Self driving buses, trains, trucks etc

LeinsterDub · 25-08-2017 4:23pm

Adele Sparse Viking wrote: »

Commercial maglev trains are already a thing, in China they carry passengers I'm pretty sure (might be wrong), Japan has them at testing/construction stage and they will carry passengers in the future.

It's not the maglev that's the issues it's the 600 km sealed tube.

hytrogen · 25-08-2017 4:31pm

Infini wrote:

You know its really low to want people to be out of a job I mean thats just being miserable and petty. I mean do you want a good chunk of the population to just sit around around or do nothing or be forced into low wage jobs?

MOD EDIT: Sorry no quoting of the troll, thanks

Ya know true socialism or "communism" as you think you believe it "comerade" would not be pressing for wage hikes or new terms and conditions; it would be pressing for a wageless utopian society where everyone is treated equally and fair, had a right to work and everyone worked efficiently with due diligence, those in responsible positions lead with confidence and those who worked executed those jobs effectively instead of threatening down tools destruction of a world leading tram systems in 1913, holding a city to gridlock ransom every couple of years to fluff your feathers and pumping a binjuice dalogue of "us Vs the man" "David Vs Goliath" tralalala so go away with ye ya hypocrite troll!

What I came here to say before seeing that binjuice:
In terms of haulage of freight going driverless, why can't we focus on rail freight if that is where the demand is leading towards??? Automated trucks won't know what you're doing until you do it, at least on rail it's a secured line, with far less risks associated and can carry much more tonnage per litre/kilometres..

25-08-2017 4:36pm

The whole driverless vehicle concept still doesn't sit easy with me.

That said the lunatics I've encountered on the road overtaking strings of cars on bends recently, etc.... well perhaps driverless cars couldn't be any more dangerous

bk · 25-08-2017 4:40pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is one claim i keep seeing that i've yet to understand fully/be convinced on; i might need to do more reading on it. i'm not sure whether it's because we're expecting a higher rate of car ownership with self driving cars; or whether people will be more inclined to carpool?

Yup, I'm not sure my self. I do think it will kill local bus services in the suburbs and orbital services. Since it would simply be cheaper and faster to get around by one of these self driving on demand cars.

However in going into the city center you run into the problem of congestion and their simply not being enough road space to fit all those self driving vehicles.

However worth pointing out that I'd expect these self driving cars to be small, single seat pod cars, taking up probably 1/4 of the space of a car we have today and for eventually all these pod cars to be communicating with one another and thus optimising the road space, so I'd expect that the road capacity to increase around at least 5 fold. But that still probably isn't good enough for the core city center.

However another danger for buses, even on core routes going into the city center, is people opting to take their pod car to their nearest DART/Metro/Luas station and taking those forms of transport instead of a bus.

plodder wrote: »

I'm sceptical about that aspect too. We've had car pooling schemes already. I don't really see how self-driving is linked to car pooling specifically.

Do you mean car pooling as in 3 or 4 people sitting in one car or 3 or 4 people sharing a car at different time throughout the day. Because they are two different things.

magicbastarder wrote: »

i guess one possibility would be that there would be an app where i could input 'i want to go from A to B at approx. 7 this evening' and a people carrier would swing by and pick me up along with other people nearby it has matched to me with similar transport requirements; but this should be possible (albeit more expensive) with a human driver. would be curious if it's ever been tried.

Already exist, it is called Uber Pool and it is SUPER popular in Manhattan and other big cities. I've used it in Manhattan a few times and super fun, easy to use and much cheaper then a taxi. Basically everyone uses in Manhattan when going out at night.

Obviously removing the driver would make this service even cheaper.

But again, this is car pooling. There will also be self driving car sharing services.

We have GoCar today, but the issue is that you have to drop it back to where you picked it up which limits it's utility greatly.

