I think you are mischaracterizing the problem. Nuisance braking seems to be far more prevalent in AVs than in humans, partly because image classification has more uncertainty.
Now, couple that with: 1) a general approach of "when in doubt, brake" and the hacky workaround to suppress braking if it's occurring too much, and you've got a bad nuisance braking problem that's primed for a safety incident.
But again, this is disjointed from reality. I'd agree that if we all left the recommended 4.5 seconds of stopping distance, we'd all be safer. But that's not how our roads were built and that's not how humans drive. You're tilting at windmills here to make a point that doesn't need to be made because it doesn't apply to reality.
> But that's not how our roads were built and that's not how humans drive.
Oh, it emphatically is how our roads were built. Most miles in the states were still laid down in an era where cars didn't do more than 45. As for how humans drive... I'll direct the audience's attention to the 3,700 per day road fatality rate in the United States. Even if they brake check more than human drivers, an automated vehicle being forced to follow its programming to maintain a healthy follow distance may very well save lives, especially in an ecosystem where they are the dominant vehicle on the road as opposed to human operated vehicles.
Fair enough. I should have said not how our roads were built in the context of modern cars and population levels. I thought that assumption was a given. So, sure, we could program every car to obey the speed limit and have a 4.5 sec following distance. But do you think those tradeoffs will be palatable to society? The last portion of my comment was aimed at the oft-ignored aspect that public policy will govern the extent of AV adoption. You have to design your product in that environment, not an abstract one that's been sanitized from all those aspects. The best product in the world is still worthless if society says they don't want you selling it.
Now, couple that with: 1) a general approach of "when in doubt, brake" and the hacky workaround to suppress braking if it's occurring too much, and you've got a bad nuisance braking problem that's primed for a safety incident.
But again, this is disjointed from reality. I'd agree that if we all left the recommended 4.5 seconds of stopping distance, we'd all be safer. But that's not how our roads were built and that's not how humans drive. You're tilting at windmills here to make a point that doesn't need to be made because it doesn't apply to reality.