Self drive and snow

kneemos

How would they ever manage if the road,path and obstacles such as traffic islands all look the same?

Mickiemcfist

kneemos wrote: »

How would they ever manage if the road,path and obstacles such as traffic islands all look the same?

I'd imagine it'll get to the point where they're using incredibly accurate GPS so "reading the road" isn't necessary except for people/dogs etc.

Brian OBrien

You'll never beat the discretion of the human brain. I'll never trust a computer without at least the possibility of human intervention.

Bruthal

Brian OBrien wrote: »

You'll never beat the discretion of the human brain.

The incredible stupidity seen on the roads every day, would suggest many brains would easily be beaten.

Brian OBrien

Bruthal wrote: »

The incredible stupidity seen on the roads every day, would suggest many brains would easily be beaten.

LIGHTNING wrote: »

lol

Well, here's my reasoning. If someone is standing at the side of the road who may look like they are a scammer (certain ethnic minorities come to mind) or a young child or children playing by the roadside, a human brain will know to slow down and prepare for someone darting or jumping out.

A computer will only look at what's on front of it and brake at the last minute if something comes on front of it.

Am I misunderstanding anything here?

Bruthal

Brian OBrien wrote: »

Well, here's my reasoning. If someone is standing at the side of the road who may look like they are a scammer (certain ethnic minorities come to mind) or a young child or children playing by the roadside, a human brain will know to slow down and prepare for someone darting or jumping out.

A computer will only look at what's on front of it and brake at the last minute if something comes on front of it.

Am I misunderstanding anything here?

Well the driver checking their fb page on the phone wont see child, scammer, or path.

Brian OBrien

Bruthal wrote: »

Well the driver checking their fb page on the phone wont see child, scammer, or path.

So is the best situation a self driving car which a human has to remain "in charge of" and can take control should they see fit?

Bruthal

Brian OBrien wrote: »

So is the best situation a self driving car which a human has to remain "in charge of" and can take control should they see fit?

Its hard to know how far it will progress in our time. It would be handy after a few pints though.

Brian OBrien

Bruthal wrote: »

Its hard to know how far it will progress in our time.

I'm 27, I'd like to think I'll be driving for 50 more years :P

HonalD

Bruthal wrote: »

Brian OBrien wrote: »

So is the best situation a self driving car which a human has to remain "in charge of" and can take control should they see fit?

Its hard to know how far it will progress in our time. It would be handy after a few pints though.

Babies born today will never have to learn to drive. That's how close it is to happening.

Brian OBrien

HonalD wrote: »

Babies born today will never have to learn to drive. That's how close it is to happening.

Will you not need a license to be "in charge of the vehicle" though, manually driven vehicles will still exist won't they?

HonalD

Brian OBrien wrote: »

Bruthal wrote: »

Well the driver checking their fb page on the phone wont see child, scammer, or path.

So is the best situation a self driving car which a human has to remain "in charge of" and can take control should they see fit?

No, the best situation is with no human input. Well, the correction here is that the safest situation is with no human input.

salmocab

Brian OBrien wrote: »

Well, here's my reasoning. If someone is standing at the side of the road who may look like they are a scammer (certain ethnic minorities come to mind) or a young child or children playing by the roadside, a human brain will know to slow down and prepare for someone darting or jumping out.

A computer will only look at what's on front of it and brake at the last minute if something comes on front of it.

Am I misunderstanding anything here?

Well it depends on the way its programmed but in theory the computer can keep watch in all directions at once so in fact it can watch both the road and the scammers plus the car behind the dog on the path and the next set of lights all at the same time so it could probably be safer, although for all that I'm not sure I'd be comfortable being driven by a machine even if it was proven to be safer.

HonalD

Brian OBrien wrote: »

HonalD wrote: »

Babies born today will never have to learn to drive. That's how close it is to happening.

Will you not need a license to be "in charge of the vehicle" though, manually driven vehicles will still exist won't they?

We cannot predict what is going to happen on our island as we may lag behind other countries with the development of self driving vehicles. And I won't be on boards in 20 years time to defend this post either.
However, looking at markets where self driving vehicles are being piloted and introduced, the market for owning private vehicles will be dramatically different to today's market. Younger people will typically be leasing homes, vehicles etc. as the costs will be prohibitively expensive. If you own a self driving vehicle, you will not drive it to work and leave it for 9 hours in a parking space and then drive it home. It is predicted that you will share vehicles or share rides or use self driving public transport.
Again, it's not clear what is going to happen on this island of ours but car use and the future for car manufactures is rapidly changing.

