[MorePowerToYou]

Bringing human decision making into the loop makes things messier. If any of these human decisions need to be made quickly in the interest of safety, then the driver needs to be paying attention at all times. That won't happen. This is very dangerous. This is also complex in terms of liability. If the car hits something while driving partially autonomously, where does the responsibilty lie? The software, the driver, or somewhere else? We're far from the widespread use of autonomous cars. I'm not even going to mention the dangers of buggy software written by large companies that can't get iCloud notes syncing to work.

[legolas2412]

But giving a computer complete control of the car with no human oversight is much more dangerous.

[MorePowerToYou]

Agree 100%. This back and forth between fully-autonomous and partially-autonomous highlights the largest obstacles for "self-driving" car adoption.

The fully-autonomous route runs head-first into the inevitable, messy problems with software: security, maintenance, feature creep, complexity, unreliable networks etc. In theory, humans could nail all of these in car software. In practice, it's highly unlikely. The software industry can't even get basic security for IoT devices right.

The human-in-the-loop route runs directly into the only problem more daunting than reliable software: human nature. Human overrides for self-driving cars that need to be activated in a timely manner will not work. The drivers won't be paying enough attention to react in sufficient time. Note that overrides add even more complexity to an already fantastically complex system.

[legolas2412]

I still don't see what's wrong with current systems (driver assistance systems)

Say an always on self driving car, but it doesn't drive. Human has to drive, and the computer can correct any obvious mistakes the human does. Keep a really high liability for the car manufacturer though