Flinders wrote:I'm all for new technology when it works, but so far it looks to me like self-driving cars ought to be banned for good. Firstly, it isn't yet anything like good enough for the job, and secondly, it's clear that even at this early stage it's clear that humans are incapable of paying attention when it is in operation (and humans will always need to be alert to its failures).
I think it's a waste of time, money and effort- more of all three spent on enforcement of road laws, and on developing systems to assist and alert drivers, rather then let them off the hook, would be a better way.
Well they won't all be banned, it is clear that there are going to be more and more independantly moving machines (not just cars) in offices and in public. Research on how to ensure these interact with people is ongoing and rapidly progressing (a simple search of technology publishers will tell you that). Given that these will interact with that most unpredictable of objects, the human pedestrian, their logic will also be useful on the highway.
And this case does not prove that the technology (which is changing rapidly) "isn't yet anything like good enough for the job"; it proves that when a development company looking for fast results to 'disrupt' the business model of its competitors, cuts corners and deliberately reduces the safety of the logic in use, bad things happen. Uber had already been banned from testing their (deliberately risk-taking) software in several states, this just increases the difficulty they will have making progress on their 'make money and cost lives' model. It will also cause others to reconsider any moves in that direction (which is a good outcome).