Self-Driving Car: Is it a big deal?

[brianman]

I wonder what the debate will be like when self driving cars decide to hit an animal in the road instead of swerving to avoid it...

Ooh these are fun.

"He was asking for it."
"What kind of animal?"
"Was the animal signaling?"
"How do I get off this thread?"
"Did it damage the battery?"

 

[TEG]

Oh look! A shark in the road! I better jump it!

 

[brianman]

Thank you TEG for that last video link.

 

[chickensevil]

An autonomous car does need to be 100%. Otherwise it isn't autonomous. Just cool drivers assist. Whole different ball game.

If it is fully autonomous for 90% of the roads, then I would say that it is autonomous depending on the situation... don't take the car on some back country roads and you will be fine. And the key piece of interstate driving, if they can make that work at 100% then that would be enough to say from a legal sense that if you are on the interstate and you have the car in auto-pilot/whatever then you can do whatever you want because the car is capable of being fully in control. As the example was given, it will work like in "I, Robot" where you drove the car yourself until you hit the special highway in which you could turn the driving over to the car. I would also hope at some point this enables them to let us raise the speed limits on the highway since the computer will be able to react faster than a human.

I would think the second wave of autonomous driving will be it working 100% in major metropolitan areas... which as I said, 70% of the US Population lives in a major metropolitan area. So unless you go to visit your grandparents farm in nowhere Kansas... you will be fine, and it will be 100% autonomous. This will enable a new brand of "zip-2" or "lyft" where you hail an autonomous taxi that will be able to take you where you want to go within a certain limit.

The last and final hurdle, which may very well never be fully overcome, is unmarked country roads. But again, that doesn't mean you aren't 100% autonomous under certain conditions. I again go back to my example of how 20% of the US population still doesn't even have the internet. Yet, almost the entire US market relies on the internet in order to function. Autonomous cars will be the same way, it will work in most areas, but not all... so if you want to venture into the Australian outback, I'm sorry, you will just have to drive yourself out there...

 

[ElSupreme]

... until you hit the special highway ...

I've been saying the whole time autonomous cars are easily doable with dedicated infrastructure. And autonomous vehicles that can't go door to door aren't in the same league as interstate cruising. One requires a able driver, the other does not. Autonomous implies no outside decision making is required.

I think that the US interstate system is probably in good enough shape (perhaps with the exception of construction zones, and a few poorly engineered urban areas) where autopilot, with potential lane changing even, could probably be done. But it still requires a semi-alert driver.

 

[HankLloydRight]

Johnny Cab - Video Dailymotion

Total Recall Johnny Cab - YouTube

 

[chickensevil]

Johnny Cab - Video Dailymotion

Total Recall Johnny Cab - YouTube

Obviously that is how you do a manual override when the google car comes to pick you up

 

[Jaff]

I think what you all fail to realize is that autonomous cars (or even highly unsophisticated autopilot) doesn't have to be 100% perfect in order for it to happen and work on a shared road... I mean something like 5 states are already allowing it...

Whoa...not at all sure I will be taking a seat in an autonomous car that is only 90% perfect for any specific function...It had bl**dy well be 1000% perfect before I ride in one...Lawyers would have a grand old time with autonomous vehicle that only works 90% of the time..."only 90%" efficiency in a specific task increases the variable outcomes of using such function and many of these outcomes are downright dangerous scenarios...remember why the instruction manual for your lawnmower states (to the effect) that you should not be picking it up whilst operating to trim your hedge!...this is the "legal mentality" of what you are dealing with here, except that an autonomous vehicle will be held to the highest standard... the 5 states are not allowing it in the consumer sense...they are allowing it to be test driven by the stakeholders involved...huge difference...

 

[chickensevil]

Whoa...not at all sure I will be taking a seat in an autonomous car that is only 90% perfect for any specific function...It had bl**dy well be 1000% perfect before I ride in one...Lawyers would have a grand old time with autonomous vehicle that only works 90% of the time..."only 90%" efficiency in a specific task increases the variable outcomes of using such function and many of these outcomes are downright dangerous scenarios...remember why the instruction manual for your lawnmower states (to the effect) that you should not be picking it up whilst operating to trim your hedge!...this is the "legal mentality" of what you are dealing with here, except that an autonomous vehicle will be held to the highest standard... the 5 states are not allowing it in the consumer sense...they are allowing it to be test driven by the stakeholders involved...huge difference...

