AARoads Forum

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/wheres-lane-self-driving-cars-confused-shabby-u-100918814--finance.html

QuoteShoddy infrastructure has become a roadblock to the development of self-driving cars, vexing engineers and adding time and cost. Poor markings and uneven signage on the 3 million miles of paved roads in the United States are forcing automakers to develop more sophisticated sensors and maps to compensate, industry executives say.

Wait until, if ever, they start testing them in the Northeast and New England.  Lots of unimproved, unpaved, and underappreciated roads here.

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 31, 2016, 07:30:14 PM
Wait until, if ever, they start testing them in the Northeast and New England.  Lots of unimproved, unpaved, and underappreciated roads here.

Exactly! Plus snow covered roads in winter.

Quote from: steviep24 on March 31, 2016, 05:51:23 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/wheres-lane-self-driving-cars-confused-shabby-u-100918814--finance.html

QuoteShoddy infrastructure has become a roadblock to the development of self-driving cars, vexing engineers and adding time and cost. Poor markings and uneven signage on the 3 million miles of paved roads in the United States are forcing automakers to develop more sophisticated sensors and maps to compensate, industry executives say.

Adding time and cost? That would be true if self driving cars were going to be mass produced this year. It sounds like they are simply doing what computers do on a daily basis...figure out code for normal scenarios, then fine tune the programming for various issues.  There's a reason why self driving cars are years away, not weeks away.

Seems like things like,

oh,


Idunno,


rain

fog,

dust


sleet


leaves


would be harder to all for in the software/hardware to cope with than what was mentioned in the link.

Quote from: steviep24 on March 31, 2016, 07:34:13 PM

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 31, 2016, 07:30:14 PM
Wait until, if ever, they start testing them in the Northeast and New England.  Lots of unimproved, unpaved, and underappreciated roads here.

Exactly! Plus snow covered roads in winter.

Can self driving cars avoid road kill.

I wonder if self-driving cars have machine-learning algorithms that can alert them to the status and nature of people using cell phones or eating while driving?

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 31, 2016, 07:30:14 PM
Wait until, if ever, they start testing them in the Northeast and New England.  Lots of unimproved, unpaved, and underappreciated roads here.

By unimproved I'm assuming you mean just a crappy paved and neglected road?  Technically that means a dirt road without a grade, there isn't too much of those around in the north east or New England anymore.  Finding a serious dirt road in New England was a challenge...at least for me in six years of living there.  The only one that I can think of that was rural enough was Maine but they don't stack up against the bad lands in California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Montana and Wyoming for unimproved dirt madness.

But on the crappy faded signage end nobody beats New England, lots of faded Interstate signs floating out there.

We have dirt roads here.  :D

And while some of the county dirt roads are pretty scary, I have some access roads on my farm that would make you crap your pants.

I think this is near the Harrison/Monona line:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Fd5%2F55%2F5e%2Fd5555e1ef7b2a098dd421515f31d79d4.jpg&hash=d0992a2dbbb8df4352418d63588bb178e5262ad8)


For some unknown reason, there are always idjits that want to see how soon after a good rain any given dirt road might be passable.  I'm pretty sure no one is going to want to send a self driving car down any of these pre-Columbian trails any time soon.

There's at least a few backwater dirt roads here.  My boss visited one for a field meeting at rail crossing that's to be established.  It was raining and the town supervisor's vehicle (which looked pretty new to boot...) sunk axle deep.

Whoa, a hundred bucks for a LiDAR unit?  The future is awesome.  The ones I was using in the field cost like 12 grand apiece.

Why is anyone worried about shitty gravel roads that few people drive when it comes to self driving technology?  It's like going out of one's way to find a reason why it will "never" work and give up already.  Oh, what about gravel and snow and small animals and blah, blah blah...
One step at a time.  These criticisms are multiple generations of the technology ahead of the current state.  It's doing the exact same thing as the folks who over hype it by getting too far ahead of the tech.  None of them are unsolvable barriers.

This is going to happen over time with features slowly being added to vehicles that take over some element of vehicle operation in increasing complex environments.  Cars already brake by themselves in emergency situations better than human drivers.  They will soon prevent the vehicle from drifting from its travel lane.  Parking assist is a thing and will get increasingly common.  This is how self driving technology will evolve.  Every couple years, a new feature gets incorporated that makes the vehicle less collision prone.  No one is going to suddenly drop a fully automated car onto the market.  By the time that happens, every vehicle on the road will have some level of that type of technology implemented already.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 31, 2016, 11:00:35 PM

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 31, 2016, 07:30:14 PM
Wait until, if ever, they start testing them in the Northeast and New England.  Lots of unimproved, unpaved, and underappreciated roads here.

By unimproved I'm assuming you mean just a crappy paved and neglected road?  Technically that means a dirt road without a grade, there isn't too much of those around in the north east or New England anymore.  Finding a serious dirt road in New England was a challenge...at least for me in six years of living there.  The only one that I can think of that was rural enough was Maine but they don't stack up against the bad lands in California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Montana and Wyoming for unimproved dirt madness.

But on the crappy faded signage end nobody beats New England, lots of faded Interstate signs floating out there.

Really?  I go to Vermont a few times a year and very few of the folks I know up there live on a paved road.

One ding dong knocks down an overpass on the interstate and anyone could find themselves on a godforsaken detour to hell.

And we've had wild fires put enough smoke across the interstate here to cause pileups, the software and sensor suites need to be able to cope with the rare stuff too, or we are going to have mass casualty 100 vehicle pileups from corn shucks blowing across the road to a sheen of oil film on wet pavement.

Having the flash from a bolt of lightning in the field of view, or even the setting sun saturating a camera sensor, some mud washing onto the roadway, a drift of hail accumulating along the shoulder, might make some of these dirt trails easier to navigate than the interstate.

Will the software recognize something like the  Schoharie Creek Bridge washout as a hazard before it's too late ??

I lived about a "block" away from a well-traveled whole network of dirt roads in Hampshire and Franklin counties in western MA.

In fact, getting to Boston from my home was faster by taking the dirt roads out to US 202 and MA 2 rather than taking the paved roads down to MA 9 and eventually to the Pike.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 02, 2016, 01:04:14 PM
Why is anyone worried about shitty gravel roads that few people drive when it comes to self driving technology?  It's like going out of one's way to find a reason why it will "never" work and give up already.  Oh, what about gravel and snow and small animals and blah, blah blah...
One step at a time.  These criticisms are multiple generations of the technology ahead of the current state.  It's doing the exact same thing as the folks who over hype it by getting too far ahead of the tech.  None of them are unsolvable barriers.

But they DO show that it will take much longer than the 5-10 years the media (and Google) claims it will be before human drivers are a thing of the past.

Quote
No one is going to suddenly drop a fully automated car onto the market.

Google is trying to, though.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 02, 2016, 01:28:53 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 31, 2016, 11:00:35 PM

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 31, 2016, 07:30:14 PM
Wait until, if ever, they start testing them in the Northeast and New England.  Lots of unimproved, unpaved, and underappreciated roads here.

By unimproved I'm assuming you mean just a crappy paved and neglected road?  Technically that means a dirt road without a grade, there isn't too much of those around in the north east or New England anymore.  Finding a serious dirt road in New England was a challenge...at least for me in six years of living there.  The only one that I can think of that was rural enough was Maine but they don't stack up against the bad lands in California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Montana and Wyoming for unimproved dirt madness.

But on the crappy faded signage end nobody beats New England, lots of faded Interstate signs floating out there.

Really?  I go to Vermont a few times a year and very few of the folks I know up there live on a paved road.

Like I said, I lived in New England for an extended period of time.  Yes there are dirt and gravel roads but they aren't to the same crappy quality that you might see heading to some old mine or through some vast swath of desert.  Have a look at some of the through roads out in the Mojave Preserve much less most of San Bernardino County and you'll see what I mean.  There are still State highways that are dirt out west like AZ 88, it just isn't the same thing.  My neighbor had a private dirt road heading to their house in Connecticut for example, so yes I'm fully aware of what you are describing. 

Quote from: Jardine on April 01, 2016, 01:13:58 PM
We have dirt roads here.  :D

And while some of the county dirt roads are pretty scary, I have some access roads on my farm that would make you crap your pants.

I think this is near the Harrison/Monona line:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Fd5%2F55%2F5e%2Fd5555e1ef7b2a098dd421515f31d79d4.jpg&hash=d0992a2dbbb8df4352418d63588bb178e5262ad8)


For some unknown reason, there are always idjits that want to see how soon after a good rain any given dirt road might be passable.  I'm pretty sure no one is going to want to send a self driving car down any of these pre-Columbian trails any time soon.

Well that's a little more along the lines of what is common out here if not even worse.  :-D

Quote from: vdeane on April 03, 2016, 03:15:10 PM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 02, 2016, 01:04:14 PM
Why is anyone worried about shitty gravel roads that few people drive when it comes to self driving technology?  It's like going out of one's way to find a reason why it will "never" work and give up already.  Oh, what about gravel and snow and small animals and blah, blah blah...
One step at a time.  These criticisms are multiple generations of the technology ahead of the current state.  It's doing the exact same thing as the folks who over hype it by getting too far ahead of the tech.  None of them are unsolvable barriers.

