the rest of the environmental noise than a human they should be made to go slower.
[i]thecaptain wrote:[/i]
Just to be clear, is there anyone here arguing that self-drive cars are not going to be massively safer than human-driven ones?
Quite a few it seems.
[i]Edukator wrote:[/i]
No, but the human in Swindon might have decided to give the parked cars a wide birth...
but the computer wouldn’t have.
Your arguments are getting kind of bizarre now - personally I'd put my money on the computer doing all those things (along with having sensors to detect the bicycle before a human could spot it) because that's how the algorithms will be programmed and very few of the human drivers doing so. I find it strange that you're arguing here for humans driving so much better than you do on every other driving thread - I mean you are the same chap normally telling everybody to slow down?
Which also answers your last point - a computer will be continually attentive and have the right attitude to things like this. You can't compare professional airline pilots to average drivers (notwithstanding that the fully autonomous systems can do a better job than pilots anyway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland).
FWIW Edu I've worked on AI systems, on embedded systems with sensors and self-learning algorithms and alongside people developing very similar technologies, I have a fair idea how these things work.
[i]jimjam wrote:[/i]
Edukator
At the same level of technology I’m convinced that the railways and airlines have already shown us the best solution: a human driving or flying but automatic systems to help them.
That’s a terrible idea.
Not least because studies seem to show that the intermediate stages in autonomous cars have significant issues with the human paying less attention when you give them lots of aids.
jimjam wrote:
Edukator
At the same level of technology I’m convinced that the railways and airlines have already shown us the best solution: a human driving or flying but automatic systems to help them.
That’s a terrible idea.
Not least because studies seem to show that the intermediate stages in autonomous cars have significant issues with the human paying less attention when you give them lots of aids.
Exactly. An airline pilot or a train driver is paid specifically to deliver their passengers safely to their destination. Their livelihood and hundreds of lives depend on them paying attention to what they are doing and not say, checking Facebook or texting. Jack or Jill on the other hand, on their way to the gym, coffee shop, work etc are on their own time, in their own space and the only life they are concerned with at any given time is their own. Give them a chance to spend more time on snapchat and they'll be all over it.
Edukator
Speed limits aren’t based on reaction times, they’re based on the consequences of collisions in different environments. In France at least the limits correspond to:
50kmh urban limit – most
Please....even if it's based on the consequences (which it's not) the determining factor as to whether theses consequences are suffered or avoided is a human's ability to perceive and/or react to a hazard. are you seriously suggesting that the 60mph National speed limit is based on survive-ability of an impact at that speed? For who exactly? How many pedestrians will survive a 60mph collision with a car? How many cyclists? How many horses? How many drivers will survive a 60mph collision with a brick wall or a tractor.
You really think a driverless will change lanes and drive on the wrong side of the road to get better visibility, Aracer? And make reasonable decisions on the risk of a pedestrian or cyclist doing the unexpexted? The incident at the start of this thread shows the car failed to avoid a pedestrian pushing a bike. A motorcylist was hit by a driverless car that changed its mind about a lane change. A driverless indicated a lane change through a junction which was quite rightly inteptreted as a turn signal for the junction so there was a collision. You can't program a car to cope with every situation it's going to meet.
It'll mistake a dog for a human and provoke a multiple pile up with an unnecessary swerve/brake, it'll dismiss something important as environmental noise that is important. Thinkk about it. That's why I linked the article about the ethics of it all. Uber and Google have already proved that with cars strictly programmed to abide by the law and stay well within speed limits they foul up. Just how slowly are these things going to have to go through urban areas for people to feel safe on their streets?
Put a GPS tracker and speed limiter in every car to make drivers more responsible and take away the ability to speed and you'll do a lot to prevent collisions between vehicles without removing human care ane consideration for others
I'm still suggesting people slow down. I'm very happy with the new 30kmh and 80kmh limits
I don't understand why some people are so enthusiastic about them when there are so many downsides covered in this thread alone.
The same dildos who think that self-service checkouts are a sign of progress probably.
