Export thread
Self-Driving Cars & How much bad driving is NOT distraction?
#1
Eriol
Eriol
So I saw this article about self-driving cars: No, You Can't Drive Better Than An Autonomous Car
The crux of it is how 61% of people (in this survey of 2000-ish) think that they are better drivers than computers are. That may or may not be true, and is worth discussing: are computers actually better? I think probably, but wait, there's more!
The article then goes on to say this:
What do others think? While self-driving cars will IMO eliminate both the problem of distracted drivers AND drivers who just plain suck, what proportion of each exist on the road right now? And more terrifyingly, since people will demand that any self-driving system will allow them to "override the system," how many of the "they just suck" drivers will CAUSE accidents through second-guessing?
The crux of it is how 61% of people (in this survey of 2000-ish) think that they are better drivers than computers are. That may or may not be true, and is worth discussing: are computers actually better? I think probably, but wait, there's more!
The article then goes on to say this:
This is putting forth the (wrong IMO) opinion that most accidents are caused by distractions. Now I don't debate the massive number of accidents that distractions cause, but I also believe that there are just tonnes and tonnes of BAD DRIVERS out there. They can have 100% of their attention on the road, and they still suck terribly. They literally freeze up, or just do the outright wrong thing when an emergency situation hits. Or even more commonly, do bad things to CAUSE emergency situations for themselves or others. Just find a clip from Canada's Worst Driver and you'll see what I mean.We'll still be better at taking selfies and making movies and flirting and lots of other human things, but when it comes to driving, we can see the writing on the wall.
What do others think? While self-driving cars will IMO eliminate both the problem of distracted drivers AND drivers who just plain suck, what proportion of each exist on the road right now? And more terrifyingly, since people will demand that any self-driving system will allow them to "override the system," how many of the "they just suck" drivers will CAUSE accidents through second-guessing?
#2
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
I think one of the reasons that I am a reasonably good driver, is that I assume that the rest are idiots. That way I am ready for the driver to swerve into my lane with no warning. (happened yesterday, even with me laying on my horn she kept coming into my lane and kept straddling the line for at least 100 yards.)
#3
PatrThom
PatrThom
I leave enough room around me for slop.
Also, once autonomous driving becomes the norm, the idea of "The Company Car" will take on a whole new meaning. It'll be provided by your employer, but it'll take you back and forth to work and nowhere else, and you'd better be doing company business while you're in it. Or else the way cell phones work now will translate over to self-driving cars, giving "Carriers" a new meaning.
--Patrick
Also, once autonomous driving becomes the norm, the idea of "The Company Car" will take on a whole new meaning. It'll be provided by your employer, but it'll take you back and forth to work and nowhere else, and you'd better be doing company business while you're in it. Or else the way cell phones work now will translate over to self-driving cars, giving "Carriers" a new meaning.
--Patrick
#4
blotsfan
blotsfan
I think the idea of self-driving cars is interesting, but if absolutely want a manual override. All programs have bugs, and that could be fatal.
#5
MindDetective
MindDetective
I totally cannot wait until autonomous cars are the norm. I'm in the camp that believe that I am not a better driver than a robot.
#6
Shakey
Shakey
I can't wait till I can sleep while driving. Nap on the way to work, nap on the way home. I would be in heaven.
#7
Shakey
Shakey
I'll also say, it doesn't matter much if some people drive themselves, it will still help with accidents. You see it in accident avoidance systems we have now. Computers can just react faster.
Are computers 100% reliable? No. I have a feeling they will prevent more accidents than they cause though.
Are computers 100% reliable? No. I have a feeling they will prevent more accidents than they cause though.
#8
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
The article is still BS...
So no, a computer cannot drive better than I can.we know for a fact that computers drive better than we can. Maybe not today, but very, very soon,
#9
PatrThom
That point when they start selling cars based on how well you can sleep in them, tho.
That's my secret...when shopping for cars, I already check to see how easy/comfortable they are to sleep in.
--Patrick
PatrThom
I can't wait till I can sleep while driving. Nap on the way to work, nap on the way home. I would be in heaven.
I think you just described "trains," only smaller.Nap on the way to California, nap on the way to New York.
That point when they start selling cars based on how well you can sleep in them, tho.
That's my secret...when shopping for cars, I already check to see how easy/comfortable they are to sleep in.
--Patrick
#10
jwhouk
jwhouk
There's only one small problem.
Okay, it's a BIG problem.
And I hit one back in December.
See, there's these animals, and sometimes they don't realize they're running right onto a highway, and they tend to do it in the middle of the night...
Okay, it's a BIG problem.
And I hit one back in December.
See, there's these animals, and sometimes they don't realize they're running right onto a highway, and they tend to do it in the middle of the night...
#11
Just Me
Now, if the car will stop in time before the collission, that's debatable.
In my city we have driverless subways, they are quite reliable. Trouble is with people jumping onto the train the last moment and causing the doors to block or such stuff. And if somebody decided to kill himself, than neither a human driver nor a computer can get the train to stop in time; physics.
That said: gimme my flying robot car, dammit!
Just Me
There's only one small problem.
Okay, it's a BIG problem.
And I hit one back in December.
See, there's these animals, and sometimes they don't realize they're running right onto a highway, and they tend to do it in the middle of the night...
What he said. Driving autonomously, scanning the way ahead and reacting faster to a sudden roadblock.I'll also say, it doesn't matter much if some people drive themselves, it will still help with accidents. You see it in accident avoidance systems we have now. Computers can just react faster.
Are computers 100% reliable? No. I have a feeling they will prevent more accidents than they cause though.
Now, if the car will stop in time before the collission, that's debatable.
In my city we have driverless subways, they are quite reliable. Trouble is with people jumping onto the train the last moment and causing the doors to block or such stuff. And if somebody decided to kill himself, than neither a human driver nor a computer can get the train to stop in time; physics.
That said: gimme my flying robot car, dammit!
#12
Dave
Dave
I am one of the ones who can't wait for this. Imagine knowing in advance how far or long a trip will take or what cars will look like. No longer will all seats need to be facing forward, instead they can swivel to look in all directions. Going through a mountain pass? Great! Now I can see the scenery also instead of always being the driver and missing stuff. Drunk driving is a thing of the past. Want to talk on your phone? Go ahead.
I personally think traffic will be smoother, commutes will be cut in half, and life will be easier for everyone.
I personally think traffic will be smoother, commutes will be cut in half, and life will be easier for everyone.
#13
Bowielee
Bowielee
Even leaving aside the idea of driver distraction, even attentive drivers can't be fully aware of all things at all times. A computer can scan and react to things far faster than a human being can. One of the biggest lies we tell ourselves as human beings is that we can split our attention i.e. "multitask" just fine, but science has shown that absolutely no human can.
Also, computers can drive for hours without needing rest and will be just alert in the middle of the night as they are in broad daylight.
So, yeah, count me in on the automated cars.
Also, computers can drive for hours without needing rest and will be just alert in the middle of the night as they are in broad daylight.
So, yeah, count me in on the automated cars.
#14
jwhouk
jwhouk
Thing is, deer aren't predictable.
#15
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
I just hope they aren't running apple maps.
#16
Bowielee
Bowielee
So, it's the difference between you hitting a deer or a computer hitting a deer. Either way, you're hitting that deer.Thing is, deer aren't predictable.
