On Tue, 2019-05-21 at 13:36 +1000, David wrote: > Therefore I suggest automated-vehicle technology currently offers no > nett benefit _if_ everything is done according to the book.
If you mean net benefit in terms of human stress, then I'm afraid I don't really care. I'm only interested in the benefit of not killing people. > The claimed benefits probably arise because the human drivers are > usually not paying much attention in driverless mode. Now you seem to be saying that it's better if the driver doesn't pay attention? > The often-quoted statistics on the known frequency of Tesla crashes > almost certainly don't reflect the inherent capability of the current > technology because of the requirement for a human driver, even if an > imperfect one. We also don't know (?) what proportion of the time > they're operating in driverless mode, and how often crashes are > avoided by skilful human drivers in nearby vehicles. None of those things is relevant. We need only care about the efficacy of the system as a whole. Is the system that includes driver-assisting controls safer than one without, or not? Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer ([email protected]) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer http://twitter.com/kauer389 GPG fingerprint: 8D08 9CAA 649A AFEF E862 062A 2E97 42D4 A2A0 616D Old fingerprint: A0CD 28F0 10BE FC21 C57C 67C1 19A6 83A4 9B0B 1D75 _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
