AARoads Forum

What do you think? Wave of the future? Or just a pipe dream?

Could happen.  It can take over for daily grind driving for me anytime it wants, as long as I still get to drive the twisty country roads.

Automation is working in the airline industry.

There are about 1.1 million motor vehicle fatalities worldwide each year.  Compare that to 750 commercial airline fatalities each year.

It'll happen... I hope, since I don't like driving. I'd say I'm the last generation who really had to learn how to drive.

Whether people will trust the self-driving cars is the thing. Some people will choose to drive, so a manual setting should be there too.

I think it'll be a long time before they're adopted en masse, but I think they eventually will be. I love driving, so I don't plan on ever owning one.

Despite the hype, it's not nearly ready. Google's car still works off of a GIS database for part of its functioning (speed limits, location of stop signs and traffic signals, etc.); its computer vision system can detect lane markings and obstacles, but cannot detect a traffic signal it doesn't expect, and can't read signs. It probably can't navigate a private parking lot. Only a few cities are modeled in its database, and building such a database with pan-american coverage (let alone keeping it up to date) seems like a humongous task, in my opinion. It would require keeping constant tabs with hundreds of governments and agencies of several levels, not to mention any private entity that owns a public roadway. Oh, and I wouldn't trust a self-driving car to navigate me through some of the more complex construction zones, or to obey a flagger...

And when and if it's ready, I probably won't use it. It's great if you want to get from A to B using the "shortest" route (as determined by a GPS/GIS system; y'all know how that goes) (read: lazy). Often, on road trips, I'll decide to take a less efficient but more scenic road or clinch some routes. On many occasions, I'll see something interesting while driving and make a photo stop there. That would require constant on-the-fly reprogramming in a self-driving car, if that's even possible. I mean, how in the Hell is someone going to clinch NY 9N in a self-driving vehicle?

And I've mentioned before that some jurisdictions are likely to authorize self-driving cars on their roads, as long as there's a licensed driver ready to take over the wheel in case of failure. If it comes to that, I might as well drive the damn thing by myself, lest I won't be alert if my intervention is needed. Would you let an unreliable driver drive you around?

Quote from: tradephoric on May 12, 2015, 05:46:07 PMAutomation is working in the airline industry.

There are about 1.1 million motor vehicle fatalities worldwide each year.  Compare that to 750 commercial airline fatalities each year.

Sure, but airspace near airports is tightly controlled, traffic control devices follow a worldwide standard set by the ICAO (whereas a state can't even follow its own MUTCD, not to mention counties and towns), pilots are much more compliant than drivers and traffic is much less dense. The environment is much more predictable.

Self-driving cars in rural areas seem like a nice sci-fi fantasy too. You think Google is going to be able to accurately map some dirt road in the middle of nowhere? Or even some paved country road in the middle of nowhere? And accurately follow any changes that happen to said road?

I remember seeing this on The Jetsons...oh wait, those must be the flying cars!

At any rate, I think it would be great to have self-driving cars, which would reduce the need to go to a rest stop on a cross-country trip. I'm sure they will come in handy when I'm way past retirement age.

Quote from: tradephoric on May 12, 2015, 05:46:07 PM
Automation is working in the airline industry.

Autopilot is more like cruise control.  The licensed pilot is still required to be there, awake and alert.

It'll happen. 

Hell, the airline industry went from non-existent in the early 1900's to airports small and large all over the country within a few decades.  Imagine sitting around in 1905 if someone asked you if you would be willing to fly 30,000 feet in the air, or would you rather just stay on the ground in your horse and buggy?  Technologies evolve, and no doubt the self-driving car will evolve relatively quickly at this point.

No question it will happen, but give it twenty years for mass appeal, reasonable prices, public fear to die down, and infrastructure to be ready for the ever-changing transformation in our "daily driver". The manufacturing industry prefers incremental change, but public demand has to be high for it to be anything more than a concept. I also get the idea that manufacturers would prefer to offer driverless vehicles to forms of mass transit first; the customer base is less fickle, I'd imagine.

I wonder what sort pride people will take in them; as much as I enjoy a noisy, clattering vehicle, with its associated noises, switches, levers, knobs, and pedals with a bit of glee, there's still something neat about seemless technology such as this. But it won't really feel the same if there's not much say in the process. I also fear that eventually human-operated vehicles will subject to more rules and standards, so as not to upset the computer-driven ones.

If only it could spare me stupid arguments for the next fifty years about which one is obviously better, and how the opposing side clearly has its head messed up about their ideas.

What I'm worried about is the self-driving car advocates purposefully using the new technology to delay/cancel good infrastructure improvements in favor of those that would benefit self-driving cars when they're released to the public "in the near future". It's already starting to happen, with some politicians in San Francisco claiming that self-driving cars would make their new transit projects obsolete.

Self driving cars are inevitable.
The question will be how widely they end up being implemented.

I envision a road system where you have option to let the car do the driving, or put in manual for fun or evading the horde of zombies suddenly taking over the city.  Put it on automatic for the daily commute, but take over whenever you feel like taking the scenic route instead.
Some facilities will require you to leave the computer in charge.  Urban freeways will eventually become the exclusive domain of computer-operated vehicles because they will benefit the most from this technology.
No one's going to bother making self driving cars that can drive down every little dirt track except for fun.

Currently, the number of people killed in traffic collisions is insane. Almost every single crash is caused by human error.  40-some thousand deaths; ten times that in injuries every. single. year.  If anything else was killing 40,000 Americans every year, everyone would be falling over each other to throw money and technology at the problem.  Remove the humans from the driving and you remove their errors that cause crashes.

I can't friggin' wait for cars to start driving themselves before one of you maniacs kills me.
(that's the royal "you" in that sentence, so don't nobody take offense thinking I'm criticizing anyone's driving)

Better idea to reduce crashes: implement stricter requirements to get a licence.  Right now we give them out like they're candy.  If I had my way, the road test would cover just about everything and be excruciatingly difficult to pass.  Driving in any kind of snow would require an additional test to be held on I-81 south of Watertown in the middle of a blizzard.

I think they're inevitable, to a greater or lesser extent. And to be honest, I don't mind that at much as I thought I would; I feel that today's automobiles already leave their drivers far too disconnected from the act of actually operating their machine, to the extent that they don't properly devote themselves to the task (and then that's compounded by an apparent general decline in people interacting in accordance with their actual surroundings, in any part of life). In other words, a lot of people get into their car with the mindset that they're just gonna kind of chill out for a while as they go from one place to another, rather than engaging themselves in the process of moving and navigating from one place to another.

So yeah, give me self-driving cars, or else let's go back to actual machines that you actively have to operate, so we can make sure everyone's mind is really in the game.

Quote from: vdeane on May 16, 2015, 08:23:05 PMBetter idea to reduce crashes: implement stricter requirements to get a licence.  Right now we give them out like they're candy.  If I had my way, the road test would cover just about everything and be excruciatingly difficult to pass.  Driving in any kind of snow would require an additional test to be held on I-81 south of Watertown in the middle of a blizzard.

I appreciate this is tongue-in-cheek, but the idea of requiring much stricter driving tests lost a lot of the appeal it might otherwise have had for me when I failed such a test.

It is pretty easy for a road enthusiast (driver's license comfortably in wallet or purse) to pile concepts and suggested reading (MUTCD, multiple editions of the AASHTO Green Book and its predecessors, the ITE traffic engineering handbook, a few textbooks on automotive engineering, a selection of NTSB reports into major bus accidents as an alternative to a monograph on accident causation, . . .) into the syllabus for a driver's education course until the result is more "PhD in motoring" than a basic introduction to driving.  At some point people have to be let out onto the road to do their thing, and probably only a small minority will engage with driving as an intellectual project (though this percentage will likely be higher for commercial drivers).

It has been my experience, and that of my friends who have gotten their licenses to drive in jurisdictions with tough tests, that the substance of the test often reduces to working through a checklist.  In South Africa, for example, failing to check your rearview mirror at least once every 20 seconds is an instant fail.

In Britain, each driver testing center has a set of testing loops on public streets, and any mistake you make is categorized as a minor fault, a major fault, or a dangerous fault, and test pass standard is defined as so many of each type of fault.  When I took my test at the Marston Road driver testing center in Oxford, the standard had recently changed from unlimited minor faults, 5 major faults, and 0 dangerous faults to 15 minor faults, 0 major faults, and 0 dangerous faults.  Often you can be faulted for actions that are misinterpreted as errors.  For example, on my test I asked the examiner to confirm which way I should turn at an upcoming intersection with a circular blue go-left sign, and I was faulted for this because my question presupposed that the intersection in question was a roundabout when it was actually a T junction with a dual carriageway and the go-left sign was in the central reservation.  The examiner said I should have known it was not a roundabout because there was no map-type sign, despite there being numerous roundabouts in Britain without map-type signs.

Tests of this kind often end up being gamed in ways that do not promote safe driving.  In Britain, for example, even experienced drivers are often advised to sign up for a couple of hours of driving lessons (at a cost of about £20 per hour) just to figure out how to take the driving test, and to pay to have a driving instructor ride along for the test itself (as is allowed) to ensure faults are not handed out unnecessarily.  (The principle is similar to having your accountant along when the IRS audits you.)  Driver testing centers have published pass rates and a common trick is to book a test at a center, no matter how remote from your home, that has a high pass rate--often in a rural location.  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which administers driving tests in mainland Britain, actually closed a few driver testing centers in Somerset because they had pass rates that were too high.

