Dave Head wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 18:13:49 +0000, Eeyore
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Dave Head wrote:
> >
> >> No more traffic lights, for instance.
> >
> >Zuricj Insurance tries that one on over here.
> >
> >Just imagine the carnage if one mictochip as much as 'hiicups' ????
> >
> >Humans - rather scarily - are actually much better drivers than machines are ever
> >likely to be. They do need proper tuition to perform adequately though and
> >'ordinary learner drivers' are quite hopeless after passing what's euphemistically
> >called a 'test'.
> >
> >Graham
>
> Computer control of real-life road driving isn't going to happen until computer
> pattern recognition is figured out. The car is going to have to be able to
> "see" that the tumbleweed being blown across the road is not a reason for
> violent collision avoidance maneuvers, while realizing that it is in the desert
> southwest where there are commonly tumbleweeds. Likewise, the car must "see"
> that the obstruction in the road ahead is a deer, and really needs to be
> avoided if possible, and that deer can be standing still one second, and
> rapidly acclerating in a completely unpredictable direction the next instant.
> And, the car should know that the chances that this is really a deer is much
> higher in Michigan than in Arizona (although I saw "elk crossing" signs in
> Arizona if I remember right.)
>
> Now, if they ever do figure that out, then you might see some really wild
> stuff, like the car figuring out that there just really is no way to miss
> whatever is in the road, so does a spin manuever at just the right time to hit
> the obstruction with the rear of the car, forcing people into their seats
> instead of forward toward the steering wheel and dashboard, and allowing much
> less potential for injury as the seats absorb the sudden deceleration.

That would be some feat of driving. However, if that were to ever
happen, it would indicate that the computer failed to make the proper
decision at some previous time.

Ideally, such a system would be very simple from the user perspective.
It would take the user from where he/she is to where he/she needs to go
with a minimum of discomfort. Such a manuever would be a massive
discomfort and simply unacceptable.

>
> Dave Head