Driverless Cars

[Reg]

I'm not big on treating a symptom, while ignoring root cause.

No question, many parts of North America need better drivers..... starts with lack of training and meaningful standards and enforcement. As has been stated on here, you don't need much more than a pulse, to get a driver's license in some jurisdictions. Why was that allowed ?

If we are going to remove dangerous items from individual control, why stop at cars ?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out...... I'm betting that insurance will be a key factor.

Rgds, D.

I didn't suggest that we "stop at cars", safety should be an ongoing quest.

Allowing humans to control vehicles independently ...may have lacked foresight.
Trains, trolley cars, etc on rails may have been better, but of course those have only worked within cities.
The status is now "quo"; Technology has progressed to a point where opportunities are before us.
Insurance business interests ...I suppose they will focus more toward manufacturers for faulty algorithms, incomplete or out of date data, etc. they will focus away from policies that protect indolent drivers.
Not the easy path; it has always been easier to get a dollar from each of a million people than to get a million dollars from one person.

 

[Oaktree]

It is a PROGRESSION from the driver assist "components" that we now have in Teslas, Mercedes, BMWs, etc., that are already coming down market to Tonka, Nissan, GM, Ford - - lane marker following, cruise control back off if too close, emergency braking, etc.

From those "components" to incorporation into "systems" that include GPS, real time map updates, construction, accident, congestion, even potholes of the day along the planned route.
I don't think this is an unmanageable amount of data for journeys along a planned route and routes can be re-planned en route.

I think all the enabling technologies are already THERE, public acceptance is lagging, regulation is lagging even more.

Dude, we get it. You're in favor of this technology. Not all of us are, including myself.
Thank you very much, but I can't think of a single reason why I would want a self-driving car. The "summon-a-driverless-uber-like-vehicle" when I want to go somewhere even less.
I don't really even have much use for most of the related tech they seem to be forcing on us, including everything you mentioned above.

 

[LouNY]

I can only thick of i use for driverless vehicles, after they add a dedicated lane lane to the major interstates, I might be tempted on a long trip to let computers take over if every thing in that lane was the same.
What I would much rather see then driverless cars would be a inexpensive, fast passenger trains with vehicle carrying capabilities decent dining and sleeping accomadations.
Load my pickup ride 300-3000 miles unload and enjoy the local driving and repeat.

 

[LD48750]

I can only thick of i use for driverless vehicles, after they add a dedicated lane lane to the major interstates, I might be tempted on a long trip to let computers take over if every thing in that lane was the same.
What I would much rather see then driverless cars would be a inexpensive, fast passenger trains with vehicle carrying capabilities decent dining and sleeping accomadations.
Load my pickup ride 300-3000 miles unload and enjoy the local driving and repeat.

I'd still rather drive the 3000 miles myself going the route *I* want to at the TIME *I* want to.No waiting for a government programmed vehicle to take me where the government thinks I should go at this time.
To date, I have never used a Uber or whatever & have NO intention of ever doing so.

 

[Raspy]

OK, so a handful of "golly gee technology is a killer" cases - gottit.
Against that - I haven't yet seen the results of last night's human drivers' death toll while intoxicated, distracted, unable to handle prevailing conditions (visibility, ice, etc.)
I'd take bets that it is many times more than the semi autonomous vehicle incidents though.
How many thousands (millions ?) do we have to have before we acknowledge that the existing system of human (not)controlled vehicles is so much worse ?

Exactly.

My father used to proclaim that no airplanes designed to land on land, should fly over water. And he hated flying because he was not in control. Of course, he did not know how to fly a plane and when pointed that out to him, it made no difference. It all boiled down to experiencing something new, that was not normal to him.

I agree, in that any new experience that seems dangerous can be scary.

Driving a car on the highway at 60+ MPH while passing cars going the other way just two feet away, with no barrier between, seems at first glance to be an absurd risk. Especially when we all know how easily and often people get distracted. But we all get used to it and eventually only pay enough attention to keep our car on our own side of the road most of the time, as we daydream, eat, talk on the phone, look at the scenery, carry on conversations and many other things.

I certainly don't jump on new technology, just because it's new. But I at least try not to pronounce it terrible until I look at what it really offers, or promises to offer in the future. Car seat belts were reviled by so many in the beginning. My parents declared that "the government is not going to tell us what to do" when laws were passed to wear them. They left them buckled, stuffed down in the seat, and sat on top of them. Seems pretty ridiculous now. The list of advancements and societal course corrections are endless. Many were fought tooth and nail in the beginning.

