I know just from the top of my head that a load of that article is bullshit.
The driverless cars not being aggressive - if there are more driverless cars, they won't need to be aggressive.
The accident rate - it's been clearly detailed that all at-fault accidents have occured when the driverless cars are being controlled by the passenger.
The congestion argument has been proven a fallacy by the UKs own managed roads - if everyone is doing the same speed / driving in sync there is less congestion on packed roads. If this isn't the case, why have we just spent many millions upgrading our motorway network to favour this?
There's more I could rail through for each section; a load of rubbish.
In order to deploy enough driver-less cars, they will have to match current levels of aggression - it is only as the pf driver-less cars increase that this could be reduced.
[–] janx 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
I know just from the top of my head that a load of that article is bullshit.
The driverless cars not being aggressive - if there are more driverless cars, they won't need to be aggressive.
The accident rate - it's been clearly detailed that all at-fault accidents have occured when the driverless cars are being controlled by the passenger.
The congestion argument has been proven a fallacy by the UKs own managed roads - if everyone is doing the same speed / driving in sync there is less congestion on packed roads. If this isn't the case, why have we just spent many millions upgrading our motorway network to favour this?
There's more I could rail through for each section; a load of rubbish.
[–] Bazmeister ago
In order to deploy enough driver-less cars, they will have to match current levels of aggression - it is only as the pf driver-less cars increase that this could be reduced.