Self driving cars....

[Tubetec]

Technology is a double edged sword at the best of times ,
I remember a few years ago my dad bought himself a petrol electric hybrid,with all the usual gadgets .
It had a rear view camera with an animated targeting system to help the user park in tight spaces.
I had to chuckle to myself recently when my dad tried to park a hire car without a rear view camera ,it seems like all the years of driving experience had left him down ,it took him like a 10 point turn to manuvre the vehicle into a parking spot .
Another case of this is our ability to recall ,since the advent of mobile phones and and contact lists ,we simply dont commit numbers to our brains anymore ,you'd be surprised the number of people who cant even recall their own phone number from memory.
High tech is very exciting on paper ,but its the usual story ,in the headlong rush to be first past the post any potential downsides are not even considered , a prime example of this is Marie Curie's x ray machine ,initially at least it was considered a perfect tool for pregnancy diagnosis.
The internet shows other examples of this shortsightedness ,the younger generation nowadays are suffering more and more from, what once was mainly adult psychological conditions . I guess as adults who grew up in a different generation we might have posess an ability to make decisions about what we view or not,the young just think well its online ,so its all good .
Technology has a way of biting us back on the ass very hard ,in ways we never forsee .

 

[JohnRoberts]

Technology is a double edged sword at the best of times ,
I remember a few years ago my dad bought himself a petrol electric hybrid,with all the usual gadgets .
It had a rear view camera with an animated targeting system to help the user park in tight spaces.
I had to chuckle to myself recently when my dad tried to park a hire car without a rear view camera ,it seems like all the years of driving experience had left him down ,it took him like a 10 point turn to manuvre the vehicle into a parking spot .
Another case of this is our ability to recall ,since the advent of mobile phones and and contact lists ,we simply dont commit numbers to our brains anymore ,you'd be surprised the number of people who cant even recall their own phone number from memory.
High tech is very exciting on paper ,but its the usual story ,in the headlong rush to be first past the post any potential downsides are not even considered , a prime example of this is Marie Curie's x ray machine ,initially at least it was considered a perfect tool for pregnancy diagnosis.
The internet shows other examples of this shortsightedness ,the younger generation nowadays are suffering more and more from, what once was mainly adult psychological conditions . I guess as adults who grew up in a different generation we might have posess an ability to make decisions about what we view or not,the young just think well its online ,so its all good .
Technology has a way of biting us back on the ass very hard ,in ways we never forsee .

It is easy to become dependant on technology... I put a rear view mirror on my bicycle and sometimes wish I had a rear view mirror on my lawnmower and even while walking on the roadside to easily see behind me.

JR

 

[Tubetec]

you could always try a set of these JR .

 

[Phrazemaster]

I have been following this for a long time and one concern about so much technology manufacturing moving offshore is imagine some future where computer programming must be done in Chinese (while my initial concern was Japanese which tells you how long I have been thinking about this).

JR

I'm continually impressed with the depth of your thinking JR. I hate seeing so many posts blasting you when I feel you offer reasonable, reasoned, and compassionate responses.

Well-stated. What an interesting (and scary!) thought.

 

[Phrazemaster]

you could always try a set of these JR .

Classic!

But no wifi?

 

[JohnRoberts]

you could always try a set of these JR .

I actually tried a small rear view mirror that attached to my bike helmet but it is hard to focus on the small mirror, and see a half mile behind  me (for traffic). The larger handlebar mirror makes it easier to see coming traffic from distance. 

JR

 

[kambo]

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-trial-self-driving-trucks-platoons-roads

 

[The Kid]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-20/video-shows-woman-stepped-suddenly-in-front-of-self-driving-uber

This is why no matter how smart you make a machine, you can't change basic physics.  Or the unpredictability of humans and other living things.  Unless you put the cars in an isolated tube, I just don't see how it can happen. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-20/video-shows-woman-stepped-suddenly-in-front-of-self-driving-uber

This is why no matter how smart you make a machine, you can't change basic physics.  Or the unpredictability of humans and other living things.  Unless you put the cars in an isolated tube, I just don't see how it can happen.

This was not a matter of if but when the first self-driving traffic fatality occurred.  Despite all the publicity, self driving cars will probably be far safer than humans texting or putting on makeup while driving.

