In those conditions human drivers don't work very well either. I'd rather have computers that drive very slowly because they can't see very well instead of humans that drive faster than they can see because "I'm a good driver".
People are astonishingly good at dealing with unconventional conditions. This idea that computers are 'smarter' than humans (that program them) in the realm of driving is amusing and terrifying at the same time. Calling them 'self driving cars' is oxymoronic. They are pre-programmed cars.
The people duped into this will lose their driving skills and pretend it's other humans fault for not conforming to the program they invested in. I'm not all that worried, the market will sort this out in the US at least.
If not the market, definitely the regulations once traffic reports start piling up... Even faster when there's no one behind the wheel to blame.
Can't even imagine a manslaughter case where a driverless vehicle killed someone. Who's at fault? Most fault current resides in the driver, as they're the final call.
Exactly. Humans. Humans are the bugs in their code. The control writers will argue for more laws so their programs work. The possibility that their code revisions are futile will dismissed as [insert buzzword]. I am excited that we get to watch this play out. The wildcard is biological CPU's: http://www.research.ufl.edu/publications/explore/v10n1/extra...
