Regarding your last point - we sort of do need accurate detection. What if there is a balloon on the road? I wouldn&#x27;t swerve to avoid hitting a balloon, but an automatic car is going to see a round, rather large object. It might as well be a 100kg rock, hitting which would be disastrous. What is the car going to do? Stop and tell you to investigate? How about piles of leaves, cardboard boxes, large soda bottles. If you live anywhere with wind you are going to get those on the road.<p>As for the &quot;best judgement&quot; part - if a human is about to get into an accident, they are going to do what feels best. It&#x27;s not necessarily the best option, but no court would ever tell you &quot;our simulation tells us that if you reacted 0.1s earlier you could have turned the wheels 30 degrees and hit a car with two occupants instead of four, who had better survival chances&quot;. A computer is going to make an algorithmic choice, and that&#x27;s what the article was about  - who makes the choice as to how the car should react? The owner? The manufacturer? The police? The insurer? Should it prioritize its owner life at the potential cost of other lives? Or minimise the damage to protect the interests of its insurers?<p>We don&#x27;t think about cars in those categories because we don&#x27;t(and I would say we can&#x27;t) make those choices when we drive. But computers will have to be programmed in some way. A lack of stop sign is a specific type of intersection in itself(where anyone going from the right has priority but anyone coming from the left has to yield) - so the car would need to observe and learn. I&#x27;m not saying it&#x27;s impossible, but it&#x27;s very hard to do.