But they DO show that it will take much longer than the 5-10 years the media (and Google) claims it will be before human drivers are a thing of the past.

Quote
No one is going to suddenly drop a fully automated car onto the market.

Google is trying to, though.

And that's just to make the technology practical to the slightest extent in an urban area which is mainly what these self driving cars are mainly purposed for.  It's a much different ball game getting automated technology working on a rural highway much less anything in the mountains, gravel or dirt.  There is a pretty good chance that the whole concept goes the way of the flying car still, Google has a very long way to go.

The 'self-driving car' in an urban area would basically replace cabs, ubers, and lyfts, rather than people who already own their own car. People may give up their own car in an urban area in exchange for an easily accessible fleet of cheaper, more reliable, safer, self-driving cabs that they can take without the fuss of maintaining their own vehicle. But, the biggest hit won't be to car owners who drive.

In more rural areas, self-driving cars would make things more difficult in the short term.

Maintenance costs of a self-aware car would be much higher than your own car. In Ohio, we still don't have mandatory inspections, even. Cost of car ownership is cheap when you can 'let things go' much longer than a car who knows their car isn't running optimally and requires service. Hell, it might drive itself to the shop and you're left with the bill as part of your purchase agreement. And god forbid you don't do everything on the manufacturer's service schedule, or if there's an accident and your vehicle is deemed at fault, you will be the one held liable, not the manufacturer. Even if in your own personal car you would never get that level of scrutiny from an accident. At fault or not.

The other big issue is: traffic laws. With self-aware self-driving cars, they will route themselves around traffic jams, accidents, etc. But, what if a town doesn't want a bunch of cars bombarding residential areas during rush hour because the self-aware car handles the start-stop better than an average driver who would rather just sit in traffic on the main line? If the town instituted a regulation that through traffic must stay on the main roads to accommodate the residential areas from an uptick in traffic, you have a whole new system of control.

And throw in everyone with an older car, or a car they WANT to drive themselves, dealing with a calculating self-aware car. Just as google had the run-in with the bus, the car assumed something that wasn't true, but did not yield even when it deemed itself to be in legal compliance and the bus was wrong. You're going to see that multiply with car drivers still driving older cars or driving these self-aware cars in manual mode.

I just hope the artificial drivers are friendly.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thermocow.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F10%2Frobot1.jpg&hash=5ccb2521aaaf5b503a3ef55ef76a83c75b683dca)

The media is generally the worst - they exaggerate the hell out of anything they can get their hands on.

I don't think anyone that thinks clearly would think we would all be in driverless cars in 10 years.  We have already seen the start of that technology though, which is mainly limited to parallel parking.  Technologies take time but it can rapidly accelerate once everything falls into place. 

The biggest miss I always say is the internet.  In the 80's and early 90's, the talk was 500 cable stations, where we could be doing our shopping and ordering right from the TV.   Then, then Internet came along.  Fast.  By the mid-90's, you could look up a fair deal of info on the internet.  Some of the original shopping networks, such as eBay, were starting up.  You could start to book your own travel.  By the mid-2000's, just a decade after the public could start getting plugged in to the internet, it was possible to do quite a bit on the web.  And Cable TV providers and networks, thinking that they were going to be the main method for providing these services, were caught off-guard, and had to rebound.  They did so by being the internet providers for our home networks.

Cell Phones are another item that largely wasn't seen.  25 years ago cell phone technology was so basic, if you had a car phone, you basically had to be in your home network area in order to make or receive a call.  And that expanded to making phone calls around the country...and world. What was kinda missed was text messaging...and then the whole smart phone technology.   In the 80's if you had a home computer, it was pricey, and it took up a lot of room.  Today's phones have more memory then those things did .

So don't think that 10 or 15 years from now what they're attempting to do with self-driving cars won't happen.

Quote from: Sykotyk on April 04, 2016, 11:15:31 AM
Maintenance costs of a self-aware car would be much higher than your own car. In Ohio, we still don't have mandatory inspections, even. Cost of car ownership is cheap when you can 'let things go' much longer than a car who knows their car isn't running optimally and requires service.

Oh, it may seem like it's cheaper to let things go.  In the long run, it's gonna cost you.  A lot.

QuoteEven if in your own personal car you would never get that level of scrutiny from an accident. At fault or not.

I think there's a fair amount of scrutiny behind the scenes that you're just not aware of.  And in the long future when most cars are self-driving, car accidents should be a thing of the past because cars will be talking and aware of each other and see other things on a much more automatic basis than what you see today.  Literally, think Jetsons: Cars are all criss-crossing one another.  As car drivers, we would never dare do that.  Automatic cars talking to each other can do that...safely!

QuoteThe other big issue is: traffic laws. With self-aware self-driving cars, they will route themselves around traffic jams, accidents, etc. But, what if a town doesn't want a bunch of cars bombarding residential areas during rush hour because the self-aware car handles the start-stop better than an average driver who would rather just sit in traffic on the main line? If the town instituted a regulation that through traffic must stay on the main roads to accommodate the residential areas from an uptick in traffic, you have a whole new system of control.

Currently, the MUTCD doesn't allow for that.  So you're talking a change on a federal level.  And it may be possible.  But again, far in the future, accidents should be minimal.  Congestion will probably reduce as well.  But today there's already people cutting thru neighborhoods, and in the future, in theory if it's happening, automated cars will be going the speed limit, not flying thru as some drivers do today.

If a town does want to prevent it, they can put in cul-de-sacs and other devices that limit the ability to drive thru.  The problem is the residents in the development are usually the ones that suffer when they are limited to one way in and out!

QuoteAnd throw in everyone with an older car, or a car they WANT to drive themselves, dealing with a calculating self-aware car. Just as google had the run-in with the bus, the car assumed something that wasn't true, but did not yield even when it deemed itself to be in legal compliance and the bus was wrong. You're going to see that multiply with car drivers still driving older cars or driving these self-aware cars in manual mode.

You do understand that happens thousands of time a day with manual vs. manual driving vehicles?  Drivers are always assuming the other driver will do something.  Sometimes, it doesn't work out that way!

Consider the airline industry.  Commercial flights are capable of autonomous flight but does that mean the pilots are just sleeping or reading a book when the plane is on autopilot?  I sure hope not!  You need a competent pilot to manually override the controls when an autonomous system fails.  And the margin of error of a plane flying at 30,000 feet is a lot greater than a vehicle driving 12 feet away from oncoming traffic.  Pilots have 30,000 feet to react to a problem on a plane.  Drivers may only have seconds to react before their autonomous vehicle drives into oncoming traffic.  The idea that a person can be checking their emails or reading a book as their autonomous vehicle drives down the road at 55 mph is a total pipe dream.

Quote from: tradephoric on April 04, 2016, 01:43:08 PM
Consider the airline industry.  Commercial flights are capable of autonomous flight but does that mean the pilots are just sleeping or reading a book when the plane is on autopilot?  I sure hope not!  You need a competent pilot to manually override the controls when an autonomous system fails.  And the margin of error of a plane flying at 30,000 feet is a lot greater than a vehicle driving 12 feet away from oncoming traffic.  Pilots have 30,000 feet to react to a problem on a plane.  Drivers may only have seconds to react before their autonomous vehicle drives into oncoming traffic.  The idea that a person can be checking their emails or reading a book as their autonomous vehicle drives down the road at 55 mph is a total pipe dream.

I could repeat that, word by word, as an argument for disallowing humans to interfere with computer control.
drivers may only have seconds to react before their autonomous vehicle drives into oncoming traffic.  The idea that a person - old, tired or sleepy -  can be grasping the steering wheel as their manually controlled vehicle drives down the road at 55 mph is a total pipe dream.

Why can't they just not have to deal with the problem by making unpaved roads "human controlled only"?

Quote from: kalvado on April 04, 2016, 01:55:42 PM
I could repeat that, word by word, as an argument for disallowing humans to interfere with computer control.
drivers may only have seconds to react before their autonomous vehicle drives into oncoming traffic.  The idea that a person - old, tired or sleepy -  can be grasping the steering wheel as their manually controlled vehicle drives down the road at 55 mph is a total pipe dream.

There are pitot tubes on an airplane that measures airspeed.  Periodically, these pitot tubes can become clogged and give inaccurate airspeeds causing the autopilot to disengage.  If you don't have a competent pilot to take manual control of the plane, something as simple as a clogged pitot tube can lead to a catastrophic crash.  I don't know about you, but i don't want a plane to crash every time a pitot tube gets clogged.   The automated systems have made the airline industry safer but you still need competent pilots in the cockpit to react when something goes wrong.   The same type of thinking would apply to autonomous vehicles on the road.  Sure, autonomous vehicles could make roadways safer but it would be foolish not to have someone behind the wheel to react when an autonomous system fails.  And if that person is just checking his emails or reading a book, they probably won't be able to react in time when something does go wrong.

