Self Driving Cars Having Issues With Poor US Roads

[kalvado]

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.

[Brandon]

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.

[empirestate]

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

[Sykotyk]

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

[Joe The Dragon]

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

[Sykotyk]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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.
 

[empirestate]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

[kalvado]

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.

[Revive 755]

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.

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.

[Scott5114]

Uneven signage? Self-driving cars process signs?

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

[vdeane]

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.

[MikeTheActuary]

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.

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...)

[MisterSG1]

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.

[Sykotyk]

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?

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...)

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.

[empirestate]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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! 

[kalvado]

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.

[Katavia]

We have dirt roads here. 

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:




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?

[jeffandnicole]

We have dirt roads here. 

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:




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.

[vdeane]

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.

[empirestate]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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!

[kalvado]

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

[MikeTheActuary]

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"?