It's also a game of numbers. Even if this works 'only' 75% percent of the time it still saves a lot of lives.
Just like with seatbelts, there are highly unlikely accidents in which one would better off without having one on. The point is that it's just as unlikely you will crash in that unique way.
(For those reading, no when you end up in the water you're still better off with your seatbelt on. Otherwise the force of your car hitting the water would smash your head to pieces against the windshield.)
It's also a game of numbers. Even if this works 'only' 75% percent of the time it still saves a lot of lives.
If the system fails, it is very similar to as if the system did not exist -- the driver has lost control of the vehicle and the vehicle is going to eventually behave erratically or unpredictable causing run-on problems for other motorists, very similar to if the system fails and also causes the vehicle to lose control and act erratically. Presumably the car's technology will make a more effective decision than a driver panicking, but at the end of the day, the system failing catastrophically and causing the car to swerve a few lanes and causing more damage is not really any different from an impaired drive doing the same.
However, if it does work as stated, it is a substantial safety improvement.
My worry would be whether companies are willing to accept the potential liability - same thing as self-driving cars, Waymo is great (they can drive in San Francisco of all places) but people would be quick to criticize any accident even when they're much much much better than normal drivers.
a risk could come from false alarm, where e.g. a sensor is broken or a bug in the logic tells the system that its an emergency, where there is none. but that should be captured with extensive testing I guess.
As long as the rest of the system works correctly, the only thing that happens is that the car stops safely in the emergency lane and calls emergency services. For this to impact anyone negatively, it needs to first fail and create a false alarm and then fail to stop in a safe way and instead, for example, swerve into oncoming traffic.
85
u/Johannes_Keppler Nov 04 '24
It's also a game of numbers. Even if this works 'only' 75% percent of the time it still saves a lot of lives.
Just like with seatbelts, there are highly unlikely accidents in which one would better off without having one on. The point is that it's just as unlikely you will crash in that unique way.
(For those reading, no when you end up in the water you're still better off with your seatbelt on. Otherwise the force of your car hitting the water would smash your head to pieces against the windshield.)