Lyft CEO: Self-Driving Cars Aren't the Future

Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-18 18:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't the future.

Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by pollarda · 2015-03-18 18:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

That may be true. However, self driving cars are an entirely different matter. While they are really cool, do you really want to be in one hurling down the highway at 85MPH (I'm in Utah) and trusting that the automated systems are going to know the difference between a coyote or a tumbleweed? There are an incredible number of obstacles that a person can instantly recognize that even today, a computer can't. If a child and a dog run out into the street at the same time from opposite sides, do you trust the car to make the right decision as to which it will run over? How would you like to be legally responsible for your self driving car if it runs over a child? What about black ice? What if a person is in the road and the car has a choice of running over the person or crashing and possibly killing you. Do you trust the car to make the right decision?
As much as I like software (and writing it), there are IMHO too many judgement calls for a computer and in many situations too many for a lot of (supposedly sane) people.
The only way I can see self driving cars really working is to have special roads to carry them. These would be isolated from regular traffic and most of the regular road hazards. They would be in many ways analogous to a set of rail road tracks. (You don't see trains often running into problems with obstacles -- though when they do, the train usually comes out ahead.) Once you get to where you generally plan on going, you jump off and drive the rest of the way manually.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-18 19:12 · Score: 2

I notice that a lot of your examples are the type of "You are already screwed."
The point of self driving cars is that they don't take the risks humans do and don't end up in those situations.
Also, in the examples you mentioned it is pretty common for humans drivers to panic and make the wrong or no decision, heck, I've even seen drivers let go of the steering wheel when panicking.
So to the question whether I trust a car to make the right decision the answer is that I know that I don't trust human drivers. I'm willing to try automatic drivers and see if they are any better.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by MalleusEBHC · 2015-03-18 19:34 · Score: 5, Informative

Not only do automated cars not panic, but they can notify and coordinate with other cars on the road. With human drivers, even if you spot the obstacle up ahead, what's to prevent the asshole behind you from rear-ending you as you brake? With automated cars, the braking car can signal the cars behind it, and they can start applying the brakes before it's even humanly possible to react.
Automated cars will surely not be perfect, but human drivers have an atrocious safety record.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by ShanghaiBill · 2015-03-18 19:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

SDCs are not perfect. They will make mistakes. But, because of faster reaction times, and 100% attention span, they will make fewer mistakes than humans. If a dog and a child run into the road at the same time, a human might make a better decision, or a computer might make a better decision, but the computer will certainly have an extra 500ms of braking time.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Dog-Cow · 2015-03-18 19:56 · Score: 2

Compare the number of miles driven and/or the number of distinct trips to the number of accidents. I think you will find that humans are far from being atrocious drivers. Don't let confirmation bias cloud your thinking.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Hognoxious · 2015-03-18 19:58 · Score: 2

Barber tells me I need a haircut, shampoo maker says long hair is trendy.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Gaygirlie · 2015-03-18 20:47 · Score: 1

Personally, I believe that all the issues you mentioned are only functions of time; given enough time all cars will be self-driving and all such issues will be solved. I do agree that all cars won't be self-driving any time soon, but I see no technical reason for why these things would suddenly stop advancing at some arbitrary point before such things can be ironed out.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by jandersen · 2015-03-18 20:53 · Score: 2

The only way I can see self driving cars really working is to have special roads to carry them.
This may well be the best way to do it, at least initially. A sort of small train wagons that could aggregate into whole train sets for part of the way and split off to different routes when appropriate. The biggest problem with public transport atm is that trains and buses are too inflexible - they don't go exactly to where people need them, and they too often aren't full to capacity - and when they are full, they are usually not big enough. A system of self-driving cars could address both problems, thereby becoming competitive with private cars, plus, they could be better optimsed for fuel efficiency, since they won't be driven by impatient drivers; if you don't have to keep your eyes on the road, you won't mind too much that you aren't driving as fast as possible. And of course, a well managed network of automatic vehicles would be able to avoid congestion most of the time simply by coordinating the way each vehicle moves.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by leenks · 2015-03-18 20:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

More like 1500ms of braking time (it is likely the child / dog running into the road is an unexpected event so reaction times are *much* slower).
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by tinkerton · 2015-03-18 21:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's easy to see that self driving cars will come if you look at it as a feature. Take a normal car with a self driving button that you can switch on and off at your own judgement. You don't have to use it, but slowly you start to detect situations where the self driving button comes in really handy, such as traffic jams. And then some slow city traffic. And as confidence grows you switch it on on a long highway journey.
So you end up with all the cars having the option but some never use it, others sometime, some as much as possible.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Firethorn · 2015-03-18 21:45 · Score: 1

There are an incredible number of obstacles that a person can instantly recognize that even today, a computer can't. If a child and a dog run out into the street at the same time from opposite sides, do you trust the car to make the right decision as to which it will run over?
Odds are that if the car's in a residential location where that's likely, it's going slow enough that it can either stop in time to avoid hitting both, or it's so close that neither the human nor the computer would have the choice of which to hit.
In testing, the computer driven cars are generally able to stop so much faster than a human that, in a case where a human has to 'make' a horrible choice of what to hit, the computer driven car has already stopped short.

--
I don't read AC A human right
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Aereus · 2015-03-18 21:54 · Score: 1

Considering just the bottom line, I see automated vehicles as an inevitability, whether we like it or not. Companies will always seek more profit, and what's cheaper than having a driver you don't have to pay, works 24/7, will never complain or quit, and doesn't need benefits either. Lobbying will make this happen. They already own congress.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Paradise+Pete · 2015-03-18 22:31 · Score: 1

Come on. You think these problems won't be solved? Travelling by automobile is one of the most dangerous things people regularly do. Autonomous cars don't need to be perfect, just significantly better than humans. That's not a high bar. It won't happen all at once, but rather bit by bit. One day children will look back at the grisly statistics of death and disablement and be horrified. 91 people a day are killed in an automobile in the US. If that was from, say, the flu, the country would be in a state of absolute panic and it would dominate the news.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-18 22:35 · Score: 1

It's all about statistics. If the accident rate for SDC vs human is 1:5, it doesn't matter if they choose to save the life of the dog instead of that of the child. It sounds terribly harsh, but you still save more children by having the SDC do the driving. The effect larger than you would think because a simultaneous appearance of child+dog is less likely than one or the other).
Disclaimer: 1:5 is just a random example, but I'm 100% confident we'll get there (and even better).
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by JMJimmy · 2015-03-18 23:07 · Score: 1

Great examples. Self-driving cars will never become a reality for a simple reason: liability. Can you really hold a person responsible for "decisions" of less than perfect software? That means the entire liability falls on the company making/using the software. Even the mighty Google couldn't afford the insurance policy for something like that.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by nospam007 · 2015-03-18 23:12 · Score: 1

"While they are really cool, do you really want to be in one hurling down the highway at 85MPH (I'm in Utah) and trusting that the automated systems are going to know the difference between a coyote or a tumbleweed?"
First, it will be able to tell the difference about 50 times faster than you.
Second, are you afraid it would brake for the tumbleweed and lose you 2 seconds on the way?
"There are an incredible number of obstacles that a person can instantly recognize that even today, a computer can't."
On my block a few kids put a brick in a paper bag on the street every other day, lot's of human drivers recognize it immediately as a paper bag and try to run over it. So much for the better intelligence.
" If a child and a dog run out into the street at the same time from opposite sides, do you trust the car to make the right decision as to which it will run over? How would you like to be legally responsible for your self driving car if it runs over a child?"
Automobile companies kill people every day by the dozens with non-self-driving cars, General Motors anyone?
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by gl4ss · 2015-03-18 23:34 · Score: 1

look, for majority of the roads it would take 50+ odd years to FOREVER to get them into shape for automatic cars.
besides, then lyft would just buy a bunch of those.
in closed areas and such.. sure.. automation works.. it's those areas where they're already being used in different industries.
despite the hype we are not really at a point where there would be even regular route automated taxis anywhere, which would be miles simpler than automated taxis from anywhere to anywhere.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Prof.Phreak · 2015-03-19 00:02 · Score: 1

All your concerns are valid, BUT, do you really think that "average human driver" makes the right decisions that much better than the potentially *random* behavior an automated car will display in all these extreme scenarios? Yes, lets say an automated car runs over a child (and saves the dog)... but do you really think the "average human drive" would do any better???
My guess, automated systems will prove to be several orders of magnitude safer overall than current human operators... there will still be accidents, but they'll be much more rare (and perhaps much more deadly, but if accident rate goes to 1% of what it is now, that would be huge---so much so that human driving may actually be banned on most streets).
Kind of like "most car accidents involving trucks" are *not* caused by the truck driver mistake... the future automated car accidents will probably not be caused by computer error, but by someone being stupid around one.
Imagine everyone staying in lane, maintaining speed, distance, etc. And actually driving the posted speed limit on city streets (even automation wouldn't have much problem slowing down from 25mph for a child (or dog, or tumbleweed) on the road).

--
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by AikonMGB · 2015-03-19 00:07 · Score: 1

That may be true. However, self driving cars are an entirely different matter. While they are really cool, do you really want to be in one hurling down the highway at 85MPH (I'm in Utah) and trusting that the automated systems are going to know the difference between a coyote or a tumbleweed?
Yes. In fact hopefully it is (much) faster, since the self-driving cars will be so much more reliable than meat-popsicle cars.

There are an incredible number of obstacles that a person can instantly recognize that even today, a computer can't. If a child and a dog run out into the street at the same time from opposite sides, do you trust the car to make the right decision as to which it will run over?
First, a person can't instantly recognize anything. We have significantly longer reaction times than computer systems. If a child and a dog run out into the street at the same time, a self-driving car has a better chance of hitting neither of them. A human on the other hand will take a lot longer to start braking at all, and in all probability (if the time scales are so low), not actually put any thought or reasoning behind their reaction, they will just try to swerve out of the way, possibly resulting in both being hit.

How would you like to be legally responsible for your self driving car if it runs over a child? What about black ice? What if a person is in the road and the car has a choice of running over the person or crashing and possibly killing you. Do you trust the car to make the right decision?
I wouldn't really like to be liable for those things, but I wouldn't really like to be liable if I did them either. That said, you are absolutely correct in that there are deep legal questions to be answered before we can have ubiquitous self-driving cars. At first blush it seems like the manufacturers are the correct place to put the liability, as in a properly designed system, the only input the driver should have is the destination. You can obviously expect them to fight tooth and nail to not take on this liability, though. It's a very interesting question, but let's actually try to answer it instead of just saying it doesn't work in the currently existing legal framework.

As much as I like software (and writing it), there are IMHO too many judgement calls for a computer and in many situations too many for a lot of (supposedly sane) people.
The only way I can see self driving cars really working is to have special roads to carry them. These would be isolated from regular traffic and most of the regular road hazards. They would be in many ways analogous to a set of rail road tracks.
That's one possibility yes, but the reason for it would be to keep the dangerous meat-popsicle cars away from the much safer, much faster, much more efficiently packed autonomous cars.

(You don't see trains often running into problems with obstacles -- though when they do, the train usually comes out ahead.)
I see you don't watch the news. Trains derail all the time, wrecking much of their cargo, sometimes spilling nasty chemicals.

Once you get to where you generally plan on going, you jump off and drive the rest of the way manually.
So what you are proposing is... a train network. That seems to have worked out incredibly well. Sarcasm aside, it absolutely has for its use-case, but you still see millions of single-occupant cars on the road every day for a reason; that's not going away.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by BlindRobin · 2015-03-19 00:10 · Score: 1

Seeing that in a more sane world ~90% of the people operating motor vehicles would not be allowed to as they lack the ability to do so in a consistently safe manner I find your argument spurious and rather myopic.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Prof.Phreak · 2015-03-19 00:11 · Score: 1

Very likely the reverse.
I'd imagine that most accidents involving automated cars will *provably* (video and telemetry info and all that) be human operator's fault (or the other driver)... suddenly humans will find their insurance go sky high, while insuring a self driving car will be dirt cheap (they'll be harder to steal too).

--
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Jack+Griffin · 2015-03-19 00:11 · Score: 1

The problem is that in the big city with all sorts of chaos, your self-driving car is going to crawl at 5km/h to avoid *every* possible hazards. Part of a successful commute is to accept some of those risks, but a computer won't be legally allowed to permit that.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by AikonMGB · 2015-03-19 00:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

For what, +1 Irrational Fear? Seems like that should be -1 to me. You won't see ubiquitous self-driving cars until the system is better than meat-popsicle cars. Once that happens, the rational argument flips: "do you want some incompetent person driving a hunk of steel on a road near where your child plays? *shudder* Think of what would happen if that human had to react to something!"
Sure, you could say you don't think self-driving cars will ever be safer than meat-popsicle cars, but that's like saying "640 kB ought to be enough for anybody". Technology is advancing at a staggering pace, and these systems are only getting better and more reliable.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Jack+Griffin · 2015-03-19 00:17 · Score: 1

The biggest problem with public transport atm is that trains and buses are too inflexible - they don't go exactly to where people need them,
The biggest problem with public transport is the lack of support from govt to implement it properly. If you design and zone your city around your public transport then it does indeed go everywhere you need it. The problem in the West is we planned cities around the dream of the motor car and sprawling suburbs, then when we finally realised that that design doesn't scale well, tried to tack some buses and trains in where could and ended up with a mess.
If you've ever been to Hong Kong or Singapore, they have good examples of Public Transport done right. High Density stations with cheap and rapid transport.
Re: Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by gladish · 2015-03-19 00:20 · Score: 1

I think the issue is more about whether people will trust a machine to make qualitative decisions on their behalf. I don't think I would. For starters, we've demonstrated time and again they were incapable of making reliable computer systems, and nevermind secure from tampering. Who can ensure me that the guidance system isn't going to core dump at high speed and slam on the brakes or worse? Secondly, how do test this system? There seems to be way too many scenarios where the best answer is subjective. You'd have to trust a computer system to evaluate risk where human life is at stake. I think the systems that Mercedes is building is much better. It seems to me they're heading towards a more augmented reality with feedback that can suggest a good choice, but allow me to make the final decision. If you're not familiar, they do the beak pedal tap and steering jar thing. That's at least a system I can trust. Then there's the whole liability thing. Does a self driving car come with the "this shit probably doesn't work" license like all other software? And lastly, the cost. What's the expected cost of a self driving car that's sure to be worthless on the used car market? I'd say in 10 years you'll still be buying vehicles that you command, and the more advanced stuff found in higher end cars will be had in lower cost vehicles.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by DrXym · 2015-03-19 00:32 · Score: 1

It'll blow even for every day use. Does the car know that the street is closed and there is a diversion is in place? Or that the car in front is reverse parking into a space and not nudge up his ass while he does so? Or that the street lights are faulty and how to navigate safely in such an event? Or how to obey a cop's hand signals (and not some crazy guy's)? Or see the temporary stop/go signs some roadworkers put up? Or to signal to the pedestrian that we'll wait for them to cross the junction? Or give priority to the oncoming driver in a narrow road? Or what a pothole is and how to avoid it? Or not to drive through dangerous parts of town? Or how to drive and navigate through a tunnel, carpark or other area where GPS or radio is down?
Even if the car were able to come to some reasonable solution 90% of the time it would still blow for the 10% of the time when it didn't. It also rules out any chance that we'll see cars where the driver can sleep (or be passed out), or there is no human passenger at all. Because cars will get stuck and will need extrication.
The most likely place I see self drive occurring is vehicles shuttling people around airport terminals or between hotels and conference centres on closed tracks. A predictable, relatively contained system where the number of variables is limited and manageable. Even then there is probably a guy in a booth whose job it is to extricate the car when its sensors are confused by a leaf or a piece of junk and refuse to move without a human to override the system.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by DrXym · 2015-03-19 00:35 · Score: 1

Assuming the car behind is using Google's self drive protocol and not Tesla's and assuming that the latency, bandwidth and compute power of this hypothetical cloud of cars is sufficient to avoid such a collision.
Re: Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-19 00:38 · Score: 1

At 80mph presently you are trusting that your car's computers don't already fail, there are dozens of systems in a car already.
And to juxtapose with non-self driving cars, you as a human have faults. At 80mph you can only hope that you won't have a stroke, aneurism, panic attack, etc...
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by DrXym · 2015-03-19 00:42 · Score: 1

Because there is nothing to say a human driven car can't contain collision avoidance software for such an eventuality. As some cars already do. It's not self drive car or nothing.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by conquistadorst · 2015-03-19 00:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

For what, +1 Irrational Fear? Seems like that should be -1 to me. You won't see ubiquitous self-driving cars until the system is better than meat-popsicle cars. Once that happens, the rational argument flips: "do you want some incompetent person driving a hunk of steel on a road near where your child plays? *shudder* Think of what would happen if that human had to react to something!"
Sure, you could say you don't think self-driving cars will ever be safer than meat-popsicle cars, but that's like saying "640 kB ought to be enough for anybody". Technology is advancing at a staggering pace, and these systems are only getting better and more reliable.
Amen, as long as avoiding risking behavior is a mandatory feature in autonomous driving software. I'd speculate a majority of accidents and road fatalities are nearly all avoidable, brought on by either poor choices, risky behavior, or bad driving habits. Case in point just today on my way to work I narrowly avoided two accidents. The first, the driver did not scrape his windows from ice and could not see any of the drivers around him - nearly plowing into me and others around him as he was changing lanes. The second, another driver decided to use the right lane as a passing lane in a 4 lane road, driving 55 while everyone else is going 35, denying anyone in the left lanes the ability to change lanes and make a right turn. Let me repeat, that was just today. Stuff like this happens everyday to millions of people. For myself, getting tail gated while I'm already going 10 above the limit is a regular *daily* occurrence. I'm barely even going to bring up the young, inexperienced, risk-loving drivers because all of the problems there should be understood without even saying.
I for one am eagerly looking forward to autonomous cars purely because of the minor few that make the roads dangerous for everyone else. But like the poster above, it's probably going to be awhile before they're reliable enough for use. But it will happen because technology will be improved over time. Changing, people's attitudes and driving habits? Yeah, far more difficult and expensive than technology with diminishing returns. Good luck on that!
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by drinkypoo · 2015-03-19 00:51 · Score: 1

While they are really cool, do you really want to be in one hurling down the highway at 85MPH (I'm in Utah) and trusting that the automated systems are going to know the difference between a coyote or a tumbleweed? There are an incredible number of obstacles that a person can instantly recognize that even today, a computer can't.
You don't want to hit either of those things at 85 MPH. The vehicle's response to either of them will be to nail the ABS and evade into another lane if one is available. The computer will be at least as good at that as you are because it will have sensors capable of measuring the item's density. It can tell the difference between a black trash bag, and a black trash bag with a cinder block in it. You can't.

