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. James Long

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

    49,419
    1,760
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Perhaps you should present YOUR argument in favor of Tesla's arrogance instead of failing at presenting my arguments? You are not doing a good job of presenting my views.

    BTW: Are you claiming that the car is always operating properly? If so, perhaps you should read Tesla's statement where they admitted that the car did not detect and avoid the collision.

    Sure humans make mistakes. One of them is assuming that Tesla's auto drive is safe.

    A "safety feature" that provides a false sense of security and enables people to pay less attention to the most important thing that they are doing ... piloting a vehicle. That definition of safe is not in my dictionary.
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. trh

    trh This Space for Sale

    7,147
    631
    Nov 2, 2007
    NE FL
    I want to see the full accident report. The truck driver failed to yield while turning left and crossed the road the Tesla was on. Obviously the driver wasn't paying attention as he didn't brake. But could he have stopped in time had he been paying attention? Was there enough time for any vehicle or driver to stop?

    I've read the driver was cited for failure to yield. If so, he is the reason for this accident; not the driver or Tesla.
     
  3. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    24,561
    1,420
    Nov 13, 2006

    Since when has a safety feature ever been touted as letting you not do your job properly? I've never seen any company say the alerts for when cars are in the lane next to you in the blind spot of a mirror means you don't need to still follow the proper procedure and look over your shoulder and out the window to verify if there is a car there. Can you point to someone ever saying that? It's the EXACT same thing. No matter how much you want to argue otherwise.

    AP is not a fully automated driving system. They have stated that and told you how to properly use it...

    And I find it so funny you think I'm defending their arrogance. First I don't think what they are doing is arrogant maybe you should check into what that word actually means.

    Second I'm saying no matter what the driver was NOT doing what he was supposed to be so don't blame the entire thing on tesla. I never said their system didn't detect the truck. It's an issue they can learn from. I said that. But that doesn't take away the drivers responsibility in this. Not in the least. You seem to think the only thing that caused this was tesla. I can't see how anyone could rationally think that if they understand the concept of being responsible in how they operate cars.
     
  4. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    24,561
    1,420
    Nov 13, 2006
    Completely agree. But many will still say that since it was on ap the car should have been able to avoid the accident no matter what. Which just isn't true.
     
  5. dennisj00

    dennisj00 Hall Of Fame

    9,690
    196
    Sep 27, 2007
    Lake Norman, NC
    I have to agree with Ink's comments. From the 100 or so miles I've driven under AP, it's done a very good job but I will not avert my attention. It continues to remind you to put your hands on the wheel and you certainly can't leave the seat.

    To blame Tesla for these accidents would implicate any manufacturer in any accident, no matter what the idiot driver did.

    And I don't agree with the 'arrogance' of Tesla. There's a clear warning that it is beta software and should be used with caution. Consumer Reports has called for them to rein it in. Consumer Reports should stay out of it. I doubt they've really tested it with no bias.
     
  6. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    So you're saying AP is dangerous? :)

    This is not an all or nothing game. Both Tesla and the drivers can be negligent.

    Actually in my argument, intelligence is not a factor. My argument is humans are not evolved to sit and watch paint dry for extended time periods. Humans generally won't pay attention to the driving going on around them if they are not actually involved in the driving. (Heck, they don't pay attention when they are involved!) Lack of intelligence, or wisdom is ignoring how humans generally can't sustain the necessary attention.



    Cruise control, adaptive or otherwise, does reduce the amount of awareness the driver needs to maintain. Yet the driver still has to maintain enough awareness to steer, at a much higher cognitive level than keeping the appropriate speed. Now, some people will go to sleep easier with cruise control engaged; they should not use cruise control. Yet since the general populace doesn't fall asleep from using cruise control, it is ok.

    Telsa's feature relies on humans doing something most people can't do. It's akin to having fixed position seats in the car, set for the tallest person. Sure, some people could drive the car safely--but most can't drive it safely that way. Therein is the problem, relying on something humans can't naturally do (nor are likely to develop a skill.)

    Google gets it. Tesla almost gets it--they adjusted. Yet they stubbornly cling to the notion that it is reasonable to have inactive humans pay attention while the paint dries.

    You also seem to ignore Google's other findings. Highways were an easy problem to solve. (Ok, relatively speaking.) They had that working originally. Local, in city driving is the hard one to solve. And taking much, much longer because there are so many more variables and moving pieces.

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  7. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    Try another couple hundred miles. Let's see if you maintain the same level of attention with AP driving as you have whilst you drive after you've let AP handle things longer.

    The arrogance on Telsa's part is that humans generally can pay attention while paint dries. They can't. Google figured it out. Telsa thought they had a workaround--but they don't.

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  8. dennisj00

    dennisj00 Hall Of Fame

    9,690
    196
    Sep 27, 2007
    Lake Norman, NC
    Give me a couple of weeks as an owner. . . as opposed to many opinions here that have never used AP.

    As I said earlier, Google's control-less cars will never happen unless they're in a closed sandbox. Decades away.

    It doesn't matter what 'safety feature' you discount. People still don't wear seat belts.
     
