Driverless Cars

[orin stepanek]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car

I'm a lot amprehensive about cars that drive themselves! anybody who has a computer knows good and well that electronics gets fuddled up once in a while! Just last night the cable box on the tv went haywire and it took 12 minutes to get it to reset! For me; I'll pilot my own car!

[geckzilla]

It's a matter of testing, testing, and testing until all possible bugs are uncovered and fixed. Cable boxes probably don't go through much rigor. I think these are great because they could allow people who otherwise would never be able to go alone a much higher degree of independence around their neighborhood to go shopping for groceries, drop things off at the post office, etc. Things we take for granted because we have functional sight and limbs. For that matter, the human driver probably makes more mistakes than the computer. That's a moral can of worms that has been argued for decades, though.

[Chris Peterson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car

I'm a lot amprehensive about cars that drive themselves! anybody who has a computer knows good and well that electronics gets fuddled up once in a while! Just last night the cable box on the tv went haywire and it took 12 minutes to get it to reset! For me; I'll pilot my own car!

There will be accidents caused by engineering failures, as well as simple hardware failures. It's a question of reducing their frequency to acceptable levels.

I remember a series of books set in the near future in Southern California, and the cars were driverless. There were occasional bad accidents, and the police reports would list "SITS" as the cause: something in the silicon.

[orin stepanek]

It's a matter of testing, testing, and testing until all possible bugs are uncovered and fixed. Cable boxes probably don't go through much rigor. I think these are great because they could allow people who otherwise would never be able to go alone a much higher degree of independence around their neighborhood to go shopping for groceries, drop things off at the post office, etc. Things we take for granted because we have functional sight and limbs. For that matter, the human driver probably makes more mistakes than the computer. That's a moral can of worms that has been argued for decades, though.

It will probably be another thing we take for granted; anyway, I'm getting to the age where it wont make much difference for me! I still don't trust it!

[geckzilla]

I'd trust a well-tested, well-engineered driverless car more than I would trust, say, a random cabbie and possibly more than I would even trust myself.

There have been times when I've made errors in judgement which nearly resulted in catastrophe. Just for a moment I was distracted by some cones, wondering why they were in the shoulder when I looked up and there was a stopped lane in front of me. I braked and entered the left lane without even checking if another car occupied it and got lucky. Another time in Chicago I was merging into heavy traffic in darkness on a highway and only after getting into my lane did I see a car without lights in the ramp. I have no idea how close I came to colliding with it but it scared the crap out of me. I would happily trade my fallible nature for a computer that doesn't get distracted, sleepy, angry, or fails to see things in the dark.

I don't think a lot of people share my opinion, though.

[BMAONE23]

Perhaps Computer assisted driving would be of benefit to many drivers. I believe that even driverless cars, by law, require the person sitting in the "Driver Seat" to have a valid license and be physically capable of (unimpaired) taking over the task of driving if needed.
But Computer assisted driving could allow for following distances, speed, and breaking if/when needed.

[Chris Peterson]

Perhaps Computer assisted driving would be of benefit to many drivers. I believe that even driverless cars, by law, require the person sitting in the "Driver Seat" to have a valid license and be physically capable of (unimpaired) taking over the task of driving if needed.
But Computer assisted driving could allow for following distances, speed, and breaking if/when needed.

I'm not sure there are any uniform rules right now. Certainly, driving laws vary quite significantly between states. Google just tested their latest car in California, and it doesn't even have a steering wheel. There's no way to take over if something fails.

When we have well developed driverless cars, I expect there will be little ability to control them manually, and no licensing required. That's reasonable, as driverless cars are going to be much safer than what we have now, and will allow for massively improved traffic efficiency. That's a system that could fail catastrophically with even a single manually driven car. But I think that day is at least a couple of decades away. In the meantime, we'll probably see cars with both automatic and manual operation, with fully automatic operation normally used in places off limits to manual driving, such as high speed freeway lanes.

Many cars already have automatic assists, such as maintaining speed and distance from other cars without driver intervention.

[geckzilla]

I'm getting to the age where it wont make much difference for me!

Well, happy birthday to you.

[orin stepanek]

I'm getting to the age where it wont make much difference for me!

Well, happy birthday to you.

Oh No! I lost my message

THW Thanks for remembering my B-Day!

Anyway Iv'e been in a few close encounters myself and i am not sure haw a computer would react to a sudden emergency! Once a big rig came across the medium straight us and I had to huddle to the safty lane on the side of the road! another time a car started passing us up a hill and another appeared from the other direction at the top of the hill; thank goodness the road was wide enough for three!

[Chris Peterson]

Anyway Iv'e been in a few close encounters myself and i am not sure haw a computer would react to a sudden emergency! Once a big rig came across the medium straight us and I had to huddle to the safty lane on the side of the road! another time a car started passing us up a hill and another appeared from the other direction at the top of the hill; thank goodness the road was wide enough for three!

Ideally, those situations wouldn't have occurred at all because the computers in the other vehicles would have been smarter and quicker than their drivers.

[geckzilla]

Yeah, the computer would never fall asleep or have a medical emergency which could cause it to lose control of the vehicle. Passing would rarely be an issue because the cars would all be moving at the same speed. If the cars near one another shared their data, they could react organically to problems. An animal running into traffic could be detected instantly by the closest car and then it could transmit this hazard to the vehicles behind that this thing was happening and they could react nearly simultaneously.