What about black ice?

What about it? All modern cars already have yaw control. They use traction control and 3rd-or-later generation ABS to retain control in those situations. Most human drivers can't handle those situations without computer aid. The computers we use to do that now a) aren't going away and b) are already better than the vast majority of human drivers.

What if a person is in the road and the car has a choice of running over the person or crashing and possibly killing you.
So tired of this tired-ass argument. The car won't outdrive its ability to see and brake in the first place, and if someone is standing or walking on the side of the road, it will slow as it passes them. It will automatically slow and give bicyclists a three foot berth whether in California or not, just for insurance purposes. In short, it won't do most of the things that you will do because you are impatient, because it won't be.

The only way I can see self driving cars really working is to have special roads to carry them. These would be isolated from regular traffic and most of the regular road hazards. They would be in many ways analogous to a set of rail road tracks.
Ultimately, it makes a lot more sense to just have the tracks, and special vehicles which run on them. But those vehicles won't get to anyone's front door any time soon, unless they actually live in a city. Cities are the first places it will make sense to deploy PRT, due to the population densities.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by BarbaraHudson · 2015-03-19 00:53 · Score: 1

GM had a fleet of electric cars (EV1) that they leased out 19 years ago. So when people were scoffing at the idea of Tesla electric cars, they were ignoring history.
The demand for self-driving cars is there. As the population ages, people with limited mobility or other handicaps, the blind, low vision, etc., are going to push demand through the roof. After all, if you can't pass the medical to keep your license, this looks like the way to keep your autonomous mobility.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Jason+Levine · 2015-03-19 00:53 · Score: 2

Do I trust self-driving cars today? No, but the thing about technology is that it is constantly being improved. The first generation of consumer model self driving cars will be glorified cruise control. You'll put in your destination and keep your hands ready to take over on a moment's notice. You might even have to do this once or twice a trip. It'll be better than human drivers in most situations, but you won't activate it (or will take over from it) during risky situations. (Similar to how you disable cruise control when you see an accident ahead of you.) Subsequent generations of self-driving cars will improve more and more until the human driver backup is no longer needed.
Once self driving cars have had a few generations, they'll be better than human drivers and people will talk disdainfully about those meatbags who insist on manually controlling their automobile.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Jason+Levine · 2015-03-19 00:56 · Score: 1

95% of driving is mundane: Stay in your lane, signal and turn here, stop there, etc. Self driving cars will likely excel at these maneuvers at first while lagging in the less mundane tasks like: avoid that car that just cut you off, snow is obscuring the road, deer runs into the road, etc.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by drinkypoo · 2015-03-19 00:58 · Score: 1

And of course, a well managed network of automatic vehicles would be able to avoid congestion most of the time simply by coordinating the way each vehicle moves.
You can never, ever trust the network to be well-managed, both because you can't trust the management and because you can't trust the vehicles to faithfully respond to management. It is an absolute necessity for vehicles to assume that their neighbors might misbehave at any time just to account for the chance for mechanical failure, let alone software error... or malice.
Meanwhile, vehicles which simply obey a few simple rules at which humans often fail because we get bored or tired can potentially improve road safety dramatically.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Cytotoxic · 2015-03-19 01:10 · Score: 1

The "dog and kid at the same time" scenario argues even more for the automated vehicle. Because the sensors on the car can see more and track more than a human can, the car can predict possible collision paths long before a person could and slow the vehicle accordingly. Or sound the horn.
Also, an integrated traffic control system would mean that the car had access to more than just its own sensors. With the potential to feed data between nearby vehicles and enhance the capabilities of the system by aggregating and processing information behind the scenes, your car might know about the playing kids before you even turn on to that street.
There is a long path between here and there - one that we potentially might never walk down - but understanding the true capabilities of automated vehicles requires re-imagining everything about how traffic works.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by invid · 2015-03-19 01:15 · Score: 2

It's all going to come down to texting. While you're in a driverless car you can text to your hearts content while traveling without fear of being pulled over. Or watch movies. Or have sex. Or drink a fifth of Scotch. Or do all at the same time. How many people are going to turn down this ability for some hypothetical baby/dog recognition bug?

--
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by dave420 · 2015-03-19 01:24 · Score: 1

Every single one of your concerns has already been addressed, or has nothing stopping it from being addressed.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by HangingChad · 2015-03-19 01:26 · Score: 1

There are an incredible number of obstacles that a person can instantly recognize that even today, a computer can't.
And that list gets smaller and smaller all the time. When you look at the progress that's already been made, the last mile of automation is totally achievable. Around here a good third of the drivers on the road are old people who can barely see past the hood and another 10 percent are functional alcoholics. The handful of relatively competent people are texting or talking on the phone while they're driving. As someone who commutes by bike in this metallic soup of human incompetence, the transition to self-driving cars can't happen fast enough. I'll take my chances with machine intelligence and machine reflexes any day.
The underlying assumption to your comment is that human drivers are competent. That may be true in BF Nowhere Utah but, here in the civilized world, human drivers are fucking idiots. So, sure, go ahead and drive your pickup to the market. Around here I'd rather see a computer at the wheel than grandma.

--
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by courteaudotbiz · 2015-03-19 01:30 · Score: 1

I think a big part of the traffic jams is because of the slow reaction time of humans. If, when a light goes green, all the cars release the brake and push the accelerator at the same time, traffic would be incredibly better. However, I love driving my car, so it's not a question of "is it better to have a human or a computer behind the wheel" for me, it's just that "I love driving, period."
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by tmosley · 2015-03-19 01:34 · Score: 1

Actually, that's wrong. AI is already at primate level when it comes to object recognition: http://www.kurzweilai.net/deep...

Also, as far as responsibility, would you feel any worse if your taxi driver or bus ran over someone? You would blame the driver, not yourself. Similarly, you would blame the manufacturer of your self driving car.

Anything that a human brain isn't specialized for, an AI can do better. This means that you need humans communicating (with people), making predictions as to what people will do, and a few other cognitive tasks that are "hard" (processing visual imagery was hard until very recently--soon only self referencing/mind modelling tasks like those mentioned will be hard).

The world is changing. I drive for Uber, and I wasn't phased by their plans to introduce self driving cars one bit. Best case scenario, that happens in about three years, by which time the world will have changed so much, its hard to imagine that I would still want to drive for them.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by courteaudotbiz · 2015-03-19 01:36 · Score: 1

Talks about liability of self-driving cars are already taking place, and it appears that when a self-driving car being in self driving mode has an accident, the car maker would be held responsible. Now does this means lower insurance costs for people who have self-driving cars? I doubt it, but car makers will sure have to have pretty expensive insurance coverage...
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by tmosley · 2015-03-19 01:39 · Score: 1

You do know that Google has been running self driving cars in a big city for years now, right?

Stop making stuff up.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by tmosley · 2015-03-19 01:42 · Score: 1

Computers can do that too: http://www.kurzweilai.net/deep...

http://www.kurzweilai.net/a-pi...

Also, the speed limit is lower in residential neighborhoods. Self driving cars are going to be doing 25-30, not 95. At those speeds, its easy for object detection to stop the car before impact, even without predictive AI.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by tmosley · 2015-03-19 01:49 · Score: 1

Remind me never to hire you as an underwriter.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Molt · 2015-03-19 01:51 · Score: 1

RIGHT
The computer will be tracking the motions of pedestrians in case they step into the road, and will likely have noted that many are below statistical average. It will also have access to full demographic information so it'll know exactly what type of neighborhood it's driving through to adopt a driving strategy.
Most importantly the delay between a computer sensing something and reacting makes even the fastest reacting human look ridiculously slow.

--
404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by tmosley · 2015-03-19 01:52 · Score: 1

Pricing premiums according to risk is what insurance companies do. Again, remind me never to hire you as an underwriter.

As to hacking, there would likely be a standalone/read-only GPS that relays the location of the vehicle. Great way to send a squadron of police cars straight to you.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Molt · 2015-03-19 02:07 · Score: 1

The AI doesn't have to be on par with humans in general, just in the specific case of driving- which from what we've seen is a lot simpler for them than software development.
It would have been a lot more profitable to develop a computer which can develop software better than an average developer than one which could beat a grandmaster at chess, and yet what do we have?

--
404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by ArhcAngel · 2015-03-19 02:15 · Score: 1

Compare the number of miles driven and/or the number of distinct trips to the number of REPORTED accidents.
FTFY
On my daily commute I cannot begin to count the number of near missis due to incompetent driving. I am continually amazed at the ways people can find to avoid paying attention to the road. That said they'll have to pry my steering wheel away from my cold dead hands before I cede control to the computer. That is why self-driving cars will take a while not technology.

--
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Molt · 2015-03-19 02:17 · Score: 1

Fit the car with forward-facing LIDAR to scan the road and it can fully gauge potholes a lot better than any driver, give it a twin LIDAR system to compare the reflections from two heights above the road and it can detect water and differing surfaces and suddenly has an amazing amount of information to plan from.
I do think computer controlled cars are going to happen but there are a lot of obstacles to overcome first such as handling non-automated vehicles, the legal framework, and developing 'sufficiently cheap' sensor arrays. I don't expect that difficult road surfaces or conditions to be one of the more difficult ones to solve, though.

--
404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by rhazz · 2015-03-19 02:18 · Score: 1

And over time as the technology improves they will make fewer and fewer mistakes. Are they the future? Yes. But I believe widespread adoption even in a single country is at least 50 years away. It boggles me that people are pursuing self driving cars when we don't even have automated trains yet.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by johanw · 2015-03-19 02:33 · Score: 1

"If a child and a dog run out into the street at the same time from opposite sides, do you trust the car to make the right decision as to which it will run over?"
I like dogs and cats even more, I want that setting to be user-configurable. Bad luck for the child that has broken loose of its necklace.
Not to mention in the US: if the car has no choice hiting one of 2 persons, one black and one white, which choice will it make? I want that to be a user setting too.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by ShanghaiBill · 2015-03-19 02:42 · Score: 1

The problem is that in the big city with all sorts of chaos, your self-driving car is going to crawl at 5km/h
This is verifiable nonsense. SDCs already have millions of miles of driving on real roads. They do not drive at 5kph through cities.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Alioth · 2015-03-19 02:51 · Score: 1

Traffic would probably flow considerably better in a city full of self driving cars. A lot of the chaos of city driving is because of human error and human reaction delays.
You only have to fly over a traffic jam on a major highway to see problems that could be significantly alleviated by self driving cars that communicate with each other. Quite often you see traffic jams with no explanation - a mile of stationary traffic, but there's no obstacle in front and none behind. What happened is two hours earlier someone slammed on their brakes, someone following too close had to brake harder, and eventually the whole highway stops. As long as traffic is not leaving the stopped area faster than it is arriving, you get a self-sustaining traffic jam long after the original cause has gone away. The self driving car will reduce the instances in the first place of the cause, and if it does happen will be able to as a group moderate their speed in such a way that you don't end up with a mile of stopped cars. Instead of the next car only starting after it has seen the previous one begin to move + reaction delay, all cars will be able to start moving at once or nearly so.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by kilfarsnar · 2015-03-19 02:54 · Score: 1

That said they'll have to pry my steering wheel away from my cold dead hands before I cede control to the computer. That is why self-driving cars will take a while not technology.
+1. I actually enjoy driving and have no interest in a self-driving car.

--
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by burtosis · 2015-03-19 03:17 · Score: 1

When SDC can scrape their own sensors free of ice (or even be able to function in snow/icy/wet conditions) I'll be impressed! In all seriousness though the worst human drivers are here to stay - if you thought gun nuts rage when goverment tries to restrict them just wait untill the government tries to say people "dont have the right to drive anymore".
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by cayenne8 · 2015-03-19 03:19 · Score: 1

I might be interested in one when I"m 80 yrs and likely too old to drive.
In the meantime, I prefer to drive my own cars. I've never owned anything but 2-seater performance and sports cars, and I buy them for a reason, they are FUN to drive.
And since they perform better than most other cars on the road, I've been able to use that to avoid other idiots on the road trying to hit me (i.e. better braking, acceleration as needed to get out of other drivers' way that were coming at me).

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by JMJimmy · 2015-03-19 03:40 · Score: 1

Very likely the reverse.
I'd imagine that most accidents involving automated cars will *provably* (video and telemetry info and all that) be human operator's fault (or the other driver)... suddenly humans will find their insurance go sky high, while insuring a self driving car will be dirt cheap (they'll be harder to steal too).
Self driving car hits a person/dog/other self-driving car/etc. I'm pretty sure it'll be the software's fault.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by DrXym · 2015-03-19 04:02 · Score: 1

Utter nonsense. These are all examples of intractable problems that no self drive car would figure out without screwing up enough to annoy the driver, other road users or pedestrians.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by tinkerton · 2015-03-19 04:11 · Score: 1

I agree. The moment everyone has a car with the autopilot option there will be pressure to enforce autopilot in some conditions. But that would be a later evolution. First everyone switches voluntarily to the option, then afterwards the use of the option becomes less voluntary.
Re: Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by dave420 · 2015-03-19 04:25 · Score: 1

The fact you used the word "major" as if it's perfectly normal speaks volumes.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by dave420 · 2015-03-19 04:35 · Score: 1

Really? Let's try, shall we?
1. Does the car know that the street is closed and there is a diversion is in place? Yes. It can see the road signs like you can, and can talk to the internet to get all the traffic information it needs. This is already solved.
2. Or that the car in front is reverse parking into a space and not nudge up his ass while he does so? Yes. It can see his lights, can detect his movements far more accurately than any human driver, and knows the precise location of all obstacles/vehicles around it so it can manoeuver out of the way should it need to. This is already solved.
3. Or that the street lights are faulty and how to navigate safely in such an event? Yes. It knows how street lights are supposed to work (just like you do!), and can then see if they're not working. It can then use its superior sensor package to detect all the hazards and navigate them with more accuracy than you can. This is already solved.
4. Or how to obey a cop's hand signals (and not some crazy guy's)? Detecting a cop's uniform isn't particularly difficult - that's all you do, after all. Following hand signals is being worked on by Google, so while maybe not solved yet, it will be shortly.
5. Or see the temporary stop/go signs some roadworkers put up? Yes, like you, it can see the signs and knows what they mean. This is being addressed by Google as we speak, if it has not been already.
6. Or to signal to the pedestrian that we'll wait for them to cross the junction? You should know that drivers should never signal pedestrians. If there is a pedestrian crossing without lights, the car will stop if it sees a pedestrian, and the pedestrian can then cross. This is how it happens in civilized countries already. This is already solved.
7. Or give priority to the oncoming driver in a narrow road. That is not what any sane driver should do, anyway. If the road is narrow, it will drive slowly and make use of available space to pull over to let others pass if needed, and respect other vehicles doing the same. If hazards are on its side of the road, it waits for no oncoming traffic before navigating them. This is already solved.
8. Or what a pothole is and how to avoid it? Its LIDAR can detect a pothole better than you can, and will know its dimensions more accurately than you. It also has better control of the car, and so can avoid them far easier than you can. Plus its reaction times are far, far better than yours, which only helps it. Already solved.
9. Or not to drive through dangerous parts of town? You have dangerous parts of town? How quaint. Anyway, it can find out that information from the internet, if you are really that scared. Already solved.
10. Or how to drive and navigate through a tunnel, carpark or other area where GPS or radio is down? It uses LIDAR to know about the road/tunnel/car park, not GPS or radio. Already solved.
It seems you really don't know the current state of self-driving car technology, which is rather strange for someone so hell-bent on calling it shit.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by cayenne8 · 2015-03-19 04:52 · Score: 1

You sound like a terrible, terrible driver. Why don't you take your toys to the track?
Actually, my driving record of MANY decades would beg to differ with your conclusion. I don't generally bother to look at posted speed limits, no..unless the cops are around or the radar detector goes off. That being said, I drive for what is safe in the current driving conditions. If it is raining, I slow down. If it is a nice road, especially one I'm familiar with, and there is very little to no traffic around me I go as fast as is possibly safe for what my car can handle. I drive based on the conditions around me at that moment in time. I don't care what the posted sign says, I go slower when warranted and go as fast as is safe for me when conditions are right.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by CastrTroy · 2015-03-19 04:55 · Score: 1

The first, the driver did not scrape his windows from ice and could not see any of the drivers around him
I see this being a huge problem in nordic countries when it comes to self driving cars as well. Perhaps the self driving car will refuse to operate if the sensors are covered in ice. This would be safer, but would lead to dissatisfaction from a lot of owners as they would have to carefully remove ice from the sensors hoping not to damage them in the process. Then you'd be driving down the road and get covered in spray (salt, dirt, water) from other vehicles and the sensors would become inoperational again. The driver would either have to take over, making the expensive self driving car useless, or pull over to the side of the road and clean the sensor before going on their way. I'd like to see how self driving cars handle snow, salty/dirty/muddy roads, and even a heavy rain. Could the sensors still actually discern what's going on, or do they require hot, dry, sunny, California type weather.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Cafe+Alpha · 2015-03-19 05:14 · Score: 1

Having one study where they use a few premade pictures is hardly proof that they've really succeeded. Early stage stuff, and none of us have seen it in action. When they ACTUALLY succeed with stock machines then we'll all know it.
We're nowhere near that point.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by jeffmflanagan · 2015-03-19 05:22 · Score: 1

I expect it'll become mandatory after a couple of people who set their car to "manual" kill pedestrians or other drivers. People are far too unreliable to have behind the wheel if we have a better option.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by MooseTick · 2015-03-19 05:48 · Score: 1

" I cannot begin to count the number of near missis "
A near miss is still a miss.

