Article Analysis Essay on Self-Driving Cars: Is It Reckless to Delay

Introduction

From Kerton's article, known as self-driving cars: Is it Reckless to Delay, he describes this new technology in the industry of vehicles as an experiment, persons are represented as the guinea pigs similarly the roads are the laboratory. There is the fear of taking up this technology by the public in replacing vehicles in the world today which are human-driven. The bone of contention is that the vehicles which are human-driven cannot be left out in their destructive nature; however, the fault befalls in the hands of the driver. As much cases of accidents arise in both, it might be reckless taking up the technology of self-driven vehicles, but this does not justify following up the progression of this technology. This requires developing essential standards that will improve the uptake of this technology if the fear stands on the cases of casualties that may arise. The AVs from the ideal world has lots of benefits; however, this technology has not made advancements as far as the making of progress is concerned.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Kerton has identified standards that should be put in place to address the risks that raise fear; however, AVs technology may not be capable of covering or addressing certain areas. The use of sensors as well as cameras in the issue of achieving the fully driverless experience whereby in the sensors, the radar monitors vehicles which are nearby, video cameras that detect traffic lights as well as reading of road signs and the lidar which serves in detection of edges of roads and identifying through light pulse that bounces, this raises the alarm due to calibration. As much as lidar is of help in the process of maintaining standards, they are only limited to daytime since they provide poor recognition when it comes to night time or poor bad conditions. This, however, does not make AVs attain advancement since when it comes to human-driven vehicles, there is that inability of reacting instantly whenever a pedestrian crosses the road taking place in a flash.

However, regarding this blog, the blame is rested on the pedestrian in the efforts of emphasizing in a sensible manner of embracing this type of technology rather than sticking to the failed experiment in the human-driven vehicles blindly. In attempts of balancing the challenges, regulations, as well as the limitations the society puts on self-driven cars that have derailed the uptake of AVs, the challenge of night vision in the provision of poor recognition, rests on pedestrians. Pedestrians have the role of understanding low visibility condition as well as take up measures that would prevent this form of accidents. If night visibility would lead to slow uptake of the AVs, human-driven cars also have the challenge thus pedestrians in minimizing this putting on bright clothes as well as those riding bikes to install bike light for easier identification.

The named accidents, as well as causalities arising from AVs, may be greatly decreased if the society would take the responsibility to understand the demerits that would arise from them. Change should be embraced by society since technology is changing day by day. Any advancement in technology involves trial and error to bring out the best of it, therefore, the fears arising on the risks of AVs due to the few accident cases which have occurred should not curb the technology. Preventing future accidents as far as self-driven cars are concerned maintaining of AV s standards is essential. Nevertheless, it's reckless sticking to the human-driven cars experiments that have failed rather than embracing self-driven cars.