On 2016-07-10 12:04 Kim Holburn wrote: > The trouble is that any system that takes enough of the burden of staying > alert while driving, that you can stop concentrating, is a recipe for > disaster. Either it has to be able to take over driving completely or not at > all. If you’re letting it drive, especially on a long drive you can’t > suddenly stop watching Harry Potter and be aware of the road in time to > understand the situation and make decisions.
That criterion puts the problem in a nutshell. The low-level technology must have a way to go according to the NY Times report mentioned by David B. And providing the apparent means for automatic driving while stating drivers shouldn't actually use it seems to me to be bad psychology and legally "interesting", though I'm not either a psychologist or a lawyer. QUOTE (NY Times) The Tesla uses a computer vision-based vehicle detection system, but according to the company, it is not intended to be used hands-free and parts of the system are unfinished. The accident may have happened in part because the crash-avoidance system is designed to engage only when radar and computer vision systems agree that there is an obstacle, according to an industry executive with direct knowledge of the system. UNQUOTE David L. _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
