[femto]

I think your first paragraph is written from the perspective of a human driver. The machine can predict based on physics. If anything a person who does not see a car will be more predictable, not less, as they will tend to be moving uniformly and not taking evasive action.

Taking into account optimal (computer driven) car stopping distances, the maximum acceleration of a person and typical pedestrian densities, I don't think getting though cities would be an issue, especially outside the CBD. Even in areas with very high pedestrian traffic cars will be able to get though. In support of this argument, I offer today's "shared" pedestrian zones, where cars and people mix. Pedestrians have right of way, cars are limited to 10km/h, but the cars manage to get though without injuring anyone. Cars would naturally do high speeds on main roads with low pedestrian density and lower speeds (with very short stopping distance) at high pedestrian density.

Why should children have a propensity to intentionally jump in front cars above and beyond anyone else? That's bias.

If anyone intentionally jumped in front of a car then it would be covered by the exemption that I proposed: that the car would not be liable if intent could be proved. Based on the car's sensor logs it would be pretty easy to prove that someone intended to get hit. If the car managed to stop and the person ran away it would then be relatively easy to track that person down based on the logs and charge them with a crime. In any case, I think that that is a hypothetical situation which is unlikely to occur. For the vast majority of people self preservation would trump the desire to cause trouble by putting oneself in a terrifying and life-threatening situation, so I think it would be negligibly rare.

[URSpider94]

My point is not that children would jump in front of cars. It’s that they would run toward the curb with a heading and velocity that would dictate a collision, then stop just before entering the street. They would do it for the main reason that children do things - because it would be hilarious to watch self-driving cars leave a patch on the road and jerk their passengers back with seatbelt pretensioners. If you don’t actually set foot in the street, you’re not breaking the law.

Changing the average travel speed from 45 kph (the city-wide speed limit in New York) to 10 kph would be a disaster.

[cmsj]

This makes no sense.

If I see a kid running towards the road, I'm going to slow or stop my car. I'm not going to think "oh it's just a kid being a jerk, they'll definitely stop before the road" because I don't want to run the risk of squashing a kid.

Therefore, I behave exactly the same as a cautious AI would be expected to behave.

So, why aren't kids running to the edge of the sidewalk when I'm driving?

[henrikeh]

In most countries obstructing the flow of traffic, no matter the method, is illegal.

And what alternative do you suggest? Not braking?

[URSpider94]

For your consideration: https://www.google.com/amp/s/spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-thi...