How self driving car sharing will work:
- Pull your phone out of your pocket and order a self driving car from a to b [1]
- A self driving single seat pod car is dispatched from a parking lot [2] and pulls up in front of your home
- You jump in and it drives you to your destination
- The pod car then either goes to pick up the next person in the local area or goes off to one of the companies garages to recharge and wait for the next order.

[1] This can be highly automated to tie into your calendar so the car arrives at your front door every morning at the right time (taking into account traffic conditions and weather conditions) to get to your destination.
[2] Realistically the rental car will have hundreds if not thousands of these cars circling the city, using algorithms to place them close to where people are likely to order them from.

cherryghost · 25-08-2017 4:44pm

10 years away is incredibly optimistic and naive.

I would be thinking 20-30 or even more. There's so much variances that come into play that even with extensive testing there'll always be more to test.

I do envisage that one day in the future, everyone in the country will travel from A to B with an on-the-rail-and-unassisted mode of transport.

No human drivers at all eliminates the chaos factor. Mixed human/self driving content is still a very grey area.

eeguy · 25-08-2017 4:51pm

cherryghost wrote: »

10 years away is incredibly optimistic and naive.

I would be thinking 20-30 or even more. There's so much variances that come into play that even with extensive testing there'll always be more to test.

I do envisage that one day in the future, everyone in the country will travel from A to B with an on-the-rail-and-unassisted mode of transport.

No human drivers at all eliminates the chaos factor. Mixed human/self driving content is still a very grey area.

You'd be surprised why can happen in 10 years.
10 years ago even James Bond didn't have a smartphone. Technology and the adoption of the technology can happen in no time at all

plodder · 25-08-2017 4:51pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

we've had car pooling, we have short term car rental schemes like go car (or even taxis), and we've long term rental also. the main barrier lifted with autonomous driving is ability to drive (be it driver training or even driver sobriety), but i suppose the question is - in an era of autonomous vehicles - will i still choose to get the bus into the city centre/to galway? what was preventing me from driving before - cost of my own car, or ability to drive, or....?

yeah, I was thinking of go car in particular.

i guess one possibility would be that there would be an app where i could input 'i want to go from A to B at approx. 7 this evening' and a people carrier would swing by and pick me up along with other people nearby it has matched to me with similar transport requirements; but this should be possible (albeit more expensive) with a human driver. would be curious if it's ever been tried.

I guess if money changed hands, then you're stepping on taxi toes but it's hard to see a business model without money being involved. Uber is probably the closest thing.

eeguy · 25-08-2017 4:54pm

plodder wrote: »

yeah, I was thinking of go car in particular.

I guess if money changed hands, then you're stepping on taxi toes but it's hard to see a business model without money being involved. Uber is probably the closest thing.

Taxi drivers have very little power to stop change. Sure we don't have Uber but there's never been a popular push in favour of it.
If you could promise people a service that's a fraction of the cost it will happen. Tesla are developing a network where you can rent out your autonomous car when it's not in use

bk · 25-08-2017 5:02pm

eeguy wrote: »

Taxi drivers have very little power to stop change. Sure we don't have Uber but there's never been a popular push in favour of it.

Actually we do have Uber here, I use it all the time! Yes, we don't have the US style Uber, just anyone driving a car, but we do have the Uber Taxi and Uber Black (limo) services here.

You are right though, the self driving car revolution is likely to completely bypass taxi's and maybe buses too. It won't even be a case of a self driving taxi (ala Total Recall) or self driving bus, it will be a whole new industry of self driving car sharing and pooling that will completely bypass the other industries.

plodder · 25-08-2017 5:05pm

cherryghost wrote: »

10 years away is incredibly optimistic and naive.

I would be thinking 20-30 or even more. There's so much variances that come into play that even with extensive testing there'll always be more to test.

I do envisage that one day in the future, everyone in the country will travel from A to B with an on-the-rail-and-unassisted mode of transport.

No human drivers at all eliminates the chaos factor. Mixed human/self driving content is still a very grey area.