  9. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    24,561
    1,420
    Nov 13, 2006
    I can easily say it's arrogant for people to always want to do something for the lowest common denominator, like the idiot that can not understand how to still pay attention to what the car is doing when on AP. If he's that much an idiot the people around him are probably still safer with the car on AP than if he's in full control!

    And Google hasn't figured out anything more or less than tesla from what I've read or heard or seen... different approaches don't make one or the other better.

    A radio host lately has been saying something a lot that I must agree with. Why is it people think that if you like one thing you must hate all others? I don't think there is anything wrong with either companies way of doing things and they will eventually lead both companies to the same destination but Google's IMHO is not any safer than teslas.

    In fact IMHO it might cause google To believe they are safer than they are when they finally fully unleashed their systems on regular drivers. But I'm hopping that doesn't happen.

    But needless to say this isn't a case where I believe anyone can make an argument that either one of these companies is doing it much better than the other.
     
  10. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    You've set a false equivalence in that last argument. That all "safety features" are the same.

    And for that matter, argued for the use of one safety feature by describing how people don't use another. Some people won't use AP at all. How does that affect whether or not it is a wise feature to include in a car? :)

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  11. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    "lowest common demoninator?" Are you trying to claim "most people" could pay attention while not having to do any of the driving? For safety sake, how high of a percentage of people would you expect in the basis of a feature that is in beta test? Especially considering we're talking about human lives on the line.

    Why do you presume that I'm hating the other approach simply because I like the Google approach? Is it possible I did some (actually rather basic) analysis and realized that Google was spot on when they realized that humans aren't geared for long-term attention when they are not engaged. Take away the engagement, humans will stop paying attention.

    You may be one of the few who can continue to pay attention day after day of beta testing AP. That doesn't mean most people can. What if only 50% of people can? Wouldn't that mean the feature is too unsafe for general use in a beta test?

    Seems pretty arrogant to me for Tesla to toss this feature out there in beta test without some basic human factors measurements.

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  12. James Long

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

    49,419
    1,760
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Apparently you have missed the Jim Gaffigan commercial where the car does all of the driving (automatic parking) while he pays no attention to its driving. And the commercial with the dad dropping off his daughter at school getting cut off by a convertible. Or the commercial with the two women oogling guys instead of watching the road. Or the commercial where the teenage boy does the same.

    I'd say the latter examples (auto braking) are all examples of automakers selling a safety feature as a way drivers do not have to be as attentive as they should be. The first example isn't a safety feature (auto park) but it is an example of taking a complex driving skill out or the driver's hand and advertising that the driver does not even need to pay attention.

    Lane control (alerting the driver that they are drifting - possibly even steering back into the lane) would be a safety feature but auto drive where the car makes lane changes is not a safety feature.


    Safety features make driving safer. If you are arguing that auto drive is a safety feature because it is safer than an inattentive driver you are basically proving my point that the feature encourages inattentive drivers.
     
  13. trh

    trh This Space for Sale

    7,147
    631
    Nov 2, 2007
    NE FL
    One thing that AP can do is simultaneously monitor all it's sensors and react. If I'm checking my mirrors while driving, it is possible something can happen during that half second I'm looking away that would impact my response time.

    I'm not being inattentive, but AP is a safety feature that can help.

    It was 130 million passenger miles using AP before a fatality. US average is 100 million passenger miles. That is a significant improvement.
     
  14. dennisj00

    dennisj00 Hall Of Fame

    9,690
    196
    Sep 27, 2007
    Lake Norman, NC
    I'm no longer arguing opinions, my delivery has been moved to next week.

    My sister just had an accident a few weeks ago that the sensors would have prevented. The car was totaled.
     
  15. dennisj00

    dennisj00 Hall Of Fame

    9,690
    196
    Sep 27, 2007
    Lake Norman, NC
    And that was only 1 manufacturer with 130 million passenger miles!
     
  16. dennisj00

    dennisj00 Hall Of Fame

    9,690
    196
    Sep 27, 2007
    Lake Norman, NC
    Again, no experience with AP. While it does alert drift and correct, it does not change lanes by itself. You have to initiate lane change by the turn signal. If it's clear it will change lanes, if not it doesn't.
     
  17. James Long

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

    49,419
    1,760
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    A video posted by the now deceased Tesla driver showed his Tesla moving over to the shoulder to avoid an accident. The driver was engaged in an audio book (and who knows what else off camera) and did not notice a truck attempting to merge to the right hand lane. Isn't that an automated lane change?
     
  18. dennisj00

    dennisj00 Hall Of Fame

    9,690
    196
    Sep 27, 2007
    Lake Norman, NC
    I would call it more of collision avoidance. We don't know if it returned to the original lane when the obstruction was gone.
     
  19. James Long

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

    49,419
    1,760
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The driver resumed manual control of the vehicle.
     
  20. dennisj00

    dennisj00 Hall Of Fame

    9,690
    196
    Sep 27, 2007
    Lake Norman, NC
    So we don't know if it would have returned to the original lane.

    Tesla released today that the Pennsylvania car in the accident disengaged AP 25 seconds before the crash because the driver didn't have his hands on the wheel. I suppose you'll condemn AP because it disengaged - when the driver was obviously in error?
     

Share This Page

spam firewall