#17
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
I want computer driven cars for one reason: no more auto insurance. If I'm not the one driving the car... if it's not MY fault that a law was broken or something gets damaged, I sure as fucking hell can't be held liable for any damages it causes (assuming I've kept it good repair). Let the car manufacturers fucking pay for it... it'd only wreck if they didn't program it correctly or the city didn't manage it's end.
#18
tegid
tegid
Well... Since it's your property you wold still be responsible to make sure it's working properly, wouldn't you? What if there's an accident because you didn't take the car to the recommended check up?I want computer driven cars for one reason: no more auto insurance. If I'm not the one driving the car... if it's not MY fault that a law was broken or something gets damaged, I sure as fucking hell can't be held liable for any damages it causes (assuming I've kept it good repair). Let the car manufacturers fucking pay for it... it'd only wreck if they didn't program it correctly or the city didn't manage it's end.
#19
jwhouk
jwhouk
Or if you hacked into your system so that it would automatically drive five over the speed limit?
#20
AshburnerX
Why would hacking the system matter anyway? Your car insurance already doesn't cover you if you are performing an illegal maneuver. You'd be paying ether way.[/quote]
AshburnerX
That would be part of your purchase agreement: you are libel for routine maintenance, keeping the car updated, fuel, and such... but they are libel for issues stemming from design flaws and software flaws. The city is libel for damages caused by failure to notify master route control about things like construction, damaged roads, and closed roads. Legally, this is the only way it could ever work... no judge is going to tell the guy not driving the driver-less car that he's responsible for back ending a guy when that's the job of the fucking car.Well... Since it's your property you wold still be responsible to make sure it's working properly, wouldn't you? What if there's an accident because you didn't take the car to the recommended check up?
If the system could monitor and drive each car individually, there is no reason why it couldn't modify each car's top speed to account for the design of the car or road and weather conditions. You want to go 65-70 safely? Get a better car with better tires and have the city inspect it. Then they can upgrade your speed privileges.Or if you hacked into your system so that it would automatically drive five over the speed limit?
Why would hacking the system matter anyway? Your car insurance already doesn't cover you if you are performing an illegal maneuver. You'd be paying ether way.[/quote]
#21
Eriol
Eriol
A lot of people in this thread seem to think that the cars they have TODAY need "central notification" of everything, like construction, closed roads, etc. From what I've read, they don't. They need to be able to read signs and road pylons just like any driver today does. Same deal with "deer" or whatever else may run out into the road at any time. They don't need to know about everything ahead-of-time. They react, just as humans do, but probably in a better way, not locking up the brakes, staring directly at what they are trying not to hit, etc.
Here's the #1 quick tip for everybody for better driving: look where you want to go. If you stare at that child/deer/wall, you are nearly doomed to hit it.
So it comes back to my original point: drivers SUCK. Distractions make it worse, but the average human driver is terrible, and is actively causing accidents and fatalities.
Here's the #1 quick tip for everybody for better driving: look where you want to go. If you stare at that child/deer/wall, you are nearly doomed to hit it.
To the research! Distraction.gov:Just google "distracted driving accidents" and you'll unearth a mountain of research that shows most accidents are attributable to distractions.
Wikipedia - List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year:The number of people killed in distraction-affected crashes decreased slightly from 3,360 in 2011 to 3,328 in 2012. An estimated 421,000 people were injured in motor vehicle crashes involving a distracted driver, this was a nine percent increase from the estimated 387,000 people injured in 2011.
So steinman, though the number of accidents is NOT AVAILABLE (seriously, try to find non-fatal numbers. If you can find it, awesome, please post it. The number above is the only number I could find, and that's only distractions), it appears only about 10% of fatalities are attributable to distracted driving. So "most accidents are attributable to distractions" seems unlikely, though possible, though it would say that the vast majority are non-fatal too.2011 - 32,479
2012 -33,561
So it comes back to my original point: drivers SUCK. Distractions make it worse, but the average human driver is terrible, and is actively causing accidents and fatalities.
#22
Necronic
Necronic
This is my problem with it. Chevy can't even build a working ignition switch and you expect them to make an autonomous car?I just hope they aren't running apple maps.
#23
Dave
Dave
It probably won't be them.This is my problem with it. Chevy can't even build a working ignition switch and you expect them to make an autonomous car?
#24
MindDetective
MindDetective
It won't be Chevy's patents that bring autonomous cars mainstream.This is my problem with it. Chevy can't even build a working ignition switch and you expect them to make an autonomous car?
#25
GasBandit
GasBandit
Every wreck will mean a lawsuit against the manufacturer.
#26
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Tires will still blow out, tress will fall onto the road, and people will still Swoop and Stop.
#27
PatrThom
PatrThom
Just so long as it's not this guy.
--Patrick
--Patrick
#28
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
or...
#29
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
At least this one has a manual override. Of sorts.or...
--Patrick
#30
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
I don't want to obey the "book of the road" to keep my car safe.
#31
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Really? What if deliberately crashing your car could save countless others? What then?I don't want to obey the "book of the road" to keep my car safe.
--Patrick
#32
Eriol
My main point (of this thread really) is that so much press time is spent on "the thing that makes driving dangerous for the nice ones not doing it" (speeding, distracted driving, drunk driving) and not on what's ACTUALLY causing the majority of the crashes: stupid fucking drivers who should never have a license in the first place, and should have gotten it pulled years ago. All 3 of those things are contributors, no doubt (except the first, as it's a trivial contribution), but if you put the amount of effort that is put into speed enforcement into catching and getting off the road the TERRIBLE drivers out there (those who with no distractions, and help from a person in the seat next to them still struggle on the road), then I'll bet that would have a lot larger effect.
Of course that would cut off major revenue sources for cities (speed & red light cameras) and police (speed traps), but of course they're not concentrating on the money-makers, and are focusing on actual safety... right?
Eriol
Thanks for finding the right link man. I was only finding the deaths one.CDC says in 2010 only 18% of accidents where an injury was reported were attributable to distracted driving, so you're right, only 1 in five accidents are distracted. Mea culpa.
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/distracted_driving/
My main point (of this thread really) is that so much press time is spent on "the thing that makes driving dangerous for the nice ones not doing it" (speeding, distracted driving, drunk driving) and not on what's ACTUALLY causing the majority of the crashes: stupid fucking drivers who should never have a license in the first place, and should have gotten it pulled years ago. All 3 of those things are contributors, no doubt (except the first, as it's a trivial contribution), but if you put the amount of effort that is put into speed enforcement into catching and getting off the road the TERRIBLE drivers out there (those who with no distractions, and help from a person in the seat next to them still struggle on the road), then I'll bet that would have a lot larger effect.
Of course that would cut off major revenue sources for cities (speed & red light cameras) and police (speed traps), but of course they're not concentrating on the money-makers, and are focusing on actual safety... right?
#33
Eriol
Eriol
Fair enough, though I doubt that those many many freeway miles are accounting for the majority of accidents and fatalities. My understanding was that highway driving was ALREADY the "safest" type per mile (and perhaps per time as well) due to it being "easier" than surface roads. But I have no data on that, I am just stating my perception.And honestly, that one change would take care of a lot of freeway problems we currently have, and account for a significant portion of US driving miles.