HonalD

salmocab wrote: »

Brian OBrien wrote: »

Well, here's my reasoning. If someone is standing at the side of the road who may look like they are a scammer (certain ethnic minorities come to mind) or a young child or children playing by the roadside, a human brain will know to slow down and prepare for someone darting or jumping out.

A computer will only look at what's on front of it and brake at the last minute if something comes on front of it.

Am I misunderstanding anything here?

Well it depends on the way its programmed but in theory the computer can keep watch in all directions at once so in fact it can watch both the road and the scammers plus the car behind the dog on the path and the next set of lights all at the same time so it could probably be safer, although for all that I'm not sure I'd be comfortable being driven by a machine even if it was proven to be safer.

Not only that but as vehicles are connected (they can communicate information between each), vehicles that pass situations will notify others of the situation and the following vehicles will compute based on this information through ai applications.

Bruthal

Brian OBrien wrote: »

I'm 27, I'd like to think I'll be driving for 50 more years :P

While the rest of us are being driven by our cars.....

Lantus

Brian OBrien wrote:

Am I misunderstanding anything here?

Yes, an awful lot. For every child and adult a human narrowly missed and put it down to advanced human skill there are many more dead and buried.

When a human learns to drive they are limited primarily to their own experience. That's a fairly limited range of roads and routes and scenarios that any one person will learn.

When a computer learns a new skill or unusual situation then every car in world can instantly learn that. The combined knowledge of every scenario played out on every road at all points in time.

A human can never compete with that. But we have all been brought up to believe that we are unique and special snowflakes.

dr.fuzzenstein

^^^^^^^^
Agreed, but there was no need for the snowflake comment.
I would say that in some very few and extreme situations the human could be better than the computer.
But in 99.99% the computer is better. Most accidents are caused by driver error, so the few bravado cases of heroically saving the day don't matter statistically.

HonalD wrote: »

Not only that but as vehicles are connected (they can communicate information between each), vehicles that pass situations will notify others of the situation and the following vehicles will compute based on this information through ai applications.

That is already happening in a small way.
Google maps knows if there's a traffic jam and it really does work from own experience.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-google-maps-knows-about-traffic-2015-11

FishOnABike

Brian OBrien wrote: »

So is the best situation a self driving car which a human has to remain "in charge of" and can take control should they see fit?

That's probably the worst situation as without the need to be actively driving a human will not be focussed on the task and will be unlikely to notice or take control in time to react to a situation where they need to take control.

If a self driving car can't be self driving (with the manufacturer having liability for accidents) then it isn't really self driving, just assisted driving.

FishOnABike

Brian OBrien wrote: »

Will you not need a license to be "in charge of the vehicle" though, manually driven vehicles will still exist won't they?

I don't need a license to get in a taxi. Why should I need a license to get in a self driving car? I'm a passenger in either.

Manually driven vehicles will be around for a long time, think of the age profile of cars on our roads today.

CiniO

And I think we are still very far away from having fully functional self-driving cars which could drive in all conditions.

I actually don't believe that will be possible, until quantum computers develop.
But then we're doomed anyway.

So far - there will be more and more driving aids, but I wouldn't be hoping for anything major in my lifetime (and I'm 36 now).

eeguy

CiniO wrote: »

And I think we are still very far away from having fully functional self-driving cars which could drive in all conditions.

I actually don't believe that will be possible, until quantum computers develop.
But then we're doomed anyway.

So far - there will be more and more driving aids, but I wouldn't be hoping for anything major in my lifetime (and I'm 36 now).

There's nothing that supports your view though. Most industry people say it'll take 5 years or less to have the technology at a good enough stage to release.
It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be consistently better than people and that's a view shared by many legislators in the US.

There's a load of hokum, whataboutery and misinformation about autonomous vehicles, but if you do some cursory research you'll see that its coming sooner than most people think.

El_Duderino 09

eeguy wrote: »

CiniO wrote: »

And I think we are still very far away from having fully functional self-driving cars which could drive in all conditions.

I actually don't believe that will be possible, until quantum computers develop.
But then we're doomed anyway.

So far - there will be more and more driving aids, but I wouldn't be hoping for anything major in my lifetime (and I'm 36 now).

There's nothing that supports your view though. Most industry people say it'll take 5 years or less to have the technology at a good enough stage to release.
It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be consistently better than people and that's a view shared by many legislators in the US.

There's a load of hokum, whataboutery and misinformation about autonomous vehicles, but if you do some cursory research you'll see that its coming sooner than most people think.

I think it will take people time to get used to them. Think how nervous some people are as passengers when someone regarding know is driving. Now imagine those people putting their trust in a computer.

