But the gauge for success shouldn't be whether it handles every situation better than humans, it should be whether the use of these tools leads to a lower rate of accidents/injuries/deaths. Just pointing out that there might specific situations where humans would do better, while downplaying all the situations where an automated system would do better, isn't all that useful. I mean, it works on an emotional level, but we should try to be objective by looking at the numbers.

Saying everyone should just drive defensively isn't a solution. The evidence for that is the fact that that's what we currently try to tell everyone to do, and it's still a problem that people drive poorly.

For the average driver who's on their own cellphone instead of doing "defensive driving", the system will do better than them. Professional drivers will still drive manually. Most people aren't professional drivers. (A reverse computer-to-car-analogy: most people don't know enough to know what programs are safe to run. Better something like SmartScreen/GateKeeper for most people. Professional computer users can "drive manually." But don't force everyone to do it, just because you want the option. They'll suck at it.)

> Yeah but can the computer be situationally aware to see the kid in the 2003 3 series bmw ahead of him on his cell phone and preemptively switch lanes when his head bobs down to send another text to the furthest lane away from him before he ever has a chance to pose a risk to you in the first place?

Probably about as much as the average driver. Hell, a lot of drivers on the road don't even notice a turn signal and get pissed that they're stuck behind a turning car in the lane.

I can seem to reply to derefr, but to echo his comment, this will be a safety measure in the same way that Apple's TouchID is a security measure.

We know that a fingerprint is a bad password.It can't be changed, you leave copies everywhere, authentication is based on an approximation, etc. Strong, frequently changed passwords would be much better. But is it significantly better than the security on most people's phones: a 4 digit passcode, or none at all.

If it can effectively respond to the dangerous moves of the kid on his phone, does it need to be as forward-looking and defensive as that?

Tradeoffs are different between computers and humans. Defensive driving is about trying to stay within an envelope where you can safely respond to whatever happens. A computer system will have a different envelope, so it won't need to do the same stuff.

To make a terrible analogy, a human pilot flying by eye needs to eventually make a decision to land at an alternate airport when his primary is fogged in. Is a computer smart enough to make that judgment call? Well, if the computer is equipped with a zero-zero landing system and can safely land in the fog, who cares?

Your question about rear threats is intriguing. The proper response is a lot less clear there, I think. Do you speed up? Slow down? Change lanes? Squirt them with washer fluid? Drop some caltrops from your rear bumper?

For the foreseeable future, there will always be scenarios in which a human could perform better than an automated system. What I'm talking about here though, is the 6,000-7,000 accidents/year that could have been prevented by an automated system that is never distracted, and has <10 millisecond response timing.

What I worry, is that these systems will (of course) have bugs, and they are mechanical systems, so they will also physically fail - and, they will cause some deaths (cars are dangerous - 36,000 fatalities/year) - - but if for every one of those bug/physical failure deaths, you have 10 where the automated-system avoided an accident - that's a pretty big net savings in human lives.

And, software/hardware systems are only going to get better - that's certainly not the case for human drivers. Indeed, with cell phones, regardless of whether they are hands-free, there is research to show we are becoming less capable drivers than we were 30 years ago.