PDA

View Full Version : Don't Fear Driverless Cars



ralph60
07-08-2014, 06:36 PM
This article has some excellent ideas as to the impact of driverless cars on society.
http://www.city-journal.org/2014/eon0801bf.html

moahunter
08-08-2014, 03:35 PM
Perhaps relevant for this thread on robocars (I relaize title isn't best though)?

http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=15434&page=2&highlight=robocar

FamilyMan
08-08-2014, 08:07 PM
Not sure who you are comforting on the fear of driverless cars....

As an individual we should all cheer this innovation as it will reduce collision probability and the health and financial consiquences of car accidents. Plus it can reduce carbon emissions by making transportation more efficient.

On the other hand, if you are in car insurance, well, you should fear driverless cars:
Financial Times, 30 July 2014
Insurers worry driverless cars are ‘existential threat’
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/163eb476-17bf-11e4-b842-00144feabdc0.html#axzz39r8DvfT7

Also, there are societal consequences as this technology will put a lot of low-skilled workers currently driving taxis or delivery trucks out of business. How can our welfare system cope under the weight of unemployment benefits, how to provide a safety net for the families affected etc. Already taxi drivers feel the heat by the likes of Uber app. Just wait till cars even don't need drivers....

moahunter
10-08-2014, 11:48 AM
Also, there are societal consequences as this technology will put a lot of low-skilled workers currently driving taxis or delivery trucks out of business. How can our welfare system cope under the weight of unemployment benefits, how to provide a safety net for the families affected etc. Already taxi drivers feel the heat by the likes of Uber app. Just wait till cars even don't need drivers....
Historically with technology changes you end up ultimately with more employed not less. At
The moment this isn't really a concern though, there is a shortage of workforce for low skill jobs, especially in the service industries (fast food, restaurants, store, truck drivers, etc.)

FamilyMan
18-08-2014, 01:47 PM
As the famous quote by Niles Bohr goes, "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future."

Here is an excellent video-argument, well worth your 15 min, which put things in perspective. If e-mail checking and social media posting doesn't allow your attention to focus on one subject for 15 min, check out 5:00-7:00 minutes about driverless cars.

Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

240GLT
18-08-2014, 02:13 PM
Cars with autonomous features already exist. Cars that park themselves, pre-emptively brake to avoid collisions etc are on the road now. AMVIC and other institutions are looking at all the potential consequences that might fall beyond care and control

Who's at fault if your autonomous vehicle runs someone over ? The manufacturer ? The person in care and control ? Lots of things to consider

highlander
18-08-2014, 02:57 PM
The liability issue is interesting, for sure. For fully autonomous cars most of the liability will most likely rest with the manufacturers, which combined with the court's generally greater willingness to impose large fines on corporations than on individual drivers will ensure that autonomous vehicles have exceptionally high maintenance standards and are extremely safe before they become available to the public.

I have no insight into when or even if true Auto-Auto-mobiles make it to market, but when they do they will be safe.

240GLT
18-08-2014, 03:14 PM
You can be charged with a vehicular related offence even if you are not behind the wheel. Being in care and control means that you are responsible for the vehicle

The question has come about because there are already questions about what happens when a system invariably fails, causes damage or injury

KC
18-01-2015, 08:31 PM
Some history on driverless cars - go to 16 minutes - the Citroen DS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AjmLmG16Nw


Jay Leno on the Citroen DS - inspirational ! All car designers should watch this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzW_ERSgFRY&feature=youtu.be

Edmonton PRT
19-01-2015, 06:34 AM
At the moment this isn't really a concern though, there is a shortage of workforce for low skill jobs, especially in the service industries (fast food, restaurants, store, truck drivers, etc.)

That's because the rich owners of the fast food chains, restaurants, stores, trucking companies, etc. don't want to pay a living wage.

Who wants those jobs if they pay minimum wage, most often much less than 40 hours so they don't have to pay for benefits and are treated like crap: changing their hours, not paying for the time staff have to set up or clean up after closing, etc.

Edmonton PRT
19-01-2015, 06:37 AM
You can be charged with a vehicular related offence even if you are not behind the wheel. Being in care and control means that you are responsible for the vehicle

The question has come about because there are already questions about what happens when a system invariably fails, causes damage or injury

All it will take is a couple of high profile accidents such as a driverless car shutting down in the middle of a highway and being rear-ended, causing a multi-vehicle crash, pedestrian killed or some unforeseen issue that results in deaths and I believe that they will be banned from the roads.

KC
19-01-2015, 07:05 AM
You can be charged with a vehicular related offence even if you are not behind the wheel. Being in care and control means that you are responsible for the vehicle

The question has come about because there are already questions about what happens when a system invariably fails, causes damage or injury

All it will take is a couple of high profile accidents such as a driverless car shutting down in the middle of a highway and being rear-ended, causing a multi-vehicle crash, pedestrian killed or some unforeseen issue that results in deaths and I believe that they will be banned from the roads.

And so other countries will jump ahead of Canada and soon we'll be a third world country in terms of our transportation system.

Edmonton PRT
19-01-2015, 07:15 AM
We have been told by other posters that we should not be on the bleeding edge of technology.

KC
19-01-2015, 07:44 AM
We have been told by other posters that we should not be on the bleeding edge of technology.

Including me. Bleeding edge is just that. However, once the legislators get their hands on an issue, they can effectively kill the introduction of some innovations long after they've made imminent sense.

Just look at the adjustable headlights on that Citroen DS in the Jay Leno video. Laws banned them in North America for decades.

Replacement
19-01-2015, 08:11 AM
I'll admit to fear and the OP article not displacing any of that. As an essay this OP is poorly contrived.

The stated theme is;



Driverless cars may soon be coming to America’s cities, and some transit enthusiasts wish they wouldn’t—particularly those who view any cars, driverless or otherwise, as a problem
Their concerns are misplaced, however.


However, the author does not state one thing that actually addreses concerns.

Well heres some concerns. Maybe the Auto industry could try to manufacture vehicles that don't require Millions of recalls for serious defects that are often enough detected through serial fatality crashes involving same vehicle types before they can get to work on vehicles that are going to drive by themselves.

lol as well at the thought of a driverless vehicle operating in inclement, and highly variable winter conditions.

maybe its me, and maybe its because we live in Edmonton and engineers can't figure out how to run signalling that won't result in collisions on a two train fixed track.

So yeah I'm a little skeptical here.

Replacement
19-01-2015, 08:12 AM
Oh, Maybe this is a good idea for uber.


j/k

richardW
19-01-2015, 12:22 PM
All it will take is a couple of high profile accidents such as a driverless car shutting down in the middle of a highway and being rear-ended, causing a multi-vehicle crash, pedestrian killed or some unforeseen issue that results in deaths and I believe that they will be banned from the roads.

major accident happen everyday with human operators but as far as i know we havent banned humans from driving yet...

Replacement
19-01-2015, 12:52 PM
All it will take is a couple of high profile accidents such as a driverless car shutting down in the middle of a highway and being rear-ended, causing a multi-vehicle crash, pedestrian killed or some unforeseen issue that results in deaths and I believe that they will be banned from the roads.

major accident happen everyday with human operators but as far as i know we havent banned humans from driving yet...

Fairly recent story. Was driving a vehicle I won't identify here for fear of reprisal and consistent with settlement. But said vehicle had malfunctioning throttle body that would stick so that in a situation where you are accelerating to merge onto a highway the throttle would stick, keep accelerating, and any braking, moving gas pedal etc wouldn't get it to stop. Had to put on brakes, try to control madly racing vehicle, shift a racing engine into Neutral at which point it redlined.

I'd like to know how a driverless car would deal with all that.

The vehicle in question later had recalls for this exact problem (replicated in 100's of dangerous situations and including fatalities)

Drumbones
19-01-2015, 01:13 PM
There is just no way this is going to happen.

