First Ground Up Driverless Vehicle To Be On Road in 2015

Discussion in 'Tech Talk - Gadgets, Gizmos and Technology' started by Drucifer, Dec 23, 2014.

  1. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    Would these be belt-fed or hopper-fed paintball launcher? :)

    I like your comparisons of the two companies and their approaches. well said.

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  2. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    24,526
    1,406
    Nov 13, 2006
    In what world has Google ever had a car doing 80 come across a situation that was identical to how that guy ended up dead? They haven't. The only reason they may even start to really look at it is because of what happened. Frankly everybody is likely to be helping everyone else in some ways on this technology. Everyone will be ifit from everyone else's mistakes and advances as all cars always have. Otherwise most cars wouldn't have air bags...

    And Google isn't in competition with tesla or doing what they are. Google wants a car that has no steering wheel and to license the tech to everyone. Tesla wants to build a car that's safer than everyone else and then also add autopilot and is using the feedback to help alter and create better software from real world driving. Everyone suddenly claiming one accident means tesla has failed and Google's method is better is absurd. There's no where near enough info to make that kind of judgement. Ask again in ten years and then we will see, maybe.

    Heck what will happen the first time someone gets killed in a car powered by Google software after their perceived far longer gestation period? Will they call the entire concept a total failure since Google after years still couldn't prevent a death?

    My real point is Google can't perfect their software till it's in real conditions with actual regular cars on freeways and highways with other non autonomous cars no matter how much they test the way they are now. They will have issues when it gets unleashed.

    Google doesn't want to release until it's a far different type of system than teslas is today... tesla isn't trying to hit a home run with its first at bat. Google will be.

    Personally I find it's a lot harder to hit home runs don't you?
     
  3. yosoyellobo

    yosoyellobo Icon

    2,947
    223
    Nov 1, 2006
    Jacksonville Fl
    I don't ever expect Google or any other software to be perfect. That is why I don't really fear the upcoming robot revolution. If I am wrong you could sue my life estate.
     
  4. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    24,526
    1,406
    Nov 13, 2006
    Tesla lost? What did they lose exactly? The first company to have a death when the car wasn't completely dependent on the driver? You think Google and everyone else won't have that happen someday? You'd be naïve to think

    It's a sad thing, but we all had to know someone would die someday from an auto pilot feature on a car. Tesla was out first and therefore seemed like the company it'd happen to first and it did. Was it irresponsible for the car manufactures the first time an air bag killed a person who wasn't buckled into their seat properly because it wasn't explained well enough?

    Paint guns really? To funny. Might as well have made an argument that we need any new gun control laws to also include outlawing people from buying advanced fighter jets because they can be as dangerous as a gun...

    As for complacency or safety... probably both... but that begin when people started trying on cell phones and smart phones over home phones and calculators and a note pad and a pen.
     
  5. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    24,526
    1,406
    Nov 13, 2006
    How dare you be reasonable... :)
     
  6. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    Actually it was in the real world. Google worked on highway driving first. It's much easier. That is when they realized humans generally can't pay attention if they don't need to.

    Twas you that indicated Tesla is pressuring Google and others. My reply was to that point.



    My point is Tesla was irresponsible to release a feature that is patently unsafe insofar as it relies on humans paying attention watching paint dry. Humans generally can't do it.

    Yes, people will die in Google cars. The promise is that fewer will die in Google cars than in normal cars. Let us celebrate that, rather than look for the impossible perfect car.

    As for the sports metaphor, Tesla is playing baseball with rocket propelled balls, no batter's helmet, no catcher's mask or padding, and no gloves for the players on the field. More dangerous than regular baseball. The only choice is to hit it out of the park.

    Or we could skip the meaningless metaphor altogether. As this isn't a percentage of attempts game. The goal is to make cars safer. After these experiences, there are very few ways to release partial feature sets that are safer. Anything that requires the human to pay attention for long periods of semi-autonomous driving will be less safe. And thus irresponsible to release.

    So Google has the right idea--test, test, test. First in controlled environments, then in less controlled environs, all the way up to fully uncontrolled, normal, everyday driving. It will take time, but unlike hitting a homerun, this is more like a marathon. You map the plan, set the milestones and provisions along the way, and keep moving forward to success.



