FarHorizon

Wow, gecho - I hadn't thought about snow conditions (I'm from Louisiana). Maybe a low-powered radar to see through snow? I would agree, though, that self-driving cars have the potential to be the safest vehicles on the road. I'd think that the cars might even "network" in situations such as you describe ("after you, sir - no, after you!"). There will always be some who don't wish to trust the technology, and yes, the potential for hacking is there. I foresee some deliberately hacking the car's software to make theirs more aggressive and quicker to the destination.

On the other hand, the self-driving car also allows the option on not necessarily needing to OWN the car at all. Like calling a cab, you could request a pickup, your GPS would drive the most closely available car to your location (driverlessly), after which you could be driven to your destination paying only for the miles you used.

genec

No, no technology is 100% reliable... but then neither are humans. Humans get raged, distracted and sleepy behind the wheel... Just to name a few flaws.

Sure I'd say this right to your face. I have no problem with my statements. You may be the last holdout for a self driving car. But I suspect that if it is shown that said vehicles save lots of lives (by preventing the current 30,000 or more deaths that humans cause while driving), then I suspect they will become mandatory, just like seat belts and airbags.

And if all you know about them is that "GPS isn't good enough..." you need to do a lot more homework. Just go to the video I posted above... those decisions that are shown being made with regard to things like bikes on the road, trucks parked on the side... have very little to do with GPS.

genec

As always...

adablduya

ok, we agree that neither technology nor human reactions are 100% reliable. good enough.

my whole point was that IN MY OPINION, there are far too many flaws with technology for me to feel even remotely confident in trusting it to manage my safety in a moving vehicle; certainly not more than my own confidence in myself to do so. for example, notice how often we hear about vehicle recalls these days for malfunctioning devices (i.e., ignition switches, air bags, accelerator pedals that purportedly get stuck ) ? hard for me to put my faith in the Utopian vision of automated transportation.

finally, to suggest that i might be the last holdout for a self-driving car is ridiculous. you really believe that the rest of society fully embraces the driverless-car idea, that i'm a lone rebel ?

genec

OK, I can understand that... but what if the "Utopian vision" leads to fewer deaths on the road... do you "buy in" then?

FarHorizon

I understand your skepticism, @adablduya - and I share it. However, I predict that the benefits will so much outweigh the potential negatives, that Mr. @genec is correct, and that ultimately, the technology will become mandatory. That probably won't happen in our lifetimes, but it will eventually happen.

Yes, the first, second, and third generations of self-driving cars will have notable flaws, but those flaws can be dealt with by good sensors, software, and engineering. As the technology matures, the resistance to hacking, tampering, and deliberate sabotage will increase.

I might not want to surrender my life to a self-driving car at this moment, but I can be sold... Show me that the car is safer, more reliable, and more "situationally aware" than I, the human driver, am, and I'll be ready to buy one. I understand that you maybe can't imagine one yet, but I contend that the societal benefit is so great that the technology MUST come to fruition.

The one other thing I might mention, sir, is that you already trust your safety in moving vehicles to software. You do fly? You've heard of "autopilot?" This is software that an entire airliner full of souls are trusting their lives to on a daily basis. And it works.

Hypno Toad

It's not my confidence in myself, it's my confidence in the guy driving 40 mph as he replying to emails while eating his McMuffin - that's the one I have no confidence in.

I was trained by some of the best commercial driving instructors - I drove professionally for a number of years, including UPS and school buses (HATEFUL JOB). I have a great driving record. However, the VAST MAJORITY of drivers on the road have none of this training and no perceived need to be attentive drivers (airbags, seat belts and 2 tons of steal will protect them for 'bad' decisions). This is why the 'glitches' of driverless cars would be an improvement - IMO.

adablduya

farhorizon: i appreciate you acknowledge my points, and you make many yourself. namely, that the reliability and evolution of the technology will likely materialize, but certainly not in my lifetime (i'm 54). also, when the reliability and safety of the driver-less car is proven, i can be sold on it. today's hardware is fraught with too many failures, as evidenced by a frequent vehicle recalls for safety features. thus, my skepticism.

as far as auto-pilot for jet planes: i'm not sure i'd equate cruise-control for a plane on the same level as a car that is self-navigated through a maze of other vehicles.

hypno toad: good points, as well.

corrado33

I think that the questions posed in the OP are good ones.

