Slashdot Mirror
Driverless Electric Shuttle Deployed In Downtown Las Vegas (yahoo.com)
schwit1 quotes the Associated Press: There's a new thrill on the streets of downtown Las Vegas, where high- and low-rollers alike are climbing aboard what officials call the first driverless electric shuttle operating on a public U.S. street. The oval-shaped shuttle began running Tuesday as part of a 10-day pilot program, carrying up to 12 passengers for free along a short stretch of the Fremont Street East entertainment district.
The vehicle has a human attendant and computer monitor, but no steering wheel and no brake pedals. Passengers push a button at a marked stop to board it. The shuttle uses GPS, electronic curb sensors and other technology, and doesn't require lane lines to make its way.
The shuttle -- which they've named Arma -- is traveling at 15 miles per hour, and the ride is smooth, according to the mayor of Las Vegas. ("It's clean and quiet and seats comfortably.") They've blocked all the side streets, so the shuttle doesn't have to deal with traffic signals yet, though eventually they'll install special transmitters at every intersection to communicate whether the lights are red or green, and the city plans to deploy more of the vehicles by the end of the year.
The vehicle has a human attendant and computer monitor, but no steering wheel and no brake pedals. Passengers push a button at a marked stop to board it. The shuttle uses GPS, electronic curb sensors and other technology, and doesn't require lane lines to make its way.
The shuttle -- which they've named Arma -- is traveling at 15 miles per hour, and the ride is smooth, according to the mayor of Las Vegas. ("It's clean and quiet and seats comfortably.") They've blocked all the side streets, so the shuttle doesn't have to deal with traffic signals yet, though eventually they'll install special transmitters at every intersection to communicate whether the lights are red or green, and the city plans to deploy more of the vehicles by the end of the year.
They drive the same route day after day, they don't need to go fast, they are either owned by the city or by companies that have major relationships with the city so they can avoid major regulatory hurdles.
These are the obvious first adopters of driverless technology.
2020 should see a quick reduction in the number of bus and similar drivers.
By the time I retire, I hope to be able to afford one of those high end driverless cars.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
People live on Fremont Street? I thought it was all locals casinos and bars.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Self driving technology is perfect! How could it possibly kill anything? Except I'm hazarding a guess it will run over a cat or a dog.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
or toilet
It's called the monorail.
It's all about gambling, now they will have to create another counseling subject for folks that will walk the streets on the bus route instead of hanging out in gas stations where they have slot machines.
If they were trying to kill us it wouldn't be running 15mph.
There's no perfect technology. It only has to be nearly perfect. Considering how many people die on the highway every year I suspect that in another 5 years the driverless cars will be safer than the ones with a human controlling it. 92 people die on the roads in the US every day on average. If auto driving cars can halve that it'll be good enough.
Manual cars will be just as safe. There is nothing preventing manual cars from talking with one another and warning the driver. It is a far cheaper and simple solution and possibly a good first step to full automation, but it is being rushed in in a mad dash for profits. You say no technology is perfect, but will it hit a kid who is small for his age and fit into a blank spot in the sensors? That's what really matters. What assurances do we have that this is ready enough for that?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Shitheads
The attendant has no steering wheel or break. What does the attendant have, a bucket and a mop?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Good. Fuck the poor, fuck minorities, fuck poor minorities, fuck you and your mother. Fuck fuckity fuck fuck.
The major downside being you have to be anywhere near Fremont street in old Las Vegas. This part of north Las Vegas is a complete shithole, and should be avoided at all costs.
No, that would be North Vegas... Downtown Vegas is the real Vegas. The Strip is, well... the Strip, which can be blown up and rebuilt fast than you can say *World Trade Center*
So you think poor people are nothing but cats and dogs? I find your choice of slang weird.
We're hitting those kids now. People run over kids all the time that are so small they just don't see them. That's the point, driving is inherently dangerous and right now we have millions of drivers who are unskilled or impaired in some way. I don't say the technology is ready at this minute but it's certainly improving at a rapid pace and isn't that far away.
Manual cars that talk to each other will be almost as effective. It willl hit the mainstram faster because it is simpler and cheaper. You might even be able to have them installed aftermarket. If you consider the adoption rate of AI, you're already obsolete in that regard.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Monitors are for show. They are output devices, not input devices like keyboards, joysticks or touch screens, none of which were listed in TFS.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
You've never seen a Fish Calls Wanda, where 15 mph *could* kill you with an automated steamroller. Because of course they will try to automate construction equipment.
I would think it'd be easier to deploy a driverless shuttle on the strip. There is a very intentional effort to erect physicals barriers to separate the drunk pedestrians from the drunk drivers. Without pedestrians to worry about, it would seem to be an almost artificially good area to deploy a driverless shuttle
But what's in it for the driver? They're the person who has to foot the bill, and it seems unlikely that there will be a significant reduction in insurance rates since there's a relatively small percentage of scenarios where such a warning system will prevent accidents. It may even make things worse as drivers come to rely on the warning system rather than their own good judgment.
