Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Tessy" only the beginning

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by A.K. Boomer View Post
    Your just one medically induced coma away from your wildest dreams --- your already half way there in the removal of responsibility process - why not - might as well go for it...
    "You're". It's spelled "You're". Twice in one paragraph. If you can't manage simple grammar, I can see why you distrust others to be able to do more complex things without a bunch of mistakes. Sheesh.

    But seriously, I don't see where "responsibility" comes into play here. If you get a car with speed sensitive steering, it lets you drive just a bit better. Is that somehow removing responsibility? If you have traction control you can corner better. What's the problem with that?

    In a utopia, people would not need to drive. The reason we drive is simply because we have to. Not everyone wants to. I will be happy when there is an alternative for those who can't quite get the hang of staying in their lane, keeping a steady speed or following at a safe distance. I'll be happy when a drunk gets in his car at midnight and safely gets home without endangering anyone. I'll be very happy when my blind friend can summon a taxi that will take him to his destination without worrying about the driver hassling or cheating him.

    From a design perspective, the ideal system would include a cooperative system where cars share information and negotiate their activities. That would go quite a ways towards making them more failsafe because a malfunctioning sensor would be apparent when surrounding cars report an obstacle that does not show on your car's camera, radar, etc.

    When you and I are old, blind and infirm, it will be nice to be able to go to the store to buy our groceries without having to wait for someone to take us.

    Dan
    At the end of the project, there is a profound difference between spare parts and left over parts.

    Location: SF East Bay.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by danlb View Post
      "You're". It's spelled "You're". Twice in one paragraph. If you can't manage simple grammar, I can see why you distrust others to be able to do more complex things without a bunch of mistakes. Sheesh.

      Getting a little desperate aren't we? and no wonder we cannot see all the complexities involved --- now that it's come down to nitpicking "we" don't even have the ability to do simple math --- "you're" one misspell shy of a full deck, there's three misspells of the word You're in the above paragraph - solly - had both family and friends over for some brew's last night --- what's your excuse for the inability to add whilst trying to correct someone on their grammar?

      But seriously, I don't see where "responsibility" comes into play here. If you get a car with speed sensitive steering, it lets you drive just a bit better. Is that somehow removing responsibility? If you have traction control you can corner better. What's the problem with that?
      already covered this along time ago --- speak for yourself on traction control making your car corner better, some of my parking brake initiated oversteer turns in the winter time are nothing short of a work of art,,, never could be duplicated by automation and never could achieve the same save your ass results (that's right "your" ass cuz im really to lazy to put the ' deal down with the extra letter)
      try that maneuver with traction control and you lock up the whole mess sending the car into a tizzy --- can you see why someone of my driving caliber would be upset when people try to take that option away from me? Do not try to speak for everyone out there,,, speak for yourself if you lack the abilities - but recognize the fact that not everyone is like you, some actually enjoy driving and the finer details there-of... It's upsetting to me when the drone masses dictate lesser and lesser driving options for the future vehicles - lesser and lesser options that you end up just having to leave up to the mindless twits that are programming the crap... good luck with all the unforeseeable's and they not only abound, they are ever changing variables to the point of being so complex that when it gets down to correcting the finer details certain corrections in some area's will trip up major ones in others... all the sensors in the world cannot duplicate all the variables that an intelligent human being can if they are paying attention, I have a say and a GD given right to complain,,, I do not like where things are heading - AT ALL....
      In a utopia, people would not need to drive. The reason we drive is simply because we have to. Not everyone wants to. I will be happy when there is an alternative for those who can't quite get the hang of staying in their lane, keeping a steady speed or following at a safe distance. I'll be happy when a drunk gets in his car at midnight and safely gets home without endangering anyone. I'll be very happy when my blind friend can summon a taxi that will take him to his destination without worrying about the driver hassling or cheating him.
      again your living in some kind of a dream word, stop using extreme examples for what people will have to deal with on an everyday basis... since you just want to get behind the wheel of a car and not pay attention you need to seriously check to see what the cost of a medically induced coma would set you back...
      and I really don't blame you for not liking to drive - after all you own a prius - but please don't speak for everyone - for the most part I still enjoy it - and sometimes there's actually nothing like it - enjoy it very much,,,

      From a design perspective, the ideal system would include a cooperative system where cars share information and negotiate their activities. That would go quite a ways towards making them more failsafe because a malfunctioning sensor would be apparent when surrounding cars report an obstacle that does not show on your car's camera, radar, etc.
      here again your living in some kind of fantasy world --- your not only stacking complexities on top of complexities on top of life threatening complexities - as if that's not bad enough you now want to link them all together in flawless "real time" communication without a glitch, Brilliant Dan - just fuquing brilliant... sheesh

      When you and I are old, blind and infirm, it will be nice to be able to go to the store to buy our groceries without having to wait for someone to take us.

