|
Gary Stachelski 2021 wrote: Yes, a human being would get out of the car and look to aid the injured person before trying to move their car (unless they panicked and simply drove away.)
Not sure I agree with that.
Not even sure I agree that that is the best action to take.
As I noted in that was a highway. And at night.
Not sure about you but for me slamming on the brakes at any time on a highway is not something that I consider safe. Not for me and not for the cars behind me.
Also as a driver I have been in an accident where I had no idea what had happened. Also on a highway. So the 'correct' behavior becomes much less clear.
Gary Stachelski 2021 wrote: the self driving car needs to have it's software upgraded to include the case where a body is thrown in front of it,
For a driverless vehicle that means programming every possible scenario. That is just not going to happen.
Some examples.
I have been on a higher speed road and the car in front of me hit a bumper that fell off another car and it launched the bumper into my car.
I have seen a car that was side swiped (literally knocked off the road) because it came from behind and speed up in a turn lane besides a long line of stopped cars and one of the cars in the stopped line decided to change lanes abruptly. I saw the car speed up because I was further down the line of cars. Not sure it was even visible to the car that changed lanes.
I have seen a bicyclist going the wrong way down a one way street at night with no lights and moving quickly. I actually know that person and he had previously been in a accident doing the exactly the same thing except that time he was hit and went flying over the car.
Note that in these scenarios it is not only that the car must be programmed to handle it but that the car maker must be able to show that what it did was the correct and best way to handle it.
Gary Stachelski 2021 wrote: Will software ever be up to the challenge? I honestly don't know.
That however is the point. When those accidents do occur the car maker will be sued for large amounts of money.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it will - instead, I think the public opinion will shift to revulsion at the whole idea of manually driving a car. Think about existing legislation: seat belts, ABS, speed limiters, the recent whole-of-Wales reduction of the default speed limit to 20mph from 30 - it's all about increasingly small reductions in death and serious injury; self driving offers that a large reduction (which will be touted as a total prevention) may be possible and there isn't a politician who dares fight that! Car companies being sued as a result of their products failing? It happens already and they probably have a budget for it because it's cheaper to be sued than to do the job properly ... 
And as the number of self driving cars increases and the communication between them (to increase safety and economy) rises as well the accident rate will plumet as a result. When humans realise that they can do what they want (legally) while the car does the work they will leap at the chance to browse social media, messages, phone calls, alcohol, drugs, tv, pr0n, ... Stuff they do at the moment anyway while they are supposed to be in control!
I don't commute any more, but my regular commute was an hour each way with the lemmings on a motorcycle and the things I've seen while traffic is moving at 70mph was horrific, phones, texts, newspapers, even one guy with his lappie propped open on the dashboard typing away and steering with his elbows!
Self driving cars will (eventually) be safer: and they are - probably - the future whether we like it or not.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: It happens already and they probably have a budget for it because it's cheaper to be sued than to do the job properly ... 
Didn't this famously happen in the '70s with the Pinto, which had a design flaw making it liable to bursting into flames in an accident, but it would have been more costly to retool than to pay out when it caught fire?
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've had almost the same thoughts about autonomous vehicles. There's a whole range of accidents that occur because meat sacks are in control. Have you ever arrived at your destination and realized you have no clear memory of the journey? There's other things our brain does to edit reality. There's a well known example of a group of people asked to watch a football match, and answer questions afterwards. The first question is "Did you notice the guy in the gorilla suit?" Most people miss it. Because your brain edits it out as "not important" to the football game. Similarly with driving - or really any activity.
My thought is that several things are going to happen. Firstly, insurance companies are going to look at the numbers and raise the rates on non-autonomous vehicles, to the point where the average Joe is going to be motivated to move to an AV. Then, as non AV's move into the minority, and communication between AVs becomes standardized, NAVs will be required to have transponders that alert AVs to their presence. Eventually, NAVs will be banned, except in tightly controlled situations (e.g. parades, etc).
