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. Oct 22, 2015 #81 of 663
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    248
    Nov 15, 2005

    Sounds like an excellent approach. Yet why do you seem to feel such can't be implemented in a self-driving system? You've hit upon a solution that is safe, so why wouldn't the lawyers be satisfied with a safe solution? There isn't liability when there isn't an accident.




    Yes. Yes, I am. Or rather that they can be. Google is doing it right. Very carefully, very studiously, baby steps.




    In an adult conversation, isn't there the possibility for people to share knowledge that refutes issues that have already been dealt with? Or that shows how an issue isn't an issue at all? You have raised one acknowledged issue--snow (and gravel.) Google has identified those as an issue. I've confirmed it, not dismissed it in the least.

    (And I've asked for your list of other topics where you thought a computer couldn't handle the situation. Part of showing a genuine interest in adult conversation.)




    Not everyone feels all issues are still SERIOUS, especially when there are simple solutions to the issues. Pointing those solutions out is not glossing over them. It is conversing about them.

    By the way, I suspect dennissj00's grandfather's stories were about people who avoided cars because they too thought the issues were real and serious. Yet the issues were solved or never real.




    Let's modify your example--for the simple reason you have an approach is safe: giving the whole lane to the horse and buggy. What if the semi had done the same? And, as the semi passed the horse, fully in the other lane, the horse still spooked, went off the edge or into the truck or wherever? And thus died. (For simplicity, let's make it also a given that the section of road was a passing zone.) So the semi is 100% legal, the approach is nearly perfectly safe, yet the horse still spooked. Horse still died.

    There will be deaths. People, horses, dogs, cats die on a consistent basis--100% will die. You can't prevent them all.

    But what if we could take the 30,000 car deaths each year and reduce them to 100? Would all-or-nothing thinking stop self-driving cars because there might, possibly be situations where a " self-driving car is the cause of a death. Perhaps not legally at fault...?" Or would sane, reasoned thinking say, "100 is a whole lot better than 30,000?"






    "Advanced cruise control" is available today. Real self-driving cars are in real world tests today, Google is in two known cities today: Mountain View, California and Austin, Texas. I haven't heard about anyone else's tests beyond I know they are ongoing.

    Manufacturers are saying things like 2016 (as noted above), 2018, and "within 4 years." So, while I can see some of those dates slipping, I don't see them extending a full decade.

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  2. Oct 22, 2015 #82 of 663
    dennisj00

    dennisj00 Hall Of Fame

    9,690
    196
    Sep 27, 2007
    Lake Norman, NC
    Even cutting 30,000 auto deaths to 15,000 (just a selected number) would be an awesome reduction. Nothing to argue about. And it looks like it would be a higher reduction than that.
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. Oct 22, 2015 #83 of 663
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,970
    2,292
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I see the dates slipping ... for all the reasons already stated in this thread.


    But here is where the state of the art is now ... on the closed course:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqSDWoAhvLU

    And with a pilot in the car for safety:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDOnn0-4Nq8

    http://www.edmunds.com/car-news/self-driving-cars-may-redefine-drivers-licenses.html



    BTW: Don't forget that horseless carriages were required to have someone walk out front of them until they were accepted by society and deemed safe. That is where we are with self driving cars. It will take time for them to be accepted.
     
  4. Oct 22, 2015 #84 of 663
    Drucifer

    Drucifer Well-Known Member

    9,492
    248
    Feb 12, 2009
    NY Hudson...
    I can't wait for the future when some drivers will demand they have the right to speed.
     
  5. Oct 22, 2015 #85 of 663
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,970
    2,292
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    We have already had that thread (see the thread about cracking down on left lane drivers).
    A nice debate over whether driving the speed limit in the left lane should be illegal.
     
  6. Oct 22, 2015 #86 of 663
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    248
    Nov 15, 2005
    There are a number of reasons I'm so excited by self-driving cars--aside from I don't like driving most of the time. Most of them revolve around the approach Google is taking and their TED talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/chris_urmson_how_a_driverless_car_sees_the_road?language=en showing how the car "senses" typical situations. Very impressive! They are already to the point of sensing things well before humans can--and thus intelligently driving defensively. The full ted talk is 15:29. The best situation analysis starts at 7:10-ish.

    Here is another video showing situations they already have designed around: https://youtu.be/bDOnn0-4Nq8


    And a statistic I heard a number of years ago--80% of motorcycle accidents were human error on the part of the motorcyclist. (Taking into account all the cases of driving in poor conditions for a motorcycle, driving will impaired, misjudging the surface, etc.)

    Here is google's general site for the project: https://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/There you can read the monthly status reports, all the accident reports, Google's approach, and many other goodies.

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  7. Oct 22, 2015 #87 of 663
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    248
    Nov 15, 2005
    This is the state of the art in a marketing situation where they won't put non-google employees at risk, using cars that aren't street legal yet. Not the state of the art as exists on real streets today. (Yes, real streets still require a manual mode, sometimes with safety escorts nearby--but the cars can intelligently handle many situations--more each week.)

    The second video is one of the examples that has me excited. It is a short form of the Ted Talk in March of this year--7 months ago! Look at how they already sensed normal, everyday things. Notice the examples, right along the lines of the ones we've been discussing here. Safely handling all the situations.

    In the Ted Talk they show how they pick up on things humans miss or before humans would see them. That is why I know these will be safer than human driven cars at some point.

