Self-Driving Cars -- Needs of the Many vs Numero Uno

[ERD50]

My dad had to set the spark advance and crank it without losing his thumb.

Your Dad had spark advance!!?? Luxury!

My Dad had to hold the magneto coil in his teeth, while cranking the engine with a broken arm, while standing in a puddle of water!

-ERD50

 

[aja8888]

Your Dad had spark advance!!?? Luxury!

My Dad had to hold the magneto coil in his teeth, while cranking the engine with a broken arm, while standing in a puddle of water!

-ERD50

My Dad had to make his own gasoline by cooking crude oil on the kitchen stove.

 

[kgtest]

imagine if Mr Ford were delivered two model-t's, one was self-driving... which would he choose?


The different experience that comes with autonomous driving would not be initially enjoyed by me...I become one with my vehicle and the experience that comes with manually driving a car...it's almost like a pet that I keep alive and well as long as I can, groomed for a Westchester Gold at a moments notice.

 

[6miths]

Ah I love the banter about the good old days. I was going to take it up another notch but before you know it someone's ancestor is dragging themselves up out of an ancient ocean and the thread gets locked. I want to hear more about self-driving cars.

 

[travelover]

Your Dad had spark advance!!?? Luxury!

My Dad had to hold the magneto coil in his teeth, while cranking the engine with a broken arm, while standing in a puddle of water!

-ERD50

That's nothing. My dad had no teeth nor an arm. And it was a 30 year drought, thus no water.

 

[Big_Hitter]

you are what you drive, not what drives you

 

[JoeWras]

More about self driving cars? OK. I tried to read everything, but may have missed this.

The ultimate vision is... no traffic control lights. Who needs them? The cars know. Just like there are no green or red lights in the sky, there will be no TCLs. Cars will flow freely through intersections, perfectly timed to "weave" through each other. (I'm searching desperately for an animated gif and can't find it.)

Being a passenger in these cars -- it could be quite frightful. Every intersection will be a near miss. But if you want to do it and reach the full potential, it has to go to this extreme. Keep in mind the cars won't just "examine their environment and drive". No, they will talk to each other and give instructions to each other to allow this weaving to occur.

Pedestrians? Bridges and tunnels in high traffic areas. TCLs will still exist only for pedestrians at designated intersections or designated crossing areas.

Manual drivers? You are not allowed. Presumably the cars would see you as a manual driver, report you, and a robo cop would come and extract you with significant fine or loss of all manual driving privileges.

Although it may be very efficient, I see this future as depressing.

 

[Senator]

Here's a real-life example of an accident that I avoided, but that I doubt a driverless car would be able to avoid: Driving after a big snowstorm, a car (who couldn't see around the snowbank) pulled out of a parking lot directly into my path. My obvious options were (1) slam on the brakes, which may have reduced my speed some but would not have avoided the collision, or (2) swerve into oncoming traffic. But I chose another option - I intentionally veered to the right and sideswiped the snowbank, and thereby was able to stop in time to avoid a collision. It's hard to imagine that a driverless car would be programmed to do the same. Among other things, it would have to recognize the obstruction on the right as being a snowbank rather than a rock or something else.

No problem. Cars would have GPS and be able to talk with each other when they are within 1/4 mile away or so. Based on the car's trajectory, only cars that could even collide would need to 'see' each other. Cars headed away, or on opposing streets, would not need to link up.

My own car has anti-skid options. Cars would know the traction that the road had. Previous cars that went that route would feed into the system. And would take the cautious approach if there was any doubt. Not much different than traffic speeds today and GPS.

Easy problem to solve.

 

[JoeWras]

No problem. Cars would have GPS and be able to talk with each other when they are within 1/4 mile away or so. Based on the car's trajectory, only cars that could even collide would need to 'see' each other. Cars headed away, or on opposing streets, would not need to link up.

My own car has anti-skid options. Cars would know the traction that the road had. Previous cars that went that route would feed into the system. And would take the cautious approach if there was any doubt. Not much different than traffic speeds today and GPS.

Easy problem to solve.

Yes, if the other car is a driverless car, or had 2 way telemetry, this would not happen. Just like the "intersection weaving" will be possible.

However, if we allow manual cars (classic?) on the road, then anything can happen. I think the real challenge will be the phase-over years.

 

[txtig]

The ultimate vision is... no traffic control lights. Who needs them? The cars know. Just like there are no green or red lights in the sky, there will be no TCLs. Cars will flow freely through intersections, perfectly timed to "weave" through each other.

Here's an interesting article from CNET discussing V-2-V, or vehicle to vehicle. The cars will be talking to each other, keeping in constant contact with each other so they all know what the others are doing. Not really in the context of self driving cars, but more near-term, as a safety refinement, while we're still allowed to drive. But, it does lay the foundation for the elimination of TCL's noted above.

http://www.cnet.com/news/what-did-one-car-say-to-the-other-car-dont-turn-left-turn-yet/

 

[Walt34]

Wait a minute. What happened to flying cars? When did that version of the future get pushed aside by driver-free cars?

