OP-ED by A. Bunch
There’s so much we could say on the topic. Actually, there’s a lot we have said on the topic. The opinion above is interesting and worth viewing.
I notice these city tests always take place in a special zone of a city that’s pretty straightforward. More than that, they’re also specially mapped. That means that they don’t just download the same navigation you or I do, they specifically vet the maps in that zone. This means even if AVs start taking over certain city zones, the outlying areas will still require human assistance.
Why is that? Because things happen that haven’t been specifically foreseen and accounted for by programmers. Will these zones be the challenging downtown areas with heavy pedestrian use that TNC (rideshare) drivers already hate to navigate? NO! Not at all. GPS is notorious for dropping when the signal is blocked by skyscrapers.
The goal of all automation should be to replace the types of routine work that people don’t like to do and therefore grow bored and unproductive at. But if humans will still be needed for rural areas and inner-city areas, what’s the point of automation?
Crash avoidance systems, automated braking, and automatic transmissions reduce driver fatigue but it seems like the challenge of replacing drivers entirely may not be worth the billions some folks are willing to spend to do it. Will automakers be able to train their machines to recognize a human in a crosswalk? I’m sure they will. Will it justify the money they’re spending? Only the future will tell.