The thing is this isn't really autonomous driving at all. It's just the computer equivalent of the mechanical link between train carriages. It's a much simpler problem to solve and less risky than actual autonomous trucks.

eeguy wrote:

Tesla are developing a network where you can rent out your autonomous car when it's not in use

What has stopped Ford or VW from doing this before now? That's what I don't get. Like what's the difference between a network of autonomous cars for rent and human driven ones?

eeguy · 25-08-2017 5:13pm

plodder wrote: »

What has stopped Ford or VW from doing this before now? That's what I don't get. Like what's the difference between a network of autonomous cars for rent and human driven ones?

I suppose it's convenience and control.
You don't want to trek out to some business park or housing estate to pick up a rental car, but when the car comes to you it's convenient.

Also, you as the owner don't want some lad stealing or rallying the sh*t out of your nice Tesla, but when the car is driving, recording everything that's going on and the user details are logged you feel safer putting it out for hire.

magicbastarder · 25-08-2017 5:15pm

bk wrote: »

However worth pointing out that I'd expect these self driving cars to be small, single seat pod cars, taking up probably 1/4 of the space of a car we have today and for eventually all these pod cars to be communicating with one another and thus optimising the road space

again though, the technology and benefit of this is already achieveable (already there, too - e.g. the renault twizy); but will people still buy cars based on the 'i might need the extra capacity once a month/twice a year' basis though?

plodder · 25-08-2017 5:18pm

eeguy wrote: »

I suppose it's convenience and control.
You don't want to trek out to some business park or housing estate to pick up a rental car, but when the car comes to you it's convenient.

True. That overcomes a big limitation of Go car

Also, you as the owner don't want some lad stealing or rallying the sh*t out of your nice Tesla, but when the car is driving, recording everything that's going on and the user details are logged you feel safer putting it out for hire.

it's quite a different attitude towards your car though. It's a long way from the personal "pride and joy" idea that motor manufacturers are currently peddling. Maybe it will work more like the Netjets model. You pay a big enough subscription and get a guarantee that some vehicle will be available to you at short notice.

eeguy · 25-08-2017 5:20pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

again though, the technology and benefit of this is already achieveable (already there, too - e.g. the renault twizy); but will people still buy cars based on the 'i might need the extra capacity once a month/twice a year' basis though?

The big question is "Will people buy cars?"

When the cost of taxiing or renting a car is a fraction of owning it, when the convenience of having a rental always within 5 minutes of your door, when you factor in not having to maintain, clean, pay for tax and insurance will people even bother buying a car anymore?

If people aren't buying cars and cars are in use 90% of the time, instead of 5% of the time, will automakers feel a huge pinch?
In a world where people rent cars, who would ever buy a luxury car?
Rental cars right now are nearly always bland, economical and reliable, so will that be the future of car design?

cruizer101 · 25-08-2017 5:21pm

plodder wrote: »

though there would have to be some way to compensate the vehicle at the front for providing the "service" but not directly benefiting.

Actually they do benefit, a large portion of the total drag force is from the low pressure region at the rear of truck. The overall drag force on the two is less than if separate and gets distributed between the two (not fully sure ratio but suffice to say they both end up with less than if separate). In a three truck one the middle does get more advantage but it is still spread across them.

I do think it's not far off, it's not much more than adaptive cruise control which is in fair few new cars already. Definite saving to be had.

Also the idea of not doing it due to job losses is nonsense, so should we never of invented the spinning wheel or computer?

magicbastarder · 25-08-2017 5:25pm

i think the worry here is the expected rate of job losses - that the spinning wheel and computer displaced jobs on a longer timescale. this could be much more of a phase shift.

bk · 25-08-2017 5:27pm

plodder wrote: »

What has stopped Ford or VW from doing this before now? That's what I don't get. Like what's the difference between a network of autonomous cars for rent and human driven ones?

Truth is non of the traditional car companies are at all excited by this future. Car pooling and sharing will fundamentally mean they will build and sell less cars. And in particular people who rent on demand will probably less interested in what brand or marketing of the car that arrives, so probably harder to upsell.

