Poll: Self-Driving Cars

[NW-Bound]

And I have just two words to say:

Pavement markings

Apparently our DOT/City here in Raleigh have decided to give up on marking the pavement. Double-left turn lanes are now a nightmare. The little "hash marks" to help cars navigate this are all gone in most of the intersections I traverse. Drivers can't deal with it. If you are in the left lane of a 2 turner, there's a good chance the driver next to you will force you into oncoming traffic.

Until our governments decide to support self driving cars, the technology is going to suffer. Start with painting some $%^! lines already!

If they can't afford to support 3000 year old technology (lane painting), how on earth will they get the money for smart sensors, intelligent signals, etc?

Maybe smart cars can figure out how to share the road without any markings? People are already describing how intelligent cars can talk wirelessly with one another. There may not be any need for traffic signals, as cars can weave through an intersection using coordination, without slowing down. That's what people say, and you've got to admit it is all within current technology. So, what's the problem?

 

[Chris7]

I enjoy driving. As long as I can drive safely, I should be allowed to drive. Maybe you like Soda, but it is really, really bad for you. Should it be banned?

That being said, my son recently had an accident that a Level 3, maybe even a 2 car wouldn't have had. No one but the car was injured in his case, thankfully.

So around the city, around lots of cars, sure let's make it as safe as possible. But I want to feel the thrill of driving through the wine country, let me go. :O)

 

[NW-Bound]

So around the city, around lots of cars, sure let's make it as safe as possible. But I want to feel the thrill of driving through the wine country, let me go. :O)

Nope. VR headset for you!

 

[Midpack]

I enjoy driving. As long as I can drive safely, I should be allowed to drive.

Who decides what safe is - you? If the projections come true and humans in level 1 cars actually cause 10 times as many accidents as a level 5 self driving car, still your choice? You become a significant hazard to other drivers.

At some point (many years from now), insurance on level 1 cars may become prohibitively expensive, severely restricted or no longer available. Or manually driven cars may be completely outlawed on public roads. If you want to drive old school, you go to a site, almost like 'amusement parks' where humans can manually drive cars on private roads only.

[Edit: 50 years from now when most of us are riding around in level 5 self driving cars with no steering wheel, pedals, etc. - folks like you wil still be able to buy at a premium, a car with all the manual controls of today that you can drive yourself. BUT, it will also have level 5 self driving capability, and the instant you do something remotely dangerous, the car will take over control and disable your controls. Probably more likely?]

It's all speculating, and it'll take decades to fully evolve, but there may come a day where it's no longer a choice. Just like you can't ride a horse on roads with cars in many places people did 100+ years ago - evidently that transition took place between 1920 and 1939.

 

[Bruceski44]

I have always loved driving. Staying safe, smooth and consistent is a joy to me. I define safe as avoiding accidents and potentially unsafe conditions, like others who may be unpredictable or worse. If you do something which causes me to avoid or brake, you get a demerit in my book. It's been 20 years since anyone has honked at me.

If we must, I say have a self-driving lane or two on the freeway, but keep all the fun backroads interactive. they are more difficult for the algorithms to handle anyway.

 

[JoeWras]

Maybe smart cars can figure out how to share the road without any markings? People are already describing how intelligent cars can talk wirelessly with one another. There may not be any need for traffic signals, as cars can weave through an intersection using coordination, without slowing down. That's what people say, and you've got to admit it is all within current technology. So, what's the problem?

Of course they will. GPS will be fine tuned. Cars will talk with each other. Etc.

But not in 2030. No way. And probably not 2040. There will be too many "old cars" still. Maybe 2060.

I'm talking about the phase over. Current level 2/3 systems need markings. Current level 0 (PEOPLE) need markings.

If governments can't afford to mark pavement, I have little faith they'll come up with good, secure standards for car to car communication, signal to car communication, road to car communication, hardened GPS transmitters, etc.

You gotta start somewhere, and that somewhere requires pavement markings.

Did you all see the Tesla that slammed into the wall because of a driver that let the car drive on a road under construction? The bad markings confused both Telsa and other drivers.

