College Senior Turns His Honda Civic Into a Self-Driving Car Using Free Hardware, Software (technologyreview.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

College Senior Turns His Honda Civic Into a Self-Driving Car Using Free Hardware, Software (technologyreview.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Tuesday February 21, 2017 @02:05PM from the do-it-yourself dept.

holy_calamity writes: University of Nebraska student Brevan Jorgenson swapped the rear-view mirror in his 2016 Honda Civic for a home-built device called a Neo, which can steer the vehicle and follow traffic on the highway. Jorgenson used hardware designs and open-source software released by Comma, a self-driving car startup that decided to give away its technology for free last year after receiving a letter asking questions about its functionality from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Jorgenson is just one person in a new hacker community trying to upgrade their cars using Comma's technology. "A Neo is built from a OnePlus 3 smartphone equipped with Comma's now-free Openpilot software, a circuit board that connects the device to the car's electronics, and a 3-D-printed case," reports MIT Technology Review. The report notes that Neodriven, a startup based in Los Angeles, has recently started selling a pre-built Neo device that works with Comma's Openpilot software, but it costs $1,495.

132 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

All the better to 'drive' stoned by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 14:07 · Score: 0

because face it folks, you can't drive stoned!
1. Re:All the better to 'drive' stoned by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 14:10 · Score: 0
  
  I drive stoned every day, and it's my job so I put in hours of driving per day. I have an incidence of accidents far lower than the average American. This, of course, is merely anecdotal, but it's enough to disprove the general idea that "you can't drive stoned."
2. Re:All the better to 'drive' stoned by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 14:53 · Score: 0
  
  I am a collage freshman and have the idea also to setup a rear and front facing camera & use a Raspberry Pie to do the steering for multiple types of vehicles including trains. Boats, planes, cars, etc.
  
  -=Beau=-
3. Re: All the better to 'drive' stoned by WoLpH · 2017-02-21 14:55 · Score: 1
  
  Of course you can drive stoned. It will impair your reaction time a bit, but to be fair... It's probably still better than most older drivers can manage.
4. Re:All the better to 'drive' stoned by thinkwaitfast · 2017-02-21 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  These guys did it years ago.
  Works for boats too.
5. Re: All the better to 'drive' stoned by subk · 2017-02-21 15:26 · Score: 1
  
  Of course you can drive stoned
  Unless you're "one toke over the line" and suffer a panic attack. Well, even then a salty stoner can still get up and down the highway, but it is by no means pleasant.
  
  --
  Now, if you'll excuse me, I have backups to corrupt.
6. Re: All the better to 'drive' stoned by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 16:22 · Score: 0
  
  You really have no clue what you are talking about, do you?
7. Re:All the better to 'drive' stoned by amiga3D · 2017-02-21 16:46 · Score: 1
  
  I had a friend that bragged about driving drunk. He did it all the time and he got away with it for years. He dodged the cops, payed them off a couple of times. Then he got in a bad accident and people nearly died. He was driving the wrong way on a 4 lane highway. I'm 57 now and I've known a lot of functional drunks. They all got progressively worse over the years as they aged. One went to work every day and drank himself to sleep every night for years. He occasionally took a week off and when he came back he was so screwed for a couple of days. Then he retired and died 18 months later. No reason to stop drinking since he wasn't working. Sure, people drive drunk all the time and it's not a problem, until it is.
8. Re:All the better to 'drive' stoned by amiga3D · 2017-02-21 16:51 · Score: 1
  
  It's not a problem offroad. On public streets I imagine the law might frown on it.
9. Re: All the better to 'drive' stoned by FatdogHaiku · 2017-02-21 17:36 · Score: 1
  
  Of course you can drive stoned
  Unless you're "one toke over the line" and suffer a panic attack. Well, even then a salty stoner can still get up and down the highway, but it is by no means pleasant.
  Dude! You just need to drive 5 miles an hour so you don't attract attention...
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
10. Re:All the better to 'drive' stoned by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 19:09 · Score: 0
  
  I had a friend that bragged about driving drunk. He did it all the time and he got away with it for years. He dodged the cops, payed them off a couple of times. Then he got in a bad accident and people nearly died. He was driving the wrong way on a 4 lane highway. I'm 57 now and I've known a lot of functional drunks. They all got progressively worse over the years as they aged. One went to work every day and drank himself to sleep every night for years. He occasionally took a week off and when he came back he was so screwed for a couple of days. Then he retired and died 18 months later. No reason to stop drinking since he wasn't working. Sure, people drive drunk all the time and it's not a problem, until it is.
  He said stoned, not drunk. Stoned has not been used to describe being drunk since the 60's, grandpa.
  Also, drinking slows your reaction time and coordination, in addition to your perception. While a stoner might not be paying any damn attention, his reflexes and motor skills are not actually impaired at all.
11. Re: All the better to 'drive' stoned by Gussington · 2017-02-21 20:00 · Score: 1
  
  Of course you can drive stoned. It will impair your reaction time a bit, but to be fair... It's probably still better than most older drivers can manage.
  This is the cold hard truth the authorities will never admit. The eligibility for driving should be purely based on merit and that's it. If you can pass the test stoned, drunk or asleep then it's still a pass. If you don't like that then make the test tougher.
12. Re: All the better to 'drive' stoned by cstacy · 2017-02-21 20:39 · Score: 1
  
  Of course you can drive stoned
  Unless you're "one toke over the line" and suffer a panic attack.
  Sweet (cellphone zombie) Jesus!
13. Re:All the better to 'drive' stoned by reboot246 · 2017-02-21 22:46 · Score: 1
  