Plus there's going to be considerable lag between when the warning is issued and when the driver responds. At best, if the driver is constantly poised to slam on the brakes the instant they hear the warning, there will be 1/8th of a second or so of lag as the reaction signals propagate down their slow, slow nerves to activate the necessary muscles. In a more realistic case it's going to take another sizable fraction of a second, possibly even several seconds, for the driver to recognize the relatively unfamiliar sound, decide that they trust the car over their own senses, and decide exactly how to respond.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
They need to do something. Last time I was in Lost Wages I had to wait four hours for a cab. I walked back to the hotel which took another two hours.
Yeah, I don't go there anymore.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Well...I guess if you lay down in front of it you could die. Should die really.
Well, Elon Musk doesn't seem to think human reaction time is an issue.. At least in this case they would be actively involved at the point there is an issue so reaction time would be faster than with Autopilot. As for what is in it for the driver, if people are that concerned about saving lives that they are willing to allow lives to be lost in the short term in the name of developing it, then they will want technology in their current manual car that would help them. I wouldn't put it in my car, but then I don't feel like I am taking a huge risk when I am driving a manual car.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
First, exterminate all indo-chimps. They've infested all IT jobs, lobby against hiring americans, have no intention to work, and are getting paid 60 to 150 $/hour!!! These obnoxious chimps treat 15 $/hour americans like shit. Kill them all until it is too late.
Actually, the "click-thru" agreement you have to accept to activate the Tesla "almost-automatic" mode makes clear that you're expected to stay fully alert and ready to slam on the brakes despite the car being completely oblivious to an impending disaster. (i.e. it's like an airplane autopilot - barely enough good judgment to avoid driving off the road on its own)
And on this front I have to say I consider Musk an irresponsible asshole - human nature pretty much guarantees that almost no one will be able to maintain the state of sustained passive situational awareness necessary to safely operate a Tesla in autopilot mode, so making it available is willful reckless endangerment that allows him to accelerate his development of a fully autonomous system at the price of the lives lost in utterly predictable accidents.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
If it runs over a human or animal does it automatically play an "I'm sorry about that" Mp3 as it continues on?
On that we agree.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I have been wondering what US tech giant would have its fleet of autonomous vehicles in street first, and the winner is an obscure foreign company I never heard about.
his ghost returns
Should die really.
In that case, I suggest we start by steamrolling those who refuse to use punctuation. ;)
nope - the fool will be nicely injured and the expenses will be unpleasant for that person doing something that stupid.
I predict that there will be video of it happening, and it will be spectacularly dumb. However, I'm not smart enough to come up with a way to get hit, but I'm sure there will be bets. Starting now!
Particularly my city bus (city population 600k), which is occupied by like 2-5 people at any given moment, including the bus driver.
I'm sure this will go over the drunks real well, I mean go over real well with all the drunks. Either way it'll be fun to watch.
You've never seen a Fish Calls Wanda, where 15 mph *could* kill you with an automated steamroller. Because of course they will try to automate construction equipment.
if it was from a Fish called Wanda it would be: where 15 mph *c c c c ccould* k k k kkill you, with an automated steamroller.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
You're poor. Sucked in.
We've had cars with collision avoidance systems on the market for years now.
Lived here 23 years. Fremont is actually in Las Vegas proper. And it's a tourist trap just like the strip is. The sign in the picture you can hardly see says "Las Vegas BLVD" rather high traveled tourist area.
The attendant has nothing to do and can do nothing. Presumably still gets paid. Welcome to Obama's America.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Oh great! Now we've put another man out of a job.
Manual cars will be just as safe. There is nothing preventing manual cars from talking with one another and warning the driver.
And then the driver has to see the warning, understand the warning, correctly decide what to do about the warning, and then do it. Meanwhile during this process the car continues to move. One advantage of automated cars are that this all happens almost instantly (the main variable is how correct the decision is, and that's also a significant variable with a human driver), and it happens reliably, or it will eventually.
From TFA:
"If a person or a dog were to run in front of it, it would stop," he said.
Cats are apparently SOL.
You're making the assumption that the AI correctly interprets the situation in the first place, of course. It's going to be twenty years before it understands the world as well as a human. Also, most situations will be a simple warning not to continue with the current action. For example, the driver will start changing lanes and there will be a beep, well it's pretty obvious then that you should stay in your current lane and the human won't have trouble reacting.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
You're making the assumption that the AI correctly interprets the situation in the first place, of course.
Not really, I explicitly called out that that will be the main issue, and that humans have the same problem.
It's going to be twenty years before it understands the world as well as a human.
They don't need to do that to be able to drive more safely than an average driver.
For example, the driver will start changing lanes and there will be a beep, well it's pretty obvious then that you should stay in your current lane and the human won't have trouble reacting.