Marcel Petrin
19-01-2015, 01:37 PM
heh, I love these "unintended acceleration" stories. There isn't a vehicle on the planet that has an engine stronger than it's brakes. Full stop.

And as far as an autonomous vehicle dealing with that situation, it would probably deal with it in a fraction of a second by turning off the ignition, putting the transmission in to neutral, and so on. Far quicker than any human could react.

Edmonton PRT
19-01-2015, 01:38 PM
New technology always has to be proven to be reasonably safe before it becomes mainstream.

Cars were such an upgrade from a horse and there is little alternative to be able to get from point A to B without one. How would you get to Rocky Mountain House without a car or bus (those have accidents too)? What to go to Beaumont or to the movies tonight, how you getting there, a cab? Those have accidents too.

Driverless cars are not a significant technology change but rather an upgrade like self parking modes that Ford offers. It is fraught with legal and safety issues. When GM cannot make a safe ignition switch, do you think that the driverless cars will be problem free? Who do you sue when (not if) someone ends up in a head-on collision with a driverless car that is heading somewhere to pick up its owner?

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/if-a-self-driving-car-gets-in-an-accident-who-is-legally-liable/375569/

Marcel Petrin
19-01-2015, 01:42 PM
Regarding engine vs brakes: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-to-deal-with-unintended-acceleration


Certainly the most natural reaction to a stuck-throttle emergency is to stomp on the brake pedal, possibly with both feet. And despite dramatic horsepower increases since C/D’s 1987 unintended-acceleration test of an Audi 5000, brakes by and large can still overpower and rein in an engine roaring under full throttle. With the Camry’s throttle pinned while going 70 mph, the brakes easily overcame all 268 horsepower straining against them and stopped the car in 190 feet—that’s a foot shorter than the performance of a Ford Taurus without any gas-pedal problems and just 16 feet longer than with the Camry’s throttle closed. From 100 mph, the stopping-distance differential was 88 feet—noticeable to be sure, but the car still slowed enthusiastically enough to impart a feeling of confidence. We also tried one go-for-broke run at 120 mph, and, even then, the car quickly decelerated to about 10 mph before the brakes got excessively hot and the car refused to decelerate any further. So even in the most extreme case, it should be possible to get a car’s speed down to a point where a resulting accident should be a low-speed and relatively minor event.

Now, if there's other issues with "fly-by-wire" controls disabling the brakes, that's another matter entirely.

Replacement
19-01-2015, 01:54 PM
heh, I love these "unintended acceleration" stories. There isn't a vehicle on the planet that has an engine stronger than it's brakes. Full stop.

And as far as an autonomous vehicle dealing with that situation, it would probably deal with it in a fraction of a second by turning off the ignition, putting the transmission in to neutral, and so on. Far quicker than any human could react.

It happened. Certainly I was able to slow the vehicle down. But try dealing with a situation where your throttle if fully accelerating, unexpectedly, and your having to brake sensibly to avoid speeding into the stratosphere, AND you're merging into traffic. Try braking sometime with full throttle and trying to negotiate tight traffic without causing an accident.

To say it was cold sweat time and WTF was that is putting it lightly. I was furious. You know what the dealership tried to pawn it off as (and all manufacturers do) floor mats. I don't use floor mats.

Edmonton PRT
19-01-2015, 02:13 PM
Fly by wire failure

-cv2ud1339E

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296

Replacement
19-01-2015, 02:15 PM
Regarding engine vs brakes: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-to-deal-with-unintended-acceleration


Certainly the most natural reaction to a stuck-throttle emergency is to stomp on the brake pedal, possibly with both feet. And despite dramatic horsepower increases since C/D’s 1987 unintended-acceleration test of an Audi 5000, brakes by and large can still overpower and rein in an engine roaring under full throttle. With the Camry’s throttle pinned while going 70 mph, the brakes easily overcame all 268 horsepower straining against them and stopped the car in 190 feet—that’s a foot shorter than the performance of a Ford Taurus without any gas-pedal problems and just 16 feet longer than with the Camry’s throttle closed. From 100 mph, the stopping-distance differential was 88 feet—noticeable to be sure, but the car still slowed enthusiastically enough to impart a feeling of confidence. We also tried one go-for-broke run at 120 mph, and, even then, the car quickly decelerated to about 10 mph before the brakes got excessively hot and the car refused to decelerate any further. So even in the most extreme case, it should be possible to get a car’s speed down to a point where a resulting accident should be a low-speed and relatively minor event.Now, if there's other issues with "fly-by-wire" controls disabling the brakes, that's another matter entirely.

The cited sounds off.

The situation I was describing is a fully pinned throttle that is locked instantly, not gradually pinned which is probably what they did in the study. Consider a vehicle where the gas pedal has been stomped on without the driver doing that or expecting that. Instantly. With the first thought being what the hell. So there is some delay between the event, and the braking. In the study cited above they would have stepped on the brakes simultaneously or even before pinning the throttle. In anycase they knew throttle would be pinned so no surprise or reaction time involved. When this happens in real driving its more like stopping a runaway horse. Its pretty shocking to anybody its happened to. Its been fatal several times.

Marcel Petrin
19-01-2015, 02:26 PM
Oh yeah, no question it would be a hairy situation. But the reality is that the vast majority of those cases were either driver error or floor mat issues. And it was extremely frustrating to see dozens of media reports that completely ignored the simple fact that no car has an engine capable of overpowering it's brakes to any significant degree.

And frankly, it's a poor point against autonomous vehicles. Again, an autonomous vehicle would be able to handle that situation before a human driver would have even started to react.

Replacement
19-01-2015, 02:54 PM
Oh yeah, no question it would be a hairy situation. But the reality is that the vast majority of those cases were either driver error or floor mat issues. And it was extremely frustrating to see dozens of media reports that completely ignored the simple fact that no car has an engine capable of overpowering it's brakes to any significant degree.

And frankly, it's a poor point against autonomous vehicles. Again, an autonomous vehicle would be able to handle that situation before a human driver would have even started to react.

Yep. For sure the brakes are going to be stronger than the acceleration. That wasn't in question when it occurred to me.

Just a question though as I applied brakes, slowed down (as much as I could in shoulder with vehicles flying by, and then switched it to neutral as using brakes while accelerating was weird. I seem to recall some swim in the movement of the vehicle meaning my brakes were probably not all exactly as effective. Not something I'd noted or the shop noted before. Anyway, I put it in neutral BEFORE switching off ignition. I felt like I had to get it into neutral quickly. You advised turn off ignition first. Does that not cause steering lock and or difficulty steering due to lack of power steering?

Marcel Petrin
19-01-2015, 03:01 PM
Depends on the vehicle, but yes, turning off the ignition will make steering more difficult because of the loss of power steering. My post wasn't necessarily listing the steps in chronological order.

Replacement
19-01-2015, 03:08 PM
Depends on the vehicle, but yes, turning off the ignition will make steering more difficult because of the loss of power steering. My post wasn't necessarily listing the steps in chronological order.

Thanks. I thought I did everything right there. but then when saw and heard it redline after hitting neutral I wondered if there was anything different I could have done. I tried even pumping brakes to see if any circuitry would take effect to get throttle to release. Tried moving gas pedal with foot as it was stuck to floor. Couldn't fish it up with my foot. All this happens very quickly.

Pretty sure my steering locks as soon as ignition is turned off so that's why I put it in neutral. Vehicle slowed down, stopped, engine didn't slow down until ignition turned off.

not something I would want to happen to anybody

Edmonton PRT
19-01-2015, 03:08 PM
Depends on the vehicle, but yes, turning off the ignition will make steering more difficult because of the loss of power steering. My post wasn't necessarily listing the steps in chronological order.

