Self driving buses, trains, trucks etc

bk · 30-08-2017 10:30pm

TheQuietFella wrote: »

I'll lay money with anyone that within 20 years these cars, trucks or planes will neither be on the roads or in the skies above!

Huh?! I've past plenty already in the bay area in California. They are been tested on the city streets every day there.

TheQuietFella · 30-08-2017 10:33pm

bk wrote: »

Huh?! I've past plenty already in the bay area in California. They are been tested on the city streets every day there.

I wouldn't compare testing to every day use BK!

magicbastarder · 30-08-2017 10:36pm

TheQuietFella wrote: »

I'll lay money with anyone that within 20 years these cars, trucks or planes will neither be on the roads or in the skies above!

i'd say that the early models will suffer from rapid obsolescence, if that's what you mean? but that's not unique to this technology.

bk · 30-08-2017 10:36pm

TheQuietFella wrote: »

I wouldn't compare testing to every day use BK!

Well active testing on public roads.

Plus Teslas drive themselves on the highways already.

eeguy · 30-08-2017 10:43pm

TheQuietFella wrote: »

I'll lay money with anyone that within 20 years these cars, trucks or planes will neither be on the roads or in the skies above!

Based in what? 20 years ago people would have said that about the internet

brokenarms · 31-08-2017 1:28pm

TheQuietFella wrote: »

I'll lay money with anyone that within 20 years these cars, trucks or planes will neither be on the roads or in the skies above!

Yep. Technology throwing people on the scrap heap of life.

And the same will be said for all bushiness that humans do now I think.

Not necessarily a step in the right direction IMO.

No problem for the young. But even the young get old.

Their time for the scrap heap will come too.

TheQuietFella · 31-08-2017 8:41pm

bk wrote: »

Well active testing on public roads.

Plus Teslas drive themselves on the highways already.

If you have a clip of a vehicle in regular everyday traffic I would like to see it please!

bk · 31-08-2017 8:52pm

TheQuietFella wrote: »

If you have a clip of a vehicle in regular everyday traffic I would like to see it please!

I don't have a personal clip, but plenty of videos on youtube, here is one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TjNJGWJcwk

Note this car doesn't even have a steering wheel!

TheQuietFella · 31-08-2017 9:06pm

bk wrote: »

I don't have a personal clip, but plenty of videos on youtube, here is one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TjNJGWJcwk

Note this car doesn't even have a steering wheel!

Not a conventional steering wheel but it does have a steering device.

If you pause this clip at 3:10 you will see the driver controlling the car!

Don't believe the hype!!!

bk · 31-08-2017 9:09pm

TheQuietFella wrote: »

Not a conventional steering wheel but it does have a steering device.

If you pause this clip at 3:10 you will see the driver controlling the car!

Don't believe the hype!!!

It does, sort of a control stick, but I've personally seen these driving around Mountain View without the person touching the stick.

They also have another, newer version of this car with no stick, though it does have a large red emergency stop button if you are being pedantic.

bk · 31-08-2017 9:17pm

Try this one out, fecking awesome:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tglVvBjaimo

Del.Monte · 31-08-2017 9:27pm

I'm intrigued by this whole idea - but riddle me this, surely the changeover to self driving vehicles would have to be done overnight (literally on one night) not phased otherwise the potential for ordinary vehicles to create mayhem while mixing with self drives is mind boggling, or am I just being really thick?

bk · 31-08-2017 9:29pm

Del.Monte wrote: »

I'm intrigued by this whole idea - but riddle me this, surely the changeover to self driving vehicles would have to be done overnight (literally on one night) not phased otherwise the potential for ordinary vehicles to create mayhem while mixing with self drives is mind boggling, or am I just being really thick?

The self driving cars drive right beside ordinary cars. They are already doing it every day in some places in the US like the above videos. Those aren't test tracks, they are city streets.

Avoiding other cars should be relatively straight forward. Avoiding pedestrians/cyclists/etc. is the trickier bit.

TheQuietFella · 31-08-2017 9:31pm

bk wrote: »

Try this one out, fecking awesome:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tglVvBjaimo

Ok, that is impressive!