#34
Eriol
Eriol
And then this makes the headlines: This Moron Left The Driver’s Seat In A Self-Driving Infiniti Q50 On The Highway: Video
Here's the video embedded:
So ya. This both says DON'T DO THIS UNTIL IT'S CHECKED OUT!!! as well as a "I had no idea such advanced stuff was on the market already." There were other cars, and construction pylons in that video that the car had no problems with (it slowed down for him). He didn't crash. It was still reckless IMO, but it does show what's even being sold, and what's in the lab is even better than that.
Here's the video embedded:
So ya. This both says DON'T DO THIS UNTIL IT'S CHECKED OUT!!! as well as a "I had no idea such advanced stuff was on the market already." There were other cars, and construction pylons in that video that the car had no problems with (it slowed down for him). He didn't crash. It was still reckless IMO, but it does show what's even being sold, and what's in the lab is even better than that.
#35
Dave
Dave
Google automated cars have already logged a million miles in live testing on city streets in Northern California. They've had 2 accidents. One was a car that had been manually overridden by a driver and the other was a rear-ending of the Google car. Were all of the cars on the road automatic, neither would have happened.
You guys sound like old people who are afraid of technology.
People used to think cell phones caused cancer or made planes fall from the sky or gas stations to explode.
The Large Hadron Collider was going to create a black hole in the middle of Europe that would kill the world.
There are several instances where technology can and would make things better but were resisted merely because of hypothetical horror stories that were not based in anything other than fear. I find it odd that this group, which is more technologically savvy than a lot of sites, would have such a problem with what I see as an obvious and immediate benefit to society.
You guys sound like old people who are afraid of technology.
People used to think cell phones caused cancer or made planes fall from the sky or gas stations to explode.
The Large Hadron Collider was going to create a black hole in the middle of Europe that would kill the world.
There are several instances where technology can and would make things better but were resisted merely because of hypothetical horror stories that were not based in anything other than fear. I find it odd that this group, which is more technologically savvy than a lot of sites, would have such a problem with what I see as an obvious and immediate benefit to society.
#36
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Take it from the expert here, guys.You guys sound like old people
#37
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
He has been observing them for much longer than the rest of us, I feel like he has at least somewhat of a developed viewpoint the rest of us lack.How is Dave an expert? He has no experience with old people - how could he if there's no one older?
#39
Dave
Dave
I don't know whether I should be offended by this or not.He has been observing them for much longer than the rest of us, I feel like he has at least somewhat of a developed viewpoint the rest of us lack.
#40
Celt Z
Celt Z
Frankly, I'd settle for all the cars coming out on the market to have the sensors that apply the brake and/or keep your car a safe distance. and a way to retrofit older cars with it. I know that's probably impossible (the retrofit), but until there are self-driving cars, I'd feel a lot safer.[DOUBLEPOST=1407349889,1407349775][/DOUBLEPOST]
I think SpecialKO just called you one of The Watchers.I don't know whether I should be offended by this or not.
#41
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Which would explain his perspective in the GotG thread.
#42
Dave
Dave
My head is way too small to be a watcher.
#43
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Damn, I should have short stopped on the new Mercedes that was tailgating the shit out of me, just to test his sensors...Frankly, I'd settle for all the cars coming out on the market to have the sensors that apply the brake and/or keep your car a safe distance. and a way to retrofit older cars with it. I know that's probably impossible (the retrofit), but until there are self-driving cars, I'd feel a lot safer.
#44
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Nope. Quite the opposite.You guys sound like old people who are afraid of technology.
We're guys familiar with technology. And not just familiar with it, but intimate with it to a degree where we understand some of the challenges involved. How does a car tell whether that obstacle up ahead is a log, a downed human being, a speed bump, an animal, or cracks/debris from an earthquake? A human driver can instantly recognize the difference (given good lighting) and make a judgement call, but trying to teach a computer how to react to every possible instance of "object > 2in tall detected" is a very difficult engineering task. And this is just one of the many challenges that face the self-driving car. Computers are better drivers than people...IF the conditions match those they were programmed for. Anything outside of scope will cause the computer to throw an exception whereas a person would just make a decision. One of the biggest things about the mission to Mars is that sending a human being along would negate sooooo many of the programming challenges. A human being can function as an amazing general purpose computer, the sticking point is that, early on, it would likely be only a one-way journey with no guarantee that PersonOne would even survive to arrive at the destination, and nobody wants to be responsible for that.Everyone here excels at finding the exceptions and corner cases that would break something, and putting those forth without saying, "Awesome! I wonder if..." first.
--Patrick
#45
MindDetective
MindDetective
And Google is thinking very hard about these things. http://io9.com/when-a-self-driving-car-meets-an-indecisive-cyclist-1568733226Nope. Quite the opposite.
We're guys familiar with technology. And not just familiar with it, but intimate with it to a degree where we understand some of the challenges involved. How does a car tell whether that obstacle up ahead is a log, a downed human being, a speed bump, an animal, or cracks/debris from an earthquake? A human driver can instantly recognize the difference (given good lighting) and make a judgement call, but trying to teach a computer how to react to every possible instance of "object > 2in tall detected" is a very difficult engineering task. And this is just one of the many challenges that face the self-driving car. Computers are better drivers than people...IF the conditions match those they were programmed for. Anything outside of scope will cause the computer to throw an exception whereas a person would just make a decision. One of the biggest things about the mission to Mars is that sending a human being along would negate sooooo many of the programming challenges. A human being can function as an amazing general purpose computer, the sticking point is that, early on, it would likely be only a one-way journey with no guarantee that PersonOne would even survive to arrive at the destination, and nobody wants to be responsible for that.
--Patrick
#46
Necronic
Necronic
The thing is though that this is the kind of tech that we rarely see. Not that it doesn't exist, but we just rarely are exposed to it. It is feature limited but has to be insanely robust, crashes are unacceptable and all exceptions should be handled and it all has to be done fast without lag. Most of us are used to seeing stuff like our smartphones and computers, which are really almost the exact opposite, feature freaks but not robust at all. This is not to say that the style of tech I described doesn't exist. This kind of technology would be the consumer equivalent of buying missile guidance software.
#48
Telephius
Telephius
You should have a self typing program write your posts to avoid thoseThat was an accident.
#49
Eriol
I wish I had the degree of faith that you do in the human driver, but I've already seen too many counterexamples to be with you on this. The computer isn't going to be worse, it's going to be better.
Eriol
This is my point though: no they don't. They freeze up, and usually hit it. Drivers SUCK on average. Most are completely unable to deal with ANYTHING even slightly different than what they deal with day-to-day.A human driver can instantly recognize the difference (given good lighting) and make a judgement call
I wish I had the degree of faith that you do in the human driver, but I've already seen too many counterexamples to be with you on this. The computer isn't going to be worse, it's going to be better.
#50
Jay
Jay
Self driving cars will not feel like an entitled shithead and that in itself is already better than what we have driving in the road.
#51
Dave
Dave
Yeah, say goodbye to road rage.