Here's a link to that incident. Notice the confusing lane markings:
https://youtu.be/fQxIhMBKblY

And I repeat: YES, the car was being asked to do more than it should. The driver should not have had it in this mode without him paying attention.

 

[NW-Bound]

Joe, I was writing the above in jest. I posted that video in another thread. Pretty dumb "autopilot", eh? Just a lane follower. Yep, people who do not know the capability of their fancy car get into trouble. So, what is new?

I am skeptical that all the above about smart cars will happen in my life, or the years that I have left. Just because something is theoretically possible does not mean it is economically feasible as quickly as people think.

I hope I will be proven wrong, but then I am rarely called an optimist.

 

[JoeWras]

Joe, I was writing the above in jest. I posted that video in another thread. Pretty dumb "autopilot", eh? Just a lane follower. Yep, people who do not know the capability of their fancy car get into trouble. So, what is new?

I am skeptical that all the above about smart cars will happen in my life, or the years that I have left. Just because something is theoretically possible does not mean it is economically feasible as quickly as people think.

I hope I will be proven wrong, but then I am rarely called an optimist.

Ahhh, I see we are violently agreeing.

I love cars and driving, but I know I'm breaking down. My knees are bad enough that I think I have to give up the clutch. So, in many ways I hope for true self-drivers so I can keep my independence.

But, alas, I don't think I'll live long enough either.

 

[dixonge]

About dixonge's song, when true autonomous cars arrive, sure you can still have wind in your hair, a stick shift for you to play with (but it is not connected to anything), a gas pedal that will generate the sound "Vrooom, vrooom", but that's all it does.

In other words, you will be like a kid driving a coin-operated toy car in front of the supermarkets, while a computer does the real driving.

That song was about breaking the law with a classic gas-guzzling, stick-shift sports car, FYI.

 

[NW-Bound]

I don't enjoy driving any more. And driving my motorhome is very tiring, a big part because I tow a car and it does affect the handling. If a computer can drive so I can sit back and enjoy the scenery, I would welcome it.

Alas, just wishing for something does not make it materialize.

 

[NW-Bound]

That song was about breaking the law with a classic gas-guzzling, stick-shift sports car, FYI.

That's why I said you will not have a chance, and be left with just your imagination while sitting in a toy car when un-automated cars are banned.

 

[Totoro]

Hmm... interesting that this chart seems to be predicting widespread adoption of fully-autonomous vehicles by about 2037. If I recall correctly, that's within a few years of the date of "the singularity" originally predicted by Ray Kurzweil about ten years ago. I think he's recently revised it to 2045, though.

General AI by 2029, the last invention we ever need to make.

an AI is expected to pass the Turing test by the last year of the decade (2029)

So that doesn't make much logical sense

In my view: how fast and where exactly the water flows is unpredictable, but the general direction is quite clear.

I've misplaced the source just now, but the lead of deep learning at Google estimates we're now at 1/10.000th the level of sophistication vs. a human brain. With doubling of $/Power every 30 months and 13 doublings to go, that's 30 years before we arrive at full human capacity. 2045 it is. The crazy part is that following that logic in 2040 we're only at 25%, likely below a functional IQ. Not that AI would follow that development path.

Sounds about right to me, with all the caveats that apply. One catastrophe and we're toast. Even a serious hiccup in tech development and we'll never get there.

 

[dixonge]

That's why I said you will not have a chance, and be left with just your imagination while sitting in a toy car when un-automated cars are banned.

Bans are for breaking!

 

[Texas Proud]

I have been thinking about if more or less accidents would occur no matter what level we get too...

At first I was with NWBound.... you know that there are going to be people who think they can ignore driving like the guy who was killed with the truck...

But then I thought.... would not some of the driving assist kick in most of the time One of the first items will be auto braking... and if someone is not paying attention at least that should kick in more often than not to either prevent and accident or reduce the damage...

Also, lane change warnings that can steer the car are in the lower level and that would help prevent some accidents...