But they are all getting involved in it, GM is a major investor in Ubers competitor Lyft, Ford has set up a IT innovation center developing various sharing tech and self driving tech.

The reason being that they see that if they don't, then the Uber's, Google's, etc. will. Uber/Google are developing self driving technology and once developed, they can simply do a deal with some no name Chinese car company to build a fleet of 100,000 cars and they will simply slap their brand on it and set them lose on the streets. Similar to Google and Apple do with phones. Car companies are rushing to get ready for this.

magicbastarder · 25-08-2017 5:34pm

an article touching on one part of research i'm not hearing much about; the word 'autonomous' is usually used for self-driving cars, which implies their driving aids are self-contained, but is there much research being done into cars which talk to each other? surely there could be some robust, low-range (e.g. 500m) signal broadcast by cars - a bit like an IFF signal in airplanes - announcing location, direction, speed, etc.
would not have to be high bandwidth stuff - plus it could also assist with the issue of cars dealing with cyclists - e.g. if i had a GPS unit on my bike that would warn a car (or HGV) that i was 30m behind, it could have benefits here too.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2017/apr/07/autonomous-vehicles-will-only-work-when-they-stop-pretending-to-be-autonomous

Del2005 · 25-08-2017 5:53pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

an article touching on one part of research i'm not hearing much about; the word 'autonomous' is usually used for self-driving cars, which implies their driving aids are self-contained, but is there much research being done into cars which talk to each other? surely there could be some robust, low-range (e.g. 500m) signal broadcast by cars - a bit like an IFF signal in airplanes - announcing location, direction, speed, etc.
would not have to be high bandwidth stuff - plus it could also assist with the issue of cars dealing with cyclists - e.g. if i had a GPS unit on my bike that would warn a car (or HGV) that i was 30m behind, it could have benefits here too.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2017/apr/07/autonomous-vehicles-will-only-work-when-they-stop-pretending-to-be-autonomous

Part of the autonomous will be communications. Car A will be going to location C and join a convoy of vehicles travelling to the same location. Similar to the HGV testing announced it'll mean that the majority of cars in the train will be using less energy. As they approach a junction priority will already be assigned so we won't need traffic lights for vehicles, pedestrians will still have lights to stop cars and since they are autonomous they won't be a risk of them running reds.

When fully autonomous vehicles are out I don't see people buying cars and homes will change to reflect this. Why would you own something that you can't control? People don't care about the taxi or bus that they take, bar that it's clean, so I can't see many owning a vehicle in cities. So therefore we can build without the need to consider cars as autonomous vehicles will be able to use much less space

end of the road · 25-08-2017 7:26pm

eeguy wrote: »

Didn't people move away from rail because of the stranglehold of rail hauliers?

the rail hauliers had no strangle hold. there was always road competition. a lot of things caused a movement away from rail freight, some to do with the railway and others to do with government policy and vested interests.

AndrewJRenko · 25-08-2017 11:19pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

i guess one possibility would be that there would be an app where i could input 'i want to go from A to B at approx. 7 this evening' and a people carrier would swing by and pick me up along with other people nearby it has matched to me with similar transport requirements; but this should be possible (albeit more expensive) with a human driver. would be curious if it's ever been tried.

The International Transport Federation are currently doing a desk study on Dublin and 3 or 4 other cities to model replacing ALL city transports (buses, cars, taxis) with a network of 6 and 12 seater vehicles for shared journeys. They did one city last year (Lisbon possibly) and projected a huge reduction in number of vehicles and a 92% reduction in space taken up by parked cars. This is potentially revolutionary stuff - changing how cities work completely.

Deleted User wrote: »

The whole driverless vehicle concept still doesn't sit easy with me.

That said the lunatics I've encountered on the road overtaking strings of cars on bends recently, etc.... well perhaps driverless cars couldn't be any more dangerous

That's my immediate reaction - all the 'safety worries' about automated vehicles seems to ignore the current track record of human operated vehicles. We kill 3 or 4 people each week on Irish roads. in the US, about 100 people a day are killed on the roads. The automated drivers won't be falling asleep after driving for 16 hours, or checking WhatsApp on their phone or getting angry with other drivers.