  I do believe you are a college freshman. Your spelling of "college" is a dead giveaway. Put down the joint. It's beginning to rot your brain. :)
14. Re: All the better to 'drive' stoned by BasilBrush · 2017-02-21 23:26 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed on the stoned part. Limited experiments on this suggest that what you lose in ability, you more than make up for in caution.
  However, the part about older drivers is ignorant. Older drivers have lower insurance mostly because they have less accidents than young drivers. Older drivers are objectively better than young ones. Though of course there is an upper limit, where senility sets in.
15. Re: All the better to 'drive' stoned by drinkypoo · 2017-02-22 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  Older drivers have lower insurance mostly because they have less accidents than young drivers. Older drivers are objectively better than young ones. Though of course there is an upper limit, where senility sets in.
  They might be safer than kids, but they're still on a bunch of medications on which they really shouldn't be driving. And in a crisis, their reflexes are typically awful, often for the same reason.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
16. Re:All the better to 'drive' stoned by drinkypoo · 2017-02-22 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  Also, drinking slows your reaction time and coordination, in addition to your perception. While a stoner might not be paying any damn attention, his reflexes and motor skills are not actually impaired at all.
  Cannabis does affect reaction time, though it doesn't harm coordination. Informal studies with video games suggest that it may actually be a performance-enhancing drug, because it takes away twitchiness. :) But what it doesn't do that alcohol does is impair your ability to say no — notably, to yourself. Alcohol lowers inhibitions in a way that THC doesn't. That's why you find people going 100 in a 65 while drunk, and 65 in a 65 when high.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
17. Re: All the better to 'drive' stoned by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 01:14 · Score: 0
  
  Look, I'm in Colorado and I'm fucking tired of following a rolling roadblock going 10 maybe 20 under the speed limit for absolutely no other reason other than the selfishness of stoned drivers and cell phone drivers.
  P.S. Fuck off, we're full.
18. Re: All the better to 'drive' stoned by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 01:22 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously, get the fuck out of the left lane, get off I-25, and please dear God stop trying to turn this place into the exact hell you were trying to escape in California. I don't want your HOAs, your taxes, or your McMansions packed onto 0.14 acre lots. Seriously, go away, we're full.
19. Re: All the better to 'drive' stoned by gnasher719 · 2017-02-22 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  They might be safer than kids, but they're still on a bunch of medications on which they really shouldn't be driving. And in a crisis, their reflexes are typically awful, often for the same reason.
  Crisis? What crisis?
  
  That's a huge benefit of being an experienced driver - you smell trouble far before it happens. You know which drivers are going to do something stupid, and you stay out of their way. You leave others room to make mistakes and recover from it.
  
  A good driver will avoid many situations where good reflexes would be needed, In addition, a good driver will make sure they have enough space to not act by blind reflex, but by thinking. Your "fast reflexes" will quite often just make the situation worse or will cause different problems.
20. Re: All the better to 'drive' stoned by drinkypoo · 2017-02-22 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  Crisis? What crisis?
  
  I live on Clear Lake in California. We have a shitload of accidents here, often involving fatalities, which are head-on or t-bone collisions. When someone comes across the line, there may not physically be enough room to brake before they cream you — going full speed. And there are areas with essentially no shoulder.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
21. Re: All the better to 'drive' stoned by sjames · 2017-02-22 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, that's why stoned drivers tend to be OK but drunk drivers are a problem. The drunk driver is over-confident in their abilities and tends to crash. Stoned drivers are generally more capable than they think they are and slow down more than enough to compensate for their poor reaction time.
22. Re: All the better to 'drive' stoned by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  Older drivers have lower insurance mostly because they have less accidents than young drivers. Older drivers are objectively better than young ones.
  Older drivers have fewer accidents because they drive much, much less than younger drivers.
  Their less frequent driving offsets the greater number of accidents per mile they have. Once you get up around 50, your accident rates start rising on a per-mile or per-hour basis.
  Older drivers are objectively worse, but they drive rarely enough that they pose less of a risk overall.
23. Re:All the better to 'drive' stoned by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 14:06 · Score: 0
  
  I drive stoned every day, and [ it's my job to get stoned ]so I put in hours of driving per day. I have an incidence of accidents far lower than the average American. This, of course, is merely acidneidnitodtodatal, but it's enough to disprove the general idea that "you can't drive stoned."
  NI6 6ER ITS' SPELD COLLEDGE
He did this to his own car and drove it? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 14:10 · Score: 0

He should be arrested, immediately.
1. Re:He did this to his own car and drove it? by Stewie241 · 2017-02-21 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see why, if he drove the car. On the other hand, if he sat there while the computer drove, that's a different story.
2. Re:He did this to his own car and drove it? by BitterOak · 2017-02-21 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  He should be arrested, immediately.
  On what grounds?
  
  --
  If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
3. Re:He did this to his own car and drove it? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 14:36 · Score: 0
  
  found the euro in the thread!
  Look, if it's ok for google and co to have their half-baked crap navigate on public roads...and spare me the bit about liability. Money doesn't bring people back from the dead.
4. Re:He did this to his own car and drove it? by ShanghaiBill · 2017-02-21 18:20 · Score: 1
  
  Look, if it's ok for google and co to have their half-baked crap navigate on public roads...
  The difference is that Google has applied for, and been given, a license to test their SDCs on public roads.
  
  Money doesn't bring people back from the dead.
  But money does pay for repairs and medical bills. Injuries are far more common than fatalities, and non-injury accidents causing vehicle damage are even more common.
5. Re:He did this to his own car and drove it? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 23:11 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly. He is the driver of the car. He may be using various assists - such as cruise control + cameras & servos that keep the car neatly between the lines.
  Nothing wrong in not holding the wheel - if he is paying attention and ready to cope with any situation too complicated for the computer. Such as that horse panic running towards the road. A human merely needs to slow down a bit - I bet his computers aren't watching the roadside scenery for surprises since that imagery is very complex to process.
6. Re:He did this to his own car and drove it? by BasilBrush · 2017-02-21 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  Google did an awful lot of testing on an AI test facility and proved basic competence before they ventured on to the public roads. As have all the other legitimate autonomous driving developers.
7. Re:He did this to his own car and drove it? by b0bby · 2017-02-22 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  From TFA:
  
  federal and state laws probably don’t pose much of a barrier to those with a desire to upgrade their vehicle to share driving duties. NHTSA has authority over companies selling vehicles and systems used to modify them, but consumers have significant flexibility in making changes to their own vehicle, says Smith, who advises the U.S. Department of Transportation on law and automation.
  Anyone using a home-built Neo will still have to comply with state rules requiring responsible driving, though. (Comma’s Openpilot software tries to help with that: it complains if the driver doesn’t touch the wheel every five minutes, and it asks for human intervention if it’s having trouble interpreting the road ahead.) And in the event of a crash, using a home-built driving aid might raise eyebrows. “Just because you can legally operate it doesn’t mean you are not civilly liable,” says Smith.
8. Re:He did this to his own car and drove it? by fluffernutter · 2017-02-22 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Slashdot tells me that all people are happy allow self driving cars on the road and that the insurance companies are happy to pick up the tab. Why should he be given preferential treatment to big corporations? Our roads are now self driving testing grounds.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
9. Re:He did this to his own car and drove it? by fluffernutter · 2017-02-22 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Wow. The 'you husband might be dead but you'll get money' argument. I'm guessing you're American?
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Interesting observation. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 14:17 · Score: 0