Driving (as Tom Vanderbilt sketches out in his book Traffic) is one of the most cognitively complex tasks people undertake.  This is why I think any driver licensing regime should be designed with careful regard to its effects on driver formation generally.  Only high-value interventions should be undertaken, and every effort should be made to avoid tipping new drivers into unsafe habits as part of the process of preparing for a driving test.  (In California, for example, the DMV counts excessive caution at stop signs as a fault during the driving test, and I think this prods inexperienced drivers to pull out too soon instead of waiting for a gap long enough to merge into traffic without forcing other vehicles to alter speed or direction.)

More broadly, there needs to be a realization that a driving test only begins the process of becoming a good driver, and the skill of hazard perception and the ethic of being a defensive driver are more important than working through a checklist in a high-pressure test setting.

Better testing is all well and good but it doesn't change the basic problem of humans operating machines.  Even the expert driver is still human.  They can still get tired, drunk, angry or simply distracted.  Momentary lapses of concentration happen to everybody; no exceptions.

I think about my own driving history and I can point to several incidents where I avoided a problem by using my skill and experience.  But there are a bunch of others where I escaped 'catastrophe' through dumb luck.  Existing self-driving technology found in increasing numbers of vehicles already would have prevented the two minor collisions I was involved in as a younger man.

Another benefit of self-driving cars: no more speeding tickets.  Ever.
And those speed limits for computer-driven cars will get much higher.  We're talking about a 100 mph lane on urban freeways where no manual control will be allowed.  Vehicles can run nearly bumper to bumper as well, drastically increasing capacity and increasing fuel efficiency (whatever that fuel may be) through aerodynamics.  So much capacity on our roads is wasted with empty space between vehicles to compensate for the shortcomings of human operators.

I envision a day where I can manually drive my car a for a few blocks then as I get to the freeway ramp I just tell my car to take me to exit 123 and then kick back and play a video game or read another chapter.  The most stress-free commute you could possibly have.
The sooner this can happen, the better. And it is a very, very achievable goal.

What happens when someone hacks the system the automated cars use to communicate with each other in order to avoid accidents or to deal with traffic incidents? (For the latter, I'm envisioning the sort of thing that happened this morning: The Beltway near our exit was closed in both directions due to an electrical incident just off the highway–some sort of utility fire. I presume the idea with the automated car thing is that the car would detect the road closure and automatically divert to another route.)

Also, what happens to the millions of non-automated cars now on the road? Are people to be required to dispose of them by some certain deadline? (I highly doubt any of the three cars my wife and I own could be retrofitted, especially since they're all manual shift.)

I just saw this commercial a few days ago.

Quote from: 1995hoo on May 17, 2015, 03:12:30 PM
What happens when someone hacks the system the automated cars use ...

I think that's the equivalent of saying, "What if someone hacks the internet?"  The cars would be communicating information directly among themselves rather than relying on some sort of centralized system.  Someone attempting to insert false information into this network would be fairly easy to root out as numerous vehicles in the area of a reported problem would contradict the 'hack'.  Being decentralized makes it much more difficult to intentionally cause major problems on the road network.

And really, it would be hard for a hacker to cause more devastation on the roads than we are doing right now.  40,000 is a LOT of deaths.

Naturally, things like construction or the occasional incident would have to be accommodated, but there will be fewer and fewer of the latter as self driving vehicles come to dominate the roads.

Quote from: 1995hoo on May 17, 2015, 03:12:30 PMAlso, what happens to the millions of non-automated cars now on the road? Are people to be required to dispose of them by some certain deadline? (I highly doubt any of the three cars my wife and I own could be retrofitted, especially since they're all manual shift.)

There is going to be a transition.  Much longer than it could be if everyone agreed this was the way to go.
At first both manual and computer driven cars will occupy the same roads and those will only be certain roads at first; freeways & major surface arteries with limited or no driveways I image.  But as more people make the switch and the technology proves itself reliable, more and more roads will allow computer-control.  This would probably cover the majority of our driving lifetimes.  Self driving vehicles will probably move in small packs while operating among manual driven vehicles.  They may be restricted to certain lanes at first as well, but slowly be allowed in more lanes and more places as they start to represent more and more of the traffic.

As more self drivers come online, certain roadways will be closed to manual driven vehicles.  When that starts to happen, then the real cool stuff can begin as well.  That's when you will start to see the 100 mph lanes and groups of semi's moving as one big road train with specially designed aerodynamic vehicles leading the pack.  I can imagine there being pilot openings of self driver only facilities where they close a freeway to manual operation for one day and everyone can experience what it's like without having to compensate for human error.  From there it will catch on fast.

Retrofitting will probably be impractical for most people and we will instead be encouraged to 'upgrade' when we buy new vehicles over time through incentives like a lower registration fee or toll rate where applicable.  Governments might subsidize the price difference since it will end up saving us billions over the long term.  Insurance companies may drag their feet at first, but it won't take long for them to be giving out huge discounts for owning a self-driving car.  In fairly short order it will be more economical to buy a newer car that can drive itself than to stick it out with an old school machine.

Stuff like this will help us make the transition.
I'll get into my thoughts about how self driving cars will handle inclement weather in another post, because that has to be part of this discussion.

Do you guys foresee there being areas where self-driving cars are just impractical? Rural areas are not well mapped in some cases. You can pull up almost any rural area on Google Maps and spot some errors that would prove terrible if a self driving car were to blindly follow it. How do you compensate for it?

Quote from: The Nature Boy on May 17, 2015, 04:48:39 PM
Do you guys foresee there being areas where self-driving cars are just impractical? Rural areas are not well mapped in some cases. You can pull up almost any rural area on Google Maps and spot some errors that would prove terrible if a self driving car were to blindly follow it. How do you compensate for it?

There will be such areas for quite a long time into after the introduction of self-driving cars, and there will still be a need for manual control for the foreseeable future, perhaps indefinitely.

At the same time, there will be certain facilities where self-driving vehicles are compulsory.


iPhone

Question: how does one clinch things in a self-driving car?  It's hard enough to map out clinching trips on Google Maps, especially with respect to taking a parallel local road instead of the interstate (it's easy to run out of shaping points fast) or loops (my oh my are those hard... I often just don't map them at all!).

What's the point of even having car insurance with a self-driving car?  The current purpose of car insurance is to protect other people in case you cause an accident.  Either people will stop having it (not likely... what the insurance industry wants, the insurance industry gets), people will pay lots of money for something that's useless, or it will become like health insurance and start paying for routine maintenance like oil changes and inspections.

As for the 100 mph lanes... while there's certainly potential, somehow I think the "slower is always safer" crowd will find a reason to kill it.  Plus cars would have to be modified to sustain that kind of speed.  I'm uncomfortable driving my civic faster than 80 as it is due to wear on the engine (5 speed manual; the tachometer approaches 4000 rpm at 80 mph) and tires.

Finally... road trips will be a LOT less fun in a self-driving car.  Personally, I actually like freeway driving.  It's relaxing and a great de-stressor (at least as long as the road isn't crowded with idiots).  That would go away with a self-driving car... it would be more like watching roadwaywiz videos than driving, and IMO driving is more fun.

Quote from: vdeane on May 17, 2015, 05:29:50 PMQuestion: how does one clinch things in a self-driving car?  It's hard enough to map out clinching trips on Google Maps, especially with respect to taking a parallel local road instead of the interstate (it's easy to run out of shaping points fast) or loops (my oh my are those hard... I often just don't map them at all!).

The real issue, for many, would be whether you actually have to drive yourself to count a route transit as a clinch.  The data entry aspect is fairly simple:  by the time self-driving cars are reality, the clinch mapping sites will almost certainly have been upgraded to accept and interpret GPS tracks generated by a smartphone or other device carried in the car.

Quote from: vdeane on May 17, 2015, 05:29:50 PMWhat's the point of even having car insurance with a self-driving car?  The current purpose of car insurance is to protect other people in case you cause an accident.  Either people will stop having it (not likely... what the insurance industry wants, the insurance industry gets), people will pay lots of money for something that's useless, or it will become like health insurance and start paying for routine maintenance like oil changes and inspections.

If self-driving cars really lead to a massive reduction in road casualties, insurance would presumably become much cheaper.  There would still be an element of comprehensive insurance that is necessary to cover weather-related damage such as hail.  I think auto insurance would become more like health insurance only if, as part of the regulatory tradeoff for allowing self-driving cars, basic maintenance operations were required to be carried out by personnel covered by a certification scheme.  DIYers of whatever skill level have the potential to be squeezed out by a shift toward self-driving cars.

Quote from: vdeane on May 17, 2015, 05:29:50 PMAs for the 100 mph lanes... while there's certainly potential, somehow I think the "slower is always safer" crowd will find a reason to kill it.  Plus cars would have to be modified to sustain that kind of speed.  I'm uncomfortable driving my civic faster than 80 as it is due to wear on the engine (5 speed manual; the tachometer approaches 4000 rpm at 80 mph) and tires.

There are a few points here:

*  100 MPH is unlikely to be allowed on any but a few select facilities, since our freeways are simply not designed that well (3° maximum curvature for a 70 MPH design speed is a bitch).  Some freeways would be easier to retrofit than others and it would take time to roll out the upgrades.  In that time, a great proportion of the vehicles that can't sustain speeds that high would gradually fall victim to fleet turnover.

*  "Speed limits too fast for the car" is a problem that already exists to some degree.  For example, I never took advantage of 80 MPH in WY, UT, and ID on my travels last September, except for short lengths on I-80 in WY and I-15 in UT.  My 1994 Saturn can handle 80 MPH just fine, but the penalty is greatly increased fuel and oil consumption.

