classic33
Leg End Member
I wouldn't mind too much, but I started the thread!Gee thanks!
I wouldn't mind too much, but I started the thread!Gee thanks!
Well my risk level is rather less. Having driven an average of 15000 miles per year for 45 years and only 5 'accidents' None of which occurred when my car was in motion and three of those when I wasn't even on in the car as it was parked outside the house!
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Today's BBC text service is reporting that of the 48 driveless cars running around California, four have been involved in accidents, IN THE LAST EIGHT MONTHS.By that sort of statistical view on safety, the Google driverless car is 100% safe. It's never had a single crash while driving autonomously in 700,000 miles of driving (while it has actually crashed when being driven manually, which speaks volumes).
Yes, but how many caused the accidents? A man in a large Buick pulling out in front of a driverless car at such short notice that even a perfect braking technique can't prevent an accident is hardly an indictment on the driverless car.Wrong, wrong, wrong. Today's BBC text service is reporting that of the 48 driveless cars running around California, four have been involved in accidents, IN THE LAST EIGHT MONTHS.
Not 100% safe and foolproof then.
Nothing is fail safe. But if you look at the prevalence of driver error in our motor car accident record, I do prefer the machine option. Besides, I still want to sit in the back seat drinking beer whilst being driven around. I hope that happens in my lifetime.The spurious claim, often made is that they are fail-safe. I'm yet to be convinced, although I still suspect that the US courts will decide the ultimate fate of driverless car technology. Wait for the fist $multi-million awards to some poor sod clobbered and crippled by one of these cars. Google will not want the adverse publicity, let alone giving away the ca$h.