This will be another learning experience for car makers (like the tesla crash death) that may improve safety further, or not.  I try to give cars a wide berth when riding my bike. Walking it across a traffic lane from the median sounds like it deserves extra attention.  We will likely get more information about the accident's details.

I also thought it was interesting that the self driving car was going 38MPH in a 35MPH  zone.  Self driving cars that only go the speed limit would probably be unpopular.  :

JR

 

[The Kid]

This was not a matter of if but when the first self-driving traffic fatality occurred.  Despite all the publicity, self driving cars will probably be far safer than humans texting or putting on makeup while driving.

This will be another learning experience for car makers (like the tesla crash death) that may improve safety further, or not.  I try to give cars a wide berth when riding my bike. Walking it across a traffic lane from the median sounds like it deserves extra attention.  We will likely get more information about the accident's details.

I also thought it was interesting that the self driving car was going 38MPH in a 35MPH  zone.  Self driving cars that only go the speed limit would probably be unpopular.  :

JR

Absolutely, I totally agree the cars will be safer.  The problem is, though, no matter how many sensors a car has, there is a point of no return, as far as physics is concerned.  No amount of braking is going to stop the momentum of a large moving object.  That, and no matter how much programming someone does, it'd be impossible to program for every conceivable scenario.  And while the self driving car might not have to worry about drunk drivers, what about drunk pedestrians/cyclists?  I remember there was a guy here that was in court for riding his bicycle drunk, and hitting a bus(!)   

Being a bike rider myself, self driving cars would probably be much safer than it is now, since they wouldn't be distracted.  Every time I see someone do a right hand turn without even looking at the crosswalk just amazes me.  But, unless the bicycle I'm riding is also self driving, I just don't think it could work. 

Good point about the speed limit, I wonder how that will work. 

That brings up a whole other side, people hacking the cars, just like hot rodders do now.  DIY?  lol

 

[JohnRoberts]

Absolutely, I totally agree the cars will be safer.  The problem is, though, no matter how many sensors a car has, there is a point of no return, as far as physics is concerned.  No amount of braking is going to stop the momentum of a large moving object.  That, and no matter how much programming someone does, it'd be impossible to program for every conceivable scenario.  And while the self driving car might not have to worry about drunk drivers, what about drunk pedestrians/cyclists?  I remember there was a guy here that was in court for riding his bicycle drunk, and hitting a bus(!)   

Being a bike rider myself, self driving cars would probably be much safer than it is now, since they wouldn't be distracted.  Every time I see someone do a right hand turn without even looking at the crosswalk just amazes me.  But, unless the bicycle I'm riding is also self driving, I just don't think it could work. 

Good point about the speed limit, I wonder how that will work. 

That brings up a whole other side, people hacking the cars, just like hot rodders do now.  DIY?  lol

I suspect part of any self driving car standards will be automatic car to car ID and communication, so cars will know where other cars are.  I suspect the cars could already just about track pedestrians phones from them texting while walking instead of looking where they are walking.  I could imagine some pedestrian ID beacons built into our smart watch or whatever. 

But city traffic could get even worse if self driving taxi cabs stopped for every pedestrian in the roadway.. 

JR

 

[benb]

"It’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode,” Sylvia Moir, the police chief in Tempe, Arizona, told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Most people who read or heard the "Self-Driving Car Kills Pedestrian" headline will never read that far into such an article, and certainly not read whatever later article explaining the circumstances because "it's yesterday's news."

I suspect part of any self driving car standards will be automatic car to car ID and communication, so cars will know where other cars are.  I suspect the cars could already just about track pedestrians phones from them texting while walking instead of looking where they are walking.  I could imagine some pedestrian ID beacons built into our smart watch or whatever. 

I can imagine cameras mounted on buildings, or even extra ones on the traffic light supports (where there are already some to read the tags of red light runners) that would see pedestrians walking and send this info to nearby cars. If you have to trust beacons, there will always be a person (or dog, cow, horse, bear) who isn't wearing one or its battery has discharged.

But city traffic could get even worse if self driving taxi cabs stopped for every pedestrian in the roadway.. 

JR

That's a problem I read about with 4-way stop, people are pretty good about knowing who's next and going ahead and taking their turn, but the self-driving car will come to a stop on any amount of movement of the other cars, so it ended up staying at the stop sign. It actually needed to be more aggressive just to get through the intersection.