*  Driving a Civic at 4,000 RPM for extended periods of time won't noticeably accelerate engine wear, as long as oil cooling is adequate.  The real issue with high-RPM operation is not wear per se so much as it is oil sludging due to high temperatures.  Once the oil control rings become clogged with coked oil, the engine will burn oil at a progressively greater rate.  I wouldn't consider using anything but a full synthetic oil for sustained high-RPM operation.

Quote from: vdeane on May 17, 2015, 05:29:50 PMFinally... road trips will be a LOT less fun in a self-driving car.  Personally, I actually like freeway driving.  It's relaxing and a great de-stressor (at least as long as the road isn't crowded with idiots).  That would go away with a self-driving car... it would be more like watching roadwaywiz videos than driving, and IMO driving is more fun.

As time goes on, more and more state DOTs will put photologs or videologs online, and I anticipate that they will increasingly be used by roadgeeks to evaluate potential roadtripping opportunities for fun factor.  Moreover, lightly travelled facilities (mostly two-lane highways, but including some expressways and freeways) will be the last to be equipped with any enhancement related to self-driving cars that requires an infrastructural element, such as a ban on manual operation.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on May 17, 2015, 04:48:39 PMDo you guys foresee there being areas where self-driving cars are just impractical? Rural areas are not well mapped in some cases. You can pull up almost any rural area on Google Maps and spot some errors that would prove terrible if a self driving car were to blindly follow it. How do you compensate for it?

This issue used to be quite serious in the case of Death Valley, where the original GPS-based mapping was very lazily developed (presumably by using software to "guess" which features are roads by comparing changes in albedo in satellite photos), and included roads that had been abandoned decades previously and were not traversable even by high-clearance four-wheel-drive vehicles.  After a number of heat- and dehydration-related deaths indirectly caused by bad directions from in-car GPS units, the NPS worked with the major GPS mapping vendors to remove these spurious roads.

As part of an eventual rollout of self-driving cars, there would probably be a regulatory requirement not to implement GPS-based self-driving except on the basis of mapping that has received some type of certification as to accuracy.  Aside from this, it is at least conceptually possible to design a self-driving car with logic that continually evaluates the projected route, and calculates a new routing when the road ahead is unsuitable.

Quote from: vdeane on May 17, 2015, 05:29:50 PM
What's the point of even having car insurance with a self-driving car?  The current purpose of car insurance is to protect other people in case you cause an accident.

That's only for liability insurance.  A lot of people also have uninsured/underinsured driver insurance in case another driver is at fault for an accident you're in, and comprehensive insurance for damage to vehicle from your own fault, or natural or unidentifiable causes.

I'd expect the driver to continue to be responsible if their self-driving car causes an accident.  They are responsible for maintaining the self-driving system, and responsible for being ready to take over if the self-driving system is doing the wrong thing.

Perhaps use of a self-driving car would make you eligible for lower premiums.

In order to work as intended (eliminating accidents), all human-driven cars would have to be eliminated. As someone who loves to drive, fuck that.


iPhone

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 17, 2015, 06:40:21 PM
The real issue, for many, would be whether you actually have to drive yourself to count a route transit as a clinch.  The data entry aspect is fairly simple:  by the time self-driving cars are reality, the clinch mapping sites will almost certainly have been upgraded to accept and interpret GPS tracks generated by a smartphone or other device carried in the car.

What about "how to get the self-driving car to go on every millimeter of state highway"?

Quote
If self-driving cars really lead to a massive reduction in road casualties, insurance would presumably become much cheaper.  There would still be an element of comprehensive insurance that is necessary to cover weather-related damage such as hail.  I think auto insurance would become more like health insurance only if, as part of the regulatory tradeoff for allowing self-driving cars, basic maintenance operations were required to be carried out by personnel covered by a certification scheme.  DIYers of whatever skill level have the potential to be squeezed out by a shift toward self-driving cars.

I'm pretty sure the purpose of requiring insurance is to protect people in the event of an accident.  If all the cars were self-driving, that goes away.

Quote from: kkt on May 18, 2015, 01:50:41 AM
That's only for liability insurance.  A lot of people also have uninsured/underinsured driver insurance in case another driver is at fault for an accident you're in, and comprehensive insurance for damage to vehicle from your own fault, or natural or unidentifiable causes.

I'd expect the driver to continue to be responsible if their self-driving car causes an accident.  They are responsible for maintaining the self-driving system, and responsible for being ready to take over if the self-driving system is doing the wrong thing.

Perhaps use of a self-driving car would make you eligible for lower premiums.

I would not want to be responsible for the results of the inevitable software bugs that will show up.  Doing that would be a good way to make me give up the car entirely.

If self-driving cars are as reliable as people claim, then the only unexpected damage should be weather-related.

Also note that Google's current prototype self-driving cars have no option for the driver to manually take over at all.  There's not even a steering wheel.  Plus what's the point of even having a self-driving car if people have to be ready to take over at any time and need to be as focused as they are now?  Taking away the actual driving but still have people maintain the awareness is a sure fire way to lead to boredom, distracted "driving", and disaster if it's relied upon.  We already see it now, with cars automating so many things that people get tempted to text and drive.  We'd see a lot less distracted driving out there if automatic transmissions were outlawed, for example.  The solution is not to enable the behavior without accommodating for it.

Quote from: Molandfreak on May 18, 2015, 03:05:13 PM
In order to work as intended (eliminating accidents), all human-driven cars would have to be eliminated. As someone who loves to drive, fuck that.

Agreed, but I'm going throw a lot of cold water on this.  I do not think self-driving cars will be ready for prime time for a very long time, if ever.  There are far too many variables, IMHO, other than simply just a map and other vehicles on the road.  There are animals, especially larger animals like deer, elk, moose, etc, that cannot be accounted for and cannot necessarily be predicted properly by software.  Even currently, humans driving can hit them.  What about software that requires the driving environment be predictable?  Then we have bicyclists and pedestrians whose actions cannot always be accounted for by software.  Even radar and other identification systems cannot predict what they may do.

I sincerely doubt we'll see viable self-driving vehicles for a very long time.  We may see some functions taken over a la autopilot, but autopilot still requires the pilot to monitor it.

Quote from: vdeane on May 19, 2015, 10:47:30 AMWhat about "how to get the self-driving car to go on every millimeter of state highway"?

By the time self-driving cars become market reality, I would expect route selection and programming to be more sophisticated than Google Maps click-and-drag.  You would almost certainly be able to program a self-driving car to do an U-turn in front of an Army post gate as required for a successful clinch, because there are plenty of foreseeable applications (not related to correcting navigational errors) where the ability to U-turn would be useful in a self-driving car.

Quote from: vdeane on May 19, 2015, 10:47:30 AMI'm pretty sure the purpose of requiring insurance is to protect people in the event of an accident.  If all the cars were self-driving, that goes away.

Not really--the typical passenger aircraft in revenue service is far less likely to be involved in an accident than the typical car, but the airlines are still liable and I am pretty sure they set aside funds to self-insure if they don't actually buy insurance from another company.

However good self-driving technology becomes, I highly doubt that it will ever reduce accidents all the way to zero.  There are just too many variables to monitor and designers can't just throw sensors and monitoring circuitry at every possible source of failure because then failure of each sensor or its circuit, as well as random bit flip due to cosmic radiation, has to be catered for.  At best it's a process of pulling the drawstring on a haversack, by eliminating common causes of failure in favor of far rarer ones.

Quote from: vdeane on May 19, 2015, 10:47:30 AMIf self-driving cars are as reliable as people claim, then the only unexpected damage should be weather-related.

If such claims are being made--even if by entities that aren't actually involved in developing self-driving cars--then they are not credible and should not be believed.

Quote from: vdeane on May 19, 2015, 10:47:30 AMAlso note that Google's current prototype self-driving cars have no option for the driver to manually take over at all.  There's not even a steering wheel.  Plus what's the point of even having a self-driving car if people have to be ready to take over at any time and need to be as focused as they are now?  Taking away the actual driving but still have people maintain the awareness is a sure fire way to lead to boredom, distracted "driving", and disaster if it's relied upon.  We already see it now, with cars automating so many things that people get tempted to text and drive.  We'd see a lot less distracted driving out there if automatic transmissions were outlawed, for example.  The solution is not to enable the behavior without accommodating for it.

I disagree that automatic transmissions enable distracted driving on any significant scale.  In fact you could easily argue that it is manuals which cause distracted driving in cities, because the added task load of upshifting and downshifting as required to maintain the correct gear means reduced cognitive effort is available to focus on the traffic environment.  This is comparable to the argument that rigorous enforcement of speed limits is bad because it leads to drivers constantly checking their speedometers instead of what the other traffic is doing.

The real problem with distracted driving in the current generation of new cars has more to do with in-car entertainment systems that absorb far too much cognitive effort, in combination with the "always on" mentality of new drivers.

I don't think Google's non-provision of controls in their latest prototypes is necessarily reflective of the direction continued development will take.  It has also been noted in the technical press that Google's self-driving cars have no ability to "read" the traffic environment (a cognitively complex task that even intelligent and educated adult humans occasionally struggle with) and are dependent on very highly detailed three-dimensional photo mapping that right now is pretty much limited to the Bay Area.  It makes no sense to take the controls away when the underlying software can't cater for "here today, not here yesterday" conditions that by definition are not mapped, such as potholes that appear overnight, signs that go away when the sign crew comes by, etc.

Quote from: Brandon on May 19, 2015, 12:02:14 PMThere are far too many variables, IMHO, other than simply just a map and other vehicles on the road.  There are animals, especially larger animals like deer, elk, moose, etc, that cannot be accounted for and cannot necessarily be predicted properly by software.  Even currently, humans driving can hit them.  What about software that requires the driving environment be predictable?

