Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by samzenpus on from the bad-idea dept.

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.

49 of 406 comments (clear)

  1. hear hear! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    already "hear" huh? wow...

    1. Re:hear hear! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      What? Speak up, I can barely here you.

    2. Re:hear hear! by frovingslosh · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yup. And they wrote that while calling someone else an idiot.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    3. Re:hear hear! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your an idiot!

    4. Re:hear hear! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're doing it wrong, it's supposed to be "Your and idiot."

      Trolling is a art.

    5. Re:hear hear! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can you here me now?

    6. Re:hear hear! by Arancaytar · · Score: 2

      Yet calls other people idiots.

  2. 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 ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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 was my first thought. Idiots like this guy are the problem. Fully autonomous vehicles are the solution.

    3. Re:Huh? by Ichijo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Anything that *almost* removes the need for you to be behind the wheel is an accident waiting to happen.

      Like Asiana 214, where the pilots didn't know how to fly the plane manually.

      Or like the way that, in the name of safety, we've removed trees from the sides of roads because drivers kept hitting them. Now drivers go even faster on those same roads and hit pedestrians who are no longer protected by the trees. How's that for progress?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    4. Re:Huh? by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      You'd think these cars would have a sensor in the seat to detect if there's a driver or not.
      I mean, newish cars already have them in the passenger seat to enable/disable the passenger side air bags.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:Huh? by fractoid · · Score: 4, Informative

      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?

      Spot on. It doesn't improve safety in any way shape or form. It's just a liability dodge. So far, vehicle manufacturers have been able to offload responsibility for crashes onto the drivers involved unless it's provable that the car was engineered wrongly.

      Fully autonomous vehicles are scary for manufacturers because they potentially shift all liability to the manufacturer. This is made worse by the fact that, while people are willing to accept "human error" from a human driver, they become outraged if a machine makes a mistake, even if the machine is 100x more reliable than a human. This is a mindset that will have to change as machines become more aware of their surroundings and start making higher level decisions.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    6. Re:Huh? by mjwx · · Score: 3, 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?

      This is why autonomous cars are a long while away, sure we'll be 99% of the way there by 2018, it's that last 1% that's the bitch.

      We cant remove the human from the link until we are 100% certain that the computer can make decisions better than a very good driver.

      A few weeks ago a friend of mine was in a rear end collision with one of those new Ford Kuga SUV's which advertise automatic emergency brakes... They dont work, even if they did engage they wouldn't have stopped in time because their based on a dry stopping distance, not a wet one (it's winter here in Oz). We cant even get simple systems to work reliably.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    7. Re:Huh? by Bonobo_Unknown · · Score: 5, Informative

      In the olden days everyone was too drunk while driving to be scared of the steel spear waiting to impale them for their driving mistakes.

      --
      We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
    8. 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.
    9. Re:Huh? by iksbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    10. Re:Huh? by mjwx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nonsense. The computer only needs to be markedly better than an *average* driver to be a huge safety win.

      Nope,

      Firstly people will never accept that. It needs to be far superior in order to be accepted by the general public.

      Secondly, the average driver in the US is considered a very poor driver by Australian standards... and the Germans/English are better than us.

      Thirdly, idiots tend to make different mistakes, computers will always make the same ones. For this reason, autonomous systems need to be far superior to the average driver as 1 in 1000 events on the road will catch maybe 1% of average drivers (because they fail in different ways) but if it gets 1 autonomous car, it will get others as well (because they all fail in the same way). For this reason, it needs to be able to avoid more risks than the average driver. Ironically, the unpredictability of bad drivers helps protect them and make them better than autonomous systems even thought their unpredictability is the biggest thing making them a bad driver.

      It's getting that last 1% right that will take the most time.

      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.

      Back to my example about the Ford SUV.

      Ford programmed it for dry conditions, it does not perform as well in the wet (sometimes it does not even work at all, as my friends Prelude found out the hard way). That system doesn't take into account the differing environmental conditions, it doesn't know if the road is smooth or coarse, wet or dry, tarmac or gravel. All of these factors make massive differences in braking distance.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    11. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now it's my wife. Progress?

