Self Driving Cars?

[NW-Bound]

.. Turkish Air flight 1951 crashed short of Amsterdam because a faulty radio altimeter caused the autopilot to reduce the throttles under the mistaken belief that the plane was already on the ground...

Forgot to comment on this. Bad design!

If radar altimeter is used for such a function, it should have been dual. For autoland, you need dual radar altimeters for the autopilot anyway, which is more critical than the autothrottle. The system I worked on used something much simpler: wheel spin-up sensors and gear strut compression switches. The chance of them failing simultaneously is null. Plus, if they indicate "gear compressed" and "wheel spinning" while in-flight before landing, the computer knows that they are bad, and inhibits some modes...

Having brought this up, I now have to add something or people say I post misleading information.

I am sure that the designers did do FMEA on the use of the single radar altimeter for the throttle retarding function. Presumably, they argued that it was benign, as the throttle movement rate was designed to be only so fast (to give pilots time to react), and if it was bad, pilots would have caught it. That assumption was proven wrong.

The last time I worked on commercial aircraft was more than 30 years ago. Back then, to prevent a crash from any kind of failures like the above, the procedure was for both pilots to have one hand on the throttle levers. This way, they could sense if the autothrottle was screwing up during this critical phase of the landing. And in the case of a go-around, they had their hands where they could shove it up if the autothrottle failed to do it.

Perhaps the pilots in that accident did not follow the procedure, or they did and still could not detect the throttle movement. Whatever it was, the design was weak, and the human backup procedure failed to work as intended.

 

[NW-Bound]

...My point is that there are still going to be people driving without aids and those people can crash into us even if we have a level 3... I have been hit at least 3 times just sitting still.... it does not matter what level I had I still would have been hit...

Even if an idiot's car is level 4, it does not help if he can override it.

Here's the statistics NHTSA has in 2013. The number of accidents per capita is a lot higher in rural areas than in urban areas.

... Of these 30,057 fatal traffic crashes, there were 15,998 (53%) that occurred in rural areas, 14,026 (47%) that occurred in urban areas, and 33 (<0.5%) that occurred in unknown areas.
... 19 percent of the U.S. population lived in rural areas. However, rural fatalities accounted for 54 percent of all traffic fatalities in 2013.​

They drink,

...Of the 44,574 drivers involved in fatal traffic crashes in 2013, there were 9,461 (21%) who were alcohol-impaired...
​

then speed at night, and over the weekend

Over half (54%) of rural area speeding-related fatalities occurred at night and 46 percent occurred over the weekend.​

And they do not wear seatbelts.

Fifty-one percent of rural passenger vehicle occupants killed were unrestrained...​

And they keep on drinking and driving

In cases where drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2013 had one or more previous convictions for driving while intoxicated (DWI), 59
percent of rural drivers were alcohol-impaired and 52 percent of urban drivers were alcohol-impaired.​

 

[JoeWras]

I know there is a lot of talk about the various levels etc. and how great it will be when we get there....

But... right now the avg age of a vehicle is 11.5 years (so much for the people who talk about keeping one for 10.... you are not even getting average age!!!)...

So, say level 3 comes out... that does not mean all cars sold will be level 3... just a small number... it might take 10 to 15 years to get that down to the cheap cars... but there are millions of vehicles that are still OLD... with no assists at all... it will take an additional 12 years to get rid of half of those...

IMO, to fully (say 95% of vehicles) implement even level 3 might take 30 years...

My point is that there are still going to be people driving without aids and those people can crash into us even if we have a level 3... I have been hit at least 3 times just sitting still.... it does not matter what level I had I still would have been hit...

Yes. This was (and is) my point too. This and infrastructure changes needed take a long time.

On the contrary side, however, some posters bring up some good points. They argue that the insurance companies may factor into a quicker turn-over by offering much less cost for smart cars.

But then the counter-counter to that was insurance companies may go out of business!

All in all, it is a very complex situation. Do recall though, that the government had "cash for clunkers" to spur on the industry. Something like that may come into play, if this whole thing gets serious.

 

[meierlde]

Even if an idiot's car is level 4, it does not help if he can override it.

Here's the statistics NHTSA has in 2013. The number of accidents per capita is a lot higher in rural areas than in urban areas.

