PDA

View Full Version : OT and nicely controversial....Uber fatal self driving car crash



Pages : [1] 2

J Tiers
03-23-2018, 02:32 PM
info here:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/uber-self-driving-crash-calls-safety-rules-into-question/article_69168189-5e3c-598a-ad21-4b913ebad128.html

danlb
03-23-2018, 03:18 PM
Yes, that was a very controversial link. It required you to defeat your adblocker and allow javascript to see their content. Personally, I find it is disingenuous for a newspaper site to add their content to the search engines and then require you to drop your defenses in order to see the content. I'm not sure if that was debated in this forum before.

As for the uber fatality, it's old news (last week). I've looked at the video and it shows a person crossing the road in the path of a moving car. That usually has a bad outcome. If I can't avoid hitting someone in that circumstance I don't expect a machine to do better.

Arcane
03-23-2018, 03:28 PM
If that had happened during full daylight at an intersection where the pedestrian had the right of way, the car would still have struck her. That's what the problem is.

A.K. Boomer
03-23-2018, 03:43 PM
As for the uber fatality, it's old news (last week). I've looked at the video and it shows a person crossing the road in the path of a moving car. That usually has a bad outcome. If I can't avoid hitting someone in that circumstance I don't expect a machine to do better.


But you do expect a machine to do better in fact you've stated that in the past,,, what's troublesome is the driver might have caught it, but was leaving it up to the car ---- whooops... bad decision that did indeed lead to a bad outcome...

JRouche
03-23-2018, 03:58 PM
LOL. That site is as bad as photobucket with the ads. Horrible
"Answer a survey question to continue reading this content"
No thanks..

The uber thing? Somebody was gonna hit that Ped at some point. Who walks in front of a vehicle like that! And at night, in the middle of the road.

And yes, the driver has some responsibility for this death. For my investigation just from what the news showed the driver would be listed as party #2. JR

Seastar
03-23-2018, 04:15 PM
Another lawyer field day!
Bill

CCWKen
03-23-2018, 04:33 PM
Stupid people like that get killed every day. It's only because the car was self driving that it made the news. Whether the car was self driving or not, I see the fault going to the bicycle rider. Even a human driver couldn't have responded favorably to that circumstance.

Clumsy Bastard. :cool:

3 Phase Lightbulb
03-23-2018, 04:49 PM
What a horrible........ link above.

Here is the video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFKB9BxtZUs

softtail
03-23-2018, 04:54 PM
Self driving vehicles are coming. There will be 'bumps in the road'. Show me a mode of transport that didn't kill people on it's way to having the kinks worked out.
I am no fan of them, but the evolution will be no different in that respect than what history has shown.

Having said that, it's terrible someone died.. I'd like to think that in this day of age we could develop new tech without deaths, but it's not likely. Hopefully hard lessons will be learned and the technology will be safer.

3 Phase Lightbulb
03-23-2018, 05:04 PM
IMO, it's not a problem with the technology, it's a problem with the laws. IMO, cars should have the right of way, but unfortunately the laws state that people have the right of way. The person walked into the car, the car didn't drive into the person. It's very unfortunate this happened, but it should be more of a lesson for people that don't pay proper attention when crossing streets, or the many other ways one can injure or kill themselves.

danlb
03-23-2018, 05:05 PM
If that had happened during full daylight at an intersection where the pedestrian had the right of way, the car would still have struck her. That's what the problem is.

That is an unfounded assumption. The car depends on lidar as well as visible light. The pedestrian was not lit until just before the car hit her. So what do you base this assertion on?

danlb
03-23-2018, 05:15 PM
But you do expect a machine to do better in fact you've stated that in the past,,, what's troublesome is the driver might have caught it, but was leaving it up to the car ---- whooops... bad decision that did indeed lead to a bad outcome...

Two things there; 1) I expect the mature systems to do better. Uber's version is still fairly new in comparison to the google effort. As far as I recall, Google has logged a lot more miles and never at fault for injury to a pedestrian.

2) The driver MIGHT have caught it. I doubt it. The person chose to cross the road just outside the illuminated area from the street light. The car was more visible to the pedestrian than the person was to the driver.

As said elsewhere, it's only news because it's a self driving car. The train from San Francisco to silicon valley kills a dozen or more people every year.

Brett Hurt
03-23-2018, 05:18 PM
Look at this cadillac super cruise it does the same thing. My new toyota pruis has it almost it will park its self and does a lot more. I look at the vid and see it was both car and pedestrian at falt. And I see this as the future of cars.

BCRider
03-23-2018, 05:37 PM
I suspect there's a fault with the Uber's version in this crash. Looking at the video from the onboard dash cam the person was walking fairly slowly and moved across the other lane before entering the vehicle lane. Granted they were wearing dark clothing but the car systems still should have spotted the moving object and braked. The pedestrian wasn't running and there were no parked cars that they dashed out from.

Yeah the videos of the accident are VERY POORLY lit. But that's the dash cam as the source. Not the car cameras. I would hope that the car systems would be using some form of near infra red or similar to see in the dark better than us regular folk. Otherwise what's the point?


I still don't see self driving cars being fully viable until ALL cars are self driving and people are not allowed to touch the controls. Otherwise the self driving systems need to be set up for idiots that cut them off or run red lights or any number of the woes that they do. And pedestrians will either need to be educated to not jump out in front of the cars. Basically that cars should have the right of way other than at controlled points.

J Tiers
03-23-2018, 05:44 PM
That is an unfounded assumption. The car depends on lidar as well as visible light. The pedestrian was not lit until just before the car hit her. So what do you base this assertion on?

As far as YOU know from the dash cam.

Point being that the self-driving system FAILED MISERABLY to identify an ELEMENTARY driving hazard. Do not get distracted by details that are not part of the actual issue.

The actual issue is NOT the driver, or a what-if.... The issue is a self driving car utterly failed to detect a combination of a person and a metal bicycle entering the street from the side, and ran over that person. The person did not "jump out in front of" the car.

We DO NOT NEED to know more than that.

THE. SYSTEM. FAILED.

If it cannot do better than that, ban it from the roads until it is PROVED to be able to do that every time. DO NOT use comparisons to human drivers, or statistics. They are only brought into the argument to bamboozle the participants.

danlb
03-23-2018, 05:48 PM
By my count, it was less than 2 seconds between the time her feet became visible and the time of impact. According to the NTSA it takes about a second and a half to recognize the impending accident and start to brake. That's not enough time to come to a stop.

The second video shows the external views too.

Dan

Arcane
03-23-2018, 05:50 PM
That is an unfounded assumption. The car depends on lidar as well as visible light. The pedestrian was not lit until just before the car hit her. So what do you base this assertion on?

What's unfounded about it? If the car's systems failed to detect her before it struck her, what makes you think it would have detected her if she was in a pedestrian walkway in the middle of the day and had the right of way? The lidar should have been more than sufficient but wasn't and if it wasn't, the car shouldn't have been on the road at all at night and possibly during the day as well.

J Tiers
03-23-2018, 05:56 PM
What's unfounded about it? If the car's systems failed to detect her before it struck her, what makes you think it would have detected her if she was in a pedestrian walkway in the middle of the day and had the right of way? The lidar should have been more than sufficient but wasn't and if it wasn't, the car shouldn't have been on the road at all at night and possibly during the day as well.

Bingo.

The self driving cars are supposed to be much more capable than stupid human drivers.

Human drivers DO see stuff like that BEFORE it is in front. Any driver who is not habitually aware of what is off to the side and ahead of them, is a dangerous driver who should have their license pulled.

loose nut
03-23-2018, 06:03 PM
Self driving vehicles are coming.

And how many more jobs will be lost to this technology. Millions.

danlb
03-23-2018, 06:29 PM
Well, if we throw out the facts and the current state of the art (human drivers) what else is there?

Look closely at the video. In the 1.43 seconds between the time that her shoes became visible and the impact, she took 3 strides, apparently trying to outrun the car. Remember, the car would have been much more visible to the biker, so at some point she decided to move more quickly. Even so, she moved less than half a lane in that interval.

The reason it takes a human time to respond to a situation like this is that there are so few data points available in the first glance. Your first data point is that there is something there. Then you have to wait a discrete amount of time till it moves so you can determine rate of speed. Then you have to determine the vector. Again, that requires movement too. By the time you have decided that it's on a collision course it's often too late, especially if there was anything obstructing your vision.

I don't know if Uber is using Doppler radar. That might have more quickly established that the direction of the pedestrian was not parallel to the car. I don't know how many data points they require to establish vector and speed. None of us do.

It might have been a simple case of a person slowly pushing the bike across the street and suddenly deciding to make a dash for it at the last moment. That's how people die in train accidents every day. It's elementary, but totally unavoidable from the standpoint of the moving vehicle.

Sorry it took so long to post. I had to download the video and do some measurements. :)

Dan

danlb
03-23-2018, 06:33 PM
What's unfounded about it? If the car's systems failed to detect her before it struck her, what makes you think it would have detected her if she was in a pedestrian walkway in the middle of the day and had the right of way? The lidar should have been more than sufficient but wasn't and if it wasn't, the car shouldn't have been on the road at all at night and possibly during the day as well.

Your assertion that it's unable to recognize a pedestrian in daylight is just a guess. You have no data. Therefore unfounded.

I THINK that it does a decent job of recognizing pedestrians during daylight simply because it has been doing that without incident for the last year or so.

Dan

danlb
03-23-2018, 06:42 PM
Bingo.

Human drivers DO see stuff like that BEFORE it is in front. Any driver who is not habitually aware of what is off to the side and ahead of them, is a dangerous driver who should have their license pulled.

Do you still drive at night? I know that you are getting up there in years. If you have driven in a dark area with intermittent street lights you should be able to recall that your headlights only illuminate a small area in front of the car and you are blind to whatever is 100 feet ahead and not directly ahead of you.

That's why we were taught to always give the car the right of way until they do something to acknowledge that they are yielding. Driver's visibility has always been problematic and it's gotten worse with side curtain air bags in the A pillars.

Besides, weren't you just now arguing that Uber's cars should not be compared to what humans do? :)

Dan

Arcane
03-23-2018, 06:45 PM
Your assertion that it's unable to recognize a pedestrian in daylight is just a guess. You have no data. Therefore unfounded.

I THINK that it does a decent job of recognizing pedestrians during daylight simply because it has been doing that without incident for the last year or so.

Dan

I never said it's unable to recognize a pedestrian in daylight. I asked what makes you think the car's response would have been different if it happened in the daylight and the woman was in a pedestrian walkway.

danlb
03-23-2018, 07:08 PM
I never said it's unable to recognize a pedestrian in daylight. I asked what makes you think the car's response would have been different if it happened in the daylight and the woman was in a pedestrian walkway.

OK, that's easy. It's been doing that a lot without errors. So chances are that in a different setting with different lighting it would have done what it did in the past. If nothing else, the woman might have decided not to cross in front of the car.

Arcane
03-23-2018, 07:19 PM
OK, that's easy. It's been doing that a lot without errors. So chances are that in a different setting with different lighting it would have done what it did in the past. If nothing else, the woman might have decided not to cross in front of the car.

It's going to have to be determined exactly why it failed to detect the person.

3 Phase Lightbulb
03-23-2018, 07:41 PM
It's going to have to be determined exactly why it failed to detect the person.

I'm sure it detected the person just fine. An object in the opposite lane doesn't mean the car should slow down. If a person was walking on the side of the road should the car stop? Of course not. Why this person crossed over into the car's lane before the car could stop is the problem. I'm sure the car applied the brakes as soon as the object entered it's lane but physics prevented the car from stopping in time. IMO, the person is 100% at fault.

Arcane
03-23-2018, 07:48 PM
I'm sure it detected the person just fine. An object in the opposite lane doesn't mean the car should slow down. If a person was walking on the side of the road should the car stop? Of course not. Why this person crossed over into the car's lane before the car could stop is the problem. I'm sure the car applied the brakes as soon as the object entered it's lane but physics prevented the car from stopping in time. IMO, the person is 100% at fault.

That goes to my question of "what if" the person had been in a pedestrian walkway.

A.K. Boomer
03-23-2018, 07:56 PM
Stupid people like that get killed every day. It's only because the car was self driving that it made the news. Whether the car was self driving or not, I see the fault going to the bicycle rider. Even a human driver couldn't have responded favorably to that circumstance.

Clumsy Bastard. :cool:

Im sure people will start changing their tune a little when "stupid deer" (with racks) start coming through the windshields real soon impaling people in the face with their antlers --- ha - stupid people using self driving cars lol

danlb
03-23-2018, 08:07 PM
Im sure people will start changing their tune a little when "stupid deer" (with racks) start coming through the windshields real soon impaling people in the face with their antlers --- ha - stupid people using self driving cars lol

I don't get your point. My friend ran into a deer in the grounds of Stanford University. It did a real job on the car. Conditions (windy road and pitch black night right after a well lit area) were against him. So what does your comment have to do with the thread?

Dan

Jeffery71
03-23-2018, 08:09 PM
A couple things about this. I was surprised at how poorly the headlights on the car seem to illuminate the road. But it could be the camera wasn't showing the true view a driver would see or maybe since its selfdriving the designers didn't feel it needed good illumination. Either way it brings up something... None of us, humans or self driving cars should be driving faster than we are able to react to a situation.. In other words if you can only see 100ft ahead of you, you should not be driving faster than you are able to react to an object appearing in your 100ft of view..... When there is a thick fog at night I don't drive as fast as when its clear. A self driving car should not be driving faster than it can "see" and respond regaurdless of what the condistions are.

J Tiers
03-23-2018, 08:14 PM
The P-D link os pretty poor... I had not looked at their site for some time, and I see that they have been "improving" it. I will keep reading the paper.... The site sucks badly now, used to be OK.


OK, that's easy. It's been doing that a lot without errors. So chances are that in a different setting with different lighting it would have done what it did in the past. If nothing else, the woman might have decided not to cross in front of the car.

So how many more dead people will it take to the point that it works right at any time? You are resorting to blaming the victim. PEOPLE are limited to visible light.... CARS are not, they can use Lidar, or radar, they have virtually unlimited computing power, since a cell phone is likely smart enough to do the basics, and a lot of cell phones will fit in a car......

"Getting up there"? Not so much..... and I DO drive at night.

So, what does a HUMAN driver (a good one) do when someone or something is ahead and to the side?

You evaluate whether the person/thing is moving or not. If moving toward the lane, you slow down, prepared to evade or stop. Well, maybe YOU do not, but I do....

AND, when you CAN NOT see that far ahead, you do not drive fast. You do not drive past your ability to see things. Again maybe YOU do not pay attention to that, but I do.....

It appears that the vehicle was traveling at least 45 mph, or a bit faster (it appears to travel about 100 feet in a second), and the headlights are aimed such that a person cannot see more than 75 ft or so ahead. Totally unacceptable for a human driver, apparently it was not considered important for the self-driving car to have lights show what was ahead...... just a marker light so you know it is there, I guess. The person is perfectly visible as soon as the badly aimed lights illuminate her.

Clearly the Uber car pays NO attention to sideways velocity (vs travel direction). I have seen comments that say that is actually deliberately ignored, because it is normal for there to be a lot of apparent side motion when the car is driving. And it does not "see" people ahead of it. Daylight should make no difference.... the car is not restricted to visible light.

Of course, people are quite able to "see" a scene ahead of them (if they are paying attention), decide where everything is, what it is doing, and whether it is a threat or not. Not so the Uber programming.

So...

The car evidently cannot see far enough to stop at the speed it was traveling. WRONG... Driver Ed 101. It paid no attention to things moving toward its path. WRONG.... Driver Ed 101. It did not even see a person in front of it who was actually moving, and not hiding.... WRONG.... just WRONG. I see no evidence that the "faster than a human" machine reactions made the slightest effort to stop.

By the way.... people have very fast reactions. I know a number of folks who shoot "Fast Draw", and have done it myself. It is common for the draw-aim-shoot reaction to be under half a second from start to target hit. Many people can do it in under 0.35 second.

So it is NOT the reaction time that is the bad issue, it is not paying attention, and driving beyond your ability to see what is going on.

That Uber car seems to have been committing both errors...

It appears that the programmers of these driving algorithms are concentrating on the wrong things. They need to have a "model" of the situation ahead, predict what is going to happen due to the various velocities and directions, and then have the car take acton based on the model predictions. That's what good drivers do, and very few drivers ever hit a pedestrian.

Until they can get it right, get them OFF the road.

3 Phase Lightbulb
03-23-2018, 08:19 PM
You should see a specialist about your chronic voice immodulation disorder.

kendall
03-23-2018, 08:22 PM
By my count, it was less than 2 seconds between the time her feet became visible and the time of impact. According to the NTSA it takes about a second and a half to recognize the impending accident and start to brake. That's not enough time to come to a stop.

The second video shows the external views too.

Dan

I've been following that story since it first showed up.

Watch the videos here:
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-victim-came-from-the-shadows-dont-believe-it/

My opinion since the official video was released was that something was wrong. After seeing all the videos taken on the same stretch of road at night, reinforces my thought that Uber released a copy of the video that best supports their "out of nowhere' story

CCWKen
03-23-2018, 08:27 PM
Im sure people will start changing their tune a little when "stupid deer" (with racks) start coming through the windshields real soon impaling people in the face with their antlers --- ha - stupid people using self driving cars lol

You don't need a self driving car to have an animal-vehicle collision. Happens all the time out here with dogs, hogs, deer, cattle and horses. It's always the animals fault for being on the road and tying to cross perpendicular to traffic. I don't know why you're trying to get an argument out of me. It's just the way it is at night. You must not ever get out of your driveway at night or travel beyond your neighborhood. In the real world, it happens and it happens with all ages of drivers. Sadly, it sometimes involves pedestrians and bicycle riders as well as vehicles that run red lights, stop signs or break other traffic laws.

Stop trying to blame the technology. You sound like the left wing news that's always blaming SUVs for "crushing the other small car when it went head-on into the other lane". :rolleyes:

Jeffery71
03-23-2018, 08:35 PM
I've been following that story since it first showed up.

Watch the videos here:
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-victim-came-from-the-shadows-dont-believe-it/

My opinion since the official video was released was that something was wrong. After seeing all the videos taken on the same stretch of road at night, reinforces my thought that Uber released a copy of the video that best supports their "out of nowhere' story

After seeing the videos in your link I think you are right. Makes me wonder if the video was edited/darkend. Looking at the other videos I think I could have drove that without headlights and still seen someone coming into the road.

J Tiers
03-23-2018, 08:38 PM
.....
Stop trying to blame the technology. You sound like the left wing news that's always blaming SUVs for "crushing the other small car when it went head-on into the other lane". :rolleyes:

Don't blame the technology for not working? For driving well beyond it's detection limits, and then not even trying to stop?

Wow.... You are basically saying "let's ban animals and people, especially pedestrians". That would work, but Who gets to do the banning of people? How soon do THEY have to kill themselves to finish the ban?

danlb
03-23-2018, 08:39 PM
In response to post #31...

The NHTSA is the one who says that the average person will take 1.5 seconds to evaluate the situation and react. Look it up. It's good reading. They even had it in drivers ed (no 101 back then). A .35 second fast draw has nothing to do with driving. No need to look that up. :)

We don't know if it was a failure to detect the person, inability to determine vector and speed or a failure to predict her actions. Until we know, any criticism is just hot air.

The question "how many more dead people will it take" was posed. That's also the argument for total automation as soon as possible. We can't get drunk drivers out of their cars. Nor can we get the road rage monsters off the road. I'd rather walk along a street full of Googles cars than one with the idiots I see weaving through traffic at high rates of speed or dialing their cell phones.

Lets see... Nope. The rest of the post was irreverent or based on unfounded assumptions. Not really worth mentioning.

A.K. Boomer
03-23-2018, 08:48 PM
You don't need a self driving car to have an animal-vehicle collision. Happens all the time out here with dogs, hogs, deer, cattle and horses. It's always the animals fault for being on the road and tying to cross perpendicular to traffic. I don't know why you're trying to get an argument out of me. It's just the way it is at night. You must not ever get out of your driveway at night or travel beyond your neighborhood. In the real world, it happens and it happens with all ages of drivers. Sadly, it sometimes involves pedestrians and bicycle riders as well as vehicles that run red lights, stop signs or break other traffic laws.

Stop trying to blame the technology. You sound like the left wing news that's always blaming SUVs for "crushing the other small car when it went head-on into the other lane". :rolleyes:

Hey - start making sense and then i'll agree, you sound like a bury your head in the sand type - take your pick far right or left lol

I live in deer country too - except we got it even tougher with things like increased braking distance descents around blind turns, Yet Knock on wood iv yet to paste one - yes lots of close calls and last split second "saving the ship" decisions...

not always the animals fault - in fact never is - they are free to roam so adjust accordingly and expect the unexpected

and unlike the self driving cars im paying attention to things like blood spots in the road and an entire data base of logical information of when and where iv spotted many before and just how certain conditions increase the danger 10 fold....

pure logic dictates - you hit a deer you screwed up, stop being a victim and sac up and start taking responsibility for your actions.... and don't forget to have a nice day :)

3 Phase Lightbulb
03-23-2018, 09:16 PM
The woman was homeless. I wonder if she was under the influence of anything. Still hard to believe someone would j-walk right in front of a car unintentionally. It also appears she "had been convicted on drug possession charges. In an April 2015 letter written by her husband to a judge, he said that Herzberg had been using drugs to “self medicate to deal with her depression” during the past 13 years. ".

IMO, I think Uber is probably the real "victim" here.

3 Phase Lightbulb
03-23-2018, 09:41 PM
"In the past week, there have been 10 pedestrian traffic fatalities in the Phoenix metro area"

Out of the 10 fatalities, 9 of them had humans driving the vehicle. Sounds like we need to get more self driving cars on the road. I wonder how many of those 9 fatalities would have been avoided if those vehicles were self driving instead.

A.K. Boomer
03-23-2018, 09:45 PM
"In the past week, there have been 10 pedestrian traffic fatalities in the Phoenix metro area"

Out of the 10 fatalities, 9 of them had humans driving the vehicle. Sounds like we need to get more self driving cars on the road. I wonder how many of those 9 fatalities would have been avoided if those vehicles were self driving instead.

You might want to calculate how many cars are self driving in comparison to the human driven ones first... at least a good start and then we can take it from there...

3 Phase Lightbulb
03-23-2018, 09:58 PM
You might want to calculate how many cars are self driving in comparison to the human driven ones first... at least a good start and then we can take it from there...

In this case, just looking at the cause of those 9 accidents is most likely enough to determine if self driving technology would have saved a life. What we don't know are the number of fatalities that might occur if all cars were self driving.

J Tiers
03-23-2018, 10:20 PM
"In the past week, there have been 10 pedestrian traffic fatalities in the Phoenix metro area"

Out of the 10 fatalities, 9 of them had humans driving the vehicle. Sounds like we need to get more self driving cars on the road. I wonder how many of those 9 fatalities would have been avoided if those vehicles were self driving instead.

looks like the SDVs are behind the 8 ball on fatalities per capita for the week.

We've already seen a number of cases of SDVs simply not seeing obvious things like garbage trucks, semi-trailers, and now pedestrians, and happily running into or over them without apparently any attempt to stop.

And these are what we want on the street to reduce fatalities? We should just trust that commercial enterprises will fix it so that never happens again?