I do have some concerns about the employment aspects, but it really is inevitable. We need to plan for those issues and manage them.

26-08-2017 8:36pm

Will Goodbody: Time Government embraced driverless cars

http://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2017/0826/900030-driverless-cars/

There are few areas of technology moving as fast right now as autonomous vehicles.

Hardly a day goes by without some form of an announcement or leak around something incredible that a car, tech or component company is developing in the area.

That's because some of the biggest names in vehicle manufacturing, mobility and technology are pouring vast sums of money into research and development around self-driving systems.

Google, Intel, Apple, Toyota, Volvo, Renault-Nissan, BMW, Ford, Uber, Tesla, Bosch, Baidu, GM and many more household corporate names are piling into the space to try to get a head start in what will soon become a vast market.

Follow the link for the rest

Mrs OBumble · 27-08-2017 12:50am

Yeah so with buses:

We currently don't have buses with two doors outside of Dublin. I've never heard a good reason for this. My guess is that the bus companies believe there would be too much of an issue with revenue protection - there are so many scummers here who would jump in without paying if there was a door not under the driver's nose. How's a driverless bus going get over that? How will it cope with 89 year old Bridie who simply won't put her FTP on the reader - she's never had to before and she's just not going to start now. And the tourist from Spain who wants to know how to get to "Dunes es tores" (pronounced Dunnes Stores by most of ye) - yes she has Google maps, but map reading is HARD work for some.

They'll all be replaced with driverless pool cars, you say? How many seats will be in each one - enough for Mam, Dad and the four kids? Or will the kids be expected to travel separately - how old do you have to be to travel alone? What if the kids car gets there before the parent one - will it hold them inside until the parents arrive? Will they have car seats and booster cushions that magically adapt to the child's age? Ramps that automatically roll out to cater for grandad in his wheelchair? What happens when the passenger starts having a seizure when the car is half-way from Dublin to Galway - if the car's not smart enough to detect that, pull over and call an ambulance, then we have a major reduction in service. What do you do if your pool car arrives, complete with used needles or condoms that the last passenger left in it? How many rural residents will be prepared to wait the extra 20 minutes that a pool car will take to get to their house at times when there's usually low demand - eg at 2am when someone's waters have broken earlier than expected and they'd like to get to the hospital before giving birth, please!

I'm sure that some driverless technology will be implemented sooner than we think. I'm equally sure it won't be as pervasive as you expect for a LONG time. The issues aren't technical, they are social. And enormous.

Hell - we've had electric vehicles for maybe 5 years. There's now talk of them being compulsory by what, 2040? that gives some idea of the timeframe for even a small technical change.

prinzeugen · 27-08-2017 1:26am

This report is a perfect example of why driverless trains (and even trains without guards, aka DOO (Driver only operation) should never happen.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/report-112017-derailment-and-subsequent-collision-at-watford

EDIT, Link to PDF of the full report https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/636626/R112017_170810_Watford.pdf

Very, very lucky.

LeinsterDub · 27-08-2017 1:35am

prinzeugen wrote: »

This report is a perfect example of why driverless trains (and even trains without guards, aka DOO (Driver only operation) should never happen.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/report-112017-derailment-and-subsequent-collision-at-watford

Very, very lucky.

So even if we get to the stage where driverless trains are proven to be safer than human driven trains they shouldn't happen?

prinzeugen · 27-08-2017 1:41am

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So even if we get to the stage where driverless trains are proven to be safer than human driven trains they shouldn't happen?

Did you read the report? Human thinking averted a more deadly outcome.

AI will never better human reactions as has been proven by many aircraft accidents. There is one where the pilot actually had to fly the plane after the AI failed rather than just "pilot" it.

