> This is the kind of issue which will persist, vehicles which fail to recognize a real world situation shouldn’t get the benefit of changing the world to fit them.

There are already places that regularly confuse human drivers, and those do get fixed (though usually only after someone dies). I don't see why we couldn't do the same for driving robots, especially when they get more common over time.

This is the first car I've owned with "modern" driver aids and it is true that they are somewhat temperamental. For example, the auto full-beam headlights get very confused in fog (which can be dangerous!), whilst I often get a warning noise when approaching sharp bends at a perfectly safe speed.

I spent half an hour outside in the cold at 2am with a borrowed Nissan Leaf. It only made a loud beeping noise when I tried to lock it. Apparently, this noise means that the trunk isn't properly closed and that it therefore won't lock the car for you.

Honest curiosity, but as someone who drives quite a lot (A, B & C licenses) I don't understand why people need help staying in their lane. Flippantly I'd suggest that piloting the car and looking at the road is the absolute bare minimum of 'due care and attention' when driving, though obviously the prevalence of this feature would suggest otherwise.

Any thoughts gratefully appreciated.

I agree! In this case it was novel to see how it worked (because the facility was there and new to us) but I'm more keen on using my eyes and mirrors. I could see how it could be useful in dense fog though, given many drivers don't bother with lights...

I don't believe we'll solve autonomous driving too soon without adapting the infrastructure to it rather than the other way around. At this rate we'll have truly self driving cars (not "straight line, follow the highway lane self driving") right around the time everyone starts taking most personal cars off the road to replace them with something more efficient that better suits cities of millions. But right now too many people and manufacturers are lying to themselves that self driving cars are right around the corner, and even that they're mostly here.

The solution would be to fix the disinformation surrounding self driving tech and fining the hell out of any manufacturer that doesn't make it painfully clear on every channel that the tech is very limited, mentioning also the limits of the system (e.g. types of traffic it was tested on, how many road signs it can recognize out of the total, how much of the regular driving experience do those conditions cover, how well did it do compared to an average human driver). All in "human" language.

As someone who only sells products using ML, I find the discussion here inorganic.

Maybe most of the blame.

But consider this: If a human had the same problem, who would be blamed? If several humans, then the road would be changed, just like this. The process seems sound, but maybe the changes that make it more human-friendly make it more machine-hostile.

New thinking is needed on how we retrain machines after the change, as it necessitates uniformity - the machine would benefit with fewer variations in cattle grids for example. I reckon a simple change to the road markings for all cattle grids would be enough to make them logically identical - be it paint or signs or some other physical indicator.

Though I don't think fully autonomous driving will be possible in near future. There are too many edge cases.

The owner of the vehicle is also 100% responsible for making sure the vehicle is road-worthy. Decertifying the autonomous-driving feature should probably trigger a manufacturer recall, so the features can be disabled permanently (not just a via software update).

Or alternatively, most countries have a periodic vehicle check (like the MOT test in the UK), and having non-certified features enabled could be a reason for failing the test.

I don't know that this is true in this case. It seems like the problem here is the auto-braking feature kicking on, perhaps disorienting the driver or causing a following car to need to panic brake+swerve. This isn't an instance of a driver becoming inattentive because they expect the computer to act for them. Rather it's an ever-present system erroneously deciding to take control of the car - analagous to a mechanical failure. What could a driver do to avoid this behavior, besides knowing to disable that system ahead of the hazard?

The good ones would then sort out why their braking system is faulty. Perhaps it gets confused about other things in other serious ways.

Do you really regard braking in front of a sudden incline/decline as ridiculous?

These grids usually lie flat on the ground and in some areas are commonplace. Seems to me these sensors are still needing work. Perhaps they see horizontal lines and panic?

Cars running off the road for no good reason is ridiculous. It is indefensible to assert this is OK. Denying it or otherwise covering it up is definiteky ridiculous.

From uphill: "There's something weird in front of the car, best drive very slowly". From downhill: "WTF I can't see the road any more, best drive very slowly." Both seem quite sensible to me, I don't understand why so many people on the thread seem to disagree.

At least in the US we try to grandfather in old tech because the poors have enough problems without the government telling them they can no longer use their junk.

If a box was checked, a standard was met or a capacity was stated when the vehicle shipped the box remains checked more or less in perpetuity. This makes for some great internet arguments when the pearl clutching crowd tries to appeal to the authority of manufacturer statements with regard to older vehicles.

Indeed recently while going through the California smog check and registration process, the dealership told me I had open recalls which might block my registration. They didn’t, but clearly something like that mechanism exists.

This doesn’t unfairly harm people who already own vehicles.