      Dan
      One thing I am absolutely positive of --- everything in life is set up very unique --- it's use it or lose it - no exceptions just the way us biological life forms have evolved and continue to thrive if we abide by this one simple rule, from your brain and motor skills to your major muscle groups and the maintenance of everything in-be-tween

      and with your particular attitude you my friend will get old blind and infirm way before your time, kinda like a person that uses a physical crutch to walk around on when they don't really need to ---- better keep it close by because if you keep up that type of behavior - "your" gonna need it... you want to go down that way fine - but don't try to make it mandatory that I have to use one too... I simply do not need it.
      And up until recently neither did my 96 yo Mom, who just decided it was time to stop driving - not that she had an accident or even close calls but made the decision that she took it as far as she want's to go, and she did not that get that far by allowing stuff to be done for her - and that is why she's still as sharp as a tack,

      her very personality is what i talk of - it's why she's still got it going on - there is no doubt and she is very strong on this, she will not take help with anything unless she absolutely needs it - very intelligent woman with the ability to realize that it's "use it or lose it" -------- her other secret formula is just plain being grateful. two combinations where you can't go wrong...
      This along with dozens of other people I know who are life examples of the stark contrast between the two different types of mindsets that people have --- and the people who choose to "opt out" of being part of it all, including the responsibility with the consequences motivator - well generally they have opted out for good along time ago in comparison... that's what happens to sloths --- both in a physical and mental sense...
      there is already far too much "dumbing down" going on in this world today, there are just some things that will never change - Life has consequences -- as it should be - sac up and recognize this fact and take it seriously --- this is where the focus should be, not trying to remove ourselves from it even further,,, If you do not possess the ability or the foresight to realize this is a very bad thing that will lead to increasingly worse things at least realize that not everybody want's to be like you - and the way cars are going it's making it mandatory, that's why some of us are very upset...

      complications of even judging this in a tit for tat life saving contest is not even that simple, say it was proven that automated cars actually do save lives - most would say that's the most important thing - not even having enough foresight to realize the degradation it causes off the highways, the dumbing down and the taking of consequences away - the shorter lifespan because of it just in 1 not using our abilities to their fullest and 2 transferring this behavior over to other things that still do have consequences but our mindset has diminished to the point of trusting someone else is always going to catch us when we fall --- what a sick little society that would be - already enough examples of that going on right now - and you Sir just want to sign off on the go ahead to make it a whole lot worse... Nice, you simply cannot comprehend just how slippery of a slope that is...
      You look way to much for technology to solve your problems --- when in fact with certain things the answer is completely the opposite - now more than ever we need to revert and more importantly realize the reasons as to why - simple as that...

      but it won't go there - you will win this battle... that i am certain of. very sad.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by A.K. Boomer View Post
        as I stated before - try having 300 million of these POS trying to "anticipate" each others moves ---- now lets assume this goes on for awhile and many of said POS are 10 to 20 years old with sensors and connections that are subject to things like the reality of road salts/debris impacts/and just plain carrying around 10 lbs of ice on them sometimes,,, couple this to internal components that are subjected to thousands of circuit board heating and cooling cycles all heaped on top of each other with more and more co-dependency than the earlier models --- another words, most of this stuff has to work or your dead - or worse yet someone else is...


        Your argument that electronic systems will age and quit is flawed: many car systems are already dual (or triple) redundant, self-test, and report if there is a problem. Heard of an airbag going off because of a false collision detection? No, you haven't. The systems will age, but they will warn the driver of failure and shift to a back up strategy.

        Originally posted by A.K. Boomer View Post
        have any idea of the reality of what will happen with these low dollar systems in cars? I do - they will get pumped out of the factory (many with inherent flaws) never to be checked out again till failure occurs - Good luck with that....
        You must be joking- the lawyers would have a field day. I have a relative who is a very diligent software attorney- one bad line of code and you're cooked.

        Originally posted by A.K. Boomer View Post
        That's reality folks --- so please spare me the "we got it all figured out" attitude --- no you don't - you simply do not have a clue as to what you are up against...
        The reality is if we are going to have self driving cars then we can't have human driven cars. They don't mix. Self driving cars are logical machines that could conceivably operate through a central traffic control (like airspace is done).

        Human driven cars are not logical: "Everybody thinks they're a 'slightly-above-average driver' but most are barely capable of controlling a vehicle"- that's a quote from a high-performance driving instructor.