You really think a driverless will change lanes and drive on the wrong side of the road to get better visibility, Aracer? And make reasonable decisions on the risk of a pedestrian or cyclist doing the unexpexted?
The majority of drivers don't. Are you assuming visibility from a driver in the driving seat perspective or from an array of sensors and cameras?
A driverless indicated a lane change through a junction which was quite rightly inteptreted as a turn signal for the junction so there was a collision. You can’t program a car to cope with every situation it’s going to meet.
Exhibit A, B, C (skip a bit) Z drivers making all these mistakes today, will the non driver make less of them?
It’ll mistake a dog for a human and provoke a multiple pile up with an unnecessary swerve/brake, it’ll dismiss something important as environmental noise that is important. Thinkk about it
Bring some evidence and we will examine it. Project an opinion and that is all it is, unless you are working on the AI and learning aspects of the cars or the legislation to accompany them.
The Ethics case is to all extents and academic exercise in ethics, who would you kill in the situations you have 0.01s to decide. How do most drivers fare?
Put a GPS tracker and speed limiter in every car to make drivers more responsible and take away the ability to speed and you’ll do a lot to prevent collisions between vehicles without removing human care ane consideration for others
Really? Hundreds of dash cammed cars out there, has driving improved? Will it stop tail gating? Will it make people stop when they are tired, not chance a drink, not drive when medicated, drive to the conditions or pay more attention?
The Automated car will not do those things, it won't close it's eyes, retune the radio, check it's phone, talk to the passenger, argue with the kids etc. Make drivers perfect and you can hold them up to that standard. The roads would be significantly safer with a lot of drivers removed from them.
I agree with most of the driver failings you point out in your last two paragraphs, Mike. Some could be countered but there is resistance to alcotest ignition, hands-free phones, automated safe distance. Arguing with the kids is a tricky one though. Despite all that humans do quite well and could do a lot better is they weren't in such a hurry.
I see resistance to cars that will be programmed to go slower than people are used to going. The German resistance to a law to stop them doing 250kmh on the autobahn is nothing compared to the resistance you'll see to cars programmed to do 130kmh on the autobahn and 25kmh through residential areas. Look at what an insurance company pays out to air crash victims compared with car crash victims. In a driverless car people will sue the manufacturers for aircraft industry style sums so the manufacturers are going to be ultra cautious if only because they know that speed kills who or whatever is driving.
I was an initial fan of the driverless idea but the more I've thought about it the more I've realised that driverless cars that are fast enough to satisfy the Jimjams will be too much of a liability for the manufacturers and their insurers so we'll end up with the worst of both worlds. Driverless cars with manual override.
[i]Edukator wrote:[/i]
You really think a driverless will change lanes and drive on the wrong side of the road to get better visibility, Aracer?
No, because as I already pointed out it won't need to - the available sensors will be able to "see" the cyclist the human can't. However they will make the same reasonable decisions a good driver will, because that's how they will be programmed - they may not do all these things yet because they're still prototypes.
The incident at the start of this thread shows the car failed to avoid a pedestrian pushing a bike. A motorcylist was hit by a driverless car that changed its mind about a lane change. A driverless indicated a lane change through a junction which was quite rightly inteptreted as a turn signal for the junction so there was a collision. You can’t program a car to cope with every situation it’s going to meet.
An incident where human drivers would also have hit the pedestrian, a motorcyclist who hit a car by moving into the lane before the car had left it when it aborted the lane change for good reasons, a driver who had a collision with an autonomous car. I'm sure the systems will be further developed so the same incidents don't happen in the future though, which is more than can be said for any incidents involving human drivers.
It’ll mistake a dog for a human and provoke a multiple pile up with an unnecessary swerve/brake, it’ll dismiss something important as environmental noise that is important.
No, it won't. Eliminating environmental noise efficiently without eliminating important signal is the sort of thing which has been done with radar for decades.
Uber and Google have already proved that with cars strictly programmed to abide by the law and stay well within speed limits they foul up. Just how slowly are these things going to have to go through urban areas for people to feel safe on their streets?