SOOO, I have changed my thinking that a net net the number of accidents will be reduced even with drivers not knowing the full capabilities of the car... I also throw in that getting to level 4 and 5 will be many years and people will learn over those years what to expect... and finally, from what I have seen on TV, the cars give a warning if they need assist or even stop if you do not touch the steering wheel every so often.... so it is kinda being built in the systems to let a driver know what kind of car they are in...

 

[NW-Bound]

Bans are for breaking!

Ah, they will catch you, seize your rare un-automated vintage car, and compress it in a crusher while making you watch in tears. Hey, looks like this can be made into a futuristic movie. Maybe you can be the protagonist.

Seriously, as long as there are older cars on the road and there are people who like to drive, it is not feasible to pass laws banning them. Eventually all older cars will die out, and the problem goes away. I am neutral here on this "car war", just thinking out what will happen.

It ain't matter though, because I may not live long enough to see any of this futuristic society.

 

[NW-Bound]

I have been thinking about if more or less accidents would occur no matter what level we get too...

At first I was with NWBound.... you know that there are going to be people who think they can ignore driving like the guy who was killed with the truck...

But then I thought.... would not some of the driving assist kick in most of the time One of the first items will be auto braking... and if someone is not paying attention at least that should kick in more often than not to either prevent and accident or reduce the damage...

Also, lane change warnings that can steer the car are in the lower level and that would help prevent some accidents...


SOOO, I have changed my thinking that a net net the number of accidents will be reduced even with drivers not knowing the full capabilities of the car... I also throw in that getting to level 4 and 5 will be many years and people will learn over those years what to expect... and finally, from what I have seen on TV, the cars give a warning if they need assist or even stop if you do not touch the steering wheel every so often.... so it is kinda being built in the systems to let a driver know what kind of car they are in...

I was suggesting something like that earlier. The problem in the Tesla that drove under the trailer was that the car did not see the trailer at all. Same with the Tesla that did not see the highway divider wall. And the ones in China that did not see stopped vehicles to the left of the lane. Even to do warnings, you need to have good sensors and processing software to recognize that something is a hazard.

Let's start with limiting the car speed to the posted speed limit. I am all for that.

...Here's a compromise. The computer can let you drive, but will override you if you do something unsafe. Aircraft with fly-by-wire technology have this feature for a while. For example, if the pilot pulls up sharply and go in a climb that can cause the aircraft to stall, the computer will ease down the maneuver. It will not let the pilot kill himself.

 

[Texas Proud]

Of course they will. GPS will be fine tuned. Cars will talk with each other. Etc.

But not in 2030. No way. And probably not 2040. There will be too many "old cars" still. Maybe 2060.

I'm talking about the phase over. Current level 2/3 systems need markings. Current level 0 (PEOPLE) need markings.

If governments can't afford to mark pavement, I have little faith they'll come up with good, secure standards for car to car communication, signal to car communication, road to car communication, hardened GPS transmitters, etc.

You gotta start somewhere, and that somewhere requires pavement markings.

Did you all see the Tesla that slammed into the wall because of a driver that let the car drive on a road under construction? The bad markings confused both Telsa and other drivers.

Here's a link to that incident. Notice the confusing lane markings:
https://youtu.be/fQxIhMBKblY

And I repeat: YES, the car was being asked to do more than it should. The driver should not have had it in this mode without him paying attention.

I will have to agree that those lane marking were pretty bad... however, almost all construction sites I have driven have either horrible or NO lane markings... this one being like too many....

I also would say that I bet a number of drivers have hit that spot.... take a look at the first part of the concrete after the yellow metal... at about 16 seconds... it looks like that spot has been hit a number of times... I do not think all that damage was from this one car...

One of the things that does surprise me is that if it were on autopilot that it was following pretty darn close to the truck in front... that would lead me to think it was not on auto... and the driver was just surprised with the lane change... does anybody have an info from Tesla saying it it was or was not an autopilot problem

 

[JoeWras]

It took a long time to phase out old TVs analog, and even then, they had (and people still have) converter boxes. That's just a TV.

