Even trams that can only go slowly in one direction and stop are not allowed on the road without a driver. Airplane systems have had decades to prove themselves and pilots are still necessary. You can not let your safety in the hands of a computer for the simple reason that in case of an incident there wouldn't be any-one to blame, which is problematic in its own way. A self-driving car is a land-based drone. If this thing makes a miscalculation, the effect could be as catastrophic as a boiler explosion, even more so if it's hacked (no reason to talk about how software updates will keep security up to date, the brake lines on <i>your</i> car can be cut right now without any technical knowledge and nobody considers that a high enough risk to take measures against). Also, consider a self-driving vehicle delivering explosives. Yum.<br><br>These abominations should have flashing orange lights at each corner and be limited in weight and speed to a bumper car. They really aren't going to improve safety, they are only meant as a convenience and anyone who needs something like that is either pitiful for sad reasons or pitiful for the wrong reasons.<br><br>The idea is marketed as a comfort item, among other things. However, if it works at all, the constant reactions to anything that happens on the road will make for a jerky ride. It would always seem to be going the wrong way before making a sudden correction and anyone with actual driving experience would want to scream and take over. Every sudden movement would cause it to jump on the brakes in the middle of the street for no apparent reason potentially causing actual drivers to rim it from behind. You might say it obviously works in the video, but you would not take that speed.<br><br>It would not be capable of coping with unmarked roads and construction works, if the lane is blocked it would wait there eternally or at least be too in-confident in opposing traffic. It will not work in bad weather, bad road conditions or at speed. It will not work if the sensors are dirty or obscured. It will navigate using GPS - actual people have driven their cars into lakes following a navigation system, really doubt a computer will make the difference between wet asphalt and water. Hell, even an elevator will get stuck eventually and it only needs to compare 2 numbers to figure out what to do. The thing is, as good as machines are, we're still not good enough to make them work.<br><br>We're far from having a computer more intelligent than a human brain and if we somehow manage such a contraption working at increased reaction speeds tasking it with just driving a car would be embarrassing. Until then however, the behind-the-wheel-device is the safest option.<br><br>I only support the idea because it will help blind and disabled people and make regular cars cheaper because they don't have this new feature thingy. I still stress that any such vehicles on the road should be clearly marked so regular drivers know to keep their distance. I imagine pedestrians will start jump-crossing streets in front of these because they brake automatically - have comfort riding in <i>that</i>.,(reply>), Make me, nerd-o.,(reply>), Won what? You see that bugs me when people always consider that discussions are fights.<br>Is it not possible to just have a sensible discussion between two (or more) civilized people?<br><br>Beyond that. When you intend to post a message with no point and nothing to add to the discussion except than being a jerk, maybe you could just shut up.,(reply>), @Djorgal I'm calling it; Raven Crow has won this one, lad.,(reply>), @Djorgal OK, you're too serious about this to like my jokes, I'll stop. Please, I respect your opinion, but less than perfect just isn't enough.<br><br>I think we both agree the tech needs more work. It's coming, no doubt about it, but I don't see it happening on a mass scale in at least a couple of decades. You seem to be very impressed by what can be done right now but for me it's not that much more advanced than the 80's and early 90's experiments. Pretty much the only addition is optical recognition (which really isn't very reliable) and networking, which isn't very helpful in its current state. You need to acknowledge all demonstrations are done in (for a lack of a better word) sterile environments. Ofcourse they need to let the vehicles on actual roads to perfect the algorithms but they are now just starting to do that. I do believe you'll be surprised how long it will take them until a production unit. And it's only after that when you'll need to wait for all old vehicles to get off the roads until the v2v networking starts to pay up.<br><br>The tech isn't good enough as it is. There are countless situation it can't handle. Sure it can read road signs etc., but there are some that are uninterpretable by humans, yet along a computer. There are pot holes, drains with missing covers, stolen signs, signs with graffiti on them, unmarked roads, unpaved roads, local anomalies, such as road being icy in the shadow of a building even when it's otherwise warm and dry, situations where you need to stop 100 meters before a turn to make way for a large semi, people yelling because a cement truck is backing up into you, right of passage when 4 cars meet on an intersection, pulling off to give way in narrow streets, people and objects randomly falling on the car (happens surprisingly often), millions of examples that can not be handled by the current tech unless specifically programmed into it, which isn't a good way of doing things - there will always be something missing.<br><br>I think when they make an Asimo that can do the shopping and cook for you, <i>then</i> an AI advanced enough to properly drive a car will be available, but by this stage you probably won't actually need to travel to work anymore.,(reply>), "Ah, there's always a fanboy. Sorry for not approving of your dream toy."<br>And there are always people to be injurious when disagreed with. I do disagree with you, but I gave you arguments to try and have a sensible discussion, pleasqe try to act at least like a civilized person.<br><br>"hah, as opposed to in-humane failures :) "<br>And you are an engineer? Seriously? No, as opposed to mechanical failures. Mostly that's humans who cause accidents. 1.24 million deaths worldwide every year in car crashes most of which are caused by bad decision and stupid behavior caused by the human behind the wheel.<br><br>"Technically, most crashes are location based. I say, let's get rid of all roads to reduce incidents"<br>That's a moronic statement. I won't indulge obvious trolling.<br><br>""There are not that many different weather patterns..." - wow, there's actually a person that's traveled less than me."<br>That's the point of a self driving car. It can adapt to slight differences. Yes there are not that many weather paterns. By many I mean millions in this instance. It is obvious that it has to be accounted for but you never gave any argument why it couldn't and that would be hard because it already does.<br><br>"A track does not count for testing sensory equipment and decision making at speed."<br>Indeed it's not enough. That's just on example. But you did assert that "it won't work at speed" when it already does. It may still not work perfectly at speed but it does work.<br><br>"You think it will stop if blinded? Have you tested that theory? If it works, stopping in the middle of a highway seems safe, does it?"<br>Why do you think it would do that? When you have a problem do you, yourself, stop in the middle of the highway? Self-driving cars have several different captors, it's extremely unlikely that all of those stop at the same time. There's no reason to think it wouldn't be able to stop safely because it is already able to do so.<br>By the way, a human could also have a heart attack while driving, it is even way more likely that this kind of catastrophic failures happens with a human than with a self driving car and in this situation the human driven car will crash.<br><br>"Look, kid, don't get me wrong, the tech is cool. Just don't get hyped, ok?"<br>Don't be condescendent. Especially when you're not giving information but uninformed opinions. It's obvious that you don't know the tech when you say that some things that are already done are impossible to do...