[SystemSafety] Nature article on driverless cars

Peter Bishop pgb at adelard.com
Mon Apr 16 17:58:42 CEST 2018

On 16/04/2018 12:35, Peter Bernard Ladkin wrote:
> The authors of the Nature opinion are advocating human supervisory
> control (in their title, as you point out) but not addressing any of
> the known and unsolved issues with it. It is open to an AV-advocate
> to argue that "people ... retain[ing] control" brings you such
> problems and it leads to a worse solution than full AV without
> supervisory control. (Again, I am not advocating this point of view.
> I am merely expressing it so it can be debated.)

Maybe the Nature authors should have concluded that drivers should
always drive, and automation should only warn, and possibly take a
safety action like applying the brake if the driver takes no notice.

With luck this might improve on the current human safety record. For
example, there have been multiple fatal instances of drivers looking a
mobile phones and running into vehicles that have stopped. Relatively
simple automation could be put in address it.

I would argue that if we are serious about safety we should start at the
other end by looking at where automation would reduce accidents most and
address these scenarios first.


Peter Bishop
Chief Scientist
Adelard LLP
24 Waterside, 44-48 Wharf Rd, London N1 7UX
Recep:  +44-(0)20-7832 5850
Direct: +44-(0)20-7832 5855

Registered office: Stourside Place, Station Road, Ashford, Kent TN12 1PP
Registered in England & Wales no. OC 304551. VAT no. 454 489808

This e-mail, and any attachments, is confidential and for the use of
the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, please
telephone 020 7832 5850. We do not accept legal responsibility for
this e-mail or any viruses.

More information about the systemsafety mailing list