Self-driving cars

[empirestate]

The number one rule for driverless vehicles is complete segregation of the guideway.  No humans, animals, tools and equipment, or trees, rocks and other debris can be permitted to enter the guideway while vehicles are in motion.  (Sometimes, there are reasons to allow maintenance personnel to enter the guideway area).  This also includes parts that can fall off of other vehicles, such that most driverless vehicles have redundant shield covers beneath steering and suspension elements.

This all becomes an insurance issue in the world of autonomous cars.  If you encounter road debris (an occasional risk element), the control system cannot be responsible to avoid contact/impact under many circumstances.

Behing that driverless vehicles are on the road now, Rule Number 1 has been long broken. These vehicles could have been right around you and you never even noticed.

Right, we should be more precise and say a fully driverless system. The segregation makes that easy and thus it is already in widespread use. The difficult part is the halfway version, where some vehicles in the system are driverless and others not.

[kalvado]

The number one rule for driverless vehicles is complete segregation of the guideway.  No humans, animals, tools and equipment, or trees, rocks and other debris can be permitted to enter the guideway while vehicles are in motion.  (Sometimes, there are reasons to allow maintenance personnel to enter the guideway area).  This also includes parts that can fall off of other vehicles, such that most driverless vehicles have redundant shield covers beneath steering and suspension elements.

This all becomes an insurance issue in the world of autonomous cars.  If you encounter road debris (an occasional risk element), the control system cannot be responsible to avoid contact/impact under many circumstances.

Behing that driverless vehicles are on the road now, Rule Number 1 has been long broken. These vehicles could have been right around you and you never even noticed.

Right, we should be more precise and say a fully driverless system. The segregation makes that easy and thus it is already in widespread use. The difficult part is the halfway version, where some vehicles in the system are driverless and others not.

You cannot pretend fully driverless world doesn't require same preparedness as a mix
Pedestrians, notably kids in the streets - and wildlife on highways. Any vehicle can break on a road, get a flat tire,bsome cargo is lost or tree falls - driverless still has to anticipate and deal with that.
No true driverless until the system is prepared to deal with all that. Once all those situations are accommodated, mixed pattern doesn't matter that much

[empirestate]

You cannot pretend fully driverless world doesn't require same preparedness as a mix
Pedestrians, notably kids in the streets - and wildlife on highways. Any vehicle can break on a road, get a flat tire,bsome cargo is lost or tree falls - driverless still has to anticipate and deal with that.
No true driverless until the system is prepared to deal with all that. Once all those situations are accommodated, mixed pattern doesn't matter that much

No pretense at all, just observing something that is. As you've noted, there's a list of things that can go wrong, and it doesn't include predicting the behavior of other drivers. Some of those things would be handled by simply having each vehicle communicate its location, status and intentions to each other vehicle, something easily done by computers but rarely by humans (even those with the best of intentions–there's just so much to convey and no means of conveying it). Others are within the realm of what's already handled by existing driverless systems–and sometimes, not handled.

So, it remains the case that the preparedness for mixed-mode traffic is different from that of fully autonomous. And since it is, there'd be no need to pretend it is.

[kalvado]

You cannot pretend fully driverless world doesn't require same preparedness as a mix
Pedestrians, notably kids in the streets - and wildlife on highways. Any vehicle can break on a road, get a flat tire,bsome cargo is lost or tree falls - driverless still has to anticipate and deal with that.
No true driverless until the system is prepared to deal with all that. Once all those situations are accommodated, mixed pattern doesn't matter that much

No pretense at all, just observing something that is. As you've noted, there's a list of things that can go wrong, and it doesn't include predicting the behavior of other drivers. Some of those things would be handled by simply having each vehicle communicate its location, status and intentions to each other vehicle, something easily done by computers but rarely by humans (even those with the best of intentions–there's just so much to convey and no means of conveying it). Others are within the realm of what's already handled by existing driverless systems–and sometimes, not handled.

So, it remains the case that the preparedness for mixed-mode traffic is different from that of fully autonomous. And since it is, there'd be no need to pretend it is.