27-08-2017 2:02am

Colorado to deploy self-driving crash truck to shadow road crews

https://readwrite.com/2017/08/25/colorado-self-driving-crash-truck/amp/

Follow the link for the full article

The Colorado Department of Transportation has said it will deploy a self-driving truck to protect road crews from speeding vehicles by the end of this fall, potentially extending the program to cover all road maintenance if the trial is a success.

The self-driving truck will act as a “crash truck”, which moves slowly behind road crews. The trucks are currently manned by a single driver, who faces the brunt of the damage if an accident happens.

27-08-2017 2:09am

Autonomous shipping trials to start next year

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-16/autonomous-ships-will-be-great

Last week, Kongsberg Gruppen ASA, a Norwegian maritime-technology firm, and Yara ASA, a fertilizer manufacturer, announced a partnership to build the world's first fully autonomous cargo containership. Manned voyages will start in 2018, and in 2020 the Yara Birkeland will set sail all on its own. It's the beginning of a revolution that should transform one of the world's oldest and most conservative industries -- and make global shipping safer, faster and cleaner than it's ever been.

The commercial rationale for autonomous ships has long been clear. The U.S. Coast Guard has estimated that human error accounts for up to 96 percent of all marine casualties. A recent surge in piracy is a grim reminder that crews remain vulnerable (and valuable) targets for international criminals. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the industry is facing a chronic shortage of skilled workers who want a career at sea.

prinzeugen · 27-08-2017 2:11am

Deleted User wrote: »

Colorado to deploy self-driving crash truck to shadow road crews

https://readwrite.com/2017/08/25/colorado-self-driving-crash-truck/amp/

Follow the link for the full article

In effect that is a movable crash barrier, going at slow speed.

Not even close to a Driverless HGV going at 60 mph.

AI will only know something has happened after the incident.

A human can see a incident unfolding and take actions to avoid it. There are 100's, if not millions of dashcam vids on youtube of drivers doing some lightning fast maneuvers to avoid collisions etc.

27-08-2017 2:23am

prinzeugen wrote: »

This report is a perfect example of why driverless trains (and even trains without guards, aka DOO (Driver only operation) should never happen.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/report-112017-derailment-and-subsequent-collision-at-watford

EDIT, Link to PDF of the full report https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/636626/R112017_170810_Watford.pdf

Very, very lucky.

While the quick reactions of both drivers undoubtedly reduced the overall impact, the seconds required to complete the necessary actions could have easily been done in a fraction of a second by automation thereby reducing the impact of the event even further

While we can argue the specifics all you want, the fact is, in terms of reaction speed, the computer wins every time

I'd advise a read through the Wikipedia list of train accidents in the UK alone. Just look at the amount attributed to driver error.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_accidents_in_the_United_Kingdom

If you would like a look at the worldwide situation, simply review the articles linked from here - https://www.google.ie/search?q=train+accident+driver+error

end of the road · 27-08-2017 3:14am

the driver can see the incident or hazard before hand meaning they can avoid it. the computer will only react at the last minute, which even at it's speed may not be enough. we are multiple decades off driverless trains on an open network anyway.

jimmycrackcorm · 27-08-2017 4:39am

end of the road wrote:

the driver can see the incident or hazard before hand meaning they can avoid it. the computer will only react at the last minute, which even at it's speed may not be enough. we are multiple decades off driverless trains on an open network anyway.

AI will be able to more accurately determine the outcome of different possibilities than a human can. But the most significant aspect of newer AI is that it is now done by machine learning. For example Tesla is collecting lots of data from it's users cars. Machine learning will mean that it gets the benefit of more experience than any single human can.

Pkiernan · 27-08-2017 6:22am

prinzeugen wrote: »

In effect that is a movable crash barrier, going at slow speed.

Not even close to a Driverless HGV going at 60 mph.

AI will only know something has happened after the incident.

A human can see a incident unfolding and take actions to avoid it. There are 100's, if not millions of dashcam vids on youtube of drivers doing some lightning fast maneuvers to avoid collisions etc.

