It will probably not win head to head with a human if the halt override fails, that's the point.

> Are you more likely to get food poisoning from a person prepared meal or a snickers prepared by machines? Now, why assume driving is different?

Both are so slim who really cares?

Ahh, but you are assuming failure. What if the human has a stroke?

Really, you must compare failure rates and severity on both sides. Looking at say aircraft, autopilot cause fewer crashes than pilots and spend vastly more time flying aircraft.

We have been building cars for quite some time now, and yet there are still millions of recalls year after year. The idea that IT can solve physical problems is so pervasive on this site.

> autopilot cause fewer crashes than pilots

How often do pilots really cause crashes, though? In the sense that it's the pilots fault-more often than not, it isn't. Most crashes are not the result of pilot failure in normal operation-but pilot failure in situations out of their control.

It's hard to blame a pilot when an engine cuts out (a mechanical failure).

my point is not that automated cars are never going to work. But it's just a utopia on here, about how all of our problems will be solved. Computers can't beat physics.