I don't think it has anything to do with how safe they are because people are useless at calculating risks. Even if they're much safer, there will still be collisions and the tech-phobes will be able to use them to argue against self driving cars.

It will be class if cars are safer and quicker in traffic etc, but the other side of the coin is all the lost driving jobs.

eeguy

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think it will take people time to get used to them. Think how nervous some people are as passengers when someone regarding know is driving. Now imagine those people putting their trust in a computer.

I don't think it has anything to do with how safe they are because people are useless at calculating risks. Even if they're much safer, there will still be collisions and the tech-phobes will be able to use them to argue against self driving cars.

It will be class if cars are safer and quicker in traffic etc, but the other side of the coin is all the lost driving jobs.

They can be nervous or argue all they want. I'd be sure that governments will push for autonomous cars if it's shown they're safer than humans, same as they're phasing out ICE cars.

Insurance companies will throw a premium on top too.

Regarding the OP's question, there's a few companies working on autonomous vehicles in snow. In fairness, autonomous vehicles started out in desert and dirt tracks, and they're already in use in mining, so I wouldn't say the task is impossible.
Daimler have a self driving snowplough concept.

Max Headroom

Self drive cars...then what, let them vote too.......me hole...:p

blackbox

They've had autopilots in planes for many, many years, but they still disengage and depend on the pilot in abnormal conditions. Unfortunately, as mentioned above for cars, the pilot can be taken by surprise when this happens.

Apart from very slow city vehicles, I think it will be several years before autonomous vehicles don't require a person in charge.

CiniO

blackbox wrote: »

They've had autopilots in planes for many, many years, but they still disengage and depend on the pilot in abnormal conditions. Unfortunately, as mentioned above for cars, the pilot can be taken by surprise when this happens.

Apart from very slow city vehicles, I think it will be several years before autonomous vehicles don't require a person in charge.

I just think we need substantial progress on artificial intelligence to make self driving cars fully functional.
And IMO it's not going to happen quickly. Or at least I hope it's not, not only because I wouldn't like to see self driving cars, but generally it would be the beginning of the end.

eeguy

CiniO wrote: »

I just think we need substantial progress on artificial intelligence to make self driving cars fully functional.
And IMO it's not going to happen quickly. Or at least I hope it's not, not only because I wouldn't like to see self driving cars, but generally it would be the beginning of the end.

Here's a few quote from people more in the know than you.

Fully autonomous vehicles will be on the road before 2022, says NVIDIA CEO
The CEO of the chipmaker NVIDIA, Jensen Huang, said that “It will take no more than four years to have fully autonomous cars on the road.” This refers to actual cars driving on the road (not just car models being ready technically) and assumes that the key legal issues will also have been resolved.
(Source: Reuters, 2017-10-26 )

Audi to introduce a self-driving car by 2020
Scott Keogh, Head of Audi America announced at the CES 2017 that an Audio that really would drive itself would be available by 2020.
(Source: IEEE Spectrum, 2017-01-05)

NuTonomy to provide self-driving taxi services in Singapore by 2018, expand to 10 cities around the world by 2020
The company has just started trials of its self-driving taxis in Singapore’s 1 North District. It plans to deploy self-driving taxis commercially in Singapore by 2018 and aims to be operational with fleets of self-driving taxis in 10 cities of the world by 2020.
(Source: Yahoo News, 2016-08-29, Digital Trends, 2016-05-24)

Delphi and MobilEye to provide off-the-shelf self-driving system by 2019
Both companies have announced that they will bring a fully self-driving (SAE level 4) system on the market for use in a variety of cars in 2019.
Source: TheVerge, 2016-08-23

Ford CEO announces fully autonomous vehicles for mobility services by 2021
Mark Fields, Ford’s CEO announced that the company plans to offer fully self-driving vehicles by 2021. The vehicles, which will come without steering wheel and pedals, will be targeted to fleets which provide autonomous mobility services. Fields expects that it will take several years longer until Ford will sell autonomous vehicles to the public.
Source: Reuters, 2016-08-16

CiniO

eeguy wrote: »

Here's a few quote from people more in the know than you.

We'll only find out if they are more in the know by 2019/2020/2021/2022 or whatever their declared date it.

They are basing their statements on their business needs.
I'm basing my statement on my own perception of current world affairs.

eeguy

CiniO wrote: »

We'll only find out if they are more in the know by 2019/2020/2021/2022 or whatever their declared date it.

They are basing their statements on their business needs.
I'm basing my statement on my own perception of current world affairs.