 

[JohnRoberts]

"It’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode,” Sylvia Moir, the police chief in Tempe, Arizona, told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Most people who read or heard the "Self-Driving Car Kills Pedestrian" headline will never read that far into such an article, and certainly not read whatever later article explaining the circumstances because "it's yesterday's news."
I can imagine cameras mounted on buildings, or even extra ones on the traffic light supports (where there are already some to read the tags of red light runners) that would see pedestrians walking and send this info to nearby cars. If you have to trust beacons, there will always be a person (or dog, cow, horse, bear) who isn't wearing one or its battery has discharged.That's a problem I read about with 4-way stop, people are pretty good about knowing who's next and going ahead and taking their turn, but the self-driving car will come to a stop on any amount of movement of the other cars, so it ended up staying at the stop sign. It actually needed to be more aggressive just to get through the intersection.

Self driving cars will be much better than humans at following rules, so at a 4 way stop will always defer to the car to the right. If there are 4 cars, after an interval (hopefully a similar interval so first arrival will be first to move) one will start advancing slowly.  Unless 2 cars arrived at the exact same time, there should not be contention, but if that happens they will probably electronically flip a coin. I suspect smart programmers have already worked this out.

There will be future generations of kids who never drove a car (or tractor).  These would be nice for getting home from a club after drinking too much, or taking granny to the drugstore for a prescription.

JR

 

[madswitcher]

A couple of thinks come to my thoughts on self driving vehicles (SDV)

(1) A point raised by my friend's son who works in the insurance industry: he saw a demo of a SDV in the UK and asked" If a SDV finds that it cannot brake and has to make a choice between crashing into a bus, OR, hitting a pedestrian, how will  this be programmed into the vehicle's controls and who is culpable - insurance companies always want someone to blame.

(2) The cyinic in me asks "Who benefits from SDVs?"  It is certainly not a altruistic effort underway here - as usual follow the money and where does it lead us?

Regards

Mike

 

[JohnRoberts]

A couple of thinks come to my thoughts on self driving vehicles (SDV)

(1) A point raised by my friend's son who works in the insurance industry: he saw a demo of a SDV in the UK and asked" If a SDV finds that it cannot brake and has to make a choice between crashing into a bus, OR, hitting a pedestrian, how will  this be programmed into the vehicle's controls and who is culpable - insurance companies always want someone to blame.

This has already been explored in science fiction (*that robot movie with Will Smith"). They will use algorithms that weight cost of such decisions. They will likely do this far better than humans too. There may be some debate about that weighting, but I bet insurance companies have a table somewhere listing how much an arm or leg is worth, vs. a life.

  Of course the insurance industry is paying attention because virtually eliminating driver error caused accidents will change ( shrink) the industry dramatically. Liability will shift to car makers and corporate fleet owners. The recent accident was covered by an industrial insurance policy.

(2) The cyinic in me asks "Who benefits from SDVs?"  It is certainly not a altruistic effort underway here - as usual follow the money and where does it lead us?

Regards

Mike

I am a born cynic but something like 1 million people die from auto accidents annually.  Those who were suicidal will have to find another way.  As we change from a model of user driven and owned cars to shared/rented vehicles on demand (at least in densely populated regions), utilization will go way up, removing many redundant vehicles from the road. The car companies will lose sales. Right now they have to pedal as fast as they can to avoid becoming completely obsolete and moot. 

This will eventually be a better world (at least on roads) but you will have to rip my car keys from my cold dead hands.  8)

JR

 

[madswitcher]

This has already been explored in science fiction (*that robot movie with Will Smith"). They will use algorithms that weight cost of such decisions. They will likely do this far better than humans too. There may be some debate about that weighting, but I bet insurance companies have a table somewhere listing how much an arm or leg is worth, vs. a life.

  Of course the insurance industry is paying attention because virtually eliminating driver error caused accidents will change ( shrink) the industry dramatically. Liability will shift to car makers and corporate fleet owners. The recent accident was covered by an industrial insurance policy. I am a born cynic but something like 1 million people die from auto accidents annually.  Those who were suicidal will have to find another way.  As we change from a model of user driven and owned cars to shared/rented vehicles on demand (at least in densely populated regions), utilization will go way up, removing many redundant vehicles from the road. The car companies will lose sales. Right now they have to pedal as fast as they can to avoid becoming completely obsolete and moot. 