While reading the article, I was surprised when I came across the name of the inventor--Brevan Jorgenson. For the life of me you could have knocked me over with a feather! I was fully expecting that the inventor would be named something like Leroy Tra'von Hakeem Brown. Lawdy, lawdy! Cut off my legs and call me shorty!
1. Re:Interesting observation. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking Clock-boy myself, but then I realized that he's not quite old enough to drive and his car would contain a bomb.
2. Re: Interesting observation. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 14:48 · Score: 0
  
  In the southern states, do they have segregated transgender washrooms?
3. Re: Interesting observation. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 16:24 · Score: 1
  
  Why are you thinking about boys?
Ghost driving doesn't count by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 14:17 · Score: 0

Walking around the car while it's in neutral doesn't count
Using Free Hardware by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 14:35 · Score: 0

Where can I get some of this "free hardware"?
1. Re:Using Free Hardware by R3d+M3rcury · 2017-02-21 14:51 · Score: 1
  
  I assume it's "'Free' as in speech, not 'Free' as in beer." He actually spent about $700 on the hardware.
2. Re:Using Free Hardware by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 14:56 · Score: 0
  
  I assume it's "'Free' as in speech, not 'Free' as in beer." He actually spent about $700 on the hardware.
  No, it is based on a OnePlus 3 smartphone which is neither of those things.
3. Re:Using Free Hardware by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 15:13 · Score: 0
  
  I'll take one million free, circuit boards, ten thousand pounds of solder, fifty thousand free soldering stations.(for free)
  Of course the boards are already populated.(for free)
  Talk about fake news.
  What has happened to this web site?
  #NotMySlashDot
  The no account piece of shit that posted this story needs a couple weeks in the electric chair or maybe a month in the gas chamber.
4. Re: Using Free Hardware by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 18:39 · Score: 0
  
  You're my hero.
Next headline by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2017-02-21 14:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Next headline: College Student Arrested For Building Autonomous Car That Hit Something

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
1. Re:Next headline by Tablizer · 2017-02-21 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  Next headline: College Student Arrested For Building Autonomous Car That Hit Something
  That's not catchy enough for the Mainstream Media. Trye:
  "Berserk Cyborg Car Escapes Lab, Goes on Killing Spree!"
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
2. Re:Next headline by thinkwaitfast · 2017-02-21 15:08 · Score: 1
  
  Is that illegal? Perhaps negligence? Would it be any different than taping the accelerator to the floor and letting it loose on the road?
3. Re:Next headline by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-02-21 18:01 · Score: 1
  
  Only tangentially related, but I'd expect terrorists to weaponize homebrew autonomous cars very soon.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
4. Re:Next headline by Kjella · 2017-02-21 20:09 · Score: 1
  
  Next headline: College Student Arrested For Building Autonomous Car That Hit Something
  And the next line: Insurance company refuses to cover damages, clean-up costs, hospital bills, loss of income due to disability and so on. Even if you do eventually win expect to spend a few years in court with a lawyer driving you into bankruptcy first. Also if you're arrested you have the right to a lawyer, not so much in civil court when the insurance company claims you broke the terms, I'm sure they have something in the wall of legalese that will apply.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
5. Re: Next headline by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 20:37 · Score: 0
  
  You have a right to a lawyer in civil court. It is your obligation to pay them, as it is not a criminal offense. See the 6th Amendment.
6. Re:Next headline by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 22:17 · Score: 0
  
  I was going to go with "buried" instead of "arrested", but that works too.
7. Re:Next headline by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 00:20 · Score: 0
  
  Sure. It is so much easier to deliver a car bomb if you no longer need a suicide driver - or at least someone who will get caught on tape (or by traffic cops) when leaving the car illegally parked close to an important building.
  You don't even need the bomb. Program a bulldozer to force its way through rush traffic in the wrong direction . . .
8. Re:Next headline by gnasher719 · 2017-02-22 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  And the next line: Insurance company refuses to cover damages, clean-up costs, hospital bills, loss of income due to disability and so on. Even if you do eventually win expect to spend a few years in court with a lawyer driving you into bankruptcy first. Also if you're arrested you have the right to a lawyer, not so much in civil court when the insurance company claims you broke the terms, I'm sure they have something in the wall of legalese that will apply.
  I don't know the US laws; in Germany your third party liability has to pay if the car was insured, and the damage wasn't caused intentionally. (And your car is almost always insured, even if you didn't pay your fees; if the insurance company decides to cancel your insurance, they will send a letter to you, and another to the police to seize your car until you insure it again).
  
  That has always covered accidents caused by drunk drivers, by thieves and so on. Because third party liability is a legal requirement set by the government to protect innocent third parties, so it must be very hard to avoid.
  
  If the USA has similar rules, then third parties should be covered. What happens to the owner of the car, that's a different matter. Everyone from police to insurance company will try their best to make their life very, very unhappy.
9. Re:Next headline by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2017-02-22 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  Would it be any different than taping the accelerator to the floor and letting it loose on the road?
  It depends on the kind of tape you use, duh.
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
10. Re:Next headline by fluffernutter · 2017-02-22 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Wha? You don't even have to be insured in many us states.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The story of Geohot's autopilot by GuB-42 · 2017-02-21 14:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

Geohot, a renowned hacker decided to try making a self driving car. It kinda worked, but it is, well, a hack.
However, when regulators came over and asked him to prove that it was actually safe enough for public roads, he backed down and that's how we got Comma.ai free.
I've nothing against Geohot and Comma.ai, quite the opposite in fact, they are great hackers, in the positive sense. However, when lives are on the line, being clever is not enough, we also need the boring and expensive work to make sure it is safe.
1. Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot by thinkwaitfast · 2017-02-21 15:14 · Score: 1
  