If I had to trust people running the companies who are actively developing the technology, or some randomer from the internet whobhas his own agenda, I know who I'd pick.

CeilingFly

There's a gps system currently being developed in Europe that when launched, will be accurate to less than 20cm.

Its an eu project, and one of the more difficult brexit issues cos the UK want it, they are contributing to it, but the launch is after brexit and no deal on funding after brexit has been agreed.

https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Navigation/Galileo/What_is_Galileo

Bruthal

eeguy wrote: »

If I had to trust people running the companies who are actively developing the technology, or some randomer from the internet whobhas his own agenda, I know who I'd pick.

Someone with an opinion, which could be correct, (its only a yes or no outcome) has an agenda? What is it?

eeguy

Bruthal wrote: »

Someone with an opinion, which could be correct, (its only a yes or no outcome) has an agenda? What is it?

I don't know. You can have an opinion and a vested interest.
I'm not sure what you're getting at?
To quote his earlier post:

CiniO wrote: »

I just think we need substantial progress on artificial intelligence to make self driving cars fully functional.
And IMO it's not going to happen quickly. Or at least I hope it's not, not only because I wouldn't like to see self driving cars, but generally it would be the beginning of the end.

DaveyDave

Just put an orange on the steering wheel and your car will self drive on all the snow you want it to... (Sorry, this is probably the 3rd time this week someone has mentioned snowflake in motors and I thought some humour was needed)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8R-v8yAElz4

bladespin

Question (apols if already posted) but I'm wondering if a connected ie 'smart' self driver would actually engage during extreme condioions or would it make the 'smart' decision and stay parked???

Not saying either way us right but cabin fever has me asking some odd questions lol.

billbond4

Taking a guy who works on self driving cars, he says he huge amount of computing power needed to work out all the possible scenrios etc on a public road is years away probably 30 to 40.
Motorway driving in self driving is relatively easy as theres less variables

Ger Roe

DaveyDave wrote: »

Just put an orange on the steering wheel and your car will self drive on all the snow you want it to... (Sorry, this is probably the 3rd time this week someone has mentioned snowflake in motors and I thought some humour was needed)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8R-v8yAElz4

Yeah, see that's the main problem right there. The cars will be designed to be as safe as possible but idiots are designed to mess about and negate the safety measures that they don't want to observe.

One more question on the safety aspects.. I read all the time how the self drive cars can anticipate problems ahead and stop in emergency situations but will they also swerve or accelerate to avoid collisions like humans sometimes have to do?

Kat1170

Lantus wrote: »

When a human learns to drive they are limited primarily to their own experience. That's a fairly limited range of roads and routes and scenarios that any one person will learn.

When a computer learns a new skill or unusual situation then every car in world can instantly learn that. The combined knowledge of every scenario played out on every road at all points in time.

Yeah, about that, companies aren't so quick to share information that cost them millions/billions to invent with other companies.

eeguy wrote: »

If I had to trust people running the companies who are actively developing the technology, or some randomer from the internet whobhas his own agenda, I know who I'd pick.

Well I hope its not the likes of the type of people running these companies you're talking about picking because whether actively developing the technology or not I wouldn't be blindly trusting anyone that has a vested interest in any industry, and the car manufacturing industry has more agendas than any randomer on the internet.


VAG Group

PSA Group

Mitsubishi Motors

Suzuki

Bruthal

eeguy wrote: »

I don't know. You can have an opinion and a vested interest.

I guess you are right, better pick someone to trust, who has no agenda, company ceo`s etc.

After all, you cant be trusting (with what, im not sure) a boards poster who has the opinion we wont have fully automated cars on the roads in 2022. Not with his big agenda of preferring people to drive themselves.

Dakota Dan

HonalD wrote: »

Babies born today will never have to learn to drive. That's how close it is to happening.

It's a long way off yet.

bladespin

Dakota Dan wrote:

It's a long way off yet.

They'll probably drive diesels too.

El_Duderino 09

Ger Roe wrote: »

Yeah, see that's the main problem right there. The cars will be designed to be as safe as possible but idiots are designed to mess about and negate the safety measures that they don't want to observe.

Why’s that the main problem? Currently cars are designed to be safe but that doesn’t stop people from speeding or texting or doing their makeup whilst driving. What’s the point?

Ger Roe wrote: »

One more question on the safety aspects.. I read all the time how the self drive cars can anticipate problems ahead and stop in emergency situations but will they also swerve or accelerate to avoid collisions like humans sometimes have to do?

Yes. They can take evasive action. But they can do it in a coordinated way that humans can’t.