Quote from: tradephoric on April 04, 2016, 03:10:49 PM

Quote from: kalvado on April 04, 2016, 01:55:42 PM
I could repeat that, word by word, as an argument for disallowing humans to interfere with computer control.
drivers may only have seconds to react before their autonomous vehicle drives into oncoming traffic.  The idea that a person - old, tired or sleepy -  can be grasping the steering wheel as their manually controlled vehicle drives down the road at 55 mph is a total pipe dream.

There are pitot tubes on an airplane that measures airspeed.  Periodically, these pitot tubes can become clogged and give inaccurate airspeeds causing the autopilot to disengage.  If you don't have a competent pilot to take manual control of the plane, something as simple as a clogged pitot tube can lead to a catastrophic crash.  I don't know about you, but i don't want a plane to crash every time a pitot tube gets clogged.   The automated systems have made the airline industry safer but you still need competent pilots in the cockpit to react when something goes wrong.   The same type of thinking would apply to autonomous vehicles on the road.  Sure, autonomous vehicles could make roadways safer but it would be foolish not to have someone behind the wheel to react when an autonomous system fails.  And if that person is just checking his emails or reading a book, they probably won't be able to react in time when something does go wrong.

Well, if you look carefully at how much effort is put towards keeping pitots clear, how much redundancy is there, and how good are those pilots at following SOP for "unreliable speed indication", as well as remember a major crash due to pitot icing.. I am not sure if old saying about replacing FO with the dog is actually a joke.

What point are you trying to make here kalvado.  What do you envision when it comes to autonomous vehicles?  Do you imagine people taking naps in their autonomous vehicle as they get chauffeured to their destination?  To me that is fantasy land. 

Quote from: tradephoric on April 04, 2016, 03:40:27 PM
What point are you trying to make here kalvado.  What do you envision when it comes to autonomous vehicles?  Do you imagine people taking naps in their autonomous vehicle as they get chauffeured to their destination?  To me that is fantasy land.

Most likely that is what will happen - and probably sooner than later. Reliability and performance of humans are largely overestimated.

Quote from: kalvado on April 04, 2016, 03:42:52 PM

Quote from: tradephoric on April 04, 2016, 03:40:27 PM
What point are you trying to make here kalvado.  What do you envision when it comes to autonomous vehicles?  Do you imagine people taking naps in their autonomous vehicle as they get chauffeured to their destination?  To me that is fantasy land.

Most likely that is what will happen - and probably sooner than later. Reliability and performance of humans are largely overestimated.

Reliability and performance of computers is highly overrated and overestimated, IMHO.  The first time an automated car gets hacked, there's going to be a big problem.  Not to mention the possibility that "blue screen of death" will take on a potentially new, more literal meaning.

If automobile drivers had the level of training, certification and accountability as airline pilots, the need for self-driving cars would be vastly diminished.

And the great question with manual override is, how do you ensure that the human is available and empowered to take over when it's necessary, but absolutely prevent him from doing so when it would be most disastrous? While there will be imperfections in self-driving technology that will result in some accidents, the number and severity of these will be negligible compared to those caused by driver error that are prevented. If manual override is permitted, there will be fewer accidents, but still more than if it were fully automated.


iPhone

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 04, 2016, 12:10:29 PM
Oh, it may seem like it's cheaper to let things go.  In the long run, it's gonna cost you.  A lot.

Cost of ownership, it all depends on how much you want out of your vehicle. I have a 8mo old car that already has 21,000 miles on it. I don't intend to have much value you in my car once I'm done with it. It will have not much more than scrap value, honestly. Last car I owned had 220k miles on it and was 14 years old when it was sold for $700. Most of those miles were my own.

That's the rub. Go look at the service schedule of a new car, and the sheer cost involved in keeping that schedule (at their own shops, no less) to keep your warranty is staggeringly expensive compared to 'fix as needed'. That also may be 'fix' compared to 'make like new' which is the mindset of the dealership.

The thought is that manufacturers, and their associated dealerships, aren't that keen on safety or reliability. Only profitability. They begrudgingly drag their feet into every new safety improvement because they have to. They're quite content on letting you riding around in a death-trap if it serves their bottom line. Seat belts. Air bags. Trunk releases. Side impact airbags. Crumple zones. Stronger frames. Non-exploding gas tanks. ABS. Traction control. Back-up cameras. Etc.

However, there is a catch. At some point they will switch from 'fighting every new maneuver' to 'embracing everything' because it starts upping their profitability. Once the onus of operation is set arbitrarily high by regulation, the dealership and manufactuerer is the one set to make the profit.  And those standards are only going to increase.

QuoteI think there's a fair amount of scrutiny behind the scenes that you're just not aware of.  And in the long future when most cars are self-driving, car accidents should be a thing of the past because cars will be talking and aware of each other and see other things on a much more automatic basis than what you see today.  Literally, think Jetsons: Cars are all criss-crossing one another.  As car drivers, we would never dare do that.  Automatic cars talking to each other can do that...safely!

Fantasy doesn't meet reality 'in the future'. Safer cars make for unsafer environments. If every car can avoid eachother.... why make roads as safe? Guard rails. Striping. Overhead signage, etc. Or make them at all? Just let the ones we have deteriorate. As the cost of operation becomes cheaper and cheaper, the price to maintain such infrastructure gets increasingly higher and high in comparison. Same reason why nobody bakes their own bread. The cost and efficiency of buying it at the store, even of lesser quality, is much simpler than buying the ingredients and baking it yourself. Between both the material cost and the unaccounted for labor cost.

QuoteCurrently, the MUTCD doesn't allow for that.  So you're talking a change on a federal level.  And it may be possible.  But again, far in the future, accidents should be minimal.  Congestion will probably reduce as well.  But today there's already people cutting thru neighborhoods, and in the future, in theory if it's happening, automated cars will be going the speed limit, not flying thru as some drivers do today.

If a town does want to prevent it, they can put in cul-de-sacs and other devices that limit the ability to drive thru.  The problem is the residents in the development are usually the ones that suffer when they are limited to one way in and out!

MUTCD already quite allows for traffic control devices. But, laws regarding when and where roads are traversable is different. A city can block a street for a carnival or fair, and MUTCD has no bearing on their decision. You can limit size of vehicles for through traffic. Wouldn't be long before anything bigger than a moped isn't allowed to use a street for through traffic. And since the self-aware car must follow every law, they will follow that law.

Then there's the issue of preemption. Just because a recently passed municipal ordinance disallowing through traffic on San Mateo between 6am and 9am may be unconstitutional, to either the state or federal statute, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Until a judge deems the law unenforceable does it get stricken from the record. Until that time, you still must abide by the law. The car, more than likely, will side with the law until it's repealed rather than 'do what's right' and give the owner of the vehicle a ticket despite not violating a constitution or overriding state law.

QuoteYou do understand that happens thousands of time a day with manual vs. manual driving vehicles?  Drivers are always assuming the other driver will do something.  Sometimes, it doesn't work out that way!

But, when you're the owner of the vehicle, are you going to accept what the car does? I assume traffic tickets and insurance and at-fault accidents will still be law. In which case, will you trust your 4,000 pound self-aware car to not incur you debt? It's different when it's YOU that is the one determining how the vehicle is driven and the rights and responsibilities of driving it (or delegating the driving to someone you know).

For instance, I'd trust myself with a pair of scissors to cut out a pattern from a piece of paper while I'm holding it. But, I'd be far less inclined to trust a machine to cut that same pattern out if I'm still the one holding the paper.

It's a lot different when it's your skin in the game.

and what about when the car has a old / out sync DB and ripping past that new slow zone at 55-65?

Quote from: empirestate on April 04, 2016, 04:57:38 PM
If automobile drivers had the level of training, certification and accountability as airline pilots, the need for self-driving cars would be vastly diminished.

And the great question with manual override is, how do you ensure that the human is available and empowered to take over when it's necessary, but absolutely prevent him from doing so when it would be most disastrous? While there will be imperfections in self-driving technology that will result in some accidents, the number and severity of these will be negligible compared to those caused by driver error that are prevented. If manual override is permitted, there will be fewer accidents, but still more than if it were fully automated.

That's precisely the problem. A human to take over the controls is not going to be expected. People who don't find enjoyment in driving get bored with it very easily. And that's while they're checking their mirrors, guages, looking out windows, adjusting the throttle or cruise, the radio, lights, etc. Now, imagine that same person now sitting in a vehicle doing all of that for them? How quickly do you think they'll just zone out. Even if sleeping, eating, reading, napping, etc, were banned for someone in the 'driver in case of emergency' seat? Think they'll even be aware a problem is happening? Or even have time to react to a computer having a problem?

If your self-aware car is doing 55mph on a 2-lane road and another self-aware car is coming up toward you in the opposing lane and the car coming toward you reads that their lane is turning 10 degrees shallower than it really is, and they cross the yellow, even if both your car and their car can talk to eachother to provide enough space to avoid collision,... which one yields? Or do both slam on their brakes? How soon before the impact COULD they stop themselves from impact? How soon would the cars realize they are in path with eachother and evasive maneuver is needed?

