You Agree? Google Claims Driver Input Isn't Used Because Drivers Will Be Inattentive When Needed

According to self-driving vehicle pioneer Raj Rajkumar, who works at Pittsburgh’s Carnegie Mellon University, humans will retain control over their vehicles for a long time from now on, as driverless cars evolve step by step.

But that is not the view of Chris Urmson, leader of Google Inc’s self-driving car program since 2009, who believes a completely automated vehicle should require no input or intervention from humans to make it safer. And he pledges the models to be ready for production series by the turn of the decade. Urmson is one of Rajkumar’s former colleagues at Carnegie Mellon and he believes the partially automated vehicles already ready to be deployed can mitigate some accident risks but also introduce new safety challenges. “The better the technology gets,” he explains, “the less reliable the driver is going to get.” His issue is with drivers that would be inattentive exactly when the automated system suddenly asks for human input and decision making.
 

TheSteve - 9/4/2015 1:48:20 PM

+1 Boost

If you're in a vehicle that's running autonomously, then there is no human driver. Expecting a human to suddenly jump into the picture and prevent disaster when things go wrong is like expecting a passenger to prevent a sudden accident in a car.

In a car, many things happen fast, and the difference between "incident" and "near hit" is measured in fractions of a second. If you're not on the ball, then you're not in the game.

PUGPROUD - 9/4/2015 2:28:52 PM

+1 Boost

Do I agree? Hack no!

TomM - 9/5/2015 9:24:06 AM

+1 Boost

We already have Fleets of vehicles that often run by themselves - they are called TRAINS - and for those who do not want to drive long distances - there are also thing called "Buses". And yet - trains - which have lots of advantages over autonomous cars - still get into accidents.

I am betting that the makers of these vehicles will still somehow "REQUIRE" buyers to sign forms and agreements that shift the responsibility of "accidents" to the "driver"of the car - and limit the liability of the car maker severely or almost completely. Why - because accidents are largely caused by Human Error or Omission - and software is just as human as the persons creating it - it cannot cover all situations.

Now- do YOU want to be personally responsible for the software in the car that you had no control over? (You are already in case you did not know)

MDarringer - 9/5/2015 9:28:07 AM

+1 Boost

Pointing to trains is NOT a good illustration because trains run on tracks which dramatically reduce the chances of collision.