    Yes--in some states/cities there are still blue laws requiring horseless carriages to be lead by a person. Laws passed by people who were frightened by technology rather than accepting of it. "Oh, my! They run on explosives!!" Just so, people frightened by self-driving cars will be just as out of touch with technology advances.

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  8. Oct 22, 2015 #88 of 663
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    248
    Nov 15, 2005
    Bingo!

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  9. Oct 22, 2015 #89 of 663
    yosoyellobo

    yosoyellobo Icon

    2,963
    226
    Nov 1, 2006
    Jacksonville Fl
    Yesterday was Back To The Future Day and I am piss off we don't have flying cars, but I take a self driving one in a few years.
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. Oct 22, 2015 #90 of 663
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    248
    Nov 15, 2005
    Speaking of flying cars, which actually has a tie-in to this discussion, flying cars "seem" so very close. One of the concerns about self-driving cars is the legislation--yet in the case of flying cars, the FAA already has a flying car pilot's license available. It is limited to altitude among other things as I understand. Yet not as difficult to obtain--when we finally get flying cars. :)

    Before anyone mentions flying cars as an example of how self-driving cars will "seem" to be close for a long-time, flying cars don't have Google's incredibly resources and backing. Or Tesla's. Or Mercedes Benz. :)

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  11. Oct 23, 2015 #91 of 663
    Drucifer

    Drucifer Well-Known Member

    9,492
    248
    Feb 12, 2009
    NY Hudson...
  12. Oct 23, 2015 #92 of 663
    phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,495
    452
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    It is exactly those "resources" that should cause people to pause and reflect. Those resources are "money" which, yes, may buy good employees and equipment for design and research, but also fund marketing and lobbying and profits. Right now they are doing the marketing and lobbying because they've invested a lot of money in "unassisted" motor vehicle r&d, an investment in which they are being pressured to start deriving earnings from.

    Maybe you are comfortable with it, but the company run by that guy from Sweden - Volvo - also makes Mack trucks. Just imagine the possible earnings if you could launch a fleet of tractor-trailers that drive themselves. The only issue will be what is an acceptable loss level acceptable in the beginning? And by loss, I don't mean trucks that stop at the wrong warehouse. I mean "oops" deaths per million miles driven. Volvo will gladly take on the liability through an independent cooperative insurance company.

    The curious issue is that our roads are falling apart but we avoid that issue and will gladly succumb to the same urge that leads us to buy the new iPhone. We will want to run out and start buying computer controlled vehicles driven with no assistance.

    My wife and I have a preorder in for two shiny new Surface Pro 4's to replace our not-even-slightly-functionally-outdated Surface Pro 2's partly because the 4 has a nifty cool pen thingy we want to try out. The autonomous car may well be a lifesaver for us. We'll be due for a new car in a few years if we're still alive. I'm surewe will have that impulse to buy an "autonomous" car because frankly we may or may not be the greatest drivers because of age. It might be a great option for folks like us.

    But the long term profit is going to be in that fleet of autonomous tractor-trailers. So I'm on the side of waiting until "they" get back to work and quit the marketing stunts like this one:

    There are plenty of hair-raising videos out there right now of failures on the part of the Tesla Autopilot. I posted links to articles with them above.
     
    1 person likes this.
  13. Oct 23, 2015 #93 of 663
    Drucifer

    Drucifer Well-Known Member

    9,492
    248
    Feb 12, 2009
    NY Hudson...
    For flying vehicles, pilotless is definitely my preferences. Because right now I feel safe sleeping in my home. Put the nuts I see on the roads now in the air and I will be looking for a cave to live in.
     
    1 person likes this.
  14. Oct 23, 2015 #94 of 663
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    248
    Nov 15, 2005
    Basically it sounds like we need to evaluate each company's approach separately. Much as we evaluate individual company's products uniquely. :)

    Google is doing it about as "right" as I can imagine. Slow, methodical steps, leading up to today where they need the marketing stunts for the feedback to the designers. And to educate the people on the streets of Mountain View and Austin as to what they will see. Sounds perfectly reasonable. One report has it that Google has learned from the failure of Glass, though I suspect there is more interest in cars than smart glasses.

    Tesla seems to be marketing before it's ready. That is scary.

    I'm not sure about where other companies are. Other manufacturers are being asked about cars by the press moreso than marketing them to the press.

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  15. Oct 23, 2015 #95 of 663
    mrdobolina

    mrdobolina AllStar

    403
    15
    Aug 28, 2006
    A Mile High
    Perfectly stated!
     
  16. Oct 23, 2015 #96 of 663
    yosoyellobo

    yosoyellobo Icon

    2,963
    226
    Nov 1, 2006
    Jacksonville Fl
    I wonder what is going to be the Auto Insurance position on driverless cars. If the manufacturers are successful the Geico gecko is road kill, it's what they do.
     
  17. Oct 23, 2015 #97 of 663
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    248
    Nov 15, 2005
    They won't be selling liability products (or perhaps will be selling reduced liability for ignoring maintenance requirements), yet there are still going to be uninsured motorist and comprehensive coverage requirements. Especially for cars that are financed.

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  18. Oct 23, 2015 #98 of 663
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,970
    2,292
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    A nice summary of current laws:
    http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/wiki/index.php/Automated_Driving:_Legislative_and_Regulatory_Action
     
  19. Oct 23, 2015 #99 of 663
    Drucifer

    Drucifer Well-Known Member

    9,492
    248
    Feb 12, 2009
    NY Hudson...
    Self-Driving Car Guides Itself Through 2,400 km Journey Across Mexico

    [​IMG]
     
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements