driveless cars

[kalos]

hello!

the technology is here: we have developed driveless cars that you just enter the car, say where you want to go and it goes you there, without you having to do anything at all

but why such a revolutionary technology isn't yet on the streets?

experts say that it's because there is a legal gap about who to blaim when something goes wrong, in an accident for example: blame the user? the manufacturer? what?

well, in my opinion this is non-sense

with driveless technology, imagine how many accidents will be prevented (huge cost impact) and how many lifes will be saved (priceless)! and imagine how much time we will save from our lives! numerous hours of driving, stucking in traffic, etc!

so if driveless technology will give us all these, let's make a global referendum if we want it or not! and then, let the government decide who to blame in case of an accident, it's not big deal if accidents will diminish!

what are your thoughts of these?
imagine you will work on your laptop during your travel from home to work! or you can sleep! and imagine the deaths and injuries that will be prevented!
let go driveless asap!

[Stoic Joker]

let the government decide who to blame in case of an accident, it's not big deal if accidents will diminish!

...And somebody goes to prison for life because their car decided to divide by zero and the manufacturer - as is the norm - had much better lawyers ... Oh hell no. The government is not to be trusted with anything of that magnitude.

Not to mention I seriously doubt accidents will be diminishing during the initial Beta phase death toll wise. They'll more like be twice as horrific when a system glitch creates a huge pile of oops.

[MilesAhead]

Massachusetts, especially Boston, has been known for having driverless cars for decades.  It only takes one circuit of Boston Common to verify this. 

[Shades]

Blue windscreen of death...

[kalos]

what are the statistics to get a BSOD in a driveless car and what are the statistics of all those numerous reckless drivers to cause an incidence?

[Stoic Joker]

what are the statistics to get a BSOD in a driveless car and what are the statistics of all those numerous reckless drivers to cause an incidence?

Here's the thing to keep in mind, nobody cares about your own - and by that I really do mean you specifically - safety, as much as you do. That's just the nature of how things work ... So being in a hurry to put your life in the hands of a device that isn't even capable of giving a shit about the outcome...just doesn't strike me as all that wise.

Now as for what entirely subjective nonsense I base that on, I'll have to simply refer you to any of the recent myriad of news reports dealing with massive recalls by auto manufacturers due to some miscellaneous system failing/malfunctioning resulting in the death of X people so far.

Now as far as the "reckless" bit it really depends on how you define it. However typically it generally gets plastered on the folks that drive fast and or aggressively...which is a load of crap. Speed doesn't kill, it never has, and it never will...because it simply can't. Speed is relative to the objects around you, simply avoid high closure rates and you'll be fine.

The things that do get people killed in traffic, (strangely) are exactly the same as the things that get people killed everywhere else: inexperience, inattention, and stupidity. Put down the phone and watch the road. Finland as I understand has very few traffic accidents despite their rather tricky roads...because they also have the stiffest drivers license exam. They actually expect people to know how to drive before letting them take a crack at it.

[Deozaan]

Google has been testing driverless cars for years. On real streets. In real traffic.  As far as I know, there have been no accidents/collisions.

(Though the law requires a human in the vehicle, behind the wheel in case anything goes wrong.)

[kalos]

Google has been testing driverless cars for years. On real streets. In real traffic.  As far as I know, there have been no accidents/collisions.

(Though the law requires a human in the vehicle, behind the wheel in case anything goes wrong.)

yeah, I know, but I don't see any major steps to move into a world with driveless cars

[wraith808]

Google has been testing driverless cars for years. On real streets. In real traffic.  As far as I know, there have been no accidents/collisions.

(Though the law requires a human in the vehicle, behind the wheel in case anything goes wrong.)

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

There have been incidents.  And though they state that they were not the fault of the car.. what else would you expect them to say when there is doubt?

I'm not ready to put my life in their hands.  Either as the passenger, or another driver on the streets.

http://mashable.com/2012/08/07/google-driverless-cars-safer-than-you/

So Google has good reason to be proud; it is bringing us closer to the day when we'll be able to sit back, relax and do the crossword during our commute. But the company also admits it has a long way to go.

"To provide the best experience we can, we’ll need to master snow-covered roadways, interpret temporary construction signals and handle other tricky situations that many drivers encounter," writes Chris Urmson, the driverless car team's Engineering Lead, in a blog post. "For now, our team members will remain in the driver’s seats and will take back control if needed."

So if people are driving in these conditions- and those statistics are in the 'safer than you' calculation... things become a lot less clear.

[Stoic Joker]

The Ethics of Saving Lives With Autonomous Cars Is Far Murkier Than You Think

This covers the topic rather nicely.

One of the most popular examples is the school-bus variant of the classic trolley problem in philosophy: On a narrow road, your robotic car detects an imminent head-on crash with a non-robotic vehicle — a school bus full of kids, or perhaps a carload of teenagers bent on playing “chicken” with you, knowing that your car is programmed to avoid crashes. Your car, naturally, swerves to avoid the crash, sending it into a ditch or a tree and killing you in the process.

Oopsy Daisy...

[MilesAhead]

The Ethics of Saving Lives With Autonomous Cars Is Far Murkier Than You Think

This covers the topic rather nicely.

One of the most popular examples is the school-bus variant of the classic trolley problem in philosophy: On a narrow road, your robotic car detects an imminent head-on crash with a non-robotic vehicle — a school bus full of kids, or perhaps a carload of teenagers bent on playing “chicken” with you, knowing that your car is programmed to avoid crashes. Your car, naturally, swerves to avoid the crash, sending it into a ditch or a tree and killing you in the process.

Oopsy Daisy...

This is when it gets fun.  The guy in the driverless car is no fool.  He has paid a mechanic to install a hack that not only offers control back to the human driver, but WiFi hacks the computer in the aggressor car that the human behind the wheel thinks he controls.  A menu is presented with several options including jamming on the aggressor's brakes(bypassing the anti-lock/anti-skid systems) on selected wheels, taking over steering(veer the aggressor's car into the ditch) and for a bit extra playing something over the aggressor's radio as deemed appropriately sarcastic.  For the softhearted there's also an option to set off the aggressor's airbags before impact.  For real meanies an option to set off the airbags after the aggressor driver is deceased. 

[Stoic Joker]

^Oh how I love dark humor..

Not to mention guilty as charged, as I've already hacked the brain on my bike to kill the traction control that was pissing me off...(because sometimes I want the rear wheel to spin)...and etcetera.

[MilesAhead]

^

[Deozaan]

Google has been testing driverless cars for years. On real streets. In real traffic.  As far as I know, there have been no accidents/collisions.

(Though the law requires a human in the vehicle, behind the wheel in case anything goes wrong.)

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

There have been incidents.  And though they state that they were not the fault of the car.. what else would you expect them to say when there is doubt?

Two incidents. Once when the car was being driven manually and another when another driver rear-ended the driverless car. Of the two, one (being rear-ended) is clearly not the fault of the driverless car. The first one could be a cover up, but I doubt it.

In which case I still stand by my original statement of there being no accidents/collisions. I didn't think I needed to say it, but apparently I need to clarify that I meant no accidents/collisions where the driverless car was at fault.

I think the driverless cars have more to "fear" from other drivers/humans than we have to fear of them.

[SeraphimLabs]

^Oh how I love dark humor..

Not to mention guilty as charged, as I've already hacked the brain on my bike to kill the traction control that was pissing me off...(because sometimes I want the rear wheel to spin)...and etcetera.

Guilty here too. The model of car I drive is known to have problems with the ABS equipment. ABS was an optional feature on that model, so I took a hammer to a couple of the ABS sensors and a bit of electrical tape to the fault lamp.

Since it was an optional feature on that model the inspection station does not fail the car for having a non-functional ABS lamp since the normal brake fault lamp works fine, as do the normal brakes.

I've been steadily re-plumbing the brakes to exclude the ABS equipment as the lines grow old and develop leaks. The most recent saw one of the rear wheels losing its proportioning valve.

Though on the flipside if I could find the right valve for it, I might put it back in. Simply because even without ABS, having the rear wheels pressure-limited so they do not lock up easily is still a controllability advantage. Its nice having a car that will always skid in an almost perfectly straight line when the brakes are stomped upon in bad weather.


When it comes to autonomous cars though, not with my money. Not now, not 10 years from now, in fact not until I am mostly cyborg and can direct link the car to supervise its guidance systems or respond to roadside situations as quickly as the computer could.

I've worked with machines too long to ever trust one with my life unless all of its operational details are visible and I can cross check its every decision on the fly by comparing it to measurements and observations. And since you can bet these driverless car systems will be a black boxed "It goes but we can't tell you how or why" sort of thing, they will never be seen as a good idea by me.

[TaoPhoenix]

And this is all also assuming the cars are "innocent", aka that they are "just cars" doing car-things.

But it's one thing to have software flaws hitting "cute little computers", it's another thing for a hacker to take down an entire freeway full of driverless cars to prove a point "against the man". A 50 car pileup will put 1,000 people out of work for a day in the backup!

Then there's backdoors that the Powers are putting everywhere - "oh look, you're behind in your payment. Now your car won't start. Have fun trying to earn a paycheck to pay us now!"

[wraith808]

Of the two, one (being rear-ended) is clearly not the fault of the driverless car.

That is true legally.  The truth of rear-ended being not your fault is a little bit murkier.

I think the driverless cars have more to "fear" from other drivers/humans than we have to fear of them.

As long as we're driving in optimal conditions where there is no construction nor snow nor heavy rain?  Nor anything unexpected that a driver would be able to deal with?

Even google admits that we're not there (in that second part of my post), so why would we think that we are?

[kalos]

Google has been testing driverless cars for years. On real streets. In real traffic.  As far as I know, there have been no accidents/collisions.

(Though the law requires a human in the vehicle, behind the wheel in case anything goes wrong.)

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

There have been incidents.  And though they state that they were not the fault of the car.. what else would you expect them to say when there is doubt?

I'm not ready to put my life in their hands.  Either as the passenger, or another driver on the streets.

http://mashable.com/2012/08/07/google-driverless-cars-safer-than-you/

So Google has good reason to be proud; it is bringing us closer to the day when we'll be able to sit back, relax and do the crossword during our commute. But the company also admits it has a long way to go.

"To provide the best experience we can, we’ll need to master snow-covered roadways, interpret temporary construction signals and handle other tricky situations that many drivers encounter," writes Chris Urmson, the driverless car team's Engineering Lead, in a blog post. "For now, our team members will remain in the driver’s seats and will take back control if needed."

So if people are driving in these conditions- and those statistics are in the 'safer than you' calculation... things become a lot less clear.

but you already put your life in the hands of technology (eg, your vehicle's electronics) and other drivers' hands

[Stoic Joker]

but you already put your life in the hands of technology (eg, your vehicle's electronics) and other drivers' hands

That's incredibly not the same thing because the "vehicles electronics" are not in involved in the decision making process. They are passively assistive yes (ABS/ESC/etc.), but they are not in control. The current vehicles can't just up and decide that the best course of action is to kill you to save something else that is statistically more relevant.

Current vehicles simply do what you tell them, so the only "gamble" is on hard linked systems transferring driver input to the vehicle properly. Yes there are some Fly-by-Wire systems that have no direct mechanical link, but they are far from the norm...and IMO not to be entirely trusted (like the Toyota Prius' little runaway acceleration issue).