... Of these 30,057 fatal traffic crashes, there were 15,998 (53%) that occurred in rural areas, 14,026 (47%) that occurred in urban areas, and 33 (<0.5%) that occurred in unknown areas.
... 19 percent of the U.S. population lived in rural areas. However, rural fatalities accounted for 54 percent of all traffic fatalities in 2013.​

They drink,

...Of the 44,574 drivers involved in fatal traffic crashes in 2013, there were 9,461 (21%) who were alcohol-impaired...
​

then speed at night, and over the weekend

Over half (54%) of rural area speeding-related fatalities occurred at night and 46 percent occurred over the weekend.​

And they do not wear seatbelts.

Fifty-one percent of rural passenger vehicle occupants killed were unrestrained...​

And they keep on drinking and driving

In cases where drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2013 had one or more previous convictions for driving while intoxicated (DWI), 59
percent of rural drivers were alcohol-impaired and 52 percent of urban drivers were alcohol-impaired.​

Clearly even with modern air bags wearing your seatbelt makes a big difference in safety. It looks like wearing a seatbelt reduces the risk of being a crash fatality by 50% . If you combine various state reports that 50% of fatalities are to folks not wearing seatbelts, with the 87% seatbelt usage, then the 13% have as many fatalities as the 87% then not wearing a seatbelt increases your chances of being killed by 7.7 times compared to wearing a seatbelt. Rural crashes tend to be at higher speeds than urban crashes of course.
So it appears that another factor would be to add to the level 4-5 car that it will not go unless all seatbelts are fastened. (This also somewhat solves the problem of the car having to decide between the occupants of the car and others, in particular if the car can detect the crash in advance and tighten the seatbelts as many cars with forward crash avoidance do today.
Of course in a head on if the car can detect that one is likley it would also jam on the brakes (much harder than a human could in conjunction with the antiskid braking system).

 

[ERD50]

...
So it appears that another factor would be to add to the level 4-5 car that it will not go unless all seatbelts are fastened. ...

All cars sold today have plenty of 'smarts' to not go into drive unless the seat belts are fastened. They already set off a light and a sound alert, they would just use that same signal to disable drive. We don't need to wait years for Level 4-5!

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

All cars sold today have plenty of 'smarts' to not go into drive unless the seat belts are fastened. They already set off a light and a sound alert, they would just use that same signal to disable drive. We don't need to wait years for Level 4-5!

-ERD50

Has anyone found a way to have an undefeatable "no belt" detector?

Let's also have an undefeatable alcohol detector. I am serious.

 

[Midpack]

So, say level 3 comes out... that does not mean all cars sold will be level 3... just a small number... it might take 10 to 15 years to get that down to the cheap cars... but there are millions of vehicles that are still OLD... with no assists at all... it will take an additional 12 years to get rid of half of those...

IMO, to fully (say 95% of vehicles) implement even level 3 might take 30 years...

My point is that there are still going to be people driving without aids and those people can crash into us even if we have a level 3... I have been hit at least 3 times just sitting still.... it does not matter what level I had I still would have been hit...

It would not surprise me if it takes 30 years before more than half the cars on the road are level 4-5. But that doesn't mean level 0-2 cars won't be outlawed on all or some public roads eventually - I doubt it will be left to drivers choice indefinitely. I'd think it will depend in large part on relative accident/fatality incidence rates. At the risk of repeating earlier discussion on this thread, all hypothetical:

• If level 4-5 cars actually reduce accidents by 80-90% vs today's accident/fatality standards as some industry folks estimate, insuring a level 0-2 car may slowly become prohibitively expensive.
• If so, that might effectively force some drivers to adopt car/ride sharing level 5 public or private transportation, assuming it's clearly more cost effective. Obviously much easier for urbanites than rural, so maybe urban drivers will lose their right to drive before rural.
• And if level 0-2 cars are that much more unsafe, eventually they could be legally barred from all or some public roads, urban roads presumably first. Manually driving a classic level 0 might be confined to private roads far in the future.
• Some day it might be much, much harder to get a license or registration for a level 0-2 car. Or eventually impossible - forcing classic cars onto private roads only.

Might take 60 years before manual cars are outlawed, probably not in our lifetimes, though we may live to see it in insurance rates. And it'll be telegraphed well in advance, maybe eliminating level 0, then 1, 2 and so on. It's going to be interesting.