I seem to recall that recently a self driving truck was released into the wild in Texas or Arizona somewhere, and drove sucessfuly almost 15 minutes before it crashed. Given that I know many people who have gone decades driving without a crash, let alone one that was their fault, I'd suggest that 15 minutes needs a bit of improvement.

Sorry, these things are not ready yet, and may need some basic changes to the program operation before they ARE ready. They do not seem to make reliable judgements. Since they are deterministic devices, it is fair to judge them on a few incidents, as they should react similarly in similar situations. If NOT, then there is another problem.

SDVs MUST always err on the side of safety. In a doubtful situation the vehicle should react as a good human driver would, slowing, and allowing for greater scrutiny of the situation. So far, that type operation seems to be considerably less than perfect.

Doubtful situations seem not to be recognized. The principle of "no news is good news" seems to rule more than it should. And the pro-SDV bigots always have an explanation for why that case was "special". Got news for yah... "special" situations are a daily occurrence when driving. Get used to it.

I had a longer response in more detail, but it got eaten by the site software...

PStechPaul
03-23-2018, 10:36 PM
It looks like the stretch of road where the accident happened was not a place where pedestrian or bicycle traffic would be expected, especially crossing the road. Bicycles and riders should have light colored garments, reflectors, and both front and rear lights when being operated on a well traveled public road. And it seems that an unimpaired and normally cautious person should be able to see an approaching vehicle and make proper judgment about crossing the road. At least an autonomous vehicle will probably act in a predictable manner, and not drive aggressively or speed.

I have hit deer, and in fact it happened twice in one week, with no such incidents for 30+ years prior and 10+ years since. Both were at night, in moderate traffic, on two lane country roads. The first time, I was able to avoid the first animal, but I clipped the one that was following. Only slight damage to my car, and the deer probably survived.

The second incident happened in fog, and I was going at a fairly safe speed, paying attention to the tail-lights of the car ahead of me and the head-lights of approaching traffic. The deer ran out from bushes on the side of the road and there was little time to react safely, and when I hit the deer it slid across the hood and over the top of my car. Fortunately it was/is a 1999 Saturn SL1 which sits low to the ground with a sloped windshield. Still, damage was minimal, just needing a little body work on the hood and a repair to one headlight.

J Tiers
03-23-2018, 10:52 PM
Machines (SDVs) have no "expectations", and should react the same anywhere.

They should NOT drive faster than conditions, or the ability of the vehicle to identify objects at sufficient distance to stop, justify. that has nothing to do with "expectations".

The video shows that the speed was well in excess of the speed that a human driver should proceed at, based on visible light visibility distance. Obviously, based on results, the SDV was proceeding at a speed in excess of its own ability to identify a large object in the path, since there was apparently no detection.

A HUMAN driver would almost certainly have swerved to avoid the pedestrian, who was moving off to the right. Apparently the "must stay in lane" software precludes that, or there was simply no detection at all, as no noticeable slowing is seen, nor is there avoidance behavior.

That is unacceptable. A person, in a similar situation, would be noted as having made no attempt to avoid the accident, and that would be part of allocating fault. There is an "obligation to attempt to avoid" underlying traffic laws. It is no excuse that the other party was breaking the law. YOU do not get to bull ahead and run into them using the excuse that they were doing something wrong. The machine should in no way "get a pass" on that.

softtail
03-23-2018, 11:01 PM
We have a long illustrious history of testing things on each other. Keep yourself on the right side of the equation. Boat, rail, air, car, you name it. People have died, often needlessly.

3 Phase Lightbulb
03-23-2018, 11:27 PM
I'm guessing I would have hit the pedestrian too if I was driving. I'm only going to hit the brakes and hope I stop in time. I'm guessing if there was only 1.5 seconds of time to react, I'd probably be hitting the brakes with maybe only 750ms of time left to stop which obviously isn't enough.

J Tiers
03-23-2018, 11:33 PM
I'm guessing I would have hit the pedestrian too if I was driving. I'm only going to hit the brakes and hope I stop in time. I'm guessing if there was only 1.5 seconds of time to react, I'd probably be hitting the brakes with maybe only 750ms of time left to stop which obviously isn't enough.

You are assuming several things that I hope, for your sake, as NOT true.

1) that you would have driven at the same speed in the conditions as shown in the video.

2) That you would accept headlights that illuminate only as far as those are "shown" as illuminating. (we do not know if the video is a clear and unedited version, the way the headlights show in the video looks a bit suspect, to me.)

3) that you would have made no attempt to evade the pedestrian. (Your own statement)

I surely hope that these are actually NOT true... Otherwise I hope you will turn in your license quickly.

3 Phase Lightbulb
03-23-2018, 11:57 PM
You are assuming several things that I hope, for your sake, as NOT true.

1) that you would have driven at the same speed in the conditions as shown in the video.

2) That you would accept headlights that illuminate only as far as those are "shown" as illuminating. (we do not know if the video is a clear and unedited version, the way the headlights show in the video looks a bit suspect, to me.)

3) that you would have made no attempt to evade the pedestrian. (Your own statement)

I surely hope that these are actually NOT true... Otherwise I hope you will turn in your license quickly.

I'm just more in touch with reality. The car was going 40mph in a 45mph zone. I would have probably been going ~50mph like a typical person driving would. Trying to evade an object by steering into potentially oncoming traffic, or off the road might have killed me and my family in the car. Hitting the brakes is the safest action unless there is actually enough time to process the surroundings.

J Tiers
03-24-2018, 02:18 AM
A 45 mph zone is NOT a 45 mph zone unless you can see far enough to stop before you hit what you can see.

Even the SDV bigots here agree that they could not have stopped in time. That PROVES the speed was too high for the visibility, whether that was weather related or just lousy headlights. AND, since the person was hit and killed, the speed was such that the vehicle could not (or did not try to) stop in time. The driving monitor in the car had no chance at all, even if they were looking directly at the person as soon as she was visible (judging by the possibly "modified" video) but is probably feeling pretty low about the whole thing.

According to that video, the car was going at a speed (my estimate was 45 mph... pretty close) that everyone agrees was too high.... even though they have not yet realized that is what they are agreeing about.

Does not matter that the person should not have been there.... Lots of things "should not be" wherever... it is a fact of driving. People, "road alligators", boxes. even ladders are among the things I have seen on the road where they "had no right to be".... Yep , that statement "had no right to be" is just not good enough for a vehicle that CAN stop decently (unlike a train, for instance).

Stuff happens..... the SDV has to DEAL with it, just like human drivers.

That SDV committed several mistakes.

So would you if you would have driven 50mph with the exact same conditions. You probably tailgate @ 5 foot off the bumper also. YOUR fault if there is an accident, rear-ending is the fault of the trailing car in most states.

ikdor
03-24-2018, 08:22 AM
So all who disagree with the omniscient Jerry are bigots?
There is far too much unknown to put definitive blame on the car, so get off your high horse.
At the moment there have been very few accidents, most of which are attributable to other road users. For such a new development I'm surprised that they perform as well as they do.
Your opinions will not stop the development, OEMs are pumping north of 100billion dollars into this technology and it will be everywhere in a few years. Better get used to it.
If you really want to influence the safety you better switch jobs and help them instead of crying from the sideline.

J Tiers
03-24-2018, 08:31 AM
So all who disagree with the omniscient Jerry are bigots?
There is far too much unknown to put definitive blame on the car, so get off your high horse.
At the moment there have been very few accidents, most of which are attributable to other road users. For such a new development I'm surprised that they perform as well as they do.
Your opinions will not stop the development, OEMs are pumping north of 100billion dollars into this technology and it will be everywhere in a few years. Better get used to it.
If you really want to influence the safety you better switch jobs and help them instead of crying from the sideline.

There are people who like the technology of this first world solution, but understand that it needs work.

And then there are the "bigots" who try to explain away any problem as being the fault of something other than the obviously perfect vehicle.

"nobody could have stopped in time"..... "the person should not have been there"..... "the car wasn't going even the speed limit".... it's always some OTHER fault..... NEVER the car....

softtail
03-24-2018, 08:40 AM
Just think about all the extra time you will have sitting in the car to rot your mind with facebook and cat videos.

MrFluffy
03-24-2018, 09:38 AM
That is an unfounded assumption. The car depends on lidar as well as visible light. The pedestrian was not lit until just before the car hit her. So what do you base this assertion on?

Thought I'd update this with a link discussing why the lidar "failed to function". In which case if it did work as the manufacturers of the lidar unit say in the article, then the pedestrian was killed by a software design error.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2018/03/lidar-supplier-blames-uber/

A.K. Boomer
03-24-2018, 10:21 AM
There is no doubt its a coming and there's no way to stop it, and I can see where they will be better drivers than many of the crappy humanoids that don't even care about driving and would rather talk on their cellies or text everywhere they go, seems its about everyday now im having to honk my horn because the turd in front of me has not noticed that the stop light has changed color and it's easy to see why as they are "staring down at something"

it's a sad day and age when were not going after the real problem and just accepting the dumbing down of society while we create tenfold more , all the technology in the world is not going to help us then - in fact it's already become problem # 1... we are doomed, and we deserve it...



IMO they will NEVER be as good as the good drivers, never... some people take it seriously and have literally logged on millions without incident not only due to realizing the responsibility at hand - but being directly linked into the ever changing environment, unlike some dumbass programmer who things he/she has a clue while sitting at their desk

the real threat to all of this is our freedom, eventually because we have not addressed the real problem the autonomous vehicles will become mandatory ---- so big thanks to all the turds in the world, the ones who not only ruin it for everyone else by not giving a crap while driving a two ton weapon but also the ones so eager to make sure we all lose this wonderful privilege, that's a coming too - im sure of it... enjoy.

3 Phase Lightbulb
03-24-2018, 10:46 AM
So would you if you would have driven 50mph with the exact same conditions. You probably tailgate @ 5 foot off the bumper also. YOUR fault if there is an accident, rear-ending is the fault of the trailing car in most states.

I don't tailgate and I absolutely hate tailgaters myself. In fact, on the highway people tend to tailgate me a lot because I do leave plenty of room in front but only because I like to coast to reduce speed vs. applying brakes.

3 Phase Lightbulb
03-24-2018, 11:40 AM
Thought I'd update this with a link discussing why the lidar "failed to function". In which case if it did work as the manufacturers of the lidar unit say in the article, then the pedestrian was killed by a software design error.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2018/03/lidar-supplier-blames-uber/

Self driving technology use several forms of nested deep neural networks which require supervised training. The software involved is actually quite trivial so my first guess is the issue was due to improper or insufficient training and/or non-optimal training parameters. My second guess would be a hardware issue with sensory data or mechanical actuators that software failed to detect. My third guess is a hardware failure that software didn't have visibility of.

garyhlucas
03-24-2018, 11:51 AM
There is no doubt its a coming and there's no way to stop it, and I can see where they will be better drivers than many of the crappy humanoids that don't even care about driving and would rather talk on their cellies or text everywhere they go, seems its about everyday now im having to honk my horn because the turd in front of me has not noticed that the stop light has changed color and it's easy to see why as they are "staring down at something"

it's a sad day and age when were not going after the real problem and just accepting the dumbing down of society while we create tenfold more , all the technology in the world is not going to help us then - in fact it's already become problem # 1... we are doomed, and we deserve it...



IMO they will NEVER be as good as the good drivers, never... some people take it seriously and have literally logged on millions without incident not only due to realizing the responsibility at hand - but being directly linked into the ever changing environment, unlike some dumbass programmer who things he/she has a clue while sitting at their desk

the real threat to all of this is our freedom, eventually because we have not addressed the real problem the autonomous vehicles will become mandatory ---- so big thanks to all the turds in the world, the ones who not only ruin it for everyone else by not giving a crap while driving a two ton weapon but also the ones so eager to make sure we all lose this wonderful privilege, that's a coming too - im sure of it... enjoy.

You may very well be right that an autonomous car will never be as good as the best human drivers. However a lot of lives and material costs can be saved if they are better than the worse drivers that cause most of the accidents. For instance lousy drivers like me, or the millions of older drivers that were once very good drivers but they are not anymore. The elderly lobby fights even testing for fear of losing their freedom. Autonomous cars can give them keepq their freedom. Regular testing can make sure you’ve still got it and don’t need help.

I build automation. The toughest part of my job is keeping it working despite the inattention of the operators and trying to guess what kind of stupid they will try next.

J Tiers
03-24-2018, 12:00 PM
Self driving technology use several forms of nested deep neural networks which require supervised training. The software involved is actually quite trivial so my first guess is the issue was due to improper or insufficient training and/or non-optimal training parameters. My second guess would be a hardware issue with sensory data or mechanical actuators that software failed to detect. My third guess is a hardware failure that software didn't have visibility of.

These things are mission critical controllers.... Unless, of course, the designers take the attitude "it's OK, there are plenty more people"....."it's a consumer product, after all"..... etc, etc. I.e. that cost rules everything. Essentially, there is no difference between an SDV and an Apollo capsule.... Both contain people, and are moving at speeds and in environments which are inherently dangerous.

In case the designers opt to take the responsible attitude, it is obvious that hardware needs to be continuously monitored, or what the safety folks term "proved", to verify it is working correctly. Taking a "no news is good news" attitude is not acceptable in that sort of situation. I assume that there IS redundancy and safety system "proving", but I do not know that.

A human driver knows what "should be" seen, and becomes suspicious (or should do) if things that are expected, are not seen, or things that should NOT be seen ARE seen. "Where are the lane stripes I should be seeing?".... "why am I now seeing cornstalks whipping past me?"... "was that bump I felt actually the ditch?"...... "That looked like a do not enter sign, oops better stop and pull over to evaluate".

All that "common knowledge" needs to be encoded in the car control computer. From what little I have found out about the algorithms, which are obviously (but probably should not be) corporate IP, this is not the sort of approach that is taken. Some information that humans use is actually ignored by car computers, because their processing power is much less than the human brain in many ways. But that may be bad information, or disinformation, the companies are obviously not giving away their secrets.

I think, frankly, that if this technology is going to be forced on us, there should be a common control software and sensor system basis for ALL SDVs, and only the peripheral portions of it should be ALLOWED to be modified, added, customized, etc.

3 Phase Lightbulb
03-24-2018, 12:20 PM
These things are mission critical controllers.... Unless, of course, the designers take the attitude "it's OK, there are plenty more people"....."it's a consumer product, after all"..... etc, etc. I.e. that cost rules everything. Essentially, there is no difference between an SDV and an Apollo capsule.... Both contain people, and are moving at speeds and in environments which are inherently dangerous.

In case the designers opt to take the responsible attitude, it is obvious that hardware needs to be continuously monitored, or what the safety folks term "proved", to verify it is working correctly. Taking a "no news is good news" attitude is not acceptable in that sort of situation. I assume that there IS redundancy and safety system "proving", but I do not know that.

A human driver knows what "should be" seen, and becomes suspicious (or should do) if things that are expected, are not seen, or things that should NOT be seen ARE seen. "Where are the lane stripes I should be seeing?".... "why am I now seeing cornstalks whipping past me?"... "was that bump I felt actually the ditch?"...... "That looked like a do not enter sign, oops better stop and pull over to evaluate".

All that "common knowledge" needs to be encoded in the car control computer. From what little I have found out about the algorithms, which are obviously (but probably should not be) corporate IP, this is not the sort of approach that is taken. Some information that humans use is actually ignored by car computers, because their processing power is much less than the human brain in many ways. But that may be bad information, or disinformation, the companies are obviously not giving away their secrets.

I think, frankly, that if this technology is going to be forced on us, there should be a common control software and sensor system basis for ALL SDVs, and only the peripheral portions of it should be ALLOWED to be modified, added, customized, etc.

You should send your resume to Toyota. I'm sure they would be ecstatic with your background and experience. They will want to fly you in right away for an interview.

kendall
03-24-2018, 12:21 PM
I'm just more in touch with reality. The car was going 40mph in a 45mph zone. I would have probably been going ~50mph like a typical person driving would. Trying to evade an object by steering into potentially oncoming traffic, or off the road might have killed me and my family in the car. Hitting the brakes is the safest action unless there is actually enough time to process the surroundings.

According to most reports the car was doing 38 in a 35 on a divided roadway.

3 Phase Lightbulb
03-24-2018, 12:31 PM
According to most reports the car was doing 38 in a 35 on a divided roadway.

That's funny because yesterday all of the reports I read that stated a speed said it was going 40mph in a 45mph zone. I just searched again and found some saying it was going 40mph in a 35mph zone. At least we can rely on the news to give us only the facts.

A.K. Boomer
03-24-2018, 12:41 PM
Regular testing can make sure youíve still got it and donít need help.


If only it were that simple, with what's going on right now even some of the worst offenders could do good on a test,,, till you get them away from the testing and then the celly comes out of the pocket...

J Tiers
03-24-2018, 01:35 PM
You should send your resume to Toyota. I'm sure they would be ecstatic with your background and experience. They will want to fly you in right away for an interview.

Surely the things I mention are rather elementary, and really ARE "intuitively obvious to the most casual observer". If not, then there may be a problem at a level outside the purely technical aspects....

I am not an expert on the software, and one should not NEED to be in order to assess what is required....In fact,one probably SHOULD NOT be an expert in the software aspects, as that often leads to a very myopic viewpoint that includes only what is considered "possible". What is considered "possible" is of no consequence... the important thing is "what is NECESSARY".

I HAVE worked with safety-related systems design, and I have more than a little experience with driving safely.... These things cannot be handed over entirely to the technical "experts" with any assurance that they will "do all that is required to take care of us" (within their set budget of dollars and time), that they will take an appropriate overview of the requirement from an overall societal viewpoint. Questions need to be answered.

Questions of this nature include: "what should an SDV do?"... "Should it differ in its priorities and responses from an ideal human driver?"..... "Why should it differ from an ideal human driver?".... "if so, in what ways?"..."what does that affect in terms of interaction WITH human driven vehicles?"......."WHY is that best?"..... "Should it act to protect itself at all costs?".... "Should it act to mitigate accidents (take evasive action, etc)?".... "should it be programmed to just hit obstacles, sacrificing itself and its passengers rather than attempt to evade (I have seen this advocated)?".... "if so, WHY is that the best response?".... "do we consider that acceptable, as well as technically best?"...

There are MANY more questions that might be asked to elucidate just what society expects from "robot cars". These are apparently being handled at present simply ad-hoc, at a technical level, at the whim of the designers, perhaps on the basis of cost, complexity, required scheduling for arbitrary rollout dates, etc.

I do not think we can AVOID asking these questions, and coming up with satisfactory answers that are made into national minimum requirements for performance of all SDVs.

At present, there seems to be no effort to address the matter. it is either being ignored in favor of a starry-eyed "tech is good, tech is wonderful, bow down before it" attitude, or a "we should not be picking winners and losers", "hands-off", attitude as is usually advocated by conservative business-friendly folks. Neither is acceptable. We cannot, as a country, allow the performance standards to be the (somewhat random) lowest common denominator of what purely commercial ventures design, or believe they can design at the cost goals they have set.

3 Phase Lightbulb
03-24-2018, 01:41 PM
Surely the things I mention are rather elementary, and really ARE "intuitively obvious to the most casual observer". If not, then there may be a problem at a level outside the purely technical aspects....

I am not an expert on the software, and one should not NEED to be in order to assess what is required....In fact,one probably SHOULD NOT be an expert in the software aspects, as that often leads to a very myopic viewpoint that includes only what is considered "possible".

I HAVE worked with safety-related systems design, and I have more than a little experience with driving safely.... These things cannot be handed over entirely to the technical "experts" with any assurance that they will "do all that is required to take care of us", that they will take an appropriate overview of the requirement from an overall societal viewpoint. Questions need to be answered.

Questions of this nature include: "what should an SDV do?"... "Should it differ in its priorities and responses from an ideal human driver?".. "If so, in what ways?"..... "Why should it differ from an ideal human driver?".... "if so, in what ways?"..."WHY is that best?"..... "Should it act to protect itself at all costs?".... "Should it act to mitigate accidents (take evasive action)?".... "should it be programmed to just hit obstacles rather than attempt to evade (I have seen this advocated)?".... "if so, WHY is that the best response?"....

There are MANY more questions that might be asked to elucidate just what society expects from "robot cars". These are apparently being handled at present simply ad-hoc, at a technical level, at the whim of the designers, perhaps on the basis of cost, complexity, required scheduling for arbitrary rollout dates, etc.

I do not think we can AVOID asking these questions, and coming up with satisfactory answers that are made into national minimum requirements for performance of all SDVs.

At present, there seems to be no effort to address the matter. it is either being ignored in favor of a starry-eyed "tech is good, tech is wonderful, bow down before it" attitude, or a "we should not be picking winners and losers", "hands-off", attitude as is usually advocated by conservative business-friendly folks. Neither is acceptable. We cannot, as a country, allow the performance standards to be the (somewhat random) lowest common denominator of what purely commercial ventures design, or believe they can design at the cost goals they have set.

I was suggesting you apply for a janitorial position :)

J Tiers
03-24-2018, 01:55 PM
I was suggesting you apply for a janitorial position :)

OK... you are another one in the "bow down and worship" category. LOL.... good luck, you may need it. Have a nice life......

danlb
03-24-2018, 03:15 PM
Reading that thread from http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2018/03/lidar-supplier-blames-uber/ was enlightening. There was one post from an industry insider who actually uses the hardware and drivers that Uber uses. The lidar hardware appears to be a self contained subsystem with a well defined interface to the hardware and drivers.

The lidar is supposed to be able map obstacles out to 100 meters in pitch black conditions. That should have been enough to "see" the pedestrian.

The thought that occurred to me was that there was likely to have been a situation where the various sensors (radar, lidar and visible light) presented contradictory information. Consider:

On initial contact at 300 feet. Lidar says something is there with the cross section of a person (bike is too small to register cleanly). Radar says nothing is there (too far). Camera can't see anything.

1/2 the distance, 150 feet. Lidar says something is there about the size of a person but shape is wrong (plastic bags); It is in the lane now. Radar says something is there, but a small reflection (not much metal). Camera sees nothing.

1/2 again, 75 feet. Lidar sees a strange outline, possibly a bicycle and rider. Radar sees ???? Camera finally sees something.

The initial reports had the car driving at 38 mph in a 35 zone. Follow up report was that it was within sight of the upcoming 45 mph zone sign, and was picking up speed. Pick a point in time and you will get various vehicle speeds. That explains the odd range of reported speeds.

The point of this post; There are 3 sets of sensors with a wide range of capabilities. Each will present a different picture under the same circumstances. It's up to the Uber software to reconcile the differences in the data. It's not uncommon to take the "best two out of 3" approach in such situations. I'm not sure what algorithm I'd use in this instance. Maybe they needed a second long range sensor like FLIR to validate the lidar at a distance in the dark.

Dan

MrFluffy
03-24-2018, 03:45 PM
Dan, yes, exactly, if the sensors were all functional the software made the wrong decision, and if it got confusing input the default *should* have been to failsafe and stop and hand over to the driver, not carry on ignoring some of them. Effectively its being beta tested on everyone as its not ready for prime time. We can call it self learning algo training error's or whatever, but its still software. And if it self learns wrong, then its a software error in design that led this to even being possible to happen. Rushing things to market because of a general excitement is not how to introduce new technology in a trustworthy way.