--
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Cro+Magnon · 2015-03-19 06:01 · Score: 1

I expect it'll become mandatory after a couple of people who set their car to "manual" kill pedestrians or other drivers. People are far too unreliable to have behind the wheel if we have a better option.
Until the self-driving car kills people. Even if it really is a better option, it's going to be hard to make it mandatory in the face of "Killer Car Kills Family" stories on the news.

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Cro+Magnon · 2015-03-19 06:18 · Score: 1

One question in my mind is not only what the computer recognizes, but when it recognizes it. If a kid and/or dog runs out in the street without warning, there's no doubt that a computer can react faster than I could. But I might notice that there are a bunch of dogs and/or kids playing on the sidewalk and adjust my speed and alertness accordingly. Can the computer do so? If not, it's not ready.

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by conquistadorst · 2015-03-19 06:20 · Score: 1

" The second, another driver decided to use the right lane as a passing lane in a 4 lane road, driving 55 while everyone else is going 35, denying anyone in the left lanes the ability to change lanes and make a right turn. Let me repeat, that was just today."
You call that risky behaviour? Go drive in Paris, Rome, Manilla or Shanghai and then we'll talk again.
Sure, of course, they're on an entirely new level of terrible driving. I've been to all of those places minus Shanghai, I've never been to Asia. The denser the city, the worse it gets. That's usually how it rolls. Hopefully you understood my point because what you said seemingly reinforces my point however your tone implies that you did not.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by conquistadorst · 2015-03-19 06:32 · Score: 1

The first, the driver did not scrape his windows from ice and could not see any of the drivers around him
I see this being a huge problem in nordic countries when it comes to self driving cars as well. Perhaps the self driving car will refuse to operate if the sensors are covered in ice. This would be safer, but would lead to dissatisfaction from a lot of owners as they would have to carefully remove ice from the sensors hoping not to damage them in the process. Then you'd be driving down the road and get covered in spray (salt, dirt, water) from other vehicles and the sensors would become inoperational again. The driver would either have to take over, making the expensive self driving car useless, or pull over to the side of the road and clean the sensor before going on their way. I'd like to see how self driving cars handle snow, salty/dirty/muddy roads, and even a heavy rain. Could the sensors still actually discern what's going on, or do they require hot, dry, sunny, California type weather.
Yep, I think they still have quite a few hurdles to overcome. Last I've heard I don't think they've even mastered "driving in the rain" much less snow and icy road conditions! All of these conditions have to be mastered far in advance and allowed to mature before self driving cars ever hope to become widely adopted. For some folks oo say it's never going to happen though is a little backwards though.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by conquistadorst · 2015-03-19 06:54 · Score: 1
When SDC can scrape their own sensors free of ice (or even be able to function in snow/icy/wet conditions) I'll be impressed! In all seriousness though the worst human drivers are here to stay - if you thought gun nuts rage when goverment tries to restrict them just wait untill the government tries to say people "dont have the right to drive anymore".
Well the ice would only be a problem for optical sensors right? Not radar or GPS. Definitely need a solution for ice, water, and frost covering optic sensors unless they can find an alternative. The latter might be better. But I'm not sure it would ever become government restricted though. It's possible but I highly doubt it would ever come to something that extreme. I don't think it would need to be? I think the more likely set of possibilities may be something like:
1. A) Pay significantly more premium on a standard automobile policy, maybe by several orders of magnitude, of course after it's proven via underwriting they're significantly safer
2. B) Harsher penalties for causing accidents caused by non-self-driving vehicles
3. C) All vehicles must have the feature equipped but can be turned off, with exceptions
4. D) Densely populated cities banning non-self-driving cars within city limits where you'll then be guided to park in a designated area and then ride in on public transportation if your car does not have the feature available
I'm sure many others...
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by DrXym · 2015-03-19 07:13 · Score: 1

1. Ah I see. So you have evidence that this is solved? You know like a paper demonstrating the capability of a car to read a sign, upload this to the web (never mind the bandwidth issues hey?), be told it's a diversion and magically follow all the other diversion signs.
2. So you have evidence that a self drive car can determine intent? Oops no.
3. Superior sensing? I get it now - You're a fucking idiot.
etc.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by conquistadorst · 2015-03-19 07:18 · Score: 1

You sound like a terrible, terrible driver. Why don't you take your toys to the track?
Actually, my driving record of MANY decades would beg to differ with your conclusion. I don't generally bother to look at posted speed limits, no..unless the cops are around or the radar detector goes off. That being said, I drive for what is safe in the current driving conditions. If it is raining, I slow down. If it is a nice road, especially one I'm familiar with, and there is very little to no traffic around me I go as fast as is possibly safe for what my car can handle. I drive based on the conditions around me at that moment in time. I don't care what the posted sign says, I go slower when warranted and go as fast as is safe for me when conditions are right.
If everyone did this 24/7 the only accidents would be occurring because of mechanical failures and we wouldn't even be having a discussion about this post lol.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by OrangeTide · 2015-03-19 07:54 · Score: 1

That may be true. However, self driving cars are an entirely different matter. While they are really cool, do you really want to be in one hurling down the highway at 85MPH (I'm in Utah) and trusting that the automated systems are going to know the difference between a coyote or a tumbleweed?
We can prove if software is reliable. But humans are very unreliable. You already have people going 85MPH in Utah while drunk as a skunk. Your feeling of safety is already unjustified, and doesn't agree with the real risk you face.
There is a lot that can be done with image recognition and sets of rules for the correct behavior in every driving situation. And when I say every, I mean every single one. That's because we are able to categorize every event, and work out the right reaction for those categories.
Most of the reactions are really simple.
Tornado? stop the car. UFO landing in the middle of the highway? stop the car. Car in the turned over in the middle of the road? stop the car. Huge grass fire covering the road? stop, turn around, inform the local authorities of the situation. Person in a wheel chari crossing the street? yea, stop for them, then proceed when safe to do so. Jack ass passed you through a 4-way stop (that happened to me)? proceed slowly until safely out of the flow of traffic. As a human I barely knew how to handle that one at the time, it wasn't something in driver's ed. but hindsight it seems obvious now. But please don't criticize my examples too harshly, they're only examples not based on any real car firmware implementations. It's presented rhetorically to demonstrate that we can think through the problems and work out rules on how to handle situations, even ambiguous ones.
The rest of the every day situations are basic rules of the road, which hopefully we already are familiar with. Getting enough data to reliably detect the situations is the hard part, making the decision is not nearly so hard for the SW. Lots of sensors and image processing is done, and we're only scratching the surface right now. Eventually the car's awareness of the road conditions will vastly exceed a human's awareness, and in some ways it already does exceed average drivers.
As more devices become connected, and the processing power increases, we'll see some sophisticated capabilities for every common things like cars. The barrier to autonomous driving won't be technology, but rather a social resistance to the change. Something you're already demonstrating. I'm not saying we shouldn't be cautious about radical changes to our lives, especially where safety is concerned. But there is a level of rigor in the engineering for autonomous driving that isn't present in the driving test that Americans are taking today, so the assumption that humans are safe or more safe than a computer is on a shaky foundation.

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by TimJones55 · 2015-03-19 08:48 · Score: 1

More like 1500ms of braking time (it is likely the child / dog running into the road is an unexpected event so reaction times are *much* slower).
Who the hell takes 1.5s to brake after seeing a child and dog on the road?
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Shortguy881 · 2015-03-19 08:59 · Score: 1

What do you write software for? I'd like to avoid those products.

--
Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by danomac · 2015-03-19 08:59 · Score: 1

I for one am eagerly looking forward to autonomous cars purely because of the minor few that make the roads dangerous for everyone else.
I'm eagerly awaiting a time where people stop being so focused on getting cars around and start focusing on moving people around. I think the amount of infrastructure required to have millions of cars moving around is a waste, there must be other ways. And no, I'm not suggesting that trains are a solution. But there must be better ways that nobody has bothered to think up yet.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by leenks · 2015-03-19 09:42 · Score: 1

OK, I was a little off according to this study - http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v... - 1.1 to 1.2 seconds is the average there, but there are other studies that had higher times, and other sources quote much longer, eg http://copradar.com/redlight/f.... Presumably it takes most people significant time to realise what's happening, not panic, then move your right foot from the accelerator to the brake and the left onto the clutch and press down hard.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by sl149q · 2015-03-19 11:19 · Score: 1

Hmm, its a problem in those super heavily populated "nordic countries" so that we should not deploy it where the vast majority of people live (i.e. where the sun shines and the snow doesn't for all but a few days a year, and human drivers go bonkers then too.)
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by sl149q · 2015-03-19 11:22 · Score: 1

Hm, 30,000 people a year killed in traffic accidents in the US. The vast majority caused by driver fault. I.e. they where not actually accidents.
If autonomous vehicles simply reduce that by half we are 15,000 people to the good. Not to mention the substantial number of people not injured or cars needing repairs.
Autonomous cars do not need to be perfect. They just need to be better than 50% of the human drivers out there.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by tmosley · 2015-03-19 14:16 · Score: 1

I don't think you read the article, much less the abstract of the paper, much much less the actual paper. Sorry you don't want to believe reality. I'm sure that won't effect your ability to predict the future, and that the things that you pull out of your ass will be the truth now and forever.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by dave420 · 2015-03-19 20:36 · Score: 1

So you just make up unfounded claims and that's cool, but I have to provide papers?
1. Google has been using this technology with StreetView for years and years. Here is another company's car which can read street signs, from 2013. This, again, is solved. You not knowing about it doesn't change that.
2. The intention of a car driving backwards is pretty obvious - it wants to go backwards. Teaching the SDC about other cars parking isn't exactly difficult, as they can already park themselves. You're not too good at this whole logic thing.
3. Yes, superior sensing. LIDAR. You should learn what that means. They also have multiple cameras, and can scan their entire surroundings (with no blind spots) in milliseconds. Humans can't do anything as close to that.
I see you just gave up on the rest with hopes people would think you have good points. You don't. It's patently clear you don't know what the technology these cars use is capable of, and are arguing from a mixture of ignorance and fear. Sad. If you just really don't like these cars for religious or personal reasons, just say. It'll make you look a lot better than being "the person who doesn't know about something, yet moans about it as if he does".
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by CastrTroy · 2015-03-20 00:53 · Score: 1

Basically, nordic may have been the wrong word, but basically any country that doesn't have nice sunny weather year round. Many parts of the US would fall into this definition (not just Alaska). Actually I would say that the really far north wouldn't have as many problems as more moderately cold areas. The sensors are much more likely to get covered in salt, snow, and slush when the temperature is hovering around freezing than in the far north where it's often too cold to snow anyway, and the snow is so cold that it's not different from any other fine dust in the air. Warmer snow has a tendency to clump together and build up on everything, much like mud.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by RespekMyAthorati · 2015-03-20 07:42 · Score: 1

Yes, over and over on the same carefully designed test route. And always in daylight, and with no ice, snow or fog.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by RespekMyAthorati · 2015-03-20 07:47 · Score: 1

The only way I can see self driving cars really working is to have special roads to carry them.
Yes, special roads known as "freeways".
Which is OK, since most of the miles that people drive everyday are on freeways. Also, most traffic jams and a lot of serious accidents happen there.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by DedTV · 2015-03-20 11:11 · Score: 1

That may be true. However, self driving cars are an entirely different matter. While they are really cool, do you really want to be in one hurling down the highway at 85MPH (I'm in Utah) and trusting that the automated systems are going to know the difference between a coyote or a tumbleweed?
Today? No. In 20 years? Almost certainly as by then they should be perfected enough that they'll be a lot safer than sharing the road with vehicles operated manually by a 19 year old who thinks they're such a fantastic driver that they can safely fly down the highway at 120MPH. When I was a tow truck driver just out of HS I watched the CHP spray what was left of such drivers off the road at least once a week.

If a child and a dog run out into the street at the same time from opposite sides, do you trust the car to make the right decision as to which it will run over?
I'd expect we'll have systems that identify any warm blooded creature entering the roadway and instantly apply braking and take evasive maneuvers that human reaction times couldn't possibly compete with and that they'd be more reliable and consistent than human drivers have ever been and they'll be able to communicate what they're seeing and doing with other vehicles nearby so they can measures to ensure they react appropriately as well.

How would you like to be legally responsible for your self driving car if it runs over a child?
You probably wouldn't be liable in such a case. The car maker would be. Just as they are now if a flaw in the car causes an accident. But with an automated car there'd be no way for the car manufacturer to claim it was the driver's fault so it'd take a lot less litigation to assign such liability.

What about black ice?
Machines are already better at identifying black ice than humans via the use of things like thermal imaging and reflective laser analysis. And if you see a patch of black ice, there's no guarantee the guy behind you will see it. But if automated cars became the norm, once one car (or a satellite or drone) sees a patch of black ice, every other car in the area can be notified to avoid it and they could even automatically dispatch an automated service vehicle to remove it.

What if a person is in the road and the car has a choice of running over the person or crashing and possibly killing you.
Why wouldn't the car see the person and stop while sending a signal to all the cars behind it to do the same and avoid a pile up? A car will never be too busy changing the radio station or messing with their phone or driving drunk or fatigued or subject to panic so, even when someone does foolishly run out in the road, the number of times where the option will be "Run over the person or crash into something" will be far rarer than it is today with human drivers.

Do you trust the car to make the right decision?
My car can already parallel park a lot better than I can. And there's already systems for planes that allow them to safely fly and land in conditions it'd be nearly impossible for a human to safely do so. And humans aren't known for making good decisions, especially when they're required to make them quickly. So yeah, once the technology matures to the same point as automated parallel parking, automated cruise control and Automatic braking have, I'd trust it to drive.

>As much as I like software (and writing it), there are IMHO too many judgement calls for a computer and in many situations too many for a lot of (supposedly sane) people.
As much as I like humans, and as much fun it is creating more of them, there are IMHO too many physical and mental limitations for even a supposedly sane human to do as quickly and accurately and make judgements based upon the available data as a well programmed machine can.

The only way I can see s
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Jack+Griffin · 2015-03-21 13:46 · Score: 1

Not in an uncontrolled environment they haven't.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Jack+Griffin · 2015-03-21 13:59 · Score: 1

You know the easiest way to prove something is verified, is to provide a link to it. I've had dozens of responses just like yours yet no-one has done this yet. Why do you think this is? I'm well aware of Google's research, and it's limitations. There is a reason why this isn't available in stores right now.
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by Jack+Griffin · 2015-03-21 14:03 · Score: 1

Traffic would probably flow considerably better in a city full of self driving cars. A lot of the chaos of city driving is because of human error and human reaction delays.
What happens when the software has an error? I mean you're assuming that the software will never ever have a problem here right?
Re:Buggy whip makers said automobiles aren't... by martin_dk · 2015-03-22 20:27 · Score: 1

At some point we have to decide if the next technology should be safer/better measured by ALL metrics or if it suffices to be significantly safer/better in the majority of most important metrics.
I get your tumbleweed vs. coyote example. But say overall traffic mortality rates are reduced by 75% by introducing Driverless Cars Version 1.0 but mortality rates in certain rare type of accidents increase.
Would you rather have a higher chance of getting killed by surrounding human driven traffic in order to have the final desiscion of where to crash your car in ethically loaded incidents?
If driverless cars proves to be safer, the arguments regarding vaccines would may apply to the discussion.