  Are there regulations and procedures to prove that it's safe? There were a number of one and two person entries into the DARPA grand challenge.
  It's not a terribly difficult problem to get to work 99.5% of the time, but with lives at risk most people aren't too happy with that number. The airline industry has a failure rate of 1 in 10^-13 deaths per passenger mile or something like that.
2. Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 15:26 · Score: 0
  
  Yep. Public highways are not an alpha testing environment. Rent a bit of time at the track.
3. Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 15:48 · Score: 0
  
  What they've basically implemented is a drink-driving AI. As long as nothing out of the ordinary happens it can usually manage to get you from A to B in one piece, but the moment it has to react to the unexpected, you're fucked.
4. Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot by amiga3D · 2017-02-21 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  The thing is, I doubt it'll ever be 100% safe. There is always a chance of some kind of glitch or bug. If the goal is 100% we can hang it up now. But if you consider how dangerous letting people drive I think I'd be happy with 80%. I see people tweeting and texting all over the place and that's not even talking about people yapping on the phone, eating or reading a damn magazine! Then there are the people that just can't drive. They lack coordination or something. I think 80 percent is better than human. In 2015 over 35,000 people died in auto accidents and that's doesn't include those that are maimed, some never to walk again. I think autonomous vehicles could bring that number way down.
5. Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot by Locutus · 2017-02-21 17:22 · Score: 0
  
  Not any more, Trump's in charge! We'll get to make things up as we go just like he's doing right?
  
  LoB
  
  --
  "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
6. Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot by thinkwaitfast · 2017-02-21 17:25 · Score: 1
  
  Would you fly in a plane that was only 80% safe?
7. Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 17:36 · Score: 0
  
  Courtesy of US DOT, there were 4,371,706,000,000 passenger miles driven in the US on highways in 2014. On a per-passenger-mile basis, with 35,000 deaths (that was 2015, but I guess the numbers aren't that different), that is a 99.9999992% reliability rate for human drivers, or one accident per 130 million miles. Even if you see them doing ridiculous things, that is pretty good. And you need to beat that with a machine.
8. Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot by amiga3D · 2017-02-21 18:03 · Score: 1
  
  I drive in a car on roads with people that aren't that safe. I'd rather a computer was driving those cars.
9. Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot by amiga3D · 2017-02-21 18:11 · Score: 2
  
  That's deaths per mile not accidents. I remember how people used to die in minor accidents when I was a child. Even a 35mph accident was serious when cars had metal dashes and no seat belts. The hood on cars in the 50s were made of heavy steel and would not bend. In a front end collision it would often break loose and come straight back decapitating the people in the front seat. Now they crumple. In the last few decades it's gotten to the point where most accidents don't even require first aid. Cars are vastly safer. Deaths per mile is down due to that more than anything. Tires are safer, airbags, handling is much better. Most deaths happen at speed now, often excessive. One thing autonomous cars shouldn't be doing is speeding. Accidents per mile is much higher than deaths per mile.
10. Re: The story of Geohot's autopilot by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 18:51 · Score: 0
  
  IMHO that should be the #1 biggest benefit of autonomous driving - speed. Why not let it go 120 MPH on the highway?
11. Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 19:02 · Score: 0
  
  Well, sure. But you can inflate the accident rate by many orders of magnitude and still not be close to the parent's 80% number. Whether the number that concerns you is 99.999999% or 99.99999% is basically immaterial; the point is that autonomous navigation has to be very, very, very good to beat human drivers which, crummy as they are, are already astoundingly safe. "One car capable of driving down the street safely many times" is a great technical achievement, but is not the bar being set here.
12. Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot by tlhIngan · 2017-02-21 19:49 · Score: 1
  
  Are there regulations and procedures to prove that it's safe? There were a number of one and two person entries into the DARPA grand challenge.
  It's not a terribly difficult problem to get to work 99.5% of the time, but with lives at risk most people aren't too happy with that number. The airline industry has a failure rate of 1 in 10^-13 deaths per passenger mile or something like that.
  They weren't even regulations. The government was halds-off the entire thing. They were merely inquiry questions meant to help facilitate the discussion on safe automated driving. The authorities asked because well, they were curious how this system would respond. It was the same set of questions that got Uber's cars out of San Francisco.
  It was questions like how would the backup driver system operate in case someone needs to take over, or how to prevent the system from being misused (given the system only worked in a few car models, they were wondering how the hardware would limit itself to those models).
  Basically it posed a few questions on how the system would handle safety issues. The NHTSA doesn't care how the system works, what the core technology behind it is, etc. Just a few open-ended questions.
13. Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot by Gussington · 2017-02-21 20:08 · Score: 1
  
  In 2015 over 35,000 people died in auto accidents and that's doesn't include those that are maimed, some never to walk again. I think autonomous vehicles could bring that number way down.
  The difference with robot cars is that the lower number will be purely random.
  I'm not sure that sits well with many people.
14. Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 20:39 · Score: 0
  