    12. Re:Huh? by stdarg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People tend to think of average as mean, so it's entirely possible (and likely I think) that most drivers are better than the mean.

      That's because there are a bunch of decent drivers, and a few who are really atrocious and shouldn't be driving. I'm guessing the distribution looks something like:

      2% Excellent: not only do they not cause accidents, they avoid them and make everybody safer with their driving habits
      88% Good: not always 100% defensive so susceptible to things like sudden braking, but generally good drivers if nothing unexpected happens
      10% Bad: weaving through traffic, speeding in residential areas, turning or backing up without looking, etc

      So 90% of the population is "above average" (mean).

    13. Re:Huh? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Having lived in Australia and the UK as well as driven a motorcycle 20000km around Europe and a car from LA to Miami I feel that I can comment without the citation.

      Germany have the best drivers as they have the highest standard of awareness of other drivers on the road and they are very consistent in what they do. The behaviour on their autobahns and highways is completely predictable. The UK you need to learn what is the etiquette in order to be comfortable. They drive faster than their continental cousins on the same grade road, they tend to follow closer and generally require a lower gap. That said they are acutely aware of every other car on the road. They can do the zip merge and will let people in but if you are not from the uk you will find the spaces small.

      America tends to be the opposite end of the spectrum to the UK. Technically I am sure their driving skills are find but awareness of others on the road appears to be zero. Keeping to the slow lane also seems to be an unknown art. Also on smaller streets stop signs and the like seem to be on a do I feel like following this today setup. If you are merging onto a highway you can pretty much bet the cars on the highway won't speed up or slow down to make life easier for you.

      Australia sits half way between the UK and USA. There is slightly more awareness of other drivers (but not enough) people will accept a smaller gap and are more consistent drivers. Running stop signs and traffic lights is a big no no in Australia and most people don't do it.

    14. Re:Huh? by Immerman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have no doubt that's what auto-makers would *like* to have happen - whether we let them or not is a separate question.

      But really, despite driving many cars there's only one AI - and every instance has exactly the same strengths and weaknesses. So why not insure the one driver, and thus incentivize the company to continuously improve it. Version 8.31.2036 has had an accident - get cracking boys, we want to fix the problem and deploy it as widely as possible before the next accident occurs.

      Make owners carry the liability and you're setting yourself up for a "smartphone" style ecosystem where most cars only get one or two updates, at best. Instead insurance will go up steadily for old cars as flaws are revealed, destroying the budget used-car market, much to the delight of the auto-manufacturers who created the flaws in the first place (unintentionally I hope).

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    15. Re:Huh? by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      Good point with liability, and I'd have to say liability for autonomous driving systems *should* be 100% on the manufacturer.

      That could be workable, with a few stipulations:

      1. The car costs significantly more to cover that liability.
      2. The "driver" is no longer legally required to have insurance, since the risk is assumed by the computer/manufacturer.

      I'd be willing to pay more for the car if I didn't have to pay for insurance, sine the balance should work out in my favour over time. But if you expect the car company to pay for the accidents, AND you want me to buy insurance ... that's just a non-starter.

    16. Re:Huh? by RogueyWon · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, there are plenty of other reasons why we remove trees from the sides of roads. Dropped leaves (which can increase braking distances significantly), dropped branches, the chance of the tree falling onto the road during a storm, the risk of obscuring signage and, if the road is below the level of the terrain to either side of it, the chance of roots undermining the banks and causing a landslip.

      By and large, while it's never going to be economical or appropriate everywhere, you don't want trees close to major roads.

      I've worked in transportation for a good number of years and have been involved in this issue. I don't think "because drivers keep hitting them" ever came up as a reason.

      Oh, and it's even more important on the railway. People laugh at the thought on "leaves on the line" causing delays and assume it's just a bullshit excuse. It isn't. What leaves do to trains' ability to accelerate and brake is much, much worse than ice.