#52
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
A human driver may be paralyzed with fear, but his brain can instantly discriminate between log/deer/human/hole/etc. Teaching a computer this will be difficult. When I am driving, I assume all other drivers will be self-absorbed and/or self-prioritizing, and react accordingly. Usually, I am not disappointed, which unfortunately makes me disappointed.This is my point though: no they don't. They freeze up, and usually hit it. Drivers SUCK on average. Most are completely unable to deal with ANYTHING even slightly different than what they deal with day-to-day. I wish I had the degree of faith that you do in the human driver, but I've already seen too many counterexamples to be with you on this. The computer isn't going to be worse, it's going to be better.
--Patrick
#53
Bubble181
A computer doesn't have to use our limited band of light. Infra-red or heat detection will tell the difference between a log and a human who's fallen over with far more certainty than a human eye, especially in bad conditions.
Thing is, yes, occasionally a computer car will crash or run over a human being. The question is if any driver besides Michael Schumacher at the top of his game could have avoided that person. Frankly, as far as I've seen auto-parking, auto-stopping, auto-following a lane, auto-driving in traffic jams (you can already buy cars that'll do that perfectly well for you up to about 40 mph), computer engineers seem to go for "err on the side of safety" anywhere and always (as in, not turning when you can because there's a pedestrian looking out towards the crosswalk). With good reason, of course, but still.
Bubble181
In good lighting conditions, without rain or fog or blinding sun, when they're not distracted or tired, etc etc.A human driver [...] 's brain can instantly discriminate between log/deer/human/hole/etc.
--Patrick
A computer doesn't have to use our limited band of light. Infra-red or heat detection will tell the difference between a log and a human who's fallen over with far more certainty than a human eye, especially in bad conditions.
Thing is, yes, occasionally a computer car will crash or run over a human being. The question is if any driver besides Michael Schumacher at the top of his game could have avoided that person. Frankly, as far as I've seen auto-parking, auto-stopping, auto-following a lane, auto-driving in traffic jams (you can already buy cars that'll do that perfectly well for you up to about 40 mph), computer engineers seem to go for "err on the side of safety" anywhere and always (as in, not turning when you can because there's a pedestrian looking out towards the crosswalk). With good reason, of course, but still.
#54
Necronic
Necronic
I think it's funny that PatrThom and I are the two most conservative about this here, and we are two of the more techie guys here as well (not saying we don't have a lot of techies here that are super for it as well).
#55
Covar
Like others have already said, the current technology does not require special infastructure, a central decision making server, or for the majority of vehicles on the road to be self-driving. That being said as the technology becomes more widespread things will improve exponentially as more vehicles can "talk" to each other (i.e. the car in front of you tells your car that it's breaking, allowing for your vehicle to start braking before it's own sensors pick up the break lights or decrease in velocity).
This stuff is going to be amazing.
Covar
I see this being huge for the shipping industry as well as mass transportation, like buses. Imagine if the Bus driver rarely had to focus on driving, and could instead focus attention on students.The nice thing about computer controlled cars is people will finally accept and allow "black box" recorders in their cars, and it will become much more obvious post-accident what happened, particularly if the black box includes video of the areas to the front, back, and sides of the vehicles.
Imagine what accident investigation would be like today if we had all that in our cars now. But people will actually demand it be included in computer controlled vehicles.
Keep in mind that we might seen drone trucks and similar vehicles on the road before we see fully automated vehicles for sale to the general public.
Like others have already said, the current technology does not require special infastructure, a central decision making server, or for the majority of vehicles on the road to be self-driving. That being said as the technology becomes more widespread things will improve exponentially as more vehicles can "talk" to each other (i.e. the car in front of you tells your car that it's breaking, allowing for your vehicle to start braking before it's own sensors pick up the break lights or decrease in velocity).
This stuff is going to be amazing.
#56
Jay
That's why they still run on fossil fuels and new guys like Tesla aren't welcomed because they "break the norm".
Self-driving cars is a pipe-dream that won't happen... at least in my lifetime. It's a great idea but I fail to see how it'll happen.
Jay
With today's car industry? Fuck no. Keeping the norm is key. Innovation isn't accepted. That's how they work. 10 year old screen tech in 95% of cars.The nice thing about computer controlled cars is people will finally accept and allow "black box" recorders in their cars, and it will become much more obvious post-accident what happened, particularly if the black box includes video of the areas to the front, back, and sides of the vehicles.
That's why they still run on fossil fuels and new guys like Tesla aren't welcomed because they "break the norm".
Self-driving cars is a pipe-dream that won't happen... at least in my lifetime. It's a great idea but I fail to see how it'll happen.
#57
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
To be honest, it's probably not that I'm conservative about it, it's just that I'm someone who doesn't automatically think that because it's computer-operated (taking the decision-making away from humans), it must be better and therfore the answer to our driving problems. I've never been one who automatically assumes that our challenges can be solved by shedding responsibility, rather I believe that problems get solved by people who are better-informed and who are more involved their own decisions. In that respect, I'm probably more like @GasBandit . Now, if after careful evaluation, it becomes obvious that autonomous vehicles are a benefit, then I'll be all for 'em, and I'll happily get one (especially if my insurance rates drop as a result), but I'm not gonna just automatically swear my fealty to 'em "because computers."I think it's funny that PatrThom and I are the two most conservative about this here, and we are two of the more techie guys here as well (not saying we don't have a lot of techies here that are super for it as well).
If the bus drove itself, the bus ride could conceivably become 1st period.Imagine if the Bus driver rarely had to focus on driving, and could instead focus attention on students.
--Patrick
#58
GasBandit
GasBandit
Eriol brought up Number "Johnny" 5 in the Funny Pictures thread, and now I'm worried about lightning strikes causing sentient cars. I mean, who would want tha-
... carry on.
... carry on.
#59
Just Me
Just Me
Well, there's the Miniature Wonderland in Hamburg, the largest model railroad in the world.
They do have at least some kind of computer-controlled robot cars, though more or less on magnetic rails.
But it's pretty impressive to watch, we spent half a day of wonderment there in april.
Here's the fire brigade in action, german text and subtitle for additional fun:
They do have at least some kind of computer-controlled robot cars, though more or less on magnetic rails.
But it's pretty impressive to watch, we spent half a day of wonderment there in april.
Here's the fire brigade in action, german text and subtitle for additional fun:
#60
HCGLNS
HCGLNS
If I may introduce a wrench, how will the money generated from traffic violations be generated when computer driven cars don't get into traffic violations? Will @Dave ever be allowed to visit his relatives in Springbank, Omaha?
Similar to the vein of since electric cars don't use gas, how does the government get to tax them if not at the pumps?
tldr: Bitches gotta get paid yo.
Similar to the vein of since electric cars don't use gas, how does the government get to tax them if not at the pumps?
tldr: Bitches gotta get paid yo.
#61
Covar
Covar
They'll either find a way or do their damndest to prevent them under the guise of public safety or some other such nonsense.
#62
HCGLNS
HCGLNS
Imagine the oil companies perturberance when automated cars conservative driving style use fuel more efficiently.
Ooooh, could we get a button on the car that alters the driving parameters! Like a Driving Ms Daisy level or a Dukes of Hazard level or even Goggles Pisano!
Ooooh, could we get a button on the car that alters the driving parameters! Like a Driving Ms Daisy level or a Dukes of Hazard level or even Goggles Pisano!