Del.Monte · 31-08-2017 9:31pm

bk wrote: »

The self driving cars drive right beside ordinary cars. They are already doing it every day in some places in the US like the above videos. Those aren't test tracks, they are city streets.

Avoiding other cars should be relatively straight forward. Avoiding pedestrians/cyclists/etc. is the trickier bit.

I hope the test pilots (?) are being well paid - I wouldn't be seen dead in one or more likely I would be.

magicbastarder · 31-08-2017 9:33pm

based on an article i read a year or two back - much may have changed since - audi/volkswagen seemed to be doing the most work on the interim period; they'd decided/realised that one of the issues with semi-autonomous cars was the expectations of the human driver who might still be required to take control. there were loads of examples of people overestimating what current technology can do, and the step between where we are now, and fully autonomous vehicles is one that needs better management.

magicbastarder · 31-08-2017 9:35pm

also, i wonder what sort of difference these systems would make for fuel efficiency? the computers are probably more easily tunable for anticipation - which is probably seven tenths of getting as much fuel efficiency from your car - than your average human.

TheQuietFella · 31-08-2017 9:36pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

realised that one of the issues with semi-autonomous cars was the expectations of the human driver who might still be required to take control.

Completely agree with this and that would be my concern also!

magicbastarder · 31-08-2017 9:40pm

this is the article i was thinking of - 18 months old.

https://www.fastcodesign.com/3054330/the-secret-ux-issues-that-will-make-or-break-autonomous-cars

bk · 31-08-2017 9:40pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

based on an article i read a year or two back - much may have changed since - audi/volkswagen seemed to be doing the most work on the interim period; they'd decided/realised that one of the issues with semi-autonomous cars was the expectations of the human driver who might still be required to take control. there were loads of examples of people overestimating what current technology can do, and the step between where we are now, and fully autonomous vehicles is one that needs better management.

Absolutely, I feel it has to go fully automated, no driver interaction required. Semi can catch you out with the unexpected.

bk · 31-08-2017 9:42pm

TheQuietFella wrote: »

Ok, that is impressive!

Yea, the coolest bit is near the end when the driver gets out of the car and then the car, with no driver in it, drives around the carpark looking for an empty space and then parks itself when it finds one. Again no driver sitting in the car! Mind blown!

jimmycrackcorm · 31-08-2017 9:52pm

MGWR wrote: »

One thing I'll never get in is a pilotless airliner. Never in my life.

You might want to rethink that: Images show how dangerously close Air Canada jet came to crashing in San Francisco

The sooner we get driverless trams, the sooner this type of nonsense stops: A Luas driver was lucky to hold on to his job after refusing to operate a tram that was due to arrive at its final stop ONE minute before the driver was to 'clock off'

magicbastarder · 31-08-2017 9:54pm

neither of those examples are relevant to whether driverless cars will work, though. a human failing does not mean a computer won't.

magicbastarder · 31-08-2017 9:58pm

bk wrote: »

Yea, the coolest bit is near the end when the driver gets out of the car and then the car, with no driver in it, drives around the carpark looking for an empty space and then parks itself when it finds one. Again no driver sitting in the car! Mind blown!

actually, that would be one of the least impressive parts i reckon - low speed manouevring when all other vehicles are stationary. the biggest problem the computers face is judging intent - which is really not an issue in a car park.

something you get from experience of driving - that spidey sense that car X is not to be trusted, there's just something about the driving you don't like, which is often confirmed when they prove they're distracted and do something stupid; detecting that is where these systems earn their money.

atilladehun · 31-08-2017 10:12pm

I've wondered if there'll be a big decline in car ownership when fully autonomous driving establishes itself. Mapping every journey will become much easier so providing a car or bus based public service will become much more accurate. ie I can have a car at my house everyday at 7.30 am. Someone near my work can have that car at 8am. Businesses can use a car for courier services during the day and the car can return to commuting at home time. In one way I can imagine it being more efficient. I think it's from seeing so many parked cars all the time, doing nothing.

bk · 31-08-2017 10:23pm

atilladehun wrote: »

I've wondered if there'll be a big decline in car ownership when fully autonomous driving establishes itself. Mapping every journey will become much easier so providing a car or bus based public service will become much more accurate. ie I can have a car at my house everyday at 7.30 am. Someone near my work can have that car at 8am. Businesses can use a car for courier services during the day and the car can return to commuting at home time. In one way I can imagine it being more efficient. I think it's from seeing so many parked cars all the time, doing nothing.