This is all about great ideas, as realistic as Alanland.
Position sharing may be a performance improving feature, but since this is a life safety system, there must be at least 2 layers of fallback plans for non-standard situations - such as poor reception due to environmental or technical issues. Which is largely similar to dealing with non-communicating human-driven vehicles. Having those communication ideas gives some hope for the near future. Inability to make solid fallback and transition plans makes this "forever in near future"

[empirestate]

This is all about great ideas, as realistic as Alanland.
Position sharing may be a performance improving feature, but since this is a life safety system, there must be at least 2 layers of fallback plans for non-standard situations - such as poor reception due to environmental or technical issues. Which is largely similar to dealing with non-communicating human-driven vehicles. Having those communication ideas gives some hope for the near future. Inability to make solid fallback and transition plans makes this "forever in near future"

So near a future as to be the present. :-)

[Roadgeekteen]

The number one rule for driverless vehicles is complete segregation of the guideway.  No humans, animals, tools and equipment, or trees, rocks and other debris can be permitted to enter the guideway while vehicles are in motion.  (Sometimes, there are reasons to allow maintenance personnel to enter the guideway area).  This also includes parts that can fall off of other vehicles, such that most driverless vehicles have redundant shield covers beneath steering and suspension elements.

This all becomes an insurance issue in the world of autonomous cars.  If you encounter road debris (an occasional risk element), the control system cannot be responsible to avoid contact/impact under many circumstances.

Behing that driverless vehicles are on the road now, Rule Number 1 has been long broken. These vehicles could have been right around you and you never even noticed.

Right, we should be more precise and say a fully driverless system. The segregation makes that easy and thus it is already in widespread use. The difficult part is the halfway version, where some vehicles in the system are driverless and others not.

You cannot pretend fully driverless world doesn't require same preparedness as a mix
Pedestrians, notably kids in the streets - and wildlife on highways. Any vehicle can break on a road, get a flat tire,bsome cargo is lost or tree falls - driverless still has to anticipate and deal with that.
No true driverless until the system is prepared to deal with all that. Once all those situations are accommodated, mixed pattern doesn't matter that much

Don't sensors exit that can detect pedestrians? I do think that all self driving cars should come with an emergency brake just in case.

[jeffandnicole]

The number one rule for driverless vehicles is complete segregation of the guideway.  No humans, animals, tools and equipment, or trees, rocks and other debris can be permitted to enter the guideway while vehicles are in motion.  (Sometimes, there are reasons to allow maintenance personnel to enter the guideway area).  This also includes parts that can fall off of other vehicles, such that most driverless vehicles have redundant shield covers beneath steering and suspension elements.

This all becomes an insurance issue in the world of autonomous cars.  If you encounter road debris (an occasional risk element), the control system cannot be responsible to avoid contact/impact under many circumstances.

Behing that driverless vehicles are on the road now, Rule Number 1 has been long broken. These vehicles could have been right around you and you never even noticed.

Right, we should be more precise and say a fully driverless system. The segregation makes that easy and thus it is already in widespread use. The difficult part is the halfway version, where some vehicles in the system are driverless and others not.

You cannot pretend fully driverless world doesn't require same preparedness as a mix
Pedestrians, notably kids in the streets - and wildlife on highways. Any vehicle can break on a road, get a flat tire,bsome cargo is lost or tree falls - driverless still has to anticipate and deal with that.
No true driverless until the system is prepared to deal with all that. Once all those situations are accommodated, mixed pattern doesn't matter that much

Are you sure Teslas aren't prepared to deal with that?

Automation can deal with a lot more things a lot quicker than a human can. But  I think people are more likely to keep lobbing "what ifs" without caring that the cars probably already deal with it.

[Dirt Roads]

The number one rule for driverless vehicles is complete segregation of the guideway.  No humans, animals, tools and equipment, or trees, rocks and other debris can be permitted to enter the guideway while vehicles are in motion.  (Sometimes, there are reasons to allow maintenance personnel to enter the guideway area).  This also includes parts that can fall off of other vehicles, such that most driverless vehicles have redundant shield covers beneath steering and suspension elements.