Bruthal

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why’s that the main problem? Currently cars are designed to be safe but that doesn’t stop people from speeding or texting or doing their makeup whilst driving. What’s the point?

Just about every electronic, or computer controlled device gets hacked, or modded etc.

Current cars are designed to be safer, more so than safe. Obviously they are made as safe as possible. But there is always good potential to be in a crash.

eeguy

Bruthal wrote: »

Just about every electronic, or computer controlled device gets hacked, or modded etc.

Current cars are designed to be safer, more so than safe. Obviously they are made as safe as possible. But there is always good potential to be in a crash.

There's a good few YouTube videos of autopilot cars swerving to avoid accidents. Plenty of them seeing accidents before the drivers do.

Driving isn't difficult. Any idiot can do it. Besides if everyone drove responsibly, the number of accidents would drastically reduce.
Most accidents are caused by inattentiveness, recklessness, speeding, not stopping at red lights, not driving suitably for the conditions, driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs and driver inexperience.

It's rarely something to do with the car or the road. The sooner they remove people from the driving seat, the sooner vehicle death statistics start to drop.

Ger Roe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why’s that the main problem? Currently cars are designed to be safe but that doesn’t stop people from speeding or texting or doing their makeup whilst driving. What’s the point?


Yes. They can take evasive action. But they can do it in a coordinated way that humans can’t.

I suppose the point is that even though idiotic behaviour exists at the moment, deep down even the idiots know that they are ultimately responsible for their actions. Reduce that necessity of responsibility and more people will resort to idiotic behaviour. Maybe my point is that some people can't be trusted with self drive cars, no matter how safe the design intentions. The orange wedged under the steering wheel proves that point and that's before the technology becomes affordable and accessible to the masses. Ultimately the question of how safe these cars can become will always have a human caused risk factor to be considered. Personally I wouldn't be looking forward to being a road user while these factors are being worked out.

With regard to taking evasive action, good to hear that they can

eeguy

Ger Roe wrote: »

I wouldn't be looking forward to being a road user while these factors are being worked out.

Well this stuff is still years away. That's millions of miles of simulated and actual driving to refine their software.
It's still well in development, and years away, but definitely not decades away.

Kat1170

Ger Roe wrote: »

With regard to taking evasive action, good to hear that they can

Ah, the old question. What if the evasive action is going to kill a pedestrian(s) or no evasive action is going to kill the cars occupant(s).

eeguy

Kat1170 wrote: »

Ah, the old question. What if the evasive action is going to kill a pedestrian(s) or no evasive action is going to kill the cars occupant(s).

If we say autonomous cars are safer than human drivers, then widespread adoption of the technology will save countless lives.

But no one will buy an autonomous car that doesn't prioritize their safety, so the benefits of autonomous cars won't be realised if the driver isn't priority number 1.

So it leads to the conclusion that in the incredibly rare event that someone has to die, then the pedestrian will die.

Not a happy thought, but it's the one most automakers are going for.

EDIT: There was a study done on the language used in the question.

If you say for instance "Either kill the car owner or kill a pedestrian" people have problems giving an answer either way.

If you say "Either save the car owner or save the pedestrian" (which is the same queation, just presented differently), people answer save the owner much quicker.

I suppose people have an issue with killing, but no issue with saving.

Bruthal

eeguy wrote: »

If we say autonomous cars are safer than human drivers, then widespread adoption of the technology will save countless lives.

But no one will buy an autonomous car that doesn't prioritize their safety, so the benefits of autonomous cars won't be realised if the driver isn't priority number 1.

So it leads to the conclusion that in the incredibly rare event that someone has to die, then the pedestrian will die.

Not a happy thought, but it's the one most automakers are going for.

EDIT: There was a study done on the language used in the question.

If you say for instance "Either kill the car owner or kill a pedestrian" people have problems giving an answer either way.

If you say "Either save the car owner or save the pedestrian" (which is the same queation, just presented differently), people answer save the owner much quicker.

I suppose people have an issue with killing, but no issue with saving.

People answering Killing the pedestrian, means they are dead. When people answer Saving the car owner, it allows room for the possibility of the pedestrian to just about avoid being killed, while the car automation prioritizes saving the driver.

eeguy

Bruthal wrote: »

People answering Killing the pedestrian, means they are dead. When people answer Saving the car owner, it allows room for the possibility of the pedestrian to just about avoid being killed, while the car automation prioritizes saving the driver.

Sure whatever makes you feel better I suppose.

Bruthal

eeguy wrote: »

Sure whatever makes you feel better I suppose.

Just expressing an opinion. Shame about the obnoxious attitude. Have a nice day:)