Yup, self driving car are expected to make car sharing services much easier and affordable and it is expected to have a big impact on reducing the number of cars built and needed.

This is why Ford, Gm have been getting involved in the rental service side, buying Lyft, MyTaxi, etc.

jimmycrackcorm · 31-08-2017 10:38pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

neither of those examples are relevant to whether driverless cars will work, though. a human failing does not mean a computer won't.

Self driving cars don't have to be perfect though, just safer than humans...

The advances in machine learning mean that a computer will only fail where it hasn't learned already. But the difference is that human learning is limited depending on exposure but your autonomous car will recognize dangers on a road you haven't been on because of shared learning from other cars that have.

The real problem though is going to be the moral dilemma of self-driving cars.

bk · 31-08-2017 10:44pm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The real problem though is going to be the moral dilemma of self-driving cars.

Great video, spot on.

plodder · 31-08-2017 11:49pm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

You might want to rethink that: Images show how dangerously close Air Canada jet came to crashing in San Francisco

I don't think we'll have pilot-less planes any time soon, but one of the reactions to that incident is interesting. The FAA has decreed that planes in the exact same situation in future, must be be landed using the automation rather than manually, which is one more situation where the computers are taking over and humans have to take a back seat.

eeguy · 01-09-2017 2:11am

TheQuietFella wrote: »

Not a conventional steering wheel but it does have a steering device.

If you pause this clip at 3:10 you will see the driver controlling the car!

Don't believe the hype!!!

Hype? You're looking at as vid from 2 years back showing tech that's not currently available.

There's a weird tendency for people to say " sure it's not perfect now so it'll never be perfect"

Here's one from this year of a Tesla casually driving some lad to work
https://youtu.be/6Vsi1Glf__A

eeguy · 01-09-2017 2:17am

plodder wrote: »

I don't think we'll have pilot-less planes any time soon, but one of the reactions to that incident is interesting. The FAA has decreed that planes in the exact same situation in future, must be be landed using the automation rather than manually, which is one more situation where the computers are taking over and humans have to take a back seat.

Planes used to have 3 people in the cockpit.

They now have 2 as the computer does navigation. Soon they'll have one and they'll be little more than busses.

eeguy · 01-09-2017 2:24am

Del.Monte wrote: »

I'm intrigued by this whole idea - but riddle me this, surely the changeover to self driving vehicles would have to be done overnight (literally on one night) not phased otherwise the potential for ordinary vehicles to create mayhem while mixing with self drives is mind boggling, or am I just being really thick?

A self driving car is well aware of its surroundings. Otherwise we'd have to microchip every pedi cyclist dog and cat.

Avoiding a car is quite simple now. The problem is seeing a pedi disappear behind a car and predict that he'll pop out on the road in 5 seconds. And AFAIK that's been solved

dr.fuzzenstein · 01-09-2017 5:16am

plodder wrote: »

Yeah, maybe though I think fully driverless will be a long way off. This idea sounds quite practical though. I'd imagine that any truck with the technology would be able to join convoys like this randomly on the m-way, ]b]though there would have to be some way to compensate the vehicle at the front for providing the "service" but not directly benefiting.[/b] Keeping trucks together in tight groups of three could help congestion to some extent, as well as fuel economy.

I hope not. Since these mini "trains" would break up and regroup all the time, how would that he calculated? Truck a leads for 20 km and gets a fiver from the trucks behind, except truck c that left after 10 km. Trick d joined the group as lead vehicle and truck a left, but followed d for 5 km, the group breaks up at a major junction and goes separate ways and join different convoys.
What about cars? Same applies.
As with any simple concept, there's always ways to make it needlessly difficult and complicated because someone feels they are owed a few measly bucks. Or maybe it could be integrated with the electronic tolls that are applied to every meter a vehicle drives in the future, all it takes is a computer system that follows the movement if every single vehicle on the road.
I wonder how self driving will work on country boreens.

magicbastarder · 01-09-2017 8:54am

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I wonder how self driving will work on country boreens.

possibly easier for them, less likely to be other traffic, it's a simpler environment to model.

