Why Would Driverless Cars Need Rules For Crashing?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37418119
we are continually being told they are perfect.

[Gromit]

Tora,
It will happen. Infrastructure will change.
Having pedestrians and vehicles in the same space is a terrible idea, hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide prove that.

[naomi24]

Gromit, wochit!!

//He/or she was sat at the wheel of the car, yet did not then stop the car crashing.//

Maybe he dropped off to sleep having nothing to do.

[Gromit]

Tora,
It will happen.
Infrastructure will change just like it was when motorways were introduced.

[naomi24]

Zacs-Master. // You knew 'without doubt' but yet you still investigated. Mmm. //

Of course I investigated! What on earth are you on about?

[Gromit]

Naomi24,
And drivers of regular vehicles fall asleep at the wheel.
Which is why, contrary to the OP, no one has ever claimed that autonomous vehicles are uncrashable.

[Zacs-Master]

You can't have it both ways. If you knew 'without doubt' why didn't you ignore the sensors and just carry on? Was there a point where your certainty was changed by an automated function?

[naomi24]

Gromit, then they’re not failsafe. I agree with Divebuddy. Pointless.

[naomi24]

Zacs-Master, why don't you put a wig on and stand me in the dock? This is ridiculous.

[naomi24]

Indeed!

[Zacs-Master]

I'm only asking a question and, if you'll bear with me, trying to make a point. It's obvious that your certainty that there was nothing there was changed by an automated function and you, quite rightly, investigated. By doing so, you've proven that the machine saw something you didn't. In this case it was a harmless plant but, had you not had the sensors and it hadn't just been a plant, your certainty may have caused you to collide with something.

Automated cars will 'see' things which we can't, no matter how certain we are that there is no hazard.

[vulcan42]

It's obvious Zacs-Master aka as Mary Poppins, has never hears of curiosity.

[Zacs-Master]

If that's not sensible and / or irrational then......

[vulcan42]

never heard.

[Gromit]

// Gromit, then they’re not failsafe. Pointless. //

Nothing is failsafe. But if it is an improvement, then it is worth doing. We already know that human drivers have a terrible record at controlling cars. If a computer driven car improves on the human then it is not pointless.
If it turns out they are no better than the humans then it won't be widely adopted. But if deaths, injuries and crash rates are reduced, then it will. At the moment we are just evaluating them. We should not reject them outright before we know if they will be an improvement or not.

[naomi24]

Zacs-Master, // Automated cars will 'see' things which we can't//

And they will misinterpret what they see. That is my point.

[Zacs-Master]

It's not about curiosity. If Naomi was certain there was nothing there, then, without sensors, she could have collided with something. The sensors saw something she hadn't.

[Zacs-Master]

What proof do you have that they will misinterpret things?

[naomi24]

Gromit, you buy one. I won't.