wilber1 wrote:
All assuming both drivers (or machines) will be able to maintain control of their vehicles in a 60 mph rear ender. Big assumption. Distance is safety.
This is true. But I think it is safe to assume the less severe the impact the better chance to maintain control.
valhalla360 wrote:
No one is designing these systems to allow for a fender bender every few days. Any collision is non-starter, particularly to get past the adoption stage.
This is true, and as long as the robots have to predict what humans will do it will be harder. Over 100 years back, there where 3 automobiles in Kansas City, all owned by doctors. I don't remember the date or cross street but someplace on Gladstone Boulevard 2 of the cars banged together hard enough that they had to be towed by teams. Millions of human caused wrecks appear to be acceptable. Somebody tricks a robot, gets hurt, everybody is hair on fire "Ban the 'bots! Ban the 'bots! Ban the 'bots!"
Bigger issue is reaction time. Even computers will have a reaction time from when the brake light turns on until the brakes are hit. In a panic stop, they need some distance to make it work.
Yes, reaction time. But I bet the 'bot is more likely to be paying attention, and will react quicker. And if your car is talking to another it knows is 500 ft ahead, and that car must make a sudden reaction to say a deer jumping into the road, your car using that info, and the info from the other 2 cars between, should be able to smoothly miss the hazard.
But to get back closer to what is available today. It would be possible to remote start the engine, drop the transfer case and transmission into gear, and let the toad push some on the MH. If the motors are already spinning, and only need power applied, sounds much easier. And if the Jake wire would send a signal to put the toad in re-gen, great. Even better if the car could sense when the battery was over 80% charge the car would drive some when MH was cruising to be certain to have room for the re-gen when you what the whoa.