If one is ever developed that works well it will be very expensive, as is almost any machine that is trying to do two very different tasks because of the design compromises that have to be made. A Cessna 182 is mechanically a much simpler machine than a Chevrolet car but costs many times more not only to buy but to own because of the scheduled maintenance and inspection costs.

Getting back to the original question there is no doubt in my mind that autonomous-driving cars will be safer than humans and should be implemented ASAP. I spend 18 years on the road as a police officer and wrote what I thought was a pretty impressive stack of accident reports, and I didn't even work in the traffic section.

NOT ONCE did I see a collision that could not have been avoided by reasonably proficient drivers who were sober, driving within the traffic laws, and paying attention to the task of driving their own respective cars.

Frankly I can't wait for self-driving cars and firmly believe that overall the world will be a much safer, if not as exciting, a place. For those who feel that being in control of their own car is a constitutional right, I hate to bust your bubble but every state maintains that driving is a privilege, not a right. I believe that most other countries do too. (If not someone will correct me I'm sure.) Once self-driving cars are proven and affordable those who insist on driving themselves will be welcome to do so at the local track and will not be allowed to risk other people's lives to prove that their outdated skills can beat a computer.

Consider the parallel with vaccines, which have in many cases have virtually eliminated once-deadly and crippling diseases, at least in third-world countries. But once in a great long while, some unfortunate person has a bad reaction to a vaccine and may be seriously injured or killed by it. I doubt anyone would argue that society should give up vaccines though.

Oh, and computers have already put the jobs of a lot of fighter pilots at risk: This AI Can Beat a Top Fighter Pilot - D-brief

If a computer can outfly a fighter pilot I'm sure one will be along that can drive a car or truck. It's only a matter of time.

 

[Senator]

Whoops... Maybe Telsa is not quite ready for prime time.

The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said on Thursday it is opening a preliminary investigation into 25,000 Tesla Motors Model S cars after a fatal crash involving a vehicle using the "Autopilot" mode.

US regulators investigating Tesla over use of automated system linked to fatal crash

 

[Music Lover]

I'm surprised that more people aren't concerned with the government "creep" and excessive regulations that would be sure to accompany driverless cars. You can guarantee that driverless cars will have some government control and data collection, and the visions of a driverless utopia could easily become lost in a maze of bureaucratic control, red tape, and restrictions.

 

[old woman]

Last week my boyfriend saw a deer and swerved knowing it was coming on to the road. His bumper hit the deer but if he didn't see it and know how deer act it could have been in the windshield. He carries a gun so put down the deer who had a shattered leg.
Self driving will make different choices some better some worse will they swerve for a deer but not a bunny?

 

[MichaelB]

If one is ever developed that works well it will be very expensive, as is almost any machine that is trying to do two very different tasks because of the design compromises that have to be made. A Cessna 182 is mechanically a much simpler machine than a Chevrolet car but costs many times more not only to buy but to own because of the scheduled maintenance and inspection costs.

Getting back to the original question there is no doubt in my mind that autonomous-driving cars will be safer than humans and should be implemented ASAP. I spend 18 years on the road as a police officer and wrote what I thought was a pretty impressive stack of accident reports, and I didn't even work in the traffic section.

NOT ONCE did I see a collision that could not have been avoided by reasonably proficient drivers who were sober, driving within the traffic laws, and paying attention to the task of driving their own respective cars.

Frankly I can't wait for self-driving cars and firmly believe that overall the world will be a much safer, if not as exciting, a place. For those who feel that being in control of their own car is a constitutional right, I hate to bust your bubble but every state maintains that driving is a privilege, not a right. I believe that most other countries do too. (If not someone will correct me I'm sure.) Once self-driving cars are proven and affordable those who insist on driving themselves will be welcome to do so at the local track and will not be allowed to risk other people's lives to prove that their outdated skills can beat a computer.

Consider the parallel with vaccines, which have in many cases have virtually eliminated once-deadly and crippling diseases, at least in third-world countries. But once in a great long while, some unfortunate person has a bad reaction to a vaccine and may be seriously injured or killed by it. I doubt anyone would argue that society should give up vaccines though.

Oh, and computers have already put the jobs of a lot of fighter pilots at risk: This AI Can Beat a Top Fighter Pilot - D-brief

If a computer can outfly a fighter pilot I'm sure one will be along that can drive a car or truck. It's only a matter of time.

An excellent post. If I had any minor disagreement it would be with the last line. AI for a fighter is, at least in one aspect, easier than AI for an auto. The reason being, with the fighter, you assume your opponent is skilled, intelligent, capable, and sober. With autos, AI needs to consider all that plus the ones that should not be behind the wheel.

 

[old woman]

Driverless will be great for kids needing a ride to soccer practice and too young to drive as well as the elderly and handicapped and impaired people. Medicine that says not to drive while using it or having smoked some grass and you can still go places. People who might have a stroke or seizure will be able to drive and maybe they can monitor them so they can be taken directly to the emergency room if they have an issue.

