Self-driving cars--seriously?

[Rod Sheridan]

I won't believe the driverless car hype until I see one drive in a Chicago winter.
6:00 am in January, still pitch dark, it's been snowing for 4 hours and the plows haven't been out yet. A two lane road with no shoulder covered in snow so you can barely make out the street from the ditch. Snow is freezing on all surfaces, you must keep the wipers on high, the inside blower on hot on the window to keep a small area open to see. Oncoming headlights illuminate the falling snow and create glare on your windshield. There is a glaze of ice under the snow in the tracks, but not in the untraveled areas so you get better traction off the centerline a bit.

When a "driverless" car can handle that and other similar weather events I see here year round (Raging downpours, fog, condensataion on the windows, low angle sun right in my face... etc.) only then will I believe it. As far as I hear, they are testing these in more fair weather states, not in really bad conditions.

Mike, you're making the poor assumption that autonomous vehicles will "see" in the visible spectrum only.

Once you can "see" outside of the visible spectrum you don't care if you can see in the visible spectrum as you have so many others to use as well..........Rod.

[Chris Parks]

I started this thread, time for me to update it:



Disclaimer: No amount of debate as to actual fault here will sway my opinion. Computers should not drive cars, period. Driverless tractors and other farm equipment, fine-- just keep them off public highways.

And cars were so dangerous when they were first used they had to be preceded by a man carrying a red flag. Your wishing it away won't change a thing so you will have to get used to it.

[Lee DeRaud]

Mike, you're making the poor assumption that autonomous vehicles will "see" in the visible spectrum only.

Once you can "see" outside of the visible spectrum you don't care if you can see in the visible spectrum as you have so many others to use as well..........Rod.

The current issue seems to be one of keeping the sensors working with water/snow/dirt on them. It's a solvable problem, but eventually the cars will have to be designed around the sensors, rather than just sticking them wherever they'll fit.

[Tom Stenzel]

Just think of the time saving possibilities in the future.

You go on the 'net and put your order for lumber at the local Big Box. Then your driverless vehicle heads on over to pick it up. The automatic forklift, with a sensor that has a spider crawling across it, skewers the tailgate on your pickup. The spider has the sense to leave. Your vehicle doesn't.

Optical recognition senses the damages and sends copies to the claims division of the insurance companies.

The resulting investigation by the automatic claims system then works to find out which system was at fault, did the vehicle move, previous damage and all that. The computers start to squabble amongst themselves resulting in them DDOSing each other and stopping up the internet for my area and any adjoining continents.

I'm at home still waiting for my materials to arrive. When I try to check the order the 'system is down'.

I'll get the fine, rounded off to nearest $10,000, for violating the Computer Misuse Act. Automatically deducted from an account or added to a credit card of course. When the cyborg comes to arrest me I'll have my cyborg meet it at the door and let both happily wander off together.

Popcorn with butter and salt please. I'll pop it myself on a pot on a stove if that's still allowed.

-Tom

[Carlos Alvarez]

True self driving cars are better then humans. The accident today here in Tempe a women was JAYwalking. Thet are not sure what happen for all we know she jump out in front of the car. They have been testing these cars for aqlmost 2 years now and very few accidents and most were cause by cars with a driver. The big Jumbo jets lamd them selfs as computers do it better then people. I my self would rather get in a driverless car then a taxi or uber with a person driving. You see cab wrecks all the timew out here.

Seriously, if you think you're against self-driving cars, go spend a little time actually learning about how much data they can process and how many millions of miles they've done successfully. Your fear is only there due to ignorance; once you see how much they can sense that humans can't, you'll get it.

[Pat Barry]

I saw that same scene in a movie. Guess which one?

http://https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DLUEDVMOMY24&ved=0ahUKEwj7t5q9xPvZAhXl3 YMKHXKPBhkQtwIIJTAA&usg=AOvVaw3v9tZkubnsF57SeS5SAW LX

[Carlos Alvarez]

Just think of the time saving possibilities in the future.

with a sensor that has a spider crawling across it, skewers the tailgate on your pickup.

-Tom

While the whole thing was hilarious, the spider bit made my brain stick on that sentence. Which of the 27 sensors? All of them?

[Carlos Alvarez]

I just talked to one of my associates with a city's traffic management center. I was laughing about anti-self-driving car opinions with him, and he said something that really summed it up: "Yeah, and there are people who believe the earth is flat too." That's really what it is. We're all flabbergasted that people in 2018 don't realize this is the future, and how good it will be for all humans. From saving lives to just the outright societal cost of all of that wasted drive time now going into the country's productivity in some form. Just like I keep working when I'm on a plane, I'll be able to work while I'm in a car. I have a friend who sold his cars and uses only Uber/Lyft so he can make the time productive, and his numbers show it saves him cash. And yes, the Ubers are sometimes self-driving, as they are being heavily tested in our area.