This will eventually be a better world (at least on roads) but you will have to rip my car keys from my cold dead hands.  8)

JR

On the first point, this is not science fiction: weighting of one person's life against another (or several) is a 'No-win scenario' and brings with it the worth of individuals etc. - not an easy decision to make in real life and in a split second.

On point (2) I think I am probably a bigger cynic John: "one million people's lives" is not at the top of anyone's agenda - money has to crop up as a primary aim in someone's equation on this - making it (probably) and/or saving it (likely).

Like yourself however,  I wouldn't trust a Self-Drive as far as I could throw it.

Regards from a somewhat warmer UK - methinks the weather is turning. 

Mike

 

[midwayfair]

A couple of thinks come to my thoughts on self driving vehicles (SDV)

(1) A point raised by my friend's son who works in the insurance industry: he saw a demo of a SDV in the UK and asked" If a SDV finds that it cannot brake and has to make a choice between crashing into a bus, OR, hitting a pedestrian, how will  this be programmed into the vehicle's controls and who is culpable - insurance companies always want someone to blame.

(2) The cyinic in me asks "Who benefits from SDVs?"  It is certainly not a altruistic effort underway here - as usual follow the money and where does it lead us?

Regards

Mike

Mike, see my post earlier in the thread regarding point 1.

 

[JohnRoberts]

On the first point, this is not science fiction: weighting of one person's life against another (or several) is a 'No-win scenario' and brings with it the worth of individuals etc. - not an easy decision to make in real life and in a split second.

but avoiding needless accidents entirely is a win-win... reducing deaths, cost, pain and suffering.

ABS brakes saved my front end at least once (allowing me to steer away from a collision when a human driver ran a red light and cut me off). Self driving cars are unlikely to run red lights making it safer for us human drivers too.

On point (2) I think I am probably a bigger cynic John: "one million people's lives" is not at the top of anyone's agenda - money has to crop up as a primary aim in someone's equation on this - making it (probably) and/or saving it (likely).

you don't think 1 million lives are worth saving? 

Of course profit is involved in the calculus. IMO the dominant motivation for the industry is "preserving" market share and profit. I expect the industry could eventually become more of a utility based commodity so less profitable fashion/brand content.

Like yourself however,  I wouldn't trust a Self-Drive as far as I could throw it.

I've trusted cab drivers so trusting self-driving cars is a matter of degree...  I expect self-driving technology to continue to improve , I just don't expect self driving cars to show up in Hickory, MS anytime soon.

Regards from a somewhat warmer UK - methinks the weather is turning. 

Mike

Yes, warmer and I was out working in my yard yesterday when some gawker pulled into my driveway to ask me about my car "going to waste, just sitting in my carport and collecting dust" (actually covered by pine pollen).  I managed to control myself and not say to him what I really thought about his word choices.  : (He had a young kid with him.) Me keeping and using my car, even only once a week is not it going to waste.  He probably had visions of buying it cheap (it's a relatively rare limited production '97 mustang cobra).  Maybe if we had self driving cars available I could sell it and use them for my once a week shopping trip.  8)  .....  nah, I kind of enjoyed hitting 90 mph on the interstate yesterday during my weekly shopping trip.  A self-driving car would be even more boring than the old 55 MPH speed limits.

JR

 

[desol]

There are already millions of lethal and non-lethal accidents at the hands of(highly) intricate bioprocessors. I can't really see current iterations of AI having an impact on that, in any meaningful way. It could however be good for road trips?

 

[JohnRoberts]

There are already millions of lethal and non-lethal accidents at the hands of(highly) intricate bioprocessors. I can't really see current iterations of AI having an impact on that, in any meaningful way. It could however be good for road trips?

Machines are far better than humans at performing rote tasks, such as driving on an interstate at constant speed where humans are inclined to lose interest and let their minds drift (or answering texts).

More complicated driving is just a matter of learning more rules.

Of course there will probably be unavoidable accidents, but that too will be anticipated and managed. I don't know that humans would be any better at split second decisions making than machines, only when the decisions are completely unanticipated would a human have some value (maybe).

There may be some AI decision making involved in the margin, but a lot of this is pretty linear if this, do that programming.

JR