And, back to the point: which car veers? One? Both? None? How would one computer override the other? Or would both cars simply go with their observation of their environment and that each is 'in line' with the road and the other is in need of a course correction?

But, then back to the issue: how would someone step in to correct this when the cars are only 50 feet from impact at 55mph? A driver who for the past 50 miles has had little recognition of what's been going on? They wouldn't. As mentioned above, the pilot has a lot more room to correct the mistake. At 28k feet, even 5 or 6 THOUSAND feet of altitude could be lost over several miles of flight before the pilot overtakes the auto-pilot and corrects the plans trajectory and not nary a soul was harmed.

A car does NOT have that much room to err. Which is why the google car that hit the bus was going insanely slow. It's 'safer' because it doesn't go fast. I was on I-495 in Massachusetts one time coming back from Maine and came across one of these 'prototype' cars with the driver in the driver seat but the car was decked out in yellow/black chevrons, flashing lights and a lot of reflectors. And was doing a paltry 30mph in the right lane.

Who would want to drive somewhere if the speed to get there was twice the going rate?

There's a price to pay. And everyone knows that price. We see it in our everyday lives. The safer we make things the more unsafe we operate around them. We have a predetermined level of risk we feel comfortable with. And if you make it safer, we'll push the envelope a little further in return. Make cars nearly indestructable with power steering, ABS, traction control, seat belts, air bags, independent four-wheel suspension, four-zone climate control, halogen headlights, quiet, gas-sipping engines that rarely make a sound... we'll eat more food while we drive, talking cell phones, texting, reading, daydreaming, etc.

Because the safer it is, the less we have the need to be safe, ourselves.

We get 2 inches away from a lion in a zoo because it's 'safe' behind that plexiglass. You'd never get 2 inches away from one in Africa. There's a reason. Make things safer, we no longer need to be as safe. But, good luck when the glass breaks.

Fearing the hacking of computers is stretching it.  Yeah, you can imagine every Die Hard & Speed movie rolled into one to come up with some deadly situations, but we all rely on computers every day.  Hackers could mess with traffic lights if they wanted.  Or elevators in buildings.  Or your cable TV.  Or the computer/phone you're using right now.  Many cars could be hacked right now if someone so wanted.

40,000 people die in car accidents every year.  Not a single one has yet to die because their car was hacked.  That means 40,000 failures by humans have caused those accidents.  Every.  Year.  And how many are injured or simply in accidents?  Hundreds of thousands, if no Millions.  Every Year.  And again, not one was caused by a self driving car.  And that's just in the US alone.

Forget about hacking.  The chances of the cars around you having a drunk at the wheel are much greater than a car that has a computer that could be hacked.
 

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 04, 2016, 06:34:51 PM
Fearing the hacking of computers is stretching it.  Yeah, you can imagine every Die Hard & Speed movie rolled into one to come up with some deadly situations, but we all rely on computers every day.  Hackers could mess with traffic lights if they wanted.  Or elevators in buildings.  Or your cable TV.  Or the computer/phone you're using right now.  Many cars could be hacked right now if someone so wanted.

40,000 people die in car accidents every year.  Not a single one has yet to die because their car was hacked.  That means 40,000 failures by humans have caused those accidents.  Every.  Year.  And how many are injured or simply in accidents?  Hundreds of thousands, if no Millions.  Every Year.  And again, not one was caused by a self driving car.  And that's just in the US alone.

Forget about hacking.  The chances of the cars around you having a drunk at the wheel are much greater than a car that has a computer that could be hacked.
 

That's really all there is to it. Others have brought up various objections or disadvantages with self-driving cars and they're perfectly legitimate concerns, for the most part. But none of these dangers comes even remotely close to the danger that already exists with driving; it's absolutely inconceivable that the risks would be deemed to outweigh the benefits.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 04, 2016, 06:34:51 PM
Fearing the hacking of computers is stretching it.  Yeah, you can imagine every Die Hard & Speed movie rolled into one to come up with some deadly situations, but we all rely on computers every day.  Hackers could mess with traffic lights if they wanted.  Or elevators in buildings.  Or your cable TV.  Or the computer/phone you're using right now.  Many cars could be hacked right now if someone so wanted.

40,000 people die in car accidents every year.  Not a single one has yet to die because their car was hacked.  That means 40,000 failures by humans have caused those accidents.  Every.  Year.  And how many are injured or simply in accidents?  Hundreds of thousands, if no Millions.  Every Year.  And again, not one was caused by a self driving car.  And that's just in the US alone.

Forget about hacking.  The chances of the cars around you having a drunk at the wheel are much greater than a car that has a computer that could be hacked.
 

While hacking used to be done for the lulz ("ha ha, you got a virus stupid moron, time to wipe your hard drive"), these days it is done for financial gain.  As of right now, there's not much financial gain that's worth the trouble of hacking a vehicle.  The best you could do is try to kill someone, and that's not ever a sure thing, since you have no idea where the car is or where it's going.  Basically, it's pretty hefty criminal charges for not much gain (well, unless you have a grudge on someone, I guess, but even then there's easier ways to get one's revenge, for example by sending a nontracable call (yes, it's possible, with the right tech) to 911 to send a swat team to someone's house).  That will likely change once computers can navigate and are doing the navigation.

Quote from: vdeane on April 05, 2016, 12:52:08 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 04, 2016, 06:34:51 PM
Fearing the hacking of computers is stretching it.  Yeah, you can imagine every Die Hard & Speed movie rolled into one to come up with some deadly situations, but we all rely on computers every day.  Hackers could mess with traffic lights if they wanted.  Or elevators in buildings.  Or your cable TV.  Or the computer/phone you're using right now.  Many cars could be hacked right now if someone so wanted.

40,000 people die in car accidents every year.  Not a single one has yet to die because their car was hacked.  That means 40,000 failures by humans have caused those accidents.  Every.  Year.  And how many are injured or simply in accidents?  Hundreds of thousands, if no Millions.  Every Year.  And again, not one was caused by a self driving car.  And that's just in the US alone.

Forget about hacking.  The chances of the cars around you having a drunk at the wheel are much greater than a car that has a computer that could be hacked.
 

While hacking used to be done for the lulz ("ha ha, you got a virus stupid moron, time to wipe your hard drive"), these days it is done for financial gain.  As of right now, there's not much financial gain that's worth the trouble of hacking a vehicle.  The best you could do is try to kill someone, and that's not ever a sure thing, since you have no idea where the car is or where it's going.  Basically, it's pretty hefty criminal charges for not much gain (well, unless you have a grudge on someone, I guess, but even then there's easier ways to get one's revenge, for example by sending a nontracable call (yes, it's possible, with the right tech) to 911 to send a swat team to someone's house).  That will likely change once computers can navigate and are doing the navigation.

Well, so far general altitude to car software reliability and hacking possibility was fairly relaxed. Which is already problematic, just think Toyota brakes cluster&uck. And there was a demonstration of significant control over human-driven Jeep lately (including disabled brakes).  Getting GPS data from navigation system - and overriding that data! -  should also be possible...
I expect a bit more isolation of control system from the network and a bit more attention to programming should do the trick.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 04, 2016, 12:10:29 PM

QuoteThe other big issue is: traffic laws. With self-aware self-driving cars, they will route themselves around traffic jams, accidents, etc. But, what if a town doesn't want a bunch of cars bombarding residential areas during rush hour because the self-aware car handles the start-stop better than an average driver who would rather just sit in traffic on the main line? If the town instituted a regulation that through traffic must stay on the main roads to accommodate the residential areas from an uptick in traffic, you have a whole new system of control.

Currently, the MUTCD doesn't allow for that.  So you're talking a change on a federal level.  And it may be possible.

Where is this in the MUTCD?  If it really is in there, it has not stopped numerous cities and at least one county from already posting signs that pretty much require through traffic to use the main roads, during peak hours or 24/7/365.

Uneven signage? Self-driving cars process signs?

Dear God, please send one of these things to Oklahoma along with a bucket of popcorn.

Quote from: kalvado on April 05, 2016, 04:19:49 PM
Well, so far general altitude to car software reliability and hacking possibility was fairly relaxed. Which is already problematic, just think Toyota brakes cluster&uck. And there was a demonstration of significant control over human-driven Jeep lately (including disabled brakes).  Getting GPS data from navigation system - and overriding that data! -  should also be possible...
I expect a bit more isolation of control system from the network and a bit more attention to programming should do the trick.

One would think, but if businesses would actually do that, we'd have a lot fewer issues than we actually do.  The idea that not everything should be directly connected the network (and VERY tightly controlling the input/output for anything that IS connected) appears to be taboo, despite it being a common sense measure that should absolutely be done.

Quote from: Sykotyk on April 04, 2016, 05:49:58 PM
If your self-aware car is doing 55mph on a 2-lane road and another self-aware car is coming up toward you in the opposing lane and the car coming toward you reads that their lane is turning 10 degrees shallower than it really is, and they cross the yellow, even if both your car and their car can talk to eachother to provide enough space to avoid collision,... which one yields? Or do both slam on their brakes? How soon before the impact COULD they stop themselves from impact? How soon would the cars realize they are in path with eachother and evasive maneuver is needed?