We'd all be a lot better off by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-18 18:15 · Score: 1

if the CEO of Uber and the CEO of Lyft both shut the fuck up. These two dimwits never have anything important or interesting to say. These two companies developed an easy way to find a ride share; they didn't invent the damn car. Like Mercedes, Google, or Tesla care what Logan Green thinks.

Why should Uber drivers be upset?? by SuperKendall · 2015-03-18 18:24 · Score: 1

If Uber is right, and self driving cars are the future - the Uber drivers today can buy one, and send it off driving for Uber while they sit at home instead of driving. Or more likely they can sit inside reading, just to be present as a chaperone for the car in order to prevent their property from being part of a dramatic re-enactment of the Johnny Cab scene in Running Man...

Either way, less work.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Why should Uber drivers be upset?? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-18 18:42 · Score: 1

Umm, Johnny Cab scene in Total Recall maybe? Same Austrian lead, different movie.
Re:Why should Uber drivers be upset?? by tmosley · 2015-03-19 01:57 · Score: 1

How does a mom and pop hamburger stand compete against 100,000 McDonalds locations?

By not doing that. They compete with the one down the street, or they go to where there aren't any McDonalds in the worst case.

Some guy getting a passive income off of his self driving car doesn't have to make the same amount as some rich guy making a passive income off of his fleet of self driving cars. He just has to make enough to pay the note, fuel, and maintenance, and have some profit left over, same as the rich guy.

Not a stakeholder by jordanjay29 · 2015-03-18 18:26 · Score: 1

And what does he care about the outcome? A taxi service made up of drivers and a taxi service made up of self-driving cars would still do the same job, get people from points A to B (and any points A.1, A.2, A.3, etc inbetween) and charge them for it.

Re:Not a stakeholder by shadowrat · 2015-03-19 04:26 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure it's all just posturing on both sides. The Uber CEO wanted to make it sound like Uber was all futuristic and stuff for investors. The Lyft ceo saw uber raise some hackles by supporting autonomous vehicles. He figures if he just takes the opposite stance maybe he can get some more drivers in his fleet. In the short term, that's a pretty valuable victory. Then, yeah, he can take his money and buy self driving cars.

Lyft is Just In CYA Mode by mentil · 2015-03-18 18:28 · Score: 1

Uber was just raided for harboring Skynet, after all. Sure, at first it's just staying inside lanes and stopping before you rear-end something; but after the evil-bit flips, the roadways look like Carmageddon minus the reset button.

--
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.

Next up, by Cafe+Alpha · 2015-03-18 18:31 · Score: 1

self fighting wars. Hell we don't even need a country, just set out bots to kill people and call that a war.

Re:Next up, by jordanjay29 · 2015-03-19 06:39 · Score: 1

Nope, the bots will just calculate the simulated deaths, and you'll report to the gas chamber.

Re:Death traps. by Neil+Boekend · 2015-03-18 18:43 · Score: 2

A properly taught ant would probably be better at driving than about 80% of human drivers.

Have you been out on the road? With all the idiots making cellphone calls/driving drunk/texting/facebooking/putting up makeup/whatever? Have you seen the current state of affairs on the road?

My prophecy:
Self driving cars will be better than humans in 99,99% of the situations within 3 years. Sadly it will take another 5 to wide scale adoption and yet another 10 years for human driven cars to be banned to racetracks.

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.

Re:Death traps. by JMZero · 2015-03-18 18:49 · Score: 1

Well... I think what they'll probably do is continue testing - and they probably won't be widely deployed until they're as safe as human drivers (on average, they'll probably be safer in some ways and less safe in others). Soon after that, they'll be safer than humans (because they can share knowledge, are easy to upgrade, and once there's lots of them they'll be able to communicate in ways humans can't).. well, that is, if we keep going.

I say "if", because the more likely problem is Luddites who will want them banned after the first death, even if their overall safety record is better than humans. An enormous number of extra people will die because of how slowly we'll adopt self-driving cars. This is because people are dumb and ruled by emotional reactions: when people cause collisions (which they do thousands of times a day) it's just an accident, but the first time a self-driving car runs over a kid it's going to be pandemonium - and a good percentage of people will want to go back to the old higher death rates.

As to your argument, it's difficult to compare a computer to an ant or a person on some single scale of intelligence. An ant is very good at some things, but completely incapable at most everything else. Computers exceed humans at many tasks, while lagging behind in others. No computer today could learn how to drive well by itself, or have much conception of what driving is - but we've demonstrated that computers, designed and refined over time by people, can get very good at complex tasks. I think we're still a ways off from having safe computer drivers, but it's not in any way impossible or far distant; computers are already much closer to "humans" than "ants" on the "ability to drive" standard, and there's no reason they couldn't be better than humans at driving within the next 10-20 years.

--
Let's not stir that bag of worms...

But will anyone actually buy them? by kolomanschaft · 2015-03-18 18:53 · Score: 1

Not a private person, no. Self-driving cars will be bought by public transportation companies to build up fleets of driverless cars.

Re:But will anyone actually buy them? by Cafe+Alpha · 2015-03-18 19:01 · Score: 1

Just great. Some corporation will figure that having a driverless car will save them some $8 an hour (or say $8 a day in a 3rd world hellhole) and bribe officials into accepting some Windows Vista death traps veering around your city! And there won't be a damn thing you can do about it.
Because $8!
Re:But will anyone actually buy them? by Harlequin80 · 2015-03-18 20:44 · Score: 1

Disagree.
If a driverless car was in a similar price band to a normal car I would buy one (assuming safe ofcourse). I wouldn't be willing to wait for a car to arrive if I wanted to pop to the shops. The loss of convenience would be too high. So that means I would want to maintain my own transport, given that means I'm going to own a car why wouldn't I own one that could drive itself?
Re:But will anyone actually buy them? by Firethorn · 2015-03-18 21:59 · Score: 1

If a driverless car was in a similar price band to a normal car I would buy one (assuming safe ofcourse).

I once figured out that a self-driving feature would be worth about $5k/year for me.

--
I don't read AC A human right
Re:But will anyone actually buy them? by dave420 · 2015-03-18 23:47 · Score: 1

Some corporation figures out that they can save a lot of money and have far safer cars. Oh noes! So terrible! 30,000 people die in the US in traffic accidents alone. Self-driving cars can easily be better than human drivers, due to their massively-superior sensor packages, integration with the car's own systems, inter-car communication, and fantastic reaction times.
Seriously - were you abused by a self-driving car? It sounds like it, as you keep offering your own made-up nonsensical issues as evidence of the uselessness of self-driving cars. It's pathetic.
Re:But will anyone actually buy them? by Cytotoxic · 2015-03-19 01:24 · Score: 1

If a driverless car was in a similar price band to a normal car I would buy one (assuming safe ofcourse).
I once figured out that a self-driving feature would be worth about $5k/year for me.
If you are the parent of young children, how much is it worth? A car that can take the 4th graders to baseball practice while you work on your second grade girl's homework with her? Pretty valuable. How about a car that can pick up your 12 year old and her friends and take them to Lisa's house for a pool party? Sure, version one won't be allowed on the road without a licensed driver - but what about version 4.0?
And if that's not your cup of tea, what about your 16 year old kid? How much would it be worth to have them being driven by Robo-Morgan Freeman instead of their 16 year old friend who decided to try shotgunning beer for the first time?
Or what about the grandfather who shouldn't be driving any more? We had to go to the state to get my grandfather's license pulled as he progressed into his 80's because he was a menace and a danger to everyone on the road. We paid a cousin to be his driver so he could have some mobility, but he absolutely hated being dependent on someone else and he hated us for taking his autonomy. Self-driving cars take that entire problem off the table.
Yeah, people will definitely buy these things.
Re:But will anyone actually buy them? by tmosley · 2015-03-19 02:12 · Score: 1

Even if you only had to wait two minutes (because they are all over the place, having mostly replaced people's cars)? What if you could schedule it in advance (a function sorely missed in markets with fewer drivers like mine)?
Re:But will anyone actually buy them? by Harlequin80 · 2015-03-19 12:05 · Score: 1

If it was a 2 minute wait then maybe. But there is no way that it would be. The economics of it just couldn't work. I live on acreage and my corner store is 6km away. It would be the only logical location for a base. That means it is 10 minutes out at an absolute minimum. On top of that they would need to ensure that they never have 100% utilisation even in peak times.
Given there are 7000 homes in my area they would need thousands of vehicles for peak load. The size of the storage facility alone would be insane as all 3000+ vehicles would pretty much be unused a 3am on a tuesday night.
What your model forgets is that almost every house comes with a built in storage facility for a car. Often multiple. If people don't have them parked at their houses they will have to store them somewhere else. For it to be as convenient as you describe they would need a crazy number of these vehicles waiting and ready to go.
Now for a pre-booked ride to the airport, or a self driving taxi. Or even a recurring - pick me up at 7am for work. Perfect. But for the "crap I need x from the supermarket for the dinner I have already started cooking" or the "shit we've run out of nappies" it will fail.
Re:But will anyone actually buy them? by tmosley · 2015-03-19 14:23 · Score: 1

"I live on acreage and my corner store is 6km away"

Why are you talking with everyone else as if you aren't a 0.01% outlier? Shut up. No-one cares about you. If you want to live that far outside of the norm you can buy your own damn car just like you can pay $30,000 to get connected to an electrical grid.

Also, you are a filthy liar. You expect us to believe that an area with 7000 homes (an average population of 15-20 thousand) is 6 km away from a corner store? Come on.
Re:But will anyone actually buy them? by Harlequin80 · 2015-03-19 15:19 · Score: 1

Firstly you are a cock. Just because something is outside your experience doesn't mean people are liars or outliers. Nothing in my post deserved your abuse.
Secondly, I live in an area zoned park residential which is 21km from the centre of a major city of over 2 million people and is Australia's 3rd largest. The greater region has a population of 4 million. By the 2011 census the total population in my area, the Greater Samford Valley was 14.5k and there is only 1 commercial area that services the region, commonly called Samford Village. This serves the entire population of the region. It is my closes commercial zoning unless you want to count a nursery / garden centre.
As for my electricity or my water or anything else. I am considered a suburb of Brisbane and as such have nice underground electricity and telephone. I don't pay any extra charges to be connected to the grid or anything else. I am serviced by a regular bus that runs past the end of my street and connects me to large scale malls and the train network.
Finally, If you would like to fix your ignorance here is a link to a google map of the area - https://goo.gl/maps/mzDPO if you zoom out slightly you will see that city of millions that I and many others commute quite happily to from our middle of fucking nowhere outlier.
Re:But will anyone actually buy them? by tmosley · 2015-03-20 00:14 · Score: 1

"Nothing in my post deserved your abuse."

Yes, it did, actually. Apparently Oz is both ruled and populated by morons if they put huge groups of people out in the middle of the fucking desert miles away from so much as a convenience store. This is not how human communities are supposed to function. I live in the sticks, quite a ways outside of a small city, and don't expect ANYONE to come out to me, pay huge sums of money to have connections to any sort of line or service brought out to me, and yet there is still a convenience store down the block. Major commercial center is three minutes by car. And this is in the middle of the fucking Texas desert.

Basically, you need to quit your whining about the results of your horrible city planning and move somewhere that wasn't zoned by the AI from the SNES version of SimCity.

Future? by jklovanc · 2015-03-18 18:54 · Score: 1

Are self driving cars the future of transportation? Yes. The only question is how far in the future. Current technology can do many of the tasks of driving a car very well. Lane following is a good example of that. They also do many tasks very poorly. Differentiating someone waving hello from someone trying to warn you of danger is an example. To do the more complex tasks requires great leaps in AI. When will these advances happen? I think it will take at least a few decades. Ever heard of the 80/20 rule? In this case 80% of the challenges can be solved with 20% of the effort. That last 20% is going to take 80% of the effort.

Re:Future? by Cafe+Alpha · 2015-03-18 21:06 · Score: 1

In this case that last 20% is consciousness and knowledge and judgement.
It's gonna take a good 99.999999% of the effort
Re:Future? by Jack+Griffin · 2015-03-19 00:40 · Score: 1

We already have self-driving vehicles, an elevator and some trains are examples. So the concept can work, I just don't think the environment of a public street is ever going to be viable. Should someone have the vision and finances to build a new city from scratch and skip human driven cars altogether, and design infrastructure specifically around automated transport, then and only then could I see it working.
Re:Future? by dave420 · 2015-03-19 01:28 · Score: 1

Google's 350,000+ miles on untouched, unprepared public roads without incident suggests you are not entirely accurate...
Re:Future? by readin · 2015-03-19 04:06 · Score: 1

And soon we'll have self-driving vehicles in certain industrial applications where the environment can be controlled (if we don't have them already). Warehouses, golf courses, quarries, These are some examples of where self-driving vehicles can be useful without having to handle every conceivable obstacle that might be encountered in city or even highway driving. With an industrial base to fund further research the vehicles will get better. Griffin is right - it's just a question of when.

--
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Re:Future? by jklovanc · 2015-03-19 04:58 · Score: 1

unprepared public roads
While the road itself has not been touched the road was scanned by a special vehicle and the data gone over by a person to highlight specific attributes of the road. Traffic lights are specifically located so the car knows where to look for the signal. Stationary objects on the side of the road are flagged as such. In effect the Google Car is restricted to roads that have been analyzed recently. There is a lot of human interaction with the maps to allow the cars to drive. Most of that 350,000 miles is Google employees commuting over the same roads.

without incident
Since the driver takes over in difficult situations that "without accident" stat is skewed.
There is one thing that Google never tells us; How many times the driver had to take over because the AI could not handle the situation. The Google car is not completely self driving as the driver takes over sometimes. It will not be self driving until the driver never has to touch the wheel. We are far from that.
Re:Future? by MorePower · 2015-03-19 05:12 · Score: 1

I've already seen self-driving forklifts in some factory environments (they've existed for at least a decade). The process lines summon them when a large roll/bin/whatever is almost complete and they (slowly) drive over just as it finishes and take the product over to the warehouse. The vehicles automatically stop if you get within about 2 feet of them. When not summoned anywhere in particular they drive themselves over to a designated out-of-the-way spot and line up in a neat queue to wait for orders.
Re:Future? by dave420 · 2015-03-19 20:43 · Score: 1

You might have some points, but none of the issues you raise are show-stoppers. Other companies' cars could as far back as 2013 detect those things in real-time on their first exposure to the road. That will only get better, making your concerns less valid as time goes on.
We are not "far" from that - judging by the progress and momentum, it's just round the corner.
Re:Future? by jklovanc · 2015-03-20 06:14 · Score: 1

You might have some points, but none of the issues you raise are show-stoppers.
How about these?
Inability to find road edge without pre-scanning and/or a white line
Inability to differentiate between a plastic bag and a rock on the road.
Inability to operate when road covered in snow or ice
Inability to operate at night in heavy rain.

Other companies' cars could as far back as 2013 detect those things in real-time on their first exposure to the road.
Detection is only part of the issue. Differentiation is the issue. Currently all the Google car can detect is a blob of pixels. That blob could be a mailbox, a child, a policeman, a deer, an elderly person, etc. A driver reacts to these items differently. Since the car can not differentiate between them it reacts the same. One of the reasons the roads have to be pree-scanned is so the Google car can differentiate between stationary objects and people who just happen to be standing still. By the way, could you supply references to these other companies' cars that could detect those things?

That will only get better, making your concerns less valid as time goes on.
As I said it is a matter of time. The crux being how much time.

it's just round the corner.
How long have flying cars and fusion power been "just around the corner"?
Re:Future? by Jack+Griffin · 2015-03-21 13:39 · Score: 1

Not sure of your definition of "unprepared" is. Clearly it's different from the rest of us.

Why am I just not that excited about... by slimscsi · 2015-03-18 18:54 · Score: 1

self driving cars? You'll have to take the steering wheel away from my cold, dead palms...iceholes!

We're all missing the potential by Cafe+Alpha · 2015-03-18 19:06 · Score: 1

:) just wait till terrorist nerds are programming self driving cars to cause accidents on purpose. It will be fun like battlebots!

Re:We're all missing the potential by Cafe+Alpha · 2015-03-19 04:28 · Score: 1

Because it's a horrible idea, and I see a pack of lemmings drooling like it's the next iPad and not a single voice of skepticism. Computers aren't people, and you all should know that you shouldn't trust some promised AI that not a single one of you has any experience with. It's vaporware.
I understand, you all have long commutes, but that doesn't mean that we're ready for a damn iCar.
Re:We're all missing the potential by dave420 · 2015-03-19 20:45 · Score: 1

The cars already exist, and are being worked on by some of the best automotive and tech companies the world over. You've not given any actual reason why it's a "horrible idea", you've just spouted endless streams of breathless vague objection based on nothing but misunderstanding and ignorance.

greedy liar by Tom · 2015-03-18 19:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'll tell you what the future is, and the CEOs of Lyft, Uber, etc. know it as well:

Self-driving car-sharing vehicles.