1: How is this a huge difference? No matter how you look at it regular old people are being put "at risk" by allowing these "dangerous" vehicles on the road to drive in the same traffic as everyone else. So while the person at the wheel may or may not work for the company pushing/testing the technology, I doubt the random person beside them does. So the state has allowed this legal risk to happen.
2: The car you drive today is not 1000% perfect... no car is. Things fail all the time. Tires fall off cars, brakes lock up, ignition keys fail, and people die... and that doesn't even take into account the driver error piece. The vast majority of motor vehicle accidents are caused by driver error... not some mechanical or computer failure. So the fact that you already accept that risk means you should have no issue accepting the much lower risk of trusting a computer to drive for you in the more predictable scenarios... i.e. the interstate highway system (or whatever your equivalent is in Canada).

Insurance companies would love this, because there would be fewer accidents. The less accidents there are the more they get to just sit there and collect on premiums everyone is paying for, for a service noone is using. Who do you think the insurance companies like more, the guy who has driven for 20 years without ever filing a claim or the guy who has driven for 20 years with one accident every other year?

Any computer failure that causes an accident would be the cost of doing business and would be covered under your insurance. Failure to keep your car in serviceable condition or some such. You would also accept that the system is not 100% perfect (because there is no way it will ever be 100% perfect... that is an impossibility) and that will be that... Legal basis covered unless you can prove malicious intent by the manufacturer of a known flaw that they intentionally hid or didn't do their due diligence to overcome. Just the same as any other flaw that comes up in a car that causes an accident.

 

[HankLloydRight]

1: How is this a huge difference? No matter how you look at it regular old people are being put "at risk" by allowing these "dangerous" vehicles on the road to drive in the same traffic as everyone else. So while the person at the wheel may or may not work for the company pushing/testing the technology, I doubt the random person beside them does. So the state has allowed this legal risk to happen.

It's a HUGE difference between employees in these cars testing the capabilites of these cars, with multiple laptops constantly connected watching and analyzing every decision made by the car, and tweaking it when it needs to. These test cars also have huge EMERGENCY STOP buttons on the dash to disengage the auto-driving in case of, you know, an EMERGENCY! The drivers of these test cars are watching and analyzing everything while driving, and are ready to react on a split-second notice.

That's a HUGE difference than "regular old people" driving autonomous cars and not paying attention to the road, because they think the car is self driving. The states that currently allow it, only allow if for a small number of companies running a very small number of test cars -- in California, these companies need to apply for a permit first. It's not like any company or person can put a self-driving car on the road just for testing.

So yeah, it is a huge difference. Just because a few highly monitored test cars may be on the road does not equate to these states or their residents blindly accepting the risks of self-driving cars.

 

[Mycroft]

Adam Jonas sees the writing on the wall:

"Our team has come to the realization that a prosecution of our craft along traditional lines will fade to irrelevance, ultimately ending in extinction," begins the existential note "Death of an Auto Analyst," by Adam Jonas, head of global auto research at Morgan Stanley.

Driverless cars and the end of individual ownership are coming faster than anyone thinks, he says. A great disruption is coming, and the message to his industry is clear: adapt or die. "In the internet of things, the automobile is the ultimate 'thing'. Without embracing the change, we have no future as auto analysts," he writes.

Auto Analyst Predicts The End Of The Industry As We Know Them - Business Insider

Believe me, driverless cars are INEVITABLE and coming sooner than folks imagine. If you know anyone who makes their living by driving, that should start training for a new occupation immediately.

 

[AnOutsider]

I don't know how soon is soon, but I can see truckers getting paid a LOT less in the future simply to monitor the vehicle as it drives.

 

[HankLloydRight]

I don't know how soon is soon, but I can see truckers getting paid a LOT less in the future simply to monitor the vehicle as it drives.