  I drive in a car on roads with people that aren't that safe. I'd rather a computer was driving those cars.
  Over 20% of drivers on the road get in crashes every time they go out? Every time? You need to move.
15. Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot by j-beda · 2017-02-22 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Well, sure. But you can inflate the accident rate by many orders of magnitude and still not be close to the parent's 80% number. Whether the number that concerns you is 99.999999% or 99.99999% is basically immaterial; the point is that autonomous navigation has to be very, very, very good to beat human drivers which, crummy as they are, are already astoundingly safe. "One car capable of driving down the street safely many times" is a great technical achievement, but is not the bar being set here.
  But the point is we don't really know the safety stats for this type of vehicle until we get a few gizillions of miles of driving. If this type of car performs better than the majority of drivers in the majority of situations, but worse than the majority of drivers in a minority of situations, it MIGHT have worse stats overall on a per-mile basis or it might have better stats overall. While I am not the original poser of the 80% figure, I suspect that what they were aluding to was their perception of the poor driving ability of many people now on the road, and that for the vast majority of the time, drivers are not doing particularly difficult driving.
16. Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot by j-beda · 2017-02-22 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  In 2015 over 35,000 people died in auto accidents and that's doesn't include those that are maimed, some never to walk again. I think autonomous vehicles could bring that number way down.
  The difference with robot cars is that the lower number will be purely random.
  I'm not sure that sits well with many people.
  Currently the death rate is already largely random - anyone who isn't a driver has virtually no control over the accident rates, and probably a large number of drivers had no real control of the situation once it started going bad. Of course our perception of control might make us feel safer than we would be in situations where we perceived ourselves to be less in control.
  That's why we end up with safety legisilation that mandates seatbelts and crash standards and backup cameras that might have little success in a purely market-driven system. I suspect that "driver assist" tech will eventually become mandated, either through insurance rates or straight legislation.
17. Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot by fluffernutter · 2017-02-22 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Ah yes you saw someone change lanes recklessly one day so now all humans suck at driving. You have probably seen ten thousand people driving properly since then but you people never notice that.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
18. Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot by fluffernutter · 2017-02-22 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  And we need to compare apples to apples. A human pulls out of their driveway and parks in a dense parking lot. A human drives in all weather. Either you have to take those accidents out of the stats for humans and only apply stats for humans in the conditions where AI can drive, or you need to wait until AI does all these things and see how safe it is.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
19. Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot by j-beda · 2017-02-22 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  And we need to compare apples to apples. A human pulls out of their driveway and parks in a dense parking lot. A human drives in all weather. Either you have to take those accidents out of the stats for humans and only apply stats for humans in the conditions where AI can drive, or you need to wait until AI does all these things and see how safe it is.
  I don't disagree, but I can certainly imagine that there is a place for a system that can only do "highway driving" and isn't able to do parallel parking (though right now I think we might have the opposite - parking but not driving.)
20. Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot by amiga3D · 2017-02-22 11:21 · Score: 2
  
  I notice that many people range from inattentive to reckless. Today I went through a school zone during pick-up time and was driving about 30-35 in a 30 zone, and got my doors blown off by a Yukon that did a quick lane change immediately after passing me due to another "slow" car observing the speed limit. Yes, I know most drivers aren't reckless idiots and it just seems that way but enough are that I believe computer control would reduce accidents and especially severity of those accidents.
21. Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot by amiga3D · 2017-02-22 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  One thing for sure, the computers are getting better and the humans are at best about the same as always.
22. Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot by j-beda · 2017-02-22 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  One thing for sure, the computers are getting better and the humans are at best about the same as always.
  Either this human is gettng worse as I age, or I am becoming more aware of how piss-poor I have always been.
23. Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot by fluffernutter · 2017-02-22 14:53 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it's hard to say while they're still running things over at 35 MPH.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
24. Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot by Gussington · 2017-02-24 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  Currently the death rate is already largely random
  No it isn't. There is some random elements, but it you're familiar with crash statistics, you'll know that once you take out the common factors such as alcohol, drugs, mobile phone use, fatigue, bad weather, speeding, faulty vehicle, health issues etc, the chances of death on the road drop dramatically.
25. Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot by j-beda · 2017-02-25 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  Currently the death rate is already largely random
  No it isn't. There is some random elements, but it you're familiar with crash statistics, you'll know that once you take out the common factors such as alcohol, drugs, mobile phone use, fatigue, bad weather, speeding, faulty vehicle, health issues etc, the chances of death on the road drop dramatically.
  You missed my point by chopping off what I said. Was that deliberate? It seems needlessly argumentative. The quote continued with "anyone who isn't a driver has virtually no control..."
  I don't disagree with the useful information you have added to the discussion.
  While you have some control over your own behaviour, your odds of encountering someone else being infleuenced by "the common factors such as alcohol, drugs, mobile phone use, fatigue, bad weather, speeding, faulty vehicle, health issues etc." are largely random - and even more so if you are not a driver. We often have an illusion of complete control over our destiny when we are behind the wheel. Autonomous systems seem likely to reduce many of these common factors in the other cars on the road, so I suspect they will become more common if they in fact do so.
26. Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot by Gussington · 2017-02-25 13:05 · Score: 1
  
  You missed my point by chopping off what I said. Was that deliberate? It seems needlessly argumentative. The quote continued with "anyone who isn't a driver has virtually no control..."
  They choose who they get in a car with.
  
  We often have an illusion of complete control over our destiny when we are behind the wheel.
  
  This is my point. We don't have complete control, but we have some control. Even as passengers we have a choice in who we drive with. And 'some control' has more emotional value than 'no control'.
  
  Autonomous systems seem likely to reduce many of these common factors in the other cars on the road, so I suspect they will become more common if they in fact do so.
  I agree that robot vehicles will have a place, but they will also introduce different problems, so the argument can't be reduced to 'less overall accidents equals win'.
  If less overall accidents was the only deciding factor for people's transport choice, then this problem has already be solved by public transport.
Another BS article. by thesupraman · 2017-02-21 14:52 · Score: 2

This software just replaced LKAS and ACC in Hondas, both features you can get as standard anyway.
basically steering lane control in cruise mode, and adaptive cruise so you dont run in to the back of the car in front.
That is far FAR from a 'self driving car', not even similar. The system cannot even operate below 18mph/25mph depending on model.
Still, new media and all, who CARES if any facts are checked, its all about the HYPE!
1. Re:Another BS article. by SuperDre · 2017-02-21 21:27 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but those standard systems have been tested and certified before they could be actually used on public roads.. Also if this system was used while an accident happened, the insurancecompany will not pay.
2. Re:Another BS article. by thegarbz · 2017-02-21 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  both features you can get as standard anyway
  Sure and you can just get a Tesla too. But what if you don't want to buy an entire new car to get a feature?
3. Re:Another BS article. by fluffernutter · 2017-02-22 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  If Autopilot was tested, it wouldn't have run into the trailer. If Google cars were tested, they wouldn't have been confused by a sandbag in the road. What other brands are there? Or yeah Uber and their car going the wrong way, untested. Yes, when you're putting a heavy machine on a public road your should have tested well enough to flush these things out first.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The kids are alright by PopeRatzo · 2017-02-21 14:59 · Score: 3, Funny

Young people today are impressive. When I was a senior in college, I was turning milk bottles into bongs.
They were sweet bongs, though.
When I got to grad school, that all changed because I was suddenly surrounded by people smarter than me and I had to actually work. But those first seven years of college were a lot of fun.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
1. Re:The kids are alright by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 16:23 · Score: 0
  
