I would like to make you aware of several significant issues with the technology you are promoting.

Remote Operation for Safety Driving or Control — There are two fatal flaws with these systems. One is the network latency that grows over distance that cannot be resolved and th lack of a full motion system. More here

Remote Control for Autonomous Vehicles — A far worse idea than the use of Public Shadow “Safety” Driving

Creating Autonomous Vehicles — The use of public shadow and safety driving as the primary approach to developing and testing these systems will never lead to L4 and harms people for no reason. Those safety issues involve handover, which cannot be resolved in most complex scenarios by any monitoring and control system, counter to what you wrote. And that these AV makers will have to eventually learn thousands of accident scenarios. That will cause thousands of injuries and deaths. The solution is to shift 99.9% of this to aerospace/DoD simulation. (Not the gaming architecture based systems that are dominate right now. They have significant real-time and model fidelity as well as scaling/loading issues.)

More here

SAE Autonomous Vehicle Engineering Magazine-End Public Shadow Driving

https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/sae/ave_201901/index.php

Common Misconceptions about Aerospace/DoD/FAA Simulation for Autonomous Vehicles

Using the Real World is better than Proper Simulation for Autonomous Vehicle Development — NONSENSE

How Driverless Vehicle Makers Should Prove their Technology Works

https://medium.com/@imispgh/how-driverless-vehicle-makers-should-prove-their-technology-works-2131f52b4c72

Written by

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store