Re: Not a hope in hell
With current technology, the car can't tell whether the blob in front is a sleeping sheep or a newly fallen rock. It's rather difficult for a human being too. On one hand, a driverless car is less likely to be distracted by shagging ponies. But human eyes are better at identifying sheep from rocks than AI.
Google's driverless cars are not designed for real llife. They are designed for suburban commuter trips by middle class G people. Today, driverless cars are permitted to perform a limited function on public roads; top speed is limited so driverless cars have to take the back routes; driverless cars are not being tested on freeways, highways or motorways -- there is always a flesh and blood backup.
Driverless cars are designed to solve problems that middle class kids perceive. Will a driverless car turn up for a disabled kid living on a back lane in rural Dorset? Nah, we don't have the maps for that. But we know a faster route from Islington to St Pancras than any cabby with "the knowledge", assuming there is no congestion. Assuming.
My favourite challenge: the 1907 Peking to Paris race in reverse (not reverse gear) for driverless cars. France to the Ukraine is a cruise -- after which there are few maps and the driverless vehicles get into pickles. Driverless cars don't solve any problems on the two thirds of this planet which is land: there aren't any roads.
Driverless cars sort of fix a problem in the developed world -- take me home from the pub if I am pissed. That's a Google solution for G people. Where sheep don't sleep on the road.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