    Peace,
    Tom
     
  7. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    49,301
    1,714
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The first time? That depends on how predicable that death was. There was an abundance of evidence that Tesla's autopilot was being misused (to the point where they changed the software). Once people without seatbelts were killed by airbags manufacturers took action: Disabling airbags when seatbelts were not in use. An appropriate response. Did Tesla go far enough in their response to evidence of dangerous driving?


    Can be? I should think they are as dangerous as a gun. Just like a Tesla in the hands of a distracted driver. Fortunately this particular bullet didn't strike a school bus or van load of kids after the collision with the semi. The accident could have been worse.
     
    1 person likes this.
  8. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    Directly, Tesla lost market value. And they may have some SEC violations awaiting.

    They have a perception problem with some potential owners. And a PR problem.

    Not from the fact that someone died in their car, but that someone died because they released software that is perhaps negligently unsound. They can't rely on humans paying attention and the software isn't ready for fully autonomous driving.

    The next potential losses will come after the NHTSA findings. They might find Tesla was irresponsible for assuming humans can stay awake with nothing to do. Certainly Google's experiences should have been a lesson and warning. And they might find Tesla liable for damages. Or let the courts decide that, should the family sue.

    This isn't a game of sandlot baseball where nobody keeps score, everyone has a few beers afterward, and plays for bar honors. :)

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  9. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    Bingo! Negligence is continuing to do or not do in light of known dangers. Even if Tesla hadn't learned from Google, they showed they learned from their own fan videos. Yet not enough to protect drivers.

    I'm not saying this accident was preventable via an awake driver nor with better software. I'd like to think it would be, yet I realize accidents will happen. I'm saying it feels negligent to release something less than fully autonomous and yet has known issues.

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  10. dennisj00

    dennisj00 Hall Of Fame

    9,690
    196
    Sep 27, 2007
    Lake Norman, NC
    First let me say I'm in the Tesla camp because I've ordered one - several weeks to be delivered, and have driven both the S and X over 100 miles in autopilot.

    From that experience, I don't ever see a fully autonomous car (Google) with no steering / pedals ever on our roads until they have communication with each other. That will take decades to achieve - no matter the safety record.

    From my experience with driving the AP of Tesla, it takes some confidence building, much like sitting in the passenger seat and depending on your spouse or significant other or just the driver you're not familiar with, to get use to the lane centering, acceleration and handling that you wouldn't be comfortable with yourself. But once you realize it's really in control - and monitor that control - it does a great job.

    Would I climb in the back seat? No. It does nag you to put your hands back on the wheel. Haven't tested if it shuts down if you don't.

    I don't think it's a loss for Tesla. I think they added to their data points that they're sharing with the NTSB. There will always be accidents that may not be preventable who ever is driving. If the system cuts the carnage by 50%, who loses?

    I've gathered all my board games, scrabble, backgammon, Monopoly -- unfortunately Monopoly won't fit in the glove box and will probably get spread over the back seat!

    Looking forward to becoming an owner.
     
  11. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    49,301
    1,714
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I do not consider "autodrive" to be a safety feature. To be a safety feature it has to be better than the alternative. Is autodrive safer than an attentive, alert driver? Or is it just safer than the average distracted driver?

    If the car sees that it is better to speed up or slow down or change lanes why didn't the human driver make that choice? Is the car paying more attention to the road than the driver?


    Not my brand, but I can't get this commercial out of my mind:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFkTEwtxX5c
     
  12. billsharpe

    billsharpe Hall Of Fame

    2,991
    124
    Jan 25, 2007
    Southern...
    Truly self-driving cars will work if ALL the cars on the road are self-driving. At least at this stage of development there are too many poor drivers around for software to handle all the mistakes these drivers make.

    I turn off cruise control when traffic is heavy. In the LA area it's always off. It's only on during long trips out of town.
     
  13. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    I (and Google) disagree.

    Though I bet we agree that having humans behind the wheels of some cars on the road makes the whole problem much more difficult. And controlling bicycles, driving scooters/wheelchairs, etc. :)

    And why the computing power is pretty impressive in these cars. They have many competing heuristics to balance in looking for safe passage while traveling faster than 5 mph. :)

    Listening to and reading the commentaries of the engineers is incredibly insightful. They run into situations no one would think of on their own. Millions of miles to go before Google is ready (and they know it). :)

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  14. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    One more thought from Bill Sharpe's comment.

    I also agree that some of the promise of fully autonomous cars, closer packing of cars on the road fro instance, can't really happen until nearly all the cars are fully autonomous and conversing.

