[ClumsyPilot]

> According to the article, the non-camera sensors are in the $1000’s per car range.... I’m guessing camera systems will be the safest economically-viable option, at least until the compute price drops to under a few hundred dollars.

Human life is worth about $10 million (in US), that's a bit more than the sensor does. If one in 10,000 of camera-only car causes deaths, then it's not economically viable.

A London bus costs about $300,000, it is economically viable. Why is $1,000 sensor a problem. It is definitely viable to be installed on busses and trucks. Maybe you need to get out of the mindset of personal cars. It is not a viable business model, and it is not a viable model of dealing with congestion either.

[hedora]

If the car fleet kills half as many people as a human with a $1000/car system, and zero people with a $100,000 system, then we should immediately put the $1000 system on 100 times as many cars as we could put the $100,000 system on. (I picked those numbers because that is the order of magnitude range I have heard self driving car companies quote.)

The $100,000 system would only ever make sense if the fleet was already entirely self driving, and money for other life saving stuff like the environment and health care also hit suitable diminishing returns. Of course, by then, the cheap systems will have improved.

This argument holds for any non-negative dollar value you place on human life.

It is also independent of who owns the vehicles. Money the bus fleet spends in expensive self driving pulls money away from bus stop upgrades, pollution controls, etc, etc.