Also it was accelerating because the 40 signs were in sight? the law in the UK states that the previous (or blanket for road type if not present )speed limit applies until you pass the next speed limit sign. I've actually been prosecuted in a roadside sting because I accelerated too early and passed a 40 sign at 38mph while still a few feet in a 30 limit and the cop radar gunned me lined up as near the post as he could make stick to make the numbers better too.

TL,DR; Ive worked in software and testing for years, and it scares me that I'll be out on my motorcycle with one of these things in the same space, having tested many many systems designed by professional programmers over the years and seeing the cracks and bad decisions get papered over just to get things to market and get paid.

danlb
03-24-2018, 04:15 PM
Keep in mind that post #67 was simply musing about the complexity of using multiple data sources and deciding between them.

One of the fun parts of parsing the real world is that sometimes things appear very different based on angles, shadows and perspective. If you have two sensors of different types that say there is a solid, stationary mass in the road, you can generally accept that even if the third sensor says the road is clear. Radar in a moving car, for instance, is not very good at identifying a human.

jpg366
03-24-2018, 04:22 PM
If only it were that simple, with what's going on right now even some of the worst offenders could do good on a test,,, till you get them away from the testing and then the celly comes out of the pocket...

Turns out you CAN fix stupid, but it requires destructive testing.

J Tiers
03-24-2018, 05:00 PM
The article makes sense, and agrees with my sense if the situation.

Lidar, by definition is active sensing, sending a signal, and receiving a return, NOT an ambient light sensor. 120 meters is around 360 feet, which is pretty decent, and totally adequate for 40 mph. The image provided in the article shows a very reasonable detection capability, and it seems clear that the detector virtually certainly "saw" the victim, AND that it "saw" the victim when she was off to the side BEFORE she was in the traffic lane.

The fault evidently lies in he software that interprets the image, and decides what to do. Mention was made of the vehicle accelerating, having "observed" a higher speed limit sign. Clearly there was a failure to observe that the victim was in the path, even though the correct image was presented.

It may come down to methods of sorting out what is a danger and what is not. Objects that are moving, that have a changing "off angle", may be assumed to not be a problem. Items with a constant "off angle" are presumed to be on a collision course. That is a reasonable sorting method, but it utterly fails if you have an object that is moving toward your path (reducing "off angle". You have to NOT reject those, and reject only objects with an "off angle" that is getting larger, and that have an "off angle" that is out of the path to begin with.

Anything with a constant, decreasing, or too small "off angle" are a danger.

And then there is another question, which I recognize is speculation extrapolating from Dan's very reasonable post..... Does the car actually HAVE TO "identify" all objects?

Any object of whatever type, that is in a position that will intercept the outline of the vehicle, is suspect. Does it matter what the object is? Does a driver really make the decision "Oh, that's just a plastic bag", and decide to run over it? I know I do not...Given a choice, I will avoid bags, and the like, for a number of reasons: They may have something sharp or heavy in them if not moving. If blowing along, bags are still floppy and flammable, I do not want it getting entangled with the car, or landing against the hot catalytic converter. ending up stuck over the windshield (or the Lidar unit)....

Presumably, the safer way to handle indeterminate objects is to change lanes away from it, just as a driver would. If that is not possible due to traffic, then hit the brakes.

Either option would have presumably prevented or drastically reduced the severity of the accident.

AntonLargiader
03-24-2018, 05:04 PM
According to Google Street View (up to date or not) it is posted at 45 when it crosses the river. The area from where the pedestrian came is a non-pedestrian area, but is frequently used as a cut-through.

The video makes it look like the right turn signal was on, so maybe the car was slowing for a right turn.

The technology isn't ready for prime time, but that's not news to anyone. This is why the car had a safety driver. But I think the safety driver's mindset is going to be that the car is behaving correctly until it obviously isn't, which makes it pretty much impossible to take over in time in a situation like this.

I woud have had my high beams on in that situation, with that dark area right after an illuminated area. But slowing down and seeing in urban areas is just a thing that's important to me. I'm sure there are other aspects of driving that I'm poor at.

Jeffery71
03-24-2018, 05:25 PM
Looking at the link that Kendall posted I really don't think it was as dark as the Uber video depicts.


I've been following that story since it first showed up.

Watch the videos here:
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-victim-came-from-the-shadows-dont-believe-it/

My opinion since the official video was released was that something was wrong. After seeing all the videos taken on the same stretch of road at night, reinforces my thought that Uber released a copy of the video that best supports their "out of nowhere' story

mattthemuppet
03-24-2018, 05:42 PM
it's funny, no one yet has really commented much on the inattention of the "driver" of the car. Admittedly, she wasn't paying much more attention than the usualy driver, but it does give lie to the statement of self driving vehicle testers that a "driver is behind the wheel at all times and able to take over in an emergency". There's no point in armchair testing whether her full attention would have prevented the accident or, more likely, reduced its severity, but no one really seems all that interested in it.

Side note - a week ago I was driving the family back home in the right hand lane of a divided 2 lane highway, 40 or 45 zone. Saw a pickup start pulling out of an entrance on the other side of the road, thought that it was going merge into the LH lane but lifted off the gas anyway (I cycle 1000s of miles a year so I'm pretty cautious), then it just went full speed across in front of me into a parking lot to my right. Full ABS, everyone thrown onto the seatbelts and just missed t-boning him. His passenger was clearly surprised to see me there. If I'd been on my phone like a lot of the drivers I see there would have been no chance of missing him.

Norman Bain
03-24-2018, 05:57 PM
I wonder if Uber got into the SDV scene to push their vision of the future without really having the ability to fully setup a R&D team for the research.

The answer is obviously YES ... however there may also have been pressure on the R&D team to get something "on the road" for publicity purposes.

danlb
03-24-2018, 06:31 PM
Uber partnered with Volvo to jumpstart the program. Volvo had already set up a lot of the needed interfaces and sensors.

Dan

J Tiers
03-24-2018, 06:41 PM
it's funny, no one yet has really commented much on the inattention of the "driver" of the car. Admittedly, she wasn't paying much more attention than the usualy driver, but it does give lie to the statement of self driving vehicle testers that a "driver is behind the wheel at all times and able to take over in an emergency". There's no point in armchair testing whether her full attention would have prevented the accident or, more likely, reduced its severity, but no one really seems all that interested in it.

S....

Well, if you were on your 4th week of sitting in the vehicle with nothing much happening..... would YOU be fully awake and ready? Your answer is "HECK NO!" if you are honest. I would rate it right up there with watching corn grow, right up until the $hit hits the fan.

There is no way the "driver" COULD be ready to take over after a mind-numbing few weeks of "all normal", and I am really not sure what, if anything, can be done about that.

You can imagine that the "driver" might be supposed to "drive" and then the driver's reactions compared with the vehicle's. (THAT really ought to be part of a "learning" program for the vehicle, comparing IT to a good actual driver who is the one in control.) But after a bit of that, I'd be half crazy from the vehicle NOT doing what I would have done.... pressing the brake and nothing happens..... steering and nothing happens.... Not practical except in the "learn to do" mode where the driver is "doing" and the vehicle "watching".

The "backup driver" may also have had some duties that we do not know about, such as checking some sort of data screen, checking speeds against posted, recording odd behaviors, comparing a display to what is really seen, etc, etc. That would look to us like non-attention via the in-cab dashcam.

fixerdave
03-24-2018, 07:15 PM
Well, clearly, the answer to these situations is to legally require humans to carry transponders so that AI knows where they are at all times. Maybe dogs should carry transponders too... and cats, probably raccoons (if you could humanely catch and release 'em)... squirrels are too small. Horses, and cows... definitely transponders. Moose up north... should be a new hunting bounty on them... tag 'em with a transponder and get a cash reward, and a Google Earth feed on it's current location 24/7.

You wanted controversial :)

But, you know, at some point down the road, this is the way it's going to be. It's like aircraft now... a lot of airports don't even bother having a radar, they just use transponder data. Why sense when you can just ask and know? But, before that happens, all of us privacy-enamoured old farts have to die. Our kids would gladly carry a transponder if it meant they didn't have to look both ways, or even up, when crossing the road.

David...

P.S That person that was killed was probably carrying a cellphone of sorts. Integration of location data from that with the AI driving the car would have avoided the situation entirely. Probably not that far down the road.

Edit... you know, it's quite likely that multiple computers knew where that person was, and was before that. All the information necessary to predict where that person was going to be in the next few seconds. It's not a sensing or even reaction problem, it's just an issue with data integration. Think how much easier AI driving would be if it could "know" where every cellphone was and where they were likely to be in 2 seconds. If they could do that, you'd be giving your kid a cellphone (transponder) in a heartbeat.

A.K. Boomer
03-24-2018, 07:16 PM
Well, if you were on your 4th week of sitting in the vehicle with nothing much happening..... would YOU be fully awake and ready? Your answer is "HECK NO!" if you are honest. I would rate it right up there with watching corn grow, right up until the $hit hits the fan.

There is no way the "driver" COULD be ready to take over after a mind-numbing few weeks of "all normal", and I am really not sure what, if anything, can be done about that.

total agreement - that's the only real "reality" of the situation






The "backup driver" may also have had some duties that we do not know about, such as checking some sort of data screen, checking speeds against posted, recording odd behaviors, comparing a display to what is really seen, etc, etc. That would look to us like non-attention via the in-cab dashcam.

most likely texting others saying things like "can't believe im getting paid for this - just did my nails and am actually going to be putting on a facial mask lol see you at the ball,,, tootles

J Tiers
03-24-2018, 08:25 PM
Well, clearly, the answer to these situations is to legally require humans to carry transponders so that AI knows where they are at all times. Maybe dogs should carry transponders too... and cats, probably raccoons (if you could humanely catch and release 'em)... squirrels are too small. Horses, and cows... definitely transponders. Moose up north... should be a new hunting bounty on them... tag 'em with a transponder and get a cash reward, and a Google Earth feed on it's current location 24/7.

You wanted controversial :)

But, you know, at some point down the road, this is the way it's going to be. It's like aircraft now... a lot of airports don't even bother having a radar, they just use transponder data. Why sense when you can just ask and know? But, before that happens, all of us privacy-enamoured old farts have to die. Our kids would gladly carry a transponder if it meant they didn't have to look both ways, or even up, when crossing the road.

David...

P.S That person that was killed was probably carrying a cellphone of sorts. Integration of location data from that with the AI driving the car would have avoided the situation entirely. Probably not that far down the road.

Edit... you know, it's quite likely that multiple computers knew where that person was, and was before that. All the information necessary to predict where that person was going to be in the next few seconds. It's not a sensing or even reaction problem, it's just an issue with data integration. Think how much easier AI driving would be if it could "know" where every cellphone was and where they were likely to be in 2 seconds. If they could do that, you'd be giving your kid a cellphone (transponder) in a heartbeat.

LOL...

Meanwhile, back in the real world..... human drivers, and now robot drivers (SDVs) are expected to respond to the random, unpredictable, appearance of visually (or otherwise) observable objects of all sorts on the road.... Cars, trucks, motorcycles, and other vehicles, but also pedestrians, amimals, stuff that falls off vehicles, misc objects that end up on the road for whatever reason, and so forth.

We know that there is a capability to detect these items, Lidar and other systems... The information is available to the guidance computer, probably better info than a human driver gets, in some conditions.

So currently, we all seem to be in agreement that the problem is with the "robotic driver", the actual robot control computer. It just is not a very good driver yet, certainly not when faced by abnormal situations, and some normal but less usual situations. I have no doubt that all of them will follow a highway lane reasonably competently, it is the departures from "normal cruise" that seem to cause troubles.

At least that is true in this UBER case, and also the Tesla cases (although Tesla very properly suggests that theirs is NOT intended to be an autonomous system, but a "driver assist").

We have no particular information here about the others, but the State of California probably does, because they require reports of all incidents within the state. Any operators in the state have had to file reports (which may not include all "players" in the business). That information is probably viewable somewhere, either on-line, or via a "sunshine" request and suitable payment.

danlb
03-24-2018, 08:39 PM
We know that there is a capability to detect these items, Lidar and other systems... The information is available to the guidance computer, probably better info than a human driver gets, in some conditions.

So currently, we all seem to be in agreement that the problem is

Only in your mind. The rest of us realize that speculation is not the same as fact, no matter how many times you repeat it. :)

The truth will come out, just have to wait for it.

JRouche
03-25-2018, 02:33 AM
WoW! Just wow. I thought you folks were less childish. I was wrong once again.

As for the crash, its a shame.

SDC's are an object it our future. We will be all old an gone, no matter.

Oh? On a side note I had the unfortunate job of having to investigate these accidents.

Worked for LA County for some years.

A diagram is made and all the information is put in the report.

I have documented some really nasty sites.

Try not to make light of it. JR

A.K. Boomer
03-25-2018, 09:48 AM
Looks like another Tesla bites the dust, again stuffing it into something totally stationary but not sure what the scoop is yet if it was in autonomous mode or not.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/tesla-driver-hospitalized-fiery-crash-190007938.html

AD5MB
03-25-2018, 10:03 AM
I'm trying to conceive of any circumstances where my car needs to be where I am not.
I'm trying to conceive of any circumstances where I would send my car to somewhere I am not.

the point of having a car is to transport me and mine, not for my car to transport itself.

A.K. Boomer
03-25-2018, 10:14 AM
I can think of a couple uses like airports and the like - not having to pay for parking while your away on a trip.

that's not something that would be a game changer for me,

Back in the day when I was doing allot of white water kayaking one of the things that kinda turned me off about the sport was all the shuttling you have to do - minimum of two vehicles and leaving one down at the take out and then driving up to the put in and leaving that vehicle up there, then after the float you get back in the vehicle at the take out and have to drive back up to the vehicle at the put in,

Yes it would be damn handy to just take one vehicle, esp. for solo floats. of course that's assuming the one vehicle does not end up parking somewhere in the river lol many places iv been to took quite a bit of know how and driving skill including having to back up steep grades due to having a front wheel drive car and needing every bit of traction just to get back out and reverse gets the job done, like I say - autonomous vehicles will always fall short of what iv achieved in a vehicle... always.

ikdor
03-25-2018, 10:25 AM
I can imagine many uses; taking the kids to school or sports, dropping me off in the city centre for dinner, picking up grandma, etcetera....

AD5MB
03-25-2018, 10:28 AM
so now I'm thinking about a self driving vehicle stuck in mud or snow, self rescuing...

A.K. Boomer
03-25-2018, 10:31 AM
Dans got it all figured out - there will be self driving tow trucks that rescue the stuck vehicle --- pretty soon everyone will just stay home and let the vehicles have all the fun, but don't worry we will be able to watch them on our TV sets with live streaming... it's going to be great.

BCRider
03-25-2018, 11:08 AM
I'm trying to conceive of any circumstances where my car needs to be where I am not.
I'm trying to conceive of any circumstances where I would send my car to somewhere I am not.

the point of having a car is to transport me and mine, not for my car to transport itself.

You need to watch the Batman movies... :D

I actually do feel that this would be widely used. For example sending the car to pick up the kids from sports and bring them to Grandma's where the parents are already located and preparing dinner and the like. You don't see it now but once freed from the NEED to do the driving most would rapidly embrace all the possibilities.

J Tiers
03-25-2018, 11:14 AM
JRouche... not making light of anything, those situations are pretty bad. I am actually outraged that certain states are accepting this sort of "accident" by having no rules, bragging about having no rules, and allowing "testing" on their population, ASKING for just this sort of result.


Only in your mind. The rest of us realize that speculation is not the same as fact, no matter how many times you repeat it. :)

The truth will come out, just have to wait for it.

And then there is:


Reading that thread from http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2018/03/lidar-supplier-blames-uber/ was enlightening. There was one post from an industry insider who actually uses the hardware and drivers that Uber uses. The lidar hardware appears to be a self contained subsystem with a well defined interface to the hardware and drivers.

The lidar is supposed to be able map obstacles out to 100 meters in pitch black conditions. That should have been enough to "see" the pedestrian.

The thought that occurred to me was that there was likely to have been a situation where the various sensors (radar, lidar and visible light) presented contradictory information. Consider:

On initial contact at 300 feet. Lidar says something is there with the cross section of a person (bike is too small to register cleanly). Radar says nothing is there (too far). Camera can't see anything.

1/2 the distance, 150 feet. Lidar says something is there about the size of a person but shape is wrong (plastic bags); It is in the lane now. Radar says something is there, but a small reflection (not much metal). Camera sees nothing.

1/2 again, 75 feet. Lidar sees a strange outline, possibly a bicycle and rider. Radar sees ???? Camera finally sees something.
.....

The point of this post; There are 3 sets of sensors with a wide range of capabilities. Each will present a different picture under the same circumstances. It's up to the Uber software to reconcile the differences in the data. It's not uncommon to take the "best two out of 3" approach in such situations. I'm not sure what algorithm I'd use in this instance. Maybe they needed a second long range sensor like FLIR to validate the lidar at a distance in the dark.

Dan

and


Keep in mind that post #67 was simply musing about the complexity of using multiple data sources and deciding between them.

......

and


Dan, yes, exactly, if the sensors were all functional the software made the wrong decision, and if it got confusing input the default *should* have been to failsafe and stop and hand over to the driver, not carry on ignoring some of them. Effectively its being beta tested on everyone as its not ready for prime time. .......

TL,DR; Ive worked in software and testing for years, and it scares me that I'll be out on my motorcycle with one of these things in the same space, having tested many many systems designed by professional programmers over the years and seeing the cracks and bad decisions get papered over just to get things to market and get paid.

Of course it is partly speculation, based on some real input, the potentially doctored video, among other things.... Speculation on what the cameras etc "saw", on what happened in the computer, etc. But it is not ALL speculation.... the main point is not speculation

There may NEVER be a real resolution. Arizona has no interest in investigating, they want more to come in and test on their people....apparently they figure a few casualties are just the price of progress, and there are plenty more. Maybe the feds will, but at the moment, the Feds are more interested in allowing a business to do anything it wishes.

BTW, Dan, you have it wrong.... the sensors DO NOT "identify" anything as you suggested .... they simply provide an image that includes objects wherever they are. The software, (as you even pointed out yourself above) is fully responsible for determining what the image means and what to do about it.

So, the main point: it is NOT speculation to suggest that if the sensors and hardware were functioning (and the Lidar is stated to work fine at night) that therefore, the control software failed to notice a person plus bicycle in the path, and allowed the vehicle to hit and kill the person.

It was even suggested that the control software had the vehicle speeding up to the new higher speed limit that was marked on a sign ahead. So it had identified the speed limit, but failed to identify the person who was then killed. If indeed it had identified the speed limit, that definitely suggests that the system was functioning just seconds ahead of the collision.

We do not know IN WHAT WAY the computer control system failed. We DO know that it DID fail, because there is the video and a very messily dead person to prove it.

A.K. Boomer
03-25-2018, 11:15 AM
"You need to watch the Batman movies...

I actually do feel that this would be widely used. For example sending the car to pick up the kids from sports and bring them to Grandma's where the parents are already located and preparing dinner and the like. You don't see it now but once freed from the NEED to do the driving most would rapidly embrace all the possibilities."



Sorry but not seeing that - at least not for me - can't imagine shipping my kid off like that and my kids a dog,

always going to be a big bad world out there no matter what, all the variables - all the unpredictable's

no way, can you imagine the guilt you would have to live with if and when something does go down?

people are getting more and more removed - time for a good ole fashioned country ass whooping and ya know what - that's a coming too...

reggie_obe
03-25-2018, 11:18 AM
You need to watch the Batman movies... :D

I actually do feel that this would be widely used. For example sending the car to pick up the kids from sports and bring them to Grandma's where the parents are already located and preparing dinner and the like. You don't see it now but once freed from the NEED to do the driving most would rapidly embrace all the possibilities.

The Johnny Cab from the movie "Total Recall"? In large cities, gangs like MS13 will cause the vehicle to make a panic stop, disrupt Wi-Fi and cell comms., immobilize it and either rob them or hold them for ransom.

J Tiers
03-25-2018, 11:28 AM
The Johnny Cab from the movie "Total Recall"? In large cities, gangs like MS13 will cause the vehicle to make a panic stop, disrupt Wi-Fi and cell comms., immobilize it and either rob them or hold them for ransom.

That is almost a certainty. The more so because it will be the rich folks who have the SDVs. Good, self-selected robbery or ransom material.

If history is any indicator, then the software will have serious vulnerabilities when it is released. "Give us your money or we will tell your vehicle to drive off a cliff".

reggie_obe
03-25-2018, 11:32 AM
That is almost a certainty. The more so because it will be the rich folks who have the SDVs. Good, self-selected robbery or ransom material.

If history is any indicator, then the software will have serious vulnerabilities when it is released. "Give us your money or we will tell your vehicle to drive off a cliff".

Too much trouble. Your wallet, your bankcard pin and your watch or you'll suddenly contract lead poisoning.

J Tiers
03-25-2018, 12:00 PM
Too much trouble. Your wallet, your bankcard pin and your watch or you'll suddenly contract lead poisoning.

Naturally.

The other is probably better reserved for ransom situations. It has a great "anticipation factor". Off the cliff, or straight into that gas tanker up ahead, whatever seems as if it might be the most convincing. Or, just take over and have it drive to some location of your choice, and make demands at your leisure....

Because rich folks will have these things, the high end SDVs will be a marker for folks with enough money to make good targets for ransom. Rich folks do not tend to CARRY much money, no point in a robbery, unless for jewellery.

danlb
03-25-2018, 01:43 PM
One of the changes that an autonomous vehicle may bring is to reduce the trend towards two car families. Many families have a car for each parent. One sits in the driveway 90% of the time and the other spends it's days in the parking lot while someone works.

Before I retired my car sat at the train station 11 hours a day, 5 or more days a week and my wife's car was only used once or twice a week. That's a great setup for a car that could drop me off at the station and wait there until summoned. If the wife needs to go to the store the car could be summoned with a voice instruction to "Alexa" or "Hey Google" or "Siri".

I did not bother to read J Tier's latest rants. Just skimmed the first paragraph and realized that he must live in a terrible world to have that many criminals just waiting to pounce on poor, unsuspecting rich people. Or he's paranoid. Take your pick. :)

A.K. Boomer
03-25-2018, 01:52 PM
Sounds great on paper Dan ---- so have you figured in where your going to come up with all this extra fuel for shuffling driverless cars back to the wife so she can then use it and then give it back to you? maybe even lunch time commutes for the empty vehicle also?

and in the meanwhile please tell me how the roads are going to handle double the congestion with cars running too and fro with nobody in them lol

like i stated many a time - extreme lack of foresight on so many levels it's funny...

danlb
03-25-2018, 03:44 PM
Sounds great on paper Dan ---- so have you figured in where your going to come up with all this extra fuel for shuffling driverless cars back to the wife so she can then use it and then give it back to you? maybe even lunch time commutes for the empty vehicle also?

and in the meanwhile please tell me how the roads are going to handle double the congestion with cars running too and fro with nobody in them lol

like i stated many a time - extreme lack of foresight on so many levels it's funny...

Can't you figure it out for yourself Boomer? Here. I'll help.

scenario 1. "A" drives 3 miles to the train station every morning. Pays $5 to park the car. Comes home in the evening. Drives 3 miles home. This is during rush hour traffic on both drives. B's car is in the driveway until Tuesday afternoon shopping. B drives 15 miles round trip to the store, dry cleaner and Fed-ex. This is not rush hour.