Prototypes which aren't fully developed, yet are already better than an average driver - unless you're thinking that human drivers never foul up. You also still appear to be thinking we need to outrun the bear here - it would be totally irrational not to feel far safer with them than with human drivers and all the carnage they cause.
Put a GPS tracker and speed limiter in every car to make drivers more responsible and take away the ability to speed and you’ll do a lot to prevent collisions between vehicles without removing human care ane consideration for others
I could provide a long, long list of people being killed by drivers who aren't speeding - the vast majority of such deaths. Speed limiters would help prevent some deaths, but not the majority.
[i]chakaping wrote:[/i]
I don’t understand why some people are so enthusiastic about them when there are so many downsides covered in this thread alone.
Maybe because of the 1710 downsides of the current system
Edukator
I was an initial fan of the driverless idea but the more I’ve thought about it the more I’ve realised that driverless cars that are fast enough to satisfy the Jimjams will be too much of a liability for the manufacturers and their insurers so we’ll end up with the worst of both worlds. Driverless cars with manual override.
You should know you don't have a point and you're just trying to win when you're trying to ascribe views to people that they don't hold. At no point have I said that I want AV's to go faster than the speedlimit because I personally want to go faster. I've already explained that in my opinion AV's will be allowed to go faster because market forces will create a demand for them, technology will facilitate them and governments will tax them.
When all cars are electric how do you calculate VED? Co2? Nope. You create separate tiers that allow AV's with better tech to go faster than those without and let the people who want to avail of that tech pay more.
No, because as I already pointed out it won’t need to – the available sensors will be able to “see” the cyclist the human can’t.
Nonsense, it'll be the other way around. A human will identify a hand appearing from behind a bus as a human. To a computer it won't be big enough to distinguish from a falling leaf, a hand signal from the driver or a host of other possibilities and will ignore it becuase the programme won't hit the brakes for 200cm2.
I can't be arsed to read the rest as you're being an arse with everyone on this t(hread. acusing them of ignorance, talking down to them, rubbishing informed coment. Not just me, I'm used to you having a go now and then, we have history. But you're doing it to anyone who won't accept your blinkered view you can make infailible systems, which you can't. Too many variables, too much environment noise, ethiical judgements to be made... .
Bye for now, you've closed down the thread by unjustifyably rubbishing the man bringing the most to the thread.
Because after decades of road safety work people are still being killed by drivers making bad choices.
Because we like to use evidence to assess the safety and viability of something rather than pointing and shouting witchcraft, Set tests, apply criteria, formulate safety rules and if automated cars pass them and are safer than cars with drivers in apply the same rules to drivers.
apply the same rules to drivers.
Yes, now.
Nonsense, it’ll be the other way around. A human will identify a hand appearing from behind a bus as a human. To a computer it won’t be big enough to distinguish from a falling leaf, a hand signal from the driver or a host of other possibilities and will ignore it becuase the programme won’t hit the brakes for 200cm2.
Where do you get your information about these cars from? You are speaking with great authority on the subject.
Is this a regular hand, childs hand, ladies hand or Trumps hand? How far away would you be spotting this, what did you miss by looking for hands appearing in front of busses
There have been programes on German TV. As you asked I went looking on Youtube. There's lots to go at.
This one doesn't need you to understand German to help you grasp the ethical issues. As for resolution and identification of hazards agaist backgroud noise on a windy rainy day in a world of vegetation, moving signs, swinging street furniture I'm surprised you're surprised at my scepticism which shared by the industry itself when journos interview the people at say Mercedes. "They'll kill less than humans" isn't good enough in Europe, yet.
I have a good grasp on the ethical issues, I'm asking how you know that cars in the future will decide not to slow down in your made up scenario.
So apparently a computer can't see a hand but a human can?
Do you understand how your eyes and brain work? (btw, it's not very well in terms of scanning a scene, hence all the SMIDSYs we get between cars and cyclists etc)
Do you understand that EVERYTHING you can do physically with your body can be done better (faster, more reliable, more repeatable etc) by a computer?