And, back to the point: which car veers? One? Both? None? How would one computer override the other? Or would both cars simply go with their observation of their environment and that each is 'in line' with the road and the other is in need of a course correction?

Vehicle-to-vehicle radio communication protocols are being developed....and the rules of the road the automated vehicles now on the road follow are pretty clear.

Quote from: vdeane on April 05, 2016, 12:52:08 PM
While hacking used to be done for the lulz ("ha ha, you got a virus stupid moron, time to wipe your hard drive"), these days it is done for financial gain.  As of right now, there's not much financial gain that's worth the trouble of hacking a vehicle.  The best you could do is try to kill someone, and that's not ever a sure thing, since you have no idea where the car is or where it's going.  Basically, it's pretty hefty criminal charges for not much gain (well, unless you have a grudge on someone, I guess, but even then there's easier ways to get one's revenge, for example by sending a nontracable call (yes, it's possible, with the right tech) to 911 to send a swat team to someone's house).  That will likely change once computers can navigate and are doing the navigation.

Most of the vehicular hacks that have been demonstrated (a few in the wild) have been geared towards the lulz and theft....although some of the lulz are setting up the potential for someone to get hurt. (Imagine someone, just for yucks, deciding to trigger the brakes in an autonomous vehicle traveling in traffic at speed....)

However, just wait until someone figures out how to impose a ransomware element to such hacks.  (If you want to go to work in the morning / if you don't want to be stranded somewhere inconvenient, please send bitcoin to...)

I figured I'd put my two cents in on this issue.

Maybe you can see me as being pessimistic, but let's just think of the current problems we have with our vehicles with simple parts. I'm talking about something as simple as a power window which stops working for instance. With those of us who have NAV systems in the vehicles we drive, there have been times for whatever reason, that the screen does not turn on. I'm sure we've all experienced this with our PCs, when for some reason the computer does not work properly. Sometimes a reboot of the computer, or a restart of the car makes the screen turn on, and sometimes it doesn't.

The point I'm getting at, if simple things fail in our vehicles all the time, how can we expect a very complex sensor system and smart system that can drive itself to always work the way it should. It's a fact of life that hackers aside, that computers do fail. Think about it, with computerized billboards and advertisements we see in public nowadays, there are many times I've seen such ads having Windows Blue Screens of Death and critical errors. Even with today's advanced smartphones, which I find to be the most reliable type of computer I have, even that has issues where it needs a restart from time to time.


Nevertheless, even if we could pull this off, I'm not exactly sure I look forward to what that will bring. Remember the positive thoughts people had when the cell phone became mainstream, you could contact your loved ones and friends whenever you want. But of course, the corporate world could then contact you whenever they wanted, and now all of a sudden, we are attached to our jobs outside of the workplace. I remember the world before the internet and cell phones became mainstream, perhaps it's nostalgia, but I remember that world being a lot better than the world of today.

So while you guys maybe thinking of a computer driving you downtown to work while you simply veg on your smartphone, or try to get some sleep, trust me, it isn't going to work this way. Your commute time will then be an extension again of your job time, yes, you will be ordered to use this new free time you have to complete work. Like it or not, there are many people around, where the only private time they get is their commute, and I'll be honest, drive time is one of the best times of the day for me believe it or not. It's where I get away from the crowded city, elevators, subways, and trains, and into a private space in a vehicle, it is here where I don't have to deal with anyone else.

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on April 05, 2016, 08:27:28 PM
Vehicle-to-vehicle radio communication protocols are being developed....and the rules of the road the automated vehicles now on the road follow are pretty clear.

But, as I questioned: which one veers? If both cars think they're on the road and following the proper lanes, if one car deviates across the yellow line, which car yields? Both cars assume their course is correct. Sure, braking may solve the problem, but not at speeds and proximity where it's impossible. Aborting the perceived lane may be the only way to avoid an imminent crash, but not if the vehicle must act evasively.

Again, which one veers?

QuoteMost of the vehicular hacks that have been demonstrated (a few in the wild) have been geared towards the lulz and theft....although some of the lulz are setting up the potential for someone to get hurt. (Imagine someone, just for yucks, deciding to trigger the brakes in an autonomous vehicle traveling in traffic at speed....)

QuoteHowever, just wait until someone figures out how to impose a ransomware element to such hacks.  (If you want to go to work in the morning / if you don't want to be stranded somewhere inconvenient, please send bitcoin to...)

The most recent article I read about cyber-ransom was pretty eye opening. Corporations are locked out of their computers with a malicious virus and only making a payment via bitcoin gives them a code to unlock their computers. A school district paid $10,000 to unlock their computers.

What if cyber-opportunists decide hijacking cars onboard computers for profit become economical? Not even actually hacking your car, but threatening to hack your car. With enough cyber-espionage being untraceable through multiple proxy servers and infected minion computers doing the work and then getting wiped clean once the original threat is paid out. Would you ride in a car if there was even a threat made against you that your car will drive off the road if you don't pay $500 to some unknown, untraceable cyber attack?

Sure, you might want to keep up on your vehicle computer updates, you may even go to the police. But how many phishing scams do you come across daily in your life? Scams via email or clickbait? Unending pop-up boxes and 'error' messages telling you your computer has a virus, etc.

Do you think some 50-year-old is going to perceive what is and what isn't really a threat? Do you think everyone is going to be as secure with their data security? What happens when a big cyber-attack takes place at Toyota getting access keycodes to all the car's onboard computers  and telemetrics the way Target or some healthcare providers are attacked?

This isn't just data. A cyberattack against a hospital may open a credit card in your name once they get you SS#, name, and address. But, they can't infect your with HIV or something. Meddling with the vehicle you're riding in CAN hurt you physically. That threat is a serious issue we don't currently face with cyber security.

As more and more computers control more and more of the devices that actively keep you safe, we will see a rise in this. A cyber-criminal will adapt just as any other techonology adapts. A new market to make money.


It comes down to control. An automated car is in control. Both of you and what is around you. If your life is less valuable than the alternative, the car will sacrifice you in the event of an accident. A truly smart vehicle would calculate the odds and act according to those odds. You, or I, would make our own decisions. Even at the risk of others. Fault or no-fault, we would decide our own fates and deal with the consequences of our actions instead of just shrugging our shoulders and saying, "guess that was the safest outcome."

If you were driving down the road and a lady slipped and pushed a baby-buggy into the road, would you hit the buggy or swerve? To the left into another vehicle? To the right into the lady and another person on the sidewalk? Or stay straight and slid your screeching tires through an infant? A computer may deem 'straight' as the least injurious.

Quote from: MisterSG1 on April 05, 2016, 09:05:25 PM
The point I'm getting at, if simple things fail in our vehicles all the time, how can we expect a very complex sensor system and smart system that can drive itself to always work the way it should. It's a fact of life that hackers aside, that computers do fail. Think about it, with computerized billboards and advertisements we see in public nowadays, there are many times I've seen such ads having Windows Blue Screens of Death and critical errors. Even with today's advanced smartphones, which I find to be the most reliable type of computer I have, even that has issues where it needs a restart from time to time.

Sure, the machines aren't always going to work correctly. But so what? The cars we have now don't always work correctly, plus on top of that, they have human drivers. So if the choices are A) cars that sometimes don't work plus 1.25 million traffic deaths annually, and B) cars that sometimes don't work, I don't understand why you'd choose A) simply on the basis that B) involves cars that don't work.

QuoteNevertheless, even if we could pull this off, I'm not exactly sure I look forward to what that will bring. Remember the positive thoughts people had when the cell phone became mainstream, you could contact your loved ones and friends whenever you want. But of course, the corporate world could then contact you whenever they wanted, and now all of a sudden, we are attached to our jobs outside of the workplace. I remember the world before the internet and cell phones became mainstream, perhaps it's nostalgia, but I remember that world being a lot better than the world of today.

I hear you, and I feel the same way. But the important thing to remember is that while the people of today would hate the future of tomorrow, they won't be in it, so we don't have to worry about that.

QuoteSo while you guys maybe thinking of a computer driving you downtown to work while you simply veg on your smartphone, or try to get some sleep, trust me, it isn't going to work this way. Your commute time will then be an extension again of your job time, yes, you will be ordered to use this new free time you have to complete work. Like it or not, there are many people around, where the only private time they get is their commute, and I'll be honest, drive time is one of the best times of the day for me believe it or not. It's where I get away from the crowded city, elevators, subways, and trains, and into a private space in a vehicle, it is here where I don't have to deal with anyone else.