A common observation about self-driving systems is that they have no "common sense," as that rather uncommon blend of intuition and experience is known.  For example, if a ball bounces into the street, then the self-driving car won't "know" to expect a little kid to come chasing after it.  Of course, software can be developed to cater for this specific case, but that is an ad hoc solution and traffic is full of ad hoc cases.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 19, 2015, 12:32:23 PM

Quote from: Brandon on May 19, 2015, 12:02:14 PMThere are far too many variables, IMHO, other than simply just a map and other vehicles on the road.  There are animals, especially larger animals like deer, elk, moose, etc, that cannot be accounted for and cannot necessarily be predicted properly by software.  Even currently, humans driving can hit them.  What about software that requires the driving environment be predictable?

A common observation about self-driving systems is that they have no "common sense," as that rather uncommon blend of intuition and experience is known.  For example, if a ball bounces into the street, then the self-driving car won't "know" to expect a little kid to come chasing after it.  Of course, software can be developed to cater for this specific case, but that is an ad hoc solution and traffic is full of ad hoc cases.

OK, but has there ever been cases where those stated things have occurred, and what happened when it did occur? Or are we just trying to make stuff up again, and potential conditions such as these were thought up already many years ago?  I would think if someone asking for permission to test a self-driving car said "Yes, our car can drive itself, but if your 4 year old daughter walks out in front of it she's going to get creamed", that was be an instant disapproval of the test.  I'm sure the questions have been asked, and the technology has been created, for such an event.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 19, 2015, 01:08:31 PMOK, but has there ever been cases where those stated things have occurred, and what happened when it did occur? Or are we just trying to make stuff up again, and potential conditions such as these were thought up already many years ago?  I would think if someone asking for permission to test a self-driving car said "Yes, our car can drive itself, but if your 4 year old daughter walks out in front of it she's going to get creamed", that was be an instant disapproval of the test.  I'm sure the questions have been asked, and the technology has been created, for such an event.

"Ball bouncing into the street" is not a manufactured hypothetical.  It is mentioned specifically in a rather long New Yorker article on the Google self-driving car that appeared, I think, in 2013.  The article (if memory serves) notes that giving the brain of a self-driving car the "common sense" required to address such situations is a still unsolved problem.  At the time the article was written, Google was using highly modified production cars as prototypes but they still had their controls, as well as a red console button that was pushed to take over manual operation.

I have not delved into the detail of current licensing arrangements for self-driving cars, but I suspect they are still based on the "driver in charge" doctrine and have gone forward largely on the basis that supervised self-driving (the only kind of self-driving that would have had anything like a track record when California and Nevada made self-driving cars legal) had a crash rate lower than ordinary driving.

Quote from J N Winkler:

Quotedisagree that automatic transmissions enable distracted driving on any significant scale.  In fact you could easily argue that it is manuals which cause distracted driving in cities, because the added task load of upshifting and downshifting as required to maintain the correct gear means reduced cognitive effort is available to focus on the traffic environment. 

Thank You. I fully agree. This is one of the reasons that I hate manuals. I feel that they greatly increase the chance of an accident for this as well as a host of other reasons, including the difficulty of taking off front a stopped position a hill without rolling back.

I think that the fact that I have Asperger's made learning to drive manuals much more challenging for me than for other people. I found it odd that people that had a significantly lower IQ than me were able to master the skill while I struggled.

Quote from: Brian556 on May 19, 2015, 10:46:07 PM
Quote from J N Winkler:

Quotedisagree that automatic transmissions enable distracted driving on any significant scale.  In fact you could easily argue that it is manuals which cause distracted driving in cities, because the added task load of upshifting and downshifting as required to maintain the correct gear means reduced cognitive effort is available to focus on the traffic environment. 

Thank You. I fully agree. This is one of the reasons that I hate manuals. I feel that they greatly increase the chance of an accident for this as well as a host of other reasons, including the difficulty of taking off front a stopped position a hill without rolling back.

I think that the fact that I have Asperger's made learning to drive manuals much more challenging for me than for other people. I found it odd that people that had a significantly lower IQ than me were able to master the skill while I struggled.

WHAT?!?! No, no, no, no, no, no, no. It's just part of the operation of the vehicle that should be second nature to someone with experience. No increased chance of an accident at all. Pop the clutch if you don't want to roll back.

Quote from: Molandfreak on May 19, 2015, 11:58:29 PM

Quote from: Brian556 on May 19, 2015, 10:46:07 PM
Quote from J N Winkler:

Quotedisagree that automatic transmissions enable distracted driving on any significant scale.  In fact you could easily argue that it is manuals which cause distracted driving in cities, because the added task load of upshifting and downshifting as required to maintain the correct gear means reduced cognitive effort is available to focus on the traffic environment. 

Thank You. I fully agree. This is one of the reasons that I hate manuals. I feel that they greatly increase the chance of an accident for this as well as a host of other reasons, including the difficulty of taking off front a stopped position a hill without rolling back.

I think that the fact that I have Asperger's made learning to drive manuals much more challenging for me than for other people. I found it odd that people that had a significantly lower IQ than me were able to master the skill while I struggled.

WHAT?!?! No, no, no, no, no, no, no. It's just part of the operation of the vehicle that should be second nature to someone with experience. No increased chance of an accident at all. Pop the clutch if you don't want to roll back.

I agree that a lot of it has to do with experience.  Granted, that takes time and there's a first time for everyone.  I have been driving a manual for so long that going through the gears ( both up and down) is almost second nature.  I've come to find that I'm more likely to make a mistake (letting the clutch out too fast, a bit herky-jerky with a gear shift, etc.) when I am really thinking about what I'm doing.  As for hill starts, I would not recommend "popping" the clutch.  That will wear one out fast and they aren't cheap to repair.  Instead, I'd recommend using the emergency brake trick; where the driver releases the brake when they begin to feel the clutch grabbing.  With enough practice without using the emergency brake and no one behind you to roll back into, one will get good and hardly roll back an inch by just taking your foot off the brake and quickly moving it to the throttle.  Again, this takes practice...but like I noted, everyone has to start somewhere.

Quote from: Brian556 on May 19, 2015, 10:46:07 PM
Quote from J N Winkler:

Quotedisagree that automatic transmissions enable distracted driving on any significant scale.  In fact you could easily argue that it is manuals which cause distracted driving in cities, because the added task load of upshifting and downshifting as required to maintain the correct gear means reduced cognitive effort is available to focus on the traffic environment. 

Thank You. I fully agree. This is one of the reasons that I hate manuals. I feel that they greatly increase the chance of an accident for this as well as a host of other reasons, including the difficulty of taking off front a stopped position a hill without rolling back.

I think that the fact that I have Asperger's made learning to drive manuals much more challenging for me than for other people. I found it odd that people that had a significantly lower IQ than me were able to master the skill while I struggled.

And I call bullshit as I do have a manual, and I find it infinitely easier to use in an urban environment than a slushbox.  I have a rather high IQ, and had no struggle whatsoever.

One time at a Dave and Buster's, they had an arcade racing machine that featured a 6-stick with a clutch. I tried it, failed miserably, and figured if I sucked that hard at a video game, I could never do it in real life. Besides, I have no problems with automatic anyway.

Quote from: Zeffy on May 20, 2015, 09:45:18 AM
One time at a Dave and Buster's, they had an arcade racing machine that featured a 6-stick with a clutch. I tried it, failed miserably, and figured if I sucked that hard at a video game, I could never do it in real life. Besides, I have no problems with automatic anyway.

If you base all of life's experiences on the first 60 seconds you tried something, you would have never started walking when you were about 1, you would have never eat, as young kids are prone to missing their mouths, you would never have printed or wrote anything, you would have never typed, etc, etc, etc.  On video games that require you to race vehicles, have you ever crashed into something?  That didn't stop you from driving a car, did it?

I don't drive a stick either, but I wouldn't base my skill level on an electronic game where I am racing at 150 mph.

I think arcade games are profoundly unrepresentative of real-life driving, so I wouldn't declare myself incompetent to learn a driving technique simply because I messed up at the arcade.

There are many different styles for driving automatics and manuals, so it was actually my intention to refute suggestions that drivers should be required to use one or the other for any reason--to reduce task loading, to reduce distracted driving, or whatever.  Each driver should be free to use whichever of the two is most comfortable for him or her and that permits him or her to devote the appropriate amount of attention to the key elements of the roadway environment.

I agree that it takes a considerable amount of skill-building to drive a manual with good vehicle sympathy.  However, I think drivers used to manuals tend to underestimate the extent to which driving an automatic with good vehicle sympathy also requires skill, not just at the pedals but also under the hood where it is sometimes necessary to adjust the inputs the transmission receives.

Okay fine, that's not the only basis for staying with automatic. I like keeping things simple, so automatic just works the best for me. Plus, while I can drive just fine without my adderall, I could easily envision myself forgetting to shift gears. My attention is on the road, and anything in the car that isn't the brakes and gas pedals mostly gets shunned so I can focus on driving.

With regards to transmission types, it's a question of what you're used to. A lot of knowing how to drive a car is motor memory. If it's possible for someone to know when to hit the gas and brake without really thinking about it, it's also possible for someone to work a clutch and stick without really thinking about it. But in order to do it without really thinking about it, you have to be used to doing it.

I've made some attempts at driving stick whenever my cousin who owns one decides to give me a shot at it. But this ultimately means doing it for 10 minutes once every couple months, and of course I always suck at it because every time I attempt it it's a departure from the norm and I need to think about it.