#63
PatrThom
When the car is self-driving, you won't need to have road signs, traffic signals, speed limits, or any of the other infrastructure which is there to communicate info to the human driver. Just a periodic transponder or two to give positional or regional updates and you're good to go.
Now if you need to generate revenue, you can make it so your car can deliberately violate speed laws, but you have to first agree to receive a ticket.
--Patrick
PatrThom
The amount of money saved by not having to build/maintain the camera infrastructure (or even a network of traffic lights!) will make up for lost revenue.If I may introduce a wrench, how will the money generated from traffic violations be generated when computer driven cars don't get into traffic violations?
When the car is self-driving, you won't need to have road signs, traffic signals, speed limits, or any of the other infrastructure which is there to communicate info to the human driver. Just a periodic transponder or two to give positional or regional updates and you're good to go.
Now if you need to generate revenue, you can make it so your car can deliberately violate speed laws, but you have to first agree to receive a ticket.
--Patrick
#64
jwhouk
jwhouk
Problem: the signs, cameras, everything existing in infrastructure and equipment? It wasn't built on cash on hand. Many, if not all, states pay for stuff like that on credit based upon anticipated revenues. If that equipment suddenly becomes useless, the state still ends up paying for it.
You think the Tea Partiers are bad now, just wait until THAT happens.
You think the Tea Partiers are bad now, just wait until THAT happens.
#65
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
The big savings will be not paying somebody $50,000 to $100,000 a year to keep you safe. Then you don't have to position one of these guys every 60 miles. You don't need to pay $75,000 per car to enforce traffic laws. And not have to put a dozen in each county, per agency that enforces traffic laws.
#66
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
That all operates on the assumption that self-driving cars are the only things out navigating the streets, AND that they are only used to go on preprogrammed routes. Those who aren't using self-driving cars, or any vehicle at all, will still need the usual control, safety, and navigational aids.The amount of money saved by not having to build/maintain the camera infrastructure (or even a network of traffic lights!) will make up for lost revenue.
When the car is self-driving, you won't need to have road signs, traffic signals, speed limits, or any of the other infrastructure which is there to communicate info to the human driver. Just a periodic transponder or two to give positional or regional updates and you're good to go.
#67
Bowielee
Bowielee
That's going to be the stickiest wicket. Auto driven cars vs manually driven ones. I'm sure that insurance will still be around. In fact, insurance companies will probably take this to their advantage. Keep rates the same, but benefit from reduced claims from automatic vehicles.
#68
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
...until self-driving cars become mandated, yes. Much like seat belt use, I see self-driving cars as the sort of thing where there will be a tipping point beyond which Government will up and say, "Welp, they're safe enough, so now everyone has to have one. Autonomous driving will become illegal after 2xxx."That all operates on the assumption that self-driving cars are the only things out navigating the streets, AND that they are only used to go on preprogrammed routes. Those who aren't using self-driving cars, or any vehicle at all, will still need the usual control, safety, and navigational aids.
--Patrick
#69
DarkAudit
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
DarkAudit
And then we go into "A Nice Morning Drive" or Red Barchetta territory....until self-driving cars become mandated, yes. Much like seat belt use, I see self-driving cars as the sort of thing where there will be a tipping point beyond which Government will up and say, "Welp, they're safe enough, so now everyone has to have one. Autonomous driving will become illegal after 2xxx."
--Patrick
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
#70
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Or "Why Johnny Can't Speed," for that matter.And then we go into "A Nice Morning Drive" or Red Barchetta territory.
--Patrick
#71
AshburnerX
The ability for cars to drive independently is simply too basic and necessary to completely remove. Its likely that learning HOW to drive will still be required to access this feature though, or at least necessary to do it legally.
AshburnerX
I think it'll be more like "Autonomous driving is required on all roads that are in the system." America has so many roads that it's completely unlikely to think they will all be covered, especially back country roads and dirt paths. What I suspect would happen in that case is the car will drive you as close as it can, stop and idle, then give you an audio and visual reminder that YOU are libel for anything that happens beyond this point and an agreement you need to okay... with perhaps an option to buy insurance for this trip off the system....until self-driving cars become mandated, yes. Much like seat belt use, I see self-driving cars as the sort of thing where there will be a tipping point beyond which Government will up and say, "Welp, they're safe enough, so now everyone has to have one. Autonomous driving will become illegal after 2xxx."
--Patrick
The ability for cars to drive independently is simply too basic and necessary to completely remove. Its likely that learning HOW to drive will still be required to access this feature though, or at least necessary to do it legally.
#72
PatrThom
PatrThom
Hmm, yes. That's also a possibility. Cars which are limited to 40MPH/60kMH in "manual" mode, and to use highways/freeways, the occupant(s) must relinquish control and allow the computer to drive.
--Patrick
--Patrick
#73
jwhouk
jwhouk
Ah, see, there's the other problem: way too many roads. Heck, Google hasn't even found my street on Street View yet.
#74
Eriol
Eriol
I talked about that earlier. You're MORE likely to be in an accident on those "slow" roads than freeways. Now the higher speed road accident is more likely to kill you... maybe. I really don't know the division of fatalities from freeway vs other. I can see a t-bone at 30-35mph being much worse than some type of frontal impact on the freeway at higher speeds, but at this point the conversation needs an actual expert!Hmm, yes. That's also a possibility. Cars which are limited to 40MPH/60kMH in "manual" mode, and to use highways/freeways, the occupant(s) must relinquish control and allow the computer to drive.
--Patrick
#75
GasBandit
"Calibration error."
GasBandit
"Calibration error."
#76
PatrThom
PatrThom
"two dead truck drivers"
--Patrick
--Patrick
#77
Dave
Dave
That error would not happen with auto driving trucks. So in that world there are still two live truck "drivers".
Hell, there might not have to be a driver at all. Set the destination at the place where the stuff was loaded, unload it at the destination area, truck goes back and forth. Economical.
Hell, there might not have to be a driver at all. Set the destination at the place where the stuff was loaded, unload it at the destination area, truck goes back and forth. Economical.
#78
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Creek detected, rerouting to jump.Ooooh, could we get a button on the car that alters the driving parameters! Like a Driving Ms Daisy level or a Dukes of Hazzard level
#79
GasBandit
Hell, my phone starts acting up if I don't reboot it once every week or two, and that's a google product as well.
GasBandit
So confident are we. Because we know software never flips out, locks up, spontaneously reboots, crashes, blue screens or gets caught in a loop.That error would not happen with auto driving trucks.
Hell, my phone starts acting up if I don't reboot it once every week or two, and that's a google product as well.
#80
Dave
Dave
Yeah, way to use a promotional video from a snack food company to prove a point about the technology behind automatic cars. And blame others for logical fallacies?
#81
HCGLNS
HCGLNS
"You are driving in an area with WIFI, would you like to update?"So confident are we. Because we know software never flips out, locks up, spontaneously reboots, crashes, blue screens or gets caught in a loop.Hell, my phone starts acting up if I don't reboot it once every week or two, and that's a google product as well.
#82
GasBandit
GasBandit
To illustrate, not prove.Yeah, way to use a promotional video from a snack food company to prove a point about the technology behind automatic cars. And blame others for logical fallacies?
