Slashdot Mirror


Idiot Leaves Driver's Seat In Self-Driving Infiniti, On the Highway

cartechboy writes Self-driving cars are coming, that's nothing new. People are somewhat nervous about this technology, and that's also not news. But it appears self-driving cars are already here, and one idiot was dumb enough to climb out of the driver's seat while his car cruised down the highway. The car in question is a new Infiniti Q50, which has Active Lane Control and adaptive cruise control. Both of which essentially turn the Q50 into an autonomous vehicle while at highway speeds. While impressive, taking yourself out of a position where you can quickly and safely regain control of the car if needed is simply dumb. After watching the video, it's abundantly clear why people should be nervous about autonomous vehicles. It's not the cars and tech we need to worry about, it's idiots like this guy.

8 of 406 comments (clear)

  1. Huh? by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

    After watching the video, it's abundantly clear why people should be nervous about autonomous vehicles.

    No, it's clear why we should be worried about almost-but-not-really autonomous vehicles, in the real deal this would be fine. If we could get this guy as far away from a steering wheel as possible, it'd be perfect.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Huh? by Immerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Absolutely. Anything that *almost* removes the need for you to be behind the wheel is an accident waiting to happen. Even if you remain in your seat, what are the odds that you'll remain alert and aware of the surrounding traffic after the 100th commute where it proved completely unnecessary to do so?

      Either give me a car that will let me take a nap while it drives, or leave me in control. I've got better things to do than babysit a computer

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:Huh? by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nonsense. The computer only needs to be markedly better than an *average* driver to be a huge safety win. It doesn't even need to *always* be better than the average driver - if it can reliably avoid 90% of the most common accidents, then even it it fails spectacularly in the last 10% of edge cases, and even if humans would have avoided 100% of those, the autonomous systems will still have reduced the number of accidents by a factor of 9.

      That said, I wouldn't trust the current auto manufacturers to do the job properly, they mostly can't even install a media system without also potentially letting anyone with a bluetooth rifle take complete control of the critical electronics. But there are folks doing some really impressive driving systems - I've even seen one that can drive professional road-racing courses flawlessly, with near-professional lap times. And yes, it can even do so in the rain.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Huh? by iksbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the olden days, the horse knew the way home.

  2. It's not autonomous by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's partially autonomous. And that's why it is so dangerous.

    After watching the video, it's abundantly clear why people should be nervous about autonomous vehicles. It's not the cars and tech we need to worry about, it's idiots like this guy.

    Once we actually have autonomous vehicles --- this won't be an issue as a human operator won't even be required for safe operation; only to provide instructions about where to go.

  3. Re:Submission with a spelling error, say it isn't by NEDHead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would guess that the number of stupid jaywalkers will diminish quickly

  4. Right. This is the "deadly valley" by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, it's clear why we should be worried about almost-but-not-really autonomous vehicles, in the real deal this would be fine.

    That's right. Automatic lane keeping plus radar-based cruise control is right in the middle of the "deadly valley" - good enough to allow hands-off driving 98% of the time, not good enough to handle trouble. This is why that Cruise startup building a budget self-driving system worries me. Thos guys are from "social" apps. They're thinking they can ship something that sort of works, and that's good enough. It isn't.

    Auto manufacturers are held to a much higher standard than the computer industry is used to. GM is being sued because their ignition switches could turn off if people hung too much crap on their keychain. (Something unlikely to be caught in testing, because, at the test track, each key hangs on a separate key tag.) "Speeding, cellphone texting, intoxication... irrelevant. We are not looking at the driver, or the circumstances of the driver's negligence. We are looking at the automobile, and only the automobile." - terms of the GM settlement.

    The minimum safe level of performance for a self-driving car is that the vehicle must be able to bring itself to a safe stop, preferably at the side of the road, in any emerging bad situation. Even after any single-point failure.

    Few computer based consumer products meet that standard, but a some do. The Segway is a good example. There's enough redundancy in a Segway to keep single failures from face-planting the user. Five rate gyros instead of three, two batteries, two processors, and a safety shutdown mode that brings the vehicle to a stop and sounds alarms to tell you to get off before it fails.

    1. Re:Right. This is the "deadly valley" by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They did test it, identified a problem early, and then the engineer responsible suppressed the results to avoid having the mistake next to his name.

      There were already engineering standards regarding heavy keychains, and related testing procedures. That is why they fired 15 people, instead of calling it a learning opportunity. The only opportunity for learning is learning not to be dishonest. That is also why there is a criminal probe.

      The only reason the public found out and the recall happened was because of a wrongful death lawsuit where the lawyer learned about it through discovery. This is one of those cases where the lawyers were actually more honest (or more risk-averse) than the engineers!