[kube-system]

We expect human drivers to attempt to avoid accidents which are not their fault (see: legal duty to lookout/avoid), why shouldn't we do the same for non-human drivers? To not do this seems like a step backwards in safety expectations.

[melling]

But human drivers have similar accidents.

The good news is they can fix the self-driving software then replicate the solution forever in millions of cars.

Now, how to prevent the small number of humans who do the same thing?

[kube-system]

If you are saying that the car bares some responsibility for avoiding this, and should be fixed, then we agree.

[forgetfreeman]

We can entertain that second hypothetical once the first one's been covered yeah?

[dkjaudyeqooe]

I was going to add that cones are just as important for human drivers but I thought it was obvious. I don't think human drivers can detect wet concrete (or other hidden hazards) any better than machines.

These sorts of safety issues have been a always been a problem, with lax markings, etc, but now are more acute with non-human drivers.

I think ultimately it raises the question of whether it's reasonable to offer some accommodations to non-human drivers where they don't perform so well. Do they have to be at the standard of human drivers for everything? That's probably impossible.