 

[Raspy]

I'd still rather drive the 3000 miles myself going the route *I* want to at the TIME *I* want to.No waiting for a government programmed vehicle to take me where the government thinks I should go at this time.
To date, I have never used a Uber or whatever & have NO intention of ever doing so.

How does the government program driverless cars to take you where it thinks you should go at the time it decides? Did you know that Uber is not a government agency?

Governments design roads and highways. Do you not use these roads and just drive out across fields, because the government decided that the road was the best path?

Do you stop on green and go on red just to prove that you are not subject to traffic regulations?

Are you tied onto an electrical grid? Or a water company? Or a sewage treatment plant? Do you buy gasoline of a specific formulation, and a specific measured quantity. Do you buy food tested by, and forced to adhere to, health regulations set by government agencies? When traveling, do you drink water that comes out of a tap? Don't try that in most of the world. If you need an ambulance or fire department, who do you call? After all, they might come and haul you away or use a fire hose in your house. It could all be a government conspiracy!

Do you also not use a phone company because they might tell you who to call and when, on a phone they pre programmed? Or they might connect through a network of cell towers that the government might also be connected to.

 

[buckeyefarmer]

Wonder how a driverless car will work on gravel roads?

 

[prof fate]

There are 5 levels of autonomy - level 5 is anywhere anytime. That will likely be a long way off.

Level 4 is self-driving in LIMITED areas - and that is what Google/Uber are working on now. I live in Pgh and 2 weeks ago they put the cars back on the road (since the arizona accident) - there have been lots of news stories on it here.

They have the lidar/radar and such but also lots and lots of street mapping - learning. They stick to a small geographic area - makes sense in many ways, more density of population means more profit if you plan to lease rides. And they're limiting speed to 25mph. and daylight hours.

I cna see also a demand for hiway driving - truckers being one that could be a lot more economically efficent plus the industry is short on drivers. So who cares if a TT pokes along at 35 or 45mph but can run 24/7 vs 10 to 12 a day under human control?

 

[JasperFrank]

So the car then uploads everything you have done to the cloud to be used in marketing. Sorry I already have Facebook for that.

 

[prof fate]

So the car then uploads everything you have done to the cloud to be used in marketing. Sorry I already have Facebook for that.

and your phone...and onstar...google knows all!

 

[Travelover]

.......... If you need an ambulance or fire department, who do you call? ......

Here is one answer.

 

[cqaigy2]

Wonder how a driverless car will work on gravel roads?

Apparently you didn't see the darpa Grand Challenge many years ago.

 

[buckeyefarmer]

Apparently you didn't see the darpa Grand Challenge many years ago.

No i didnt, what was the outcome? Was it on open public roads?

 

[cqaigy2]

No i didnt, what was the outcome? Was it on open public roads?

Pretty interesting. darpa Grand Challenge - Google Search

 

[Soundguy]

Well, in gun debates with non-gun owners I ask if LIFE is what matters? If so - then limit the speed of ALL cars to 20mph.
Since cars kill more people than guns (ignoring suicide), that would save the most lives immediately - and would not violate a single law or right.

Nobody but NOBODY is in favor of that idea. So it's NOT lives that matter - it's CONVENIENCE or 'me first'. Just hit any hiway and observe the speed people are diving..55mph here and most are doing 70, 75. If ti's 65 they're doing 80. I've seen evern higher speeds on the east cost (I-95 in particular).

Why?
Why do people drive tired, drunk, etc?

lots of things could be done...but are not. How about swipe your license to start a car? No license..no driving. Or limited dirving if you cna't see at night, have a junior license, etc?

You are correct.. it's not about saving lives.

Look at some law enforcement issues. rarely is it about safety.. it's usually about revenue enforcement.

 

[Reg]

Wonder how a driverless car will work on gravel roads?

Don't have to get all the way to fully autonomous to answer that - Tesla already has a hybrid system that helps it identify "lanes" on roads that don't have lane markings.
A combination of GPS, cell phone towers, sensors and the experience of THAT car plus the experience(s) of other semi autonomous cars that have been driven on that segment of that road (Tesla sales dude said).
They share their driving experiences somewhat like humans do, just not over the office water cooler.

Again, Some HUGE percentage of the driving of most of us is very local, home/work/grocery store/"other" local stores/ malls/bars/ etc.
Tesla cars can learn a LOT of details about the roads that you drive on - even if only once.