  It took you 7 years of college to get to grade school? Perhaps a bit less smoking and a bit more studying and you could have managed it in a mere 5 years.
2. Re:The kids are alright by ogdenk · 2017-02-21 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  So once you got to grad school you had to make calibrated multichambered bongs with working valves and heat resistant materials?
3. Re:The kids are alright by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 17:04 · Score: 0
  
  It took him 7 years because he's a halfrican like Obama, you know, mulatto, half and half. Obama was a fake nlgger. Only a half boon. But Obama gave it his best shot. From all appearances, he seemed to be a fully certified 100% nlgger. He gave it his best shot.
4. Re:The kids are alright by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  >Young people today are impressive.
  Everyone is impressive when they are unburdened (or unaware) of regulations, red tape, laws, administrative paperwork, and a host of other headaches. And have the blessing of time, no domestic obligations, and a supportive 'go for it' environment & friends. And I am appreciative of this invention.
  But remember, these excellent bleeding-edge examples of how creative anyone can be is reliant on one thing: being left alone to use tools as they see fit. Unregulated if you will.
  Whether that's good or bad is not the point, merely that in time- such edges get blunted by the real-world. In the meantime I wish them luck.
5. Re:The kids are alright by PopeRatzo · 2017-02-22 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone is impressive when they are unburdened (or unaware) of regulations, red tape, laws, administrative paperwork, and a host of other headaches. And have the blessing of time, no domestic obligations, and a supportive 'go for it' environment & friends. And I am appreciative of this invention.
  Oh, fuck off. Do you have any idea how many technological and scientific advancements were made over the past few decades, when we were told there was, "too much regulation"?
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
Surprising by manu0601 · 2017-02-21 15:03 · Score: 2

It is pleasantly surprising that Honda lets third parties connect to the vehicle control electronics. I would have expected fiercely guarded proprietary systems...
1. Re:Surprising by dknj · 2017-02-21 18:15 · Score: 2
  
  Nope, CANBUS is an open protocol, if you have a real CANBUS reader (not one of those $13 ELM junk) you can read every piece of data coming across the bus. A honda civic is the cheapest car you can buy and when I say cheap this also means they went cheap on security too. Newer e.g. Audi's and Mercedes' have since separated critical components to a secondary bus (which you can access via the ECM under the hood but its no longer as simple as plugging into the ODB2 port).
  My question is how is steering done? If I had to take a guess, they are manipulating individual brake controllers via the ABS system but that won't allow the car to make a 90 degree left or right turn (efficiently). And a Honda Civic is DEFINITELY not steering by wire yet (or maybe it is?). Regardless of the method used, it's still fucking scary to think someone on the road next to you could be using one of these instant-death devices. Why do I call it that?
  A year ago I got the bright idea to start hacking lane assist into my mid-2000s vehicle. My wife's car has it and I was driving 45 minutes one way to work. I wanted an excuse to skype while driving, to be honest. Found the CANBUS is wide open and for $600 I could get a device that would dump out and write to the CANBUS. Started dumping data as I drove and eventually isolated the individual brake commands. Now, I never got around to sending brake commands because of a very scary article published right here on Slashdot. It was about liability of self-driving cars. Immediately I had a thought of my system spazzing out and locking up my rear brakes while doing highway speeds. Not wanting to risk my cushy lifestyle I put the raspberry pi and CANBUS writer on a shelf and started looking into the Infiniti Q50 (don't buy a pre-2015 model folks, the steering wheel is dead to the world and the car wanders on its own).
  Shame on comma.ai for releasing that kit, I'm actually even more scared to drive than I used to be and it's only going to get worse as more entrepreneurial car-hackers hop onto the road.
  -dk
2. Re:Surprising by cstacy · 2017-02-21 20:45 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, CANBUS is an open protocol
  I like how all the threads keep coming back to pot...
3. Re:Surprising by AmiMoJo · 2017-02-21 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  You have to dismantle part of the dashboard, because they firewall the standard diagnostic port to prevent some random OBD-II dongle spewing bogons that affect steering or something.
  The docs for the control electronics are not available without NDA, but you can just sniff the packets off the wire. This is the guy who cracked open the PS3 by physically glitching the memory bus, and no protection scheme ever really works anyway.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
4. Re:Surprising by BasilBrush · 2017-02-21 23:07 · Score: 1
  
  It only works on Honda Civics with "Honda Sensing", which includes Lane Keeping Assist. So they tap into that for the steering.
  So basically you buy a car what already has Adaptive Cruise Control and Lane Keeping Assist. And you buy this box made by an amateur and run open source software on it that claims to be autonomous driving, but is actually just Adaptive Cruise Control and Lane Keeping Assist implemented by an amateur on non-automotive grade hardware.
  Pointless as well as dangerous.
5. Re:Surprising by thegarbz · 2017-02-21 23:33 · Score: 1
  
  I would have expected fiercely guarded proprietary systems...
  They are fiercely guarded by the impenetrable force of security through obscurity. And if there's anything we learnt from the car industry is that this is the only security they have.
6. Re:Surprising by drinkypoo · 2017-02-22 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  if you have a real CANBUS reader (not one of those $13 ELM junk) you can read every piece of data coming across the bus.
  Does ELM327 sniffer mode miss packets?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
7. Re:Surprising by azcoyote · 2017-02-22 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like a fascinating project, though I think you were wise to avoid getting yourself into trouble. Interestingly, from TFA:
  
  Bryant Walker Smith, a law professor at the University of South Carolina, says that federal and state laws probably don’t pose much of a barrier to those with a desire to upgrade their vehicle to share driving duties. NHTSA has authority over companies selling vehicles and systems used to modify them, but consumers have significant flexibility in making changes to their own vehicle, says Smith, who advises the U.S. Department of Transportation on law and automation.
  However, I think this law professor is still giving bad advice. Simply because the NHTSA won't stop you does not mean that you would have immunity or pity if something went wrong, especially if it hurt other people.
  