Scenario 2. A drives 3 miles to the train station every morning. Pays $5 to park the car. Comes home in the evening. Drives 3 miles home. This is during rush our traffic both ways. On Tuesday, instead of spending $5 for parking, A sends the car home before hopping on the train. It drives 3 miles counter commute and waits to be used. B drives 15 miles round trip to the store, dry cleaner and Fed-ex. This is not rush hour. The car returns to the station (counter commute) when A signals that he's approaching the station. B drives 3 miles home.

So there you go. An extra 6 miles a week, and 3000 pounds of car not needed.

3 Phase Lightbulb
03-25-2018, 03:51 PM
Can't you figure it out for yourself Boomer? Here. I'll help.

scenario 1. "A" drives 3 miles to the train station every morning. Pays $5 to park the car. Comes home in the evening. Drives 3 miles home. This is during rush hour traffic on both drives. B's car is in the driveway until Tuesday afternoon shopping. B drives 15 miles round trip to the store, dry cleaner and Fed-ex. This is not rush hour.

Scenario 2. A drives 3 miles to the train station every morning. Pays $5 to park the car. Comes home in the evening. Drives 3 miles home. This is during rush our traffic both ways. On Tuesday, instead of spending $5 for parking, A sends the car home before hopping on the train. It drives 3 miles counter commute and waits to be used. B drives 15 miles round trip to the store, dry cleaner and Fed-ex. This is not rush hour. The car returns to the station (counter commute) when A signals that he's approaching the station. B drives 3 miles home.

So there you go. An extra 6 miles a week, and 3000 pounds of car not needed.

And just adding Scenario 3.

A drives 3 miles to the train station. The car then parks itself 1/2 mile away in a huge "departed" parking lot. A comes back and the car is waiting at the train station in the temporary "on-arrival" parking lot which is just just a 1 minute walk off the train. The car drives itself to the huge parking lot close by then returns right before it's needed and parks itself in the on-arrival lot just feet from the train station.

A.K. Boomer
03-25-2018, 03:53 PM
Correction "was not rush hour" now you've created more of them lol

and im also seeing people standing around waiting at the train station for hours because the "bride" sent the car back a little too late during one of the "regular" rush hours - that incidentally are more congested than before due to hundreds of thousands doing the same thing,,, don't try to nip the problem in the bud Dan and realize that cities are basically becoming unsustainable (at least if you want to keep some sanity in your life) --- no - just throw more problems into the mix...


and 3 miles for the average person to get to work? your dreaming, where I live try about 30

3 Phase Lightbulb
03-25-2018, 03:59 PM
Correction "was not rush hour" now you've created more of them lol


and 3 miles for the average person to get to work? your dreaming, where I live try about 30

When this becomes a reality, I don't think you'll have to worry about going to work.

danlb
03-25-2018, 04:28 PM
Correction "was not rush hour" now you've created more of them lol

( REALLY DUMB HYPOTHETICAL DELETED )


and 3 miles for the average person to get to work? your dreaming, where I live try about 30

LOL. That's quite a reach in order to create a problem.

I am dreaming. When I worked in San francisco the commute to the train was less that 3 miles. I rounded up to make the math easier.

But where is that terrible traffic jam and wasted gas that you predicted in any of those scenarios?

reggie_obe
03-25-2018, 04:31 PM
One of the changes that an autonomous vehicle may bring is to reduce the trend towards two car families. Many families have a car for each parent. One sits in the driveway 90% of the time and the other spends it's days in the parking lot while someone works.

Before I retired my car sat at the train station 11 hours a day, 5 or more days a week and my wife's car was only used once or twice a week. That's a great setup for a car that could drop me off at the station and wait there until summoned. If the wife needs to go to the store the car could be summoned with a voice instruction to "Alexa" or "Hey Google" or "Siri".

:)

Why did you need a second vehicle?
Why should future generations pay (or do without?) for your excesses?

Mark Rand
03-25-2018, 04:40 PM
The Johnny Cab from the movie "Total Recall"? In large cities, gangs like MS13 will cause the vehicle to make a panic stop, disrupt Wi-Fi and cell comms., immobilize it and either rob them or hold them for ransom.


That is almost a certainty. The more so because it will be the rich folks who have the SDVs. Good, self-selected robbery or ransom material.

If history is any indicator, then the software will have serious vulnerabilities when it is released. "Give us your money or we will tell your vehicle to drive off a cliff".

Ther is no problem at all. While the computer is dealing with the boring driving stuff you (the non-driver) can be handling the automatic weapon in your hands or the turret, if you have the delux model.

A.K. Boomer
03-25-2018, 04:50 PM
LOL. That's quite a reach in order to create a problem.

I am dreaming. When I worked in San francisco the commute to the train was less that 3 miles. I rounded up to make the math easier.

But where is that terrible traffic jam and wasted gas that you predicted in any of those scenarios?

And I say to myself - what a wonderful world, and i say to myself, whaaat a wonderfuuuuuuul worrrrrrrrrrrld...

keep dreaming buddy :-)

lol

The wasted fuel is this - work is usually far away - but groceries are not, so your sending the car all the way back (unoccupied) so she can then do her shopping (or whatever) that is indeed probably less then 3 miles away - then having to send it back in time, so it's like two people commuting to work everyday when only ONE is working ---- get it?,,,

the spare car in the driveway still retains much value due to the lower miles should you decide to sell it, should you not decide to do that it then can be used for the work vehicle when the original one wears out and shoots craps,,,

also - keep this in mind - the cars are mostly recyclable now, fuel never comes back and adds to all kinds of nasty side effects - unless your one of those that does not believe that happens at all and we can burn as much as we want... then your going to do what your going to do anyways...

Norman Bain
03-25-2018, 05:18 PM
Gents; the masses will not own SDVs. The train station scenario will be more like a taxi rank at the airport; just hop in and say "take me home".

Want to goto the train station; just book it on your smartphone; it will be there.

Hang on; there may not be train stations, users will just join all the other SDVs travelling in close (train like) order to your chosen destination.

PStechPaul
03-25-2018, 05:50 PM
In the not-too-distant future, most vehicles will be electric, charged using clean renewable energy. Long distance commutes will become rare, because humans are mostly not needed because of automation, and many things can be done by telecommuting. There will be much less need to go to stores for shopping, because on-line services like Amazon can supply most things via drone or autonomous electric delivery vehicles. With less human-driven traffic on the roads, bicycling and small NEVs will become safer healthier, and more efficient for local human transport.

Any technology is a two-edged sword, and there will be a trade-off of number of injuries and fatalities with or without it. Most of you probably wear seat belts, even if there were no laws dictating their use, and sometimes you might be killed because you were trapped in your vehicle when you might have survived if thrown clear. But statistics show they save many lives. Same with air bags, ABS, and other recent safety technology. In many cases, I think, people have become so used to such things that they drive more aggressively and crashes become much more common, but far less injurious. That's why so many punks crash their stolen vehicles, knowing that they will probably be mostly uninjured enough to flee on foot.

So, decisions will always involve statistics for the big picture, and self-driving vehicles will reduce the overall number of crashes, injuries, and deaths, while also causing a few of the same that might have been avoided with a skilled, non-impaired, and fully aware human driver.

reggie_obe
03-25-2018, 06:09 PM
IThat's why so many punks crash their stolen vehicles, knowing that they will probably be mostly uninjured enough to flee on foot.


Criminals, joy riders and car thieves crash their vehicles to create chaos that law enforcement must stop to investigate. At the very least, it reduces the number of police vehicles involved in the pursuit and possibly prevents them from following if the ensuing mayhem blocks the road.

fixerdave
03-25-2018, 09:15 PM
In the not-too-distant future, most vehicles will be electric, charged using clean renewable energy. Long distance commutes will become rare, because humans are mostly not needed because of automation, and many things can be done by telecommuting. There will be much less need to go to stores for shopping, because on-line services like Amazon can supply most things via drone or autonomous electric delivery vehicles. With less human-driven traffic on the roads, bicycling and small NEVs will become safer healthier, and more efficient for local human transport...

You know, they've been saying that since the start of the industrial revolution... well, probably from the time the first guy deliberately chipped a stone into a point (okay, he probably wan't thinking about drones delivering dinner, but you get the idea). All these inventions are going to have us lounging at home, nothing to do, no worries, all is good. How many hours did you work this week? When did you retire? How's all that leisure time?

I once thought automation was going to put us out of work... then I realised who we are. Never underestimate the human ability to make unnecessary work. Last estimate I read said something like 60% of human work is completely bogus make-work jobs. That's probably being charitable. If you really looked at what we have to do to meet our basic needs it's probably less than 1% of our time. But, no, we work overtime because we have to. Got to get it done, make that money, pay the bills.

We'll just get more of the same, and more, then more still. The cheaper transportation gets, the farther we'll commute. The more interconnected we are, the more "work" we'll get done on that commute. We'll get to the point where we commute 6 hours to attend a 2 hour meeting and then another 6 back home, working our butts off the whole time to accomplish something that absolutely must get done, or else... (crickets) Then, we'll do it again the next day. Why? Because we're human.

If we do make AI smarter than us, we'd better not give it a sense of humour, or it will be laughing so hard at us it won't have time to be useful, to help us get all that important stuff done... like writing that report on cash flows after the marketing campaign... you know, important stuff!

The really sad part is that AI capable of driving cars will, more than anything else, give us more time to work. Those of us that dare to mention how "if we can get all that work done while commuting, why don't we just stay home and do it?" Well, we're not team players at all now are we? Don't we know how important those face to face meetings are? Sigh...

David...

J Tiers
03-28-2018, 05:25 PM
Found this popped up in the newsfeed.....

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/technology/uber-self-driving-cars-arizona.html

Norman Bain
03-28-2018, 06:01 PM
It would seem logical that it be mandatory to have a face recognition camera on the observer driver to alert them (and also to capture performance) shoud the observer not be "looking forward" and/or "not in the required grab-wheel position" etc.

JRouche
03-28-2018, 09:01 PM
Criminals, joy riders and car thieves crash their vehicles to create chaos that law enforcement must stop to investigate. At the very least, it reduces the number of police vehicles involved in the pursuit and possibly prevents them from following if the ensuing mayhem blocks the road.

Thats not true. When a crook crashes and keeps going the police just stack more pursuit vehicles onto the pursuit train. The local agency handles the crashes and the pursuit continues. Sometimes from the air. Pursuits are not like the movies. JR

reggie_obe
03-28-2018, 10:21 PM
Thats not true. When a crook crashes and keeps going the police just stack more pursuit vehicles onto the pursuit train. The local agency handles the crashes and the pursuit continues. Sometimes from the air. Pursuits are not like the movies. JR

Really? How man cops in your family? Every town has air support, sure.

A.K. Boomer
03-28-2018, 10:41 PM
It would seem logical that it be mandatory to have a face recognition camera on the observer driver to alert them (and also to capture performance) shoud the observer not be "looking forward" and/or "not in the required grab-wheel position" etc.

Sounds great to me - we'll have a system engaged with all the sensors controlling multiple split second decision functions that keep us all alive - then we'll keep the communication channels open to other systems - we'll create a learning "think tank" for them all so they can improve themselves, no chance of corruption creeping into that one,,,

we'll then link that to other systems should the occupants that should originally be actually performing these tasks choose not to do so -
which in effect they should choose not to - otherwise whats the point of creating the systems to begin with right ?

so when they lapse - it's ok - as long as they don't lapse at a critical point - and we'll let the computers and dumbass programmers decide when that point is ---- even though it's already proven that the very own programmers and computers don't have a fuquing clue as to when that is, then we'll let them alert us and warn us - again only when they think it's critical cuz after all what's the point right - i mean if we are indeed paying attention all the time then what's the point of even having the systems driving the car in the first place,,,

got a crazy idea for a split second of why we just don't drive the cars ourselves to begin with - nah scratch that - what was i thinking lol

so yeah - go ahead - let the computer decide for you when it's a critical moment or not.

what could possibly go wrong right ??? some of us just want/have a need to be slaughtered - seriously - line up sheeple - your lives are piles of crap anyways... you've earned this one...

J Tiers
03-28-2018, 11:25 PM
There seems to be a rule (and there actually IS) that when you stack up safety systems, the system either becomes less safe overall, or it begins to fail more often as the safety systems either interact and block each other, or that there is a system failure that is actually a safety device failure.

How often at the cape were launch scrubs traced to safety system failures? Fairly regularly, as I recall. Some faulty sensor, etc. I understand it has been reasonably common in military aviation also, some sensor or other is acting up and giving a false indication of a system failure.

danlb
03-28-2018, 11:56 PM
There seems to be a rule (and there actually IS) that when you stack up safety systems, the system either becomes less safe overall, or it begins to fail more often as the safety systems either interact and block each other, or that there is a system failure that is actually a safety device failure.



Does that rule still apply when you don't stack systems, but to integrate them into the system to begin with?

I worked in an office with (literally) 100,000 controls and relays. Most everything was redundant. I don't recall spending a lot of time looking for failures of the parts that provide/manage the redundancy. We did spend a lot of time replacing parts that were still working despite a bad relay.

Stacking systems almost always add complexity as each subsystem has to deal with unexpected data on inputs and outputs of the connecting subsystems. If those same subsystems are designed as one integrated systems it's more likely that each module will handle the others properly.

J Tiers
03-29-2018, 01:24 AM
True to an extent. it may take care of the interference problem.

One can argue a bit differently if the systems are software, or if they are hardware. Software is non-concurrent, unless it runs on different processors. So there is a different set of issues for software safety systems than for hardware. UL has very strict requirements for certifying systems which involve software in a safety system. Those start at the algorithm stage, and riun right through the coding and documentation. The automotive systems need to be handled the same way, to be CERTAIN, from exhaustive study and checks, that any possible order of execution and set of inputs will be evaluated correctly in every case.

Now, for hardware systems, or parts of systems..... which, as different hardware systems, are inherently concurrent.

Adding more hardware safety systems adds more parts. Each part has a failure rate, and the combined failure rate for the entire hardware system will always be greater when there are more parts. The system as a whole is less reliable, it is more likely to fail at any given time.

The issue is then what does the failure do, how does a failure of a subsystem affect the entire system, what does the overall system do to mitigate the effect? Does it ignore the loss of a safety subsystem, one of many? Does it force a shutdown, a "pull over and stop" response? Does it perhaps simply slow down to compensate, as one might do if a headlight goes out and visibility is thereby reduced?

Each of those responses has a different set of potential consequences.

MrFluffy
03-31-2018, 10:31 AM
And another one, tesla this time, clear day, straight into a concrete barrier. Driver worked for Apple as an engineer and was very technical apparently.
https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/03/31/0520211/tesla-says-autopilot-was-engaged-during-fatal-model-x-crash

Interesting stuff in the comments besides the usual purile rantings on slashdot, for me the one from the tesla driver who mentions that his autopilot is always telling him to put his hands on the wheel when he's already driving as it cant detect his touch as its too light.

fig
03-31-2018, 10:34 AM
So much for my dream of being able to sleep on my commute to and from work.... Lol

A.K. Boomer
03-31-2018, 10:49 AM
So much for my dream of being able to sleep on my commute to and from work.... Lol

Sleep --- far from it - can just hear the at home conversations before commutes;

"honey why don't you take the older car today you know how driving the new one stresses you out when your trying to anticipate when its going to fuque up all the time and how you said it's far easier to just drive the car yourself"

lol

danlb
03-31-2018, 12:06 PM
And another one, tesla this time, clear day, straight into a concrete barrier. Driver worked for Apple as an engineer and was very technical apparently.


Yeah, that one is sad. I've driven that route hundreds of times and know exactly where it happened. It's a left hand exit on a major highway. As I recall, the car pool lane just gets wider and wider, then there's confusing lane markings and paint that's scrubbed off from cars changing lanes. Solid white line on one side and solid yellow on the other; What's that mean? Then you come upon a barrier in the middle of the lane and you better choose left or right real fast.

I've almost hit that barrier myself. Sadly, the google maps view shows the protective bumper on that concrete barrier was damaged / missing back when the last photos were taken. The day before the Tesla crash there was a photo showing the protective bumper in a damaged state. It appears that there are a lot of accidents there.

I'm puzzled by the report from Tesla. They said that the autopilot was "activated" 6 seconds before impact. That could mean that it was turned on at that point. It could also mean that it was activated long before that and was still active.

My response to these recent crashes is that maybe they should do what I suggested last year. That is to establish a single set of hardware and software for all cars to use. There is no need to have the second best or third best system on the road. There is definitely no reason to have the worst one driving around out there.

In the mean time, the Google based cars are dealing with the San Francisco and Silicon Valley traffic day in and day out without incidents.

Dan

reggie_obe
03-31-2018, 12:40 PM
So much for my dream of being able to sleep on my commute to and from work.... Lol


Sure you can, thousands do it daily, take a train or bus.

Machine
03-31-2018, 01:19 PM
Self-driving cars are not ready for deployment on our public roads. And putting some bored stiff, distracted, sleepy eyed "minder driver" aboard is not a solution to it either. No human being can consistently watch over a self driving car doing nothing "hands off" for hours at a time and be expected to be able to take the helm instantly at any given moment the SD tech decides to take a sh*t with the same level of control and situational awareness as if he/she had been driving the vehicle all along.

Our public roads are not a grand free test and evaluation arena for corporations to develop and mature self driving technology at the expense of innocent human pedestrians and motorists. These systems still have a long way to go in order to prove themselves to be truly reliable, robust and showing performance far above what human beings are capable of. The reason Uber is trying to develop its SD technology is obvious. It wants to massively increase its profits, ultimately. That's the end game. If SD tech can be matured quickly, drivers can be replaced with a much cheaper alternative. Not saying that is a bad thing by itself, because it isn't, especially if the automated driver is better than the human driver. But, before that can happen an awful lot of expensive and time consuming R&D has to happen. Uber has decided it's ok to use our public roads to develop their SD tech at the potential - and now very real - expense of pedestrians and other motorists. That's not ok. It's not ok for Uber to do it and it's not ok for Tesla or any of the others to do it. And again, a human minder co-driver is not the answer - quite obviously.

And before anyone suggests me or anyone who shares my opinion is a technophobe or "retrogrouch" or that I think that self driving vehicles will never come to pass. False. I know they are ultimately our future. But they remain in the future, they are not ready yet. I've worked my entire adult life working on high tech systems involving computer hardware, sensors, actuators and software. I know what they can do, I know what they can't do, and I know what their vulnerabilities and limitations are. I'm a professional test engineer and have many years working with systems which I'm sure are similar to those used on SDVs (although I haven't worked with SDVs specifically).

The thing that surprises me the most is how quickly people you would think would have enough experience with computers and technology are so seemingly gullible about what the real limitations of our current computer based technology is.

Do they not have blue screens of death? Do they not get computer viruses? Do they not experience various hardware and especially software related bugs and glitches all the time with their phones and computers?

Do they not understand that if you get system crash or software glitch on a system driving down the road at 65 mph (or whatever speed), the consequences and recovery isn't as simple as a quick cntrl alt delete?

Do they not know that computer hardware is designed and built by human beings? Do they especially not understand that software is written by human beings and ALWAYS has hidden bugs and potential hangups waiting to happen depending on an unforeseen circumstance that is beyond the ability of ANY fallible human being to anticipate?

Do they not understand that sensors and wiring go bad or develop intermittent connections? Especially when exposed to brutal outside road use including constant exposure to shock, vibration, moisture, salt, fog, dirt, grime and bird poop? And that the hardware/software combo can only make decisions based on what it is told by those sensors?

Do they not understand that the electro/mechanical actuators that cause the SDV to accelerate, maneuver and stop are also subject to both intermittent and outright failure? Or the electrical wiring and connectors that span from the hardware to the actuators can also fail intermittently or outright?

Of all the things listed above, I've seen it all. Over and over and over and over again. Time and time and time again, constantly.

Adding to all this, driving a car, especially in a congested and densely populated environment can be a fantastically complex arena. A lot more complicated than most lay people give it credit for when it comes to assessing current technology's readiness to reliably tackle this task. There are many important nuances and subtle situational cues about anticipating and avoiding accidents that good human drivers understand. Programming an automated system with that level of AI is not possible today. I don't care what Elon Musk or the Uber CEO says. I'm quite certain they wouldn't put their children into an arena where they knew their kids were consistently exposed to this technology. They have no right to use our public roads to mature their technology at our expense. They should develop this technology on closed circuit test areas and do so at their own expense - not ours.

A.K. Boomer
03-31-2018, 01:56 PM
Well said not to mention there's no place better to judge than being there in the present,

programmers seem to forget that no matter how many times they get their ass handed to them.

nothing will ever take the place of seeing it all unfold in front of you and making the decisions yourself, beats relying on someone who thought they knew your particular situation whilst fumbling around with their sandwich and writing up a program on how the vehicles supposed to respond to it years later and with all kinds of variables that were not even figured in the mix...

computers also miss the "pucker phactor" or heightened state of awareness, to them life and death decisions are just another calculation, oh but I know - their always in a heightened state of awareness right? well that's bad too, now you built something that's going to be way to "jumpy" all the time - toss you into oncoming traffic when a bug splats on one of your corner sensors,,, nice,,,

last but not least - computers lack the "self preservation" genome --- try programming that one into the mix, nothing but junk...

J Tiers
03-31-2018, 02:17 PM
To be fair, even the best driver may have a heart attack or stroke while driving..... Equivalent to a software lockup as far as results for the vehicle control.

I don't suppose that being "not much worse than a human" is a recommendation....

danlb
03-31-2018, 02:18 PM
Machine, you are welcome to your opinion. As a test engineer, do you design systems and software too? I've worked on many fault tolerant systems while working for the phone company. A BSOD (blue screen of death) is a microsoftism that fault tolerant systems just don't run into. Sadly the consumer has been trained to think that a PC running windows is the best that engineers can do. :(

If navigating a crowded urban landscape is impossible, how has Google racked up so many successful miles? Are they using better sensors? Integrating them better? Better software? Better testing? Better algorithms? I don't know either but I hate that half baked attempts at a super cruise control may torpedo the very capable work of the top of the class autonomous cars.

Dan

A.K. Boomer
03-31-2018, 02:21 PM
Sure JT that can happen too, "usually" ends fairly predictable with slight lane drifts and others being able to respond, usually.

at least "generally" not capable of making the steering system go lock to lock while accelerating to boot, something the autonomous is fully capable of should it "wig out"...

danlb
03-31-2018, 03:21 PM
AK, Strokes and heart attacks do not lead to "predictable" anything. It's kind of hard to gracefully let off the gas and pull over when you are in the middle of a stroke induced seizure. Same when you are blinded by the pain of a severe heart attack.

A.K. Boomer
03-31-2018, 03:26 PM
for sure but like I said "generally" they don't go "flooring it" on main street yanking the wheel from one lock to the other - something that an autonomous car can easily do when having one of its "panic attacks" lol

danlb
03-31-2018, 04:28 PM
for sure but like I said "generally" they don't go "flooring it" on main street yanking the wheel from one lock to the other - something that an autonomous car can easily do when having one of its "panic attacks" lol

I'll have to take your word on it. Sounds like you have a lot more experience with it than I do. I can only quote the cases I hear on the news. You know, the flashy ones where the guy strokes out and hits the oncoming traffic at 80 mph. Or the one who goes through the front window of the drug store. Or the one who kills everyone in his car when he hits an abutment. Should we include the ones who are found days later in a ditch? Judging from the number of those that make the news in a metropolitan area, there must be thousands that calmly use their turn signals as they pull over to the curb and die.

