[boopboopbadoop]

> Narrow streets can be equipped with some kind of helping beacons one day

That changes the goal posts in my opinion. The “self” part of “self-driving” no longer applies.

[hiptobecubic]

I mean, many people can't drive without safety features all over their cars, GPS to help them navigate, and road signs to tell them where to go.

I don't see how "helping beacons" for robots are unfair but street lights are not.

[boopboopbadoop]

Maybe I’m drawing conclusions about what these beacons would do, but if any of the things you mentioned stop working, I can still drive and won’t go full speed into a wall. I don’t have the same confidence in these beacons.

[hiptobecubic]

Why would a car that is having trouble orienting itself go full speed?

[boopboopbadoop]

Software bug? I think you’re dodging the point a bit - going into a wall at any speed is bad.

Alternatively, say it has trouble orienting itself and slows down. That can be just as dangerous if cars behind you are going fast (e.g. a highway).

[nexuist]

Does it matter? If investing in smart infrastructure is what it takes to recognize this reality, who is this a downside for? It's like saying we can't build any more intersections because we'd have to buy traffic lights.

[boopboopbadoop]

I’m criticizing the “self-driving” term, which seems to be having more and more asterisks applied to it. What’s next, the cars will need tracks?