I can also see a time when level 4 cars get online, and some snow falls, and they all pull over, while the dumb level 3 and below cars blow by, unless they have manual override and the driver knows how to use it. Oh, that will be an angry day.

The phase out of cars is going to take a while. There will be many stories of affordability problems. The poor service worker who cannot get to their job, etc because the rental of a fleet level 5 costs too much, while their 2022 model rust bucket works just fine, etc., etc.

It is going to be interesting, and many of us will at least see this very confusing -- and I suspect contentious -- switchover time.

 

[NW-Bound]

It took a long time to phase out old TVs analog, and even then, they had (and people still have) converter boxes. That's just a TV.

I can also see a time when level 4 cars get online, and some snow falls, and they all pull over, while the dumb level 3 and below cars blow by, unless they have manual override and the driver knows how to use it. Oh, that will be an angry day...

See what kind of serious ramifications we can think of, just jesting around?

If multiple level cars are to coexist on the road, then a Level 4 car should be able to be tuned down to a lower level to solve the above problem. It is only at Level 5 when the steering wheel and pedals are taken away that you have no manual control. But then, if a Level 5 car cannot drive, then a human cannot either by definition.

So, as long as there are non-Level-5 cars on the road, dixonge can still do his "vroom vroom".

 

[JoeWras]

See what kind of serious ramifications we can think of, just jesting around?

If multiple-level cars are to coexist on the road, then a Level 4 car should be able to be tuned down to a lower level to solve the above problem. It is only at Level 5 when the steering wheel and pedals are taken away that you have no manual control. But then, if a Level 5 car cannot drive, then a human cannot either.

So, as long as there are non-Level-5 cars on the road, dixonge can still do his "vroom vroom".

Right. My sentence wasn't too coherent. But I think you made my point.

When level 4 comes around, and people are mostly "sleeping at the wheel," but they STILL need to be ready to take the wheel, will they know how to do it? Apparently, some Telsa drivers are already forgetting. (I jest, I jest. Relax, Telsa friends!)

Seriously, it could get really interesting if the driver is only engaged, say, 5% of the time. White knuckle time for all involved?

Should be interesting.

 

[NW-Bound]

Speaking of the Tesla mishaps, there are two types that I have seen on youtube.

1) In some, the car veered off course, either a fraction of a second prior to or simultaneously with the "autopilot" disconnecting. A fast "beep beep beep" comes on to warn the driver to react. In the happier instances, the driver was alert, reacted fast enough, and lived to post the video and told about it.

2) In other unfortunate instances, the "autopilot" did not detect the obstacle ahead, nor did the inattentive driver, in some cases resulting in a fatal accident. If the "autopilot" detected the obstacle, it would have steered to avoid it, or braked hard. There were no skid marks, no attempts to steer from either the "autopilot" or the driver. Both failed. If the driver saw the obstacle and tried to avoid it at the last minute, the car would not have moved in a straight line. So, I have to believe that he was asleep or doing something else other than watching the road.

It would take just as much work or more than driving, it seems to me, to watch the "autopilot" all the time to see if it is going to avoid the obstacle that I see. This would cause me more stress.

 

[sengsational]

I'm "all-in" on self-driving cars, although Uber and Lyft kind of already do the feature I like most.

When I look at what I think are some pretty conservative timelines for the self-driving car, I start to wonder if the flying car will arrive before then

 

[Amethyst]

These threads have been so interesting, they even affected my dreams!

I dreamed last night that self-driving cars came in all sorts of funny shapes, like animals and flowers. The reason (as the dream explained) being that cars no longer have to "look" a certain way due to driver visibility and so on.

 

[NW-Bound]

An autonomous car would have a completely different interior. Once you get rid of the steering wheel and dashboard, an interior designer can go to town!

And if the risk of collisions is much reduced, perhaps seatbelts would not be required. Ah, now you can have sofas, beds, toilets, etc... Who needs an RV?

 

[Totoro]

And with virtual reality, who needs to go anywhere