It's kind of like with languages - if you study a foreign language a little bit here and there but then go back to speaking English for everything important, you're never going to pick the language up. But if spend some time in a country where it's the predominant language and you're forced to use it on a regular basis, you will learn by immersion.

This, I assume, is also key to learning how to drive stick. It can't be a here and there thing, it has to be learned by immersion. My cousin learned by buying a manual transmission car and forcing himself to drive it on a daily basis.

I think there is an assumption among some that a self driving car is going to simply follow a GPS trace to get around.  But in reality, they will be loaded with sensors that will identify an object moving toward the vehicle's predicted path and make corrections to avoid a collision; even severe braking and steering movements if necessary.  It will probably even get to the point where the computer will recognize the difference between a garbage bag blowing in the wind and an animal wandering onto the road and adjust its corrective action accordingly.

As with crashes involving other vehicles, animal strikes will be dramatically reduced (humans included).  Not only will the vehicle be able to avoid hitting an object better than a human driver, but it will be able to communicate to the vehicles around it that this car needs to do something drastic and they will be able to adjust their speed and steering before the occupants of those vehicles are even aware there is a problem.  With the obstacle cleared, the vehicle can automatically report to some maintenance authority that there is a piece of truck tire or wildlife activity at coordinates X:Y.  I predict it will eventually be such that a human could put on a blindfold and casually wander across the busiest multi-lane road of automated vehicles and be completely unharmed.  And on top of that, the flow of traffic will be affected in only a minor way.  That is how quickly the systems will be able to adjust to a dynamic obstacle.

I think we are a lot closer to self-driving cars technologically than many people may think.  It very reasonable to me to say that some on this forum will be driven home from their retirement parties by an automated vehicle.

Okay, but you can try walking across a busy multilane street blindfolded first :)

I think you're very idealistic.  If we can't even get oil pipelines to work without spilling tens of thousands of gallons, is there really hope for a sophisticated piece of tech like a self-driving car to work anywhere near as well as you say?  I swear, I spend over 10% of my days just fighting with computers and printers, and they are much simpler in comparison to what you're expecting a self-driving car to do.

Quote from J N Winkler:

Quotedisagree that automatic transmissions enable distracted driving on any significant scale.  In fact you could easily argue that it is manuals which cause distracted driving in cities, because the added task load of upshifting and ownshifting as required to maintain the correct gear means reduced cognitive effort is available to focus on the traffic environment. 

When you get used to driving a stick, it simply becomes part of driving. You don't think about it, you just do it. It's no more distracting than braking and accelerating because you have to use two pedals or a steering wheel is because it is round.

I don't want a self-driving cars for a myriad of reasons, the least not being carsickness. I get horrible vertigo and nausea if I'm not able to look forward in a car and control the driving. If I'm a passenger and the driver makes a sudden move that is unexpected, I get immediately sick. No matter how insignificant the move. A similar thing happened a few years ago while flying into Chicago: the plane slowed way down unexpectedly while it was getting ready to land and I came this close to throwing up. I still can't believe I was able to keep it together. During my Chicago layover I ate something and took a handful of Dramamine and I didn't have any problems for the second leg of the flight.

I have always said that they will have to pry my steering wheel out of my cold dead hands (borrowing a phrase from the gun lobby).

I do, however, agree with those who think we are closer to self driving cars than many people realize. The basic routing functions could be handled by the driver programming in waypoints similar to what a pilot has to do on his FMC in the cockpit. They pretty much have everything from the time the plane goes wheels up to the point they reach decision height on the final approach programmed on those things ahead of time, including all the turns to follow the various noise abatement procedures at the different airports they fly to. I would think it would be possible for a driver to program the car to turn at A Street instead of B street to go to work because they want to make a right turn into the parking lot instead of a left, for example. I believe that with proper pre-trip planning that we roadgeeeks would be able to tell the car the route we want it to take, versus whatever route the Goog or Garmin wants us to take.

I am also sure that the cars would have to have something akin to the TCAS systems that passenger airliners already have that would be able to sense and avoid possible conflicts with other vehicles and pedestrians (etc). I am sure they can make it all work-just as soon as they make my printer work every time I hit the print icon, LOL (I apologize for stealing someone else's comment on computers).


Back to us actually driving the cars ourselves, I wholeheartedly disagree with those who say that a manual transmission is distracting. There is alot more that goes into properly driving a vehicle with a manual transmission  that the only way to do it right is to actually be paying attention to what the other vehicles are doing around you. You have to be paying attention to the cue of traffic ahead of you as it slows down so that you don't find yourself still in 6th gear at 25 mph, lugging the engine all the way.


When I still had my F150 (and a Blackberry that actually had, oh the horror, buttons) I was occasionally guilty of answering a brief text message with a short answer while driving. Not anymore, the combination of a manual transmission and smartphones with touchscreens has me far to busy to think about sending a text message. At least my car will read the message to me in it's own crazy SYNC sort of accent, LOL. If its important enough to answer I have my car call the person who texted me and I speak to them, hands free. Driving a manual transmission has made me so much more aware of what is going on beyond the windshield.


As for driving on hills, my 2014 Mustang has hill assist, which has been an absolute Godsend. If the car senses that the rear end of the car is lower than the front end when I release the brake with the clutch engaged the brakes stay engaged until the car senses that I have begun to press the gas pedal. Rolling back is a thing of the past!


When I drive my wife's 2012 I still have to do it the old fashioned way, and with a little practice I have found that I can keep roll-back to a minimum without frying out the clutch.

Let me ask this question. How lazy are people these days? How is it possible that someone is just too lazy to drive their own car? If you have to sit behind the wheel in a self driving car anyways, why not just drive the stupid thing? The first time one of these self driving cars causes an accident and kills somebody I guarantee their popularity will go way down.

I'll put it this way too. When I'm driving on lets say a Mexican libre highway. I am smart enough to know that I should slow down to around 5 mph when I'm going over a tope (speed bump). However my self driving car might go over it at 24 mph (40 kph). True there is autopilot on planes and such, but there isn't as much planes in the sky as there are cars. Also 7 miles in the sky you don't have to worry about potholes and such either that will tear up your car. What if there is flooding? Will it be able to see that? What about powerlines / treelimbs laying in the road. IMO the best drivers will always be a human driver that is paying attention, not some computer.

Quote from: slorydn1 on May 30, 2015, 05:22:37 AM
I have always said that they will have to pry my steering wheel out of my cold dead hands (borrowing a phrase from the gun lobby).

Well, I don't think it will ever come to that; you'll be able to hold on to your figurative steering wheel for as long as you wish with nobody compelling you to give it up...until it just comes to pass that there are no longer such things as steering wheels. (And yeah, I'd bet that everyone here will be long dead before that comes fully to fruition.)

Quote from: slorydn1 on May 30, 2015, 05:22:37 AM
Back to us actually driving the cars ourselves, I wholeheartedly disagree with those who say that a manual transmission is distracting. There is alot more that goes into properly driving a vehicle with a manual transmission  that the only way to do it right is to actually be paying attention to what the other vehicles are doing around you. You have to be paying attention to the cue of traffic ahead of you as it slows down so that you don't find yourself still in 6th gear at 25 mph, lugging the engine all the way.
... Driving a manual transmission has made me so much more aware of what is going on beyond the windshield.

Absolutely with you there. Driving a manual has made me far more aware of what my car is doing and what's happening around it (terrain, traffic, etc.).

Quote from: US 41 on May 30, 2015, 01:04:18 PM
I'll put it this way too. When I'm driving on lets say a Mexican libre highway. I am smart enough to know that I should slow down to around 5 mph when I'm going over a tope (speed bump). However my self driving car might go over it at 24 mph (40 kph). True there is autopilot on planes and such, but there isn't as much planes in the sky as there are cars. Also 7 miles in the sky you don't have to worry about potholes and such either that will tear up your car. What if there is flooding? Will it be able to see that? What about powerlines / treelimbs laying in the road. IMO the best drivers will always be a human driver that is paying attention, not some computer.

I think it's a misconception that fully automated cars will jump right in and operate along our existing infrastructure. Along with cars becoming autonomous, the roads they use will also be modified to accommodate this kind of traffic. In other words, they won't have to deal with speed bumps on Mexican roads, because either the road will have been rebuilt so that it doesn't have speed bumps, or else the cars won't operate autonomously along that road.

I think certain unexpected events, like flooding or downed powerlines, will always pose a certain hazard, just as they do today. The risk from such hazards may in fact be greater with self-driving cars than it is now, but the overall risk of driving in general will be far, far less.

Quote from: US 41 on May 30, 2015, 01:04:18 PM
What if there is flooding? Will it be able to see that? What about powerlines / treelimbs laying in the road. IMO the best drivers will always be a human driver that is paying attention, not some computer.

I wonder if a self-driving car could do this...

Maybe it was a self driving car. A human driver would've honked at it then blame the government for not posting a road closed sign.  ;-)

Quote from: empirestate on May 30, 2015, 03:33:06 PM

Quote from: US 41 on May 30, 2015, 01:04:18 PM
I'll put it this way too. When I'm driving on lets say a Mexican libre highway. I am smart enough to know that I should slow down to around 5 mph when I'm going over a tope (speed bump). However my self driving car might go over it at 24 mph (40 kph). True there is autopilot on planes and such, but there isn't as much planes in the sky as there are cars. Also 7 miles in the sky you don't have to worry about potholes and such either that will tear up your car. What if there is flooding? Will it be able to see that? What about powerlines / treelimbs laying in the road. IMO the best drivers will always be a human driver that is paying attention, not some computer.