        Truth is, most drivers in the US are just plain awful with just enough skill to avoid hitting each other most of the time. Some have poor vision, some are on the phone, some are drunk, most have no idea what the braking or steering limits of their car are (a self driving car knows all of its parameters).

        If we adopt self driving cars, the vehicle death rate drops to near zero (crashes are almost always caused by a driver).

        Of course, all the fun cars, trucks, and motorcycles go away or will require a very hard-to-get license to operate on the road.
        Last edited by CarlByrns; 07-04-2016, 10:53 AM.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by A.K. Boomer View Post

          already covered this along time ago --- speak for yourself on traction control making your car corner better, some of my parking brake initiated oversteer turns in the winter time are nothing short of a work of art
          try that maneuver with traction control and you lock up the whole mess sending the car into a tizzy --- can you see why someone of my driving caliber would be upset when people try to take that option away from me?
          ROTFLMAO!

          1) A brake turn is a not a "work of art"- it's a basic maneuver that first year drivers in snow country all learn- usually in a Kmart parking lot.

          2) Applying the handbrake while in motion shuts down ABS and traction control on every car so equipped- it does not send the car into a 'tizzy'.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by CarlByrns View Post
            Your argument that electronic systems will age and quit is flawed: many car systems are already dual (or triple) redundant, self-test, and report if there is a problem. Heard of an airbag going off because of a false collision detection? No, you haven't. The systems will age, but they will warn the driver of failure and shift to a back up strategy.



            You must be joking- the lawyers would have a field day. I have a relative who is a very diligent software attorney- one bad line of code and you're cooked.



            The reality is if we are going to have self driving cars then we can't have human driven cars. They don't mix. Self driving cars are logical machines that could conceivably operate through a central traffic control (like airspace is done).

            Human driven cars are not logical: "Everybody thinks they're a 'slightly-above-average driver' but most are barely capable of controlling a vehicle"- that's a quote from a high-performance driving instructor.

            Truth is, most drivers in the US are just plain awful with just enough skill to avoid hitting each other most of the time. Some have poor vision, some are on the phone, some are drunk, most have no idea what the braking or steering limits of their car are (a self driving car knows all of its parameters).

            If we adopt self driving cars, the vehicle death rate drops to near zero (crashes are almost always caused by a driver).

            Of course, all the fun cars, trucks, and motorcycles go away or will require a very hard-to-get license to operate on the road.
            The reason we can have airliners land themselves, is because the infrastructure is designed for it. Self driving cars require the roads to meet certain specs. Either that or make a few leaps of magnitude in AI. Both are huge hurdles that make this entire idea seem like it is straight from Hollywood, starring Will Smith.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by RB211 View Post
              The reason we can have airliners land themselves, is because the infrastructure is designed for it. Self driving cars require the roads to meet certain specs. Either that or make a few leaps of magnitude in AI. Both are huge hurdles that make this entire idea seem like it is straight from Hollywood, starring Will Smith.
              That's true- no one is making CAT III ILS into little grass strips. I can see limited self driving- like creeping in rush hour traffic, but not at highway speeds.

              Comment


              • #97
                Y'all might as well get used to the idea of autonomous vehicles. They are coming and they cannot be stopped. The reason is.. they are simply a better idea.

                Consider. We have had a fatality due to a "semi-autonomous assist" feature - and we're outraged. At the same time, there are 100+ deaths per day with humans at the wheel. This tells us that we all really expect machines to be that much better.

                The issue we have is that roads are made for human drivers. So the machines have to understand human driving, traffic lights, worn or missing lane paint, traffic rules... all made for us and our senses. The fact an autonomous system works at all is amazing.

                In The Future, people won't drive. There won't be traffic lights. Or traffic signs. Instead, the roads will be fully networked. Vehicles will allocate sections of intersections for a certain amount of time and blow through them at speed. Speed will be limited by the ability of the particular vehicles and road conditions.

                Even vehicles driven by people will be integrated into the traffic network, perhaps so the autonomous vehicles can steer clear!

                The trick is the co-existence of autonomous and human-driven vehicles.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by RB211 View Post
                  The reason we can have airliners land themselves, is because the infrastructure is designed for it. Self driving cars require the roads to meet certain specs. Either that or make a few leaps of magnitude in AI. Both are huge hurdles that make this entire idea seem like it is straight from Hollywood, starring Will Smith.
                  That's very true. The infrastructure makes it easy to build an environment that is reasonably predictable. When the infrastructure breaks down (as it did in San Francisco where Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crashed) there has to be a backup system. In the case of of the Asiana Airlines flight the backup (IIRC) was manual mode and the crew performed terribly. It sure would have been nice if the plan had been equipped with an AI that could land using it's own sensors instead of relying so much on external signals such as radio beacons.