    17. Re:Huh? by N1AK · · Score: 2

      Not so much missing, as not relevant to the point he was making. The fact you missed his point: I don't think "because drivers keep hitting them" ever came up as a reason. and also missed it when he said: By and large, while it's never going to be economical or appropriate everywhere, you don't want trees close to major roads. and decided to make up a disagreement doesn't reflect well on your understanding of the conversation.

    18. Re:Huh? by twosat · · Score: 4, Funny

      "...Fully autonomous vehicles are the solution".

      There's an aviation joke that says something similar: The cockpit of the future will contain a pilot and a dog. The pilot is there to feed the dog. The dog is there to bite the pilot if he tries to touch anything.

    19. Re:Huh? by sudon't · · Score: 2

      Computers and code always function perfectly, and never fail. Have you ever had a computer crash while you were doing something important? Of course not. I will happily put my life, (and yours), in the hands of a computer.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

  3. 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.

  4. It's a matter of expectations by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's an old urban legend about a guy leaving the driver's seat of an RV (on cruise control) to use the bathroom. Personally I've never believed it, but it does serve to illustrate something about expectations.

    Judgement (and self-preservation) isn't a step function, it's more like a bell curve. And you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be a hopefully small but nevertheless significant portion of the population, down on the left end of the curve, who will think it's ok to have nobody in the driver's seat, or (more likely) someone asleep in the driver's seat, while the car is driving itself. It's statistically inevitable.

    ...because the expectation, among the unwashed public, is that a self-driving car will, you know, drive itself. It's even in the name. That there still has to be an operator in the driver's seat with hands near controls and looking outside is counter-intuitive to the concept of "a self-driving car".

    I mean geeze, google "autopilot related accidents". And pilots get a lot more training than mere automobile drivers.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:It's a matter of expectations by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 2

      This video is nothing more than an ad.

      There's an old urban legend about a guy leaving the driver's seat of an RV (on cruise control) to use the bathroom. Personally I've never believed it, but it does serve to illustrate something about expectations.

      My story was setting the cruise control on the RV on a straight section of road to fix themselves a drink, which of course the van crashed.

  5. Hyundai did something similar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hyundai did a similar stunt (though using professionals on closed road):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbjdmw8D9-Y

  6. No, this is proof we need autonomous vehicles by dottrap · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, this is proof we need autonomous vehicles. Consider the current alternative that these "idiots" are driving.

  7. Picture in my head was better by gman003 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The image I had in my head, for some reason, was the driver leaving the car itself, which drove off without him. Apparently he wasn't stupid enough to do that, which is unfortunate because that would have been absolutely hilarious.

    1. Re:Picture in my head was better by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2

      That's actually kind of a funny idea...

      Step 1: Set Cruise Control to 90 MPH.
      Step 2: Activate Lane Control.
      Step 3: Exit the vehicle. Yes, I know this is the hard part.
      Step 4: Find a local bar and watch the police chase your car.

      You might need to place a mannequin or something in the drivers seat...

  8. Re:Lawn mowers by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    it should detect no one is sitting in the driver's seat, and safely slow to a halt.

    I disagree. We should not interfere with Darwinian evolution.

  9. Darwin Award Contestant? by Calibax · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's pretty clear that this is merely a failed attempt to win a Darwin Award. Perhaps he needs to try the same thing on a windy road.

  10. Re:Lawn mowers by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 2

    Yes, safely slow to a halt. Then get fatally rear-ended by the vehicle behind you because its driver was (a) following too closely and/or (b) not paying attention and/or (c) didn't get his brakes repaired.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canadian-woman-who-stopped-to-save-ducks-on-highway-faces-jail-over-crash-9554721.html

  11. 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

  12. Shhh by dmomo · · Score: 2

    Autonomous cars already hear.

  13. Re:Wait you want me to drive? by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

    I really don't understand the need of having the human ready to take over in a emergency.

    Because the "emergencies" that an autonomous vehicle will have will mostly be created by the autonomous vehicle system itself. Like not correctly detecting a small human darting into the street ahead of it, coming to a halt in the middle of traffic because it lost communication with a critical sensor, etc. And because the computer, no matter how well programmed by the smartest people in the room, will not have covered every contingency that could pop up in real life. Humans are just more adaptable than fixed-programmed computers.

