¢ñ.ÔĶÁÀí½â

[2020·³É¶¼ÊиßÖбÏÒµ°àÃþµ×²âÊÔ]Self£­driving cars have been backed by the hope that they will save lives by getting involved in fewer crashes with fewer injuries and deaths than human£­driven cars. But so far, most comparisons between human drivers and automated vehicles have been unfair.

Crash statistics for human£­driven cars are gathered from all sorts of driving situations, and on all types of roads. However, most of the data on self£­driving cars' safety have been recorded often in good weather and on highways, where the most important tasks are staying in the car's own lane and not getting too close to the vehicle ahead. Automated cars are good at those tasks, but so are humans.

It is true that self£­driving cars don't get tired, angry, frustrated or drunk. But neither can they yet react to uncertain situations with the same skill or anticipation of an attentive human driver. Nor do they possess the foresight to avoid potential perils. They largely drive from moment to moment, rather than think ahead to possible events literally down the road.

To a self£­driving car, a bus full of people might appear quite similar to an uninhabited cornfield. Indeed, deciding what action to take in an emergency is difficult for humans, but drivers have sacrificed themselves for the greater good of others. An automated system's limited understanding of the world means it will almost never evaluate (ÆÀ¹À) a situation the same way a human would.And machines can't be programmed in advance to handle every imaginable set of events.

Some people may argue that the promise of simply reducing the number of injuries and deaths is enough to support driverless cars. But experience from aviation (º½¿Õ) shows that as new automated systems are introduced, there is often an increase in the rate of disasters.

Therefore  comparisons  between  humans  and  automated vehicles have to be performed carefully.  To fairly evaluate driverless cars on how well they fulfill their promise of improved safety, it's important to ensure the data being presented actually provide a true comparison. After all, choosing to replace humans with automation has more effects than simply a one£­for£­one exchange.

1£®What makes the comparison between self£­driving cars and  human£­driven cars unfair?

A£®Self£­driving cars never get tired.

B£®Statistics are collected differently.

C£®Machines can make decisions faster.

D£®Self£­driving cars know the world better.

2£®What does the underlined word “perils” in Paragraph 3 most probably mean?

A£®Dangers.  B£®Self£­driving cars.

C£®Pedestrians.  D£®Human£­driven cars.

3£®In which aspect can self£­driving cars beat human£­driven cars?

A£®Driving steadily.

B£®Climbing steep slopes.

C£®Evaluating the cost of loss.

D£®Making complex decisions.

4£®Why does the author write this text?

A£®To support human£­driven cars.

B£®To show his doubt about self£­driving cars.

C£®To call for exact evaluation of self£­driving cars.

D£®To stress the importance of reducing car accidents.