As for how the cars treat pedestrians and bikers, I think the OP was correct. A car vs. biker collision is VERY bad for the biker, but a car vs. car or car vs. wall is much less dangerous for the passengers. I think "not hitting bikers/pedestrians" will be very high on the list of things the car has to take into account.

Honestly I think that adabydula... is wrong. (My opinion of course.) Computers think and react MUCH faster than we do. This is why we ALREADY have emergency braking features in many cars. Computers can see better (IR cameras, etc.), they can react faster, and they can react more rationally than humans. I think a self driving car is a much safer driver than a human, unless there is a weird circumstance. Honestly, in a situation where the computer car would get into a crash, the human driven car would also get into a crash. Some crashes are unavoidable.

In the situation where a biker/stroller jumps out in front of a car? I'd say the computer would perform MUCH better. Most humans will try to steer around the biker/stroller to the left, because when they first see the object that's the most open path. (Assuming they're driving on the right side of the road.) However, that isn't always the best option. Just take a look at cars running red lights. People always steer AWAY from the oncoming car. However, many times it's more prudent to steer toward it, so it'll pass you and you'll go behind it. A computer could EASILY and QUICKLY judge how fast the object was moving and determine which way to attempt to steer to avoid a collision. Not only that, but the computer would also have TONS of evidence showing that it wasn't it's own fault. (Multiple video cameras, most likely weather sensors, etc.)

Now, if we go to the extreme and say that the majority of the cars on the road are self driven, then they have even more advantages. Cars could send out "emergency" signals that let other cars know there is an accident ahead. Cars could send out road data, where icy patches are, where the car needs approach more slowly, etc. The speed of light is much faster than the speed any car travels.

I will say this though. There needs to be much more work done with computer vision before any type of public self driven car gets implemented. That is one thing humans are very good at is processing images. Computers need to get better at distinguishing what is a hazard and what isn't in all levels of light. I don't currently think that computer vision is there yet, however it will be soon. One cool thing to think about however is this... Computers could use IR headlights and cut down on light pollution. That'd be pretty cool!

FarHorizon

I think that the "emergency signals" could also be used to prioritize traffic. Those in no hurry could tell their car not to rush. This would improve safety & minimize passenger jostling. Those in "normal" (default) mode would get there as quickly as the car deems safe. In "hurry" mode, the car could get you to the airport on time for your flight. Those in "emergency" mode (on the way to a hospital, etc.) could be given the right-of-way by other cars automatically as the cars communicate.

The interactivity could also be used to minimize traffic jams and best utilize alternate routes. I think that the driverless car would also encourage bicyclists and pedestrians. If you cycled to work and by going home time the weather was terrible, you could call your car to come pick you up (or utilize a driverless cab).

genec

The mention of the IR headlights is interesting as it points out that what we really don't think about is that sensors and computers may well be able to do things that humans cannot do, things that we folks here on BF might even have a hard time imagining.

The issue that the OP mentioned... weighing one collision against another, given a no win situation... is one that no doubt the folks working on AI software are dealing with right now. That decision process and the information to deal with it can likely be processed vastly faster than even a human could evaluate, even while the brain is flooded with panic endorphin.

adablduya does have a point in that how much can we trust the automakers... given the recent issues that both Toyota and GM have worked to cover up. Sadly, while it is a good point... whether the cars are machine controlled or human controlled, we are still beholden to that greed driven flaw.

adablduya, just how confident are you that all the parts in your car are working properly?

KD5NRH

I really wonder how the autopilot would have handled last night's fatality mess:

(Requires a login on the local paper's site, so I'm just copying the relevant bits here.)
Assuming the baling twine had already broken, a properly made round bale will become a really dense mound in the road, but maybe not dense enough for whatever sensors to register it properly, (and I haven't heard the exact location so it may have been just past the crest of the hill) so you have a vehicle suddenly doing things that aren't normally possible (going airborne, changing direction at least once more sharply than traction would allow, and who knows what else) in a 75mph two-lane road.