  --
  Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
8. Re:Surprising by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  I imagine that the cheapo bluetooth dongles can't keep up, and probably drop datagrams that are on the bus. A higher-end device could do faster logging.
9. Re:Surprising by drinkypoo · 2017-02-22 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  I imagine that the cheapo bluetooth dongles can't keep up, and probably drop datagrams that are on the bus. A higher-end device could do faster logging.
  I suppose that's possible, but I doubt it. Those bluetooth serial devices will usually let you do 230kbps. A $50 OBDLink LX can probably do the job just fine. In any case, I have a USB ELM327...
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
10. Re: Surprising by dknj · 2017-02-22 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  LKAS just pulses brakes to keep it car in Lane. It detects lanes using a camera.
  OpenCV can easily detect lanes, it has been used in many systems in the past. Beyond that, your ABS controller controls braking these days to prevent loss of control and it does this by independent braking of wheels. Similar technology is used to keep your car handling smooth around a turn.
  Good to know these guys aren't doing anything unique
11. Re: Surprising by dknj · 2017-02-22 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  No they cannot. They don't read CANBUS. They just talk OBD-II. CANBUS is a very different protocol. Timing is much different that a cheap Chinese part can't match (yet)
12. Re:Surprising by HornWumpus · 2017-02-22 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  They have a much improved version on Hackaday right now.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
13. Re: Surprising by BasilBrush · 2017-02-22 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  No, both the cars supported use steering for LKAS. That's WHY those are the supported cars.
14. Re: Surprising by drinkypoo · 2017-02-22 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  No they cannot. They don't read CANBUS. They just talk OBD-II. CANBUS is a very different protocol.
  OBD-II is not a protocol. It is a connection standard. It implies one of several electrical connection standards, to go with several different protocols. One of the protocols used on OBD-II is CAN, and one chip which supports CAN is ELM327. The ELM327 supports both SAE J2411 (slow, single wire) and ISO 15765-4 (mandatory in all vehicles in the USA since 2008.)
  Is your complaint that ELM327 doesn't speak some other protocol commonly being used between modules? That would be unfortunate.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
15. Re:Surprising by drinkypoo · 2017-02-22 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  They have a much improved version on Hackaday right now.
  I'm having trouble finding it... My car doesn't even use CAN, it's K-Line, but I'm still interested.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
16. Re:Surprising by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-24 02:51 · Score: 0
  
  if you have a real CANBUS reader (not one of those $13 ELM junk) you can read every piece of data coming across the bus.
  Does ELM327 sniffer mode miss packets?
  Coming at you from Detoit. I'm a bona fide expert in CAN (spent the bulk of my career at Vector CANtech). Yes, the ELM327 will miss packets if the busload is high enough. It does not have the hardware to keep up with a saturated bus. Those ELM327 devices use something like this. I don't think the ELM327 microcontroller/firmware can keep up with the data streaming from the CAN chip. You really need an integrated CAN controller (a peripheral attached to one of the buses of the SoC, not SPI) to keep up with a full busload. An ALM327 is a fun little toy for poking, but not a useful tool for logging for this reason.
3D printed case is the key by thesjaakspoiler · 2017-02-21 15:48 · Score: 2

Look at all those Tesla owners without a 3D printed case
I think it's time for PRT by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 15:53 · Score: 1

In the 1960s, it was theorized that with a dedicated track, and some computer power, it would be possible for vehicles, holding a few people each, could reduce the need for cars. Various groups around the world never could get all the problems taken care of, including sudden bunching up of traffic.
Now that computing power has exploded, now might be the time to try dedicated PRT roads again. Basically half a ton, unpiloted vehicles, on overhead roads. I am aware it is considered an eyesore, but if robots use those overhead roads, it might be an acceptable tradeoff.
1. Re:I think it's time for PRT by Joe_Dragon · 2017-02-21 17:57 · Score: 1
  
  cpu power will not fix tack switch limits / spacing / slow moving people that can jam up a enter / exit point. rural area covage / transfers from this system to other systems in place. very built up Urban areas with little room for tacks and stations.
Good Enough by SuperKendall · 2017-02-21 17:26 · Score: 1

It's not a terribly difficult problem to get to work 99.5% of the time
I'd say any technology that is 20% better than humans should just be let out on the roads the way we do 80 year old drivers.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The easy part by Tony+Isaac · 2017-02-21 17:58 · Score: 1

While what this kid did is impressive, he's only done the easy part: getting a car to drive itself under a limited set of circumstances that he knows about.
The hard part is to get a car to drive itself under all sorts of weather and road conditions, and safely handle all kinds of expected and unexpected road hazards, such as potholes, people, bicycles, and crazy drivers.
1. Re:The easy part by coofercat · 2017-02-22 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  I'd hope the average /.er knows that the hard part to self-driving cars is 'productising' it into something that passes regulations and doesn't kill people. However, I say this guy's pretty cool - first up, he's done some Ultimate Geek Hacking - it involves computers, 3d printing and cars - what's not to love!?. Second, he's shown it's possible for ordinary people to get some distance with self-driving cars. It means Fred-in-his-shed can take a look at this technology and try some stuff out. Sure, most of those attempts won't result in a marketable product, but maybe, just maybe they'll find a clever way to do something the big guys haven't thought of. Lastly, this guy has actually done something - and from the outside it's easy to pick on things he didn't do (yet?), or could do better, but let's not forget he's way ahead of most of us because he's actually got something physical working.
  I'm not likely to start my own self-driving car business, but it's great to see that I could, and I don't need to be a millionaire first.
2. Re:The easy part by Tony+Isaac · 2017-02-22 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with everything you said, except the last phrase. I think you wouldn't have to be a millionaire to tinker with self-driving technology, but you certainly would need to spend millions to go into business.
3. Re:The easy part by fluffernutter · 2017-02-22 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  I'm waiting to see how they will make the sensors impervious to blowing sticky snow and frost. When you park your car outside in the winter you kind of want it to be able to see the road the next morning without going through an hour long procedure to clear everything. Some mornings you are lucky if the windshield wipers are working.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Two Words: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 18:18 · Score: 0

I drive stoned every day, and it's my job so I put in hours of driving per day. I have an incidence of accidents far lower than the average American
Two words for you: Surviorship Bias.
1. Re:Two Words: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-23 07:47 · Score: 0
  
  I told you it was anecdotal, you git. Your quote cuts off conveniently just short of that. Nevertheless, only one example is necessary to disprove a statement as general as "you can't drive stoned."
Often, the tech is not the hard part by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-21 20:30 · Score: 0