For example, do you think you could fly these drones like this computer can:
In fact an autonomous car can see in wave lengths you can't, and can interact with other cars using over-air coms that you can't.
Ever come round a corner and found a car stopped in the road and had to brake suddenly to avoid hitting it? The autonomous car can know about that car BEFORE it comes round the corner, or if say it's a sheep, not a car, then it can signal to all other cars around it to slow down before they come round the turn.
It can have sensing and learning that no human could possibly have, and it doesn't get drunk, drugged, tired or angry.
To think that humans are in some way "the best" at controlling a car is ridiculous. We are slow, fallible, and tend to make poor judgments under pressure.
We are so bad at learning to drive that new drivers are, frankly, lethal in their first few years. If an autonomous car learns something, then that learning can be broadcast and every car can then know that learning. Try teaching Mrs Miggins from No2 how to cadence brake and see how far you get. Most drivers are frankly, totally unprepared, unskilled to spot or avoid an accident when does actually eventually occurs.
Say there is a stretch of road when two people have been run over because they run out from behind parked cars, an autonomous car can be speed limited in that area. It won't "forget" it's a 20 mph zone, it won't do 30 through it because it's late for a yoga class, it won't tailgate the car ahead because it's too busy arranging a date for that evening on facebook........
They had one of those danse avec les drones things on the news recently, a few crashed. In a controlled space with no kids running around, birds flying, wind blowing dust around...
As for cars talking to each other, do you really think they do better than drivers fashing and blowing the horn in a world with Android and Iphone, four different electric car charging plugs, 80 different charge cards (for one country). Rose tinted spectacles Jimjim. It won't look like utopia.
As for cars talking to each other, do you really think they do better than drivers fashing and blowing the horn in a world with Android and Iphone
Yes, it would tell you WTF was going on rather than coming around a corner wondering what the noise/flash was all about.
As for Rose Tinted how about waiting and seeing then using evidence to evaluate the situation rather than just saying nothing will work and it will all be rubbish.
Speaking as someone who is working on this "quite a lot". There's a whole lot of misinformation, misunderstanding and massively out of date information floating about.
And a good handfull of utter bovine excrement.
Ah well.
I like the bit where cars won't be able to communicate because android and apple. Glad I'm using an apple device so can read this! Phew!
[i]Edukator wrote:[/i]
Nonsense, it’ll be the other way around. A human will identify a hand appearing from behind a bus as a human. To a computer it won’t be big enough to distinguish from a falling leaf, a hand signal from the driver or a host of other possibilities and will ignore it becuase the programme won’t hit the brakes for 200cm2.
You appear to have ignored what I wrote - the computer will have sensors a human doesn't. A human hand is a lot hotter than a leaf, a computer can accurately tell the range of the hand but more than that, the computer has sensors which can detect what is behind the bus.
I can’t be arsed to read the rest as you’re being an arse with everyone on this t(hread. acusing them of ignorance, talking down to them, rubbishing informed coment. Not just me, I’m used to you having a go now and then, we have history.
So now you think this is personal? 🙄 I'm suggesting people who don't have a very good understanding of how these systems work are ignorant and that what you think is informed comment isn't.
But you’re doing it to anyone who won’t accept your blinkered view you can make infailible systems, which you can’t.
and there we go with the strawman. But it's a particularly whopping strawman to ascribe me a POV which I've been at pains to reject. I'm not sure exactly how much more I can do to make it clear that I'm not suggesting the systems will be infallible - that's simply the standard your side of the argument seem to want to reach before we can allow them to replace the wonderful human drivers. You don't have to run faster than the bear (do you really need that analogy explaining to you?)
Bye for now, you’ve closed down the thread by unjustifyably rubbishing the man bringing the most to the thread.
Which would presumably be you? (If I've played the ball not the man, my apologies, but it appears to be you making this personal - though given your other more recent posts I'm now wondering if your'e just trolling, because you're not this daft or ignorant).