                  In the case of cars, it's a different scenario. Everything is in a state of flux, and it only works when the majority of the drivers follow the rules. All of the driver's cues are visual.

                  But how low is the bar to match a human driver?

                  Around here, the vision requirement for drivers is 20/40. That's tested at least once every 16 years. Here's a kicker; "If you are renewing your license, DMV will issue to you a 30-day temporary license if your eyesight is no worse than 20/70 with both eyes. This should give you enough time to make an appointment with your vision specialist." So 20/70 is the lower limit established by law. That's for both eyes, but if you are blind in one eye, you can still pass a driving test and retain your license. Ok, now we have 20/70 monocular vision as the minimum requirement.

                  So how well does a human have to know what to do? On a written test they need to know 8 out of 10 answers. That means they don't need to know that you turn into a skid. On the driving test you can make up to 15 'minor errors' such as driving too slow, not looking before a lane change, etc. That's 15 mistakes in a 10 minute drive and you still get a license. You get to keep driving until you have two or more accidents in a short period of time.

                  OK, so the bar is rather low. If you make an AI that can see 70 feet, without depth perception and in one direction at a time and that can follow 80 percent of the rules and make no more than 84 minor mistakes per hour, and that does not crash in that hour, you have a machine that would get it's driver's license.

                  The best in class self driving cars do much, much better. Without any special road markings, they detect and follow the roads using the same decision making process that people use. They keep track of everything in all directions using multiple sensors of various types. They double check their position using GPS without "taking their eyes off the road". They react to poor drivers with an abundance of caution, giving them plenty of room when possible. They drive a steady speed and stay in their lane. They always signal their turns and don't make last minute turns across multiple lanes. They don't cut people off.

                  Because they follow the rules so well, they could work with very simple optical sensors if they were the only cars on the road.

                  Of course, that's best in class. It will be a while before the average Joe understands the difference between an "accident avoidance system", a "lane keeping assist" and other versions of automation. After all, Hybrids have been on the road for 17 years and most people are not aware that there are multiple designs with different strengths. Several times a year I'm still asked where I plug it in to charge it. It would take a miracle for the average driver to realize that a well designed autonomous car is a better driver than virtually all the human drivers.

                  Dan
                  At the end of the project, there is a profound difference between spare parts and left over parts.

                  Location: SF East Bay.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Rain is a problem:
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs9Gr9V2mOE

                    Fog is a big problem.

                    Snow is a show stopper.

                    Night driving - experimental, not safe at any speed. Night driving in the rain or fog is a bad idea. No pizza.

                    Construction zone - reliant upon flag person gestures and signage.

                    Bicycle clusters - no information, necessarily reliant on simulation for programming.

                    Rhetorical question: Why do they all have windshields?

                    Because these vehicles are reluctant to drive aggressively they will find themselves self-organizing into long convoys on highways driving like little old ladies to the great annoyance of truckers, bikers, and other drivers. They will be too close to each other to allow 18-wheelers to pass safely. I expect to see a big market for puncture strips on heavily traveled routes.

                    Human drivers react badly to these granny cars, are distracted by the spectacle of them, and few will trust them. As a biker I don't want one behind me and I don't want one in front of me over-thinking the current context. I don't want them on the road in spring when bees are everywhere and splatting into their optics. I don't think they've been well tested in the vicinity of cell phone and gps jammers. They don't solve a problem - the still need someone on board. That is why they have windshields.

                    Comment


                    • I didn't read through the preceding but the OP tile led me to do some looking:

                      US stats for traffic fatalities: 1.1 per 100 million miles as a whole.

                      Stats for Tesla driverless operation: 0.09 per 100 million miles according

                      You're 13 times safer in a driverless Tesla? Think about it.

                      Here's an article: http://www.livescience.com/55273-fir...-fatality.html

                      By the way lumping "responsibility" arguments in a population statistics discussion is plain ridiculous. You can only connect responsibility to individual behavior. General population stats deal with (among other things) broad trends in human nature. To make such a connection is irresponsible.
                      Last edited by Forrest Addy; 07-04-2016, 02:31 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Asiana crash was due to CRM / Cultural paradigms. Asian cultures show the utmost respect to their elders or superiors. There were many pilots in that cockpit, some perhaps even noticed the auto throttle was disconnected. They don't like to question their elders, which flies in the face of proper CRM.


                        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Forrest Addy View Post
                          I didn't read through the preceding but the OP tile led me to do some looking:

                          US stats for traffic fatalities: 1.1 per 100 million miles as a whole.