You seem to be missing the blindingly massive point that ALL car crashes are due to human error.....
There are no such thing as accidents. They should be called negligents.

27-08-2017 8:17am

prinzeugen wrote: »

In effect that is a movable crash barrier, going at slow speed.

Not even close to a Driverless HGV going at 60 mph.

Not sure that I made that comparison. The point this is getting extended in its usage e.g. starting with Tesla, now crash barrier, next HGV's etc etc

prinzeugen wrote: »

AI will only know something has happened after the incident.

Not necessarily. These things are being designed to communicate with each other

prinzeugen wrote: »

A human can see a incident unfolding and take actions to avoid it. There are 100's, if not millions of dashcam vids on youtube of drivers doing some lightning fast maneuvers to avoid collisions etc.

For every one video showing someone reacting quick enough to avoid a crash there is 50 showing where the reaction time was too slow to avoid an impact.

27-08-2017 8:19am

Pkiernan wrote: »

You seem to be missing the blindingly massive point that ALL car crashes are due to human error.....
There are no such thing as accidents. They should be called negligents.

I'd wager that insurance premiums will, over time, factor in the use of AI into the calculations.

aliveandkicking · 27-08-2017 8:55am

For anyone interested in this kind of stuff I'd highly recommend this article and particularly for those dismissing the idea that fully self driving vehicles are multiple decades away, you definitely need to read it!

It's long but well worth even reading the first section.

https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html

magicbastarder · 27-08-2017 9:07am

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

Partially driverless trucks to be on UK roads by 2019
http://jrnl.ie/3564121

there's a martyn turner cartoon in yesterday's irish times, along the lines of 'britain wants driverless juggernauts? sure they have it already with brexit'.

Del.Monte · 27-08-2017 9:08am

To simple little old me the 'driving' force behind driverless anything is money and nothing to do with safety - whether you're a haulage contractor or the manufacturer of the latest wonder of technology. The bottom line is king and the ordinary people are only there to be ground down for profit.

eeguy · 27-08-2017 9:58am

Del.Monte wrote: »

To simple little old me the 'driving' force behind driverless anything is money and nothing to do with safety - whether you're a haulage contractor or the manufacturer of the latest wonder of technology. The bottom line is king and the ordinary people are only there to be ground down for profit.

Tin foil hat much?
Millions die each year from road deaths. There's hardly a family in Ireland who hasn't lost someone.
Add in safety with more efficient driving, with freeing up peoples time, with giving mobility to people who don't have it. And having 24/7 services and scheduling haulage so it runs through the night to even out road use.

I can't wait for fully autonomous vehicles.

LeinsterDub · 27-08-2017 11:47am

Del.Monte wrote: »

To simple little old me the 'driving' force behind driverless anything is money and nothing to do with safety - whether you're a haulage contractor or the manufacturer of the latest wonder of technology. The bottom line is king and the ordinary people are only there to be ground down for profit.

That's the way of the world. Once something becomes cheaper than something else it's becomes worth it for some. Once it's cheaper and more efficient it becomes worth it for most. Just look at solar. For years green types were telling us that it was better for the environment and we should use it regardless of the cost. Now it's cheaper than oil and gas people are using solar regardless of the environmental positives

LeinsterDub · 27-08-2017 11:50am

prinzeugen wrote: »

Did you read the report? Human thinking averted a more deadly outcome.

AI will never better human reactions as has been proven by many aircraft accidents. There is one where the pilot actually had to fly the plane after the AI failed rather than just "pilot" it.

