That being said, Toyota's (and Subaru's) approach is the smart way forward - add sensors and capabilities that augment the human, but leave the human always responsible and in control. In order for a crash to happen, the human AND the machine BOTH have to miss it.
That's the approach we know won't work. That was Tesla's first-round autopilot, the self-crashing car. The one that would happily run into obstacles protruding into a lane.[1][2][3] There are two big flaws with that approach. First, if it's good enough that people can tune out, they will tune out. Second, if the driver waits until the self-driving system has clearly made a mistake before taking over, they will be slower at reacting than if they were driving, and may be too late. See especially [3].
Volvo's CEO takes the position that if one of their cars crashes in self-driving mode, it's Volvo's fault. Urmson, while at Google, pointed out the first problem coming up even with their test drivers.
That's the approach we know won't work. That was Tesla's first-round autopilot, the self-crashing car. The one that would happily run into obstacles protruding into a lane.[1][2][3] There are two big flaws with that approach. First, if it's good enough that people can tune out, they will tune out. Second, if the driver waits until the self-driving system has clearly made a mistake before taking over, they will be slower at reacting than if they were driving, and may be too late. See especially [3].
Volvo's CEO takes the position that if one of their cars crashes in self-driving mode, it's Volvo's fault. Urmson, while at Google, pointed out the first problem coming up even with their test drivers.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc0yYJ8-Dyo [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvRkSMCDX3o [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2ml6sjk_8c