#83
Bubble181
Bubble181
He can hardly use footage of a computer-driven car going berserk, considering that footage isn't out yet 
That said, if we have trucks without drivers, perhaps we can chain them together in longer lines, with a smaller number of stronger engines to pull/push the rest forward. Maybe provide guide rails for them. We could potentially do the same with busses, and have them stop at regular intervals, maybe build some infrastructure to make getting on and off easier...If only I could think ofa name for someting like that. Transport on Roads by Artifical Intelligence as Needed?
That said, if we have trucks without drivers, perhaps we can chain them together in longer lines, with a smaller number of stronger engines to pull/push the rest forward. Maybe provide guide rails for them. We could potentially do the same with busses, and have them stop at regular intervals, maybe build some infrastructure to make getting on and off easier...If only I could think ofa name for someting like that. Transport on Roads by Artifical Intelligence as Needed?
#84
jwhouk
jwhouk
I see what you did there.
#85
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
trucks without drivers, perhaps we can chain them together in longer lines, with a smaller number of stronger engines to pull/push the rest forward. Maybe provide guide rails for them. We could potentially do the same with busses, and have them stop at regular intervals, maybe build some infrastructure to make getting on and off easier...If only I could think ofa name for someting like that. Transport on Roads by Artifical Intelligence as Needed?
I think you just described "trains," only smaller.
--Patrick
#86
Shakey
Shakey
Trains would be great if I could have a car after I got where I wanted. Or didn't have to leave at 4am. Or have to pay just as much in gas as a ticket. Or have to sit next to a smelly stranger. Or have to spend 3 days to do a 1 day drive.
#87
AshburnerX
I'm not even kidding... if I wanted to take a train to Atlanta, I'd have to get a ride to my closest bus stop (3 miles), hop a city bus to ether the grey hound or megabus locations, wait for my bus, ride two hours to Cinncinnati, hop another local bus to get to the Amtrak station, wait for my train, and THEN I get to go to Atlanta. There is no advantage... not only would it take longer than just going by bus, it would cost me more. The only upside is I can walk around in the train a bit if I want.
AshburnerX
Or actually had a train depot n your city. Or if cities had train depots in places you'd actually want to go to.Trains would be great if I could have a car after I got where I wanted. Or didn't have to leave at 4am. Or have to pay just as much in gas as a ticket. Or have to sit next to a smelly stranger. Or have to spend 3 days to do a 1 day drive.
I'm not even kidding... if I wanted to take a train to Atlanta, I'd have to get a ride to my closest bus stop (3 miles), hop a city bus to ether the grey hound or megabus locations, wait for my bus, ride two hours to Cinncinnati, hop another local bus to get to the Amtrak station, wait for my train, and THEN I get to go to Atlanta. There is no advantage... not only would it take longer than just going by bus, it would cost me more. The only upside is I can walk around in the train a bit if I want.
#88
jwhouk
jwhouk
You know how many times I would have hopped on a train to go from Milwaukee to Nashville if Amtrak still served the city?
#89
Shakey
To get to Texas, I'd have to go to Chicago then back West. Also ride a bus or two depending on where I want to go. Rail just doesn't work in the US.
Shakey
Which you could do in a self driving suv!The only upside is I can walk around in the train a bit if I want.
To get to Texas, I'd have to go to Chicago then back West. Also ride a bus or two depending on where I want to go. Rail just doesn't work in the US.
#90
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
And this is entirely because no one has payed to place new rails in decades. What needs to happen is we need to place elevated high speed mag rail, coast to coast.Which you could do in a self driving suv!
To get to Texas, I'd have to go to Chicago then back West. Also ride a bus or two depending on where I want to go. Rail just doesn't work in the US.
#91
Shakey
Self driving cars will happen before useful coast to coast high speed rail.
Shakey
Won't happen. We've even tore up unused rail to put in bike trails, not that that is a bad thing.And this is entirely because no one has payed to place new rails in decades. What needs to happen is we need to place elevated high speed mag rail, coast to coast.
Self driving cars will happen before useful coast to coast high speed rail.
#92
Dave
Dave
#93
Eriol
Eriol
CGP Grey is great. I was subscribed before this video.
It does raise a number of issues, though I think that discussion is WAY beyond this specific thread.
It does raise a number of issues, though I think that discussion is WAY beyond this specific thread.
#94
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
NEVER![any] discussion is WAY beyond [any] specific thread.
--Patrick
#95
Jay
Jay
What a great video
#97
Krisken
Krisken
You should give his podcast, Hello Internet a try.CGP Grey is great. I was subscribed before this video.
It does raise a number of issues, though I think that discussion is WAY beyond this specific thread.
#98
Bowielee
Bowielee
I'm under no illusion that we're a long way away from these cars becoming a reality.
#99
Krisken
Krisken
Which is a good thing since so much of our economy (and hence, workforce) depends on transportation.
#100
Shakey
Shakey
I see the Google cars as being at about the same stage as early pc's. Very expensive, and only really useful for specific tasks. Give it 10 to 20 years. It might not be everything we hoped for by then, but we're getting there.http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden-obstacles-for-googles-self-driving-cars/
The article goes into a great amount of detail about the capability of today's Google car, and I'm surprised at how limited they really are. I think the general pubic perception is better than the reality.
#101
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
The cause of accidents is not distracted drivers, it is DRIVERS NOT PAYING FUCKING ATTENTION TO THE ONLY IMPORTANT THING THAT THEY ARE DOING AT THAT MOMENT. There is a slight difference.
#102
Eriol
The Problem is that the Average Driver is TERRIBLE!
Even non-distracted, people do so much stupid shit. As the stats in the first page showed, only something like 10% of accidents can be blamed on distractions. Which means the other 90% (minus mechanical failure, which is almost not worth considering, and minus drunks, which probably isn't that high either) are just people who are terrible.
Most are terrible!!!
Combine with distracted and it's worse, but it's still "most are terrible" is the cause, not "competent + distracted = terrible therefore eliminate distractions as #1".
Edit: clarified my ending point.
Eriol
And we're back to my point from the original post. That's not the problem:The cause of accidents is not distracted drivers, it is DRIVERS NOT PAYING FUCKING ATTENTION TO THE ONLY IMPORTANT THING THAT THEY ARE DOING AT THAT MOMENT. There is a slight difference.
The Problem is that the Average Driver is TERRIBLE!
Even non-distracted, people do so much stupid shit. As the stats in the first page showed, only something like 10% of accidents can be blamed on distractions. Which means the other 90% (minus mechanical failure, which is almost not worth considering, and minus drunks, which probably isn't that high either) are just people who are terrible.
Most are terrible!!!
Combine with distracted and it's worse, but it's still "most are terrible" is the cause, not "competent + distracted = terrible therefore eliminate distractions as #1".
Edit: clarified my ending point.
#103
Mathias
Mathias
I read somewhere that Google cars are going to drive about 10 mph over the speed limit on the highways! I actually wonder how hard police are going to get hit when they lose all that sweet speeding ticket revenue. If you think about it, autonomous cars running on traffic algorithms should be able to drive as fast as the desired energy efficiency that the driver sets. The main purpose of a "speed limit" is due to driver reaction and the resulting damage that one could do at higher speeds because of reaction and distraction. However, municipal police have made speeding tickets one of their revenue sources. Can a cop pull over a Google car for speeding?I just want them for time efficiency. No more stopping for lights, signs, etc. All the cars agree on the order and time their arrival at the intersections, merges, etc so stopping isn't required.