The worst part is that the hauler probably knows he didn't secure the load properly, and nothing but a sudden attack of conscience will ever let this one get solved. Clearly, we need registration, microstamping and a waiting period on hay bales.

Chris516

My one curiosity about a car of this type is. Will it notice the traffic signals. To the point that if another driver goes through a red light. It won't do the same thing.

FarHorizon

Hi @Chris516 - I think I can answer that one - Yes, the cars already on the road (the Google cars) DO recognize traffic signals (and turn signals, and school zones, etc.). They are programmed to look for such things. They also have 360-degree cameras and will identify cars that are running red lights. The Google cars (from what I've read) are actually better than the average human at stopping before getting broadsided because they have better "peripheral vision."

Caliper

Depends on how you define "emergency"... An emergency could be a failure of the sensors the system uses to drive. Then a human driver would be required to step in. You always must have a fail-safe. On electronic throttle controls, in the case of a major fault most systems will default to some moderate throttle value, say 30%. Enough to move the car but low enough to easily be overcome with the brakes. On a self-driving car, what is the default value fo the steering?

I could see cars working entirely autonomously in cities and such where there are well defined curbs, medians, etc. But outside the cities with gravel/dirt/unpainted roads will be another level of development entirely. I was driving a car with one of the systems that warns you if you are drifting out of your lane. On a dirt road with snow on it, I noticed the icon had illuminated showing that the system was active and tracking lane lines. Interesting because there aren't any on this road... Somehow it was following the tracks in the snow that the previous traffic had left. OK, this system only beeps to warn me, but that's a potential issue for autonomous in that it is taking in false information.

Good luck getting the legal and finance department of whatever corporation is selling this car to sign off on that!

What about on private property? No license required to drive there. Or is Big Brother going to continue marching onto my front yard?

Also, how would this system even work driving with no particular destination in mind? Just exploring or looking for something?

Just pointing out questions that need to be asked. I could see owning a car that does this, but only if I can turn it off and take over driving manually (with a manual trans!). The drive home is my place to relax after work. I enjoy driving just like I enjoy biking. Taking away the driving part of the drive home would be a very negative thing in my book.

genec

Ever really read the EULA that you rapidly click "yes" on, when you load new software?


What is it exactly that you enjoy about driving? If it is being alone with your thoughts, well, a driverless vehicle will do that... but if it is something else, just what is it?

Caliper

LOL, somehow my mind skipped the "limited liability" part of FarHorizons post and thought he was proposing corporations be liable for autonomous driving wrecks...

That's a tough proposal then. Society will demand someone be 100% liable for a car crash.

Mostly, just the act of driving. Accelerating, cornering, braking, shifting gears. Like I said, it's the same fun as biking, the fun of traveling somewhere, piloting oneself down the road and operating a well made machine. My current commute is 35 miles and 40-45 minutes so I'm actually driving, not sitting in traffic. Self-driving cars would be great for stop and go traffic situations like when when I visit my parents in N. Va. Then again, the over-crowding there that would make self-driving cars useful is near the top on my list of reasons for not living in that area anymore.

KD5NRH

I have a 1997 Saturn SL1 that's been badly wrecked twice, picked up for $700 because the guy didn't want to move it again. It's not so much "operating a well made machine" as being constantly fascinated that all the repairs I've done to it are still working.

Pretty much the same here, except that my commute is only 6 miles and maybe ten minutes. My open road time is on the weekends, and frankly, I'd be happy with a pretty simple autopilot; get up to speed on the interstate, tell it where to wake me, take a nap, and go back to full manual control for the surface streets. I enjoy the back roads, but I've usually got a destination and a time I need to be there, and gas prices aren't conducive to taking the long way every time just because it's prettier.

FarHorizon

HI @Caliper - You bring up VERY interesting questions. IMHO, there should be a "bring the car to the side of the road safely and call for help" automatic, independent function. Should that also fail, then yes, the steering, brakes, and throttle should default to whomever's behind the wheel. There will be (WILL BE) circumstances where the automation will fail. A couple of layers of backup are certainly necessary.