A.K. Boomer
03-31-2018, 04:48 PM
I'll have to take your word on it. Sounds like you have a lot more experience with it than I do. I can only quote the cases I hear on the news. You know, the flashy ones where the guy strokes out and hits the oncoming traffic at 80 mph. Or the one who goes through the front window of the drug store. Or the one who kills everyone in his car when he hits an abutment. Should we include the ones who are found days later in a ditch? Judging from the number of those that make the news in a metropolitan area, there must be thousands that calmly use their turn signals as they pull over to the curb and die.

Well if your going off of track records Dan just wait till you chalk up a few hundred billion hours of drive time and then get back to me in about 50 to 100 years lol

again - programmers without a clue...


wait till they start "wigging out" in unison lol try that with one guy having a heart attack...

A.K. Boomer
03-31-2018, 05:20 PM
We can't even keep our stationary electrical grid and water supply's from getting hacked lol

what makes you think a system of 100 fold complexities going to fair any better?

your living in some kind of make believe fairy tale... it's doomed from the start and will continue to be so for all kinds of logical reasoning...

danlb
03-31-2018, 05:21 PM
Well if your going off of track records Dan just wait till you chalk up a few hundred billion hours of drive time and then get back to me in about 50 to 100 years lol

again - programmers without a clue...


wait till they start "wigging out" in unison lol try that with one guy having a heart attack...

again- a non programmer without a clue...

Automated systems don't generally break down in unison. If they do break down, it's due to a physical problem or a condition that the code can not handle. Just like you don't find every PC in the country dying at the same instance, you will not find cars in different situations breaking down in unison.


I spent 45 years commuting from 10 to 250 miles a day. Is that enough? Do I win a prize? :)

A.K. Boomer
03-31-2018, 05:25 PM
See post 133 - there are people that will be making damn sure the automated systems will be wigging out in unison...

as far as the incredible commute you subjected yourself too over the years - that's your fault, you should have got a job closer to home if you could not handle it - don't make everyone else pay for your mistake and lack of foresight - again and again...

danlb
03-31-2018, 05:27 PM
We can't even keep our stationary electrical grid and water supply's from getting hacked lol

what makes you think a system of 100 fold complexities going to fair any better?

your living in some kind of make believe fairy tale... it's doomed from the start and will continue to be so for all kinds of logical reasoning...

When was the last time your phone was hacked? Your car? Your TV? Never, right? Yet all of those systems are extremely complicated.

The grid is insecure because there are thousands of power companies and they each have systems that are old and badly documented. Those systems were designed with minimal regard to security because it was not a threat back then. Unfortunately it will take a long time to get all the weak points identified and updated.

danlb
03-31-2018, 05:29 PM
See post 133 - there are people that will be making damn sure the automated systems will be wigging out in unison...

as far as the incredible commute you subjected yourself too over the years - that's your fault, you should have got a job closer to home if you could not handle it - don't make everyone else pay for your mistake and lack of foresight - again and again...

Sorry, but that makes no sense in context. Would you mind re phrasing it so that it explains what you mean in respect to the remark you made in post #132?
just wait till you chalk up a few hundred billion hours of drive time and then get back to me in about 50 to 100 years lol

A.K. Boomer
03-31-2018, 05:54 PM
The catz out of the bag now Dan, just sit back and watch and be surprised at all the ways things are about to go so wrong,

I do envy that, the surprise factor, many of us are just plain bored and could use a little of that once in awhile...

PStechPaul
03-31-2018, 07:16 PM
As for allowing an autonomous vehicle to be tested and to gain experience in real traffic conditions on public roads, consider that is exactly what is being done every time a rookie 16-18 year old gets their license. Also, half of all drivers have less than average IQ, and many are in various states of mental or physical impairment, due to age, health, distractions, chemicals, or hormones, yet they are allowed to use public roads.

Many of us are already driving vehicles that are largely "drive by wire", where an on-board computer has control of the throttle, brakes, and steering, any of which could malfunction and cause a serious accident. I drive a 1999 car that has manual steering, transmission, and brakes, as well as a 1989 pickup with power steering. I have had the brakes fail several times in both vehicles, and I had a 1982 pickup where the steering linkage broke. I was fortunate that none of these failures caused an accident, but they were the result of mechanical deterioration, and not a failure of an electronic system that may be designed with a much greater MTBF, but where such failure may be sudden and catastrophic.

I think autonomous or computer-assisted vehicles will soon become fairly common and will be much safer, on average, than the typical human driver. And they are already, certainly, much safer than the worst human drivers who are legally allowed on the road. And then there are those who drive illegally and dangerously, like drunks and kids going on joy rides in stolen vehicles. Furthermore, I think in the near future there will be less need for people to commute long distances to jobs or school, so roads will be less congested with traffic. And SDVs will also honor speed limits and traffic signals, and not be subject to road rage.

Magicniner
03-31-2018, 07:26 PM
Just like you don't find every PC in the country dying at the same instance

But every so often you get teens of thousands up the spout because of the unexpected consequences of an update that's rolled out without full analysis of potential consequences ;-)

And before you say it I'm not a Code Monkey, I was an AP though :D

The fault with the Uber car was simply that, like Tesla, they think they don't need to use RADAR ;-)

J Tiers
03-31-2018, 07:59 PM
When was the last time your phone was hacked? Your car? Your TV? Never, right? Yet all of those systems are extremely complicated.

....

Yet, phones HAVE BEEN hacked. CARS have been proven to be "hackable", at which point they were remotely controlled to do things not commanded by the driver. TVs have not, to my knowledge, been hacked, but fridges and toasters HAVE been, in order to break into the local IoT system and get to an actual computer.

There WILL be a vulnerability discovered in most SDVs, just because there have been vulnerabilities discovered in virtually every computer system. Secret government computers have been hacked, and that is just the ones that have been admitted to have been hacked. The odds are with the idea of a hackable car.

There will be an incentive to do it, too. Money, primarily.... similar to the file encrypting virus shakedowns, a demonstrated ability to lock the doors and drive at will would probably get money out of anyone who has it happen to them. Not physical money, but passwords to accounts, that sort of thing. Possibly also just to steal a car, with the methods passed around once discovered, just as other "hacking kits" have been passed around.

If there is any way to hack cars, it will happen. And there will very likely be a way, history shows very few perfect systems.... and the car software is probably not created in a way to stop hacking, but rather in a way to get it to work. That approach has a particularly BAD record for enabling hacking.....

A.K. Boomer
03-31-2018, 08:00 PM
TV's have been hacked too.

in fact i think it's pretty safe to say that anything that can be hacked has been.

Machine
03-31-2018, 08:14 PM
....programmers seem to forget that no matter how many times they get their ass handed to them.

LOL Oh man, wiser words have never been said. I'm not sure how you know that, I can only assume you have some experience working with programmers yourself?



To be fair, even the best driver may have a heart attack or stroke while driving..... Equivalent to a software lockup as far as results for the vehicle control. I don't suppose that being "not much worse than a human" is a recommendation....

That's not a reasonable comparison. A human being, statistically speaking, takes nearly a whole lifetime to get to the point where an incapacitating stroke or heart attack is a serious possibility. Adding to that, what are the odds it would happen to happen on the road while driving? Adding to that, where it would be so bad there is an instantaneous incapacitation at the wheel? (I actually knew a man who had a fatal heart attack at the wheel. He pulled over in full control of his vehicle, put it in park, and then died from the event in the driver's seat without harming anyone.) Adding to that, where it would happen just in a situation where it not only could be be harmful to other people - it actually was harmful to other people? Very unlikely. In contrast, how long does it take the average person to experience a computer software or hardware glitch or outright system crash on their phone, laptop or PC? I've had countless computer crashes, reboots, malfunctions etc in my life. Had any of those systems been in charge of my car driving down the road? I would have been dead a long, long time ago.



Machine, you are welcome to your opinion. As a test engineer, do you design systems and software too?


I'm not a system designer nor a programmer. But over the years, after accumulating so much test experience and developing an understanding of common pitfalls and design oversights, I am asked to weigh in on designs and specs during the pre-production design phase. After a prototype system is built and it's in my hands under test, I also provide feedback on design faults and make recommendations for changes to software and hardware, where applicable.



I've worked on many fault tolerant systems while working for the phone company. A BSOD (blue screen of death) is a microsoftism that fault tolerant systems just don't run into. Sadly the consumer has been trained to think that a PC running windows is the best that engineers can do. :(

Blue screen of death is a reality for PC based systems, but it's also an apropos euphemism for a similar malfunction that can and does occur on any other computerized system. No computer is immune to a sudden, unanticipated system crash. Adding to that, I'd be surprised if at least some of the systems on these SDVs aren't based on PC systems. I'm sure they're trying to adapt off the shelf components to make this thing a reality as cheaply as possible. As is always the case.



If navigating a crowded urban landscape is impossible, how has Google racked up so many successful miles? Are they using better sensors? Integrating them better? Better software? Better testing? Better algorithms?

Google SDVs have had crashes and incidents. And in recent years, Google has stopped reporting these incidents in an obvious denial of transparency. From wikipedia "On February 14, 2016 while creeping forward to a stoplight, a Google self-driving car attempted to avoid sandbags blocking its path. During the maneuver it struck the side of a bus. Google addressed the crash, saying "In this case, we clearly bear some responsibility, because if our car hadn't moved there wouldn't have been a collision.

As of 28 August 2014, according to Computer World Google's self-driving cars were in fact unable to use about 99% of US roads. As of the same date, the latest prototype had not been tested in heavy rain or snow due to safety concerns. Because the cars rely primarily on pre-programmed route data, they do not obey temporary traffic lights and, in some situations, revert to a slower "extra cautious" mode in complex unmapped intersections. The vehicle has difficulty identifying when objects, such as trash and light debris, are harmless, causing the vehicle to veer unnecessarily. Additionally, the LIDAR technology cannot spot some potholes or discern when humans, such as a police officer, are signaling the car to stop."

I'm not saying they won't eventually lick the problems and make improvements. But it is what it is based on what technology is available today.

And I didn't say navigating a complex urban landscape was impossible. It is possible and it will eventually happen, I have no doubt of that. My point is that it I do not believe it is practical to do it in a consistently and acceptably safe manner with today's technology at a price that is affordable. And I am absolutely not convinced that their algorithms and/or adaptive learning and/or "AI" and/or hardware and/or sensor packages are up to the game of reliably navigating our roadways safely. They're not ready.

And they also haven't even begun to talk about what happens if they finally manage to get some system working well enough that it does manage to perform acceptably with an army of engineers and technicians endlessly tuning and fussing over their SDV. But what happens when these vehicles are deployed en masse and they don't get that dedicated and special care the small number of developmental vehicles get? What happens when the vehicles fall into the hands of the general public and they don't maintain them perfectly or use them in ways the engineers never imagined they would get used? What happens when the navigation, control, wiring and sensor systems age and corrode and are subjected to years of vibration, heat, cold, moisture, salt etc? I know what will happen. I know very well what will happen.

Willy
03-31-2018, 08:24 PM
I think we can all agree that it will be a very long and steep learning curve before self driving vehicles are able to operate in the extremely wide operational conditions that we take for granted every day. Although I believe big gains will be met rather easily at first due to the lowest fruit being picked first. I very much doubt that these systems will be able to exceed the abilities of a capable driver during my lifetime, and I'm not planning on checking out anytime soon.

My question though concerns the reliability of the integration of the various and numerous sensors required for such systems to function.
Talking to automotive service and equipment maintenance managers I know that wiring, connector, sensor, and actuator issues are one of the biggest causes of downtime and warranty claims.
Critical power-train, emissions, and abs functions are left in the dark when the components can't or won't communicate with each other. Actuator and sensor failures, plus wiring/connector corrosion problems are often very time consuming to diagnose, especially those with intermittent issues.
So far an industry who's primary obligation is keeping it's shareholders happy doesn't inspire any confidence in me that they will do any better integrating these new "features" into fold.:rolleyes:

J Tiers
03-31-2018, 09:38 PM
That's not a reasonable comparison. A human being, statistically speaking, takes nearly a whole lifetime to get to the point where an incapacitating stroke or heart attack is a serious possibility. Adding to that, what are the odds it would happen to happen on the road while driving? Adding to that, where it would be so bad there is an instantaneous incapacitation at the wheel? (I actually knew a man who had a fatal heart attack at the wheel. He pulled over in full control of his vehicle, put it in park, and then died from the event in the driver's seat without harming anyone.) Adding to that, where it would happen just in a situation where it not only could be be harmful to other people - it actually was harmful to other people? Very unlikely. In contrast, how long does it take the average person to experience a computer software or hardware glitch or outright system crash on their phone, laptop or PC? I've had countless computer crashes, reboots, malfunctions etc in my life. Had any of those systems been in charge of my car driving down the road? I would have been dead a long, long time ago.

......

That was kinda my point.... it is pretty rare. But it amounts to the same thing as computer lockup if bad enough (which is even more rare).

And the crack about folks calmly pulling over and parking..... if you take a half second to think, that's actually a natural reaction.... something is happening that you cannot handle when driving, so your first step in self-preservation is to pull over so that driving is not added to your problems.... because you know that if you just leggo and curl up bad stuff is certain to happen. The other way, you may be able to deal with it the way you have managed to deal with everything else so far.

Nope, that was a bad argument on the part of Dan on post 129. Self preservation instinct does a lot of things that one thinks would be impossible.

Machine
04-01-2018, 09:04 AM
I think we can all agree that it will be a very long and steep learning curve before self driving vehicles are able to operate in the extremely wide operational conditions that we take for granted every day. Although I believe big gains will be met rather easily at first due to the lowest fruit being picked first. I very much doubt that these systems will be able to exceed the abilities of a capable driver during my lifetime, and I'm not planning on checking out anytime soon.

My question though concerns the reliability of the integration of the various and numerous sensors required for such systems to function.
Talking to automotive service and equipment maintenance managers I know that wiring, connector, sensor, and actuator issues are one of the biggest causes of downtime and warranty claims.
Critical power-train, emissions, and abs functions are left in the dark when the components can't or won't communicate with each other. Actuator and sensor failures, plus wiring/connector corrosion problems are often very time consuming to diagnose, especially those with intermittent issues.
So far an industry who's primary obligation is keeping it's shareholders happy doesn't inspire any confidence in me that they will do any better integrating these new "features" into fold.:rolleyes:

All very wise statements. And I'm in agreement with you on the timeline of SDV development and mass public deployment. I have about 20-30 years of useful life left. I may either have my own SDV or have functional access to one by the time I'm near the end of my life - but not sooner.

The only exception to that rather lengthy timeline is if the central planners take hold of our government and decide to outlaw human drivers in the "utopia" that PStechPaul hints to. A place where everyone is packed into tiny apartments inside cities and restricted in their movement and mobility. Everything will be brought to them so there will be no reason for them to leave the utopian hive. That way they can be better managed and controlled for the betterment of society. Meanwhile, we will have tech-trillionaire overlords that will live apart from the society completely exempt from its restrictions on personal mobility, living space, energy usage and general liberty. They will control everything and oversee their flock/herd from their ultra-high security skyscraper overlooks until AI can finally mature to the point where the masses of hived sheeple are completely superfluous.

And then...

big job
04-01-2018, 09:52 AM
Go ahead hack my 46 Ford V8? worst yet hack my 23 Model T ? No can do ! These hack
geeks have no clue even what 6vt pos ground means. Cold day in hell that I go or even get
near these death traps. Problem is, its people out of control, not the world. Then how can
my house phone get hacked? a 1940 dial phone heh.....most if not all have a phone with
no hard wires. For your info any cheap scanner can hone right on what ya talking about, to
be carefull what you say on those things End

Alistair Hosie
04-01-2018, 10:04 AM
I can't quite understand this?
Was the guy in the car supposed to act as a safety valve in situations like this? In other words why did he not apply the brake if he was ultimately responsible/in charge of the vehicle automatic driver or not ,could he not have applied the brake?
And was this not why he was installed? there as a sort of belt and braces type of an safety barrier? He didn't seem to be paying proper attention and actually looked sleepy or at least was not looking at the road properly as I saw it.
I know from an old documentary I watched on television many years ago that both train drivers and pilots on large planes, are , and have been for a long time regarded as not required or superfluous to requirements the only reason they are there is to offer psychological assurance as they recon passengers would not feel happy flying without an actual flight crew seen boarding the plane . This documentary showed that a plane or train can start of and in the case of the aircraft fly and eventually land all as with the train with computers, which are over seen by people on the ground. I thank God am getting too old for all this stuff. Alistair

A.K. Boomer
04-01-2018, 10:28 AM
Once there in the air "big old jet airliners" take time to respond and there's plenty of buffer zone way up high - trains follow a track and are really just speed controlled, no big whoop of millisecond adjustments like in a car that can toss you into oncoming traffic at any given spit second

the comparison is not even close,

expecting a person to take control of a vehicle that's driving itself is a near impossible task in itself - like i stated it would wear you out way more than just driving the car yourself as you know you not going to "wig out" at any given second... you cannot say that about the autonomous vehicle - you would have to be in ultra high alert every single spit second - it's not being realistic in the first place - it's flawed to even have them out there....

Machine
04-01-2018, 10:28 AM
I can't quite understand this? Was the guy in the car supposed to act as a safety valve in situations like this? In other words why did he not apply the brake if he was ultimately responsible/in charge of the vehicle automatic driver or not ,could he not have applied the brake? And was this not why he was installed? there as a sort of belt and braces type of an safety barrier? He didn't seem to be paying proper attention and actually looked sleepy or at least was not looking at the road properly as I saw it.

Yes, the "minder driver" was supposed to be watching over the self driving car computer system. The problem is that the car usually does a good job of navigating the road and driving the car successfully. So much so, the minder driver is lulled into a false sense of security. And essentially is asleep at the wheel, at least for the purposes of taking over very quickly in a rapidly occurring - and unexpected - emergency situation.

The real problem with this arrangement is that human beings are not capable of staying consistently mentally engaged with the same reaction time response they would have if they were actually fully in control of the vehicle at all times. Their effective reaction time now must include an amount of time for the human driver to realize the system has malfunctioned. And to do so while simultaneously being generally highly distracted and disengaged, as obviously shown in the video on this thread. Part of this no doubt stems from very poor training, very poor driver selection and a very poor methodology used for human driver oversight.



I thank God am getting too old for all this stuff. Alistair

Yes, the days to come will not all be the dreamy Futurama commonly depicted in the past.

JCHannum
04-01-2018, 10:36 AM
The problem that I do not see SDVs overcoming is the situational awareness that all drivers must have. The SDV can "see" an obstruction, another vehicle or a pedestrian in its path and take steps to avoid it. It cannot see and react to a group of six year olds playing frisbee near the curb a block away and think that one might dart out in front of the vehicle, while the average driver will note them and prepare to brake in advance of a potential accident.

Anyone used to country driving at night knows that those flashes of light ahead might be a deer getting ready to jump in front of oncoming traffic, and that if one deer darts across, there is a good chance that more might follow. When approaching an intersection, it will not see another vehicle approaching the stop sign or red light too fast to stop.

The videos show that the area where the cyclist was struck was fairly well lit. It is not at all unthinkable that an alert driver might have noticed movement where it should not have been and been attentive enough to have averted striking her, where the SDV did not react until she was in its path and it was too late.

These are things we do subconsciously and process as a threat or not in the normal course of driving. I doubt that technology exists to handle these situations, which restricts SDVs to limited access highways where theseissues can be controlled externally.

Machine
04-01-2018, 11:22 AM
The problem that I do not see SDVs overcoming is the situational awareness that all drivers must have. The SDV can "see" an obstruction, another vehicle or a pedestrian in its path and take steps to avoid it. It cannot see and react to a group of six year olds playing frisbee near the curb a block away and think that one might dart out in front of the vehicle, while the average driver will note them and prepare to brake in advance of a potential accident.

Anyone used to country driving at night knows that those flashes of light ahead might be a deer getting ready to jump in front of oncoming traffic, and that if one deer darts across, there is a good chance that more might follow. When approaching an intersection, it will not see another vehicle approaching the stop sign or red light too fast to stop.

The videos show that the area where the cyclist was struck was fairly well lit. It is not at all unthinkable that an alert driver might have noticed movement where it should not have been and been attentive enough to have averted striking her, where the SDV did not react until she was in its path and it was too late.

These are things we do subconsciously and process as a threat or not in the normal course of driving. I doubt that technology exists to handle these situations, which restricts SDVs to limited access highways where theseissues can be controlled externally.

Exactly correct. SDV's today can only react to what is there or what may be already detectably moving into its path (and it cannot even reliably do that, as shown in the video on this thread). It cannot predict or anticipate a myriad of complex possibilities in human behavior or pick up on subtle external cues that human beings take for granted. That takes real thought and true human-like intelligence. The human brain took over 3.5 billion years to come into existence. It isn't easily replicated and hasn't been replicated, contrary to what some of the tech high priests suggest.

An SDV can react to what's already happened or is in the process of happening, it cannot deduce and anticipate possible or likely human behavior based on situational assessments surrounding the roadways. It cannot recognize the driver ahead is an old lady in a Lincoln Continental with her right turn signal left on and drive appropriately around that person. It cannot understand the driver next to them is a teenage girl who just got her learners permit and make special allowances and anticipation for that inexperienced driver. It cannot see the woman in the opposing lane looking down at her phone while coming toward them and drifting toward the double line. It cannot see the person quickly pulling up in tinted windows to a roadway and getting ready to pull out in front of it. It cannot see, detect or understand what children on the side of the road playing ball or horseplaying means in terms of anticipating what might happen. It cannot understand that the 18 year old boy 100 yards behind that's weaving in and out of traffic on his sport bike is likely to blow past it as it approaches a turn at an intersection. The possibilities of what it can't understand or anticipate are endless.

That's why the only way it will be commonly and widely deployed with any measure of reliable safety for decades to come, is if human drivers are outlawed and all roadways are restructured to prohibit pedestrian traffic in the way we know of it today.

Willy
04-01-2018, 01:04 PM
The problem that I do not see SDVs overcoming is the situational awareness that all drivers must have. The SDV can "see" an obstruction, another vehicle or a pedestrian in its path and take steps to avoid it. It cannot see and react to a group of six year olds playing frisbee near the curb a block away and think that one might dart out in front of the vehicle, while the average driver will note them and prepare to brake in advance of a potential accident.

.................................................. ........

Very good point Jim and this is something that is going to be very hard to replicate with AI.
Until these systems can be as good at being proactive as they are at being reactive they will be at a very distinct disadvantage.

danlb
04-01-2018, 03:56 PM
Very good point Jim and this is something that is going to be very hard to replicate with AI.
Until these systems can be as good at being proactive as they are at being reactive they will be at a very distinct disadvantage.

People are not as proactive as you suggest. Even in school zones where the speed limit drops from 35 to 25 "when children are present" I see many, many cars pass me at 35 when I pull to the right lane and slow to 25. As I approach an intersection it's likely to be 4 lanes in each direction if you include dedicated right and left turn lanes. People do a terrible job of figuring out if it's safe to turn right on red in front of approaching traffic. . The broken tail light fragments in the gutter attest to that.