I guess you wouldn't even have to be moving as fast for a typical commute to reach your destination at the same time. If you move at a constant 45 mph then you should arrive at the same time as someone who drove at 65 mph but had to stop and accelerate repeatedly with a resulting average of 45 mph. Any accidents would be much more survivable at such speeds.

This is some really high, pie-in-the-sky stuff but it's fun to think about.

[Chris Peterson]

Yeah, the computer would never fall asleep or have a medical emergency which could cause it to lose control of the vehicle. Passing would rarely be an issue because the cars would all be moving at the same speed. If the cars near one another shared their data, they could react organically to problems. An animal running into traffic could be detected instantly by the closest car and then it could transmit this hazard to the vehicles behind that this thing was happening and they could react nearly simultaneously.

I guess you wouldn't even have to be moving as fast for a typical commute to reach your destination at the same time. If you move at a constant 45 mph then you should arrive at the same time as someone who drove at 65 mph but had to stop and accelerate repeatedly with a resulting average of 45 mph. Any accidents would be much more survivable at such speeds.

This is some really high, pie-in-the-sky stuff but it's fun to think about.

Not that pie-in-the-sky at all. Cars are already communicating with each other. There are standards being developed to make that even easier. I guarantee that within just a few years all new cars on the road will be communicating all sorts of information with the cars around them, including speed and direction, what their drivers are doing (steering and braking), road hazards, and lots of other stuff.

[geckzilla]

The future hackers are going to have a lot of fun. "How to tweak your car's priority up to emergency vehicle level"

[geckzilla]

I had a thought on this earlier today regarding the regular maintenance of the vehicle. Just tell it to go off to the shop and away it goes; no need to go with it. Driverless and riderless. Creepy, but useful.

[Nitpicker]

I had a thought on this earlier today regarding the regular maintenance of the vehicle. Just tell it to go off to the shop and away it goes; no need to go with it. Driverless and riderless. Creepy, but useful.

Or tell it to go off and pick you up a burrito for lunch. Nah, I hope there will always be laws to ensure a human occupant in every road vehicle. (I might make an exception for the trailing vehicles in convoys.)

Could you imagine how annoying a driverless car would be when it cuts in on you, or doesn't let you merge? I picture the driverless car signalling to my car "sorry, my owner's burrito is more important than you."

[geckzilla]

It's a slippery slope, indeed. Pretty soon no one will get up from their computers, and all things will simply be brought to them via take-out...oh, wait... that already happens.

[rstevenson]

It's a slippery slope, indeed. Pretty soon no one will get up from their computers, and all things will simply be brought to them via take-out...oh, wait... that already happens.

See... The Machine Stops, by E.M. Forster, in which we find...

But there came a day when, without the slightest warning, without any previous hint of feebleness, the entire communication-system broke down, all over the world, and the world, as they understood it, ended.

Rob

[Chris Peterson]

Or tell it to go off and pick you up a burrito for lunch. Nah, I hope there will always be laws to ensure a human occupant in every road vehicle. (I might make an exception for the trailing vehicles in convoys.)

Could you imagine how annoying a driverless car would be when it cuts in on you, or doesn't let you merge?

I 'm sure there will be many cases made for cars with no human occupants. Taxis. Delivery vehicles. Ultimately, I think that driverless vehicles are only a reasonable option when they have the ability to lock out their occupants from any local control at all. The typical scifi scenario, and one that makes perfect sense, is that sections of the traffic system are completely automated, and drivers only take over manual control- only can take over manual control- once they are outside those sections (in a suburb or rural area, for instance).

[orin stepanek]

If you go out and party too much; I guess your car would know the way home! Oh wait; I guess Old Paint knew the way home also about 100 years ago! At any rate I guess it's gonna come; so I might as well get used to it!

[geckzilla]

I'll be impressed with humanity if it happens within my lifetime. It seems like it would take a long time to go from nascence to a high enough adoption rate for it to make a difference.

[neufer]

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

If you go out and party too much; I guess your car would know the way home! Oh wait; I guess Old Paint knew the way home also about 100 years ago! At any rate I guess it's gonna come; so I might as well get used to it!

[orin stepanek]

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

[Chris Peterson]

I'll be impressed with humanity if it happens within my lifetime. It seems like it would take a long time to go from nascence to a high enough adoption rate for it to make a difference.

I think we'll see fully autonomous cars fairly common in the next decade. But they'll only be completely robotic in special lanes and on special roads. Semi-autonomous cars are already available, and they'll get cheaper and more common with each passing year.

[orin stepanek]

Agony; A man dies in auto pilot Tesla wreck! http://fortune.com/2016/07/03/teslas-fa ... lications/

[Chris Peterson]

Agony; A man dies in auto pilot Tesla wreck! http://fortune.com/2016/07/03/teslas-fa ... lications/

Because he was an idiot who thought he was in a self-driving car. In reality, it was simply another car with a set of driver assistance capabilities (found in most higher end cars now). It's unfortunate that the news has tended to make it sound like the car was self-driving, or close to it. If he'd actually been driving as he should have been, he'd still be alive.