I expect that as the technology grows, there will be some terrible incidents. But like the airline industry, investigations and recommendations will continue to make AVs safer over time.
"A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants"
Chuckles the clown
|
|
|
|
|
It isn't a matter of whether they can be safer.
It is what will happen every single time that any sort of accident does occur.
|
|
|
|
|
Slightly distracting from your main point, maybe, but what I don't understand about self-driving cars is that everybody is doing his own thing.
Why not make this a collaborative effort? So when one unanticipated scenario comes up, someone writes a fix once, the community at large tests it (like bug fixes in open source - in theory) and every manufacturer gets to benefit from it. It seems to me things would evolve a lot more quickly than having everyone roll his own version, no?
Is this a matter of patents? Or each car manufacturer using different types of sensors, so there isn't one common/re-usable source of data that can be acted upon?
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: Why not make this a collaborative effort?
There have been attempts of making suppliers and OEMs work together, there are government funded projects but everyone thinks they can do it better than the other, AND the first one coming with an affordable and reliable solution will kill all other. Trust me, I have been working for 20 years in this industry, and the answer to your "why" is that it is run by human beings with emotions.
|
|
|
|
|
Rage wrote: the answer to your "why" is that it is run by human beings with emotions.
How very true.
|
|
|
|
|
In the US, such an effort (unless run by the Government) might run up against anti-trust law.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I wasn't suggesting someone should own a monopoly on the technology...rather, it should be a collaborative effort among all car manufacturers. And if that was managed, in turn, by the government, then there's no chance of anyone running afoul of any anti-trust law...
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: by the government, then there's no chance of anyone running afoul of any anti-trust law... getting anything done.
FTFY
>64
There is never enough time to do it right, but there is enough time to do it over.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I did think of that when I wrote it. 
|
|
|
|
|
Aren't all auto mobiles self driving?
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like this passed way over everybody's head. Good one, though 
|
|
|
|
|
The very thought that in the coming two generations, people are likely be unaware of ...
(a) manual transmission, (b) actual "driving while sitting in the driver's seat", (c) there's something called driving licence ...
is somewhat unsettling.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure that an engineer of 60 years ago, told that (a) mental arithmetic, and (b) use of slide rules would disappear would feel the same way.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
They won't.
But self-driving cars only make sense in a closed system where all of the cars talk to each other and nothing squishable gets on the roadway.
As long as they don't interoperate with each other -- between makes as well -- and as long as there are non-affiliated (human-driven) cars on the road and people and animals can cross the roadway -- the system just can't work.
The current research is fine for ironing out the bugs in preparation for making an eventual future city with a closed road system.
I need to watch Logan's Run again.
|
|
|
|
|
A closed system, like a warehouse or construction yard, is not comparable to a city.
Consider what happens if there is an accident in a warehouse.
- Immediate stoppage of most everything.
- Immediate response to the injury
- Any claims of monetary damage, at least in the US, usually are limited to actual provable damages and might even be covered solely by workers compensation.
Additionally, especially in a warehouse, the unexpected is very low. No cows or bears. No high speed chases (cars or foot). No broken water mains.
In a city none of that is true.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: In a city none of that is true.
Current cities, no. But in an idealized city of the future... maybe. Maybe not.
|
|
|
|
|
Greetings and Kind Regards
I assume Science / Technology march on ever forward. Sooner or later self-driving cars will be more or less perfect. I am rather surprised their legality occurred so quickly. I have always wondered why that was so as I assume a self-driving car would not know what to do in response to this not unusual situation Dancing policeman: America's most entertaining traffic cop - YouTube[^] .
Then of course is the matter of software attacks which I find frightening.
|
|
|
|
|
BernardIE5317 wrote: I assume Science / Technology march on ever forward. Sooner or later self-driving cars will be more or less perfect
That is a fantasy.
The real world is limited not only by physics but by other things as well such as economics and popular perception.