 

[NW-Bound]

It appears to me it may not be that hard to have something to help drivers who need and want help. But the really bad people, that's very tough. I will tell you a real story.

My BIL told me of a guy he knew. He had a drunk driving conviction, so they installed a device in his car that he had to blow into for alcohol test before it would start. You know what he did to defeat it?

He brought his young son along when he went drinking with his buddies, and had the poor kid blow into that device. ARGHHH!

When I heard that, I trembled with rage. Now, he risked the life of his kid too! I didn't know that guy, else I would have called the police to turn him in, so they could lock him up and throw away the key. Told my BIL he should report this guy.

 

[meierlde]

All cars sold today have plenty of 'smarts' to not go into drive unless the seat belts are fastened. They already set off a light and a sound alert, they would just use that same signal to disable drive. We don't need to wait years for Level 4-5!

-ERD50

Market opportunity for shade tree mechanics to build defeat devices and "fix the seat belt problem for a slight amount of cash" of course thereby defeating the cars warranty.

 

[NW-Bound]

Another thing I have brought up, not in this thread but in the past, is that when you have a mixture of self-driving cars and normal cars, the bad guys will just run all the robot cars off the road. They know that the robot cars are defensive and yield to themselves.

You think the bad guys are not going to do that? Look at what they are doing right now. They are not the typical grandmas whose reaction time is slow, or the distracted housewives and kids who do texting while driving, those that we talk about helping. There are very bad people among us.

If level-5 cars are mandated and everything else outlawed, then of course the problem is solved. But until then, we need stronger enforcements. Lock them up!

 

[travelover]

Another thing I have brought up, not in this thread but in the past, is that when you have a mixture of self-driving cars and normal cars, the bad guys will just run all the robot cars off the road. They know that the robot cars are defensive and yield to themselves.
...........

Ah, but the robot cars will all have 360 degree cameras, talk to each other and have a direct feed to the cops. Any robot bullying will be documented and easily punished.

 

[NW-Bound]

I did not think of that! Excellent. In fact we can start anytime, even with level 1 cars.

What we need is the law that allows evidences taken by computers to be admitted in court cases, because these guys will behave when the police shows up. If the computers can capture the license plate, or a photo of the car, and collaborate this guy weaving or speeding or running red lights, then convict and lock him up. I say if 2 or 3 cars have collaborating evidence such as his trajectory and speed, then it is good.

I am serious. The laws need to change with technology.

 

[ERD50]

Has anyone found a way to have an undefeatable "no belt" detector? ...

Market opportunity for shade tree mechanics to build defeat devices and "fix the seat belt problem for a slight amount of cash" of course thereby defeating the cars warranty.

Well, the problem would exist for today's cars as well as a level 4-5 car (that was the original context).

Though I'm not an expert in electronic security, I think this could be done, based on what I think I know (notice that I gave myself plenty of wiggle room!). The seat belt detector would need some level of 'smarts', and be programmed with an electronic key unique to that vehicle, and/or an algorithm that works with that key and the vehicles 'key'. Every once in a while, the vehicle would provide a challenge to the seat belt circuit, and it would need to respond not only with an ON/OFF signal, but the correct answer to the challenge. Without the electronic key, it really can't be defeated (without extreme measures). So there would be complex communication, not just a wired switch.

Another thing I have brought up, not in this thread but in the past, is that when you have a mixture of self-driving cars and normal cars, the bad guys will just run all the robot cars off the road. They know that the robot cars are defensive and yield to themselves.
....

I've been thinking of starting a somewhat related thread, and that is the one downside I see. Some people would actually have fun playing 'chicken' with the system.

The devilish side of me just thought that the smart system should be able to detect this, and announce over a loudspeaker (and mute the offender's radio, which will probably be playing at full blast) "I have been programmed to not yield in this situation 1 out of every 6 times, and my vehicle is reinforced far beyond yours - so you have to ask yourself a question - 'Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya' Punk?"

-ERD50

 

[JoeWras]

Ah, but the robot cars will all have 360 degree cameras, talk to each other and have a direct feed to the cops. Any robot bullying will be documented and easily punished.