Yup, but again, we're assuming the value we place on things today will still be assigned to them tomorrow. Who says that future generations will be brought up thinking that their commute time is owed to themselves? Or, that they wouldn't think the time spent operating a machine for a mundane purpose is wasted when it could be allocated to something more productive, either for themselves or their employer? I mean, heck, already a lot of drivers obviously feel it's an inconvenience to have to focus on operating their machine during a time when they're supposed to be eating lunch, listening to music or categorizing the variety of roadside signage!  :-D

Quote from: Sykotyk on April 05, 2016, 11:11:57 PM
But, as I questioned: which one veers? If both cars think they're on the road and following the proper lanes, if one car deviates across the yellow line, which car yields? Both cars assume their course is correct. Sure, braking may solve the problem, but not at speeds and proximity where it's impossible. Aborting the perceived lane may be the only way to avoid an imminent crash, but not if the vehicle must act evasively.

Again, which one veers?

Which one does in case of humans at the control? I think there are plenty of accident reports for such situations, meaning that is too difficult question for humans anyway.

Quote from: Jardine on April 01, 2016, 01:13:58 PM
We have dirt roads here.  :D

And while some of the county dirt roads are pretty scary, I have some access roads on my farm that would make you crap your pants.

I think this is near the Harrison/Monona line:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Fd5%2F55%2F5e%2Fd5555e1ef7b2a098dd421515f31d79d4.jpg&hash=d0992a2dbbb8df4352418d63588bb178e5262ad8)


For some unknown reason, there are always idjits that want to see how soon after a good rain any given dirt road might be passable.  I'm pretty sure no one is going to want to send a self driving car down any of these pre-Columbian trails any time soon.

What does "Level B service" mean?

Quote from: Katavia on April 06, 2016, 09:47:11 AM

Quote from: Jardine on April 01, 2016, 01:13:58 PM
We have dirt roads here.  :D

And while some of the county dirt roads are pretty scary, I have some access roads on my farm that would make you crap your pants.

I think this is near the Harrison/Monona line:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Fd5%2F55%2F5e%2Fd5555e1ef7b2a098dd421515f31d79d4.jpg&hash=d0992a2dbbb8df4352418d63588bb178e5262ad8)


For some unknown reason, there are always idjits that want to see how soon after a good rain any given dirt road might be passable.  I'm pretty sure no one is going to want to send a self driving car down any of these pre-Columbian trails any time soon.

What does "Level B service" mean?

Enter at your own risk.

Quote from: empirestate on April 06, 2016, 12:46:38 AM
Sure, the machines aren't always going to work correctly. But so what? The cars we have now don't always work correctly, plus on top of that, they have human drivers. So if the choices are A) cars that sometimes don't work plus 1.25 million traffic deaths annually, and B) cars that sometimes don't work, I don't understand why you'd choose A) simply on the basis that B) involves cars that don't work.

These days, when something breaks in a car, it's usually driveable (maybe not to the point of passing inspection, but as a matter of "can I start the engine, apply the gas/brakes, and use the steering wheel?").  Add more computer stuff in there, however, and there are going to be more and more issues that take the car out entirely.  Imagine if you're rushing to get to work, get in your car, and it says "please wait... a software update is required... downloading (1%)" (my smart TV does this ALL the time!) and you have to wait for the update to complete before you can do anything more complicated than open the doors.  Or imagine a city saying "you have an unpaid parking ticket, so we're disabling your car" (why do I feel like I've heard about a similar case with a bank already on John Oliver?).  Or the car saying "dust on self-driving sensor... please tow car to dealer to clean sensors to resume driving".  Or "maintenance performed outside the dealer detected; shutting down car" (my printer used to do this when I'd try to refill the ink cartridges).  Software is being used to take away user choice everywhere else, so I would expect that it would happen with cars as well.

Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2016, 01:23:50 PM

Quote from: empirestate on April 06, 2016, 12:46:38 AM
Sure, the machines aren't always going to work correctly. But so what? The cars we have now don't always work correctly, plus on top of that, they have human drivers. So if the choices are A) cars that sometimes don't work plus 1.25 million traffic deaths annually, and B) cars that sometimes don't work, I don't understand why you'd choose A) simply on the basis that B) involves cars that don't work.

These days, when something breaks in a car, it's usually driveable (maybe not to the point of passing inspection, but as a matter of "can I start the engine, apply the gas/brakes, and use the steering wheel?").  Add more computer stuff in there, however, and there are going to be more and more issues that take the car out entirely.  Imagine if you're rushing to get to work, get in your car, and it says "please wait... a software update is required... downloading (1%)" (my smart TV does this ALL the time!) and you have to wait for the update to complete before you can do anything more complicated than open the doors.  Or imagine a city saying "you have an unpaid parking ticket, so we're disabling your car" (why do I feel like I've heard about a similar case with a bank already on John Oliver?).  Or the car saying "dust on self-driving sensor... please tow car to dealer to clean sensors to resume driving".  Or "maintenance performed outside the dealer detected; shutting down car" (my printer used to do this when I'd try to refill the ink cartridges).  Software is being used to take away user choice everywhere else, so I would expect that it would happen with cars as well.

I don't speculate that happening to cars quite the way it does to printers and smart TVs; indeed, it's already possible in today's cars, if the manufacturers decided to do it. If nothing else, public regulation will create an environment where such disabling of travel would precluded. Yes, some malfunctions would still lead to cars being undriveable, but that's no change from today, and the system would work around it.

At least in the future, in theory, cars should know where parking is permitted and not permitted, and one won't receive a parking ticket in the first place.  A better Self Driving Car version will automatically move itself when a parking restriction goes into effect!

Quote from: empirestate on April 06, 2016, 02:20:37 PM

Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2016, 01:23:50 PM

Quote from: empirestate on April 06, 2016, 12:46:38 AM
Sure, the machines aren't always going to work correctly. But so what? The cars we have now don't always work correctly, plus on top of that, they have human drivers. So if the choices are A) cars that sometimes don't work plus 1.25 million traffic deaths annually, and B) cars that sometimes don't work, I don't understand why you'd choose A) simply on the basis that B) involves cars that don't work.

These days, when something breaks in a car, it's usually driveable (maybe not to the point of passing inspection, but as a matter of "can I start the engine, apply the gas/brakes, and use the steering wheel?").  Add more computer stuff in there, however, and there are going to be more and more issues that take the car out entirely.  Imagine if you're rushing to get to work, get in your car, and it says "please wait... a software update is required... downloading (1%)" (my smart TV does this ALL the time!) and you have to wait for the update to complete before you can do anything more complicated than open the doors.  Or imagine a city saying "you have an unpaid parking ticket, so we're disabling your car" (why do I feel like I've heard about a similar case with a bank already on John Oliver?).  Or the car saying "dust on self-driving sensor... please tow car to dealer to clean sensors to resume driving".  Or "maintenance performed outside the dealer detected; shutting down car" (my printer used to do this when I'd try to refill the ink cartridges).  Software is being used to take away user choice everywhere else, so I would expect that it would happen with cars as well.

I don't speculate that happening to cars quite the way it does to printers and smart TVs; indeed, it's already possible in today's cars, if the manufacturers decided to do it. If nothing else, public regulation will create an environment where such disabling of travel would precluded. Yes, some malfunctions would still lead to cars being undriveable, but that's no change from today, and the system would work around it.

That may work if fallback mode is "manual operation only". Unlike humans, computers would have to go to strict "yes or no", not "I need to get there, even if the car is trashed after the trip!".  But that brings a few more interesting questions, like if driver license is required to operate autonomous vehicle. and liability of overriding computer "no-go" status

Quote from: Sykotyk on April 05, 2016, 11:11:57 PM

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on April 05, 2016, 08:27:28 PM
Vehicle-to-vehicle radio communication protocols are being developed....and the rules of the road the automated vehicles now on the road follow are pretty clear.

But, as I questioned: which one veers? If both cars think they're on the road and following the proper lanes, if one car deviates across the yellow line, which car yields? Both cars assume their course is correct. Sure, braking may solve the problem, but not at speeds and proximity where it's impossible. Aborting the perceived lane may be the only way to avoid an imminent crash, but not if the vehicle must act evasively.

Again, which one veers?

Presumably, the inter-automated-vehicle communications would include a broadcast saying "I'm here, and plan to do X, Y, and Z".  When the two vehicles pick up each other's broadcasts (or otherwise detect one another), they do what they must to pass on the correct side of one another, while staying on the road.  If there's insufficient space, the vehicle projected to arrive at the chokepoint later yields the right-of-way, either stopping or otherwise evading....just as should happen if driving laws are obeyed.

Alternatively....what's the opposite of a game of "chicken"?  :)

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 06, 2016, 02:24:41 PM
At least in the future, in theory, cars should know where parking is permitted and not permitted, and one won't receive a parking ticket in the first place.  A better Self Driving Car version will automatically move itself when a parking restriction goes into effect!

Then you try to find your car... and you can't find it, because it moved.

Quote from: 1 on April 06, 2016, 03:16:51 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 06, 2016, 02:24:41 PM
At least in the future, in theory, cars should know where parking is permitted and not permitted, and one won't receive a parking ticket in the first place.  A better Self Driving Car version will automatically move itself when a parking restriction goes into effect!

Then you try to find your car... and you can't find it, because it moved.

There's an app for that!