I think it's a misconception that fully automated cars will jump right in and operate along our existing infrastructure. Along with cars becoming autonomous, the roads they use will also be modified to accommodate this kind of traffic. In other words, they won't have to deal with speed bumps on Mexican roads, because either the road will have been rebuilt so that it doesn't have speed bumps, or else the cars won't operate autonomously along that road.

I think certain unexpected events, like flooding or downed powerlines, will always pose a certain hazard, just as they do today. The risk from such hazards may in fact be greater with self-driving cars than it is now, but the overall risk of driving in general will be far, far less.

Do you really think a country like Mexico is going to reconstruct miles of their really old highway system to accommodate self driving cars? This would cost way too much money to do, especially for Mexico. The only way a self driving car could get around down there is if they took the tolled autopistas. Which I guess in reality only the rich will be able to afford these types of cars anyways. On the other hand, self driving semi trucks would be even a scarier thought.

Quote from: US 41 on May 30, 2015, 07:20:47 PM

Quote from: empirestate on May 30, 2015, 03:33:06 PM
I think it's a misconception that fully automated cars will jump right in and operate along our existing infrastructure. Along with cars becoming autonomous, the roads they use will also be modified to accommodate this kind of traffic. In other words, they won't have to deal with speed bumps on Mexican roads, because either the road will have been rebuilt so that it doesn't have speed bumps, or else the cars won't operate autonomously along that road.

Do you really think a country like Mexico is going to reconstruct miles of their really old highway system to accommodate self driving cars?

Maybe, maybe not; if they don't, then my clause "or else cars won't operate autonomously along that road" would kick in.

The point isn't what Mexico specifically would do; the point is just that I don't think your car would go over the speed bump at 24 mph, because either a) you would be the one doing the driving on that road, or b) they'd take the speed bumps away for the self-driving car. In other words, if you're wondering how self-driving cars would handle various kinds of obstacles (like speed bumps), my inclination is that it won't really matter, because they wouldn't operate in contexts where those obstacles exist.

Quote from: empirestate on May 30, 2015, 07:43:16 PM

Quote from: US 41 on May 30, 2015, 07:20:47 PM

Quote from: empirestate on May 30, 2015, 03:33:06 PM
I think it's a misconception that fully automated cars will jump right in and operate along our existing infrastructure. Along with cars becoming autonomous, the roads they use will also be modified to accommodate this kind of traffic. In other words, they won't have to deal with speed bumps on Mexican roads, because either the road will have been rebuilt so that it doesn't have speed bumps, or else the cars won't operate autonomously along that road.

Do you really think a country like Mexico is going to reconstruct miles of their really old highway system to accommodate self driving cars?

Maybe, maybe not; if they don't, then my clause "or else cars won't operate autonomously along that road" would kick in.

The point isn't what Mexico specifically would do; the point is just that I don't think your car would go over the speed bump at 24 mph, because either a) you would be the one doing the driving on that road, or b) they'd take the speed bumps away for the self-driving car. In other words, if you're wondering how self-driving cars would handle various kinds of obstacles (like speed bumps), my inclination is that it won't really matter, because they wouldn't operate in contexts where those obstacles exist.

I see what your saying. So basically a self driving car would only work on an interstate type highway. I could maybe see that working. I'm just not too sure.

[Reviving the thread after quite a few years.]

This is one of the more negative articles I have seen recently about autonomous vehicles (AVs) and connected autonomous vehciles (CAVs) and their future.

New York Times: The Costly Pursuit of Self-Driving Cars Continues On. And On. And On. - Many in Silicon Valley promised that self-driving cars would be a common sight by 2021. Now the industry is resetting expectations and settling in for years of more work. (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/24/technology/the-costly-pursuit-of-self-driving-cars-continues-on-and-on-and-on.html?action=click&module=In%20Other%20News&pgtype=Homepage)

We've gone from being promised "flying-cars" to being promised "self-driving" cars.  The innovators out there are becoming less ambitious. 

Quote from: tradephoric on May 24, 2021, 03:29:06 PM
We've gone from being promised "flying-cars" to being promised "self-driving" cars.  The innovators out there are becoming less ambitious. 

Allowing the average driver to navigate in another dimension is terrifying.

Quote from: Bruce on May 24, 2021, 06:31:15 PM

Quote from: tradephoric on May 24, 2021, 03:29:06 PM
We've gone from being promised "flying-cars" to being promised "self-driving" cars.  The innovators out there are becoming less ambitious. 

Allowing the average driver to navigate in another dimension is terrifying.

Allowing the average computer programmer program either a self-driving or flying car is more terrifying.

Quote from: Brandon on May 24, 2021, 07:07:38 PM

Quote from: Bruce on May 24, 2021, 06:31:15 PM

Quote from: tradephoric on May 24, 2021, 03:29:06 PM
We've gone from being promised "flying-cars" to being promised "self-driving" cars.  The innovators out there are becoming less ambitious. 

Allowing the average driver to navigate in another dimension is terrifying.

Allowing the average computer programmer program either a self-driving or flying car is more terrifying.

:clap:

I've been seeing Domino's ads that advertise a self-driving doohickey that delivers pizza to you. It looks like the size of a smart car. Don't really see how that helps the customer out (I doubt it really saves much time over a human driver, and you have to go to the curb to get the pizza instead of having the driver ring the bell and hand it to you), but Domino's sure would like to be able to stop employing pizza delivery drivers.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 24, 2021, 07:56:33 PM
I've been seeing Domino's ads that advertise a self-driving doohickey that delivers pizza to you. It looks like the size of a smart car. Don't really see how that helps the customer out (I doubt it really saves much time over a human driver, and you have to go to the curb to get the pizza instead of having the driver ring the bell and hand it to you), but Domino's sure would like to be able to stop employing pizza delivery drivers.

But then I'd have to put my shoes on to go to the street to get my pizza!

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 24, 2021, 07:56:33 PM
I've been seeing Domino's ads that advertise a self-driving doohickey that delivers pizza to you. It looks like the size of a smart car. Don't really see how that helps the customer out (I doubt it really saves much time over a human driver, and you have to go to the curb to get the pizza instead of having the driver ring the bell and hand it to you), but Domino's sure would like to be able to stop employing pizza delivery drivers.

Other companies have been experimenting with "last mile" vehicles (if you want to call them that) which look like the Domino's thing (I am not a fan of their pizza).

I hope we get them soon. Humans are bad drivers.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 24, 2021, 08:30:05 PM
I hope we get them soon. Humans are bad drivers.

Once we get self driving cars, you may realize how good human drivers are...

Quote from: kalvado on May 24, 2021, 09:04:44 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 24, 2021, 08:30:05 PM
I hope we get them soon. Humans are bad drivers.

Once we get self driving cars, you may realize how good human drivers are...

Eh a car can't get drunk.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 24, 2021, 09:38:25 PM

Quote from: kalvado on May 24, 2021, 09:04:44 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 24, 2021, 08:30:05 PM
I hope we get them soon. Humans are bad drivers.

Once we get self driving cars, you may realize how good human drivers are...

Eh a car can't get drunk.

But a human can't get hacked.

Quote from: kalvado on May 24, 2021, 09:04:44 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 24, 2021, 08:30:05 PM
I hope we get them soon. Humans are bad drivers.

Once we get self driving cars, you may realize how good human drivers are...

6 million accidents occur annually. Over 30,000 are killed annually...and that's half what it was just a few decades ago.

It's by far one of the most dangerous activities most people do on a daily basis.

Commercial flights are nearly fully automated by computers. The correlation to the fact that there's also very few airline crashes is very relevant.

Quote from: I-55 on May 24, 2021, 11:04:15 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 24, 2021, 09:38:25 PM

Quote from: kalvado on May 24, 2021, 09:04:44 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 24, 2021, 08:30:05 PM
I hope we get them soon. Humans are bad drivers.

Once we get self driving cars, you may realize how good human drivers are...

Eh a car can't get drunk.

But a human can't get hacked.

Why isn't this a problem with airplanes then?

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 24, 2021, 11:37:15 PM

Quote from: kalvado on May 24, 2021, 09:04:44 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 24, 2021, 08:30:05 PM
I hope we get them soon. Humans are bad drivers.

Once we get self driving cars, you may realize how good human drivers are...

6 million accidents occur annually. Over 30,000 are killed annually...and that's half what it was just a few decades ago.

It's by far one of the most dangerous activities most people do on a daily basis.

Commercial flights are nearly fully automated by computers. The correlation to the fact that there's also very few airline crashes is very relevant.

The key word being "nearly".  If the FAA were that confident that computers could do it all, they wouldn't have human pilots, let alone both a pilot and copilot.  The autopilot is great when things are going well, but has no ability to recover when things aren't going well.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 24, 2021, 08:30:05 PM
I hope we get them soon. Humans are bad drivers.

That humans are bad drivers is the very reason we don't yet have them.

Quote from: I-55 on May 24, 2021, 11:04:15 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 24, 2021, 09:38:25 PM

Quote from: kalvado on May 24, 2021, 09:04:44 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 24, 2021, 08:30:05 PM
I hope we get them soon. Humans are bad drivers.

Once we get self driving cars, you may realize how good human drivers are...

Eh a car can't get drunk.

But a human can't get hacked.

Just wait until we become cyborgs.

Quote from: kkt on May 25, 2021, 12:57:57 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 24, 2021, 11:37:15 PM

Quote from: kalvado on May 24, 2021, 09:04:44 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 24, 2021, 08:30:05 PM
I hope we get them soon. Humans are bad drivers.

Once we get self driving cars, you may realize how good human drivers are...

