[IanCal]

> Wouldn't that conceptually be the right thing for the software to do, copy the human in front of it (

I see people failing to follow the rules for bad reasons far more often than for any good reason. I don't want my car driving off to the side of the lane just because the car in front isn't centred. It should assume the right thing to do is to follow the rules, and hand off to me in cases that are more complicated.

[grepfru_it]

Ugh. So I’m working on a fork of openpilot and the way the OP model is designed, it has its own rules that is not rooted in any legal driving framework for any state. The simple one is staying right. My state says your vehicle must stay on the right side of the road including roads without markings. OP will try to drive in the middle of the road. Another one is how OP does not distinguish people from parked cars or how oncoming cars are not tracked but simply an object the car should try to avoid (though it does not do this very well and experiences frequent disengagements due to it)

Obviously a model which manage these conditions would fair better but the comma hardware is fairly underpowered for any stronger use case.

I have added dedicated compute to my car to handle a lot of driving rules but now my solution is independent of comma. I tie into the LVDS display on the console so the integration is immersive, but it also means I don’t need comma for the hardware. My fork is also starting to diverge from OP so I may have a competing (but tangential) product!