The "proving ground" for self driving cars has been in the desert where there are exactly the situations you've described. Some of the biggest obstacles that had to be overcome were the cars' propensities to misidentify shadows as boulders or canyons and vice versa. By the time the cars get to market, you should be able to purchase an "off-road pack" of software that will allow this too. If you choose not to buy the option, then you'd have to drive yourself in such situations.

They won't be happy about it, but they WILL do it. Why? Because they won't remain in business if they don't. Once one company starts selling a commercially-successful self-driving car, then the avalanche will begin.

There's no doubt that the first few generations of such cars will (by necessity) have driver override. Turn off the auto switch and drive to your heart's content. But the time will come, that to get onto, for example, any interstate highway, your car will HAVE to have self-driving, and that it will remain engaged for the duration of your time on the high-speed road. That, alone, would allow higher speed limits with equivalent (or better) safety.

enigmaT120

What is the fail-safe for the cars on the road now?

Caliper

That "off road" pack would have to be standard in the vast majority of counties in the US where many people live/drive on dirt or gravel roads regularly.

[quote]They won't be happy about it, but they WILL do it. Why? Because they won't remain in business if they don't. Once one company starts selling a commercially-successful self-driving car, then the avalanche will begin.[quote]

Sorry, had misread your initial proposal that automakers would have limited liability, somehow I read that automakers would be liable (a very likely possibility given current legal precedent). You may sell automakers on limited liability, but I see consumers balking at the idea of having to pay to repair a self driven wreck.

Of course, there are unintended consquences of this. If automakers are liable for damages, the programming will tend towards reducing liability. If a cyclist or pedestrian jumps out from between two parked cars, the programming would then tend toward max braking but acccept the possibly hitting the cyclist. After all, the cars data record will show the cyclist was clearly at fault and responsible for the damages to the car. Swerving to hit a parked car to save the cyclist will mean having to pay to fix two cars since the cyclist is u lokely to remain at the scene. Perhaps if all cyclists are required to wear transponders so they can easily be tracked down to pay for those damages?

So, in this future where we've crossed the bridge to banning "conventional" cars from certaian places, how long before automated driving is required on all roads and bicycles are only allowed on designated recreational paths? (and only at a safe 10mph mind you, because by then we will be incredibly risk adverse)

For which system? There are only two automated systems I am aware of that take control away from the driver and thus need a fail safe: electronic throttle and electronic transmission shifting (as in, selecting park/reverse/neutral/drive, not the actual gearchanging) both have a safe place to go in the event of a system malfunction.

Rollfast

A car that only does 10 mph or not much faster and stops on a dime for everything is a sitting duck for highwaymen gangs. Imagine the large scale disruption a bunch of kids could inflict of the transportation system.

Rioters have been rolling heavy police cars over lately as it is...

I would rather see more assisted transportation services with a PERSON who can drive defensively and knows how to navigate tricky situations. These vehicles are CUTE, but they are basically the DUMB TERMINAL model and relatively unsophisticated, not suited for the task yet.

FarHorizon

Hi Rollfast - I might agree with you for now, but the technology IS advancing quickly because the profit potential is so great. I'd contend that anyone that drives their car through rioters is a prime candidate for Darwinism - They need to be culled from the heard anyway...

enigmaT120

I meant what is the fail-safe for the operators of motor vehicles out there now that are used to kill 30,000 or so people per year. It was a joke, as there isn't a fail-safe for them.

nd2010

I think self driving cars are better than human-driven cars. Initially, the self driving feature will only be permitted on interstates in a few states, then eventually on interstates nationwide, then they'll be permitted on all streets, then required on all interstates. When we get to the point when cars are required to be self driving on interstates, then we'll have 100 mph speed limits and cars drafting each other at such speeds to use less fuel or electricity.

There will be a protocol for self driving cars to communicate with each other in a standard format, and bicycles could be implanted with a transmitter that can communicate its position and speed to self driving cars nearby.

100% adoption of well-programmed self driving cars will result in a "perfect" transportation system. Computers can react faster than humans and make better decisions.