6 million accidents occur annually. Over 30,000 are killed annually...and that's half what it was just a few decades ago.

It's by far one of the most dangerous activities most people do on a daily basis.

Commercial flights are nearly fully automated by computers. The correlation to the fact that there's also very few airline crashes is very relevant.

The key word being "nearly".  If the FAA were that confident that computers could do it all, they wouldn't have human pilots, let alone both a pilot and copilot.  The autopilot is great when things are going well, but has no ability to recover when things aren't going well.

Wouldn't self driving cars still have to have a driver in the seat?

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 25, 2021, 09:39:54 AM

Quote from: kkt on May 25, 2021, 12:57:57 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 24, 2021, 11:37:15 PM

Quote from: kalvado on May 24, 2021, 09:04:44 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 24, 2021, 08:30:05 PM
I hope we get them soon. Humans are bad drivers.

Once we get self driving cars, you may realize how good human drivers are...

6 million accidents occur annually. Over 30,000 are killed annually...and that's half what it was just a few decades ago.

It's by far one of the most dangerous activities most people do on a daily basis.

Commercial flights are nearly fully automated by computers. The correlation to the fact that there's also very few airline crashes is very relevant.

The key word being "nearly".  If the FAA were that confident that computers could do it all, they wouldn't have human pilots, let alone both a pilot and copilot.  The autopilot is great when things are going well, but has no ability to recover when things aren't going well.

Wouldn't self driving cars still have to have a driver in the seat?

Just saw the article the other day dividing it into 6 levels.
Level 0 - no automation, level 1 - lane guidance and cruise control. Level 5  is the ultimate goal- driver may or may not have an option of taking over control.
So, things do vary.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 24, 2021, 09:38:25 PM

Quote from: kalvado on May 24, 2021, 09:04:44 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 24, 2021, 08:30:05 PM
I hope we get them soon. Humans are bad drivers.

Once we get self driving cars, you may realize how good human drivers are...

Eh a car can't get drunk.

A Tesla recently crashed and burned completely to a crisp with the occupants inside because they trusted the car's autopilot to make its own decisions. We're not there yet, but the fact people think we are is a good indication that this is not the right time.

Automation doesn't work well when you have bad data.  A faulty angle-of-attack sensor on Lion Air Flight 610 led to the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) to be activated.  MCAS was designed to pitch the nose down under a very specific set of circumstances (mainly happening during take offs) but with the faulty angle-of-attack sensor MCAS was activated throughout the flight which led to loss of control and the deaths of all 189 people on board.  A few months later the same issue with MCAS occurred on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 killing all 157 people on board ultimately leading to the worldwide grounding of the MAX Air Fleet. 

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 25, 2021, 10:19:31 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 24, 2021, 09:38:25 PM

Quote from: kalvado on May 24, 2021, 09:04:44 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 24, 2021, 08:30:05 PM
I hope we get them soon. Humans are bad drivers.

Once we get self driving cars, you may realize how good human drivers are...

Eh a car can't get drunk.

A Tesla recently crashed and burned completely to a crisp with the occupants inside because they trusted the car's autopilot to make its own decisions. We're not there yet, but the fact people think we are is a good indication that this is not the right time.

The driver could still probably take emergency control. Planes are mostly autopilot but they still have pilots.

I hear GM is working on something like this right now...

Quote from: kkt on May 25, 2021, 12:57:57 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 24, 2021, 11:37:15 PM

Quote from: kalvado on May 24, 2021, 09:04:44 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 24, 2021, 08:30:05 PM
I hope we get them soon. Humans are bad drivers.

Once we get self driving cars, you may realize how good human drivers are...

6 million accidents occur annually. Over 30,000 are killed annually...and that's half what it was just a few decades ago.

It's by far one of the most dangerous activities most people do on a daily basis.

Commercial flights are nearly fully automated by computers. The correlation to the fact that there's also very few airline crashes is very relevant.

The key word being "nearly".  If the FAA were that confident that computers could do it all, they wouldn't have human pilots, let alone both a pilot and copilot.  The autopilot is great when things are going well, but has no ability to recover when things aren't going well.

I'm not sure how nearly could be mis-interpreted here. The FAA continues to mandate a pilot and copilot for many reasons, including having ultimate control over the airplane and its occupants, and can deviate when necessary.

Autopilot generally prevents issues from occurring in the first place, resulting in there not being a need to recover.

Quote from: tradephoric on May 25, 2021, 10:24:56 AM
Automation doesn't work well when you have bad data.  A faulty angle-of-attack sensor on Lion Air Flight 610 led to the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) to be activated.  MCAS was designed to pitch the nose down under a very specific set of circumstances (mainly happening during take offs) but with the faulty angle-of-attack sensor MCAS was activated throughout the flight which led to loss of control and the deaths of all 189 people on board.  A few months later the same issue with MCAS occurred on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 killing all 157 people on board ultimately leading to the worldwide grounding of the MAX Air Fleet. 

It's important to note a significant issue here: The pilot was still in control but couldn't resolve the issue in these incidents. Other pilots felt similar issues and were able to recover.

The FAA and other administrations were able to ground the entire fleet worldwide. When there's a significant vehicle recall, it's voluntary on the vehicle owner bringing the car in. There's no massive ban on people driving the vehicle.

It's also important to note that many like to engage in the sport of extreme nitpicking. No matter what happens, someone will find the rare instances of an issue.

Quote from: tradephoric on May 25, 2021, 10:24:56 AM
Automation doesn't work well when you have bad data.  A faulty angle-of-attack sensor on Lion Air Flight 610 led to the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) to be activated.  MCAS was designed to pitch the nose down under a very specific set of circumstances (mainly happening during take offs) but with the faulty angle-of-attack sensor MCAS was activated throughout the flight which led to loss of control and the deaths of all 189 people on board.  A few months later the same issue with MCAS occurred on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 killing all 157 people on board ultimately leading to the worldwide grounding of the MAX Air Fleet.

THat's why system design should include redundancy and cross-checks. And that works for humans exact same way.
How many human driver crashes occurred because driver didn't see something - such as motorcycle in adjacent lane? Or tried to swerve around something non-existing?

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 25, 2021, 10:55:30 AM

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 25, 2021, 10:19:31 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 24, 2021, 09:38:25 PM

Quote from: kalvado on May 24, 2021, 09:04:44 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 24, 2021, 08:30:05 PM
I hope we get them soon. Humans are bad drivers.

Once we get self driving cars, you may realize how good human drivers are...

Eh a car can't get drunk.

A Tesla recently crashed and burned completely to a crisp with the occupants inside because they trusted the car's autopilot to make its own decisions. We're not there yet, but the fact people think we are is a good indication that this is not the right time.

The driver could still probably take emergency control. Planes are mostly autopilot but they still have pilots.

They could, but that requires a level of education that is clearly not provided. The occupants of the Tesla were in the back seat and one of them was trying to crawl to the front seat to take control when it crashed.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 25, 2021, 10:59:04 AM

Quote from: tradephoric on May 25, 2021, 10:24:56 AM
Automation doesn't work well when you have bad data.  A faulty angle-of-attack sensor on Lion Air Flight 610 led to the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) to be activated.  MCAS was designed to pitch the nose down under a very specific set of circumstances (mainly happening during take offs) but with the faulty angle-of-attack sensor MCAS was activated throughout the flight which led to loss of control and the deaths of all 189 people on board.  A few months later the same issue with MCAS occurred on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 killing all 157 people on board ultimately leading to the worldwide grounding of the MAX Air Fleet. 

It's important to note a significant issue here: The pilot was still in control but couldn't resolve the issue in these incidents. Other pilots felt similar issues and were able to recover.

The FAA and other administrations were able to ground the entire fleet worldwide. When there's a significant vehicle recall, it's voluntary on the vehicle owner bringing the car in. There's no massive ban on people driving the vehicle.

It's also important to note that many like to engage in the sport of extreme nitpicking. No matter what happens, someone will find the rare instances of an issue.

MCAS was much more than that - it was actively turning control. 2 out of 3 crews encounting that in flight crashed, about half of US pilots in a sim did as well.
I can see something similar happening for cars which get out of control.
as for recalls - VW recall was reinforced by "no title transfer" in some states - so car could not be sold.
Car certifications lacks enforcement powers, but there are some critical recalls with "do not drive" message attached. E.g. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/low-completion-rates-do-not-drive-warning

There is a tendency to see driving as an activity that includes so many repetitive tasks a monkey could do it, but Tom Vanderbilt's Traffic quotes research to the effect that it is actually one of the most complex things we do in terms of cognition and muscle movement.  The New York Times article does definitely suggest that Alphabet and the ridesharing companies have delved far enough into the nitty-gritty of making self-driving vehicles safe that they have had to pare back the elements of their business plans that assume they will be widely available in the short term.

In comparison, autopilot for aircraft is much simpler technology--so much so that implementations pre-date modern silicon-based computer hardware by over 30 years (rudimentary forms of pilot assist by 1912, first-generation auto-landing capability by 1959).

Moreover, supervising something that is running with automation most of the time, but requires brief human intervention at unpredictable intervals, requires a somewhat different skillset than providing human input 100% of the time.  It is a generalization of the problem of supervising a car running with old-school cruise control engaged on an uncrowded freeway:  it's not the same as keeping the car moving forward with foot input on the accelerator pedal, since staying on task and watching for upcoming situations that require manual control inputs become more salient issues.

And Tesla's typical response when a vehicle crashes is that we told you it doesn't drive itself.  This despite them calling the feature "Autopilot". 