I'm a huge fan of the new car-sharing services that have popped up in recent years. The ones where you simply pick up a car wherever you find it (your iPhone App will show you the nearest ones if you are looking), drive to where you want, and leave it there for the next person to take.

You have a car when you need it, don't need to bother with it when you don't, you don't need to worry about fuel, inspections, washing it - nothing. And you can take the car you need for today. Good weather? Cabrio. Need to transport something? Bigger trunk. etc.

Main disadvantage? Sometimes there's no car nearby, and of course the usual parking space hunt in the city.

Solution: Self-driving cars. Tap a button on your smartphone, the nearest car comes and picks you up. Just exit it at destination and it'll go away by itself, either finding a parking space or going to the next person who called one. If it's an electric car, it can also go and find a charging station if it wants.

Who needs taxis? Who needs Lyft?

They know this, of course, and they know it's coming.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Re:greedy liar by thegarbz · 2015-03-18 20:22 · Score: 1

Hey you mentioned something that I never thought of before. How does the car sharing service pay for parking? If you use a car that's been parked for 10 days do you have to pay $300 in parking fees?
Re:greedy liar by FlyHelicopters · 2015-03-18 20:55 · Score: 1

Main disadvantage? Sometimes there's no car nearby, and of course the usual parking space hunt in the city.
You think THAT is the main disadvantage?
I suppose to people who are used to public transportation, your idea makes sense. To the rest of us who don't ride public transport, it is a horrible idea.
Bleah, getting into a car that 500 people have been in? NO THANK YOU...
Just not gonna do it, it isn't a tech issue, it is a "I like my car because I'm the only one who drives it" issue...
Re:greedy liar by Pentium100 · 2015-03-18 21:33 · Score: 1

I would never share my car with strangers. I have some tools in the trunk, a good audio system, some tapes etc. I like my car. I would not want to essentially give it to somebody and get a different car in return. Even if all cars were completely identical, I would have to carry a suitcase with the stuff that I leave in the car now, which would be inconvenient.

The ones where you simply pick up a car wherever you find it (your iPhone App will show you the nearest ones if you are looking), drive to where you want, and leave it there for the next person to take.
And those cars don't get stolen?
Re:greedy liar by Pascal+Sartoretti · 2015-03-18 22:01 · Score: 1

I fully agree with you. And a few other interesting use cases for self-driving vehicles :
- Kids can use it (for instance when you don't want to have to pick up your kids at their soccer training)
- Older persons can use it when they are not able to drive anymore
- When you get home at 3 AM half drunk
Re:greedy liar by Firethorn · 2015-03-18 22:03 · Score: 1

1. It's a self driving car, it has 'all day' to make it to the cheap lot
2. If it's cheaper to drive home, have it do that.
3. If you're commuting, it's generally cheaper to pay by the month, not by the day, so the car would have an RFID or something for the lot of choice.
Oh, you're talking about the current car-sharing services with non-self driving cars.
The answer there is that they lease dedicated parking spaces for their vehicles. They get agreements with the parking garages and such to get 'group rates' for their vehicles.
If somebody leaves one in a non-approved location, they have employees who will pick it up and move it to the proper spot, at the expense of the renter who left it there.

--
I don't read AC A human right
Re:greedy liar by dave420 · 2015-03-18 23:49 · Score: 2

The actual problem is you think you being able to tell a car has had 500 people in it is somehow more important than the 30,000+ people who die in traffic accidents every year. You can be as entitled as you want, but don't pretend it's a sensible or honorable stance.
Re:greedy liar by Minupla · 2015-03-18 23:51 · Score: 1

Hey - if I had the choice to buy an iphone (I'm an android guy actually) and not have all the hassles and expenses of car ownership when I don't need them (there are days I don't drive, but my car still depreciates, gets one day closer to service, gets one day closer to breaking down, etc.). That'd be a trade I'd make.
I mentioned to my wife last night that it'd be great, I could nap with her and the kidlet, instead of being awake because they frown on napping while driving!
Min

--
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
Re:greedy liar by Tom · 2015-03-18 23:57 · Score: 1

I love the lack of self-awareness in this.

There's a lot telling that in a long post you zeroed in on the one word that triggered you.

You live in the center of the city, don't you? How do your kids like the schools there? Just curious.
So much subtle aggression. Go outside, the weather is beautiful today.
Yes, I live in the city - Lyft and Uber don't exactly serve the countryside, do they? The rest is not your business and is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:greedy liar by Tom · 2015-03-18 23:59 · Score: 1

Kids can use it (for instance when you don't want to have to pick up your kids at their soccer training)
That's a really great thought. Better yet: You can program the car to allow only a set of destinations, so the kids can hop in and get home, but not get lost somewhere else.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:greedy liar by Tom · 2015-03-19 00:01 · Score: 1

I would never share my car with strangers.
That's because you consider it an additional room in your house. I know people who do that, but I never did even when I had a car there was almost nothing in it. Note that I didn't say self-driving car-sharing will replace all private car ownership, that would be stupid. But it will replace taxis and ride-sharing.

And those cars don't get stolen?
They're equipped with GPS, you sign up with your drivers license to these services and unlock the car with an RFID card. So basically they know who you are and that it was you who took the car.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:greedy liar by Tom · 2015-03-19 00:05 · Score: 1

Yeah, I just don't get that attitude. Well, when you own a Lambo or a vintage car or something that's special, yes I get that. But "this Honda Civic is mine, it's so special from the other 20 mio. that came off the same production line" - sorry, I don't get that.
Agreed, sometimes you get a car just before they take it for cleaning and washing and it's a little dirty. But in several years of doing this, I had one car that was actually so dirty I would've taken the next one if I hadn't been in a rush. Most of the time, they're more clean than most private cars I know.
And this thinking that there are all the ghosts of everyone who has ever been in the car is too irrational for me. People who sit in a car do not leave behind a magical aura that affects you three days later.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:greedy liar by Tom · 2015-03-19 00:07 · Score: 1

How does the car sharing service pay for parking?
The ones I use have agreements with the city that they can park on any public parking spot for free, even if you need to pay with your private car there. I don't know if they pay a yearly flat sum to the city or if the city sees it as a quid-pro-quo deal because of the reduced space usage and traffic.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:greedy liar by the+phantom · 2015-03-19 01:24 · Score: 1

I've always said to my wife that I would like to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my grandfather. I certainly don't want to die screaming in terror like the passengers in his car.

--
Rhapsody in Numbers
Re:greedy liar by Tom · 2015-03-19 02:10 · Score: 1

what happens to the taxi drivers
The same thing that happened to the ice cutters, coffee bean sorters, switch board operators and hundreds of other obsolete jobs.

I've never met a taxi driver who would qualify to go to engineering school or become a programmer or some such.
There are lots of jobs for people without higher education. When we reach the development level where everything that unqualified people can do is being done by robots, we can also give everyone a home and food and other shit for free.

So in your world where the sharing economy reigns supreme,

And I thought I just called the CEO of one of those "sharing economy" companies a greedy liar. I'm not a fan of this new buzzword, and frankly speaking half of it is scams. But if we're talking about cars, Lyft and Uber are not the future and I'm surprised people pump billions into them when their business will be obsolete in ten years. They really expect an ROI so quickly?

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:greedy liar by tmosley · 2015-03-19 02:17 · Score: 1

Well, more like maybe 15 or 20. Presumably they would be cleaned out every day or as needed, whichever is more frequent.
Re:greedy liar by penandpaper · 2015-03-19 04:24 · Score: 1

leave behind a magical aura that affects you three days later.
Sounds like the beginning of a horror movie. It's the Ring meets Maximum Overdrive... God help us.
Re:greedy liar by dave420 · 2015-03-19 04:58 · Score: 1

No, it works like homeopathy - once a person has been in the car, the car has a "memory" of that person, which FlyHelicopters is super-sensitive to. He's a special, precious snowflake who gets headaches and hot-flashes when he thinks of other people being in a similar place to him mere hours or minutes before. Because of that and that alone, self-driving cars should be banned forever and ever and ever.
Re:greedy liar by Crazy+Taco · 2015-03-19 05:11 · Score: 1

Main disadvantage? Sometimes there's no car nearby, and of course the usual parking space hunt in the city.
You think THAT is the main disadvantage?
I suppose to people who are used to public transportation, your idea makes sense. To the rest of us who don't ride public transport, it is a horrible idea.
Bleah, getting into a car that 500 people have been in? NO THANK YOU...
Just not gonna do it, it isn't a tech issue, it is a "I like my car because I'm the only one who drives it" issue...
Actually, I'd argue that is not even the main issue. I need to get to work on time, every day, at the same time. At least other public transit options like a bus are fairly reliable and have set schedules. With this, you have no idea if a car is around that can quickly get into range. I can't afford to depend on a "best effort" service that may or may not be there when I need it.
Such a service *might* be ok for primarily young single people who live in the urban core and have a lot of time on their hands, and have all their relatives and friends living in the urban core, because they can take the bus everywhere when a car isn't available, and if they need to go to IKEA to pick up something bigger, maybe they can wait an hour or two for a suitable vehicle to become available. But as a parent who just entered my 30s, I can't afford to be waiting around on cars. The kids can't wait to go to IKEA for two hours... that might interfere with nap time. Or one of them gets sick at school and I need to go immediately pick them up, etc. And I have almost no relatives in the urban core... they are in the suburbs or rural areas where these cars won't be. In short, like most people, I need a dependable car that is available on my schedule, not the other way around.
Someone else made the comment that these are like a low transaction way to get a rental car. That's another thing... I need a car every single day. I'm guessing it's going to be cheaper to buy a car than rent one every day. So yeah, self driving cars may be the future (although I will NOT be an early adopter, given my life depends on the car software), but I don't think that's going to make car share supplant private ownership as the primary way people operate a vehicle.

--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
Re:greedy liar by FlyHelicopters · 2015-03-19 07:17 · Score: 1

Such a service *might* be ok for primarily young single people who live in the urban core and have a lot of time on their hands, and have all their relatives and friends living in the urban core, because they can take the bus everywhere when a car isn't available, and if they need to go to IKEA to pick up something bigger, maybe they can wait an hour or two for a suitable vehicle to become available. But as a parent who just entered my 30s, I can't afford to be waiting around on cars. The kids can't wait to go to IKEA for two hours... that might interfere with nap time. Or one of them gets sick at school and I need to go immediately pick them up, etc. And I have almost no relatives in the urban core... they are in the suburbs or rural areas where these cars won't be. In short, like most people, I need a dependable car that is available on my schedule, not the other way around.
^ This, a thousand times this...
My truck sits about 22 hours a day... sometimes more... some people see that as a "waste", and perhaps in an absolute sense, it is...
But it is actually doing something... it is waiting for me, it is ready with 5 seconds notice, 24/7 to take me anywhere I need to go, right now...
The seats are where I left them, my music collection is always there, the booster seats for my 2 younger children are always in it, etc.
I drive every day, usually 3 or 4 different times a day. Millions and millions of people are just like me. I have to own a car, my entire city and way of life depends on it.
---
Side note: Even the courts get it, if you lose your licence due to traffic violations or other issues, Judges here will usually issue you a permit to drive to work/school/etc. because you HAVE to. Even if you get a DWI, there is simply no other way to get around, so you still have to be able to drive. People will drive anyway, so this sets some stricter rules rather than turning everyone into a criminal.
Re:greedy liar by FlyHelicopters · 2015-03-19 07:19 · Score: 1

Well, more like maybe 15 or 20. Presumably they would be cleaned out every day or as needed, whichever is more frequent.
Really? You think a 5-10 min clean is going to make it "like new"?
You have people who are big, people who are small, people who smell different, people who eat in the car, people who smoke when they shouldn't, people who have kids who throw up, etc.
Re:greedy liar by FlyHelicopters · 2015-03-19 07:24 · Score: 1

Yeah, I just don't get that attitude. Well, when you own a Lambo or a vintage car or something that's special, yes I get that. But "this Honda Civic is mine, it's so special from the other 20 mio. that came off the same production line" - sorry, I don't get that.
My truck isn't "special" in that it is any different than the thousand others that came off the production line, they are all the same.
The seat is where I left it, the music is where I left it, the booster seats for my 2 kids are where I left them. It hasn't had someone eating thai food in it that left a smell.
You can claim they clean it all you want, it never really gets "clean". Perhaps your standards are lower, and that is fine. I find it to be disgusting, just like I find airplane seats to be disgusting (and I know flight attendants from my flying days, they'll tell you stories, and they never get cleaned properly every day).
I have no interest in sitting in a car that someone else might have just been in who has a cold and coughed all over it.
The whole idea is DOA for millions of people. Maybe you like it and that is fine, but to say that it is the future of cars, that is just stupid.
Re:greedy liar by FlyHelicopters · 2015-03-19 07:26 · Score: 1

Nonsense, the two have nothing to do with each other...
Why can't I own my own self-driving car?
---
I'm perfectly happy with the idea of self-driving cars, I am NOT happy with the idea of SHARING them.
Re:greedy liar by antdude · 2015-03-19 14:10 · Score: 1

When we will we get it though? I am waiting for KITT! :P

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Re:greedy liar by tmosley · 2015-03-19 14:18 · Score: 1

Yes, it's called "detergent" and it solublizes most things, making them much easier to remove by mechanical action, ie scrubbing. 99.9% of the time, you don't need to go to such extremes, though. Just a quick vacuum will do.
Re:greedy liar by FlyHelicopters · 2015-03-19 14:35 · Score: 1

Well that's nice that you think the cars would be cleaned top to bottom like that... of course, it would take more than 5-10 min to do that, more like an hour to do it properly...
You clearly have different standards of "clean" than I do, and that's ok.
Re:greedy liar by tmosley · 2015-03-19 14:41 · Score: 1

Sorry, Mr. Monk, if regular people standards don't meet your idiot crazy institutionalized in a nut house for being crazy standards.
Re:greedy liar by dave420 · 2015-03-19 20:48 · Score: 1

Your truck is not doing anything. That's what "waiting for you" means - doing nothing until you need it. Your way of life doesn't depend on you owning your car, unless having your CDs is your way of life. If that's the case, I think you have more problems than cars :)

Re:Death traps. by Pentium100 · 2015-03-18 19:15 · Score: 2

One problem is who will bear the responsibility for the accident. As it is now, if I hit another car or a person, I am responsible for it and am punished for it. This is fair. Now, if a self-driving car hits someone and the car was maintained properly (no problems with brakes etc), then the accident was really caused by the software. Will the manufacturer pay for the damage caused? Because now I am not responsible for something I had no control over.

Another problem is that when a self-driving car causes an accident, it will be something that would have been obvious to a human driver, resulting in the general opinion that self driving cars are stupid.

As for me, I love my car made in 1982 with no computers in it (yes, it has a carburetor and mechanical controls) and would not want to replace it with a car that has software. Not as much for the software by itself, but the possibilities of lock-in, DRM, hacking and so on.

Re:Self-Driving problems... by Racemaniac · 2015-03-18 19:21 · Score: 1

Odd, i was thinking the opposite way. Have some selfdriving cars be modified a bit extra by the police (with some proper calibration of everything, and some extra sensors), and you've got near permanent police presence on every big road. And it's no longer just people driving to fast past a speed trap that get caught, but all other antisocial behaviors too. It'll make the roads hell for human drivers who are used to being jerks on the road :).

Re:Death traps. by GNious · 2015-03-18 19:33 · Score: 1, Insightful

My prophecy:
Self driving cars will be better than humans in 99,99% of the situations within 3 years. Sadly it will take another 5 to wide scale adoption and yet another 10 years for human driven cars to be banned to racetracks.

Irrelevant - the moment a self-driving car has an accident that causes loss of life, there'll be a public outcry against them, and a demand that they be banned for being too unsafe, statistics-be-damned.

Oops! by SuperKendall · 2015-03-18 19:46 · Score: 1

Yes, Total Recall is right! Thanks for the correction.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Death traps. by ShanghaiBill · 2015-03-18 19:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

One problem is who will bear the responsibility for the accident.

We already know that. The insurance company is responsible.

Three states (California, Nevada, and Florida) already allow SDCs on their roads. The liability issue is already resolved.

Another problem is that when a self-driving car causes an accident, it will be something that would have been obvious to a human driver, resulting in the general opinion that self driving cars are stupid.

When a human causes an accident, it is almost always something that would have been obvious to another human driver, resulting in the general opinion that humans are stupid. Most people are intelligent enough to realize that SDCs will not be perfect, but they will prevent a lot more accidents that they will cause, and the tradeoff is worth it. Seat-belts and airbags also occasionally kill people, but they save ten lives for every one they take, and people accept the tradeoff.

Re:Death traps. by Neil+Boekend · 2015-03-18 19:52 · Score: 1

Sorry, I am talking from a Dutch point of view. 18+ year old cars are rare here and most of them are oldtimers, only to be driven a few times a year. That argument will not stop it here.