Some bullying and anarchy can occur offline and out of site. (Stupid simple example: repaint the lines.) This subject has built up a lot of passion and some people are concerned for the societal change it will bring. Expect turbulence.

But it won't just be cars, it will be all kinds of robots.

 

[NW-Bound]

In a report, Google told of the number of disengagements due to hardware failures (I forgot how many). That's one of the primary reasons to have a test driver inside.

I don't know if the following video is real or not. Can anyone here tell? It's funny like heck though.

 

[explanade]

The passengers can call 911 if people are trying to force their car off the road.

They can also record it.

 

[NW-Bound]

Running someone off the road is a bit too strong. A bad driver can drive aggressively to cause a robot car to freeze in its track, as the latter is programmed to do.

It is not easy to record a bad driver. And then, it's your word against someone's word.

My son-in-law's truck was hit by a guy who was probably texting. He was creeping forward at a few miles per hour. The collision probably caused more damage to his car than to my SIL's truck. My daughter was in the truck, and they could not get his plate before he backed off and fled.

 

[Texas Proud]

It would not surprise me if it takes 30 years before more than half the cars on the road are level 4-5. But that doesn't mean level 0-2 cars won't be outlawed on all or some public roads eventually - I doubt it will be left to drivers choice indefinitely. I'd think it will depend in large part on relative accident/fatality incidence rates. At the risk of repeating earlier discussion on this thread, all hypothetical:

• If level 4-5 cars actually reduce accidents by 80-90% vs today's accident/fatality standards as some industry folks estimate, insuring a level 0-2 car may slowly become prohibitively expensive.
• If so, that might effectively force some drivers to adopt car/ride sharing level 5 public or private transportation, assuming it's clearly more cost effective. Obviously much easier for urbanites than rural, so maybe urban drivers will lose their right to drive before rural.
• And if level 0-2 cars are that much more unsafe, eventually they could be legally barred from all or some public roads, urban roads presumably first. Manually driving a classic level 0 might be confined to private roads far in the future.
• Some day it might be much, much harder to get a license or registration for a level 0-2 car. Or eventually impossible - forcing classic cars onto private roads only.

Might take 60 years before manual cars are outlawed, probably not in our lifetimes, though we may live to see it in insurance rates. And it'll be telegraphed well in advance, maybe eliminating level 0, then 1, 2 and so on. It's going to be interesting.

I can see your logic in one way of thinking.... but also can see that it is flawed in another...

Let us assume that only 10% of the cars are level 0 - 2.... why would you think that their accident rate is going to skyrocket because of all the level 4 -5 cars out there I would think that their accident rate would improve drastically since the other cars are going to avoid them.... if you are not getting into more accidents, then why would your rates go up?


As an example... let us go with the 100,000 miles per accident... we drive 3.1 trillion miles based on a headline I looked at... (did not read the article, so could be wrong... just using it as an example).... we now get up to 80% of 4 and 5 cars... so total miles of current cars drop to 300 billion.... but the ratio is still 100,000 miles per accident... rates should remain the same.... but, if it goes to 500,000 miles per accident then the rates should fall.... maybe not as low as 4 or 5, but still lower than today...

 

[NW-Bound]

Forgot to comment on this. Bad design!

If radar altimeter is used for such a function, it should have been dual. For autoland, you need dual radar altimeters for the autopilot anyway, which is more critical than the autothrottle. The system I worked on used something much simpler: wheel spin-up sensors and gear strut compression switches. The chance of them failing simultaneously is null. Plus, if they indicate "gear compressed" and "wheel spinning" while in-flight before landing, the computer knows that they are bad, and inhibits some modes...

Sorry to bring this up again, but I just have to correct myself when I am wrong. The AT retard mode had to be initiated prior to touch-down, hence the wheel spin-up sensors and gear strut switches could not have been used. It had to use dual altimeter sensors. The wheel and gear sensors were indeed multiple and used for other critical mode sequencing. It is coming back to me slowly. I have brought this up enough so will stop here.

As I said, it's been 30 years, and my memory is getting bad...

 

[kombat]

What we need is the law that allows evidences taken by computers to be admitted in court cases, because these guys will behave when the police shows up. If the computers can capture the license plate, or a photo of the car, and collaborate this guy weaving or speeding or running red lights, then convict and lock him up.