And loss of braking power and the steering may lock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_General_Motors_recall

They have to begin putting the responsible executive in prison. If you or I did this, we would be serving time. Highly paid executives get a slap on the wrist.

Replacement
19-01-2015, 03:15 PM
Depends on the vehicle, but yes, turning off the ignition will make steering more difficult because of the loss of power steering. My post wasn't necessarily listing the steps in chronological order.

And loss of braking power and the steering may lock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_General_Motors_recall

They have to begin putting the responsible executive in prison. If you or I did this, we would be serving time. Highly paid executives get a slap on the wrist.

Yeah, I was worried about brakes too. Already figured on the steering locking as noted. I wasn't going to take any chances. I knew what neutral would do. Even thought about using park brake after slowing down a bit but that would probably be a mess.

It was sobering later to read the many crash reports and fatalities in these instances. A lot of people freeze in emergency situations. I'm used to them.

KC
19-01-2015, 06:04 PM
So, this braking experience applies to electric cars and the torque of an electric motor?

Of course, a breaker switch might be a simple solution.

moahunter
17-03-2015, 11:27 PM
Per Google, within 5 years.,,

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/tech-news/driverless-cars-could-be-in-market-within-five-years-google-director-at-ted/article23511420/

Edmonton PRT
18-03-2015, 07:21 AM
Nothing in the article mentions about the abilty of the cars to drive in snow.

Want to buy an expensive car that only works 6 months of the year?

Medwards
18-03-2015, 07:58 AM
even heavy rain gives the google car fits... but snow and ice? This technology still has a long way to go before it will be seen on Canadian roads.

http://www.thestar.com/business/2015/01/20/google-car-is-no-match-for-snow-and-ice.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2739765/Is-Google-s-driverless-car-fair-weather-friend-Vehicle-WON-T-work-heavy-rain-snow-insider-reveals.html

highlander
18-03-2015, 08:25 AM
Yep, it's a long way off yet. I figure I have 40 years of driving yet so I'll see them on the road at some point, but it won't be in the 5 year time frame that the boosters keep telling us.

Edmonton PRT
18-03-2015, 09:10 AM
s for when the self-driving cars might be available, Urmson said he has an 11-and-a-half-year-old son who will be eligible for a driver’s license in four and a half years.

I see it now. The 16 year old is in his self driving car doing 65 mph on the I-5 through LA and it begins to rain. Google cars gets confused and "it will either stop or return control over to a human driver. "

Watch the fun begin when 50 or 500 vehicles on the same stretch do the same.

Chmilz
18-03-2015, 08:05 PM
I'm totally fine with a driverless car. I'm not OK with the full-time tracking and other privacy breaches that will come with all the new technology being rolled out in cars these days...

KC
09-04-2015, 12:27 PM
The issue is getting a lot of press coverage. See the article below.

I think a place like Maui could work out the issues of both electric cars and driverless cars fast. Google just goes in and offers the rental agencies a deal to use its cars - which all the vacationers should love. Then offers the citizens another deal. Vacation property owners who keep a vehicle there would get a third deal.


High-speed rail versus driverless cars
Published on Tuesday, April 07, 2015
excerpt:

"In cities, driverless cars could cut congestion. A recent simulation at the University of Texas of a city with driverless cars prowling for business found that passengers need wait an average of 18 seconds for a driverless vehicle to show up and that each shared autonomous vehicle could replace 11 conventional cars. A study by Columbia University concluded that a driverless vehicle fleet could cut the cost of transport by 80 per cent compared with a personally owned vehicle driven 10,000 miles a year — not counting the reduction in parking costs and the value of time not spent at the wheel.

However, I suspect that on routes between cities, the advent of driverless cars could increase congestion. When taking an autonomous car allows you to work, motorway traffic is almost bound to increase. An older person, for example, ..., might today decide to stay at home.

If in 2030 she can be collected from home and driven direct to her destination 100 miles away while reading or snoozing, then she is a bit more likely to make the trip. Since motorways are even more congested than railways already, that is surely where the problem will lie. We should be planning now for more lanes on motorways in 2030.

Driverlessness will arrive in stages. ..."

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/high-speed-rail-versus-driverless-cars.aspx

The above article, makes me wonder if Britain has a substantial driverless infrastructure advantage with all its traffic circles / roundabouts.




~

Edmonton PRT
09-04-2015, 01:02 PM
I'm totally fine with a driverless car. I'm not OK with the full-time tracking and other privacy breaches that will come with all the new technology being rolled out in cars these days...

Don't worry, we are tracking you always.


Always.

Your friends at the NSA

moahunter
09-04-2015, 01:16 PM
I'm totally fine with a driverless car. I'm not OK with the full-time tracking and other privacy breaches that will come with all the new technology being rolled out in cars these days...
I am going to put a dash cam in my car (why not? Someone does something dumb, its clear its not me). Insurance companies are starting to offer incentives if you let yourself be monitered as well. I'm cool with it, sure google probably isn't the best keeper of private information (theyll figure out some way to sell for advertising dollars), but I don't have anything to hide. NSA can pretty much track and see anything now anyway.

sundance
06-05-2015, 01:19 PM
Freightliner unveils the first road-legal self-driving truck
http://arstechnica.com/cars/2015/05/freightliner-unveils-the-first-road-legal-self-driving-truck/

KC
15-05-2015, 09:24 AM
Technology vs the lawyers...

Interesting though because passing intelligently requires some experience in terms of knowing the acceleration abilities of one's vehicle and that tends to come from pressing the accelerator pedal. (To someone that rides in cabs all day, I don't know if they'd bring much useful experience to the wheel.) So I'm not sure if just a bunch of successes from watching the machine do it in the past adds sufficient attention, tactile or human sensory experience to the decision process. Wouldn't it become more of a guessing game otherwise? Plus kids would just start to hit the signal without looking up, and then go back to texting, not even watching and learning to judge the degree of success of passing attempts.

So I assume that the sensors would make that judgement and overrule the driver where it was 'obviously' (to the sensors) unsafe to pass. The driver would just be adding a final confirmation and helping to rule out exceptional situations, if the driver took any interest in watching for exceptions or had any useful experience / intelligence to add to the process.



Mobileye Shares Charge To Session Highs Following WSJ Piece On Tesla's Autopilot

Kevin Riley , Benzinga Staff Writer Follow
May 13, 2015


"...As Tesla introduces driverless vehicle technology, the company suggested that passing maneuvers could be initiated by the driver using the turn signal rather than having the vehicle make such determinations.

Using a driver activated turn signal to authorize the vehicle to pass other cars would make the driver responsible for the action and the driver would have to decide if such a maneuver was safe and prudent.

“While it might seem like a minor detail, having drivers activate the turn signal could help auto makers like Tesla avoid a regulatory pile up. As more driverless features are built into cars and trucks, auto regulators and the insurance industry are working to fine-tune liability rules that govern who is responsible if a car gets in an accident or hits a pedestrian,” according to the report.


..."


http://www.benzinga.com/news/15/05/5507672/mobileye-shares-charge-to-session-highs-following-wsj-piece-on-teslas-autopilot

Kitlope
17-05-2015, 02:42 PM
Self-driving car collisions tracked by California

Four of the nearly 50 self-driving cars now rolling around California have gotten into accidents since September, when the state began issuing permits for companies to test them on public roads.

Two accidents happened while the cars were in control; in the other two, the person who still must be behind the wheel was driving, a person familiar with the accident reports told The Associated Press.

Three involved Lexus SUVs that Google Inc. outfitted with sensors and computing power in its aggressive effort to develop "autonomous driving," (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/google-plans-to-build-self-driving-car-with-no-steering-wheel-1.2656496) a goal the tech giant shares with traditional automakers. The parts supplier Delphi Automotive had the other accident with one of its two test vehicles (http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/self-driving-car-completes-drive-across-u-s-1.3020833).

