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.

22 of 406 comments (clear)

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

    What? Speak up, I can barely here you.

  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 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Re:Huh? by iksbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

  3. 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.
  4. 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.

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

    Your an idiot!

  6. 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.
  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. 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

  10. 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!

  11. 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.

  12. 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!