[stordoff]

What do you do in the case where the driver and the computer disagree? Say there is an object directly in front of the car - driver turns left to avoid, computer turns right to avoid. You have to take SOME action -- you can't do nothing otherwise you hit the obstacle. If you go with the driver, what is the point of the computer if it can't overrule bad decisions? That's equivalent to just letting the driver drive. If you go with the computer, what is the point of the driver? Only taking actions due to an AND of driver and computer inputs seems to only work if there is one correct course of action, which I doubt is the case in many situations.

Maybe you could have a system where the computer only takes actions to deliberately prevent unsafe situations, and is conservative in doing so (i.e. it doesn't drive, per se, but brings the car to a safe stop or enforces a maximum speed), but that's a huge step down from the current goals.

[patentatt]

Haha, yeah, good point. In the event of contrary inputs, I guess one does have to supersede, e.g., one is the 'pilot' and one is the 'co-pilot.' Your proposal is much better thought out. But then I think we've described the collision avoidance systems that are in production today. Take it any further and you run into the disengaged driver situation.