Normal human idiocy like banning them because of one death (despite statistics) might, but I like having high hopes.

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.

Honest Thought by NitsujTPU · 2015-03-18 19:58 · Score: 1

I think that autonomous vehicles will come and go, but they'll be around almost as long as cars with drivers. I'd bet that in the long-long term, urban planning will change such that cars become entirely unnecessary in all but the most remote places. I don't think that we'll ever become so densely populated that the world is one big city, but I'll bet that we'll see large high-rise condos become much much more common, and then it'll be a ride down an elevator to do your shopping and a walk or train ride to school.

It's not that suburbia isn't awesome. It's just the direction I kind of envision things going in. I could be wrong. This sort of radical shift in urban planning would take centuries, to take hold in the west.

Re:Honest Thought by Jack+Griffin · 2015-03-19 00:46 · Score: 2

I don't think that we'll ever become so densely populated that the world is one big city, but I'll bet that we'll see large high-rise condos become much much more common, and then it'll be a ride down an elevator to do your shopping and a walk or train ride to school.
It's not that suburbia isn't awesome. It's just the direction I kind of envision things going in. I could be wrong. This sort of radical shift in urban planning would take centuries, to take hold in the west.
This already exists in places like Hong Kong and Singapore, and is starting to take hold elsewhere. The exodus to the suburbs in the 60's is slowly being reversed as people appreciate the convenience of living close to amenities. Inner cities are being gentrified, more people are choosing apartment living, because convenience beats everything. Being within walking distance to everything means never having to worry about a car, self-driven or not.
Re:Honest Thought by dave420 · 2015-03-19 20:51 · Score: 1

Then there are alternative systems of public transport, frequently adopted in Germany. This entails longer-distance trains using the in-city tram tracks. They are slightly-larger trams (some with toilets & a restaurant car) which connect the larger cities with outlying towns. That means you can be in one town, walk to the nearest tram stop, jump on, and in minutes be whizzing to another town or city for a few euros. It's great stuff.

Re:Wrong analogy by Hognoxious · 2015-03-18 20:04 · Score: 1

Analogies aren't exact. If they were, they wouldn't be analogies, they'd be the things.

The pattern is "Person in business X says Y is shit", where Y is a competitor of X.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Re:Death traps. by Sique · 2015-03-18 20:10 · Score: 1

Irrelevant. The moment they aren't banned in other countries and getting to be the norm there because of decreasing accidents, less traffic jams, better utilization of roads and lower impact on the environment, some will rethink their stance and reintroduce them again. It might be a 10 years delay, but I think self driving cars will be the norm.

I for instance would buy one as soon as they are affordable.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*

There is actually such a thing as intelligence by Cafe+Alpha · 2015-03-18 20:15 · Score: 1

and software doesn't have it.

Really. I can't believe that all these nerds like to pretend that their toys are actually thinking. They're not. And "self driving cars" won't know that they're driving, won't know what a human is, won't know what a horse is, won't know what ANY OF THE THINGS IN THE ENVIRONMENT ARE. They won't recognize when trillion of possible conditions are strange.

You want something totally insentient DRIVING A CAR?

Are you all insentient yourselves?

Re:There is actually such a thing as intelligence by dave420 · 2015-03-18 23:52 · Score: 1

So because you have no understanding of this technology, the problem lies with it, and not with your ignorance. Gotcha. You are a clever fellow, aren't you.
Re:There is actually such a thing as intelligence by Cytotoxic · 2015-03-19 01:34 · Score: 1

and software doesn't have it.
Really. I can't believe that all these nerds like to pretend that their toys are actually thinking. They're not. And "self driving cars" won't know that they're driving, won't know what a human is, won't know what a horse is, won't know what ANY OF THE THINGS IN THE ENVIRONMENT ARE. They won't recognize when trillion of possible conditions are strange.
You want something totally insentient DRIVING A CAR?
Are you all insentient yourselves?
Yeah, they don't need to know any of that. A robot welding machine doesn't know that it is making a car either. Nor does a MakerBot know that it is making custom knobs for your car radio.
There are literally trillions of living things that are able to successfully navigate their environments without anything approaching sentience. That may be a requirement for discussing the merits of the Star Trek reboot, but for navigating the environment? Not so much. Not that this is an easy problem. It obviously isn't. That's why everyone was so impressed with the DARPA challenge and then the Google car. It is amazing. But it isn't sentience. And it doesn't need to be.
Re:There is actually such a thing as intelligence by jeffmflanagan · 2015-03-19 02:51 · Score: 1

Does enjoying your baseless hysterics, and mindless flailing at anyone who doesn't share your peculiar, extremist views make me a bad person? Probably.
Re:There is actually such a thing as intelligence by Alioth · 2015-03-19 03:23 · Score: 1

When it comes to road safety, sentience is overrated.
If a non-sentient computer can drive a car safer and more efficiently than me and other people, we'll be better off for it.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows

Headline got cut off by wonkey_monkey · 2015-03-18 20:16 · Score: 1

Lyft CEO: Self-Driving Cars Aren't the Future

"...I hope."

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.

It won't understand situations, it shouldn't make by Cafe+Alpha · 2015-03-18 20:24 · Score: 1

life and death situations. I'm a big fan of A.I. including "strong AI" (means actually sentient) a big enough fan that I know that we're no\where near having competent general A.I. let alone some incompetent version of strong A.I.

Only sentient beings should be allowed to drive. Period.

Totally unnecessary. by Cafe+Alpha · 2015-03-18 20:30 · Score: 1

That's a fact about "self driving vehicles". Now what is supposed to make them worth the risk to every person in society who might be near a road sometime?

Re:Totally unnecessary. by dave420 · 2015-03-19 01:05 · Score: 1

The fact they're already better than human drivers, for one thing. You're the one who wants to risk every person in society who might be near a road, as humans did not evolve to perform such tasks, at the cost of over 30,000 deaths per year in the US.

Re:It won't understand situations, it shouldn't ma by Kokuyo · 2015-03-18 20:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm really sorry to have to be so direct but that is the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

Driving is not a matter of intelligence. It's a matter of reaction. Sure, intelligence and experience help you anticipate when other drivers are being idiots, but there is very little involved in driving that can not be compensated by reaction time and adhering to proper distances.

The biggest hurdle to take is to correctly measure the surroundings. If you did that via image recognition, then yes, AI would be important. But there is laser, radar, GPS and so many other sensors involved that do nothing more than note distances to targets, location on road etc.

Autonomous driving certainly isn't trivial, but the other thing you have to keep in mind is that your oh so intelligent human drivers are actually driving like morons a lot of the time.

Please stop putting the bar for autonomous driving so high the systems have to practically be perfect the be viable. The moment they are twice as good as a human should be the moment we start switching. And we're not far from that.

Remember how badly the average driver actually drives. And then remember that half of them drive worse than that.

Add on top of that networked driving, where cars coordinate over several hundred meters and you'll see so much potential gain even from non-perfect systems it's staggering.

Re:Self-Driving problems... by Harlequin80 · 2015-03-18 20:36 · Score: 1

I doubt it. Because that would be poor software design. The software would be looking to avoid accidents in an order of severity. Your pushing off the road at an exist may work but your pushing to increase speed wouldn't.

In most vehicle brakes far exceed the power of the engine. Even in cases where it doesn't the brakes have twice as much contact patch with the road than the engine (unless you are in a 4wd with dual diff locks / limited slip diff). The most sensible and safest tactic is to not accelerate inside the box past a predefined safe speed. So at say 10% over the speed limit the car will refuse to go faster irrespective of how close the rear vehicle comes. Then if the 'tard behind does actually ram or nudge the vehicle the car would then begin to apply the brakes gradually until the vehicle is stopped.

The computer would be able to counteract for rotation as it would have independent control of the brakes for each wheel allowing it to bias front / rear / left / right as required.

Wait, can machines even walk yet? by Cafe+Alpha · 2015-03-18 20:37 · Score: 1, Funny

How about if we make sure that machines can do ordinary tasks before we put them in a position of endangering everyone who goes near a road?

Sure we'll have intelligent machines one day. So we're suppose to have machines driving vehicles some 80 years before they're smart? What idiot thought THAT was a good idea?

Re:Wait, can machines even walk yet? by IamTheRealMike · 2015-03-19 00:33 · Score: 2

Yes they can walk

So we're suppose to have machines driving vehicles some 80 years before they're smart? What idiot thought THAT was a good idea?
Your realise machines are routinely put in charge of vehicles that travel at 600 mph and in which mistakes can cause disintegration of the machine, killing everyone on board? Yet they're much safer than the human pilots we keep around as psychological placebos.

Re:It won't understand situations, it shouldn't ma by Cafe+Alpha · 2015-03-18 20:40 · Score: 1

The moment something in reality changes, the map is wrong.

The moment there's radio interference, the GPS doesn't work.

The moment one of 10^20 things you know about but a machine wouldn't changes, you'd know that something was wrong but a machine wouldn't. Is it really that hard to see that having machine driving before machine intelligence is idiotic?

GPS aren't as acurate as they pretend to be. by Cafe+Alpha · 2015-03-18 20:43 · Score: 2

There's a lot of filtering to hide just how inaccurate GPSes are. That doesn't matter when a human is looking at a screen and ignoring it when it's obviously wrong. But it makes a huge difference when an idiotic machine is driving.

Re:GPS aren't as acurate as they pretend to be. by dave420 · 2015-03-18 23:54 · Score: 1

Seeing as it doesn't use GPS to drive the car, just to navigate, your argument applies precisely as much to self-driving cars as human-driven cars. People can't detect as much detail as a LIDAR can, so I don't know why you're arguing in favor that the slow-reaction-time, limited-perception solution is better, except that you are being irrational, as every one of your posts on this subject seems to indicate.

Re:We need them! by Cafe+Alpha · 2015-03-18 20:44 · Score: 1

What's wrong with hiring drivers?

Self driving taxis will be a harder sell by John.Banister · 2015-03-18 21:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

Self driving cars operated by the owner are a different situation from that of self driving taxis. The owner and rider interests diverge when those are different people. A self driving taxi has to protect itself from theft & abuse and protect its owner from lawsuits. That mean the person riding in the taxi won't be allowed to arbitrarily stop it, assume manual control, or exit in locations considered by the taxi owner to be unsafe. Putting my car in self driving mode with my average speed 10 mph in gridlock sounds attractive. Getting into a little vehicle capable of traveling to arbitrary locations and trusting it like I would a train takes the early adopter impulse right out of me. Maybe self driving buses would make the transition better.

Re:Self driving taxis will be a harder sell by Kjella · 2015-03-19 00:16 · Score: 1

That mean the person riding in the taxi won't be allowed to arbitrarily stop it
I really doubt a car without an "emergency stop" button will ever fly. And if by default won't let you open the doors then an override and/or an emergency hammer to break the glass, they're not going to make something where you get trapped in a fire. Maybe it won't go offroad or pull up the driveway for me, but street address to street address it should be "close enough" unless I got 30kg of luggage. Otherwise I can complain and maybe they can do a remote drive-by-wire or get half off / refund.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Re:Bulls... since when will self driving cars have by N1AK · 2015-03-18 21:05 · Score: 1

Do you really think so little of thought that it never occurs to you that it's important?

I'd follow your own advice, and I'm be more courteous as well but that's mainly because I don't like looking like a keyboard warrior.

Nothing you said in any way highlighted a short coming of a automated car. You made a few unsubstantiated remarks about machines being 'moronic' etc. Personally when I look at the behaviour of many road users, and too many internet posters, it certainly seems like flesh-bag morons are pretty common already!

Re:Bulls... since when will self driving cars have by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-18 21:07 · Score: 1

Do you really think so little of thought that it never occurs to you that it's important?

Oh, I think a lot about thought, but I also walk a lot and get to see human drivers from the view of a pedestrian.
I encounter situations on a weekly bases where I know that had it been a child or an animal in my position then it would have been dead.
It is small things. A driver looks the wrong way at an intersection, perhaps he just blinks at the wrong time, and quite recently he just checks his phone.
I don't get ran over because I realize that the driver isn't attentive or doesn't care about my right of way.
The reason the kid on the bike doesn't get ran over isn't because the drivers skill.

A self driving taxi with a little knockout gas by Cafe+Alpha · 2015-03-18 21:12 · Score: 1

would make an awesome way to kidnap.

Re:A self driving taxi with a little knockout gas by dave420 · 2015-03-19 01:08 · Score: 2

Just like now, with a taxi driver and a kosh. You are really, really clutching at straws. Seriously - you sound like you need help.

Re:Death traps. by FlyHelicopters · 2015-03-18 21:12 · Score: 1

Irrelevant - the moment a self-driving car has an accident that causes loss of life, there'll be a public outcry against them, and a demand that they be banned for being too unsafe, statistics-be-damned.

What is sad is that you're probably right and it shows how ignorant most humans really are...

We are not, in general, as smart as we think we are...

What happens in an emergency - roads all stop? by Cafe+Alpha · 2015-03-18 21:16 · Score: 1, Insightful

Say there's an earthquake. Or a rockslide. Or an avalanche.

Humans can see if there's a gap in the road. They can see if the road has moved. They can judge unusual conditions.

If the roads are full of machine drivers will have to simply stop, because the machines won't have the judgement to handle the situations.

Re:What happens in an emergency - roads all stop? by dave420 · 2015-03-19 01:06 · Score: 1

Google's cars have LIDAR at an elevated position. They can see far better than any human, and can far more accurately plan routes through such terrain. You'd know this if you bothered to read.
Re:What happens in an emergency - roads all stop? by d34thm0nk3y · 2015-03-19 05:53 · Score: 1

Humans can see if there's a gap in the road. They can see if the road has moved. They can judge unusual conditions.

Hah! You think your puny eyes can beat LIDAR and Laser range-finding sensors?

What a joke...

Re:Death traps. by Pentium100 · 2015-03-18 21:24 · Score: 1

And who pays for the insurance? Why should I pay for it if the accident will not be caused by me, but by some programmer who forgot to take some variable into account when writing the software for my car?

I understand that I am responsible for the accident if:
1) I was actually driving the car (like it is now)
2) I neglected to maintain the car, therefore some part of it failed and resulted in the accident.

However, if the software causes the accident all by itself, why should I pay for it? Especially if I had no way to prevent the accident.

Re:We need them! by Cafe+Alpha · 2015-03-18 21:25 · Score: 1

Naw, they're just Apple reality-distortion-field brainwashed to salivate whenever they hear about a new toy.

The writing is on the wall, /.ers want to see an by Cafe+Alpha · 2015-03-18 21:38 · Score: 1, Funny

iCar asap. They can't wait to see a real car driven by a furby! It doesn't matter how dangerous it is.

Re:Death traps. by stephanruby · 2015-03-18 21:46 · Score: 2

My prophecy:
Self driving cars will be better than humans in 99,99% of the situations within 3 years. Sadly it will take another 5 to wide scale adoption and yet another 10 years for human driven cars to be banned to racetracks.

Your calculation implies that everyone replaces their car within a 5 year period.

That may be true in Beverly Hills, but it's certainly not true in the rest of the US.

The average age of cars on U.S. roads is 11.4 years, IHS Automotive reports. The average age of vehicles on U.S. roads has hit a plateau of about 11.4 years, according to an annual study by IHS Automotive, an auto industry research firm. Jun 9, 2014

In any case, I find your optimism unjustified.

In the Bay Area for instance, we could already make BART trains fully automated, and it's been studied they would become safer to boot, but attempting to change that system to get rid of the operators would be absolute political suicide.

Re:Death traps. by Firethorn · 2015-03-18 21:55 · Score: 1

We already know that. The insurance company is responsible.

Also, in many cases 'true accident' or 'Act of God'* is an actual category. IE 'Nobody did anything definably negligent, so the accident isn't really anybody's fault'.

A tiny piece of road debris was hit at just the wrong spot, causing a tire to blow, which the self-driving car wasn't able to adjust for fast enough, causing an accident. A sudden wind gust(in a wind storm, most likely), pushed the car too far over, etc...

When self-driving cars are developed enough to be usable by the average person, for something like 99% of trips, while being demonstrated to be substantially safer than the average driver for said trips, I'll support liability reform to get them on the road. What form that reform would take, I don't really know yet, other than a wild stab at 'limited liability per individual'. IE the insurance/auto company won't have to pay out more than $5M per individual, adjusted for inflation and increasing value of human life. Unless a 'coverup' is found, deliberate negligence, or whatever.

*A statement that I don't like because I don't believe he exists.

--
I don't read AC A human right

Re:Self-Driving problems... by Firethorn · 2015-03-18 21:58 · Score: 1

Keep in mind that the occupant of said self driving car will have both hands free to operate whatever firearms he might possess.

You never know, it might be me in that self-driving car, and I might take exception to your engine block in that case. If I'm feeling nice. If I'm not feeling so nice, I might go after the steering actuator.

--
I don't read AC A human right

Re:We need them! by Firethorn · 2015-03-18 22:04 · Score: 1

Drivers are expensive. Self-driving could be less than 1/4 the cost of a minimum wage employee for a year.

