The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that we humans are _un_suited for driving safely, given the equipment we have. Because we have only "two stereoscopic cameras on a swivel," we have to rely on a complicated system of mirrors -- often at least four (rear-view, two side-views, and a small blind spot checker) -- to get a full view of our surroundings, and we have to constantly swivel our eyes and neck to flip between front view, mirrored views, and instrument panels. We are unable to monitor all of those things at once.
Moreover, we have only an extremely crude way of communicating with other drivers to coordinate our actions. We have two turns signals, a brake signal, hazard lights, and a horn, none of which is guaranteed to be used appropriately. A lot of traffic jams and crashes could be avoided if our vehicles could broadcast their intended actions to each other in greater detail and with more reliability.
Crash data certainly bears out the fact that humans are not well suited for driving. While you say "We already know that you can be successful at driving a car in various weather conditions," I would instead say that in the aggregate, we do better than one would think, given our constraints, at avoiding crashes -- but we humans crash a lot. Millions of times a year in the U.S., killing tens of thousands, and resulting in some sort of injury in about half of cases.
So, whatever technology is being considered for self-driving cars, comparing it with the "technology" of human drivers is a natural baseline, but I would think that the greatest gains would come from breaking away from the equipment limitations humans have.
> comparing it with the "technology" of human drivers is a natural baseline,
I don't think that should be the baseline. You can have driver assistance like collision avoidance with human drivers. And lane correction too. Humans can be helped to drive safer without giving away complete control away to machines. That should be the baseline.
why does everyone here think I was suggesting that we should limit self driving cars to human capabilities? My comment was simply a comment on lidar v cameras. Obviously the cameras should cover 360 degrees around the car and have whatever additional sensors necessary for safety. Which would all be cheaper than lidar.
Moreover, we have only an extremely crude way of communicating with other drivers to coordinate our actions. We have two turns signals, a brake signal, hazard lights, and a horn, none of which is guaranteed to be used appropriately. A lot of traffic jams and crashes could be avoided if our vehicles could broadcast their intended actions to each other in greater detail and with more reliability.
Crash data certainly bears out the fact that humans are not well suited for driving. While you say "We already know that you can be successful at driving a car in various weather conditions," I would instead say that in the aggregate, we do better than one would think, given our constraints, at avoiding crashes -- but we humans crash a lot. Millions of times a year in the U.S., killing tens of thousands, and resulting in some sort of injury in about half of cases.
So, whatever technology is being considered for self-driving cars, comparing it with the "technology" of human drivers is a natural baseline, but I would think that the greatest gains would come from breaking away from the equipment limitations humans have.