Very often, the tech is not the hard part. I could probably build a gas burner, a light fixture, or an electric heater myself if I were really determined--but I'm not. Why? Because the results of my labor wouldn't be UL listed or otherwise in line with standards. If I burned my house down, fire investigators would trace the fire back to me. I would have no deep pockets to sue. If the fire spread to my neighbor's house, it'd be all on me. I'd be ruined. No thanks.
This is in the same category.
As much as we don't like to think about stuff like this, it's probably a good idea to limit the scope of your tinkering to things where you'd only hurt yourself.
Depends on supervision by DrYak · 2017-02-21 21:28 · Score: 1

It's not a terribly difficult problem to get to work 99.5% of the time, but with lives at risk most people aren't too happy with that number.
Depends.
If the system works even 90% of time and there's a human backup that is alert and focused, then it's good already.
(like autopilots found in airplanes, boats, some modern high-speed train.
Autopilots help automating some minute detail of the driving/sailing/flying.
But autopilots are still under the supervision of a human in charge.
It just relieves the human of part of the stupid hard gruntwork.
That's also were Tesla's autopilot and Google's prototypes on highway fell in).
If the system works even 99.9% of time, and the human is asleep, that's an entirely different can of worm.
You need well established public awareness that the autonomous driver is better and cause far less accidents than the humans.
(The small scale slow driving google cars with no steering wheel fall in this category).

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
1. Re:Depends on supervision by fluffernutter · 2017-02-22 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  You hit the nail on the head except for the fact that not all humans are capable of staying focused on the ride while not involved in it, and what is the point of that anyway? Otherwise, right on point.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Cars are becoming more automatic anyway by flightmaker · 2017-02-21 21:39 · Score: 2

Two days ago I was at a launch party for the 2017 Honda Civic. There was a 1st generation Civic from 1978, my own 1991 4th generation Civic, and several subsequent generation Civics, all in the Honda showroom arrayed around the new model.
What worries me is that so much on the new model has gone automatic. It's got a radar set in the front bumper to measure distance to the vehicle in front. It can be set to automatically speed control itself to maintain safe distance from the vehicle in front. It's got blind spot warning devices. It's got an automatic parking brake. It's got a camera that it's claimed is able to read and interpret road signs for itself so that the car knows what the speed limit is, and can be set to automatically keep its speed down to the limit.
It worries me as a driver that so much safety related functionality is being integrated into new cars that drivers of cars are going to be dangerously de-skilled. If, for example, a student driver learned to drive and passed their driving test in a 2017 manual transmission Civic, even though qualified they would have little of the skills needed to drive a 1991 Civic or any other car produced over, say, the subsequent 20 years. Specifically would they for example be able to perform a hill start, which is part of the British driving test and as well as the usual observations before moving off requires the ability to operate a manual hand brake simultaneously with the clutch and gas pedal? I doubt it.
1. Re:Cars are becoming more automatic anyway by BasilBrush · 2017-02-21 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  It was always the common sense option with UK driving tests to take them in a manual gearbox car, so that you'd be qualified for both manual and automatic. But for anyone now who fancies owning an EV, I'd suggest also learning to drive in an EV. Over the next few years EVs are going to take over the entire market. So those skills of clutch control and gear changing and hill starts will probably remain unused.
  And quite possibly in 20 years time there will be no point in taking driving lessons at all, because you can just purchase a fully autonomous car with no driver controls, and not need a licence.
  Only those people that positively want to drive will need to drive. It'll be a hobby rather than an everyday necessity. And may even be banned on public roads at some stage.
Example of Government Stifling Innovation by EmagGeek · 2017-02-21 23:52 · Score: 1

So, they got a letter from big government, and decided to give up and go home? That must have been a seriously threatening letter. How dare they try to innovate and compete against the large corporate oligarchs like Google, Apple, and Tesla?
1. Re:Example of Government Stifling Innovation by Yosho · 2017-02-22 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  The letter wasn't threatening at all, actually. It was mostly the NHTSA asking questions about their design and testing in order to ensure it was safe on the roads. Hotz decided to fold rather than even try to answer the questions.
  
  --
  Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 00:07 · Score: 0

Just put the car into D and release the hand-brake.
Presto: a self-driving car.
The problem is a self-driving car that doesn't crash into things. Reliably enough that you actually get permission of putting it out in the streets.
this is cool by smil2355763 · 2017-02-22 01:54 · Score: 1

It feels like if I had self driving car I could just lounge in the back doing desk work. The back could be like an office.
Uh... by lexman098 · 2017-02-22 02:39 · Score: 1

I'm surprised someone hasn't already mentioned that the 2016 civic with sensing package (not even that expensive) already follows the car in front of you and stays in the lanes.
Attention by DrYak · 2017-02-23 08:10 · Score: 1

not all humans are capable of staying focused on the ride while not involved in it
Hence some strategies of asking to keep the hands ready on the wheel (and other similar micro-involvements)
(And there is experience, coming from the world of train automation, that suggest that this works (a bit).
e.g.: TGV train operators are required by the system to periodically hold the thrust control wheel)
Also in my personal experience, you still remain involved in the driving :
- even if the adaptive cruise control is taking care of keeping distance with the car in front, you need to periodically adjust target speed depending on the limitations of the local part of the highway. And in a city settings you still need to react to traffic lights, stop signs, yield, etc.
- even if your car has a lane keeping system, you still need to initiate overtakes (even Tesla's Autopilot 's lane change isn't good enough to be done without supervision. The car's sonars have a very short range and might miss a car coming fast from far away in the target line) and over all handle the whole highway entry/exists, and city crossing.

and what is the point of that anyway?
the same as having a friend in the passenger seat also watching the road :
additional checks.
Machine are never distracted : the LIDAR, cams and radar are always on, their input constantly processed. The car's computer will never lose focus.
Computer excel at boring repetitive tasks. The car will always be ready to execute an emergency braking if there's a risk of collision.
So, compared to just a lone diver steering the car, an autopilot ("Level 2" in official parlance) in addition to the human watching is always better (redundancy against possible accident), even better if driver AND passenger watch the road in addition to the AI.

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Job security via hobbyist love by thoughtlover · 2017-02-23 11:18 · Score: 1

He should have no trouble scoring a sweet job...

--
No sig for you! Come back one year!