#104
Mathias
I'm one of those smug bastard that considers himself a good driver. I grew up with motorsports though.
However, I like to offset accidents by assuming that every other driver IS terrible and has no clue what they're doing. It's saved my ass many times already.
Just little things I guess. I know my rights of way etc... but I find the problem is people barging through without assuming the other driver is just an idiot. I'd rather give up my right of way than get into an accident. For example. I'm driving on a main road. I have the right of way to all cars turning onto said main road. I'll eye up cars at intersections and make sure they won't jump in front of me. If they do, my feet are already on top of the clutch and brake, and I'm ready to take emergency measures. At a red light I don't stop right at the bumper of the car in front of me. Just in case I need to jump out of the lane to avoid other things. I'm always cautious driving through an intersection - not that I slow down to 10 mph or anything, but I've got my foot over the brake in case I need to slam it because some asshole is running a red. Little things like that.
I've had a total of 3 accidents over the 16 years I've been driving. One was my fault (love tapped a lady when i was 16 and not paying attention). The other two where exclusively someone running a stop sign, which is why I'm so cautious around them. I believe the stats for minor accidents heavily bias towards intersections.
As for highway driving... for the love of God, go at least 5 mph over the speed limit. I find the most dangerous drivers aren't speeders, but slow ass grandpa's doing under 10.
Mathias
And we're back to my point from the original post. That's not the problem:
Most are terrible!!!
.
I'm one of those smug bastard that considers himself a good driver. I grew up with motorsports though.
However, I like to offset accidents by assuming that every other driver IS terrible and has no clue what they're doing. It's saved my ass many times already.
Just little things I guess. I know my rights of way etc... but I find the problem is people barging through without assuming the other driver is just an idiot. I'd rather give up my right of way than get into an accident. For example. I'm driving on a main road. I have the right of way to all cars turning onto said main road. I'll eye up cars at intersections and make sure they won't jump in front of me. If they do, my feet are already on top of the clutch and brake, and I'm ready to take emergency measures. At a red light I don't stop right at the bumper of the car in front of me. Just in case I need to jump out of the lane to avoid other things. I'm always cautious driving through an intersection - not that I slow down to 10 mph or anything, but I've got my foot over the brake in case I need to slam it because some asshole is running a red. Little things like that.
I've had a total of 3 accidents over the 16 years I've been driving. One was my fault (love tapped a lady when i was 16 and not paying attention). The other two where exclusively someone running a stop sign, which is why I'm so cautious around them. I believe the stats for minor accidents heavily bias towards intersections.
As for highway driving... for the love of God, go at least 5 mph over the speed limit. I find the most dangerous drivers aren't speeders, but slow ass grandpa's doing under 10.
#105
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
This may be the most important thing you've ever posted on these forums.I'd rather give up my right of way than get into an accident.
--Patrick
#106
Mathias
It applies to pedestrians too. In grad school I knew a girl that would walk into crosswalks on campus, even if there was a car that was clearly speeding towards it down the road. I've seen the situation several times where the cars would hit their brakes hard because she was in the crosswalk. Her logic was that it was her right of way. Yes. The cars were most definitely speeding, and a pedestrian in a cross walk always has the right of way. HOWEVER, I'd rather be alive and lose my pride than be right and be dead. I remember she totally gaffed at me. Yeah, ok, you go ahead and tell the driver you had the right of way when their 2 ton SUV plows into your 120 lbs body, as they fumble around on their cell phone. Again, the best rule is to always assume the other driver is distracted or a moron in general.
Mathias
This may be the most important thing you've ever posted on these forums.
--Patrick
It applies to pedestrians too. In grad school I knew a girl that would walk into crosswalks on campus, even if there was a car that was clearly speeding towards it down the road. I've seen the situation several times where the cars would hit their brakes hard because she was in the crosswalk. Her logic was that it was her right of way. Yes. The cars were most definitely speeding, and a pedestrian in a cross walk always has the right of way. HOWEVER, I'd rather be alive and lose my pride than be right and be dead. I remember she totally gaffed at me. Yeah, ok, you go ahead and tell the driver you had the right of way when their 2 ton SUV plows into your 120 lbs body, as they fumble around on their cell phone. Again, the best rule is to always assume the other driver is distracted or a moron in general.
#107
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
I swear I had to say this to my wife 50 times before it finally clicked with her. I think what finally woke her up was a day I did things her way, barreling into the crosswalk, and she got freaked out that the oncoming mini-van was going to kill me. Yes, that is a real danger. Strangely, it has been so for many years. Goddammit.I'd rather be alive and lose my pride than be right and be dead.
#108
Bowielee
Bowielee
I was taught that from day one by my driver's ed teacher, along with "never believe turn signals, but always treat them seriously".Again, the best rule is to always assume the other driver is distracted or a moron in general.
#109
Hailey Knight
(YMMV, but that's my #2 problem with drivers in my area. #1 is that when you use your turn signal, they speed up in the lane you're trying to get into. #1 may explain the cause of #2.)
Hailey Knight
Yeah, if the other drivers use them.I was taught that from day one by my driver's ed teacher, along with "never believe turn signals, but always treat them seriously".
(YMMV, but that's my #2 problem with drivers in my area. #1 is that when you use your turn signal, they speed up in the lane you're trying to get into. #1 may explain the cause of #2.)
#110
Mathias
Mathias
I fucking hate that shit. I hate drivers that take merging and lane changes and passing them like you just murdered their mom.Yeah, if the other drivers use them.
(YMMV, but that's my #2 problem with drivers in my area. #1 is that when you use your turn signal, they speed up in the lane you're trying to get into. #1 may explain the cause of #2.)
#111
GasBandit
GasBandit
All I can tell y'all is, down here in non-city Texas, drivers seem to have a contest to see who can let more people merge/turn into their lane.
#112
fade
fade
I've worked on detection and classification algorithms and the subsequent computer implementations for defense. You guys are seriously underestimating detection capabilities. I worked on a system that fit on a small chip, capable of detecting vehicle type, direction, vulnerable spots on the vehicle, and speed. Capable of making microadjustments tens of times a second. Many more with a full, non-sacrificial chip. If google is seriously having difficulty with rain and snow, they aren't recruiting the right people.
#113
PatrThom
PatrThom
"Priorities."
--Patrick
--Patrick
#114
Covar
The cost of sensors are getting cheaper every day. Just from looking at what potential we have today based on where we've come from in the last decade and man the next decade is going to be amazing.
Covar
Moore's Law.The cost of the whole system (sensors, power, calculations, etc) you were dealing with was surely more than a few hundred dollars, though. The military is willing to pay a lot for targeting systems. Consumers aren't going to pay thousands of dollars more per car for similar systems. The calculations may not be a big deal, but the sensors are still very expensive.
The cost of sensors are getting cheaper every day. Just from looking at what potential we have today based on where we've come from in the last decade and man the next decade is going to be amazing.
#115
Mathias
Mathias
I thought that pattern recognition was the major limiting factor in automated systems?I've worked on detection and classification algorithms and the subsequent computer implementations for defense. You guys are seriously underestimating detection capabilities. I worked on a system that fit on a small chip, capable of detecting vehicle type, direction, vulnerable spots on the vehicle, and speed. Capable of making microadjustments tens of times a second. Many more with a full, non-sacrificial chip. If google is seriously having difficulty with rain and snow, they aren't recruiting the right people.