But the person associated with the licence plate (the registered owner) may not necessarily be the person driving the vehicle, committing the offences. You can't charge someone with a criminal offense because their car was seen being driven dangerously.

"But... the photos!" I hear you say. A valid point, but as you noted, it would require changes to the law. But the required changes are much more substantial than you think. Privacy laws would have to change. Currently, the interior of your vehicle is considered to be private property, and it's illegal to photograph someone inside their private property without their consent. So change the law, right? OK, so now the inside of their car is community property, and photographs are admissible in court.

But wait - now you've change drug laws, too. Currently, when police search a vehicle and find contraband, and none of the passengers confess to owning it, they can charge the driver with it, because it was found on their "private property." But if the interior of our vehicles is suddenly deemed to be community property, then that contraband might as well have been laying in the parking lot. So go ahead and throw out all those drug/gun convictions. Is that a worthwhile tradeoff for jailing a few aggressive drivers who haven't even caused an accident? (Because if they've caused an accident, you don't need camera evidence - a cop will show up and charge them with reckless/impaired/distracted driving).

It's a tricky landscape to navigate, and be careful of unintended consequences. Sure, aggressive drivers are annoying, but let's keep things in perspective. If safety is your priority, then just let them go and keep your distance from them.

 

[kombat]

It is not easy to record a bad driver.

Of course it is. Both of my vehicles have always-on dash cams. They're dirt-cheap now, and much more common than you think.

And then, it's your word against someone's word.

Nope, I've got video evidence. So it's their word against my surveillance video.

 

[kombat]

Sorry to bring this up again, but I just have to correct myself when I am wrong. The AT retard mode had to be initiated prior to touch-down, hence the wheel spin-up sensors and gear strut switches could not have been used. It had to use dual altimeter sensors.

I misspoke in an earlier post. I said the AP did retarded the throttles because it thought it was "already down," but upon re-reading the analysis, it turns out the AP was in "retard" mode, "which is designed to automatically decrease thrust shortly before touching down on the runway at 27 feet (8.2 m) above runway height." (Source: Wikipedia) So the strut switches and wheel spin-up sensors would not have been a factor.

 

[Midpack]

I can see your logic in one way of thinking.... but also can see that it is flawed in another...

Let us assume that only 10% of the cars are level 0 - 2.... why would you think that their accident rate is going to skyrocket because of all the level 4 -5 cars out there I would think that their accident rate would improve drastically since the other cars are going to avoid them.... if you are not getting into more accidents, then why would your rates go up?

Except that's not what I've said. Again, "if level 4-5 cars actually reduce accidents by 80-90% vs today's accident/fatality standards as some industry folks estimate."

So it's not that anything 'skyrockets,' level 4-5 cars drop precipitously while level 0-2 cars remain the same - so the latter cars become relatively unsafe.

It's widely reported that 90% of accidents today are attributed to human error, I'm not sure that will change.

You could even make the argument level 0-2 drivers could become more complacent/inattentive assuming automous cars will avoid them (probably true). But that's also hypothetical. Another interesting dynamic we simply can't predict yet.

 

[Music Lover]

One could also make the argument that most of those who are older, less experienced, nervous, and who simply don't like driving will be the first ones to switch to self-driving vehicles. The better drivers will then have fewer dangerous incidents/maneuvers to react to.

 

[ERD50]

...

• If level 4-5 cars actually reduce accidents by 80-90% vs today's accident/fatality standards as some industry folks estimate, insuring a level 0-2 car may slowly become prohibitively expensive.

...

I can see your logic in one way of thinking.... but also can see that it is flawed in another...

Let us assume that only 10% of the cars are level 0 - 2.... why would you think that their accident rate is going to skyrocket because of all the level 4 -5 cars out there I would think that their accident rate would improve drastically since the other cars are going to avoid them.... if you are not getting into more accidents, then why would your rates go up? ...

I have to agree with Texas Proud - it doesn't make sense that insurance for current cars would become "prohibitively expensive". If L4-5 cars result in fewer accidents, everyone's insurance would go down. Much of that decrease would go to the higher level cars, but why would insurance go up for cars w/o? L4-5 cars on the road doesn't mean the other cars are having higher rates of accidents than they did previously, does it?

-ERD50