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  15. yosoyellobo

    yosoyellobo Icon

    2,947
    223
    Nov 1, 2006
    Jacksonville Fl
    I surpose that to Google driving at 65 might in the long run be easer the crawling along at 25. Less kids, animals, lawn mowers, etc.
     
  16. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    49,301
    1,714
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Less inputs processed faster? Less time to decide if the object detected ahead is a threat that needs to be avoided by stopping or veering around.

    For now the slower speeds allow the human "monitors" to make sure the computers are right. Life happens fast at 65 MPH.
     
  17. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    If one considers environments rather than speed, highway driving is a much simpler problem than stop and go city traffic. Far fewer moving parts, mostly moving in the same direction. :)

    Google started first with highways and had that down before moving to city streets. It had been their plan to release a semi-autonomous mode for highway driving--until they learned humans can't watch paint dry. :)

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  18. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    49,301
    1,714
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The fatality rate is much higher at 65 MPH than 25 MPH. Side impact fatality rate is fairly high at 45 MPH. Of course, fatality rates only matter if there is an accident. But a cautious approach isn't a bad thing.

    A driver makes a mistake ... what are the repercussions? At 25 MPH slight injury is more likely than death. At 65 MPH death becomes more likely. Each speed has it's own challenge but the potential penalty is higher at higher speeds.

    Some of the rural interstates I have driven were like watching paint dry. Cruise control helps me not drift up and down in speed (mostly up trying to get that segment of road over with). If the road gets too boring I'll change to a state route that is more interesting to drive.
     
  19. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    24,526
    1,406
    Nov 13, 2006
    Your argument makes no sense because you assume everyone is always operating their car properly. And we have seen videos where the tesla was able to swerve and avoid an accident. Some have said, yes, but look at how far it swerved etc. OI say, show me any human that always knows when and how far over they can swerve without hitting another vehicle as well as a car using all its sensors constantly.

    Your argument would basically say that air bags dont add to safety either because a perfectly alert person would never get in an accident, which is of course the best alternative to having an air bag.

    Auto pilot is a better alternative to someone falling asleep at the wheel or getting distracted by someone else spilling a coffee, or any number of other things that can happen, not to mention better reflexes than some people who drive that are much older...

    I would like to know how they have set up the cars for dealing with things like slick roads and icy roads. They might be better than some people who don't know how to steer if they start hydroplaning etc... Another possible saftey feature.


    Autopiloit can be a big safety feature for anyone that is to tired to be driving and dowsing off... That's an obvious saftey feature too over someone just losing control.
     
  20. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    24,526
    1,406
    Nov 13, 2006
    I have never once seen Tesla say that people should use AP and not pay attention to driving, so its the drivers that are negligent are they not? And at what point do you say, I have done enough to protect drivers and a few are still being idiots, so take away their drivers license. Not the feature, their personal drivers license. That's what we do when someone drives 100 mph on a freeway and gets caught isn't it? (it is or can be in california) How is doing that any different (and frankly not far far more dangerous usually) than using AP?

    Every argument you and James have made has really been, not all drivers are smart enough to use it so they shouldn't make it available yet. I am tired of people making excuses for idiots, in general, and this is just one more example. I am sorry, but the guy that died, he was being foolish. He proved that by showing he so often didn't pay attention to the car which is directly against how he was told to use it. That's HIS fault, not tesla. Its liek the motorcyclist doing a wheely on a freeway at 65 mph. You die its your fault for doing something you know you shouldn't do. Should they stop building motorcycles because peopel can do that with them?

    Can tesla do a few things to maybe help this situation.. Sure, you can always do better, but that doesn't mean what they have done is bad or wrong. Change the name to Pilot Assist, not auto pilot.... Maybe If you take your hands off the wheels for to many minutes to often over a short period of time, automatically pull the car over and park and disengage the ap ability for the rest of the day. Punish the driver for being stupid... I don't know, you could come up with more, but really, its still all about the driver and not the car.

    Have you ever used adaptive cruise control? Do you think that shouldn't be allowed either because its not fully autonomous? I don't know that I ever want a car that's fully autonomous that I cant take over control from... I don't expect we will ever see anyone go strait to that format without first having the exact same software in a car that has controls for the person. And I also wouldn't be surprised to see a car without human controls to first be limited to 35 mph or less even...
     

Share This Page

spam firewall