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on April 06, 2016, 03:03:33 PM

Quote from: Sykotyk on April 05, 2016, 11:11:57 PM

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on April 05, 2016, 08:27:28 PM
Vehicle-to-vehicle radio communication protocols are being developed....and the rules of the road the automated vehicles now on the road follow are pretty clear.

But, as I questioned: which one veers? If both cars think they're on the road and following the proper lanes, if one car deviates across the yellow line, which car yields? Both cars assume their course is correct. Sure, braking may solve the problem, but not at speeds and proximity where it's impossible. Aborting the perceived lane may be the only way to avoid an imminent crash, but not if the vehicle must act evasively.

Again, which one veers?

Presumably, the inter-automated-vehicle communications would include a broadcast saying "I'm here, and plan to do X, Y, and Z".  When the two vehicles pick up each other's broadcasts (or otherwise detect one another), they do what they must to pass on the correct side of one another, while staying on the road.  If there's insufficient space, the vehicle projected to arrive at the chokepoint later yields the right-of-way, either stopping or otherwise evading....just as should happen if driving laws are obeyed.

Alternatively....what's the opposite of a game of "chicken"?  :)

That's part of the problem, though. 'Staying on the road' would require both cars to know where the road is. That's the problem. A self-driving car reads the road ahead of them, not just following GPS coordinates or implanted beacons in or around the road. If it fails to determine where the road is, it can deviate. Both cars think they're on the road. At 55mph, head on, that's 110mph of overall speed for not one, but two cars, to talk to eachother, establish they are both cars (can't wait until people can spoof a car's signal), announce where it's headed based on what it sees of the road ahead, and determine that both cars will clear eachother based on those observations.

Call me skeptical, but I think it's a lot of data processing and communication in a very short window. And again, if both cars think they're on the right heading, which one would purposefully drive off the road it thinks its on? Or, would both apply the brakes 100%, slamming all unsuspecting passengers hard (unsuspecting because, with self-driving, who will be paying attention out of the windshield, even they still had them someday).

A self-driving car REQUIRES that it is reading the road ahead of them. Otherwise, it's not self-driving. It's simply following points on a map or GPS. It's supposed to see and navigate the left turn up ahead, not just know it's there because a GPS software tells them it's there. That's the issue. Perception, communication, announcement of intentions, and calculating how to avoid eachother.

Most of the self-driving cars I've read about drive at a very slow pace to avoid those problems.  I don't think people will see the benefit in car travel if it's at 15mph, or 20mph, or 30mph. People have accepted the risk inherent in automobiles back in the 50s when cars were heavier, deadlier, more powerfully propelled, and less safe (no seatbelts or airbags), and yet people didn't really shy away from getting in the car to go for a ride.

We've accepted a level of a safety we as a society have accepted. Why do you think we keep upping speed limits? If we wanted zero-sum deaths from vehicles, we'd be going in the opposite direction. But, as a society we've accepted that some are okay. And maybe a few more, potentially, or more serious, is okay in exchange for a bit of time saved while traveling.

The benefit espoused by self-aware cars is that it eliminates or vastly reduces fatalities. But, society has already deemed the current level of fatalities acceptable. Or else we wouldn't have ever allowed cars to be driven the way we do now.

Quote from: 1 on April 06, 2016, 03:16:51 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 06, 2016, 02:24:41 PM
At least in the future, in theory, cars should know where parking is permitted and not permitted, and one won't receive a parking ticket in the first place.  A better Self Driving Car version will automatically move itself when a parking restriction goes into effect!

Then you try to find your car... and you can't find it, because it moved.

One hypothetical is that as self-driving cars become more ubiquitous, cars would behave differently. Instead of 'parking' your car, you would simply be let off a a predetermined point and the car would drive itself to a holding area for cars nearby. Then, when you're ready to leave the store, office, etc, you simply signal your car via internet/phone/pager for it to return to pick you up. No more parking garages for every building, or small lots or street parking. The cars would hide themselves into giant, remote holding areas. Ones that don't even require driveways, as they could be parked bumper to bumper and each one move for one stuck in the middle when it's their time to leave and reassemble back into that lane once that car is removed.

But, then comes step two. No more car ownership. Giant companies such as Uber or Lyft would own the cars themselves. You would simply pay a usage fee. Want to go to work? Arrange an Uber to pick you up and take you to work. Once at work, the trip is over, your cost has been paid, and the car is free for someone else's use. The burden of keeping your car maintained (and the bigger companies will require it to the utmost degree) will make short term borrowing of the car preferable. No matter how long the trip, you would just summon the appropriately sized car. Even scheduling well in advance when you need it (probably at a discount). Houses wouldn't need garages if no one owns the means of transportation.

Then comes the third leg: any form of revolt or uprising will simply disable the means of transportation. No cars. No buses. No trains. No planes. Either by the government, or the counter-regime trying to take over. Nobody has their own vehicle. So, you're basically stuck to your houses out in suburbia. With the grocery store an unacceptable distance away, even that would become obscenely burdensome.

We already know what regimes do with cell service. Self-driving cars would be the next logical step.

Quote from: Sykotyk on April 06, 2016, 04:54:43 PM

That's part of the problem, though. 'Staying on the road' would require both cars to know where the road is. That's the problem. A self-driving car reads the road ahead of them, not just following GPS coordinates or implanted beacons in or around the road. If it fails to determine where the road is, it can deviate. Both cars think they're on the road. At 55mph, head on, that's 110mph of overall speed for not one, but two cars, to talk to each other, establish they are both cars (can't wait until people can spoof a car's signal), announce where it's headed based on what it sees of the road ahead, and determine that both cars will clear each other based on those observations.

Call me skeptical, but I think it's a lot of data processing and communication in a very short window. And again, if both cars think they're on the right heading, which one would purposefully drive off the road it thinks its on? Or, would both apply the brakes 100%, slamming all unsuspecting passengers hard (unsuspecting because, with self-driving, who will be paying attention out of the windshield, even they still had them someday).

You somehow assume that human drivers are better than computer. For example you think human would be better at knowing where the road is - not always the case on a rainy night, for example. I, for one, had problems locating traffic light loops in snow storm (I needed lane 5 on a 8-lane intersection, and ended up driving through red light - damn thing refused to give me my green arrow. Pavement marks were under 2" of white stuff). If machine cannot see road marks - what are the chances you would see those? With no LIDAR, no IR vision, just old myopic eyes?  Oh, well..
And somehow you assume that humans would be better at resolving the issue. My bet is that human response in imminent danger - such as highway speed head-on - could very well be a ol' good panic.
Equally, you assume that seat belts would go away (as opposed to "no engine start until everyone wears seatbelt"). And no, I don't bother looking through the windshield when I am on a passenger seat, so same situation of unaware passenger is entirely plausible with meaty driver.
Computer cars do have issues - but I am afraid you're arguing against situations when computer totally wins.

Quote from: kalvado on April 06, 2016, 05:48:14 PM
You somehow assume that human drivers are better than computer. For example you think human would be better at knowing where the road is - not always the case on a rainy night, for example. I, for one, had problems locating traffic light loops in snow storm (I needed lane 5 on a 8-lane intersection, and ended up driving through red light - damn thing refused to give me my green arrow. Pavement marks were under 2" of white stuff). If machine cannot see road marks - what are the chances you would see those? With no LIDAR, no IR vision, just old myopic eyes?  Oh, well..
And somehow you assume that humans would be better at resolving the issue. My bet is that human response in imminent danger - such as highway speed head-on - could very well be a ol' good panic.

You do seem to forget who will be programming these self-aware cars. It's not robots. It's people making the decision on how, when, why, and where a car will do what it does. That's the problem. All the technology in the world won't correct for differentiating programming. And if two different manufacturers have two different ways of determining the same thing (I seriously doubt the government will create some open-source-like setup), you run into problems.

Maybe one car looks at spatial location first, while the other car looks at speed and trajectory. It has to know where that car first broadcast its location, and know based on processing time how long it was and where it will be. Rather than using imaging software on a live video feed to determine where it is and adjust accordingly. The same as a human does, not how a computer would.

Determining a 'big blue blob' on the video feed from the front bumper growing larger can indicate the speed and approach of an object, and where it's path leads. But, it leaves 'talking to the other car' out of the equation. Just as we do now.

QuoteEqually, you assume that seat belts would go away (as opposed to "no engine start until everyone wears seatbelt"). And no, I don't bother looking through the windshield when I am on a passenger seat, so same situation of unaware passenger is entirely plausible with meaty driver.

You assumed that. I assume that harnesses will be required. Though, if fully automated, the safest feature would be to position the passengers with their backs to the front of the car to avoid whiplash.

QuoteComputer cars do have issues - but I am afraid you're arguing against situations when computer totally wins.

I'm playing devils advocate to most.

But, self-aware cars still haven't answered the primary issue: control.

You're content to scan your items at a self-checkout because you have control. You let someone else scan them while you stand and watch because, again, you have control. The biggest issue with ordering delivery groceries is that you can't see the food, or really get a sense of the pricing. You also don't know the quality that you're getting. At the store, you can look at that tub of strawberries and pick the one you want. At the auto-store where it'll be delivered to you either requires a lot of shrinkage, or they'll be shipping the bad produce to you (peapod has this issue).