                          Stats for Tesla driverless operation: 0.09 per 100 million miles according

                          You're 13 times safer in a driverless Tesla? Think about it.
                          This is silly. The Tesla is not an autonomous car - it augments but is not designed to be a delivery van. It absolutely needs a driver in the car and that driver needs to be paying attention - hands hovering over the wheel. We all would be better drivers if we thought our car was trying to kill us.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by RB211 View Post
                            Asiana crash was due to CRM / Cultural paradigms. Asian cultures show the utmost respect to their elders or superiors. There were many pilots in that cockpit, some perhaps even noticed the auto throttle was disconnected. They don't like to question their elders, which flies in the face of proper CRM.
                            Which pretty much negates the touted advantage of being well-trained.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by RB211 View Post
                              Asiana crash was due to CRM / Cultural paradigms. Asian cultures show the utmost respect to their elders or superiors. There were many pilots in that cockpit, some perhaps even noticed the auto throttle was disconnected. They don't like to question their elders, which flies in the face of proper CRM.
                              I dare say that it would not have taken much of an AI to do better than that human crew.

                              Seriously, my PC's flight simulator could accurately model a small plane AND the approach to the local airport 10 years ago, complete with force feedback to the rudders and stick. Assuming sensors and servos that work properly I can see where it would be possible to create an AI that would land the plane absent any outside guidance such as ILS depends upon.

                              Maybe it's not a problem. Most pilots don't suffer from bad judgment. Most follow the rules and procedures. Most get enough sleep and don't drink before flying. Most retire when they find that they are occasionally messing up. Maybe a totally automated system would not be additive.

                              Dan
                              At the end of the project, there is a profound difference between spare parts and left over parts.

                              Location: SF East Bay.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by CarlByrns View Post
                                ROTFLMAO!

                                1) A brake turn is a not a "work of art"- it's a basic maneuver that first year drivers in snow country all learn- usually in a Kmart parking lot.

                                lol if that's as far as you've taken the oversteer turn is a k-mart parking lot then I at least commend you at doing something most don't even attempt - and that's a sad fact, you can read about stuff in books all day long and ace your written drivers test but still not have a clue as to what to do when the real life situation arises,
                                My full control - shift on the fly -on demand - knee jerk reaction P-brake initiated power slides are just that - a work of art - unlike you iv taken it well beyond the k-mart parking lots and also not needing snow to utilize it, can be quite the game changer to say the least...

                                iv done complete and flawless 360 induced spins at the speed of 65mph on two lane (one way) deserted stretches of highway. all while matching up throttle speed for the lower scrubbed speed upon recovery and not even a hiccup of reconnecting when 259 degree's comes around to 360. perfectly flawless... as I stated - a work of art that most cannot even relate too...

                                2) Applying the handbrake while in motion shuts down ABS and traction control on every car so equipped- it does not send the car into a 'tizzy'.
                                Kind of a catch 22 there actually - most cars equipped with traction control are all time 4wd now in fact one begets the other,,, - yet another "safety feature" and I might add false sense of security for allot of the inept who think that just because their cars can accelerate better in poor conditions it must then mean they can also stop and turn twice as fast too - which is becoming all two apparent with all the flipped over vehicles after a snow storm in my neck of the woods --- usually the typical high center of gravity all time 4wd SUV with occupant that is so far removed from the driving experience that they just basically give up and don't even know how to recover from a simple mild spin,,,

                                many of these vehicles have either viscous couplings for the "all time" 4WD manual tranny's or on the auto's 4WD engagement solenoids that kick in a clutch pack when the sensors detect that the wheels have an extreme variance change in rotation...

                                what this equates to is this ---- on the standard trannies regardless of electronic disconnect of TC your screwed, you can no longer separate the drivetrain - you give a radical tug on the parking brake lever and all four wheels are drifting you off into a ditch/car/train whatever.... say goodbye to oversteer option forever - yet another example of a supposed safety feature shutting down another possibly more viable solution - maybe not for the masses - but at least for me...

                                on the automatics it widely depends on design what will happen - and there are literally 100's of different designs now, some may very well self cancel when the P brake is pulled - only to come back into play the second it is released and your still counting on the slide to induce oversteer - so the system overrides your ability, so again - just depends and just an example as the devil is in the details...

                                all im saying is it will become increasingly harder and harder for people who know how to drive to actually have any viable input - so in instances like this - skill levels will be reduced to the level to where most people are at - not having a clue - because the fail-safes will all hinge around these area's that they should know but don't - and that's where the overrides will engage...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X