No, he's asserting that a normal attentive driver won't crash into a stationary emergency vehicle under remotely normal weather/road conditions. And, personally, I'm not going to trust a system that isn't as good as a normal attentive driver.

Does it have to better than an attentive driver or the average driver? I figure if the Tesla has less crashes per mile than the average driver than that's a success?

Even if the accidents a Tesla does get into are ones that a normal attentive driver wouldn't get into, if it avoids just as many accidents that a normal attentive driver would get into isn't that enough?

Well, I'm an attentive driver, so I wouldn't use anything that drives worse than me.

A lot of people probably feel the same.

The average driver thinks that they are a better driver than the average driver right?

While that is true, there are also people who don't drink and drive, don't text while driving, don't drive while overly fatigued, etc. So it's reasonable for those people to not want to use a system that's only as good as an "average" driver.

> So it's reasonable for those people to not want to use a system that's only as good as an "average" driver.

But... no one is forcing anyone to use this system. They elect to. Thus this is the wrong question, but rather if drivers should be given the option to use the system.

If anything it might be reasonable to infer that poor drivers are more likely to use this system, so the standard could plausibly be below that of an average driver while still improving overall safety.

I hate to put it this way, but I think it'll be easier to get people to use autopilot (that performs better than your average driver) than it will be to get people to get gud at driving. You're an attentive driver right? You've probably noticed people lane changing without looking, causing or almost causing collisions. Or jockeying for position fruitlessly. Or being drunk or getting sleepy. Or getting aggro. Back when I was driving a lot I would have been grateful for anything that meant I wouldn't have to drive around people like that. I dunno where I'm going with this exactly, I suppose we've had similar experiences and it makes me a little surprised that you'd be against automated systems bringing the skill floor up.

Thanks, I'm not sure how I missed that.

>I'm not going to trust a system that isn't as good as a normal attentive driver.

As I understand it, we're not expected to trust the current incarnation of Tesla Autopilot. We're supposed to be ready to intervene in case it screws up.

I'd be interested to know how long the drivers of the 12 Teslas in these accidents had to intervene but didn't (how long was it obvious Autopilot had screwed up before the impact).

My problem with this is that we have little proof that people are any good at this sort of task (i.e. monitoring something without intervening for really long stretches of time).

So if data show that people keep failing at it we have to take a look and decide that it's not a good system, not that the people are at fault.

Even more than that, we actual have multiple studies demonstrating that people are actively bad at this sort of task.

The challenge, which no one has a good answer for, is that if you do a "good" job of automating something, people will zone out. It's just how we're wired.

I would even assert that normal inattentive driver won't crash in stationary emergency vehicle... Or if they do they should permanently have their right to drive removed. I would consider giving attention to flashing lights minimum standard.