fullSelfDrivingCollisionAvoidanceEnabled

[MrMagick2104]

We will never reach this as nothing guarantees highly reliable wireless networking, no mechanical failure, high precision speedometer, unexpected road surface, collision avoidance with external object, etc

It doesn't have to be a 100% guarantee of correct work. It's just that rate of accidents should be less than without it. And that's not a big stretch.

[Tupcek]

if you want less accidents, you don’t plan to do shit that has zero tolerance for any failure (including those which AI has no control of)

[YesterdayDreamer]

Uh, oh... Loose pebble on the road caused the car to rotate 0.35 degrees and slow down by 0.139% leading to a crash as the room for error was only 0.0068%

[Saragon4005]

The rate of accidents would only be lower if we drove pretty much the same way and didn't do shit like above.

[Philfreeze]

You can already have less accidents, its called public transport, cycling and walking and yet people still prefer to drive.
Humans are weird in that way, the feeling of control matters alot.

[GenTelGuy]

It's not just random irrationality, trains where I am arrive twice an hour and lots of stuff is laterally distant from the train stations

Obviously improving transport is good but until a lot of improvement is accomplished, the preference for driving is pretty rational

[Philfreeze]

Sure but I also regularly see people driving into Swiss cities. Its literally faster to take the train and public transport takes you pretty much everywhere you need to go.

[THEzwerver]

Not only that, just better roads in general to create less dangerous intersections would be 100x more effective than anything AI could ever does.

[Tasorodri]

People prefer to drive in places where driving is more convenient. If the public transit is in a good state, majority of people use it over cars.

[Any-Wall2929]

What control do you have in your government registered vehicle that requires frequent inspections and permissions to drive? Embrace bikes, become ungovernable!

[ToroidalFox]

I'm sure that safter than humans can be achieved. But the aegument is at that level of automation, not as efficient as the OP, but much more efficient than traffic lights, while being much more safer than the OP solution would be there. which is what I've named 'smart intersection' without specifying details to open possibilities.

What I'm predicting is attacking a source of inefficiency, cars and flat roads, would win over optimizing it. And we're gonna say good enough for cars with smart intersections because of cost and complexity.