 

[Walt34]

If I had any minor disagreement it would be with the last line. AI for a fighter is, at least in one aspect, easier than AI for an auto. The reason being, with the fighter, you assume your opponent is skilled, intelligent, capable, and sober. With autos, AI needs to consider all that plus the ones that should not be behind the wheel.

I'll concede that dealing with idiots is much more difficult than dealing with normal, reasonable, intelligent people.....

 

[Nodak]

I am not convinced self driving cars will be that good. Try driving in a snow storm with 40mph cross winds and shelter belts occasionally beside the road. How will the software react to the sudden disappearance and reappearance of the cross wind as you pass by the tree line.

 

[Amethyst]

Some don't live near public transportation. Or live where public transportation is its own little form of hell.

A lot of older folks [-]don't like to give up the independence[/-]have no one to step in and take over the driving, and drive longer than it appears safe to do so... this gives an option that's safer for everyone.

 

[NW-Bound]

Whoops... Maybe Telsa is not quite ready for prime time.

In this recent fatal accident, the driver of that Tesla was killed when his car went under an 18-wheeler. Ugh!

Tesla said that its camera did not recognize the white side of the trailer against the bright sky. Apparently, Tesla cars do not have millimeter-wave radar or lidar like Google test cars in order to detect obstacles, and rely completely on camera vision.

In an earlier non-fatal accident, a Tesla ran under a truck because its camera did not look up high enough.

Computers do not make mistakes, but only if they get the right "inputs". No sensor input, no braking, no swerving. Straight under the semi it goes at full speed.

 

[travelover]

Last week my boyfriend saw a deer and swerved knowing it was coming on to the road. His bumper hit the deer but if he didn't see it and know how deer act it could have been in the windshield. He carries a gun so put down the deer who had a shattered leg.
Self driving will make different choices some better some worse will they swerve for a deer but not a bunny?

In a performance driving class I took, we were taught not to swerve for a deer, but to brake hard and aim for where the deer was. Swerving leads to roll overs and usually the deer has moved from when you reacted.

 

[Texas Proud]

In this recent fatal accident, the driver of that Tesla was killed when his car went under an 18-wheeler. Ugh!

Tesla said that its camera did not recognize the white side of the trailer against the bright sky. Apparently, Tesla cars do not have millimeter-wave radar or lidar like Google test cars in order to detect obstacles, and rely completely on camera vision.

In an earlier non-fatal accident, a Tesla ran under a truck because its camera did not look up high enough.

Computers do not make mistakes, but only if they get the right "inputs". No sensor input, no braking, no swerving. Straight under the semi it goes at full speed.

The other thing is that I have read about this happening to regular drivers... IOW, seeing the truck does not mean the outcome would be any different.... I had a coworker killed maybe 16 or so years ago by a semi who came over the wall separating the different traffic directions...


It would seem that this might be an easy fix if the camera has a view... but I would bet that this was not something that they had thought about happening so it was not programmed in...

 

[NW-Bound]

A computer with the proper sensors would be able to apply the brake sooner and more effectively than a driver would. Perhaps it could swerve around the truck if it had been monitoring the traffic in the next lanes, etc... In this case, the computer never applied braking, not even as a last ditch effort.

Of all autonomous car developers, Google has been the most responsible and careful. Its car has that ugly spinning lidar on the rooftop, which many other experimental cars do not have. They go around collect lots of data and study it afterwards to see if their computer would recognize a hazard. And they still limit the speed to 25 mph to be safe.

Tesla position? They still say that this mode is still in beta mode, and the drivers are ultimately responsible. I guess they use their customers as test pilots, but the customers do not realize that. Some will pay the price. I am actually surprised this has gone on so long without a serious accident. Youtube has several videos of Tesla drivers demonstrating the computer screwing up, or dumping the driving on their lap unexpectedly. It is really irresponsible.

PS. I would like to see the video footage that the onboard computer camera recorded in that accident. Surely, the side of the semi-trailer may be white, but how about the semi engine and its cab, the big wheels? Maybe they showed up in the camera, but their computer did not recognize them as part of a BIG vehicle. Machine Artificial Intelligence, meaning software to implement recognition and situational awareness, is not as advanced as it is portrayed in sci-fi movies.

 

[JoeWras]

I am not convinced self driving cars will be that good. Try driving in a snow storm with 40mph cross winds and shelter belts occasionally beside the road. How will the software react to the sudden disappearance and reappearance of the cross wind as you pass by the tree line.

Well, presumably, if smart cars are as smart as people are describing here, they'll eventually have a vast database of such situations. If I were to travel to N. Dakota, I'd be in the ditch because I don't have that experience you do. But my smart car would know.

I know about the 4 places on my daily drive that collect ponding water, resulting in significant hydroplane events. You wouldn't know about those, but the smart car -- tapped into the database -- would.

 

[Chuckanut]

My understanding is that 100% self driving cars rely very heavily on very detailed digitized photos of of the area they are in and very accurate maps. Detours, combined with changes in buildings or other structures can cause these cars to literally not know where they are. Not so good.