They are not “driverless” cars. It says right there that the driver has to be ready to take over the driving in situations that the car can’t handle.
So they’re not “driverless” cars.
The guy is mostly right, except for “driverless” trucks. That will not happen.
The software in a “driverless” car will be no help against a carjacking. No help if your car is surrounded by a band of street savages trying to break in and hurt, kill or rape you.
The braking system will not distinguish between a bag blowing in the wind, a rabbit, a doll, a dog, and a child. The human driver will brake differently for different things. Specifically, he will brake for the dog and the child, and ignore the others.
The real goal in all this is complete government control of what’s on the roads. The statists hate it when you have any freedom to do what you want. This would make everyone the same behind the wheel.
I don't live in a sewer, so this isn't a concern for me personally. Inattentive drivers are a much bigger threat to me and mine.
“The braking system will not distinguish between a bag blowing in the wind, a rabbit, a doll, a dog, and a child.”
This isn’t correct with the current systems, and things will only improve from here. I’m guessing the system will brake for anything living if it’s safe to do so, and will probably hit animals if not.
I’m curious to know what the programming is in the case where a child runs out into the road, and there’s no way to avoid him without crashing...