01-09-2017 9:25am

magicbastarder wrote: »

possibly easier for them, less likely to be other traffic, it's a simpler environment to model.

Particularly when the car knows the exact road layout and exactly where it is at all times in relation to the road layout.

plodder · 01-09-2017 9:54am

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I hope not. Since these mini "trains" would break up and regroup all the time, how would that he calculated? Truck a leads for 20 km and gets a fiver from the trucks behind, except truck c that left after 10 km. Trick d joined the group as lead vehicle and truck a left, but followed d for 5 km, the group breaks up at a major junction and goes separate ways and join different convoys.

I don't see an issue with any of that. For each km, the leader leads the convoy he gets paid X. For each km (or part thereof

) the followers are in it, they pay Y. By the way, I'm not saying this is how it will pan out, but just one way it might. It could be a system of payment and credits for being the leader, or a multitude of different ways.

Billing would be the easy part of this. Everyone has to sign up in advance, obviously, since you need assurance about technical compliance etc

What about cars? Same applies.

The idea makes most sense at this stage for trucks, but I'd see it extended to cars as well eventually on the same basis.

As with any simple concept, there's always ways to make it needlessly difficult and complicated because someone feels they are owed a few measly bucks. Or maybe it could be integrated with the electronic tolls that are applied to every meter a vehicle drives in the future, all it takes is a computer system that follows the movement if every single vehicle on the road.

If people want this, who is going to pay for it otherwise?

I wonder how self driving will work on country boreens.

I noticed in the Nissan clip earlier, the car wasn't able to overtake on a single carriage way. The driver had to take over manual control when it passed a stopped vehicle. I'd say country boreens could be problematic, particularly Irish ones that aren't wide enough for two cars to pass.

eeguy · 01-09-2017 11:28am

plodder wrote: »

I noticed in the Nissan clip earlier, the car wasn't able to overtake on a single carriage way. The driver had to take over manual control when it passed a stopped vehicle. I'd say country boreens could be problematic, particularly Irish ones that aren't wide enough for two cars to pass.

Wonder how they'll program having to reverse into a field to let another car go by:D

dr.fuzzenstein · 01-09-2017 12:05pm

plodder wrote: »

I don't see an issue with any of that. For each km, the leader leads the convoy he gets paid X. For each km (or part thereof ) the followers are in it, they pay Y. By the way, I'm not saying this is how it will pan out, but just one way it might. It could be a system of payment and credits for being the leader, or a multitude of different ways.

Billing would be the easy part of this. Everyone has to sign up in advance, obviously, since you need assurance about technical compliance etc

The idea makes most sense at this stage for trucks, but I'd see it extended to cars as well eventually on the same basis.
.

To my mind it's not only a solution looking for a problem, but a solution looking to create far more problems than it's worth.
If it does happen it will be a tribute to the ability of humanity not being happy with a situation that works and having to "improve" into one that doesn't.
OK, just my opinion and we'll see what comes to pass.
It is a bit like truck tolls in Germany. A complicated and sophisticated system of overhead gantries that are networked into a massively powerful computer system to track Tue movement of all trucks (and soon cars) that took years to implemented and cost countless billions, so no truck could drive one centimeter and not pay.
The Swiss and Austrians sell you a paper disk. The argument is that some people manage to get away with not paying, but is it worth billions to save millions? The fact that the answer is yes, says a lot about humankind.

plodder · 01-09-2017 12:27pm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

To my mind it's not only a solution looking for a problem, but a solution looking to create far more problems than it's worth.

I'm not clear what aspect of the solution you don't like. Is it autonomous driving generally, truck convoys, or this idea of how it might be charged for/funded?

If it does happen it will be a tribute to the ability of humanity not being happy with a situation that works and having to "improve" into one that doesn't.
OK, just my opinion and we'll see what comes to pass.
It is a bit like truck tolls in Germany. A complicated and sophisticated system of overhead gantries that are networked into a massively powerful computer system to track Tue movement of all trucks (and soon cars) that took years to implemented and cost countless billions, so no truck could drive one centimeter and not pay.
The Swiss and Austrians sell you a paper disk. The argument is that some people manage to get away with not paying, but is it worth billions to save millions? The fact that the answer is yes, says a lot about humankind.