#116
PatrThom
PatrThom
Elon Musk believes non-self-driving cars may one day be outlawed
Well, of course they will. I'm just not convinced it will be during my lifetime.
--Patrick
Well, of course they will. I'm just not convinced it will be during my lifetime.
--Patrick
#117
Shakey
Shakey
The Subaru we have has what they call eyesight. It's two cameras up by the rear view mirror. It will warn against drifting out of your lane, has variable speed cruise control, and does accident avoidance braking.
The cruise control is incredible, I love it. It takes some getting used to to trust it though. It'll take you to a full stop, and beep when the car in front has moved, so you can just hit resume and start following the person in front of you again.
The cruise control is incredible, I love it. It takes some getting used to to trust it though. It'll take you to a full stop, and beep when the car in front has moved, so you can just hit resume and start following the person in front of you again.
#118
GasBandit
GasBandit
For all my reluctance to surrender manual control of my vehicle, it might just be worth it to see every car accelerate uniformly when the light turns green, instead of expanding foward like an inchworm/accordion.
#119
Shakey
Shakey
Or not having to wait for the jack holes that are glued to their phones at every light.
#120
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
I am also in favor of peleton-style traffic.For all my reluctance to surrender manual control of my vehicle, it might just be worth it to see every car accelerate uniformly when the light turns green, instead of expanding foward like an inchworm/accordion.
--Patrick
#121
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
I am also in favor of peleton-style traffic.
--Patrick
#122
Gared
Gared
You know what I'm looking forward to? Merging. It drives me batshit insane every time I watch someone else try to merge into traffic. It isn't rocket science. And then you get the one douchenozzle that thinks it's saving time to straddle the line and not let anyone else in front of them, regardless of the fact that the merging lane continues for another 4 blocks and has 3 turns from it to residential streets that he's blocking.
#123
PatrThom
PatrThom
#124
Dei
Dei
Merging in Colorado is me raging while everyone in front of me in the merge lane refuses to accelerate to highway speeds and instead hopes someone nicely lets them in as they go 40.You know what I'm looking forward to? Merging. It drives me batshit insane every time I watch someone else try to merge into traffic. It isn't rocket science. And then you get the one douchenozzle that thinks it's saving time to straddle the line and not let anyone else in front of them, regardless of the fact that the merging lane continues for another 4 blocks and has 3 turns from it to residential streets that he's blocking.
#125
jwhouk
jwhouk
Since the whole thing with the Uber crash got eliminated in the Purge, there is news:
Charges may set Precedent in Tempe Uber Crash
For those of you just tuning in, or having forgotten:
Charges may set Precedent in Tempe Uber Crash
For those of you just tuning in, or having forgotten:
- On March 18, 2018, a self-driving Uber vehicle ran into and killed a pedestrian just north of downtown Tempe, Arizona.
- The driver was a trans female and former convict who, it was recently determined, not only did not have her hands on the steering wheel, but also was watching The Voice on Hulu at the time of the crash.
- The pedestrian was a homeless woman, crossing over a busy divided highway (Mill Road, the main road out of downtown Tempe) just before 10 PM local.
- The vehicle was in autonomous mode as it drove northbound on Mill, crossing over Tempe Town Lake (in the dark) before reaching the underpass for the Loop 202. The pedestrian was in a median with trees and brush (yes, these do exist in Arizona), and would not be easily seen by a driver.
- It was later determined that Uber had turned off the Emergency Braking system on the Volvo - the factory installed system, as well as the one part of the Uber self-driving system - "to reduce the jerkiness of the ride." (according to AZcentral)
- Uber has shut down its self-driving service in Arizona.
- Immediately before the accident, the in-car camer showed the driver was looking down at a screen in the center console, and had perhaps one half a second to react to the cyclist in the road.
- Charges of manslaughter are now being brought against the driver. This is the crux of the article mentioned above.
#126
mikerc
mikerc
I'm not sure the driver should be the one facing manslaughter charges. Fired, yes, the article does say what she did was considered a fireable offense by Uber. But, if I recall correctly from what we discussed before the Purge, if those parts of the self driving system hadn't been disabled then the car wouldn't have hit the pedestrian. Who switched them off (or rather, who made the decision to have them switched off)? That's who should be facing manslaughter charges.
#127
Dei
Dei
She was supposed to be attentive and compensating for the car's failures, and she was playing with her phone. I don't feel too much sympathy.I'm not sure the driver should be the one facing manslaughter charges. Fired, yes, the article does say what she did was considered a fireable offense by Uber. But, if I recall correctly from what we discussed before the Purge, if those parts of the self driving system hadn't been disabled then the car wouldn't have hit the pedestrian. Who switched them off (or rather, who made the decision to have them switched off)? That's who should be facing manslaughter charges.
#128
mikerc
Point is that we accept that humans aren't always concentrating 100% but we do expect that self driving cars always meet a certain minimum level of "awareness". Yes the driver fell below even the lesser levels of awareness we expect from drivers for at least some of the drive, including when the accident happened, but the car was below what we expect form it for *all* of that drive, and probably other besides. That's why I feel the greater responsibility falls on whoever disabled the safety features - the put a car on the road that wasn't as safe as it should have been.
mikerc
I don't feel too much sympathy for her either. Like I said I believe she should be fired. But for all we say drivers should always be 100% concentrating on the road we also really accept that sometimes they're not. They're talking to other people in the car, or changing radio stations, or fuming over that thing their boss / coworker / friend / SO said to them earlier, or wondering what to have for dinner when they get home, or just plain driving on a road they've driven thousands of times before to the point that they don't think about it anymore.She was supposed to be attentive and compensating for the car's failures, and she was playing with her phone. I don't feel too much sympathy.
Point is that we accept that humans aren't always concentrating 100% but we do expect that self driving cars always meet a certain minimum level of "awareness". Yes the driver fell below even the lesser levels of awareness we expect from drivers for at least some of the drive, including when the accident happened, but the car was below what we expect form it for *all* of that drive, and probably other besides. That's why I feel the greater responsibility falls on whoever disabled the safety features - the put a car on the road that wasn't as safe as it should have been.
#129
jwhouk
jwhouk
The article points out that the on-board system did "see" the pedestrian/cyclist six seconds before the crash. Had it been active, it probably would have stopped the car before hitting the woman - though it's possible the woman would have still run into the car.
#130
PatrThom
PatrThom
Yes. She was supposed to be the emergency backup system, and she had taken herself offline at the time. It’s a tortuously boring job for any human to do, but that was the job description.
I wonder if her charge shouldn’t actually be malpractice rather than manslaughter.
—Patrick
I wonder if her charge shouldn’t actually be malpractice rather than manslaughter.
—Patrick
#131
jwhouk
jwhouk
Well, she is an ex-con (something that was trumpeted more than her trans status).
#132
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Yes, though I doubt you can blame being an ex-con for why she decided to play on her phone.Well, she is an ex-con (something that was trumpeted more than her trans status).
--Patrick
#133
jwhouk
jwhouk
Hey, it was The Voice.