That technology is great, and it will get more common and improve safety. But it won't improve safety nearly as much as high quality automated cars.
They don't need to do that to be able to drive more safely than an average driver.
Why the hell not? If a manual car automaker made a car on which the lug bolts could break thus losing the wheel and killing the occupant, that car would not be allowed on the market. Why would we allow AI on the market that is in some way not safe? Humans cannot be held responsible for mistakes that the AI makes no more than a lug bold snapping. I don't care how many people it might save one day, you can't guarantee that result so people should not be injured or killed today. What are these companies going to say to the parents when one of these vehicles kills a child who was sitting on a curb with the sun shining a certain way so as to be in a blind spot? "Oh well, to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs"?? It will be enough of a tragedy if these things kill animals that a human would have avoided.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Why the hell not?
They just need to understand a subset of the world well enough to safely navigate. There is a huge amount of information you take in about your surroundings (and mostly discard) that an automatic car just doesn't need to be interested in or understand.
Why would we allow AI on the market that is in some way not safe?
Every product on the market is in some way not safe, including cars. They just need to be safe enough, with the standards for safe enough continually changing.
I don't care how many people it might save one day, you can't guarantee that result so people should not be injured or killed today.
I'm not sure what you're saying. That the technology is not ready for widespread adoption? That's obvious.
What are these companies going to say to the parents when one of these vehicles kills a child who was sitting on a curb with the sun shining a certain way so as to be in a blind spot?
If found liable, they'll make a payment (or perhaps just settle out of court). Exactly like what happens now when a company is responsible for someone being injured.
An automatic car will pretty much need to understand the world to be as safe as a human. For example, when a human sees a child's toy suddenly cast out into the road, they slow down and look for the child that might run after it. So now you're saying automated cars today are as safe as anything else on public roads? I doubt it. If found liable, the question is whether they knew their car had that weakness or not. If they knew there was a blind spot and it turns out to kill someone then it's manslaughter at the very least, I expect people to be prosecuted for it. I mean, why do we do phases of drug testing for drugs that might save people some day? Why not just test them on the human population? These cars could and should be tested in a controlled environment.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
An automatic car will pretty much need to understand the world to be as safe as a human. For example, when a human sees a child's toy suddenly cast out into the road, they slow down and look for the child that might run after it.
For a while, deficiencies in their understanding will be more than made up for by improvements in other areas, such as sensors and reaction time.
So now you're saying automated cars today are as safe as anything else on public roads?
I never said any such thing. I don't know why you think I did.
These cars could and should be tested in a controlled environment.
And they are.
You're basically giving these companies a pass because you believe their mantra that they will save lives. Keep drinking the kool-aid.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I have no idea what you're talking about. What "pass" am I giving them? I said that if a company is found liable they will pay. If individuals are found guilty of crimes, they will be sentenced. I said the technology is not ready for mass adoption but that eventually it's going to be good enough to save a lot of lives. You seem to be responding to something you wish I said rather than what I actually said.
They could run over someone and that makes them dangerous enough. They should be tested in a demo town somewhere without subjecting the unwilling public to them. It doesn't matter that people get into accidents. Until someone knows how 80% of the population will ever get these things we are only adding to the problem.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I don't know how advanced THAT particular autonomous car is, but if it is anything like the Tesla autopilot system, it is more than twice as safe. There are hundreds of thousands of autonomously outfitted Teslas on the streets and highways of the country, and they are capable of driving all the way from L.A. to New York without human assistance. In the last several years they have quietly amassed billions of miles of roadwork, proving how much better they are at avoiding accidents. The Tesla has a variety of cameras, lasers, lidars, radars, ultraviolet and infrared sensors that can avoid problems where we would be helpless, such as blinding glare, heavy rain, snow, dust, etc. Teslas are not just toys for the rich--- the Model 3 has 400,000 deposits placed at $1000. each; base price is $35,000, minus roughly $10,000 in tax and other incentives. And don't give me any crap about tax breaks--- Cadillacs, Hummers, etc., have gotten billions of dollars in such incentives for decades, and the oil industry has been getting TRILLIONS in corrupt breaks that serve only the rich. The breaks EVs are getting will soon give all of us the ability to drive clean, powerful, full-featured EVs without need to support the oil industry that is choking us to death--- no oil changes, tune-ups, smog tests EVER... and there has never been a war fought over electricity. We have fought one war after another for oil---all the countries we are invading and fighting are just veiled operations to control oil production.
They could run over someone and that makes them dangerous enough.
If we use that standard, the technology will never be permitted (and neither would any other new thing). Testing is necessary, yes, but we need not fall victim to the perfect solution fallacy.
https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2...
... they are capable of driving all the way from L.A. to New York without human assistance.
You pro-automated-vehicle people need to pick whether Tesla is automated (which is what seems to come up when people talk about safety records) or not (which is what seems to come up whenever a Tesla has an accident).