Google and Delphi said their cars were not at fault in any accidents, which the companies said were minor.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/self-driving-car-collisions-tracked-by-california-1.3069113

Marcel Petrin
10-06-2015, 08:52 AM
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/self-driving-tesla-expected-within-3-years-elon-musk-says-1.3107475


"It is simply meant as a driver-assistance feature," he said.

Musk said it will be technically feasible for the driver to fall asleep and let the car do the driving in about three years. But he said it would take several years after that for regulators to approve fully autonomous driving.

"That's my best guess right now," he said. "With each passing year, my estimate for when it happens gets closer. This is both interesting and alarming."

Interesting times! I'm also quite curious to see how the Model X is going to do. I've been extremely suspicious of the "falcon" doors, but they've stuck with them.

KC
10-06-2015, 12:15 PM
News is that Suncor is apparently signing up with Komatsu for driverless trucks.

Expect more layoffs.

Edmonton PRT
10-06-2015, 12:28 PM
Thanks

Here is the news about it.

How Canada’s oilsands are paving the way for driverless trucks — and the threat of big layoffs


Suncor has been testing “autonomous haulage systems” in its oilsands mining operations since 2013 to determine whether the GPS-assisted trucks can work year-round in the oilpatch, Seetal said, adding the company doesn’t expect to make a decision until 2017 on whether to fully bring in the system, with implementation spread out over several years.

“It’s not fantasy,” Suncor’s chief financial officer Alister Cowan told investors at an RBC Capital Markets conference in New York last week. He said the company is working to replace its fleet of heavy haulers with automated trucks “by the end of the decade.”

“That will take 800 people off our site,” Cowan said of the trucks. “At an average (salary) of $200,000 per person, you can see the savings we’re going to get from an operations perspective.”

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Canada+oilsands+paving+driverless+trucks+threat+la yoffs/11118375/story.html

That is a $160M savings, far greater than the little cost savings in personal automobiles. As predicted, trucks will be the driving force behind driverless vehicles.
Just watch them save $160M a year and claim that they are not making profits so maybe next year they might make a royalty payment... or maybe later...

We should retitle this thread, Lots to fear from driverless trucks if you work in the trucking industry...

Marcel Petrin
10-06-2015, 01:41 PM
We should retitle this thread, Lots to fear from driverless trucks if you work in the trucking industry...

Just like there was lots to fear from automobiles for the equestrian and saddlery industries, which were huge prior to the early part of the 20th century. The world moved on, and we're better for it.

KC
10-06-2015, 02:20 PM
We should retitle this thread, Lots to fear from driverless trucks if you work in the trucking industry...

Just like there was lots to fear from automobiles for the equestrian and saddlery industries, which were huge prior to the early part of the 20th century. The world moved on, and we're better for it.

"We're better for it." Hmmm.

That's said about every change. "We're" is also one of those all encompassing words that should be seen as a huge 'red flag' whenever it's used. 800 people at Suncor may not feel like they are better for it. The wind-down of many more on-site trucking jobs could be extremely rapid (800 here, 400 there...) and some will suffer setbacks that they couldn't have anticipated just a few years ago - and so will be quite unprepared for it. They will suffer and so may their kids as a result. Change often has severe intergeneration impacts. So I'm not always sure if change makes everyone "better for it". When is it correct and when is it just spin so we don't have to think about those that suffer from being left behind? "

The automobile brought "us" both huge advantages and huge amounts of environmental destruction. If we hadn't had the automobile maybe we'd have intercity trains, light rail and street cars everywhere with a much more capital efficient lifestyle from some perspectives, and less costly city design. Who knows.

Nonetheless, I'm really looking forward to driverless cars - electric driverless cars.

Edmonton PRT
27-07-2015, 09:56 AM
We should retitle this thread, Lots to fear from driverless trucks if you work in the trucking industry...

Just like there was lots to fear from automobiles for the equestrian and saddlery industries, which were huge prior to the early part of the 20th century. The world moved on, and we're better for it.


Fiat Chrysler recalls 1.4M vehicles due to hacking vulnerability
Company takes action as researchers demonstrate how hackers can take remote control of vehicles

http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/manufacturing/fiat-chrysler-recalls-1-4m-vehicles-due-to-hacking-vulnerability-151853/?utm_source=CMO&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CMO-EN07272015

Medwards
27-07-2015, 10:41 AM
These are not driverless-cars, whats your purpose in posting this in this thread?

I'm sure PRT is hackable too, the only problem is, hackers have no interest in a system that isn't used.

Snake Eyes
27-07-2015, 10:53 AM
We should retitle this thread, Lots to fear from driverless trucks if you work in the trucking industry...

Just like there was lots to fear from automobiles for the equestrian and saddlery industries, which were huge prior to the early part of the 20th century. The world , moved on, and we're better for it.

They will suffer and so may their kids as a result. Change often has severe intergeneration impacts. So I'm not always sure if change makes everyone "better for it". When is it correct and when is it just spin so we don't have to think about those that suffer from being left behind? "



I agree here. The Silicon Valley tech industries pride themselves in their ability to "disrupt" industry. However we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. I'm not so sure society is politically and emotionally ready to deal with large employing industries evaporating, especially at the pace at which it's going to happen.

moahunter
27-07-2015, 12:09 PM
^historically, when there is a change, there is disruption, but there are new jobs. There will be more and more software, and robotics, and other positions. People are in greater percentages than ever working in services, that is only going to accelerate. For example, I was at a shopping mall recently, where they had a person hired to sort the litter into recycling bins so that customers didn't have to think about it. Eventually, a lot of human jobs will just be related to entertaining other humans. I think it will be centuries before that future arrives though.

Paul Turnbull
27-07-2015, 02:05 PM
Is there a need for two threads on self-driving cars?

Snake Eyes
27-07-2015, 03:51 PM
Moahunter, I think we've only seen the tip of the iceberg, and since the growth of automation is exponential, not linear, I think we will be talking massive automation in a matter of decades, not centuries.


I think it's going to go beyond a shift to service sector, which has already happened, because a lot of that is going to be automated too. As a society we're going to have to completely re-think what it means to be "employed" and "productive", and what role technology plays in growing income inequality and macro-economics rather than just micro-economics.

KC
16-09-2015, 08:19 AM
On the radio this morning someone said that a family would need fewer cars in a driverless future due to Uber like services. Interesting. There's so many possible alternate scenarios and unexpected consequences that could arise.

I.e I think it will go beyond the ownerless rental car world , or corporate only owners. Even if families own the vehicles, you may need fewer vehicles as they can return home on their own in order to perform other duties like carrying other family members about or to go shopping, renting itself out, etc.

This could pressure society to change starting hours, reduce parking requirements everywhere, kill the parkade and parking lot business, etc. people might decide to have their pod drive around for half an hour or hour rather than pay a parking fee. (Potential unintended consequences for traffic congestion.). Empty cars / pods leaving downtowns would extend rush hours. People in surrounding but more distant communities could rent out driveway space to empty pods.

Maybe rural areas could have vast parking lots for everyone's cars so that building and population density could be increases within urban areas.

KC
16-09-2015, 08:24 AM
Is there a need for two threads on self-driving cars?

Three if you include the robo car / robo train thread.

KC
16-09-2015, 08:26 AM
We should retitle this thread, Lots to fear from driverless trucks if you work in the trucking industry...

Just like there was lots to fear from automobiles for the equestrian and saddlery industries, which were huge prior to the early part of the 20th century. The world , moved on, and we're better for it.

They will suffer and so may their kids as a result. Change often has severe intergeneration impacts. So I'm not always sure if change makes everyone "better for it". When is it correct and when is it just spin so we don't have to think about those that suffer from being left behind? "



I agree here. The Silicon Valley tech industries pride themselves in their ability to "disrupt" industry. However we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. I'm not so sure society is politically and emotionally ready to deal with large employing industries evaporating, especially at the pace at which it's going to happen.