This all becomes an insurance issue in the world of autonomous cars.  If you encounter road debris (an occasional risk element), the control system cannot be responsible to avoid contact/impact under many circumstances.

Behing that driverless vehicles are on the road now, Rule Number 1 has been long broken. These vehicles could have been right around you and you never even noticed.

Right, we should be more precise and say a fully driverless system. The segregation makes that easy and thus it is already in widespread use. The difficult part is the halfway version, where some vehicles in the system are driverless and others not.

There's never been any safety issues having manually driven vehicles on any of our driverless AGT systems.  In those systems, all vehicles are equipped with the same control systems with a switchover that allows for driving.  The main issues are with line capacity, but most drivers can pace their vehicles (or trains) better than ones running driverless.  Granted, we have wayside equipment controlling the merging of vehicles at [on-ramps] or switches.  Some of the driverless AGT systems (think small PRT cars) do have onboard collision avoidance that can adapt to unexpected obstructions, but even those systems still need complete segregation of the guideway as mitigation of certain hazards.

By the way, the main reason for this driving capability is that the vehicles/trains need to be manually rescued during certain failures of the onboard vehicle control systems.  There's also a provision to drive the vehicles in the case of "loss of signal" (and/or failure/shutdown of the onboard vehicle control systems).  In that case, you've got to drive safely and avoid the collisions all by yourself (sound familiar?)  We usually restrict the vehicle speeds to avoid overspeed conditions in curves and switches, but this also reduces the maximum impact force in case of a rear-end or sideswipe collision.

[kalvado]

The number one rule for driverless vehicles is complete segregation of the guideway.  No humans, animals, tools and equipment, or trees, rocks and other debris can be permitted to enter the guideway while vehicles are in motion.  (Sometimes, there are reasons to allow maintenance personnel to enter the guideway area).  This also includes parts that can fall off of other vehicles, such that most driverless vehicles have redundant shield covers beneath steering and suspension elements.

This all becomes an insurance issue in the world of autonomous cars.  If you encounter road debris (an occasional risk element), the control system cannot be responsible to avoid contact/impact under many circumstances.

Behing that driverless vehicles are on the road now, Rule Number 1 has been long broken. These vehicles could have been right around you and you never even noticed.

Right, we should be more precise and say a fully driverless system. The segregation makes that easy and thus it is already in widespread use. The difficult part is the halfway version, where some vehicles in the system are driverless and others not.

You cannot pretend fully driverless world doesn't require same preparedness as a mix
Pedestrians, notably kids in the streets - and wildlife on highways. Any vehicle can break on a road, get a flat tire,bsome cargo is lost or tree falls - driverless still has to anticipate and deal with that.
No true driverless until the system is prepared to deal with all that. Once all those situations are accommodated, mixed pattern doesn't matter that much

Don't sensors exit that can detect pedestrians? I do think that all self driving cars should come with an emergency brake just in case.

This was in response to "driverless-only world is much easier than mix of driver and driverless".
Point it, that human driver, especially ones as our friend @Crash_It,  are not totally predictable by their nature - unlike communicating driverless vehicles which have a full opportunity to inform others about their intentions. But human drivers are not the only source of unexpected events on the road - there is a list of other issues.

[empirestate]

This was in response to "driverless-only world is much easier than mix of driver and driverless".
Point it, that human driver, especially ones as our friend @Crash_It,  are not totally predictable by their nature - unlike communicating driverless vehicles which have a full opportunity to inform others about their intentions. But human drivers are not the only source of unexpected events on the road - there is a list of other issues.

That's it, exactly. There is a list of other issues, and other issues only. It's not the case that the two lists are the same, and that's by definition–not a point of persuasion.

[Roadgeekteen]

The number one rule for driverless vehicles is complete segregation of the guideway.  No humans, animals, tools and equipment, or trees, rocks and other debris can be permitted to enter the guideway while vehicles are in motion.  (Sometimes, there are reasons to allow maintenance personnel to enter the guideway area).  This also includes parts that can fall off of other vehicles, such that most driverless vehicles have redundant shield covers beneath steering and suspension elements.

This all becomes an insurance issue in the world of autonomous cars.  If you encounter road debris (an occasional risk element), the control system cannot be responsible to avoid contact/impact under many circumstances.