The problem is control. You ride an elevator not because you trust the machine, but because in the event of failure it's gravity-driven brakes will lock the lift into it's position within a few feet. Even if only one of the brakes functions). But you'd be far less likely to trust an elevator whose computer tries to 'fix the problem' while the elevator is falling to the lobby. You're okay with a little loss of control in exchange for a near iron-clad safeguard against failure == death.

An auto-driving car, either with you the passenger or you the pedestrian, takes 'control' and puts it into a system who will calculate what is the most viable outcome given the situation. If a person driving a car swerves to avoid another vehicle and hits a pedestrian, as a society, we've accepted that. Because someone, somewhere, is in control of the decision. Even if you, the injured party, wasn't at the time. You accept that if you were in that position, you, too, would want to be in control.

A computer would not give anybody any control over the decision. Even if the calculated outcome is deemed to be better for society at large. As a society we've accepted blame, responsibility, negligence, and control to be part of the human experience. Even if it doesn't work out as well as a computer does.

As I mentioned before upthread: if you were to take a pair of scissors and cut a pattern out of a piece of paper, you'd probably feel perfectly comfortable doing so. But, if a computer were to cut out the sheet of paper while you held it, you'd probably be far less likely to participate.

It's a matter of control.

Quote from: kalvado on April 06, 2016, 05:48:14 PM
You somehow assume that human drivers are better than computer. For example you think human would be better at knowing where the road is - not always the case on a rainy night, for example. I, for one, had problems locating traffic light loops in snow storm (I needed lane 5 on a 8-lane intersection, and ended up driving through red light - damn thing refused to give me my green arrow. Pavement marks were under 2" of white stuff). If machine cannot see road marks - what are the chances you would see those? With no LIDAR, no IR vision, just old myopic eyes?  Oh, well..
And somehow you assume that humans would be better at resolving the issue. My bet is that human response in imminent danger - such as highway speed head-on - could very well be a ol' good panic.
Equally, you assume that seat belts would go away (as opposed to "no engine start until everyone wears seatbelt"). And no, I don't bother looking through the windshield when I am on a passenger seat, so same situation of unaware passenger is entirely plausible with meaty driver.
Computer cars do have issues - but I am afraid you're arguing against situations when computer totally wins.

Assuming the car even looks at pavement lines in the first place.  Google has everything mapped, and the cars navigate by those maps.  Restripe the road, and the car won't know about it.  And if its sense of position or the map is even slightly (and, let's get real, Google Maps is more than slightly off) off, it's game over.

Quote from: Sykotyk on April 06, 2016, 05:04:55 PM
One hypothetical is that as self-driving cars become more ubiquitous, cars would behave differently. Instead of 'parking' your car, you would simply be let off a a predetermined point and the car would drive itself to a holding area for cars nearby. Then, when you're ready to leave the store, office, etc, you simply signal your car via internet/phone/pager for it to return to pick you up. No more parking garages for every building, or small lots or street parking. The cars would hide themselves into giant, remote holding areas. Ones that don't even require driveways, as they could be parked bumper to bumper and each one move for one stuck in the middle when it's their time to leave and reassemble back into that lane once that car is removed.

I don't feel like waiting  for the car to come back when I want to leave somewhere.

There's got to be a point at where humans just need to do things themselves and I think driving is one of those areas. If you don't want to drive then live in a big city where you can take public transportation anywhere you want to go. If you want to take a vacation from NYC to Miami then either fly or take a Greyhound. I don't understand what is so hard about this logic. Besides it doesn't take rocket science to drive a car. There's a reason you only have to be 16 years old to get a drivers license.

Quote from: Katavia on April 06, 2016, 09:47:11 AM

Quote from: Jardine on April 01, 2016, 01:13:58 PM
We have dirt roads here.  :D

And while some of the county dirt roads are pretty scary, I have some access roads on my farm that would make you crap your pants.

I think this is near the Harrison/Monona line:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Fd5%2F55%2F5e%2Fd5555e1ef7b2a098dd421515f31d79d4.jpg&hash=d0992a2dbbb8df4352418d63588bb178e5262ad8)


For some unknown reason, there are always idjits that want to see how soon after a good rain any given dirt road might be passable.  I'm pretty sure no one is going to want to send a self driving car down any of these pre-Columbian trails any time soon.

What does "Level B service" mean?

http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/pubs/itcd/reduced.pdf (http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/pubs/itcd/reduced.pdf)

Basically less than Level A but higher than Level C.

Quote from: Revive 755 on April 06, 2016, 10:53:57 PM

Quote from: Katavia on April 06, 2016, 09:47:11 AM

Quote from: Jardine on April 01, 2016, 01:13:58 PM
We have dirt roads here.  :D

And while some of the county dirt roads are pretty scary, I have some access roads on my farm that would make you crap your pants.

I think this is near the Harrison/Monona line:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Fd5%2F55%2F5e%2Fd5555e1ef7b2a098dd421515f31d79d4.jpg&hash=d0992a2dbbb8df4352418d63588bb178e5262ad8)


For some unknown reason, there are always idjits that want to see how soon after a good rain any given dirt road might be passable.  I'm pretty sure no one is going to want to send a self driving car down any of these pre-Columbian trails any time soon.

What does "Level B service" mean?

http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/pubs/itcd/reduced.pdf (http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/pubs/itcd/reduced.pdf)

Basically less than Level A but higher than Level C.

Wow, Iowa actually cares about warning people about bad roads! Our "minimum maintenance" signs are for overgrown trails... that road shown could pass for a county arterial West River.

Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2016, 09:31:03 PM
Assuming the car even looks at pavement lines in the first place.  Google has everything mapped, and the cars navigate by those maps.  Restripe the road, and the car won't know about it.  And if its sense of position or the map is even slightly (and, let's get real, Google Maps is more than slightly off) off, it's game over.

Given that discussion started with the article talking about "Poor markings and uneven signage " as problems for the self-driving equipment, I would assume DOTs would not be relieved of road marking hat responsibility any time soon. Accuracy of GPS is not enough for lane keeping anyway, errors associated with radio propagation in ionosphere are pretty tough. Differential GPS may solve the issue, but would create another layer of complexity.

Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2016, 09:31:03 PM
I don't feel like waiting  for the car to come back when I want to leave somewhere.

Do you feel like waiting for the bus to take you to the parking lot 2 miles away? I've been to such places...

Quote from: kalvado on April 07, 2016, 07:21:00 AM

Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2016, 09:31:03 PM
I don't feel like waiting  for the car to come back when I want to leave somewhere.

Do you feel like waiting for the bus to take you to the parking lot 2 miles away? I've been to such places...

I'm not a fan of it.  Nor am I a fan of using a valet.

Quote from: kalvado on April 07, 2016, 07:14:19 AM

Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2016, 09:31:03 PM
Assuming the car even looks at pavement lines in the first place.  Google has everything mapped, and the cars navigate by those maps.  Restripe the road, and the car won't know about it.  And if its sense of position or the map is even slightly (and, let's get real, Google Maps is more than slightly off) off, it's game over.

Given that discussion started with the article talking about "Poor markings and uneven signage " as problems for the self-driving equipment, I would assume DOTs would not be relieved of road marking hat responsibility any time soon. Accuracy of GPS is not enough for lane keeping anyway, errors associated with radio propagation in ionosphere are pretty tough. Differential GPS may solve the issue, but would create another layer of complexity.

As I understand it, most driving GPS systems fudge the location to place you on the highway anyway, so we are unaware of the inaccuracy.  For example, parked in my driveway usually places me in the middle of the highway.

I have seen articles about placing magnets or transponders into the pavement as supplements to road sensing. As you stated that is a much higher level of complexity and effort.  I suspect until we get "smart roadways", self driving cars will be severely limited.

Quote from: kalvado on April 07, 2016, 07:21:00 AM

Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2016, 09:31:03 PM
I don't feel like waiting  for the car to come back when I want to leave somewhere.

Do you feel like waiting for the bus to take you to the parking lot 2 miles away? I've been to such places...

I try to avoid such places...

Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2016, 09:31:03 PM
I don't feel like waiting  for the car to come back when I want to leave somewhere.

If you're at a movie, text the car as you get up from your seat and it would probably be there by the time you get to the curb.

Quote from: Revive 755 on April 06, 2016, 10:53:57 PM
http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/pubs/itcd/reduced.pdf (http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/pubs/itcd/reduced.pdf)
Basically less than Level A but higher than Level C.

Level C being closed to the public and gated.  Why don't they just decommission them as public roads?

Quote from: US 41 on April 06, 2016, 10:09:12 PM
There's got to be a point at where humans just need to do things themselves and I think driving is one of those areas. If you don't want to drive then live in a big city where you can take public transportation anywhere you want to go. If you want to take a vacation from NYC to Miami then either fly or take a Greyhound. I don't understand what is so hard about this logic.

That logic isn't in question; it just won't apply in our hypothetical future the same way it does today. In short, your belief that driving is something we need to do for ourselves, while commonly held today, will be held by far fewer people.