I like to drive too, I like to think I am a bit above average, don't we all ?
If we could just get all the IDIOT and drunken drivers into fully autonomous vehicles driving would be so much more pleasant for the rest of us - y'know who you are, all us above average drivers (-:

 

[Reg]

Well, in gun debates with non-gun owners I ask if LIFE is what matters? If so - then limit the speed of ALL cars to 20mph.
Since cars kill more people than guns (ignoring suicide), that would save the most lives immediately - and would not violate a single law or right.

Nobody but NOBODY is in favor of that idea. So it's NOT lives that matter - it's CONVENIENCE or 'me first'. Just hit any hiway and observe the speed people are diving..55mph here and most are doing 70, 75. If ti's 65 they're doing 80. I've seen evern higher speeds on the east cost (I-95 in particular).

Why?
Why do people drive tired, drunk, etc?

lots of things could be done...but are not. How about swipe your license to start a car? No license..no driving. Or limited dirving if you cna't see at night, have a junior license, etc?

Couple of things on this post;
1) I feel safer at the gun range than just about anywhere else - everyone but EVERYONE knows the potential consequences of a mistake, so mistakes that COUNT are very very rare and people get CALLED OUT for ANY safety issue whether it is actually dangerous or not.
{BTW, that doesn't make me complacent about safety at the gun range.}

2) Driving to/from the gun range makes me a safer driver.
I have NO desire to be stopped for even the most trivial infraction.

3) Folk with enough DUIs sometimes only get a provisional license when they get it back.
Conditional on a breathalyzer ignition interlock.
I can see that coming as REQUIRED standard equipment ...one day.
It could do a LOT more for SAFETY than the blind spot warning bleeper.

4) Around here if you really want to tick people off drive *AT* the speed limit, they'll honk and flash until they can get around you and cut in hard.
A good place is just before a known speed trap, which happens to be where the double line just went away.

 

[prof fate]

This -

Couple of things on this post;

4) Around here if you really want to tick people off drive *AT* the speed limit, they'll honk and flash until they can get around you and cut in hard.
A good place is just before a known speed trap, which happens to be where the double line just went away.

Will be the question as self driving cars begin to proliferate. They will NOT break traffic laws - liability concerns killing the industry being a valid reason. So speeding? nope. that will cause other drivers to go nuts in traffic - or maybe get self driving cars themselves once say, 20% are self driving.

Considerations - self drivers can follow eachother at what, 2 feet maybe? So a string of them, say 10, in the slow lane on the hiway will make merging/passing difficult for 'real' drivers. What will 'people' do?

And if you pull out infront of a self-driver it will stop - so you come to an intersection you can 'force' the self driver to wait while you go..and soon 'real' people will learn this and ohter tricks and 'stop' the self drivers in their tracks.

Wonder what the solution to all that will be? Self drivers with cameras sending in traffic violation reports on the rest of us real drivers? If it raised revenue....

 

[Reg]

This -



Will be the question as self driving cars begin to proliferate. They will NOT break traffic laws - liability concerns killing the industry being a valid reason. So speeding? nope. that will cause other drivers to go nuts in traffic - or maybe get self driving cars themselves once say, 20% are self driving.

Considerations - self drivers can follow eachother at what, 2 feet maybe? So a string of them, say 10, in the slow lane on the hiway will make merging/passing difficult for 'real' drivers. What will 'people' do?

And if you pull out infront of a self-driver it will stop - so you come to an intersection you can 'force' the self driver to wait while you go..and soon 'real' people will learn this and ohter tricks and 'stop' the self drivers in their tracks.

Wonder what the solution to all that will be? Self drivers with cameras sending in traffic violation reports on the rest of us real drivers? If it raised revenue....

If you MISTAKE a human controlled vehicle for an autonomous vehicle ....well now, you just might have bought yourself a whole can o' road rage, especially if the human doesn't react in time for your foolishness to pay off and just plows into you.

I don't see the string of law abiding vehicles in the proper lane as an issue, if they are AT the speed limit why would you be passing them to make the exit ramp ? Fall in behind them and wait your turn.

OTOH, I suspect that when they are in a tight line and an idiot human comes up alongside with a blinker on the whole train will fall back to let the idiot human in.

I've driven coast to coast and border to border (and back) and all over Europe, whatever sense you get from higher speed and lane swapping/weaving they make very little difference to actual journey times. It isn't the TOP speed that determines journey time, it is the creep along speed that we (all equally) get stuck in.

Ask anyone who drives a trailer to horse shows how much longer it really takes them from the barn to the show vs the sports sedan that the other half of the family are in.