Where I live, there is not a single area where I can see kids playing a block away. Cars park at the curb. Fences and shrubs divide property. Best visibility I get is maybe 100 feet.

But I live in a fairly congested area. If you live in the semi rural midwest like Missouri with 1 acre lots the visibility is much better. I suspect that works in favor of the car too.

Last year we had a similar thread where I suggested that there were many things that could be done to minimize these issues. It's not difficult to design a system that allows cars to exchange information so that one car can tell the one behind it that kids are playing ball at 7127 parkland. It's not impossible to devise systems where manually driven cars have a transponder so that a "smart car" can give them a wider berth and use algorithms that are much more defensive. Communications would allow two cars to approach an intersection from different angles and pass through without slowing because one agreed to go though at the time 12:00:00.01 and the other at 12:00:01.75.

These things are possible. I hope that they do them. Don't know for sure if they ever will.

Norman Bain
04-01-2018, 04:59 PM
Service of SDVs will be less complicated than is service of your family car. Reason is that the masses will not own them; you use them like a taxi or an Uber; hence they can be much more generic. Being generic and non-end-user-owned means they can be serviced as and when needed by robots.

As for the SDV might bang into random persons issue; this is real, but the solution maybe simple; just add a transponder (ankle bracelet) to all the masses.

This (real time tracking of citizens) would also assist big brother manage all sorts of other hassle he has managing those in his care.

A.K. Boomer
04-01-2018, 05:15 PM
Geeze Norm, nice description of hell on earth there buddy....

danlb
04-01-2018, 05:22 PM
Geeze Norm, nice description of hell on earth there buddy....

Hate to be reminded, but hell on earth has already been defined as a mother at her child's funeral because some drunk killed her whole family. Evidently that (or a variation) is a currently a daily occurrence.

A.K. Boomer
04-01-2018, 05:29 PM
yeah that would suck too - along with some autonomous POS ramming into a sidewalk cafe and mowing down 30 some innocent people due to an "ankle bracelet glitch" that made the computer seek people out instead of trying to avoid them,,, we could go on and on Dan...

PStechPaul
04-01-2018, 05:42 PM
Regarding the utopia or dystopia of the future, remember that public roads are paid for, maintained, and essentially owned by "the people", which is by definition our government in a democracy (or a republic). And it is hoped that the majority of citizens take their responsibility seriously enough, and are wise enough, to participate in their government to benefit everyone, and not just allow a privileged few to exercise their "freedom" at the expense of others.

"Machine", I am posting this largely due to your ad hominem mention of my user name and your disparaging assumptions about my opinions for the future. I respectfully request that you refrain from using me as your example of what you may fear and hate about what you think I want to see implemented for the reasons of public safety and efficient use of resources. Such comments are dangerously close to crossing the line of political arguments, which are prohibited by forum policy, and can result in closure of the thread and banning of members. This is not the first time you have done this.

danlb
04-01-2018, 05:59 PM
yeah that would suck too - along with some autonomous POS ramming into a sidewalk cafe and mowing down 30 some innocent people due to an "ankle bracelet glitch" that made the computer seek people out instead of trying to avoid them,,, we could go on and on Dan...

I mentioned reality. You keep coming up with fantasies that have never happened and have a very near zero chance of happening. You will go on and on, fueled by paranoia and worries about job security. That's OK.

Ironically, only humans have deliberately killed people by driving into crowds.

But speaking of possibilities, there is a chance that a Chinese space station will stop functioning and fall from the skies. There is a chance that it might fall on your house as you are booting your computer for the morning and enjoying a nice cold beer. There is even a chance that back in 2008 they wrote the code so that it would target your house up in the hills.

The smart thing for you to do may be to find a cave and hide there till the "Heavenly Palace" finishes it's crash to earth. Keep your cell phone and computer off just in case they are in on it.

These things are just as possible as a computer getting past testing with a code giltch that makes it seek out people to kill. Sheesh.

A.K. Boomer
04-01-2018, 06:20 PM
I mentioned reality. You keep coming up with fantasies that have never happened and have a very near zero chance of happening. You will go on and on, fueled by paranoia and worries about job security. That's OK.

Ironically, only humans have deliberately killed people by driving into crowds.

But speaking of possibilities, there is a chance that a Chinese space station will stop functioning and fall from the skies. There is a chance that it might fall on your house as you are booting your computer for the morning and enjoying a nice cold beer. There is even a chance that back in 2008 they wrote the code so that it would target your house up in the hills.

The smart thing for you to do may be to find a cave and hide there till the "Heavenly Palace" finishes it's crash to earth. Keep your cell phone and computer off just in case they are in on it.

These things are just as possible as a computer getting past testing with a code giltch that makes it seek out people to kill. Sheesh.

Want reality? you opened the door for expandable input into these systems. now you've opened the door for hacking - that's not a guess that's a cold hard fact coming from people who know how the real world works, (I.E. not you)

now your ok with everyone wearing ankle bracelets so the cars know right where their at LOL GEEEZE must be nice living in mayberry lol nothing like making it easy peazy for the terrorist now they don't even have to pre-program the exact time/place and count on a number of variables to go right - just turn them loose till the find the "right number of casualties" and inflict as much carnage as they can... welcome to the real world Dan.

pull your head out of the sand man !!! your living in some kinda fantasy world.

A.K. Boomer
04-01-2018, 06:33 PM
Ironically, only humans have deliberately killed people by driving into crowds.



at least you acknowledge this fact ---- now try to take your thinking a few steps further...

you know ---- before you give these cars the equivalent of having heat seeking missiles for human flesh


wake up.

reggie_obe
04-01-2018, 07:59 PM
Want reality? you opened the door for expandable input into these systems. now you've opened the door for hacking - that's not a guess that's a cold hard fact coming from people who know how the real world works, (I.E. not you)

now your ok with everyone wearing ankle bracelets so the cars know right where their at LOL GEEEZE must be nice living in mayberry lol nothing like making it easy peazy for the terrorist now they don't even have to pre-program the exact time/place and count on a number of variables to go right - just turn them loose till the find the "right number of casualties" and inflict as much carnage as they can... welcome to the real world Dan.

pull your head out of the sand man !!! your living in some kinda fantasy world.

If you accidentally leave the house without your ankle ID beacon , does that make you fair game for SDV(s)?

Machine
04-01-2018, 08:02 PM
"Machine", I am posting this largely due to your ad hominem mention of my user name

My comments weren't an ad hominem against you. If you thought they were, you're mistaken. My only reference to you was what you "hinted" to. The extrapolations were obviously mine, not yours. Hopefully you still consider this forum a safe space?

In the meantime, I'm enjoying reading what the others have to say about how ankle bracelets might be used as a mitigating strategy for making our public places a safer space around SDVs. And that topic's especially apropos, because unlike SDV technology, ankle bracelet technology is now fully mature due to its use in our correctional institutions. It'll bring us closer to safer public places you described in your previous post. Considering the paramount importance of public safety, isn't that a good thing?

danlb
04-01-2018, 09:05 PM
Boomer, you forget that your car is subject to hacks right now. They are just different hacks.

Hacks known to be done on older cars; hot wiring. "chipping". lock picking. gas siphoning. brake line cutting. bombs of many types. lug nut havoc. sugar in the tank. Many are downright deadly. But they don't happen often because there are not that many bad guys out there wanting to do it.

You did not respond to whether your PC, car or TV have been hacked. You personally. I bet that none of them have been hacked despite the fact that there is profit to be made by doing so. Most hacks require physical access to a system OR remote access granted by a well meaning person OR a system that is not being used and maintained properly.

You know how that evil hack of the Clinton campaign's email was done by the Russians? They sent him an email telling him to change his password by "clicking here". He gave them his password. And that's how most hacks and viruses get past the security of the OS and virus checkers. People click were they should not and install the virus themselves.

So don't worry so much about the cars being hacked. Worry more about the fact that they will know where you are simply because you are one of the few who are not participating. All the other cars will report your location so they know where to pick you up when they want to.


:)

Dan

PStechPaul
04-01-2018, 09:27 PM
I think the "ankle bracelet" quip was just a sarcastic snark, and not meant to be a real suggestion. And the main reason I "called you out" was because I think you make incorrect assumptions about my views. I'm not really so much "offended" by your remarks, but any further discussion to clarify our positions on future policies seems to cross the line into forbidden politics.

reggie_obe
04-01-2018, 09:27 PM
So don't worry so much about the cars being hacked. Worry more about the fact that they will know where you are simply because you are one of the few who are not participating. All the other cars will report your location so they know where to pick you up when they want to.
:)

Dan

Not just A.K., lots of others like myself won't be participating either. SDV(s) will usher in a totally new era of the Highwayman. We won't be tracked, because we won't be chipped like the sheeple, we won't be seen and reported because we'll be cloaked.

danlb
04-01-2018, 09:49 PM
Not just A.K., lots of others like myself won't be participating either. SDV(s) will usher in a totally new era of the Highwayman. We won't be tracked, because we won't be chipped like the sheeple, we won't be seen and reported because we'll be cloaked.

Assuming the future that you are worried about... I hope you realize that when you have a cooperative infrastructure that tracks everything, it will be exceedingly difficult to use those highways without being noticed. If you try to cloak yourself, you will simply be run over. Darwin will eventually win out.

RichR
04-01-2018, 10:54 PM
... So don't worry so much about the cars being hacked. Worry more about the fact that they will know where you are simply because you are one of the few who are not participating. All the other cars will report your location so they know where to pick you off when they want to.


:)

Dan

There, fixed it for you.

reggie_obe
04-02-2018, 07:43 AM
Assuming the future that you are worried about... I hope you realize that when you have a cooperative infrastructure that tracks everything, it will be exceedingly difficult to use those highways without being noticed. If you try to cloak yourself, you will simply be run over. Darwin will eventually win out.

Nope, we'll hide in plain sight, our PDT(s), Personal Data Transmitters will transmit innocuous ID's like lamppost, mailbox, street sign, etc., when were walking. When we want to cross it will transmit priority ID's like Ambulance, Fire Truck, vehicles will be forced panic stop and give us a wide berth. When we want to drive our self-piloted vehicles, it will transmit: semi-trailer, sanitation truck, etc., giving us a big cushion. When we see a good target and there will be many..., we'll use a expendable transmitter that squawks Police, shut down, unlock, maybe even overlaying the vehicles command log with passenger command to stop and disembark or vehicle failure, etc.

Will we be able to do this? Certainly. While the software requirement will be spec'ed out by Business Analysts and rocket scientists in this country and triple checked, the software development will be outsourced to some low-bidder, probably some spithole country. The kind of place where programmers test by deploying their mess in the production environment. The software will be full of exploitable holes and conditions thought so improbable, that they won't be accounted for and blocked.

A.K. Boomer
04-02-2018, 09:43 AM
Darwin will eventually win out.


Eventually ? take a look around man...

Willy
04-02-2018, 11:26 AM
People are not as proactive as you suggest. Even in school zones where the speed limit drops from 35 to 25 "when children are present" I see many, many cars pass me at 35 when I pull to the right lane and slow to 25. As I approach an intersection it's likely to be 4 lanes in each direction if you include dedicated right and left turn lanes. People do a terrible job of figuring out if it's safe to turn right on red in front of approaching traffic. . The broken tail light fragments in the gutter attest to that.

Where I live, there is not a single area where I can see kids playing a block away. Cars park at the curb. Fences and shrubs divide property. Best visibility I get is maybe 100 feet.

But I live in a fairly congested area. If you live in the semi rural midwest like Missouri with 1 acre lots the visibility is much better. I suspect that works in favor of the car too.

Last year we had a similar thread where I suggested that there were many things that could be done to minimize these issues. It's not difficult to design a system that allows cars to exchange information so that one car can tell the one behind it that kids are playing ball at 7127 parkland. It's not impossible to devise systems where manually driven cars have a transponder so that a "smart car" can give them a wider berth and use algorithms that are much more defensive. Communications would allow two cars to approach an intersection from different angles and pass through without slowing because one agreed to go though at the time 12:00:00.01 and the other at 12:00:01.75.

These things are possible. I hope that they do them. Don't know for sure if they ever will.

I wholeheartedly agree, the driving habits and ability demonstrated by a very large segment of the motoring public borders on atrocious. Having spent the bulk of my life putting bread and butter on my table by driving professionally with zero incidents I can state that I have very little to no respect for about 80% of the driving public.

But we have options. Lets start by having it not be a god given right to have a driver's license. Make it so that if you really want or need to drive you have to actually demonstrate some real knowledge and skills accompanied with a very hefty non-refundable exam fee. Not the, here's forty bucks grade 2 level skill test. Also some serious consequences should follow those that don't take any of this seriously enough to realize that peoples lives hang in the balance due to their actions. Loss of driving privileges, meaningful fines and jail time should be administered for those that threaten the lives of our loved ones.

I realize that the above suggestions may sound a little harsh but so does the fact that thousands of people die needlessly annually accompanied with a financial cost to society that runs well into the billions. I also realize that this has a snowball's chance in hell of being implemented because anybody suggesting such a life saving scheme would sign their own political death certificate. All because of the public's belief that driving is a right and not a privileged.

But hey let's slide the autonomous vehicle scheme down the public's throat. Conceptually attractive I must agree for the movement of bodies and so much more politically safe and attractive.
However I think what most folks here have a problem with about this scheme is not the concept but the piss poor execution that will surely follow.
As I mentioned previously the reliability of this "feature" must surely be called into question given the fact the OEMs have repeatedly lied to their buyers on a large number of issues and the component and systems failure rate of mission critical components borders on the ludicrous.

Sometimes, given the millions of vehicles recalled annually, surely this must be the very first year that any of them has built a car.
Pardon me if I don't get that warm and fuzzy feeling about ma gov and the automakers looking out for me.
When it comes to looking after my ass I'd like to have the first shot at who's going to be doing it. At least until someone can demonstrate they can do it better.

danlb
04-02-2018, 12:08 PM
Nope, we'll hide in plain sight, our PDT(s), Personal Data Transmitters will transmit innocuous ID's like lamppost, mailbox, street sign, etc., when were walking. When we want to cross it will transmit priority ID's like Ambulance, Fire Truck, vehicles will be forced panic stop and give us a wide berth. When we want to drive our self-piloted vehicles, it will transmit: semi-trailer, sanitation truck, etc., giving us a big cushion. When we see a good target and there will be many..., we'll use a expendable transmitter that squawks Police, shut down, unlock, maybe even overlaying the vehicles command log with passenger command to stop and disembark or vehicle failure, etc.

Will we be able to do this? Certainly. While the software requirement will be spec'ed out by Business Analysts and rocket scientists in this country and triple checked, the software development will be outsourced to some low-bidder, probably some spithole country. The kind of place where programmers test by deploying their mess in the production environment. The software will be full of exploitable holes and conditions thought so improbable, that they won't be accounted for and blocked.

Before deciding that this will work, you should test your concept. You know those "emergency vehicle right of way" sensors on the existing traffic signals? They use a fairly simple signal. I challenge you to find or build a transmitter to trigger it. Then I challenge you to use it continuously for a week. That's what you will need to do to "hide in plain sight".

Around here they have a very low tech detection system. A person in the traffic control group eventually notices that the number of lights triggered does not match the number of fire and ambulance dispatches.

In the future that I envision the cars will be networked and will share what they sense and see. A bogus signal will quickly be reported as malfunctioning after several cars in a row observe that the "lamp post" is walking down the sidewalk and that it's disguised as a person. Don't you agree that's a reasonable thing to do?
:)


Dan

A.K. Boomer
04-02-2018, 12:15 PM
Well said Willy - rights without responsibility is where were at - we seem to have stiff penalties for drunk driving but now distracted driving is proven to take the lead in most accidents, yet in most cases it's not even a slap on the wrist,,, we need to start sending just as powerful a message and show just how serious it all is - show real maimed people crumpled up in their vehicles, we kinda had a good start on that and it was starting to change things around,

but now instead we have major auto manufacturers (ford) showing a dingbat kid backing up out of a driveway without even looking and about to get T-boned and her Mom who's actually got her act together warning her and then a split second later the car intervenes and the ding-bat looks at her Mom like she's stupid, rolls her eyes and says "Mom --- I go this" this is the widely accepted dumbing down that half the people seem to think is going to be a great choice for society,,,

Heaping more and more technology on top of it will only make things worse - keep in mind it's the main problem to begin with,

sometimes you need to take a step back to find the answer - there's many people who think their actually moving forward when in fact they are setting us way back...

technology is not always the answer - and it's moving at light speed right now, we need to take a step back and question everything, just because we can do it does not make it right...

Machine
04-02-2018, 12:16 PM
In the future I envision the cars will be networked and will share what they sense and see. Dan

This already exists for aircraft. It's called ADS-B, but there are other variations as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillance_%E2%80%93_broadca st

reggie_obe
04-02-2018, 12:35 PM
Before deciding that this will work, you should test your concept. You know those "emergency vehicle right of way" sensors on the existing traffic signals? They use a fairly simple signal. I challenge you to find or build a transmitter to trigger it. Then I challenge you to use it continuously for a week. That's what you will need to do to "hide in plain sight".

Around here they have a very low tech detection system. A person in the traffic control group eventually notices that the number of lights triggered does not match the number of fire and ambulance dispatches.

In the future I envision the cars will be networked and will share what they sense and see. A bogus signal will quickly be reported as malfunctioning after several cars in a row observe that the "lamp post" is walking down the sidewalk and that it's disguised as a person. Don't you agree that's a reasonable thing to do?
:)


Dan

You're certain that the traffic signal override data is currently being cross checked against dispatch data? Possible, but what would be the possible gain? I'd guess that traffic sensors are routinely checked and malfunctions reported when department personnel bend the rules a little while driving a department car.

No, I'm just throwing some ideas out. Maybe the PDT will have a variety of identities that it broadcasts, switching between them on a pseudo random basis. When a APV detects an oncoming Fire truck, will it cross check with dispatched vehicles before deciding to yield? I pity the Firemen.

You have such a strong belief that APV systems are not only technically feasible, but necessary, that you are just dying to see this become a reality.
You have way too much faith in technology.

danlb
04-02-2018, 01:51 PM
You have such a strong belief that APV systems are not only technically feasible, but necessary, that you are just dying to see this become a reality.
You have way too much faith in technology.

Like machine, I've worked with many different systems of varying critical nature. Unlike him, I've worked with some that were extremely fault tolerant. What is fault tolerant? That's a system that behaves well when hardware experiences a failure. It recovers well when there is a condition that the application can not handle. As an example, a system with two processors that are both working 100% of the time, with hardware that disables the one that develops a fault while continuing to run on the other. It has zero down time while you replace the CPU fan that has a failed bearing.

You see, I've been driving a car since 2002 that uses computers to control the throttle, steering and brakes. It's never, in 15 years and 150K miles done anything unexpected. I've had computer systems that were in use for 15 years and only rebooted when the power failed for longer than the batteries lasted. I've worked in systems the size of a grocery store that continued working even when a worker pulled a memory card while it was live.

You can not use your experience with PCs and cell phones to figure out what state of the art systems do. You can't use experience with software designed to sell candy to evaluate what can be done to design fault tolerant systems.

As said in last year's thread, you don't need AI to drive a car. It does not need to learn as it goes. It does not need to adapt. That's for the programmers to do with the data sent when the car encounters a situation that does not fit into any of the existing routines.

In essence, I've been exposed to hardware, software and designs that are not prone to failure. When done right, it's really, really impressive.

Dan

danlb
04-02-2018, 01:57 PM
You're certain that the traffic signal override data is currently being cross checked against dispatch data?

That's what the news said when a local kid cobbled together an emergency override beacon. There was a strange pattern of frequent activations. They looked into it. Police were alerted. Kid busted. System upgraded to a more complex signaling protocol.

Dan

Arcane
04-02-2018, 02:22 PM
Speaking of over ride systems, a week ago I was headed down the highway just outside of town and there was a Dept of Highways snowplow ahead of me. There's a couple of intersections there that are controlled by traffic lights and as we approached the first intersection it seemed the lights cycled to green for us rather fast. The next intersection it definitely cycled faster than normal. Result - the plow didn't have to slow down or stop and by keeping up it's speed it was able to clear the snow properly.

reggie_obe
04-02-2018, 02:30 PM
Speaking of over ride systems, a week ago I was headed down the highway just outside of town and there was a Dept of Highways snowplow ahead of me. There's a couple of intersections there that are controlled by traffic lights and as we approached the first intersection it seemed the lights cycled to green for us rather fast. The next intersection it definitely cycled faster than normal. Result - the plow didn't have to slow down or stop and by keeping up it's speed it was able to clear the snow properly.

Three override systems that I know of commonly in use. Pulsed visible or Infrared light, sound detection (uncommon) and RFID. Sometimes a combo of the first and second system. Local to me, Infrared emitters on all the fire and rescue vehicles.

kendall
04-02-2018, 02:37 PM
I'm with boomer, technology and certain laws have an effect on dumming people down.

I keep a closer watch on college age kids I see walking along the road because they are (in my experience) more likely than anyone else to step out into traffic. Why? because all campuses have 'Stop for pedestrian' rules. They get used to it and their thinking switches from 'Do I have time to cross?' to 'Do they have room to stop?' And again from experience working with the younger crowd, a lot of them don't think things out, instead the pull out the smart phone and let it do their 'thinking'.

Frankly, if an Autonomous vehicle was truly ready to hit the road, there would be no need for transponders or any other changes to the road way. In over 100 years the major changes to roadways has been to go from dirt tracks to pavement.
And honestly, if transponders started to be a requirement, I'd collect them and stuff them in a ball to play catch over the road. Just to mess with cars.

Machine
04-02-2018, 04:21 PM
You see, I've been driving a car since 2002 that uses computers to control the throttle, steering and brakes.

This is a specious claim, as it was when PStechPaul said the same thing earlier. You do not have "fly by wire" or completely computer controlled brakes and steering. There is a mechanical manual backup system both on the brakes and the steering (for very obvious reasons). If all power went dead and all computers went kaput, you would still be able to steer and brake the car. Your foot would still mechanically compress a master cylinder forcing pressurized brake fluid to the calipers, your hands would still manually turn the steering wheel and mechanical gears and linkages would still transmit force to your steering linkages, which in turn would force the car to turn and maneuver. The critical control functions - steering and brakes - maintain full mechanical backup systems.

danlb
04-02-2018, 04:36 PM
This is a specious claim, as it was when PStechPaul said the same thing earlier. You do not have "fly by wire" or completely computer controlled brakes and steering. There is a mechanical manual backup system both on the brakes and the steering (for very obvious reasons). If all power went dead and all computers went kaput, you would still be able to steer and brake the car. Your foot would still mechanically compress a master cylinder forcing pressurized brake fluid to the calipers, your hands would still manually turn the steering wheel and mechanical gears and linkages would still transmit force to your steering linkages, which in turn would force the car to turn and maneuver. The critical control functions - steering and brakes - maintain full mechanical backup systems.

I believe you to be incorrect. Are you trained or schooled in the systems in my car?

There is no mechanical link between the gas pedal and throttle. 100% computer controlled. The throttle has never behaved in an unexpected manner.

The primary braking is via regeneration. The disk brakes are used to kill the last few MPH where the regeneration is not as effective. The computer handles the transition from regen to brake pads. It's always worked as expected. I suspect that the brakes will work in a conventional manner, but in 150K miles I've never had to test it.

The steering is a computer controlled electric device too. That's why they were able to offer the "self parking" feature back in 2004.