I've been caught out by those vignette systems in the past. You end paying the same motorway tax if you drive in the country for one day, or for 365 consecutive days. A different issue though ...

But if you think that this needs a system of overhead gantries every few km, or a massively powerful computer system, like the truck monitoring system you describe, then that's not the case. The state isn't going to be involved in developing these systems either; regulating them maybe, but definitely not building them. All the complicated stuff with this is built into the truck. They would use today's regular mobile networks for billing purposes. They don't need 100% coverage (or any better than today).

seamus · 01-09-2017 1:18pm

TheQuietFella wrote: »

Completely agree with this and that would be my concern also!

A lot of the companies developing this stuff came to that realisation early.

Google has been working on full autonomy and been ignoring safety-assist features because they realised that the more assistance you give to human drivers, the more likely they were to make a mistake - they became more complacent, spend less time focussing on the road.

This creates a form of negative feedback loop, where you have to keep increasing the number of safety features and improving their sensitivity, just to stand still. You hit a plateau of safety even though you're continually adding safety features. The more safety features you add, the worse drivers people become.

If you remove the human from the equation at the start, then the effort required to make the vehicle safer and get straight to full autonomy was way less than trying to transition from fully manual to semi-autonomy to full autonomy.

magicbastarder wrote: »

something you get from experience of driving - that spidey sense that car X is not to be trusted, there's just something about the driving you don't like, which is often confirmed when they prove they're distracted and do something stupid; detecting that is where these systems earn their money.

We pat ourselves far too much on the back for driving. We tell ourselves that it's a massively complex activity requiring unique intelligence that only a human can do.

In reality it's not. It's a by-the-numbers activity. Human stupidity adds the extra complexity to it, and we convince ourselves that you need human brain power to account for this.
But if you follow a short and simple set of rules, you'll will navigate 99.9999% of journeys without incident. The problem is that humans refuse to follow these rules and improvise when they encounter the unexpected.

My favourite example of this "simple rules for unexpected situations" idea is when Google's Self-Driving car encountered a woman in a wheelchair using a broom to chase a duck in the middle of the road:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/video/2017/mar/16/google-waymo-self-driving-car-video-woman-bird

Without intervention, the car knew what to do and handled the scenario. I can think of plenty of people who would have done something dumb and ended up killing the bird or hitting a parked car.

Bear in mind that although the Guardian article above is only a couple of months old, the incident itself happened 3 years ago. So we're now 3 years beyond that level of quality in autonomous driving.

People just don't seem to get that autonomous vehicles are already better than people at driving for the most part. They seem to be under the impression that it's still pipe dream of people who were fans of Knight Rider, and that we're no further on than we were in the 1980s.

Dravokivich · 01-09-2017 1:49pm

eeguy wrote: »

Hype? You're looking at as vid from 2 years back showing tech that's not currently available.

There's a weird tendency for people to say " sure it's not perfect now so it'll never be perfect"

Here's one from this year of a Tesla casually driving some lad to work
https://youtu.be/6Vsi1Glf__A

Looks like it entered the car park and let him out on the wrong side.

magicbastarder · 01-09-2017 1:50pm

to be fair, you pulled that quote out of the context it was made in - it was a comment on how easy it is for a car to park itself in a well ordered car park, vs the greater demands of the open road.

MGWR · 01-09-2017 6:58pm

seamus wrote: »

My favourite example of this "simple rules for unexpected situations" idea is when Google's Self-Driving car encountered a woman in a wheelchair using a broom to chase a duck in the middle of the road:
Guardian link

Heh, the Guardian. They change their online headlines just a little too quickly for my comfort; that bespeaks mendacity, never mind their political stance. And that's to say nothing about the trustworthiness (or lack thereof) of Google itself.

seamus wrote: »

People just don't seem to get that autonomous vehicles are already better than people at driving for the most part. They seem to be under the impression that it's still pipe dream of people who were fans of Knight Rider, and that we're no further on than we were in the 1980s

Sure, because the left wing press and government say so.

