Self drive and snow

Bruthal · 04-03-2018 02:11AM

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 · 04-03-2018 04:22AM

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 · 04-03-2018 04:22AM

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 · 04-03-2018 11:23AM

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 · 04-03-2018 11:41AM

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 · 04-03-2018 11:52AM

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 · 04-03-2018 12:11PM

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 · 04-03-2018 12:19PM

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 · 04-03-2018 12:22PM

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 · 04-03-2018 12:24PM

Dakota Dan wrote:

It's a long way off yet.

They'll probably drive diesels too.

El_Duderino 09 · 04-03-2018 12:24PM

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 · 04-03-2018 12:29PM

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 · 04-03-2018 12:41PM

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 · 04-03-2018 01:13PM

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 · 04-03-2018 01:23PM

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 · 04-03-2018 01:27PM

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 · 04-03-2018 01:48PM

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 · 04-03-2018 02:48PM

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 · 04-03-2018 02:50PM

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 · 04-03-2018 02:59PM

eeguy wrote: »

Sure whatever makes you feel better I suppose.

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

eeguy · 04-03-2018 03:08PM

Bruthal wrote: »

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

I'm not obnoxious, I'm just realistic. I'm all for the adoption of autonomous cars, but if people need to be cotton wooled from 'morality crisis' then so be it.

You'll always hear about the lives lost and not about the lives saved. Tesla had a very public crash either in 2017 or 2016, that got huge media coverage (even though it was proven not to be an autopilot fault).
During that time Tesla published about a dozen letters it got from Tesla owners who said that autopilot saved their life, or the life of a pedestrian, by seeing and reacting much faster than a human.
People can talk about moral issues and job loses, but if it saves lives then I'm in favour of it.

El_Duderino 09 · 04-03-2018 03:32PM

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.

Yeah I see that. I just don't see how it’s any different. If people use either type of car properly it makes them safer. Tampering with a car or acting the maggot makes it less safe.

Cars are full of electronically controlled parts that they can be hacked right now. It’s not really something I spend much time worrying about. Does anyone?

El_Duderino 09 · 04-03-2018 03:46PM

Kat1170 wrote: »

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).

That’s a matter of avoiding making a difficult decision vs making a difficult decision.

Most drivers will react differently. Some will freeze and do nothing, some will flail around senselessly. Some will unconsciously steer one way or the other.

If you took 5 minutes to weigh the options and decide what to do, you might struggle. The idea that you could unconsciously make a better decision in a split second, is laughable.

The fact is that most people are happier to not make a decision than to actually make the decision. If you think about it, you’d probably be better off agreeing whether it’s better to hit the line of school children or drive the car into a wall.

They’re tough decisions but its clearly better to make a decision than freeze or do one at random.

Bruthal · 04-03-2018 03:48PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Cars are full of electronically controlled parts that they can be hacked right now. It’s not really something I spend much time worrying about. Does anyone?

No, but we are not depending on it keeping us in lane at 120kph just yet.

El_Duderino 09 · 04-03-2018 03:54PM

Ger Roe wrote: »

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

I think a lot of it depends on the culture. In the past it was fine to drink and drive and lots of people did it. Then the culture changed and drink driving is much less common.

Some people still drink drive today and some people will act the maggot with a self driving car or driver assisted car line the video with the orange.

The fact that some people will push the boundaries of safety features is not really a reason to stop making cars more safe.

eeguy · 04-03-2018 03:54PM

Bruthal wrote: »

No, but we are not depending on it keeping us in lane at 120kph just yet.

Lane assist and active cruise control do just that on most new cars.

Tesla autopilot does the same and more now.

The Rape of Lucretia · 04-03-2018 04:36PM

Brian OBrien wrote: »

If someone is standing at the side of the road who may look like they are a scammer (certain ethnic minorities come to mind) .... a human brain will know to slow down and prepare for someone darting or jumping out.

Jesus. Computer software has been used in many many ways. But programming something to mimic racism is surely a step too far ?

Mickiemcfist · 04-03-2018 04:40PM

Bruthal wrote: »

No, but we are not depending on it keeping us in lane at 120kph just yet.

Just in the sky at about 400mph...

Bruthal · 04-03-2018 05:18PM

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

Bruthal wrote: »

No, but we are not depending on it keeping us in lane at 120kph just yet.

Just in the sky at about 400mph...

Planes dont have to avoid pedestrians, keep in lane, emergency brake, park, stop at red lights, squeeze past other traffic on narrow back roads with one having do squeeze into the edge of the ditch........ the list is a long one. The autopilot just needs to guide the plane from one point to another. A marvel perhaps, but its a straight line guidance from one point to another.

Consumer drones these days can be sent on fully automated flights from takeoff to landing back at the exact same spot, after flying kms away. That would be far harder to do with a rc car.

But besides that, my point was that the electronics another poster mentioned about being hacked already, probably are not the ones automatically driving cars just yet.

eeguy · 04-03-2018 05:24PM

[QUOTE=Bruthal;106339943]Planes dont have to avoid pedestrians, keep in lane, emergency brake, park, stop at red lights, squeeze past other traffic on narrow back roads with one having do squeeze into the edge of the ditch........ the list is a long one.

Consumer drones these days can be sent on fully automated flights from takeoff to landing back at the exact same spot, after flying kms away. That would be far harder to do with a rc car.

But besides that, my point was that the electronics another poster mentioned about being hacked already, probably are not the ones automatically driving cars just yet.[/QUOTE]
Planes actually have to do a lot of this to get down to the correct runway at the correct time in the correct slot.
A plane is a steel tube 10km above the earth with anywhere from 50 to 850 passengers. The risks are so much greater than a car.
Bird strikes, co-ordinating with ATF, engine failure, system failures, weather anomalies and a million other things can go wrong with a plane. One small issue can snowball to catastrophe.
Autopilot can deal with most of these, and in fairness, most pilots should leave autopilot alone to deal with it, but there's always going to be scenarios where the computer is out of it's depth, or human intervention is needed to physically repair something.

Nearly all car problems can be rendered safe by pulling over to the side of the road and calling the AA.

Your example isn't accurate either. We're talking about cars and airplanes, carrying people along predefined paths, not a quadcopter than can take off anywhere, fly anywhere and land anywhere, with no regard for the area around it.

Self drive and snow

Comments