> These systems are designed to ignore static obstacles because otherwise, they couldn't work at all.
Just to be clear, it does not automatically follow that therefore it is acceptable for them to be on the road like this. That argument must be based on efficacy, not feasibility.
My understanding is that statistics show that these emergency braking systems do, on balance, reduce the severity and frequency of collisions. Perhaps that is because drivers of these vehicles are not being given the opportunity to stop paying attention to the road, but once that option is offered, the minimum acceptable performance for obstacle detection goes up. It's no use arguing that the drivers of level-three cars are supposed to be paying attention at all times, because people are human, and don't do passive attention well - acceptability criteria must be based on what actually happens, not what is supposed to happen.
Just to be clear, it does not automatically follow that therefore it is acceptable for them to be on the road like this. That argument must be based on efficacy, not feasibility.
My understanding is that statistics show that these emergency braking systems do, on balance, reduce the severity and frequency of collisions. Perhaps that is because drivers of these vehicles are not being given the opportunity to stop paying attention to the road, but once that option is offered, the minimum acceptable performance for obstacle detection goes up. It's no use arguing that the drivers of level-three cars are supposed to be paying attention at all times, because people are human, and don't do passive attention well - acceptability criteria must be based on what actually happens, not what is supposed to happen.