Behing that driverless vehicles are on the road now, Rule Number 1 has been long broken. These vehicles could have been right around you and you never even noticed.

Right, we should be more precise and say a fully driverless system. The segregation makes that easy and thus it is already in widespread use. The difficult part is the halfway version, where some vehicles in the system are driverless and others not.

You cannot pretend fully driverless world doesn't require same preparedness as a mix
Pedestrians, notably kids in the streets - and wildlife on highways. Any vehicle can break on a road, get a flat tire,bsome cargo is lost or tree falls - driverless still has to anticipate and deal with that.
No true driverless until the system is prepared to deal with all that. Once all those situations are accommodated, mixed pattern doesn't matter that much

Don't sensors exit that can detect pedestrians? I do think that all self driving cars should come with an emergency brake just in case.

This was in response to "driverless-only world is much easier than mix of driver and driverless".
Point it, that human driver, especially ones as our friend @Crash_It,  are not totally predictable by their nature - unlike communicating driverless vehicles which have a full opportunity to inform others about their intentions. But human drivers are not the only source of unexpected events on the road - there is a list of other issues.

I feel like cars being able to communicate with each other is already a step above human drivers.

[kalvado]

The number one rule for driverless vehicles is complete segregation of the guideway.  No humans, animals, tools and equipment, or trees, rocks and other debris can be permitted to enter the guideway while vehicles are in motion.  (Sometimes, there are reasons to allow maintenance personnel to enter the guideway area).  This also includes parts that can fall off of other vehicles, such that most driverless vehicles have redundant shield covers beneath steering and suspension elements.

This all becomes an insurance issue in the world of autonomous cars.  If you encounter road debris (an occasional risk element), the control system cannot be responsible to avoid contact/impact under many circumstances.

Behing that driverless vehicles are on the road now, Rule Number 1 has been long broken. These vehicles could have been right around you and you never even noticed.

Right, we should be more precise and say a fully driverless system. The segregation makes that easy and thus it is already in widespread use. The difficult part is the halfway version, where some vehicles in the system are driverless and others not.

You cannot pretend fully driverless world doesn't require same preparedness as a mix
Pedestrians, notably kids in the streets - and wildlife on highways. Any vehicle can break on a road, get a flat tire,bsome cargo is lost or tree falls - driverless still has to anticipate and deal with that.
No true driverless until the system is prepared to deal with all that. Once all those situations are accommodated, mixed pattern doesn't matter that much

Don't sensors exit that can detect pedestrians? I do think that all self driving cars should come with an emergency brake just in case.

This was in response to "driverless-only world is much easier than mix of driver and driverless".
Point it, that human driver, especially ones as our friend @Crash_It,  are not totally predictable by their nature - unlike communicating driverless vehicles which have a full opportunity to inform others about their intentions. But human drivers are not the only source of unexpected events on the road - there is a list of other issues.

I feel like cars being able to communicate with each other is already a step above human drivers.

Of course. But it is - if you know about swiss cheese model - a slice with holes too big to count as a true slice.

[Dirt Roads]

I feel like cars being able to communicate with each other is already a step above human drivers.

My crystal ball might be wrong here, but I don't believe that the driverless car industry has any interest in car-to-car networking capabilities.  It has been very difficult in the freight railroad industry to develop PTC interoperability between a few suppliers, and in their case they are only trying to make the downlink compatible.  We don't see this in the driverless AGT industry either, but that is primarily a function of how line capacity constraints are managed.  When I have seen systems that test out the "platooning" feature, they are very impressive.

[Roadgeekteen]

I feel like cars being able to communicate with each other is already a step above human drivers.

My crystal ball might be wrong here, but I don't believe that the driverless car industry has any interest in car-to-car networking capabilities.  It has been very difficult in the freight railroad industry to develop PTC interoperability between a few suppliers, and in their case they are only trying to make the downlink compatible.  We don't see this in the driverless AGT industry either, but that is primarily a function of how line capacity constraints are managed.  When I have seen systems that test out the "platooning" feature, they are very impressive.

It's not needed but it could help.