You won't see much pushback until it hits law and accounting. :-)

sundance
09-10-2015, 09:20 AM
Don't fear driverless cars, rather fear the other drivers when you're in one, ironically it might be driving too safe, so people don't react to them quite the same as if it were a real driver.
http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/09/dont-blame-the-robot-drivers/?ncid=rss

moahunter
09-10-2015, 10:11 AM
I read recently that Toyota and Honda are also trialing driverless cars. Toyota is using slightly different technology that incorporates road sensors as well, which communicate with the auto to help eliminate blind corners and similar.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34464450

Paul Turnbull
23-10-2015, 02:00 PM
Why Self-Driving Cars Must Be Programmed to Kill (http://www.technologyreview.com/view/542626/why-self-driving-cars-must-be-programmed-to-kill/)

Would you get in a car programmed to kill you?

moahunter
23-10-2015, 02:50 PM
^interesting, I'd say, kill the pedestrians instead.

Jaerdo
23-10-2015, 02:54 PM
Mark 2015 the year that philosophers become directly applicable to current trends in the tech industry.

This is the trolley problem come to life. If you have the choice between killing 1 person in a vehicle, or 2 on the street, which do you choose? Serious ethical quandary - will car companies take a deontological approach? A utilitarian one? The decision matters, because they will undoubtedly have to defend themselves in court at some point based on their reasoning.

Paul Turnbull
23-10-2015, 02:58 PM
Mark 2015 the year that philosophers become directly applicable to current trends in the tech industry.

This is the trolley problem come to life. If you have the choice between killing 1 person in a vehicle, or 2 on the street, which do you choose? Serious ethical quandary - will car companies take a deontological approach? A utilitarian one? The decision matters, because they will undoubtedly have to defend themselves in court at some point based on their reasoning.

I suspect, as per the article, the utilitarian will be to save the driver/passengers as people won't buy cars that could chose to kill them. More lives saved if people are using the cars than driving their own.

Then you come to the next question: if the car has to chose, does it save the driver, passenger, or the kids in the back seat?

sundance
29-10-2015, 02:25 PM
Humans Driving Cars Are More Likely to Hurt Other Humans Than Self-Driving Cars
http://gizmodo.com/study-humans-driving-cars-are-more-likely-to-hurt-othe-1739440432

sundance
16-12-2015, 02:01 PM
2030?!??! Boy they have a lot of faith in their testing process, you'd think they'd say hope for 2020.
---
Kia Testing Autonomous Cars On American Roads Soon, Selling Them By 2030
http://jalopnik.com/kia-testing-autonomous-cars-on-america-roads-soon-sell-1748162067

sundance
17-12-2015, 09:56 AM
My guess is they will be releasing this to consumers long before Kia's 2030 (see above post)

Ford to begin testing autonomous cars in California in 2016
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/219526-ford-to-begin-testing-autonomous-cars-in-california-in-2016

FamilyMan
05-01-2016, 01:17 PM
One source of confusion when discussing autonomous cars is the terminology. Thankfully the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has developed a standardized 5-level scale (source on the bottom RHS of the picture):

http://i.imgur.com/SD3j26x.png?1

On the eve of annual Consumer Electronic Show (CES), the CEO of Ford claims they are targeting a level 4 autonomous car, for mass market in 4 years:

Financial Times, Jan. 5, 2015
CES 2016: Ford chief Mark Fields maps out self-driving route (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9dcc383c-b33b-11e5-8358-9a82b43f6b2f.html#axzz3wJ5sgUNV)


Ford’s chief executive has said he is determined that the carmaker will be a leader in autonomous vehicles — which he predicts could be in public use in four years — as the company prepares for a big step-up in its testing programme....

Ford said it intended this year to increase from 10 to 30 the fleet of experimental autonomous Ford Fusion vehicles it was testing on public roads...

Autonomous vehicles continue to face challenges identifying and responding to rare obstacles such as tumbleweed or changes in weather such as snow. Vehicles need to accumulate experience on roads for engineers to identify and resolve such challenges.

sundance
13-01-2016, 02:37 PM
Obama administration to announce efforts to boost self-driving cars

The Obama administration will announce efforts to boost self-driving cars on Thursday, according to government officials.

Mark Rosekind, head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, told reporters that Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx will be in Detroit to talk about administration efforts to speed the introduction of self-driving vehicles.
...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obama-autos-idUSKCN0UQ2F620160113

Edmonton PRT
13-01-2016, 03:35 PM
Google says self-driving cars required human intervention to avoid 11 crashes

Justin Pritchard, The Associated Press
Published Tuesday, January 12, 2016 8:00PM EST
LOS ANGELES -- Google's futuristic self-driving cars needed some old-fashioned human intervention to avoid 11 crashes during testing on California roads, the company revealed Tuesday, results it says are encouraging but show the technology has yet to reach the goal of not needing someone behind the wheel.
With Google's fleet logging tens of thousands of miles each month, the 11 instances would be the equivalent of a car having one event every three years, based on how much the average vehicle is driven in the U.S.
There were another 272 cases in which failures of the cars' software or onboard sensors forced the person who must be in the front seat -- just in case -- to grab the wheel during roughly a year of testing. http://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/google-says-self-driving-cars-required-human-intervention-to-avoid-11-crashes-1.2734776

kcantor
13-01-2016, 04:37 PM
Google says self-driving cars required human intervention to avoid 11 crashes

Justin Pritchard, The Associated Press
Published Tuesday, January 12, 2016 8:00PM EST
LOS ANGELES -- Google's futuristic self-driving cars needed some old-fashioned human intervention to avoid 11 crashes during testing on California roads, the company revealed Tuesday, results it says are encouraging but show the technology has yet to reach the goal of not needing someone behind the wheel.
With Google's fleet logging tens of thousands of miles each month, the 11 instances would be the equivalent of a car having one event every three years, based on how much the average vehicle is driven in the U.S.
There were another 272 cases in which failures of the cars' software or onboard sensors forced the person who must be in the front seat -- just in case -- to grab the wheel during roughly a year of testing. http://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/google-says-self-driving-cars-required-human-intervention-to-avoid-11-crashes-1.2734776
when comparing to perfection, it will always be a tough comparison for driverless cars to compete against.

what you we probably need to compare things with isn't the number of times a human needed to intervene with a driverless car and zero, it should be with how many times a car driven by a human would - or should - have been interfered with in the same period and the consequences of that not happening.

i'll wager than none of those driverless cars were guilty of drunk driving or driving while texting or falling asleep while driving or street racing or reckless endangerment...

Edmonton PRT
13-01-2016, 04:43 PM
I am not comparing anything. I am just the messenger reporting the news.

kcantor
13-01-2016, 05:54 PM
I am not comparing anything. I am just the messenger reporting the news.
and all i did was comment on the news. i have edited what was meant to be a generic "you" to a generic "we" for better clarity.

Titanium48
14-01-2016, 11:58 AM
So it appears that autonomous vehicles are currently operating at level 3 (human intervention is occasionally required), while what most people would consider a self-driving car would be a level 4 or 5 (human input is never required).
I wonder how effective an average driver would be in monitoring a level 3 vehicle. Google's test drivers only job is to monitor the performance of the car, but someone commuting to work in a car that can take care of itself 95% of the time might be too easily distracted and too slow to respond to a "request to intervene". I'd suggest that level 3 vehicles are technological stepping stones that should not be mass manufactured.

kcantor
14-01-2016, 04:21 PM
So it appears that autonomous vehicles are currently operating at level 3 (human intervention is occasionally required), while what most people would consider a self-driving car would be a level 4 or 5 (human input is never required).
I wonder how effective an average driver would be in monitoring a level 3 vehicle. Google's test drivers only job is to monitor the performance of the car, but someone commuting to work in a car that can take care of itself 95% of the time might be too easily distracted and too slow to respond to a "request to intervene". I'd suggest that level 3 vehicles are technological stepping stones that should not be mass manufactured.
if "accident avoidance" by the car - autonomous or not - is the criteria in assigning it a level, what level would a non-autonomous car be assigned when factoring in accidents whether pure accidents, drunk driving, driving without due care and attention, etc.?