If the engine dies on my car, the controls continue to work. There is even a separate battery to keep the brakes, lights and steering powered.

But even if you were correct, and even if there were directly connected mechanical systems that could be used in an emergency, that does not change the fact that the computer DOES control the car at all times and has done so without problems for millions of cars that are on the road today.

Dan

Machine
04-02-2018, 05:06 PM
I believe you to be incorrect. Are you trained or schooled in the systems in my car?

What is the make and model of your 2002 car?



There is no mechanical link between the gas pedal and throttle. 100% computer controlled. The throttle has never behaved in an unexpected manner.

I didn't say there is. Throttle is not a critical safety control issue. Brakes and steering are. You also probably have mechanical systems on your parking brake (cable actuated) and on most non-hybrid cars, shifter as well.



The steering is a computer controlled electric device too. That's why they were able to offer the "self parking" feature back in 2004.


I have electric power steering on my car too. The steering system is still mechanically connected in the conventional manner and can be used with the electrical power and engine completely off. Yours can too.



But even if you were correct, and even if there were directly connected mechanical systems that could be used in an emergency, that does not change the fact that the computer DOES control the car at all times and has done so without problems for millions of cars that are on the road today. Dan

I am correct. And the reason the traditional mechanical systems remain is because the manufacturer knows full well it would be very ill advised to release the car into public use without those backup systems in place. Just like some of the critical systems I've worked with before that also needed backup systems in case the computer system failed. Like I said before, been there done that, a thousand times over.

Willy
04-02-2018, 05:24 PM
Like I said, I just don't get a warm and fuzzy feeling when shareholders and profits are job 1.
Why should I believe that when almost all systems are software controlled that the execution of those functions will be somehow better? This from a company with a better than average consumer satisfaction rating.
Humid and salty conditions as well as temperature extremes add a whole new dimension to electrical issues not experienced by those in much more forgiving climes.


https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/feb/10/prius-brakes-recall-toyota


Anger mounts as carmaker issues 'non-safety' recall, taking its 2010 total to 8.5m

The consumer backlash against Toyota intensified tonight when drivers of the recalled Prius complained that the *company had allowed the vehicle's brake fault to go untreated for months and claimed Toyota (https://www.theguardian.com/business/toyota) is wrong to say the *problem does not affect safety.
Anger at the world's largest carmaker's handling of mechanical and design faults grew as Toyota bosses said they are recalling 437,000 third-generation Prius cars because of brake faults, 8,500 in the UK.
Owners of the Prius, a leader in the "green" motoring sector, said the brake fault occurred in vehicles up to six months ago and has caused cars to overshoot at roundabouts and junctions, an experience they describe as scary and dangerous. A software fault in the anti-lock braking system means the brakes lose power momentarily on rough or slippy surfaces.

danlb
04-02-2018, 06:04 PM
First, I was wrong. There is a mechanical link between the steering wheels and the front tires. I think it's actually required by law, going back to the early days of power steering and cars that seldom ran more than 3,000 miles without incident. I verified the mechanical link by turning the steering wheel with the key in the ACC position.

However, I was only able to turn the steering wheel a few degrees and the tire moved a fraction of an inch. Not sure if it's meant for emergencies. It already has a back up power source.

I'm surprised that you don't feel that throttle control is a critical system. If you consider what happens when a car stalls in an intersection, it seems to be rather important. If you've ever had a throttle cable stick, you'd realize how critical throttle control is. You've been there 1000 times and can't see that speed control is critical to safety?

The key point is that my car, and millions like it, are controlled by computers and work quite well. They do what they are supposed to when they are supposed to.

danlb
04-02-2018, 06:18 PM
Humid and salty conditions as well as temperature extremes add a whole new dimension to electrical issues not experienced by those in much more forgiving climes.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/feb/10/prius-brakes-recall-toyota

A quote from that article: "When I go over a road hump at 25mph the brakes cut out and it feels like you have hit a patch of ice,"

And that sums up the problem for which it was recalled. Anti lock brakes kick in and people freaked.

Willy
04-02-2018, 06:36 PM
A quote from that article: "When I go over a road hump at 25mph the brakes cut out and it feels like you have hit a patch of ice,"

And that sums up the problem for which it was recalled. Anti lock brakes kick in and people freaked.

Then why did Toyote recall 437,000 units and reprogram computers to fix what you say isn't a problem?
Because Priusus aren't stopping as they should due to software issues.

From the same link.


Toyota today lodged a "non-safety" recall with the Department for Transport's Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, and said there is no danger to drivers. From Thursday it is planning to start reprogramming computers of the affected cars to prevent the problem happening again. The latest recall means more than 8.5m Toyotas worldwide have been called back for servicing since the end of January.

With an estimated $4bn (£2.5bn) wiped off Toyota's market value by the crisis, Akio Toyoda, the company's president, made his second public appearance in Tokyo. He said Toyota "will face up to the facts and correct the problem, putting customers' safety and convenience first".

Machine
04-02-2018, 06:39 PM
I'm surprised that you don't feel that throttle control is a critical system. If you consider what happens when a car stalls in an intersection, it seems to be rather important. If you've ever had a throttle cable stick, you'd realize how critical throttle control is. You've been there 1000 times and can't see that speed control is critical to safety?

I actually personally feel that fly by wire throttle control is almost a critical safety issue that shouldn't be allowed. But I barely accept that, at least for automotive applications, it might be ok. Throttle is definitely not as critical as brakes and steering, but I agree it is still very important to get right. For throttle systems they do have redundant systems that can deactivate the computer's inputs under several circumstances based on various driver inputs. So in order for the throttle to, say, go wide open and stay that way due to a computer/sensor malfunction, multiple systems would have to fail simultaneously.

On a jet engine test system I worked on, the engine was a true fly by wire system. It had a Full Authority Digital Engine Control or FADEC system that controlled everything. The FADEC had channel A and channel B, two completely independent systems that would receive engine sensor data and control inputs from the pilot. If one system (A or B) went down or began behaving anomalously, the other could take over (and the pilot could manually command this inside the cockpit). For the throttle it had two scaled voltage inputs. The voltages came from a throttle controller, normally inside the cockpit. If one of the two voltages was significantly out of spec with the other, the engine would simply lock out any further throttle inputs and go to flight idle.

No matter what you did with the throttle afterwards, even if you restored perfect scaled voltage inputs again, the engine would no longer respond. Flight idle it was, and nothing more. The only way to reset the FADEC was to power the engine down, thereby depriving the FADEC of electrical power, and then go for a restart. Since we couldn't force the throttle to cutoff, the only way to stop the engine was to manually cut the fuel supply off, which isn't exactly good for a multi-million dollar engine.

Anyway, I suspect the fly by wire throttled cars probably have a similar system, which simply retards power to idle in the event an anomaly is detected.

J Tiers
04-02-2018, 09:28 PM
There is NO good option. Flight idle sounds OK for a test, but seems like a problem for flight.

Throttling down is good for a car in some cases, in other very credible cases it simply makes you a target for the 18 wheeler behind you, with you out in the 3rd lane from the shoulder, in fast traffic and no place to go, nothing to do but wait for the impacts. And enjoy your last moments.

That's not at all improbable, really.

danlb
04-02-2018, 10:09 PM
Then why did Toyote recall 437,000 units and reprogram computers to fix what you say isn't a problem?
Because Priusus aren't stopping as they should due to software issues.

From the same link.

The same reason they chopped 1/2 inch off the gas pedal of millions of cars after a stupid car wash worker left the car mat un-anchored in a car with two mats, one on top of the other. A car full of people killed when the mats lodged under the gas pedal. The fix? Make sure you use one mat and anchor it after they are shampooed at the car wash. The fix for public confidence? A recall.

As I understand it, the reprogrammed ABS system simply used a less abrupt pulse of the brakes so you don't feel the change in G forces. They work the same as before.

danlb
04-02-2018, 10:30 PM
There is NO good option. Flight idle sounds OK for a test, but seems like a problem for flight.

Throttling down is good for a car in some cases, in other very credible cases it simply makes you a target for the 18 wheeler behind you, with you out in the 3rd lane from the shoulder, in fast traffic and no place to go, nothing to do but wait for the impacts. And enjoy your last moments.

That's not at all improbable, really.

Good point. 30 years ago, the throttle would either stick or drop to idle. You had no choice. When the coil burned out it died in the middle of the road. When your tranny burned up, you'd get halfway across the intersection,

If you were designing a car today, what would you make it do when one gas pedal sensor says you want half throttle and the other says you want idle?

Dan

Willy
04-02-2018, 11:00 PM
The same reason they chopped 1/2 inch off the gas pedal of millions of cars after a stupid car wash worker left the car mat un-anchored in a car with two mats, one on top of the other. A car full of people killed when the mats lodged under the gas pedal. The fix? Make sure you use one mat and anchor it after they are shampooed at the car wash. The fix for public confidence? A recall.

As I understand it, the reprogrammed ABS system simply used a less abrupt pulse of the brakes so you don't feel the change in G forces. They work the same as before.

You are in denial Dan, software and those that write the code are far from infallible.
The problem and complaints have gone away since the reprogramming errors were corrected.
Sheesh even Toyota admitted there was an issue.

A.K. Boomer
04-02-2018, 11:03 PM
Willy - it's no use - he don't get it at the very basic levels,,, you think today's kids have a "disconnect" wait till Dan gets a hold of them for awhile, what a fuquing mess, easy to figure out for some but others just want to add to it...

danlb
04-03-2018, 12:02 AM
You are in denial Dan, software and those that write the code are far from infallible.
The problem and complaints have gone away since the reprogramming errors were corrected.
Sheesh even Toyota admitted there was an issue.

You are right. Software is sometimes faulty. It does not follow that it is always faulty.

It's not denial. It's being informed. I have two Toyota cars. When they are in the news I follow the story beyond the initial headlines. I don't take the initial news reports as gospel. Eventually the root cause is determined. I keep an eye out for those reports too. Even if the root cause is operator error or operator perception they have sometimes taken "corrective action" to restore public confidence. That seems to be a required reaction now.

When the "problem" makes the news hundreds of people notice that they have that problem. Then the problem and complaints about the ABS went away after the "fix". People expect it to be fixed, so it is perceived as fixed.

When the Lexus in southern California had a jammed accelerator the whole world came out and said it was the computer. Even Steve Wozniak claimed that his cruise control could be made to cause sustained acceleration. Sales plummeted. The problem was traced back to a pair of mats, one on the other, that were folded over and pressing on the gas pedal mechanism UNDER the gas pedal.

Sales resumed only after they announced a "recall" where they used a saw to remove the bottom inch or so of the gas pedal. The gas pedal was eventually replaced with a shorter one. The software was never updated. The odd part is that all those people who claimed that their car was accelerating erratically faded away.

You don't have to be in denial to recognize quality work.

danlb
04-03-2018, 12:05 AM
Willy - it's no use - he don't get it at the very basic levels,,, you think today's kids have a "disconnect" wait till Dan gets a hold of them for awhile, what a fuquing mess, easy to figure out for some but others just want to add to it...

Remind us Boomer.

Exactly what is your expertise in design of fault tolerant systems?

What OS have you been trained to write low level code for?

What languages do you work in?

What experience have you had with any fault tolerant complex automated systems?

You MUST know a hell of a lot more than the rest of us.

Willy
04-03-2018, 12:07 AM
Bad news travels fast and is often embellished.
Good news never even makes the first section of the paper, never mind the front page.:(

A.K. Boomer
04-03-2018, 12:10 AM
"Remind us Boomer.

Exactly what is your expertise in design of fault tolerant systems?

What OS have you been trained to write low level code for?

What languages do you work in?

What experience have you had with any fault tolerant complex automated systems?

You MUST know a hell of a lot more than the rest of us. "



Zero - I look at the present cesspool of humanoids and know exactly what got the co-dependent spineless sacs of crap into their current situation and am an absolute expert on knowing recognizing the exact type who are going to make it worse --- any other questions??? thanks - have a nice day. :)

danlb
04-03-2018, 12:18 AM
Ah, total ignorance of the subject matter makes you an expert. Got it.

I'm having a nice day. :)

Dan

A.K. Boomer
04-03-2018, 12:19 AM
Said the guy who can't see the forest for the tree's lol


brilliant ! lol

danlb
04-03-2018, 12:54 AM
Said the guy who can't see the forest for the tree's lol


brilliant ! lol

Yep. I've been called that. Also been called an ass, so I don't let either bother me.

I believe that my education and experience allow me to examine the subject see much more clearly than someone handicapped by ignorance and fear.

Addressing boomer;
I have no idea why you are afraid of technology, and yet you use older, less reliable technology every day. You don't trust an electronic circuit to adjust your timing and yet you do trust a set of tungsten points that arc and degrade with every spark. You don't trust an EFI circuit and yet you trust your life to a 6 foot long bent wire that moves a flap that sucks air past a needle that wears as it meters the gas into the airflow.

I could go on and on, but you should get the idea that it's illogical to trust some very poorly engineered analog parts over well designed digital replacements just because you can see them and replace them when they break. And they do break. :)

A.K. Boomer
04-03-2018, 01:02 AM
on a side note - I lost my incredible mother last month, she was the age of 98.5 years old!!!

she stopped driving at about 95, no, not because she had an accident - just because she said "it was time"

she looked at driving allot different than some of the people in this debate, and it was very hard for her to let it go because i believe she knew once she did that it would be a quick deterioration of other things - which it was.

these are the things that certain people don't see, people are actually GREAT drivers if they take it seriously,
and that's where the emphasis should always be focused, it's such a great freedom and privilege and I do see it eventually being threatened, as red blooded Americans we can never even allow that to creep in...

there are numbers related to this way more in favor of this choice and that's regardless of the number games on the road...

that's just a fraction of the reason of why im so adamant --- there is so much attached to this and yeah guess it's kinda hidden from some - obviously lol

but you think our society has problems now? keep detaching it from the reality of whats actually going around and you will think today's daily news is a "pick me upper"

SDV's ? bad path people... and as many of the thousands of ways I know how it is, Im sure im still in the dark as to most of it... sac up folks - drive your cars with the best precision you can and don't go into a fetal tuck wimpering and whining about it, for one if my Mom was around she would back hand the crap out of your ass...

time to get real - big bad world out there with consequences - reach down there and see if you can feel something - then sac up and drive your damn car and feel fortunate about it - people were rattling around in covered wagons not too long ago , geeze get some kinda a sense of gratitude for how easy everything has become - think they would be wimpering ? they would have buried your pathetic ass in nebraska... SAC UP... or get the hell off the planet for the people who are getting it done - your taking up space and oxygen and we need both...

A.K. Boomer
04-03-2018, 01:09 AM
and in answer to your last post you wrote whilst i was writing mine - Iv stated I love technology and don't want anyone to get the wrong idea about that, heck i was probably filing ignition points while you were poopin yeller,,,
might mean that you were crapping your pants a little late in life but that shoe would fit too... ?

anyways - big difference in something that was truly a win-win in every direction like so many other things in comparison to SDV's
,,,, not even a comparison - your talking about a great technological advancement in comparison to the downfall of humanity --- not even close...

danlb
04-03-2018, 01:15 AM
Sorry to hear that Boomer. My dad is 92, and thinks he should still be driving too. He's forgotten that he no longer owns a car, but he's sure that if I help him unlock the gate and get the walker in the trunk that he can drive it to the DMV to renew his license.

I won't bother with the rest of the post. It's just too sad.

A.K. Boomer
04-03-2018, 01:20 AM
That is sad - and some people do have better genetics than others. it is a fact, but within part of that fact is also some people challenge themselves with all kinds of things till their comes a day when they just can no longer do it,

and I know for a fact that genetics or not they will keep keeping on allot longer than the ones who don't...

that being said everyone also needs to keep good tabs on what they can or can't do, but the news flash is is that the people who are challenging themselves are pretty good at doing that too... because they been testing it all the time...

VicM
04-03-2018, 02:01 PM
Who will purchase these self-driving cars? Young people? Nope. Old people. Nope. Middle age people. Some. Country people? Nope. City people? Maybe.
Did the Silicon Valley boys do proper marketing research? If they just used the Rosy Scenario approach the whole project might become the new Edsel.

danlb
04-03-2018, 02:22 PM
Who will purchase these self-driving cars? Young people? Nope. Old people. Nope. Middle age people. Some. Country people? Nope. City people? Maybe.
Did the Silicon Valley boys do proper marketing research? If they just used the Rosy Scenario approach the whole project might become the new Edsel.

Good question. Much of the initial design work was based on an ARPA challenge. The first few challenges had autonomous vehicles driving through rugged terrain and desert lands. No market research needed for that kind of effort.

Of course, you can't really say nope to all those categories without doing your own market research. From a sample group of 4 **, I can tell you some old folks will look forward to them.

Dan
** my neighbor lost vision in one eye. He wants an autonomous vehicle. I want one because it sounds like fun. A friend had a minor stroke and lost his peripheral vision. He wants one because his hobby is cruising garage sales. My wife does not trust the tech. I have not really discussed it with others.

Machine
04-03-2018, 02:53 PM
When I really geez out in a few decades I'd like to have one. Nothing scarier to me than losing my mobility and independence as we get to that point in our lives. It would be nice to jump in the back seat and say "To the grocery store, jeeves." Or maybe "To Susie's bar..." with no worry about the designated driver afterwards.

PStechPaul
04-03-2018, 05:31 PM
We already have that with Uber and Lyft and taxicabs, as well as services like Senior Ride (http://www.agis.com/Eldercare-Basics/Support-Services/Transportation/Senior-(Senior-Ride-Program)/Default.aspx). It's not quite as convenient as hopping in your own vehicle, but you also don't have to worry about finding a convenient parking spot, or paying for the purchase, upkeep, and insurance on a vehicle you might only use a few times a week for short trips. Also, such ride services provide jobs for people in the local economy, instead of jobs for those manufacturing the vehicles and their overpaid (and perhaps overseas) bosses.

fixerdave
04-03-2018, 06:40 PM
Who will purchase these self-driving cars? Young people? Nope. Old people. Nope. Middle age people. Some. Country people? Nope. City people? Maybe.
Did the Silicon Valley boys do proper marketing research? If they just used the Rosy Scenario approach the whole project might become the new Edsel.

Taxi companies will, delivery companies will, and all fleet-maintaining corporations absolutely will. Why on earth would any individual want to OWN a self-driving car? What's the point? The point is to remove the driver so you don't have to pay them, so you call rent the car service for cheaper than someone can own the same car.

The reason we own cars is because A) we're too cheap to pay somebody else to drive us around all day, and B) we like driving. As others have pointed out, there's no fun in 'driving' an AI driven car. Thus, why should we own something that we have to wash and let sit around all day, slowly losing value? We'll likely still own cars, most of us, for a while. They may even have driver-assist (all the way to self-driving if we let them), but they will still have steering wheels that we can at least pretend we use.

The problem with the people that find problems... is that they think about a few changes, not that everything is going to change. The SYSTEM is going to change. Most people don't like riding in buses full of other people. Most people don't like waiting. Most people seem to carry an inordinate amount of junk everywhere they go. So, they own and drive cars if they can. But, when the taxi is cheaper than the bus, way cheaper than owning a car, that arrives exactly when you're ready and doesn't mind waiting if you're not, that can load and carry your self-propelled basket of junk that obediently follows you everywhere (and that is probably a mobility scooter too, even if you won't admit it), then all the hassles of owning a car are just going to keep adding up to the point where you just won't bother.

Why would a farmer own a truck? Instead, why not have the truck come when she needs it... the exact right sized truck, with the right equipment do to the particular job at hand. Why would the plumber own a van... when his "toolbox" is as big as it needs to be and can be automatically loaded and delivered to a jobsite, or even make it from the shop to the jobsite without him, and returned whenever he wants it to. Maybe the plumber has 4 independent toolboxes, and some of them can climb stairs on their own. Don't get stuck on problem A... not when there are solutions that go past Z.

Flip it around...

Why would you buy a car you have to drive instead of owning a horse... a horse that can take you home when you're drunk and then go feed itself. Who did the marketing research on cars anyway? Dumb idea, never going to happen.

(time passes)

Why would you own a horse? Sure, a few people, maybe rich or rural, nostalgia buffs.

Why would you buy a self-driving car?

(time passes)

Why would you own a car? Sure, a few people, maybe rich or rural, nostalgia buffs.

Same argument.


Yes, the transition will be messy and cause a lot of problems before solutions are ready. But, it's going to happen.

David...

danlb
04-03-2018, 06:46 PM
We already have that with Uber and Lyft and taxicabs, as well as services like Senior Ride (http://www.agis.com/Eldercare-Basics/Support-Services/Transportation/Senior-(Senior-Ride-Program)/Default.aspx). It's not quite as convenient as hopping in your own vehicle, but you also don't have to worry about finding a convenient parking spot, or paying for the purchase, upkeep, and insurance on a vehicle you might only use a few times a week for short trips. Also, such ride services provide jobs for people in the local economy, instead of jobs for those manufacturing the vehicles and their overpaid (and perhaps overseas) bosses.

That's true Paul, but our local taxi drivers are all (every one that I have seen, and I used to walk past the taxi stand every day) recent immigrants who are difficult to understand or communicate with. I've used them several times. They are not usually the drivers that I'd choose if I had a choice.

Never tried the Lyft or Uber services. Chance says that 1/2 of those drivers are worse than average too. :(

Dan

Willy
04-03-2018, 08:12 PM
......................................

My wife does not trust the tech.

.................................................. .............



Ha ha ha, Good one Dan.
If this isn't the definition of irony I don't know what is. Thanks for sharing that one.

danlb
04-03-2018, 09:54 PM
Ha ha ha, Good one Dan.
If this isn't the definition of irony I don't know what is. Thanks for sharing that one.

Oh, it's worse than that. She does not trust the technology behind my electric door lock either. It took a while to get her used to X10 home control, but after the first year she was so accustomed to it that she always let me know when it needed attention. She still balks at the idea of having our doors unlock or open as I approach them. This is despite the fact that her car does that very thing.

Fear of the unknown or different is a very common human response.

dave_r
04-04-2018, 02:15 AM
Taxi companies will, delivery companies will, and all fleet-maintaining corporations absolutely will. Why on earth would any individual want to OWN a self-driving car? What's the point? The point is to remove the driver so you don't have to pay them, so you call rent the car service for cheaper than someone can own the same car.

The reason we own cars is because A) we're too cheap to pay somebody else to drive us around all day, and B) we like driving. As others have pointed out, there's no fun in 'driving' an AI driven car. Thus, why should we own something that we have to wash and let sit around all day, slowly losing value? We'll likely still own cars, most of us, for a while. They may even have driver-assist (all the way to self-driving if we let them), but they will still have steering wheels that we can at least pretend we use.

The problem with the people that find problems... is that they think about a few changes, not that everything is going to change. The SYSTEM is going to change. Most people don't like riding in buses full of other people. Most people don't like waiting. Most people seem to carry an inordinate amount of junk everywhere they go. So, they own and drive cars if they can. But, when the taxi is cheaper than the bus, way cheaper than owning a car, that arrives exactly when you're ready and doesn't mind waiting if you're not, that can load and carry your self-propelled basket of junk that obediently follows you everywhere (and that is probably a mobility scooter too, even if you won't admit it), then all the hassles of owning a car are just going to keep adding up to the point where you just won't bother.