I don't see that, and here's why. The guy who invented the waterless urinal thought it was a great invention that saved money in installations, saved water processing, cheaper to manufacture and maintain.. but he ran into trouble with every plumber and pipefitter union in the nation who didn't want to lose their work of plumbing public bathrooms in large buildings, very profitable work. So in order to avoid millions of dollars in legal fees, blockades and questionable union antics, he settled with them all with the agreement that any building that wants the waterless urinals will also have to plumb and fit all the regular plumbing and fittings, but leave them dry, in case some point in the future, the owners want to revert to the old technology. Yeah, great solution -- they have to pay the unions anyway.

I don't see trucking with "auto-pilot" any different. The unions will demand that wages stay the same (or improve), or they'll strike and nothing will get transported.

So, yet another non-technological roadblock in the adoption of "self-driving" vehicles.

 

[AnOutsider]

While that's certainly a possibility, it's hardly a definite. Tesla has proven that molds can be broken, and state-by-state they're disrupting the status quo.

Besides, there are plenty of independent truckers that would love the technology as well. It's equally as likely we'll see this scenario: If I can charge slightly less per mile because my truck is partly autonomous and I get to "drive" longer, than I will likely land more jobs. Pretty soon, to be competitive you'll need to be autonomous.

 

[HankLloydRight]

While that's certainly a possibility, it's hardly a definite. Tesla has proven that molds can be broken, and state-by-state they're disrupting the status quo.

Besides, there are plenty of independent truckers that would love the technology as well. It's equally as likely we'll see this scenario: If I can charge slightly less per mile because my truck is partly autonomous and I get to "drive" longer, than I will likely land more jobs. Pretty soon, to be competitive you'll need to be autonomous.

But there are pretty strict laws about how many hours a trucker can drive each day. Having "auto-pilot" isn't likely to change those laws just because the trucker is paying less attention to the road.

Those laws would also have to change.

 

[Skotty]

I would also like to add that there is potentially a huge difference between "capable of autonomous driving 90% of the time" and what Elon actually was quoted as saying "A Tesla car next year will be 90% capable of autopilot".

1) "autopilot" does not equate to autonomous driving.
2) 90% capable of autopilot does not equate to autopilot 90% of the time. It only says that when you can use "autopilot", it will be 90% capable.

 

[HankLloydRight]

Also, he said "A Tesla car next year will be 90% capable of autopilot". so to me, that means ONE Tesla car, a test/beta car will be ready for 90% auto-pilot (however Tesla defines that)... and not that "All Tesla cars sold next year will be 90% capable of autopilot". Big difference.

 

[GregA]

Self drive will come. How soon is the question. If unions prevent truck drivers from losing their jobs, then China will laugh at the countries that don't have their cargo transported securely and automatically.

The implications are huge as a few people have said. Countries with fully automated driving won't need parking at shopping malls or railway stations (or at the very least the car could park itself 2km away). My car could drive back home after dropping me at work and be used by my wife. But really - why own a car at all when I can have the convenience of a car without the price - and perhaps cars can pick up several passengers as a new form of public transport.

There will also be moral questions once a car is capable of determining multiple choices and risks of injury based on those choices before it actually starts a choice. But forget single lane streets - if a truck suddenly veers towards me from the other side of a highway and the car can but hit a motorcyclist, or let the truck hit - that's going to be a choice that is programmed. As said earlier, do you swerve to avoid an animal or not?

With Teslas new auto pilot, if I'm in a traffic jam the car could theoretically detect a car coming up behind me at 40mph - but it'd only detect it at the last moment. Could it accelerate at that last moment, still having the other car hit the back, but somewhat protecting kids in the back seats by lessening the impact (and still hitting the car in front). It's easier to make simple choices (and quicker for computer response).

It'll happen, but there'll be some important choices.

 

[Jaff]

A direct quote from the blog on the official Tesla Motors site ...

"our goal with the introduction of this new hardware and software is NOT to enable driverless cars, which are still years away from reality." ...

 

[andrewket]

Thank you TEG for that last video link.

Big plus 1. Hilarious. Only thing better would be dub Elon's voice over it.