--
I don't read AC A human right

As if he knows anything by Lumpy · 2015-03-18 22:33 · Score: 1

They might as well asked the CEO of Tim Hortons about the future of undersea exploration.

Lyft CEO doesn't know shit about cars or the automotive industry, why the hell is anyone asking his opinion as if he is an expert?

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Re:Bulls... since when will self driving cars have by Dagger2 · 2015-03-18 22:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't know that. It should be perfectly possible to make a machine that can drive as well as, or better than, a human can. Have we managed to make that already? I don't know, but from the info Google have been publishing, it actually looks like we have, or are pretty damn close.

Just because it's a machine doesn't automatically mean that it sucks at making decisions. Humans are machines too, and we let them drive.

Simple version already exist by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-18 23:01 · Score: 1

In St. Petersburg, Russia subway does actually already have a computer-driven vehicles. The problem there is much simple: there is a single path. All you need is essentially only start/stop commands. Subway carts driving is completely automated. But the person still sits there. Probably for legal and emergency reason. For example if somebody is holding a door, preventing it from closing - initially automated voice would make an announcement: "do not hold the door", if no effect - machinist would yell on PA. I think if you want to have a self-driving car you need to modify the road, not the car, making it more like subway/railroad with all its advantages and disadvantages.

Re:Bulls... since when will self driving cars have by Jack+Griffin · 2015-03-19 00:05 · Score: 1

You've never seen a machine attempt any sort of image recognition then. Spoiler: They suck at it. Google make a car that behaves according to a set of known and understood circumstances in a controlled environment. I've never driven on a public road that exhibited those characteristics.

Re:Death traps. by Jack+Griffin · 2015-03-19 00:22 · Score: 1

How do you define better? I'd love to see what maths you'd use to tell a computer the difference between a plastic cone and a small dog. Image recognition is the elephant in the room for self-controlling robots. Until that is solved then they'll never be allowed on the streets.

Re:Death traps. by Jack+Griffin · 2015-03-19 00:26 · Score: 1

Your calculation implies that everyone replaces their car within a 5 year period.

That may be true in Beverly Hills, but it's certainly not true in the rest of the US.

It also implies these wonders of technology will cost the same as a regular car. A cheap aircraft cost $300k. An automated drone costs a couple of million. If those costs translate to cars then they're guaranteed to never be mainstream.

what about criminal liability for auto drive cars? by Joe_Dragon · 2015-03-19 00:36 · Score: 1

There things that can happen with auto drive cars that fall under criminal liability and criminal courts.

Re:Death traps. by Jack+Griffin · 2015-03-19 00:37 · Score: 1

When a human causes an accident, it is almost always something that would have been obvious to another human driver, resulting in the general opinion that humans are stupid. Most people are intelligent enough to realize that SDCs will not be perfect, but they will prevent a lot more accidents that they will cause, and the tradeoff is worth it. Seat-belts and airbags also occasionally kill people, but they save ten lives for every one they take, and people accept the tradeoff.

Your logic is not quite right there. Firstly a seat belt or airbag is not a decision making piece of machinery. A self-drvie car actually has to make decisions. Is that a plastic bag, or a cat? Each decision is a risk of a crash. You're also assuming that if human crash rate is x, then as long as automaton crash rate is less than x then everything is fine. But it doesn't work like that.
People believe it is only other stupid people that crash, and as long as they're in control they have a say in whether they crash or not. Handing over control to an automaton takes away that control. So your perceived risk goes from zero to something greater than zero.
Put this in with the flying car. Even if it did actually work, it's too expensive/impractical/risky to ever get approved anywhere public.

Wrong. by wwphx · 2015-03-19 00:49 · Score: 1

I have a friend who is epileptic who would really benefit from this, there are times that she simply can't drive. Her roommate has fibromyalgia, and there are times she's almost immobilized by pain. Me, I'd want one as the two out of state places that I go to the most are 500 and 620 miles away, I'd LOVE the ability to pilot the car to the interstate then sit back with a book.

The problem is idiot American drivers. I've been accident-free for over 20 years now, but having worked for a police department and helped develop a database for tracking car accidents, I definitely appreciate the infinite diversity of the idiots out there on the road.

--
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.

Two words by BarbaraHudson · 2015-03-19 00:55 · Score: 1

Road rage. Won't happen with self-driving cars. Also, gang-bangers will have a harder time doing drive-by shootings, car jackings, etc.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.

Re:Two words by Alioth · 2015-03-19 02:46 · Score: 1

Surely drive-by shootings will become easier, as now they have one more person who can do the shooting once you get rid of the need for a driver?

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Re:Two words by BarbaraHudson · 2015-03-19 02:58 · Score: 1

No, because you can't just accelerate to the point you're beside the drive, point and shoot, and then drive off on a crazy course. You have no control of the cars behavior in traffic. It may just choose to drive along behind the driver you want to cap, until they turn off your intended route.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.

Re:It won't understand situations, it shouldn't ma by Jack+Griffin · 2015-03-19 00:56 · Score: 1

The biggest hurdle to take is to correctly measure the surroundings. If you did that via image recognition, then yes, AI would be important. But there is laser, radar, GPS and so many other sensors involved that do nothing more than note distances to targets, location on road etc.

And this is impossible IMO. On a busy road you are only centimetres from other vehicles doing 60km/h, 120km/h for oncoming traffic. A human accepts that the car next to him probably won't change lanes suddenly and crash, so accepts the risk knowing that there is a chance it could happen. A computer needs AI to decide which of those risks are acceptable. When you come around a slight bend and a car is coming straight at you, you know they are likely to miss (still might hit, but that is the risk you accept) because of the bend in the road means the driver will veer past you. How does a computer work whether that is an acceptable risk, or an actual impending collision which requires emergency braking? The public road has too many variables. Too many risks that a human accepts that a computer won't be allowed to.

This just in! by Red_Chaos1 · 2015-03-19 00:57 · Score: 1

Man with stake in business driving people places claims new technology that would obviate said business aren't the future! News at 11.

Re:Bulls... since when will self driving cars have by BarbaraHudson · 2015-03-19 01:01 · Score: 1

Therefore you're just fine with putting machines on the road that you KNOW won't have any judgement? Just because some human drivers aren't good? You want fleets of more insentient drivers? How is that acceptable?

Better than putting alcoholics and other impaired drivers on the road - and there's a lot of them. And people who drive, text, and use their laptop at the same time. Or stuff their face while driving - that Big Gulp completely blocks your view of the road. Or drivers that are too tired. Or too timid to do a merge onto a highway in heavy traffic but they try it, and their nerve fails them halfway through, blocking everyone behind them. Or the pizza delivery guy (or soccer mom) who thinks that they can do 45 mph in a school zone. Or can't park worth a darn and end up 4 feet from the sidewalk.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.

Re:Bulls... since when will self driving cars have by drinkypoo · 2015-03-19 01:03 · Score: 1

the intelligence to avoid situations better than say an actually intelligent being?

It's not the intelligence. It's probably going to be a long while before the computer is capable of modeling the mental state of other drivers sufficiently to tell whether they're likely to cut you off. It's the patience. It won't execute a passing move at such a speed differential that it can't get out of the situation if the other driver goes all asshole on it. If that means some dick cuts the computer off and then rides alongside a semi for miles, the computer will be patient and wait for the road to clear. You'll get to your destination in most cases within 5% or so of the time you would have got there if you drove like an asshole, and you'll get there more often. So will everyone else.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:The writing is on the wall, /.ers want to see a by dave420 · 2015-03-19 01:11 · Score: 1

The fact you are comparing the processing power of a self-driving car to a SunPlus SPC81A shows you're not even bothered in having a rational, adult discussion. You've made your mind up and no amount of evidence will dissuade you from vomiting up paranoid, incorrect nonsense for all to see, as if somehow everyone else won't instantly realise you are a grade-A muppet.

Same old dumb arguments by SecurityGuy · 2015-03-19 01:14 · Score: 1

Anti: blah, blah, blah, self-driving cars will never be good enough, they're unsafe, they don't think!!!!!1111 Panic!!!1111
Pro: Yes, they're wonderful and never distracted and will be better than puppies and rainbows!!!!!11111

It's really simple. People who want it to work are trying to make it work. If you antis are right, they won't be good enough and they'll never be much more than a curiosity. If you pros are right, they'll be provably better and the anti argument will be simply refuted by saying "Look at the data."

Re:As an eternal pedestrian (I cannot drive)... by dave420 · 2015-03-19 01:15 · Score: 1

The LIDAR in a Google car would see you before you saw it. The rest is just interface work - developing a more human-friendly interface than blinking lights or the ambiguity of a driver's face and gesticulations (is he waving at you or the car trying to turn behind you, etc.).

Re:As an eternal pedestrian (I cannot drive)... by SecurityGuy · 2015-03-19 01:19 · Score: 1

Foolish, IMO. My ex has a friend who was about to cross the street, made eye contact with an older gentleman who motioned to her that it was ok to cross, then promptly hit her when she tried. Turns out he never saw her and the gesture she thought was telling her it was ok to cross had nothing to do with her at all.

IF self-driving cars work as planned, they'll always notice you. They'll never (ok, nearly never, aka less than a comparable human driver) hit you. If they aren't provably better than human drivers, they shouldn't be allowed on the roads, and I daresay in this litigious society, never would be.

Re:Bulls... since when will self driving cars have by dave420 · 2015-03-19 01:20 · Score: 1

The very same controlled environment it's being designed for use on: public roads. And bear in mind that the current version is an early attempt. Clearly they will get better - much better. Computer image recognition has progressed a lot in recent years, and continues to improve every year. Human image recognition isn't perfect, and can not be improved. Human image recognition is ridiculously bad when the image to be recognised is in the road, yet the human's eyes are on their phone/radio/attractive person on the sidewalk/clouds/daydreaming/whatever. Computers aren't distracted by any of those.

You've got to try harder! If you are emotionally distressed by the idea of automatic cars, just say so. Pretending you have logical concerns isn't helping anyone.

Re:Death traps. by burtosis · 2015-03-19 01:22 · Score: 1

We already know that. The insurance company is responsible.

Three states (California, Nevada, and Florida) already allow SDCs on their roads. The liability issue is already resolved.

This has never been tested in court. It's one thing to quietly pass a bill and another when CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc all run "first human baby murdered by rampaging machine" as a headline

Another problem is that when a self-driving car causes an accident, it will be something that would have been obvious to a human driver, resulting in the general opinion that self driving cars are stupid.

When a human causes an accident, it is almost always something that would have been obvious to another human driver, resulting in the general opinion that humans are stupid. Most people are intelligent enough to realize that SDCs will not be perfect, but they will prevent a lot more accidents that they will cause, and the tradeoff is worth it. Seat-belts and airbags also occasionally kill people, but they save ten lives for every one they take, and people accept the tradeoff.

Are you seriously busting out "people are logical and rational AND will know better" as an argument? Seatbelts have no sensors they are purely mechanical. Airbags need some extremely basic smarts but there have been injuries and fatalities due to design problems. But very few. SDC need extreme smarts bordering on strong AI do do what even the worst humans can. Humans stem from creatures that have been navigating the world for billions of years - a strong ability to navigate is built into all animals. People wont tolerate machines failing to miss simple human avoidable accidents even if safer. SDC, if implemented widely, will cause tens of thousands of deaths a year or more the the political backlash will have more to do with stupid people and politics than sense.

Re:Death traps. by dave420 · 2015-03-19 01:26 · Score: 1

Is the object conical and orange? It's a cone. Is it fluffy, small, and even slightly moving? It's a small animal. You appear to be arguing from ignorance and emotion. It's not very becoming. The concerns you have are already solved.

Re:Death traps. by BarbaraHudson · 2015-03-19 01:30 · Score: 1

Airbags do make decisions. The airbag decides whether to deploy, and, based on the impact, how fast to inflate.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.

Run over dog or child ? Really by jacksdl · 2015-03-19 01:35 · Score: 1

This argument reminds me of the arguments I heard about seat belts (e.g. I want to be thrown clear in a crash, Don't want to drown trying to unbuckle, etc.) Children are run down pretty regularly, so are dogs. In many, if not most, of those cases the car could have been stopped safely if 1) the human driver reacted faster / wasn't distracted and 2) the driver was traveling at a speed safe for context and conditions.

I assume the statistic that 90% of automobile accidents are caused by human error is correct. The automated cars of the near future won't be perfect -- but they will outperform humans as drivers by a large margin.

The sensors and programming used in the self driving cars will continue to improve (at a much faster rate than human drivers improve -- if they do at all). Black ice is "invisible" to most drivers. Is it invisible in the infrared? Could wheel sensors detect minute slippage and compensate faster than a human? Could networked self driving cars warn each other of such conditions as they are encountered?

It is true that specially designed roads would also improve self driving cars, but even on today's roads they will be superior to human drivers.

Re:Death traps. by Whorhay · 2015-03-19 01:42 · Score: 1

Millions of business owners do this already everyday when they insure their workers against doing something stupid. By choosing to own and operate a SDC you have to accept the minimal level of risk that it could be the cause of, or faulted in an accident. You pay the probably incredibly small liability insurance and move on. When most cars are SDC accident rates will likely fall drastically, and so in turn with the cost of insuring a vehicle. Even with the high accident numbers we have today many people pay for full coverage insurance, including clauses protecting them from uninsured drivers. I'm rather confident that insurance will be a non issue with SDC's.

Re:It won't understand situations, it shouldn't ma by burtosis · 2015-03-19 01:42 · Score: 1

I'm really sorry to have to be so direct but that is the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

Driving is not a matter of intelligence. It's a matter of reaction. Sure, intelligence and experience help you anticipate when other drivers are being idiots, but there is very little involved in driving that can not be compensated by reaction time and adhering to proper distances.

actually extracting raw enviornment data is fairly trivial compared to the interpretation, fusion, and implementation problems. When sensor data conflicts, or sensors become dirty, its things get hard. But how do you know if that bicycle is going to stop when its trajectory intersects with your vehicle? People make eye contact to make sure the cyclist sees you - simply running them over for a minor infraction is not a solution, nor is applying the brakes every time any pedestrian or cyclist is near

The biggest hurdle to take is to correctly measure the surroundings. If you did that via image recognition, then yes, AI would be important. But there is laser, radar, GPS and so many other sensors involved that do nothing more than note distances to targets, location on road etc.

as above this is the most trivial thing - if that was all that it took it would be already solved

Autonomous driving certainly isn't trivial, but the other thing you have to keep in mind is that your oh so intelligent human drivers are actually driving like morons a lot of the time.

Please stop putting the bar for autonomous driving so high the systems have to practically be perfect the be viable. The moment they are twice as good as a human should be the moment we start switching. And we're not far from that.

Remember how badly the average driver actually drives. And then remember that half of them drive worse than that.

Add on top of that networked driving, where cars coordinate over several hundred meters and you'll see so much potential gain even from non-perfect systems it's staggering.

With 50 different brands, car nuts screaming the government is taking away their freedom, etc. We will never have cooperative piloting on general roads. It's pretty obvious you have never worked with this technology.

Re:It won't understand situations, it shouldn't ma by Cytotoxic · 2015-03-19 01:43 · Score: 1

You say that as if this isn't already a solved problem. There are loads of autonomous vehicles already successfully navigating the public roads in general traffic. This technology is so far along that companies like Nvidia have off-the-shelf autonomous car kits on the market, ready for carmakers to integrate into their vehicles.

Your rant sounds like the guy in 1906 saying that travelling faster than 35 mph was impossible as the Stanley Steamer screams past at 120 mph in the background.

Re:Self-Driving problems... by gnupun · 2015-03-19 01:43 · Score: 1

What would be a lot of fun would be the rednecks encountering many state troopers a mile or so ahead. That's because these self-driving cars are made by Google so it will have all types of sensors up the wazoo. The second the car detects it's being "attacked," it will send a distress call over wifi, along with the license plates of the attackers.

This though, is the reason I don't like self-driving cars. The car manufacturer and the govt can track your every move. It's a ridiculous invasion of privacy.

Business Will cause Acceptance by JimSadler · 2015-03-19 01:44 · Score: 1

We will see businesses insist upon self driving cars. The local pizza joint has huge issues with delivery. The liability as well as the expense create too much demand for self driving vehicles. Imagine a machine making your pizza and another machine boxing that pizza and loading it into an autonomous vehicle for delivery. A human might need to come in a few minutes a day to be certain that all is well but the entire business can be automated with zero labor expenses. Then imagine insurance companies pushing for self driving cars. After all the great risk to their profits is not sheet metal but wounded mortals. So the local grocery store can pull your order, slam it to your debit card and your autonomous vehicle can pull into the loading bay and bring it home to you. Reduced exposure to driver and passenger injuries will cause insurance companies to push for self driving vehicles. The grocery stores will love it as they will need far less cashiers and they won't even need top display the products to the public. Frankly businesses could care less about the public or what the public wants or needs. Businesses care about money and money says that cars and trucks without humans are far more profitable. Imagine Fed X or UPS doing their thing without human drivers.