    Yeah, humans fail. We understand. Computers fail, too, which is something that the autonomous vehicle proponents tend to forget. And hyping the perfection of a system that is not yet in existence and hasn't been tested at full scale is how the material in Risks Digest gets created.

  14. Re:Lawn mowers by riverat1 · · Score: 2

    My first take is to agree with you but like drunk driving the idiot may end up killing others who had nothing to do with his idiocy other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

  15. 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!

  16. Re:Submission with a spelling error, say it isn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    WE DON'T HAVE VERY MANY AUTOMATIC TRAINS IN THE WORLD, the reason is because they have to contend with stupid drivers and jaywalkers.

    Really? Bet you $500 it has more to do with unions than safety. Most trains can not stop to avoid drivers or jaywalkers. That's why there are train crossings where the cars and peds stop.....simply because the train can not. Trains are much easier to automate than cars or planes, having been done as early as 1961. Today there are several automated passenger trains, I rode on one at the San Fran airport earlier this year.

    Self-driving cars will never succeed.

    Driverless cars will probably be mandatory in the future, and my guess is that the insurance will become so prohibitively high, that you'll find it much cheaper to buy an automated car.

    Year 2045, scene courtroom

    Lawyer: So, sir, you (incredulously)willing chose to drive the vehicle by hand?

    Defendant: Yes, I did! I just wanted to exercise my right to enjoy driving my car

    Lawyer: Well, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant freely admits to wanton and willfully endangering everyone else on the road! You must find him guilty!

    Or if you prefer the scene from I,Robot:

    Lt. John Bergin: What is the matter with you? Traffic Ops tells me you're driving your car manually. You ran two trucks off the road!

  17. The old adage goes... by MrKaos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You can't make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  18. Re:Submission with a spelling error, say it isn't by flyneye · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In the end, the need to get home from the bar w/o a D.U.I. will drive the technology.
    Perhaps this was just a drunk, in question. We'll call him a philosopher scientist, in a flash of dead brilliance, he reasons the cops can't give him a D.U.I. if he isn't driving. Others round the world, resonating sympathetically, will do the same. THEN, the self driving GOOGLE map using Smart Cars will take your drunk ass through a bad neighborhood before inevitably breaking down. Oh, of course there will be nice stories, like pregnant lady gets to the E.R. to spew quints ,in a self driven chariot.
    Strange stories, guy tells car to go to Best Buy, car takes him to Best Buy in a distant city. Auto Erotic stories, Exhibitionist couples lacking the task of driving, screw in the back seat, Daredevils on the hood.
                I don't think safety issues will stop anyone, anymore than obvious ones with explosives, alcohol and indiscriminate unprotected sex. It doesn't matter if they don't work , at first, it makes good news copy. These are humans we are talking about , right?

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  19. Re:Lawn mowers by Wycliffe · · Score: 2

    What the car needs to do is find the nearest exit, pull off, and then pull onto the shoulder.
      Then once stopped, automatically deploy the artificial arm and slap the driver firmly about the head and shoulders.

    I was thinking something similiar but I was thinking it should lock all the doors and wait for the police to arrive.
    I'm pretty sure leaving your seat when the car is on glorified cruise control is grounds for reckless endangerment
    which in the US is just as bad if not worse than a DUI/DWI.

  20. Re:Lawn mowers by Greyfox · · Score: 2

    Indeed! That's why my suggestion was that instead of airbags we have sharp deadly AIRSPIKES! If you're in an accident, the airsplke stabs you in the face! I'll bet you'll pay some serious attention driving, THEN! If not now, then in a couple of generations once the people who don't pay enough attention to avoid getting an airspike in the face have weeded themselves out of the gene pool!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  21. Atlanta traffic by sabbede · · Score: 2

    is why I feel secure in saying that we absolutely need self-driving cars. Stupid Humans make traffic a nightmare. Self driving cars won't stop three lanes of traffic trying to cut ahead of everyone at an exit, block the passing lane, weave all over because they're too busy on the phone, or make congestion worse by constantly trying to change lanes.