Bazz,

If the car can see through the dust hen there would be no reason to stop, the car following he truck is in a safe position but if it hits a dust filled hole and moves out then if the distance between the cars is less than the possible stopping distance they will either have to swerve dangerously or collide.

What about the transition period when all cars are not driverless?

There wil have to be provision for human override, bushfires and floods come to mind.

Re dust filled pothole, don't know if there would be a solution.
Two systems the visible would see a "wall" of dust & stop, the radar would look through and see an oncoming car.
Better with instrumentation than without.
Transition will have to rely on the fitted car to avoid.

Thinkabit says, "Regarding insurance, it is the other way round. It will be considerably more expensive to insure a human-driven car then a computer driven one, because cars like the google car are already better drivers than humans and they will only improve over the coming years."

You are joking aren't you.

When a computer controlled car has won the World F1 championship, Indianapolis, LeMans, & holds the Bathurst lap record it might just be time to let the first one loose on a public road. Then, & only then can they claim they are even equal to human drivers in diverse situations.

Until then they are just a bit of techno garbage for geeks to play with, & like most scientists, make grandiose announcements their technology can't actually support. I suggest you don't hold your breath while waiting.

I understand STEELEREDUX that there's been many improvements to the safety of heavy vehicles with a sort of 'black box' arrangement fitted to many of them, allowing authorities to monitor and micro-manage the safety elements of various components fitted to those heavy vehicles, and the safety limits placed on drivers. All these measures though laudable are a case of shutting the gate after the horse has bolted as it were?

To answer your question as honestly as I can; I don't believe a time would come, where I'd ever be comfortable with driver-less, Level 4 autonomous Heavy Vehicle on our Hwy's. Too many variables that 'may' interfere with the technology. Systems failure can occur. Unforeseeable or unexpected weather events can arise, which again 'may' interfere with the system. Vandalism or worse sabotage, may occur.

I realise I may appear to be a real old 'fuddy duddy' in the eyes of most. That's OK, but any sort of driver-less vehicular movement, save for that consigned to be on a permanent set of rails, just isn't something that I can get my head around, to be very honest with you?

Dear o sung wu,

I think there is most certainly a role for the older generations, and I include myself in this, to temper the enthusiasm of the young. The work they will have to do to assuage concerns you and I might have is vitally important. It doesn't mean we should be blind to the possibilities of the technology, just the bar should to be set as high as it needs to be to gain the confidence of the vast majority of us.

There will be some like Hasbeen who would have AVs require an F1 licence before being allowed to drive on our roads, completely forgetting of course the amount of 'geeks' it takes behind the wall to win a championship, but the rest of us need to be shown these things will be markedly safer and more functional than what we have at the moment. I imagine there will be a few stumbles along the way but that is the same with any new technology. We shouldn't forget that the early motor vehicles were required to have a man with a flag walking in front of them warning other road users.

But we shouldn't underestimate how fast the technology is advancing. This is a TED talk over three years ago on the subject of quadcopter agility. Keep in mind these thinks have a brain the size of a fingernail but the computational feats they are able to perform is extraordinary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2itwFJCgFQ

I do think there is a good rational for insisting that autonomous vehicles at least have rudimentary ethical functionality. It would make me more accepting of their introduction. This is precisely the reason for me posting this thread. I would not want them to have a basic 'when in doubt slam the brakes on' algorithm, especially as they could be so much more reactive and 'responsible'. Ultimately I feel we should be insisting on it and now is the time to be talking these issues through..

Hasbeen: Your example of racing car drivers is about the worst example you give can. Racing drivers are horrendously bad drivers when it comes to safe driving. I've never heard of a Bathurst race where there hasn't been accidents and crashes. Indeed many people watch motor-racing on TV for the crashes, which they are almost guaranteed to get for any race of sizable length . These drivers are simply driving way too fast for the conditions- they are extremely unsafe drivers. (I've often wondered how on earth it is even legal because (well in QLD anyway don't know about NSW) it is illegal to operate a car in a dangerous way- this includes on non-public roads.)

The standard that the Google car has to better is a driver who is 55+ years old and has been driving everyday ,in city traffic and distance travel, for the last 40 or so years and has never once been in a single crash nor even a slight bump with any other object. But not only that, a driver who has never had a speeding ticket, nor driven past a stop sign without completely stopping (unless legally allowed to- such as making way for ambulance under lights) nor shot a red light nor cut-in on someone when overtaking nor spun the wheels on a wet road doing a hill start nor failed to indicate correctly on a round-a-bout nor failed to dip their headlights in time for oncoming cars nor parked illegally, etc...

However, if it is speed that interests you. Then computers definitely are the way to go. The fastest dirigible man-made objects, ie: rockets, are driven completely by computers when under speed. Do you really think that if rockets were controlled and steered by humans (without any computers what-so-ever) that would get anywhere near a designated rendezvous point for docking with the space station. Do you really think that humans could fly a terrain hugging cruise missile better than a computer? Would you really bet on the fighter jet under human control avoiding a modern surface-to-air missile?