Quote from: GaryV on May 25, 2021, 01:12:50 PM
And Tesla's typical response when a vehicle crashes is that we told you it doesn't drive itself.  This despite them calling the feature "Autopilot". 

You're taking it too literal, just like people who believe cruise control means they don't have to hold the steering wheel.  And a vehicle owner will be given much more instruction than John Doe who reads a summarized  news story.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 25, 2021, 10:59:04 AM
It's important to note a significant issue here: The pilot was still in control but couldn't resolve the issue in these incidents. Other pilots felt similar issues and were able to recover.

Regulators assumed it would take pilots a mere 3 seconds to respond to an unexpected MCAS activation.  In the flight before the doomed Lion Air Flight the pilots were able to regain control of the plane but it took them minutes to resolve the unexpected MCAS activation - not 3 seconds.  What potentially saved that flight was the fact there was an off-duty pilot sitting in the jump seat behind the pilots who noticed a runaway trim wheel and correctly diagnosed the malfunctioning MCAS system.  Keep in mind the faulty angle-of-attack sensor were leading to erroneous airspeed/altitude readings that the pilots would have needed to sorted out while dealing with the automatic pitch down issue they were experiencing.

Pilots have to go through far lengthier training and far stricter licensing requirements than drivers do. These dipshits trying to sit in the back seat of the car while it pilots itself wouldn't qualify for a pilot's license.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 25, 2021, 01:24:56 PM

Quote from: GaryV on May 25, 2021, 01:12:50 PM
And Tesla's typical response when a vehicle crashes is that we told you it doesn't drive itself.  This despite them calling the feature "Autopilot". 

You're taking it too literal, just like people who believe cruise control means they don't have to hold the steering wheel.  And a vehicle owner will be given much more instruction than John Doe who reads a summarized  news story.

Have you met the general public? Naming a feature "Autopilot" while insisting it's for marketing reasons and you shouldn't actually try to let the car drive itself has predictable results.

When presented with any piece of printed material, always expect the general public to pick out the three words out of the whole thing that get them what they wish it meant, and pretend that the rest doesn't exist.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 25, 2021, 02:16:01 PM
Pilots have to go through far lengthier training and far stricter licensing requirements than drivers do. These dipshits trying to sit in the back seat of the car while it pilots itself wouldn't qualify for a pilot's license.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 25, 2021, 01:24:56 PM

Quote from: GaryV on May 25, 2021, 01:12:50 PM
And Tesla's typical response when a vehicle crashes is that we told you it doesn't drive itself.  This despite them calling the feature "Autopilot". 

You're taking it too literal, just like people who believe cruise control means they don't have to hold the steering wheel.  And a vehicle owner will be given much more instruction than John Doe who reads a summarized  news story.

Have you met the general public? Naming a feature "Autopilot" while insisting it's for marketing reasons and you shouldn't actually try to let the car drive itself has predictable results.

When presented with any piece of printed material, always expect the general public to pick out the three words out of the whole thing that get them what they wish it meant, and pretend that the rest doesn't exist.

Three words? That is pessimistic. I would say 5 is a more reasonable expectation for a take-home message.

Yeah, that's the thing - Tesla justified the name as saying "it's like an aircraft autopilot, aircraft still have pilots ready to take over if something happens, so why wouldn't you pay attention in case you need to take over from the car?".  Never mind that most people do not think of real-world aircraft systems when they hear the term, they think of the inflatable one from the MOVIE Airplane!

To answer the original question, while self-driving systems today do expect the driver will take over if needed (even though real-world drivers often don't), the ultimate concept is a pod with no steering wheel and the front seats turned toward the rear so that all occupants of the car can talk to teach other, with in-car advertising displayed on the windows.

It's poor design to expect a human to be sitting in the driver's seat doing nothing but still paying attention to the road for a long time.  If the driver is supposed to be paying attention, they need to have something to do, at least steering.  Having them do nothing is an invitation to sit in the back or watch a movie on their phone.

Quote from: kkt on May 25, 2021, 03:47:41 PM
It's poor design to expect a human to be sitting in the driver's seat doing nothing but still paying attention to the road for a long time.  If the driver is supposed to be paying attention, they need to have something to do, at least steering.  Having them do nothing is an invitation to sit in the back or watch a movie on their phone.

that's why I don't use cruise. Last time I actually used cruise for about a mile was to take shoes off on a highway without stopping.

Quote from: kalvado on May 25, 2021, 04:36:18 PM

Quote from: kkt on May 25, 2021, 03:47:41 PM
It's poor design to expect a human to be sitting in the driver's seat doing nothing but still paying attention to the road for a long time.  If the driver is supposed to be paying attention, they need to have something to do, at least steering.  Having them do nothing is an invitation to sit in the back or watch a movie on their phone.

that's why I don't use cruise. Last time I actually used cruise for about a mile was to take shoes off on a highway without stopping.

I don't know if that's better.

Quote from: I-55 on May 24, 2021, 11:04:15 PM
But a human can't get hacked.

Television and radio have been doing it before computers were commonplace.

Computers just make it easier for humans to hack themselves, or at least assist with defragmentation.

https://www.inquirer.com/business/septa-bus-driver-schools-jobs-philly-atlantic-city-20210612.html

The article itself is about wages and salaries and need for bus drivers. However, there's a few paragraphs about self driving buses. While many diminish the possibility that they'll catch on, the fact is they already exist, probably in greater numbers than people realize, and they are significantly researching and developing more buses to run by themselves.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 12, 2021, 07:51:34 AM
https://www.inquirer.com/business/septa-bus-driver-schools-jobs-philly-atlantic-city-20210612.html

The article itself is about wages and salaries and need for bus drivers. However, there's a few paragraphs about self driving buses. While many diminish the possibility that they'll catch on, the fact is they already exist, probably in greater numbers than people realize, and they are significantly researching and developing more buses to run by themselves.

The way things are described, it sounds like driverless technology is right around the corner - and it is going to stay there for decades to come.

Anyone seen this?

https://amp.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/nrs8kf/you_think_ice_cream_truck_stop_signs_are_a_problem/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

I think self-driving cars are a little further off than Tesla would like you to think...

Quote from: kalvado on June 12, 2021, 11:23:58 AM
The way things are described, it sounds like driverless technology is right around the corner - and it is going to stay there for decades to come.

I mean, driverless technology is relatively easy and has been here for some time. The trick has always been the mixture of driverless and driven technology.

Quote from: MCRoads on June 12, 2021, 04:33:32 PM
Anyone seen this?

https://amp.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/nrs8kf/you_think_ice_cream_truck_stop_signs_are_a_problem/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

I think self-driving cars are a little further off than Tesla would like you to think...

And this is not a bad example. In a fully driverless system this wouldn't come up, because signals either wouldn't need to exist, or else would identify themselves to all vehicles and thus obviate the need for the vehicles to guess.

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.

Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 12, 2021, 06:45:58 PM
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.

Yup, and there are many such systems in place for public transit. So the challenge of translating that to private transit is a social one, not a technological one.

QuoteThis 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.

Sure, and that's doubtless a far simpler insurance issue than that of the risks of human-driven vehicles. For one thing, the question of individual fault becomes moot, at least as far as the owner/occupants of the vehicle are concerned.

Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 12, 2021, 06:45:58 PM
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.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 13, 2021, 10:26:34 AM

Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 12, 2021, 06:45:58 PM
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.

Quote from: empirestate on June 14, 2021, 09:11:45 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 13, 2021, 10:26:34 AM

Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 12, 2021, 06:45:58 PM
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

Quote from: kalvado on June 14, 2021, 09:35:49 AM
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.

Quote from: empirestate on June 14, 2021, 10:30:26 AM

Quote from: kalvado on June 14, 2021, 09:35:49 AM
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"

Quote from: kalvado on June 14, 2021, 11:14:05 AM
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. :-)

Quote from: kalvado on June 14, 2021, 09:35:49 AM

Quote from: empirestate on June 14, 2021, 09:11:45 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 13, 2021, 10:26:34 AM

Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 12, 2021, 06:45:58 PM
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.

Quote from: kalvado on June 14, 2021, 09:35:49 AM

Quote from: empirestate on June 14, 2021, 09:11:45 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 13, 2021, 10:26:34 AM

Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 12, 2021, 06:45:58 PM
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.

Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 12, 2021, 06:45:58 PM
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.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 13, 2021, 10:26:34 AM
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.

Quote from: empirestate on June 14, 2021, 09:11:45 AM
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.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 14, 2021, 10:45:12 PM

Quote from: kalvado on June 14, 2021, 09:35:49 AM

Quote from: empirestate on June 14, 2021, 09:11:45 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 13, 2021, 10:26:34 AM

Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 12, 2021, 06:45:58 PM
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.

Quote from: kalvado on June 15, 2021, 07:20:36 AM
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.

Quote from: kalvado on June 15, 2021, 07:20:36 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 14, 2021, 10:45:12 PM

Quote from: kalvado on June 14, 2021, 09:35:49 AM

Quote from: empirestate on June 14, 2021, 09:11:45 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 13, 2021, 10:26:34 AM

Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 12, 2021, 06:45:58 PM
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.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 15, 2021, 11:55:57 AM

Quote from: kalvado on June 15, 2021, 07:20:36 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 14, 2021, 10:45:12 PM

Quote from: kalvado on June 14, 2021, 09:35:49 AM

Quote from: empirestate on June 14, 2021, 09:11:45 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 13, 2021, 10:26:34 AM

Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 12, 2021, 06:45:58 PM
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.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 15, 2021, 11:55:57 AM
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.

Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 15, 2021, 04:42:01 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 15, 2021, 11:55:57 AM
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.