On Thu, 2017-11-16 at 15:18 +1100, Jim Birch wrote: > "It was not autonomous, the driver was legally in control." > That's a legal technicality, isn't it?
No, not really. My old Subaru had cruise control, and in the handbook, in bold type, was the statement that "engaging cruise control does not permit the driver to release the steering wheel" or words to that effect. Such warnings almost always mean that somewhere, somehow, someone was stupid enough to believe that engaging cruise control meant the car would steer itself. If I had let go of the steering wheel after engaging cruise control, then had a crash, would you say the cruise control had failed? I'm sure autonomous vehicle control can be improved, will be improved, and presumably will continue to be improved indefinitely. People are generally far too quick to set up straw men or impossible hurdles for the purpose of attacking such technologies. Most of the arguments I've seen against autonomous vehicles boil down to "I won't be trusting them consarned things until one wins the Paris to Dakar unaided". Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer http://twitter.com/kauer389 GPG fingerprint: A52E F6B9 708B 51C4 85E6 1634 0571 ADF9 3C1C 6A3A Old fingerprint: E00D 64ED 9C6A 8605 21E0 0ED0 EE64 2BEE CBCB C38B _______________________________________________ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