You sound like a luddite

Rave.ef · 27-08-2017 12:06pm

As smart and all as these people are they haven't taught this idea through. Other drivers on this will agree with me. I can't see a driverless truck backing into most of the loading bays and ramps around the country. a lot of these have to be backed into from the road ways and i can't see some computerised machine not getting stuck mid minuver when some di*k can't wait the 30 seconds for the truck to get where it needs to go and causing a road block. As far as it just going from a to b and then a driver taking over it won't be feasible trucks and buses are extremely expensive pieces of machinery as they are so imagine the price of these when they come on the market first and still having to pay a driver. The technology might be close to becoming realistic but the practically not so much yet.

crossmolinalad · 27-08-2017 12:40pm

Not gonna work in busy cities
What they want is that a self driving vehicle always stops for humans and if a human knows that for sure the vehicle will never drive again
People on bikes or foot would do what the like knowing nothing happens when I go to the other side of the road or ride on the middle of the road

end of the road · 27-08-2017 1:43pm

Pkiernan wrote: »

You seem to be missing the blindingly massive point that ALL car crashes are due to human error.....
There are no such thing as accidents. They should be called negligents.

of course There are such thing as accidents. what a complete load of nonsense. if there weren't any such thing then we wouldn't have legislation and all else set up to take account of accidents.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

You sound like a luddite

no he doesn't. he's just giving the actual reality.

AndrewJRenko · 27-08-2017 2:21pm

end of the road wrote: »

of course There are such thing as accidents. what a complete load of nonsense. if there weren't any such thing then we wouldn't have legislation and all else set up to take account of accidents.

Except that they're not 'accidents' - they are crashes or collisions. That's what Gardai and RSA will call them now - now that they've realised that the terminology 'accident' is specifically designed to let drivers off the hook for dangerous driving.

http://www.crashnotaccident.com/

magicbastarder · 27-08-2017 2:36pm

prinzeugen wrote: »

AI will never better human reactions as has been proven by many aircraft accidents. There is one where the pilot actually had to fly the plane after the AI failed rather than just "pilot" it.

don't judge a concept by its current execution, nor blame the AI in a situation where the AI was designed not to be the sole pilot of the plane.

magicbastarder · 27-08-2017 2:37pm

Rave.ef wrote: »

I can't see a driverless truck backing into most of the loading bays and ramps around the country.

yet fifteen years ago, if you were to tell someone that by 2015 you could buy cars which would parallel park themselves, they'd have been amazed.

end of the road · 27-08-2017 3:06pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Except that they're not 'accidents' - they are crashes or collisions. That's what Gardai and RSA will call them now - now that they've realised that the terminology 'accident' is specifically designed to let drivers off the hook for dangerous driving.

http://www.crashnotaccident.com/

doesn't matter, there are such things as accidents.

eeguy · 27-08-2017 5:01pm

crossmolinalad wrote: »

Not gonna work in busy cities
What they want is that a self driving vehicle always stops for humans and if a human knows that for sure the vehicle will never drive again
People on bikes or foot would do what the like knowing nothing happens when I go to the other side of the road or ride on the middle of the road

You cannae break the laws of physics. If a car is traveling fast enough that it can't brake when you wander into the road then you're going to get hit.

People and bikes already do what they like on the roads most of the time and can cause havok. What's to stop me walking out into traffic on Pearse St for example? Im fairly sure all the cars would brake for me. Probably get a few honks and a few curses thrown my way, but they'd still stop. I could sit in the road if I wanted and I'm sure no one would physically try to move me. More likely to call the gardai

The same argument was trotted out against automating the Luas "sure someone could sit on or put an obstacle on the track and the tram would stop indefinitely". But I could do the same thing now and stop the tram. No way is the driver gonna leave his cushy cab and challenge some guy blocking the luas. He'd call for backup or the gardai to fix the problem.

An autonomous car would do the same thing. Maybe push a notification to a call center for a human to make the judgment call

Rave.ef · 27-08-2017 6:35pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

Rave.ef wrote: »

I can't see a driverless truck backing into most of the loading bays and ramps around the country.

yet fifteen years ago, if you were to tell someone that by 2015 you could buy cars which would parallel park themselves, they'd have been amazed.

I see you're point but slight difference in a Ford focus and a 6×2 tractor unit and 45ft trailer.

Self driving buses, trains, trucks etc

Comments