FamilyMan
14-01-2016, 05:39 PM
That would be level zero, as per post # 68.

kcantor
14-01-2016, 08:39 PM
That would be level zero, as per post # 68.

thanks - i missed that post but it probably means i need to rephrase my question. at what point on the scale are the autonomous cars creating a safer environment than the one we live in with no automation. not entirely accident or mishap free perhaps but subject to fewer accidents and mishaps?

FamilyMan
15-01-2016, 11:44 AM
^ that's a good question and I haven't come across a comparative analysis. Partly, it is because companies developing these technologies still are working on improvements and probably consider sharing more info about these matters a trade secret. For example after all the hype on Google's car, which are running probably since May 2012 when the first license was issued by the state of Nevada, this was the first time we officially heard about any accidents/issues.

so, to get back to your point I think on any level of that scale we should see some safety improvements, but in a diminishing marginal return fashion. If the car has only a partial automation feature, for example allows automatic brake when detecting the car dangerously approaching an object, wouldn't a drunk driver be much safer than what we have today? But if a car is automated to the extent that requires only occasional intervention from the driver, I would think there is not much safety difference to the partial automated level, given even a sober driver can be distracted.

Edmonton PRT
15-01-2016, 12:27 PM
Heck with the Google car. I am waiting for the MicroSoft version based upon the Window ME platform... :smt046

sundance
25-01-2016, 04:23 PM
While this article is talking primarily about 4WD and AWD it does explain the problems with sensors that autonomous vehicles need. So barring miracles in technology snow driving will be many, many years in the future.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/221738-how-all-wheel-drive-works-and-gets-you-through-the-blizzard

FamilyMan
29-02-2016, 01:45 PM
This is a pretty interesting incident. And not just because of the hurt feelings of Google engineers (do you recall your feeling during your first accident or traffic fine?) If the algorithm behind the Google's driveless car is susceptible by the same judgment error as a human driver, why is hasn't been involved in any other accidents so far?

The Wall Street Journal
Google Self-Driving Car Hits Bus (http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-self-driving-car-hits-bus-1456777567), Feb. 29, 2016


One of Google Inc.’s self-driving cars hit a bus while in autonomous mode that may count as the first accident that was the fault of the computer.

The low-speed accident, which had no injuries, represents a footnote in the progress of bringing to market self-driving cars. To date, having traveled nearly 1.5 million miles in autonomous mode, this accident is believed to be the first caused by an autonomous vehicle for Alphabet’s X division that runs self-driving cars.

The accident occurred on the main drag in Mountain View, Calif.—El Camino Real—on Feb. 14, according to an accident report with the California Department of Motor Vehicles. One of Google’s self-driving Lexus RX450hs pulled around some sandbags blocking the far-right area of a turn lane expecting a bus traveling behind it in the same, extra-wide lane to slow or stop. The Lexus hit the side of the bus at 2 mph.

“Our test driver, who had been watching the bus in the mirror, also expected the bus to slow or stop. And we can imagine the bus driver assumed we were going to stay put. Unfortunately, all these assumptions led us to the same spot in the lane at the same time. This type of misunderstanding happens between human drivers on the road every day,” Google, a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., said as part of its monthly report on autonomous driving.

sundance
29-02-2016, 03:35 PM
Google just recently changed the algorithms to follow a more "human" approach to driving, prior to that it took a very strict safety approach which can result in the Google car being in more rear end accidents.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-tries-to-make-its-cars-drive-more-like-humans-1443463523

sundance
22-03-2016, 10:02 AM
To reduce traffic, ditch yellow lights and form platoons of self-driving cars


A recent paper co-authored by MIT researchers did the math on how best to allow competing traffic through an intersection... suggest that once cars can connect to city infrastructure, traffic lights will be a suboptimal way to regulate traffic through city streets.
Instead, the paper suggests, cars should talk to computers at intersections and be allowed through the crossing via a slot-based system, without the need for yellow lights. Better yet, once fully autonomous vehicles hit the road, even greater efficiencies could be realized by having the cars talk to each other to form platoons that move through intersections.
...

http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/03/to-reduce-traffic-ditch-yellow-lights-and-form-platoons-of-self-driving-cars/

KC
22-03-2016, 05:53 PM
To reduce traffic, ditch yellow lights and form platoons of self-driving cars


A recent paper co-authored by MIT researchers did the math on how best to allow competing traffic through an intersection... suggest that once cars can connect to city infrastructure, traffic lights will be a suboptimal way to regulate traffic through city streets.
Instead, the paper suggests, cars should talk to computers at intersections and be allowed through the crossing via a slot-based system, without the need for yellow lights. Better yet, once fully autonomous vehicles hit the road, even greater efficiencies could be realized by having the cars talk to each other to form platoons that move through intersections.
...

http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/03/to-reduce-traffic-ditch-yellow-lights-and-form-platoons-of-self-driving-cars/

One small wrinkle, pedestrians wishing to cross the street will be required to flag down a car trailing such platoons, get in the car travel around the block until the car can join the back of another platoon, ask the car to cross to the other side of the street and exit the vehicle.

Edmonton PRT
22-03-2016, 06:01 PM
Funny!

KC
22-03-2016, 08:03 PM
Worse will be the tendency to want to squeeze more and more people and cars into those platoons. The airline seat makers will make a killing.


The future is NOT what is pictured here:

http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20160321-seven-ways-the-driverless-car-will-change-your-life

sundance
23-03-2016, 08:41 AM
I'll probably be scared out of mind the 1st few times the car drives through an intersection with cars going the other way and seemingly miraculously no collisions.

Not sure how they'd handle pedestrians either.

Edmonton PRT
23-03-2016, 11:16 AM
I wonder what the legalities would be for a simple use of a driverless car.

You go shopping with your new driverless car and your car drops you off at the mall doors and then you send it to find a parking spot on it's own. Two hours later, you are ready to leave the mall and you use your phone app to get your car to pick you up. Unbeknownst to you, it snowed and some sensors were partially obscured.

As the car moves across the parking lot, a child darts between cars and is struck and injured by the driverless car. Who is responsible, you or the manufacturer?

sundance
23-03-2016, 11:24 AM
Perhaps it could check it's sensors 1st, then if they aren't reading correctly, don't start moving.

I'd imagine the manufacturers will get plenty of insurance to cover unforeseen probabilities.

KC
23-03-2016, 03:00 PM
Eventually they'd dump seatbelts, airbags, bumpers plus (or sorry, minus) door, roll and crumple zone protection to save money, having calculated the legal liability from the odd death being far less than the cost of safety. Of course, they'd market the fact that they've taken away your seatbelts as a positive development.

:-)

It will be like riding in an aluminum pop can with cellophane windows, or no windows at all.


Actually, it will look like a two wheeled Segway with a pop can on top. Or even more likely: one of those plastic porta-potties on wheels.




~

KC
31-08-2016, 06:42 PM
Driverless cars as public toilets. I hadn't considered that.

http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20160829-driverless-taxis-human-problem

Edmonton PRT
01-11-2016, 06:37 AM
As I predicted years ago...

If anyone has to fear a driverless car, it is a long haul trucker. The hundred of thousands of long haul truckers may be out of a job before you know it.