Re:Death traps. by Cytotoxic · 2015-03-19 01:54 · Score: 1

You can get a fully automated drone for hundreds of dollars, not millions. Not big enough to put a person in, but still fully automated. Google and Amazon are looking to deploy huge fleets of fully automated drone delivery aircraft costing a few thousand each.

We already know that autonomous vehicle technology isn't prohibitively expensive. Nvidia already has their system on the market for carmakers to integrate. It adds thousands, not millions. And depending on how things pan out, you might recoup all of that initial outlay in insurance savings pretty quickly.

Re:Death traps. by tmosley · 2015-03-19 02:01 · Score: 1

The end date on his calculation was 18 years from now, not ten. By then, most cars on the road will either have self driving as a standard feature, or can be readily retrofitted for that functionality. Assuming the GP is right about self driving taking off, of course.

Re:Death traps. by tmosley · 2015-03-19 02:02 · Score: 1

Luckily, these cars won't be built by no bid, bloated military contractors.

Re:Close but here is my take. by Tom · 2015-03-19 02:02 · Score: 1

Because if a cabbie can't keep their taxi clean, what makes you think the average person will too?

Maybe that's a thing in your area? With a single exception, all the car-sharing cars I've used for the past few years have been fine and on the level of taxis except for a little more dirt on the floor (and only the floor).

more commodity like cars

Thanks to the used car market, the price of buying a car is not the problem. The cost and hassle of maintaining one is. If you don't need a car every day, it's simply not worth it.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Re:Death traps. by tmosley · 2015-03-19 02:04 · Score: 1

Why should you pay for insurance on your house?

Re:Bulls... since when will self driving cars have by boristdog · 2015-03-19 02:30 · Score: 1

So you think millions of humans with millions of differing attention levels, skill levels, alertness levels, differing visual abilities, physical abilities, inability to communicate with each other, etc. is better than millions of computers with all equivalent abilities and which can communicate with each other? So that 16 year-old and that 89 year-old on either side of you are better than strictly computer controlled vehicles?

Thought is wonderful. It doesn't matter one whit.
Reaction and reaction speed is what is critical in any non-standard driving situation, not thought.

Re:Death traps. by Alioth · 2015-03-19 03:06 · Score: 1

You are somewhat the rarity with your vintage car. For most people, drive by wire is already a thing. The throttle has been drive by wire for years on most cars, and some of today's cars are steer by wire. (Yes, there is manual reversion if it fails, but in normal driving you have no mechanical connection between the steering wheel and the wheels of the car). Many cars can brake independently of the driver. Even my 2007 Civic has traction control and ABS fitted as standard.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows

Re:Bulls... since when will self driving cars have by burtosis · 2015-03-19 03:21 · Score: 2

As someone who worked in a robotics lab for nearly 8 years and who knows the technology - no we are no where near being able to do as well as the worst humans comparing apples to apples. In 30-50 years we may have them until then maybe dedicated lanes on highways or something may be possible in 10-20 years.

Re:Death traps. by Pentium100 · 2015-03-19 04:10 · Score: 1

I like things I understand. My car is simple enough that I can understand it. When I took apart and cleaned the carburetor , not only my car started running better (the intended result), but I got more insight into how it works. For example, when the engine is cold and the RPM is increased, when the engine warms up, the RPM does not decrease until I briefly press the accelerator pedal (which means that this situation does not really happen when I am driving, just when I am warming up the engine in a very cold winter day). This is due to the way the cam that adjusts the throttle works.

Pretty much anything in the car can be understood easily - this pushes that, which rotates this, which moves that etc... Even if I got access to the source code of a modern car, it would be really difficult for me to understand it, and the mechanical systems are more complex too.

Also, with my car it is quite easy to repair or replace parts - here is a lot of empty space, no need to remove a wheel to change a lightbulb. In the time that it takes to change the lightbulb in a modern car I could probably change the whole headlamp assembly (which I have removed, replaced the reflectors (old ones were rusted) and put back in).

Re:Bulls... since when will self driving cars have by dave420 · 2015-03-19 04:20 · Score: 1

You should have stayed at the lab for a few more years :) Clearly we can't compare apples to apples, as we are comparing a computer system to a human - perhaps if you elucidated your point you'd get a better answer. The self-driving cars are doing fantastically, and humans are still, on average, shitty drivers. The worst human drivers are fucking abysmal, so making a system better than them has already happened (just look at the Google car stats).

Re:Bulls... since when will self driving cars have by Cafe+Alpha · 2015-03-19 04:33 · Score: 1

Thank you!

Re:Aggravating trend in language by Cafe+Alpha · 2015-03-19 04:44 · Score: 1

How do you test? All of the "ran someone over" bugs will have to be labeled "can not reproduce!"

Re:Dave420 = "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" by dave420 · 2015-03-19 04:45 · Score: 1

Thanks, APK! Off your meds again?

Experience w/ computer vision? Predictive physics by Cafe+Alpha · 2015-03-19 04:53 · Score: 1

modeling? How about if we wait until we all have experience that computers are good at the basics before we assume that they can safely drive cars?

Re:Dave420 = "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" by dave420 · 2015-03-19 04:55 · Score: 1

And APK = guy with serious mental health issues who needs help but doesn't realise it.

Re:Death traps. by ShanghaiBill · 2015-03-19 04:58 · Score: 1

And who pays for the insurance?

You do.

Why should I pay for it if the accident will not be caused by me, but by some programmer who forgot to take some variable into account when writing the software for my car?

Your car already contains millions of lines of code, so this is not a new issue.

No, they're not by whitroth · 2015-03-19 05:26 · Score: 1

And one of these days, I'll take a picture of a road I use going to or from my home on the occasions when I drive: 3 lanes wide, parked cars in one lane, no center stripe, oh, and did I mention that buses use this street? No, a self-driving car will have smoke coming out of its ears....

On the other hand, self-driving. They're going to be *really* expensive. For less money than that, couldn't you use existing methods of getting somewhere without having to drive? There is this thing called "public transportation", as well as this business called "taxis", and all your fares, over the estimated lifetime of a self-driving car are probably a *lot* less than you'd spend on the car.

Oh, and how safe will you feel knowing there are 5 and 10 year old self-driving cars, some years from now, many bought used, whose owners may, or may not have had the recall upgrades applied?

mark

Re:Death traps. by jeffmflanagan · 2015-03-19 05:47 · Score: 1

A modern fuel-injected car already runs well without having to dick around with a carburetor. We don't need to mess around with our cars just to keep them running decently like we used to.

Lots of open space under the hood is nice if you have to work on a car, but you wouldn't need to work on a better car very often, and would get much better mileage, and a better chance of surviving a wreck instead of being crushed by a steering wheel. I used to drive a gas-guzzling 1964 Cadillac. My 2001 Accord is superior in all ways.

Re:Death traps. by MooseTick · 2015-03-19 05:57 · Score: 1

"And who pays for the insurance? Why should I pay for it if the accident will not be caused by me, but by some programmer who forgot to take some variable into account when writing the software for my car?"

What if insurance for a SDC is 1/10th the cost of insurance for you driving the exact same car? Will you still complain, or just drive yourself (and pay more) because you don't trust the software?

--
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs

Humans Constantly Screw Up at Mundane by HannethCom · 2015-03-19 05:59 · Score: 1

95% of driving might be mundane, but an alarming number of people where I live seem incapable of doing that 95%. The number of times I've seen someone on the side of the road that have run into a telephone pole. Daily I see at least 1 car that can't stay in a lane. Definitely multiple times a day that people just doesn't use their turn signals at all, and I know some of them. People driving through stop signs and red lights.

According to local statistics most accidents are caused by drugs and failures to follow traffic rules. Our police keep on going on about how speed kills and there are articles in the paper quite frequently about how these people were racing, or just driving really fast. The thing I find funny about these articles is that usually they will have the smallest line about them being way over on their blood alcohol level, high on heroin, or stoned on marijana, but they really try to downplay these parts.

Right now self driving cars would stop the majority of accidents.

How about that 5%? Well as more self driving cars would get on the road, that 5% would probably shrink to less than 1%, depending on the area. Plus there are already real time algorithms for detecting moving objects, coupled with multiple cameras the car can see things like deer and children much sooner than humans and react to them.

The main problems will be in the transition where there are still human drivers doing really stupid things and the self driving cars. We humans are affected by lack of sleep, by drugs, but not getting enough vitamins, distractions, tunnel vision, bad driving habits, missing signage, having two eyes facing one direction at a time, and sometimes just pure stupidity.

--
Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.

Re:Bulls... since when will self driving cars have by kenshin33 · 2015-03-19 07:24 · Score: 1

same could be said about pedestrians (I say that as both, a driver and a pedestrian).
One as, I was trying to cross a street a a swarm of said pedestrians (for which the light was RED) prevented me and a bunch of other people (cars included) from doing just that, because they wen't paying any attention (and I'm fairly certain that it is not an exception at that particular intersection).
Another time, a drone forced me and a whoever was behind, to come to a COMPLETE STOP in an intersection when the light was GREEN because whatever he was doing on his phone was more important that his or others's people life.

Re:Death traps. by Pentium100 · 2015-03-19 07:27 · Score: 1

Your car already contains millions of lines of code, so this is not a new issue.

My car doesn't. Last time I checked, there were no CPUs in my car (other than in the tape deck), didn't find one when cleaning the carburetor too...

When they built my car in 1982, it looks like computers were not as common as they became later.

Re:Death traps. by Pentium100 · 2015-03-19 07:43 · Score: 1

Cleaning the carb once in 30 years doesn't seem so bad. Also, as if fuel injection does not fail or just wear out...

I would still need to work on a newer car too, unless modern cars are now failure proof, something will wear out or just fail over time (if I bought a newer car I would be expecting to drive it for many years). The problem will be that when that happens (inevitably before or during some trip), it will be more difficult to repair.

As for the fuel consumption, well, one, it's not that bad (and LPG is quite cheap) and two, as I really dislike environmentalists, I now at least have the option of turning the mixture screw just a little bit when they annoy me enough. I have never done this, mind you, yet, just that I have the option.

1964 Cadillac, eh. I always though that if I had the money to buy a second car it would be soething lie a 1974 Cadillac, seems great, well, other than the fact that it only has an automatic transmission (I am not used to it and like the control that a manual transmission offers me).

Re:Death traps. by danomac · 2015-03-19 09:32 · Score: 1

Seat-belts and airbags also occasionally kill people, but they save ten lives for every one they take, and people accept the tradeoff.

Unless you or your family has been affected, then you tend to think a little differently. I've had the misfortune of having ABS fail thinking I was in a skid, so during a low speed stop I almost rearended the car in front of me. I did have the reflexes and quick thinking to go to the shoulder to miss an accident. However, as a result, I don't completely trust the ABS on any car now.

Re:Bulls... since when will self driving cars have by sl149q · 2015-03-19 11:23 · Score: 1

Moores law pretty much guarantees that anything that can be done at all today will be much better faster and cheaper in a few years.

Re:Death traps. by Neil+Boekend · 2015-03-19 19:14 · Score: 1

Those things are hard, yes. However, Google has quite awesome programmers. Note: to me it only has to be better (defined as in less lethal accidents) than the average driver. That is a high bar, but I assume Google isn't doing it because it's easy.

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.

Re:Death traps. by Cytotoxic · 2015-03-20 01:56 · Score: 1

Wait, you run propane through a standard carburetor? How does that work? It isn't like LPG can settle in the float bowl. I thought you had to replace the carburetor with a regulator and mixer assembly.

I'd like to see how your setup works.

Oh, and to the point.... you don't really work on modern cars. They rarely need anything beyond fluids and wear items like tires and brakes, but when they do, you end up letting the professionals handle it. I used to do all the work on my cars back in the carburetor and timing light days. Not any more. They have everything packed in there so tight it takes hours just to change the spark plugs on some cars (BMW 328i, I'm looking at you). The computers and sensors are so good that you never really adjust anything anymore. While you give up some of the fun of detuning your Chevelle SS to get that 100rpm idle lub-dub-lub-dub sound, what you get in return is 100k miles with nothing more serious than an oil change out of a little turbo charged 4 cylinder that puts out more horsepower than the biggest muscle cars of the 70's. Not a bad exchange.

Re:Death traps. by Pentium100 · 2015-03-20 02:46 · Score: 1

I'd like to see how your setup works.

You are right, I cannot just pipe LPG to a carburetor. The LPG goes to a regulator that reduces the pressure to around 1 bar and a pipe from the regulator goes to the air intake of the engine (between the air filter and carburetor).

LPG cools down when it expands, so the engine has problems starting nad running when its cold. It is recommended to use LPG only when the engine temperature is above 40C. The regulator is heated by the hot antifreeze from the engine during normal operation.

There are valves tat control gasoline and LPG flows. I can switch one on or switch both off. To start the engine when its cold I have to switch on gasoline, start the engine (can take a few turns for the mechanical fuel pump to get the gas to the float bowl), wait for it to warm up (can drive during that time), switch off gasoline, drive until the float bowl is empty and turn on the LPG.

When I come home from work, I switch the fuel to gasoline for a few seconds and then turn off the engine. This way the float bowl is full and the engine starts quickly the next day.

As for the modern cars - going to a mechanic takes time (most of them work at the same time that I do, so I have to excuse myself from work) while I can repair the faults that I am able to during the weekend (if the problem is not big) or on the side of the road (if it's something that prevents the car from working). Modern cars do not require frequent adjustments, sure, but maybe that's because they are still relatively new. My car is 33 years old.(it has been in our family for 19 years now). Maybe a car made in 2010 will have as much or more problems than my car in 2043 (with less ability to repair)...

Best decision? by cwsumner · 2015-03-20 09:00 · Score: 1

Riding in a vehicle, where the one in control is not themselves in the vehicle with you, is probably not the best decision you could make. 8-)

Re:Death traps. by Cytotoxic · 2015-03-20 14:36 · Score: 1

Thanks for sharing.... your ride sounds amazing. Back when I was in high school around 1980 a buddy and I rebuilt and customized a VW Super Beetle. Nothing as far-out as your LPG setup, but still a lot of fun. We had the cylinders bored out for new pistons, put in high-ration rockers and a new crankshaft - we even put dual Webbers on the thing. 8 barrels of carb for a four cylinder, pretty funny.

What a great project. We ended up getting it to dyno out at 135hp, which ain't too shabby for a car designed for more like 45 hp.

I bet your project has given you no end of topics for conversation.

Re:Death traps. by Pentium100 · 2015-03-20 17:23 · Score: 1

The LPG setup was done by professionals about 10 years ago. I actually have problems with fixing the body etc. Electric stuff is easy, so are the parts where I can remove said part, repair and replace it. OTOH, patching a rust hole in the body is a big problem. Converting a gasoline car to LPG saves a lot of money if you drive more, because, at least in my country, LPG price is about 41% of gasoline (A-95) price, but the car does not burn twice as much of it.

As there are not a lot of cars like mine left, I do sometimes get nice reactions from people at a gas station or wherever.

Re:Bulls... since when will self driving cars have by Jack+Griffin · 2015-03-21 13:33 · Score: 1

A public road is not a controlled environment.
Computer image recognition is not at the early attempt stage, there are decades of research and is still shit. There has been zero success in getting a computer "eye" to function like an animal equivalent.
Until either of those two things change dramatically, it won't happen.
Just wishing it will get better won't make it so. That is emotion, not logic.

Re:Death traps. by Jack+Griffin · 2015-03-21 13:36 · Score: 1

Citation? A cone that has been run over is no longer a cone shape. How about a plastic bag? Of a small branch? These problems have not been solved and no amount of wishing they were will change this. If they have then I await you link to the relevant research.

Re:Death traps. by Jack+Griffin · 2015-03-21 13:45 · Score: 1

If you think simple trigger logic and advanced visual recognition AI are the same problem then I can't help you.

Re:It won't understand situations, it shouldn't ma by Jack+Griffin · 2015-03-21 13:49 · Score: 1

The problem hasn't been solved because I can't buy one and use it today. Marketing hype and vapourware, is different from a solution.

Re:Death traps. by Jack+Griffin · 2015-03-21 13:53 · Score: 1

Did you even read your own link? Nvivdia is selling a chip. That is so far from a "solution" that it's laughable. And as for drones, it the carrying the human and satisfying the safety requirements that is the expensive part. I feel like I'm explaining this to a child...

Re:Death traps. by Jack+Griffin · 2015-03-21 14:50 · Score: 1

Google does indeed possess some fine talent, but there are some things that no amount of skill will solve (within a reasonable time frame). Time machines, invisibility, flying cars, and maybe self-driving cars. I'm well aware of the Google situation, however still can't see how it could work in this world.
Take away the technological challenges, even if they produced something the equivalent of a human today, would it be politically feasible? What would the costs be (vehicle, infrastructure, administrative/enforcement)?
It's also worth noting that for all Google's talent, they have a long list of shit products to show for it. It says something when your best product was your first product, and 15 years later, other than a couple of clever acquisitions, most of everything else has been rubbish.

Slashdot Mirror

Lyft CEO: Self-Driving Cars Aren't the Future

268 of 451 comments (clear)