Why would a farmer own a truck? Instead, why not have the truck come when she needs it... the exact right sized truck, with the right equipment do to the particular job at hand. Why would the plumber own a van... when his "toolbox" is as big as it needs to be and can be automatically loaded and delivered to a jobsite, or even make it from the shop to the jobsite without him, and returned whenever he wants it to. Maybe the plumber has 4 independent toolboxes, and some of them can climb stairs on their own. Don't get stuck on problem A... not when there are solutions that go past Z.

Flip it around...

Why would you buy a car you have to drive instead of owning a horse... a horse that can take you home when you're drunk and then go feed itself. Who did the marketing research on cars anyway? Dumb idea, never going to happen.

(time passes)

Why would you own a horse? Sure, a few people, maybe rich or rural, nostalgia buffs.

Why would you buy a self-driving car?

(time passes)

Why would you own a car? Sure, a few people, maybe rich or rural, nostalgia buffs.

Same argument.


Yes, the transition will be messy and cause a lot of problems before solutions are ready. But, it's going to happen.

David...

Except the taxi isn't cheaper than the bus. And it isn't going to be, because everybody in the "value chain" has their hand out, including the vehicle manufacturers, service centers, etc...

If you don't have the tools, then sure, renting the tools for a day to do a job for someone may be the cheapest option, if all you do is that one job. But you don't. You do that job for years and years. And you may like using quality tools instead of whatever crap the rental store has. Or the rental store happens to be "out" that day (no work for you!).

Renting stuff only makes financial sense (for most situations) if you only rent it rarely.

reggie_obe
04-04-2018, 06:55 AM
The idea that SDV(s) are for someone who shouldn't be driving because of physical infirmities is flawed, those issues are usually accompanied by one or more mental issues, memory loss, cognition problems, etc. Should that person be traveling by themselves? Getting Grandma an SDV or access to an SDV service because family, friends, neighbors, etc. aren't willing to help isn't the answer.

A.K. Boomer
04-04-2018, 09:16 AM
The idea that SDV(s) are for someone who shouldn't be driving because of physical infirmities is flawed, those issues are usually accompanied by one or more mental issues, memory loss, cognition problems, etc. Should that person be traveling by themselves? Getting Grandma an SDV or access to an SDV service because family, friends, neighbors, etc. aren't willing to help isn't the answer.

Ain't that the truth - same with the "young uns" you legally cannot leave them unattended in a home alone, same goes for on the road - there will be no "convenience" this way, it cannot and will not BY LAW be used this way,

so really the only people who are going to be able to use them are the people who are capable of driving in the first place... sounds pretty stupid

danlb
04-04-2018, 12:05 PM
The idea that SDV(s) are for someone who shouldn't be driving because of physical infirmities is flawed, those issues are usually accompanied by one or more mental issues, memory loss, cognition problems, etc. Should that person be traveling by themselves? Getting Grandma an SDV or access to an SDV service because family, friends, neighbors, etc. aren't willing to help isn't the answer.

It's not really flawed. More than ever, we have a population that is older, with smaller families and, in many cases, parents that outlive their children. Even if your kids are alive, they may not be in a position to help. Drugs, age and other infirmities may keep a 60 year old "child" from being able to help their parents.

There are many ailments that interfere with driving without interfering with cognitive ability. Many are either vision or pain related.

A.K. Boomer
04-04-2018, 12:09 PM
Fact of the matter is - the more of a crutch you build the more it's going to be leaned on, your creating an even worse scenario in the long haul - like I said the people who drove the covered wagons across the nation would have buried your ass back in nebraska,

time to sac up people - drive your damn cars and quit your insignificant whining...

reggie_obe
04-04-2018, 12:19 PM
In some states, the "nanny" state for one, the larger cities have social welfare programs to provide (often free) transportation services to those who can not drive because of age or other infirmity. The County of New York does this as well. SDV's are not a safety net.

A.K. Boomer
04-04-2018, 12:30 PM
I'll tell you what's a good motivator - something we have gotten further and further away from - survival, time to sac up and get it done or get the hell off the planet.

reggie_obe
04-04-2018, 12:48 PM
I'll tell you what's a good motivator - something we have gotten further and further away from - survival, time to sac up and get it done or get the hell off the planet.

Not as simple as that. Some people do need assistance. Should we kick them all to the curb? The Vets too?

Not in favor of a hand-out, help should come in the form of a hand-up. Teach and enable people to take care of themselves, if at all possible.

Willy
04-04-2018, 12:49 PM
Oh, it's worse than that. She does not trust the technology behind my electric door lock either. It took a while to get her used to X10 home control, but after the first year she was so accustomed to it that she always let me know when it needed attention. She still balks at the idea of having our doors unlock or open as I approach them. This is despite the fact that her car does that very thing.

Fear of the unknown or different is a very common human response.

She's a very smart women Dan. She is displaying the qualities that keep us alive and vibrant as a species, it a very good quality in my opinion to question the unknown and untrusted.

A.K. Boomer, back in post #202, summed up the essence of driving very succinctly of why we should question the movement underway that threatens to take us out from behind the wheel. Truly an inspirational bit of writing to those who actually do enjoy driving and take that responsibility seriously.

However much as I would fight the mandatory legislation that would force this movement onto me I also realize that this is a subject that is very polarizing. I'll admit there is a very large segment of the population that doesn't want to drive and only do so because they have to. These folks who lack the desire to drive demonstrate their lack of enthusiasm for the process by their atrocious driving habits and lack of skills.

I know lots of folks in their 20s-40s who don't drive, never have and never will. These also seem to be the folks that push a crosswalk button in order to cross the street when there isn't a car in sight. These are the people who will lead the way to the totally autonomous vehicle. There are lots of them so get used to the fact that the movement will continue.

Commercial movement of goods will of course also be a quick adopter of this technology due to the logistics and dollars involved. Everybody seems to want a sharper pencil in this segment so it too will grow.

Life simply ain't what it was 40-50 years ago, the times they are a changing.

A.K. Boomer
04-04-2018, 01:05 PM
Not as simple as that. Some people do need assistance. Should we kick them all to the curb? The Vets too?

Not in favor of a hand-out, help should come in the form of a hand-up. Teach and enable people to take care of themselves, if at all possible.


Agreed and that was kinda harsh but think it would put more emphasis on family stepping up amongst other things instead of getting even further and further away from that which we already have, even if it could be proven that it starts to save lives on the highway keep in mind that's just talk of thousands ---- not the hundreds of millions that will be effected by this "give up attitude" mindset...

reggie_obe
04-04-2018, 01:29 PM
Addendum to post #219.

http://dailycaring.com/transportation-for-seniors-in-san-francisco-bay-area/

J Tiers
04-04-2018, 01:38 PM
SDVs are a great modern example of the same old thing that destroyed the Roman Empire.

danlb
04-04-2018, 03:49 PM
SDVs are a great modern example of the same old thing that destroyed the Roman Empire.

SDVs lead to Lead pipes? Really? Or are you referring to an alternative theory? SDVs lead to inbreeding? Nope, that's not it. SDVs lead to empires too big to rule? Ok, they might lead to that. :)

Seriously, which theory is it that SDVs will lead to that took down the Roman empire?

Dan

tomato coupe
04-04-2018, 03:52 PM
SDVs lead to Lead pipes? Really? Or are you referring to an alternative theory? SDVs lead to inbreeding? Nope, that's not it. SDVs lead to empires too big to rule? Ok, they might lead to that. :)

Seriously, which theory is it that SDVs will lead to that took down the Roman empire?

Pretty obvious, isn't it? SDVs will provide the transportation for the invading barbarian tribes.

danlb
04-04-2018, 04:08 PM
Addendum to post #219.

http://dailycaring.com/transportation-for-seniors-in-san-francisco-bay-area/

Why is it OK to provide amateur, subsidized taxi service ** to older folks but object to them having the mobility that Reggi, Willy and AK are saying is fundamental to the survival of the human race?

On the one hand you are saying that everyone should drive till they are no longer able to. You argue that it's a necessary part of life to turn a steering wheel and press a gas pedal. It's a fundamental right to be behind a wheel according to you guys.

But then you say when a person goes blind, that they have no choice but to depend on the kindness of strangers and government handouts. You would have them forced into the back of a smelly cab with a driver who they can not see who may or may not rip them off.

I really hope you guys live to reach that point. It will serve you right if you have convinced the powers that be that old folks should "sac up" and fend for themselves.

Dan
** While there are programs in some parts of the bay area, they don't cover everywhere or everybody. One very sad example is that getting a ride to visit your spouse in a distant nursing home is very low priority on most of them.

bborr01
04-04-2018, 04:18 PM
We've had self driving jets for ages (auto pilot). Why not cars?

Brian

bborr01
04-04-2018, 04:22 PM
I haven't read this thread but have been hearing a lot about the fatal crash on the news here in Arizona. There hasn't been much talk on the news, if any about the woman walking her bike across the street while she wasn't in a crosswalk or the fact that she literally walked right in front of a moving car. Who walks in front of a moving car expecting the driver to stop? Not me, that's for sure. Maybe someone who is suicidal.

This kind of accident happens all the time with a human behind the wheel but when a SDV does it the chicken littles of the world think the sky is falling.

Brian

tomato coupe
04-04-2018, 04:23 PM
We've had self driving jets for ages (auto pilot). Why not cars?

Because self driving cars would have upset early settlers in covered wagons, whereas jets with auto pilot would not have. Try to keep up...

A.K. Boomer
04-04-2018, 05:00 PM
That's a good one, and im being sincere lol

but part of what makes it so funny in the way of how much we gained also makes it sad as far as what we've lost, We did used to be allot tougher both mentally and physically, heck we did not have time to get depressed we were too preoccupied with trying to survive, now there's dozens of types of depression and you can even go on the "nipple" for it and suckle off what's left of the strong of society,
whose burden has become so great it's unsustainable, so yeah laugh - laugh away as people figure out ways to make it even worse...

again you take people from back in the day and put them in our shoe's and they would be saying "your complaining about what??? really"??? holy crap just end it now, save the effort and resources cuz your lives aren't worth a damn anyways...

tomato coupe
04-04-2018, 05:21 PM
That's a good one, and im being sincere lol

but part of what makes it so funny in the way of how much we gained also makes it sad as far as what we've lost, We did used to be allot tougher both mentally and physically, heck we did not have time to get depressed we were too preoccupied with trying to survive, now there's dozens of types of depression and you can even go on the "nipple" for it and suckle off what's left of the strong of society,
whose burden has become so great it's unsustainable, so yeah laugh - laugh away as people figure out ways to make it even worse...

again you take people from back in the day and put them in our shoe's and they would be saying "your complaining about what??? really"??? holy crap just end it now, save the effort and resources cuz your lives aren't worth a damn anyways...

You keep repeating this crazy notion that self driving cars are somehow born out of people complaining about driving; where the heck does that come from?

A.K. Boomer
04-04-2018, 05:43 PM
Ask Danlb, can bring up some of his old posts if you want???

will also add to the fact of look who's buying up the Tesla's and cars of that nature,

hardly people who "need" what your talking about due to some kind of an impairment is it? mostly all seem to be doing it for some kind of "status symbol"

check into the stats think you would have to agree....

Michael Edwards
04-04-2018, 06:22 PM
Because self driving cars would have upset early settlers in covered wagons, whereas jets with auto pilot would not have. Try to keep up...

And if you are not careful, some dirtbag hacker will give your SDV an STD. :p

danlb
04-04-2018, 06:31 PM
That's a good one, and im being sincere lol

but part of what makes it so funny in the way of how much we gained also makes it sad as far as what we've lost, We did used to be allot tougher both mentally and physically, heck we did not have time to get depressed we were too preoccupied with trying to survive, now there's dozens of types of depression and you can even go on the "nipple" for it and suckle off what's left of the strong of society,
whose burden has become so great it's unsustainable, so yeah laugh - laugh away as people figure out ways to make it even worse...

again you take people from back in the day and put them in our shoe's and they would be saying "your complaining about what??? really"??? holy crap just end it now, save the effort and resources cuz your lives aren't worth a damn anyways...

Well, since you are comparing to our ancestors.... You'd have flunked the third grade for grammar, spelling and capitalization.

You'd also have gone wonky if you were born in the covered wagon days. In those days most of the US population never ventured more than a days's ride from home. If they went 100 miles it was the trip of a lifetime. If they traveled faster than 30 miles per hour they were probably falling off a cliff.

But hey, if you want to romanticize a bunch of folks who sold everything and took a ride that might kill them in the hopes of getting rich, go for it!

A.K. Boomer
04-04-2018, 06:36 PM
Nope don't want to go back - just want to be able to retain some of the intestinal fortitude,,,

and sorry to say pal but per capita we don't have 1/10th of what those people had, recognize some of the trade offs - and at least do it before you go "poof" and turn into a total marshmallow... at least you will know the reasons why you got so soft before your mind turns to total mush and the lights go out...

here we go - when losing the debate go for the grammar --- ok dan good one you really got me there lol like i give a crap

tomato coupe
04-04-2018, 07:09 PM
Ask Danlb, can bring up some of his old posts if you want???

will also add to the fact of look who's buying up the Tesla's and cars of that nature,

hardly people who "need" what your talking about due to some kind of an impairment is it? mostly all seem to be doing it for some kind of "status symbol"

check into the stats think you would have to agree....

I don't know what any of the above has to do with the question I asked: Why you think that the development of self driving cars is driven by people who are complaining about driving?

A.K. Boomer
04-04-2018, 07:54 PM
TC there's been multiple discussions about this - im not going to spend the time searching the archives but Dans had a very tough life and he's tired of driving - he's stated how nice it would be to just not have to do it anymore and let a SDV do it for him... I distinctly remember that,
and since two of the main debaters on this subject are me and him then I think that little tidbit of info is right in tune with the answer your looking for ------------- ?

We as a species have lost gratitude, not enough to have good solid transportation with heat and even AC and safety belts and even air bags although due to secondary collisions i even think that should be buyers choice.

no - we want on board DVD players - a plethora of communication and navigational systems that all add to incredible amounts of distraction, we want more and more bells and whistles - so many it's seriously hard to call them transportation anymore... we've turned into such sloths that we don't even know how or were too lazy to park them ourselves anymore - what a joke people have become, these things are all a sign of the times and its not a good one...

My trip down memory lane is not just to point out how weak we've all become - but how spoiled and ungrateful,

time to get our asses handed to us, there is no doubt in my mind that it's right around the corner, we've earned it - were pathetic and we need to go...

tomato coupe
04-04-2018, 08:19 PM
TC there's been multiple discussions about this - im not going to spend the time searching the archives but Dans had a very tough life and he's tired of driving - he's stated how nice it would be to just not have to do it anymore and let a SDV do it for him... I distinctly remember that,
and since two of the main debaters on this subject are me and him then I think that little tidbit of info is right in tune with the answer your looking for ------------- ?
Okay, let's take is as a given that Dan has (at some point) said he is tired of driving and wants a self driving vehicle. But, you're the one who keeps repeating the argument that the motivation for developing self driving vehicles is mainly to appease people like Dan that are tired of driving. Where do you come up with that notion?

J Tiers
04-04-2018, 08:48 PM
Okay, let's take is as a given that Dan has (at some point) said he is tired of driving and wants a self driving vehicle. But, you're the one who keeps repeating the argument that the motivation for developing self driving vehicles is mainly to appease people like Dan that are tired of driving. Where do you come up with that notion?

Where do you disprove it? Dan has often suggested that, or the related point of not being able to drive.

However, the main push as I see it comes not from that, although both are mentioned as justification....

The main push seems to boil down to an "it's cool tech" argument, mixed with a "this will save a lot of money" argument. The "cool tech" people working on it are being "used" by the "we can save big $" folks..

The whole safety issue is to some extent a straw man argument, since it is obvious that for the moment, the main users of SDVs will be commercial operations wishing to get rid of the salary costs of actual drivers. There will be some rather rich folks who will own SDVs, but they are a lesser factor, more of a distraction to cloak the application to commercial vehicles.

The rest will drive regular cars, or, if those are legislated or costed off the roads, will not drive at all, and have no means of transport other than public transport and cabs.

A.K. Boomer
04-04-2018, 08:51 PM
Okay, let's take is as a given that Dan has (at some point) said he is tired of driving and wants a self driving vehicle. But, you're the one who keeps repeating the argument that the motivation for developing self driving vehicles is mainly to appease people like Dan that are tired of driving. Where do you come up with that notion?

Well then you tell me - are we too stupid? or are we too lazy? again we got cars parking themselves --- Why?

we've been doing it all along - even with trailers on the back fer cri sakes --- so if we now need help doing it because we just plain can't then it speaks for itself does it not? dumbing down on a mass scale,

and if it's because were too lazy that's just as bad - too lazy to turn a wheel and park our own cars!!! if were too lazy to park we sure the hell should not be driving them at speed!

take your pick --- and again you tell me... hint ---- no right answer...

danlb
04-04-2018, 08:57 PM
OK Boomer. You really want to live in the past. If you think we've become too spoiled, turn off your TV. And refrigerator. Real men don't buy food, they hunt it. And cure it. And die from the toxins when they get it wrong.

You really want to be a man? Throw your computer in the trash. Don't ever post here again. Instead get off your butt and mail a letter to George, just like letters to the editor of the 1970s.

And that car that you are so enamored of... That is chock full of amenities to make it easier. Cut the power steering hoses. Real men use their muscles! Connect the brakes with rods and levers like they did in the 1900s. Real men know how to pull the handle till the brake shoe catches fire. Syncromesh? Bah! Humbug. You only need one gear. If you need to back up you can always push.

But now back to reality. Sometime in the future you and I may not be able to drive. You need good vision and physical dexterity as well as good judgment to drive safely. When that time comes neither of us want to be stuck at home. We don't want to be unable to get to the store when we want, or the doctor, or the strip joint for that matter. We want to be able to get in the car and make it go where we want. You will be restricted to taxis and the kindness of strangers, if there are any that you have not pissed off. I will (hopefully) be able to go where I want when I want even if I'm using a walker at the time.

The current state of the art autonomous cars are quite capable. Those are the ones that I speak of when I say that they are close to being ready for prime time. On average they go 5000 miles in city driving without driver intervention. They are roughly as capable as a good driver under reasonable conditions. They require zero changes to the current roads or driving habits. They look funny, but that's OK. :)

As for my hard life and tired of driving... :) It's been an easy life and I'm tired of driving. There is no joy left for me in driving through town. I've done it thousands of times, and it's a hassle to dodge all the people who don't drive well. I don't get a kick out of long distance driving either. I've been on most major roads in my state, and there is little between here and there that is worth stopping for. I've noted that after 700K miles of driving without an accident that I'm becoming more accident prone. A handful of times in the last 6 months I have made a bonehead move that could have caused an accident. Stupid stuff like failing to see a car in my blind spot, or pulling wide on a right hand turn and almost hitting the car turning from the lane next to me. That's scary if you think about it.

I'm more than ready to let a well designed car take over the drudgery for me. In my case, it's the destination, not physical mechanics of the journey that count.

J Tiers
04-04-2018, 08:59 PM
When you stop "doing" and instead get "it" (whatever that is) "done for you" then you no longer CAN do it after a while.

When you no longer CAN do enough stuff, you begin to forget that that stuff is possible to do. And you can't do it.

So, if you cannot get it done by someone else, it is not done.

Then you are a helpless victim.

That is exactly where we are headed.

It's not Dan's silly "what real men do" argument, it is so many things in daily life (often called "basic life skills") that are being made "convenient". Even cooking your own meal is being "convenienced" away.

People are heading toward being incapable of functioning unless they have their very special "firstest part of the first world" environment around them to support their total incapacity to exist.

SDVs are just one part of the issue. One piece of the overall process converting people into "hot house flowers".

In many ways a process that is totally at odds with the premise of this site, and the magazines that support it.

tomato coupe
04-04-2018, 09:01 PM
Well then you tell me - are we too stupid? or are we too lazy? again we got cars parking themselves --- Why?

we've been doing it all along - even with trailers on the back fer cri sakes --- so if we now need help doing it because we just plain can't then it speaks for itself does it not? dumbing down on a mass scale,

and if it's because were too lazy that's just as bad - too lazy to turn a wheel and park our own cars!!! if were too lazy to park we sure the hell should not be driving them at speed!

take your pick --- and again you tell me... hint ---- no right answer...

You think those are the only two choices? I think you need to expand your horizons a bit - there are other reasons to develop self driving cars, and they won't all lead to the downfall of modern society.

tomato coupe
04-04-2018, 09:13 PM
When you stop "doing" and instead get "it" (whatever that is) "done for you" then you no longer CAN do it after a while.

When you no longer CAN do enough stuff, you begin to forget that that stuff is possible to do. And you can't do it.

So, if you cannot get it done by someone else, it is not done.

Then you are a helpless victim.

That is exactly where we are headed.

It's not Dan's silly "what real men do" argument, it is so many things in daily life (often called "basic life skills") that are being made "convenient". Even cooking your own meal is being "convenienced" away.

People are heading toward being incapable of functioning unless they have their very special "firstest part of the first world" environment around them to support their total incapacity to exist.

SDVs are just one part of the issue.

I guess I feel sorry for all the farmers that are helpless victims, because they don't know how to plow with a draft horse and they are using self-steering (i.e. auto guidance system) tractors.

A.K. Boomer
04-04-2018, 09:20 PM
You think those are the only two choices? I think you need to expand your horizons a bit - there are other reasons to develop self driving cars, and they won't all lead to the downfall of modern society.

That was not about SDV - that was about vehicles people drive that have SD aids on them - big difference and yes I think those two choices and also "status" or "look at me" are the three biggest reasons for owning a piece of crap like that...

A.K. Boomer
04-04-2018, 09:39 PM
Dan we've also been through that before - at whatever age it happens i commend you for seeing the writing on the wall.

if they are proven stable and a decent track record then sounds like they will do a better job than people who won't,

so be it voluntary or by means of intervention (should someone prove themselves a piss poor driver) then so be it - would be a sad day for anyone but im not against them as long as kept in check - and that means people not using them like lazy people use the self powered shopping carts at the super market,
Damn - if you really did not need to use that power cart you soon will just because your brain "thinks sloth" your body will soon follow, that is the way things work.

So keep it out of the mainstream - there's people who know this and are working hard to keep their privilege everyday and they don't want to be assimilated...

if you've reached that "stage" all i can do is offer my condolences - it sucks it's going to eventually happen to most of us, it sucks cuz once you have to step back from that then most other things will happen at an extremely accelerated rate but that's life when you get close to the end... is what it is

my main point is don't make that part of everyone else's problem that is capable of operating a motor vehicle safely ...

tomato coupe
04-04-2018, 09:41 PM
That was not about SDV - that was about vehicles people drive that have SD aids on them - big difference and yes I think those two choices and also "status" or "look at me" are the three biggest reasons for owning a piece of crap like that...

Okay, you answered a question about self driving vehicles with a statement about cars with self driving aids, and followed it up with a statement that there is a big difference between the two. Maybe you could clarify the situation by answering the original question?

A.K. Boomer
04-04-2018, 09:43 PM
Dans latest reply and my reply back should help you with that...

tomato coupe
04-04-2018, 10:04 PM
Dans latest reply and my reply back should help you with that...

It seems you are opposed to technological advances that make life's mundane tasks easier. I think you've got a life of frustration awaiting you as society evolves around you.