The high cost of long haul trucking is significantly affected by the trucking labor and the limits of how long they are allowed to drive each day. The cost savings and increased transit times of automated trucks are huge and far greater than automating automobiles.

The industry will be entirely changed when automated trucks will be able to at least, drive unattended from one city edge to another with out the need for a driver.


We know that the oilsands have bought 175 driverless trucks, saving an estimated $160M each year in salaries. http://www.popsci.com/robot-trucks-will-work-canadas-oil-sands


Here is the latest
Uber’s first self-driven truck delivery was a beer run
Otto, recently acquired by Uber, took a load of Budweiser 120 miles completely autonomously.https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/bGT4Jd47WxIdzQEXuGmdUSjP5Qo=/0x0:5120x2700/1020x680/filters:focal(2151x941:2969x1759):format(webp)/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/51499589/Untitled00725709.0.jpg


Otto, the self-driving truck startup that was acquired by Uber for $700 million, has just completed the world’s first completely autonomous commercial freight delivery.

In partnership with Anheuser-Busch, Otto shipped 45,000 Budweisers 120 miles from a weigh station in Fort Collins, Colo. to Colorado Springs.


Though there was a professional driver in the truck the entire time, he never had to intervene and the truck was able to drive itself from exit to exit, according to the company. The software is programmed to hand off control to the human driver when the truck needs to exit the freeway.


“By embracing this technology, both organizations are actively contributing to the creation of a safer and more efficient transportation network,” Otto co-founder Lior Ron said in a statement. “We are excited to have reached this milestone together, and look forward to further rolling out our technology on the nation’s highways.”


It’s the first trip of its kind. While several companies — including Otto — have completed numerous fully autonomous trips along freeways, no one had completed an autonomous commercial delivery.


That means, though several sources pegged Uber’s acquisition of Otto as mostly an “acqhire” of Otto’s team, specifically co-founder Anthony Levandowski, Uber is now growing more serious about the trucking business. It’s a smart move for the company, which has worked to diversify its revenue streams with on-demand delivery and B2B services in an increasingly crowded ride-hail market.


The partnership just covers this single pilot trip, for which Anheuser-Busch paid Otto $470, so it’s not the partnership itself that’s significant. But rather that Otto’s autonomous technology, at least, is close to being market-ready.


This rush-to-market approach is true to the DNA of Otto, a now barely one-year-old company.


Otto’s founders — Ron, Levandowski, Don Burnette, and Claire Delaunay — are former Google veterans who worked on everything from maps to the self-driving car project. In fact, Levandowski was one of the original members of Google’s self-driving team.


As of its initial launch in May of 2016, the company’s ambitions were clear: The team was intent on bringing self-driving technology to market as fast as possible. Call it a reaction to working at a company that has yet to ship a product in spite of working on the technology for close to eight years.


That’s why the company decided to go into trucking. Trucks largely operate on freeways — an environment in which many companies, including Google, have mastered driving autonomously to a degree — and thus it is faster to develop and deploy the technology in trucks than it would be in passenger cars meant to navigate city streets.


Now, fresh off being acquired by Uber, Otto is moving quickly to commercialize its technology. The company has already begun ramping up its on-demand logistics service for trucks, called UberFreight. Essentially, the way it will work is Otto, care of Uber, will match either independent drivers or fleet managers who have room on their trucks with freight that needs to be shipped.

More http://www.recode.net/2016/10/25/13392326/uber-otto-self-driving-truck-first-commercial-delivery

Marcel Petrin
01-11-2016, 08:27 AM
We know that the oilsands have bought 175 driverless trucks, saving an estimated $160M each year in salaries. http://www.popsci.com/robot-trucks-w...adas-oil-sands (http://www.popsci.com/robot-trucks-will-work-canadas-oil-sands)

The main reason that Suncor wants to automate their mining trucks isn't even about labor costs. The main concern they have is massive turnover. Apparently the average driver only lasts a year or two for them, because they're typically people in their early 20's who will make 150-200k a year for a couple years, and then they'll go travelling and/or back to school or on to a new career. Another benefit is that no two drivers drive the trucks the same, so it causes different maintenance and service issues from one truck to the next. That's obviously not a problem with a computer driving. The labor savings is a nice bonus, but it's not the main factor for Suncor. It's mostly about human resources and consistency of operating the machinery.

Edmonton PRT
01-11-2016, 08:41 AM
That would be sound reasoning for the trucking industry as well. Turnover is high and drivers are tough on the trucks. But a $160M in annual salaries with shifts are a HUGE benefit.

I believe that it won't be long until there are automated truck stops at the edges of cities where the truck arrives at a specific time and a local driver completes the delivery and then picks up a load and drives to the starting point and sends the truck on its way to some city 10 or 20 hours away, limited only by fuel capacity.

Automated cars are a much longer way out and the issue of the cost of full automation controls in a private vehicle does not have the same cost/benefit ratio as you describe in the trucking industry. Paid drivers/training/turnover/maintenance

sundance
20-06-2017, 09:52 AM
Like Monty Python and the rabbit "I tried to warn you, but noooooo"

Tesla driver was warned 7 times visually, 6 times audibly to put his hands on the wheel, before he was involved in a fatal crash.
http://jalopnik.com/tesla-driver-in-fatal-florida-crash-got-numerous-warnin-1796226021

Edmonton PRT
23-01-2018, 09:10 PM
More Tesla problems

Tesla ‘on Autopilot’ slams into parked fire truck on California freeway

A Tesla Model S reportedly on “Autopilot” smashed into the back of a fire truck parked at a freeway accident scene Monday morning, authorities said. https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/22/tesla-on-autopilot-slams-into-parked-fire-truck-on-freeway/

Marcel Petrin
23-01-2018, 09:12 PM
The guy was hammered and in all likelihood didn't even have autopilot engaged. Non-story.

Gemini
24-01-2018, 06:59 PM
Watching the news yesterday (not sure what channel). There was video of this Domino's Pizza delivery guy eating the tops off peoples pizza. Anyway, a Domino spokesperson said Domino's were looking into driverless vehicles for their deliveries. Well, what we seem to have on the roads right now are driver assisted vehicles. There still has to be a human in the vehicle to override any problems. The delivery guys could still be eating the toppings. I think we might be still to far away for fully autonomous. It might even take a couple of generations yet for people to want to buy them. I drive and I don't think I would trust a fully autonomous vehicle. It would feel like I have no control. Even driver assisted vehicles would not work for me. I have driven vehicles with gear shifts but never took to them like people who have driven stick shifts. People who drive stick shifts do it because they feel they really like them. I guess people like them would not be fans of assisted or autonomous vehicles.

Edmonton PRT
24-01-2018, 08:39 PM
The guy was hammered and in all likelihood didn't even have autopilot engaged. Non-story.

These drunk driving auto-pilot will not be isolated incidents. Next you will have kids turning them on.

How do you think the computers and sensors will handle streets like these this past month.

In the past 2 weeks, I had to navigate snow filled streets, abandoned cars and buses, ice rain that obscured the windshield and all surfaces of my car within minutes of leaving my heated garage, deep puddles, frozen piles of slush, plowed windrows in driving lanes I had to cross over, snow plows and equipment that blocked lanes, resorted to crossing the centerline to get past plows, super slow drivers and stuck cars or drivers attempting to parallel park that would delay others for minutes, gridlock that I could only bypass by cutting through a parking lot, huge potholes that I only missed because I reacted when the car ahead of me in a traffic jam veered, so I veered, yadda, yadda, yadda???

http://www.jordantimes.com/sites/default/files/styles/news_inner/public/1%20Snow.jpg?itok=cDTE3rV1

Ice Rain
https://i0.wp.com/media.globalnews.ca/videostatic/475/803/SNOWY_ACCIDENTS_PKG-PKG_EDMGCZB3_tnb_4.jpg?w=670&quality=70&strip=all

https://i1.wp.com/media.globalnews.ca/videostatic/122/547/2017-12-16T01-00-45.133Z--1280x720.jpg?w=670&quality=70&strip=all


Ice covered cars that prevent sensors from working,
https://shawglobalnews.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/icestorm.png?w=512&h=288&crop=1




Road closures that may not be updated on every car computer
https://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.3720264.1513194892!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_620/image.jpg

Marcel Petrin
24-01-2018, 09:44 PM
The technology is far from perfect right now, and for the foreseeable future. Hence why it shouldn't be relied upon, as has been the case in a couple of deaths, and as Tesla itself advises it's customers. But if you think that it will always be worse than a human driver, then I would suggest you go and try to win a game of chess or Go against a computer and let me know how that goes.

