-
They stop much quicker than humans operating car brakes.
Yes but still limited by the same Newtonian physics. Total breaking distance is reduced but not to ZERO. While the reaction distance would be shorter (but still not more than 0.75 seconds shorter than an average adult driver) the braking distance can't change much. The system can also optimize but they are already doing that and today's ABS do a very good job of getting around user sub-optimization. Back to the calculation... A motorcar going 100 kmh on a road will need (using the standard traffic code coefficient), at least on average, 59 meters to stop under ideal conditions (dry road etc.). That is too much to "avoid an accident". We can also work back and determine the distance to be rear-ended etc.. Anyway you do the math it ends up with a pile-up.
EdwardZ-
Yes, people will still die. Tough shit - people still need to get around.
The point is FAR FEWER will die with computer controlled drivers.It's not about reaction time though, which the human is already inferior at, the car already has data on possible movement from the pedestrian on the footpath. It could be detecting a ball in motion from much further away than a human is paying attention to and already be feeding this back to all the other cars so everything is ready to avoid the possibility of a kid running out in the road.
ABS is computer controlled. My point exactly. It's better to let a car's systems manage emergency braking. Now imagine if you can also remove the possibility of the driver stomping on the accelerator or doing anything else stupid.
I don't do 'math'.
hippy
Sensors connected to brakes. Cars stop.
They stop much quicker than humans operating car brakes.
Apart from spotting the hazard earlier, they can control traction and communicate the hazard to other vehicles, preventing other injuries.