[Lee DeRaud]

I just talked to one of my associates with a city's traffic management center. I was laughing about anti-self-driving car opinions with him, and he said something that really summed it up: "Yeah, and there are people who believe the earth is flat too." That's really what it is. We're all flabbergasted that people in 2018 don't realize this is the future, and how good it will be for all humans. From saving lives to just the outright societal cost of all of that wasted drive time now going into the country's productivity in some form.

That too, but the thing that strikes me are people doom-and-glooming about potential issues that (1) already exist to a much larger extent with human-operated vehicles and (2) are a lot easier to solve using robotics than using driver training and/or social engineering.

[Mel Fulks]

they say this new one is much safer than the OLD cruise control

[andrew whicker]

Just think, people are designing self driving cars for the current roads instead of needing the roads to change for them! Remember when the tech giants were attempting magnets in the middle of roads or reflectors on the sides of roads?

I bet if the gov't let more private industry into the road business, we'd be seeing a lot more progress.

Edit: I didn't think it was legal to be totally hands off in a self driving car?

[Travis Porter]

Self-driving cars are the future, and easily out-drive humans. They are already safer than humans. It's so silly to think otherwise.

I do some work in the traffic management industry and have become very familiar with a lot of the technologies (and I work in tech) as well as the success reports and issues they've run into. The articles I've read don't tell us if the car was in fully self-driving mode or not, and what the pedestrian may have done to cause the accident. The area is also known for being a drinking town with a college problem, and having lots of entitled pedestrians doing stupid stuff.

Almost nobody has heard of the very cool successes with self-driving cars, such as saving one child's life. I got to watch the video and read the data on it. The child ran out between two cars, into the street. The car was in full braking before the kid was visible because its sensors could see him, where a human could not. When you have 26 cameras, LIDAR, FLIR, and other sensors on your head plus a brain that can read them all 1000 times per second, come tell me you're as good as a computer driving.

Your points make me wonder what was the things that did or didn't happen to kill that pedestrian. I would have thought that the car would have "known" the person was crossing the street. Seems like the car should have stopped, but to your point, we don't know what mode the car was in or the state of its operation (faulty sensor, driver mode) or if the pedestrian did something out of the ordinary. Even if the pedestrian did do something extreme, I would have thought the car should have prepared for it.....

[Edwin Santos]

Sometimes its sounds as though we hold technology to a much higher standard than we hold humans. The sheer number of motor vehicle accidents demonstrates the flaws of human drivers, not insignificant.
But if automated technology is anything less than perfect, it's unacceptable.

Also, the improvement curve in nearly all forms of technology is incredibly steep. If the launch point isn't impressive to you, it may not be very long before version 2.0, 3.0 or 4.0 will blow you away.

[Carlos Alvarez]

I bet if the gov't let more private industry into the road business, we'd be seeing a lot more progress.

They have, and I'm one of those people. And that's why we have such incredible progress now. But I think most people just don't know about it yet. We already do have V2V in some 2018 vehicles and V2I coming next year. (Vehicle to vehicle communication, and vehicle to infrastructure. Cars tell each other about what they are doing with V2V, and tell the transportation management system with V2I. The result is cars that slow for upcoming traffic issues and lights, or notify the city of a problem.)

It is legal for licensed companies to run totally unmanned vehicles. We have them in our area. I always mess with them when they are empty, just to see what they do. I wouldn't mess with them if a human is involved.

[Lee DeRaud]

Your points make me wonder what was the things that did or didn't happen to kill that pedestrian. I would have thought that the car would have "known" the person was crossing the street. Seems like the car should have stopped, but to your point, we don't know what mode the car was in or the state of its operation (faulty sensor, driver mode) or if the pedestrian did something out of the ordinary. Even if the pedestrian did do something extreme, I would have thought the car should have prepared for it.....

Again, there are still going to be traffic fatalities even if all cars are self-driving, just as there are still (relatively infrequent) airline crashes. The question is, just how much better than human drivers do they have to be to become acceptable to the public? I'm guessing the public and/or vested interests will insist on a much higher level of safety from robotic cars than they do from human-driven cars, even if it pushes them further into the future than necessary. And yes, I for one think that would be unfortunate.

Digression: I'm wondering how many cyclists get fragged by people opening the doors of parked cars as they pass. Another bit of automation that could be easily added to current cars is to have the 'blind-spot' warning system lock the door(s) on that side when the car is stopped and it detects an oncoming vehicle.