It's a great way to make one stay home. So long as home isn't too automated itself.

As for KITT, this stuff that is being pushed on us is anything but something like that.

eeguy · 01-09-2017 7:36pm

MGWR wrote: »

Heh, the Guardian. They change their online headlines just a little too quickly for my comfort; that bespeaks mendacity, never mind their political stance. And that's to say nothing about the trustworthiness (or lack thereof) of Google itself.Sure, because the left wing press and government say so.

It's a great way to make one stay home. So long as home isn't too automated itself.

As for KITT, this stuff that is being pushed on us is anything but something like that.

ALL online news change as the story develops. It's a huge peeve of mine, but no one is free of guilt on that front.
What does liberal or government have to do with private technology companies developing technology?
You should take your tinfoil hat off for a day.

prinzeugen · 01-09-2017 8:21pm

People dont have a problem with companies developing technology. Its when this technology (most of the recent stuff being solutions to problems that dont exist) gets forced on people that it becomes a problem.

I cant see there ever being fully autonomous cars etc.

You still need humans. You just have to watch a few episodes of Air Crash Investigation to see that.

Even the "driverless" Docklands railway and 3 Tube lines still have human drivers.

What about sort notice lane closures etc due to accidents? Is one of these driverless trucks going to plow into fire crews while they cut someone out a car?

Stephen15 · 01-09-2017 8:33pm

prinzeugen wrote: »

What about sort notice lane closures etc due to accidents? Is one of these driverless trucks going to plow into fire crews while they cut someone out a car?

But the driverless cars will be so safe that fire crews will never have to cut someone out of a car as there will be no accidents involving driverless cars

eeguy · 01-09-2017 8:34pm

prinzeugen wrote: »

People dont have a problem with companies developing technology. Its when this technology (most of the recent stuff being solutions to problems that dont exist) gets forced on people that it becomes a problem.

I cant see there ever being fully autonomous cars etc.

You still need humans. You just have to watch a few episodes of Air Crash Investigation to see that.

Even the "driverless" Docklands railway and 3 Tube lines still have human drivers.

What about sort notice lane closures etc due to accidents? Is one of these driverless trucks going to plow into fire crews while they cut someone out a car?

If you did any research you'd know all of your concerns were baseless.
Also air crash investigates usually has the cause of pilot error.

Stephen15 · 01-09-2017 8:40pm

eeguy wrote: »

If you did any research you'd know all of your concerns were baseless.
Also air crash investigates usually has the cause of pilot error.

What about what happened in 2010 on the Hudson river would a driverless plane have the intelligence or even common sense to land a plane in those conditions or even crosswinds for example. How will driverless vehicles adapt to changes in weather conditions which can change suddenly.

eeguy · 01-09-2017 8:57pm

Stephen15 wrote: »

What about what happened in 2010 on the Hudson river would a driverless plane have the intelligence or even common sense to land a plane in those conditions or even crosswinds for example. How will driverless vehicles adapt to changes in weather conditions which can change suddenly.

Would all 216 passengers on the Air France flight be alive if an autopilot was installed on the plane instead of the pilot?

Picking one freak example as an argument against autopilot is false. Pilot error is causes something like 3/4 of plane crashes. I'd hazard that driver error is probably much higher.

Weather conditions change suddenly? Like it rains? Autonomous cars can see far better than humans. Most weather doesn't even affect them.

prinzeugen · 01-09-2017 8:58pm

eeguy wrote: »

If you did any research you'd know all of your concerns were baseless.
Also air crash investigates usually has the cause of pilot error.

Very few.

You just have to look at the 100s of "miracles" that have been preformed by commercial aviation pilots over the years.

You can never program a computer with a humans knowledge or 1000's of hours experience in the air.

I recall one where the both artificial horizons went. Human solution? Glass of water with a line on it so they knew if they were going up/down or left/right.

AI would not think of that never mind be able to do it.

The guy that went on a rampage outside Buckingham palace had planned to go to Kensington palace but google maps directed him to a pub with the same name..

Not promising is it.

Self driving buses, trains, trucks etc

Comments