>
But Peng also presented the position of the traditional automakers. He said that they are trying to do something fundamentally different. Instead of aiming for the full autonomy moon shot, they are trying to add driver-assistance technologies, “make a little money,” and then step forward toward full autonomy. It’s not fair to compare Waymo, which has the resources and corporate freedom to put a $70,000 laser range finder on top of a car, with an automaker like Chevy that might see $40,000 as its price ceiling for mass-market adoption.
> “GM, Ford, Toyota, and others are saying ‘Let me reduce the number of crashes and fatalities and increase safety for the mass market.’ Their target is totally different,” Peng said. “We need to think about the millions of vehicles, not just a few thousand.”
I wonder if an easier task to reduce fatalities is to target impaired driving and develop a detection mechanism that tries to identify whether the driver is impaired. It seems like an easier and more localized problem than building a fully autonomous vehicle.
Someone who saves a huge amount on their car insurance because they own such a vehicle (and therefore should never be subjecting the insurance company to claims caused by their impaired driving) I assume?
People that get convicted of DUIs and want to keep their license. We already have modifications to cars that require people to blow into to start their car, this seems like the logical next step in that.
> “GM, Ford, Toyota, and others are saying ‘Let me reduce the number of crashes and fatalities and increase safety for the mass market.’ Their target is totally different,” Peng said. “We need to think about the millions of vehicles, not just a few thousand.”
I wonder if an easier task to reduce fatalities is to target impaired driving and develop a detection mechanism that tries to identify whether the driver is impaired. It seems like an easier and more localized problem than building a fully autonomous vehicle.