So for example faster than light travel is never going to happen because it is just not possible. Hypotheticals that attempt to circumvent that are even more fantasy and even more so driven by those other factors.
It is not possible to recycle any with a 100% efficiency. It is not possible to create any process that even close to being 100%.
It is not possible to have no one that is poor. Physically not everyone can have a plane. There just is not enough airspace not to mention how to pilot it. And if you avoid the physical limitations then people would still find a way to differentiate themselves. So for example those who can create poetry would be rich and those that can't would be poor.
Nuclear power can not only provide significant power but also significantly reduce pollution. But that requires that you be able to convince the population to let you build them. Especially in the numbers needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Greetings and Kind Regards
I am not certain the relevance of your observations re/ self-driving cars but please permit a few comments of my own.
re/ faster than light travel : In 1000y we will learn how to bend space and time to our will. Just as the visiting Space Aliens are doing. If they can so can we.
re/ recycle : No doubt you are correct if for no other reason the general public is unconcerned and uncooperative. Exempli gratia I learned only today coal can be converted to animal feed. Amazing. "Science Marches On"
re/ poverty : This is not obvious to myself. I imagine a time in future in which robotic economy transforms the world to a lazy man's paradise where all needs are met.
re/ airplanes : No doubt you are correct. I for one do not wish to own one.
re/ poetry : No doubt you are correct. Exempli gratia "Roses are Red Violets are Blue I do not Know How to Fly Please Where is the AirCrew?" I have proven your kind self correct.
re/ Nuclear Power : I am rather optimistic in particular re/ so called "micro-reactors". Otherwise you are of course correct. Things always depend on something. Somehow the Pyramids got built.
A few parting thoughts from Arthur C. Clarke :
"The one fact about the future of which we can be certain is that it will be utterly fantastic."
“The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible.”
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
|
|
|
|
|
BernardIE5317 wrote: In 1000y we will learn how to bend space and time to our will. Just as the visiting Space Aliens are doing. If they can so can we
There are no aliens here because they can't exceed the limit either.
If they could then they would have populated the planet long before we existed.
BernardIE5317 wrote: coal can be converted to animal feed. Amazing. "Science Marches On"
The sources for those claims are suspect.
BernardIE5317 wrote: I imagine a time in future in which robotic economy transforms the world to a lazy man's paradise where all needs are met.
You can also imagine a world where fairies are enslaved and they use magic to produce everything.
But I already addressed that.
First there are some commodities which cannot physically be allowed for all that want it. Like private planes. Not enough airspace. Not enough runways.
Second in such a society as I said humans will seek to differentiate themselves in other ways. And thus, as an example, creative talents such as poetry might be used to meet that need. And some will not have the talent. So they will be poor.
BernardIE5317 wrote: I am rather optimistic in particular re/ so called "micro-reactors".
They are in fact micro. And they still must be built somewhere.
BernardIE5317 wrote: A few parting thoughts from Arthur C. Clarke :
Few things about quotes is that they are nothing but quotes. They don't change reality.
Technology does not increase forever because reality does not increase forever. As an example the increasing speed of computers which once was described with a quote has now reached a very real physical limit.
|
|
|
|
|
re/ speed limit : Traveling through bent space / time does not exceed c.
re/ aliens : Have you met with them? Is that how you know so much about them?
re/ magical fairies : In 100y robots will be so. They will only require natural resources for manufacture.
re/ micro reactors : Everything needs to be built somewhere. Just like the pyramids and coal burning power plants.
re/ computer speed : I recall reading something about Quantum Computers recently also Photonic computers. "Science Marches On"
Where you Charles H. Duell in a previous life?
btw Why all the blank spaces? Never mind. It seems to be related to quotes something I never do as I consider it rude. Though I do not see why they are inevitable. Here is an experiment.Quote: Here is a quote.
No needless space.
modified 10-Jan-24 2:02am.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