We have people now trying to sue GM because they think the ignition switch is killing people when the vehicle loses power. Frankly I thinks it's total crap because the ignition switch losing power didn't kill anyone...what the driver did next is what got them killed. Sure the control inputs (e.g. steering & breaks) take considerably more effort without the power assist ... But if ones life really does depend on it - Hay call me crazy, but... - I'm thinking a bit more effort just might be warranted...Ya know?

There are many things that can cause a vehicle to lose power, but with hard linked inputs...you can still maneuver the thing to the side of the road using the available inertia. But in a driverless car...with no available controls you either go sailing right smack dab into what is in front of you with zero restraints. Or toe vehicle mechanically auto stops dead in front of whatever is flying up behind you.

[SeraphimLabs]

Fairly sure mechanical controls should be legally mandated, and should remain that way even into an era of automatic driving. There's still a rack and pinion mechanism in case power steering fails or the engine quits.

Brakes are usually hydraulic, boosting is done using manifold vacuum and the electronics for ABS control a sequence of pumps and valves to increase or decrease the pressure as needed for traction control.

If anything goes wrong, manual override is your most reliable ticket out of it.

Also, the electronics of current cars can cause accidents if they fail.

For instance if your car's ABS controller shorts out in icy conditions and slams the brakes full-on causing you to skid into a telephone pole. It isn't impossible in many designs, just highly improbable due to careful fail-safe considerations in the design.

I know plenty of people as well who think a car has to be running for the controls to actually do anything. Part of this is urban myth, the other part is that they physically aren't strong enough to generate the required inputs without power assist when the car isn't moving. My grandma might succeed in steering a car that is coasting to a stop after an engine failure, but she'd be lucky to get the brakes to work much at all without manifold vacuum squeezing the booster for her.

[wraith808]

but you already put your life in other drivers' hands

SJ addressed the other part... so I'll address this.

Hell no, I don't.  I don't trust other drivers any farther than I can throw their car.  That's what I don't understand about a lot of drivers today.. they trust other drivers.  And they give them leeway.  I plan, assess, and stay alert- especially when there are other drivers around or I'm going through an area where there is the chance that other drivers have a window in which they could do something especially stupid because you're supposedly 'in the right'.  It's not perfect... but its a sight better than putting my trust in them.

[Stoic Joker]

but you already put your life in other drivers' hands

Hell no, I don't.

ROFLMAO

Oh yeah, and Damn Straight to the rest of it too. Defensive Driving 101: Watch the %&$^# Road!

[Stoic Joker]

but she'd be lucky to get the brakes to work much at all without manifold vacuum squeezing the booster for her.

Which is why the brake booster has a large reservoir protected by a one way valve. So even if the engine stops you still have enough stored vacuum pressure for 3-5 good stabs at the break petal. And that's really all that is needed if you're coasting to a stop.

[Deozaan]

I'm not ready to put my life in their hands.  Either as the passenger, or another driver on the streets.

But you're already doing that as another driver on the streets, since these vehicles are out there, and have been for years.

[Renegade]

Relevant:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/15/tesla-driverless-cars_n_5990136.html

Elon Musk: We'll Have Driverless Cars By 2023

Elon Musk is gunning to put autonomous cars on the road by 2023.

The D series of Tesla's Model S sedan, unveiled last week, features an autopilot function, but it's limited. The electric carmaker’s chief executive said last Friday that self-driving technology will outpace the skill of human drivers in five to six years, however.

“I think we’ll be able to achieve true autonomous driving, where you could literally get in the car, go to sleep and wake up at your destination,” Musk said in an interview with Bloomberg TV’s Betty Liu.

But he warned that it would take regulators another two to three years to approve the autonomous cars for use in public.

“I want to make sure that it’s truly a lot safer than driving with a person,” Musk said. “The standard for fully autonomous driving is going to be much greater than for a person, because if it’s just equivalent that won’t be enough.”

The company first demonstrated its autopilot feature at a glitzy media event outside Los Angeles last Thursday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7quu551ehc0