This doesn't work because laterally moving obstacles can enter the roadway within your stopping distance buffer. A self-driving car MUST be able to identify obstacles, especially moving obstacles. Your stopping distance at highway speed may be equivalent to one football field, but you may be able to anticipate obstacles if you identify laterally moving objects before they enter the roadway.
Your suggested scheme for driving offers zero protection from cross traffic cutting in front of the autonomous vehicle, whether at a stoplight or otherwise.
Moreover, not all non-driveable space is created equal, so if the vehicle has to swerve to avoid a collision, it should be able to identify the difference between, say, a clearing, a pedestrian, and a pond.
These are totally basic principles with which any driver (and especially any motorcyclist) would have no trouble. The problem with your imperative statement is that it produces a pointlessly elegant, practically bad solution.
"First" does not mean "exclusively". But detection of an impending obstacle should not start with classifying that obstacle. You need only know that some geometry that looks larger than trivial is moving at a vector that will impeded your stopping distance requirement. Until that is proven to work, it is pointless to try to "understand" the object or its intent.
I'll go further. To avoid clearings, ponds, and pedestrians, Self-driving cars should be highway-daytime only until proven reliable. Starting with the edge cases and building back to the easy ones is ridiculous engineering policy.
Your suggested scheme for driving offers zero protection from cross traffic cutting in front of the autonomous vehicle, whether at a stoplight or otherwise.
Moreover, not all non-driveable space is created equal, so if the vehicle has to swerve to avoid a collision, it should be able to identify the difference between, say, a clearing, a pedestrian, and a pond.
These are totally basic principles with which any driver (and especially any motorcyclist) would have no trouble. The problem with your imperative statement is that it produces a pointlessly elegant, practically bad solution.