Edmonton PRT
25-01-2018, 05:35 AM
My calculator is better and faster at math too but the leap to driverless cars is exponentially more difficult by several degrees. Chess has written rules, only 2 players on a fixed grid with 64 squares and standard strategies with no external forces.

As I noted, in order to drive, drivers must adjust to rapidly changing conditions, thousands of interactions and variables. It took decades to program and develop the AI until a computer could beat a human consistently.

Respectfully, your false comparison is comparing apples with the Titanic. In chess, if the computer loses, the person wins. In driving, if the computer loses, the driver dies.

Think about that.

Marcel Petrin
25-01-2018, 07:23 AM
There's a ton of a lot smarter people than either of us who have thought about it, and they've made incredible progress in a very short time over the last few years. Whether it's 2 years or 20, the age of primates controlling 2 tons of metal are coming to an end.

KC
25-01-2018, 07:37 AM
Don’t things that take decades to develop, tend to undergo compound advances in their final years? Look at the portable / mobile phone development over the four from the 1950s until the 1990s and then compare it to the two decades of the 1990s and 2000s.

I don’t know if the numbers of variables are that great for the basic hurdles. Inputs - detect anything getting in the way, anything moving into the way, anything altering the road conditions and monitoring anything currently around the vehicle (other vehicles) and ?
Responses: steering, brakes, speed and ?

Photo recognition tech or recognition tech should build up massive databases of almost everything the sensors can encounter. Start interconnecting things and then even that hurdle disappears. Eg I am a cement truck and I’m just around the corner out of sight and approaching fast...

Marcel Petrin
25-01-2018, 07:59 AM
Don’t things that take decades to develop, tend to undergo compound advances in their final years?

Exactly. And we're seeing that happen in a multitude of different AI fields, from facial recognition software (which is leading to some pretty dystopian outcomes in China: http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-china-42248056/in-your-face-china-s-all-seeing-state) to language translation to a myriad of different forms of automation. As with any new and transformative technology, there are both upsides and downsides. Many AI experts are concerned about what could happen with general AI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence:_Paths,_Dangers,_Strategies

Keep in mind that book is already 4 years old, and we're already seeing specialized AI's that can create their own "children" AI that are better than anything humans can come up with: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/google-child-ai-bot-nasnet-automl-machine-learning-artificial-intelligence-a8093201.html

So I guess bring on the self driving cars, but let's try not to end our existence while doing it!

KC
25-01-2018, 08:06 AM
Don’t things that take decades to develop, tend to undergo compound advances in their final years?

Exactly. And we're seeing that happen in a multitude of different AI fields, from facial recognition software (which is leading to some pretty dystopian outcomes in China: http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-china-42248056/in-your-face-china-s-all-seeing-state) to language translation to a myriad of different forms of automation. As with any new and transformative technology, there are both upsides and downsides. Many AI experts are concerned about what could happen with general AI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence:_Paths,_Dangers,_Strategies

Keep in mind that book is already 4 years old, and we're already seeing specialized AI's that can create their own "children" AI that are better than anything humans can come up with: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/google-child-ai-bot-nasnet-automl-machine-learning-artificial-intelligence-a8093201.html

So I guess bring on the self driving cars, but let's try not to end our existence while doing it!

Existence.
Well, if they can do away with the lawyers... it might be a small price to pay ;-)

However, if AI is already having kids, well,... think teenagers. We’re safe. AI is going to be too busy with its own problems.

Gemini
25-01-2018, 11:41 AM
We hear of planes going on auto-pilot but how about trains?. I've never heard of a train on auto-pilot. Still an engineer in charge. One would think that trains would be the first method on transportation to go driver/engineer free. It's on a fixed track, has designated stops, moving parts when the doors have to open and close, passes through fixed signals etc. How come they have not perfected that yet as it would be easier to do than putting millions of vehicles on auto-pilot.

noodle
25-01-2018, 11:44 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_subway_systems

MrOilers
25-01-2018, 03:04 PM
I think relinquishing control of something that could kill people so easily if used improperly is not a good idea.

Especially since we would be willingly handing it over corporations like Google (who already don't care about people's privacy or consumer data) to do it for us.

KC
25-01-2018, 03:50 PM
I think relinquishing control of something that could kill people so easily if used improperly is not a good idea.

Especially since we would be willingly handing it over corporations like Google (who already don't care about people's privacy or consumer data) to do it for us.

Hmm. Have you looked around at the current batch of drivers. Control has been relinquished.

On Sunday I had to chastise a middle aged guy parking in front of my wife’s vehicle. He backed into it twice trying to squeeze into the spot. I walked up and had him roll down the window and said: You really have to stop doing that! And didn’t even get an apology. In November a lady bumped into the back of the same vehicle in a drive through line up! Broke the reflector in the bumper which someday I’ll have to fix. (We didn’t ask of anything for the damage, it’s so minor). But the point is - too many people on drugs or something!

Marcel Petrin
30-01-2018, 10:08 AM
I think relinquishing control of something that could kill people so easily if used improperly is not a good idea.

Especially since we would be willingly handing it over corporations like Google (who already don't care about people's privacy or consumer data) to do it for us.

The systems that we're relinquishing control of are going to be safer with computers in control than they were before with primates. Are you aware that something like 99% (that might be hyperbole) of commercial flight is computer controlled now, including take-offs and landings? And it's done nothing but make air travel safer. Air France 447 slamming in to the ocean excepted. But that was ultimately more about human error and bad design than it was the system failing.

Edmonton PRT
30-01-2018, 10:43 AM
I think relinquishing control of something that could kill people so easily if used improperly is not a good idea.

Especially since we would be willingly handing it over corporations like Google (who already don't care about people's privacy or consumer data) to do it for us.

And we must remember the Chevy ignition switch failures that GM knew about for 10 years but did nothing because they saved a few cents on parts that knowingly injured and killed people and the GM lawyers and bean counters rationalized the cost.

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

At least 124 people died and they did not care or recall cars until they were forced to. In Canada our public safety laws are so weak that we cannot force automakers to recall or fix cars. There are millions of cars out there that are unsafe.

Do you really want to trust GM with your life?

Edmonton PRT
30-01-2018, 10:48 AM
I think relinquishing control of something that could kill people so easily if used improperly is not a good idea.

Especially since we would be willingly handing it over corporations like Google (who already don't care about people's privacy or consumer data) to do it for us.

The systems that we're relinquishing control of are going to be safer with computers in control than they were before with primates. Are you aware that something like 99% (that might be hyperbole) of commercial flight is computer controlled now, including take-offs and landings? And it's done nothing but make air travel safer. Air France 447 slamming in to the ocean excepted. But that was ultimately more about human error and bad design than it was the system failing.

False equivalency


Let's not use the airline industry ads an example unless you can say that all driverless cars will be inspected and properly maintained by law and regulation as are airplanes. The standards of manufacture, inspection and accountability in the airline industry will NEVER be achieved in the automotive sector and even annual inspections of vehicles by the Alberta government was eliminated 40+ years ago.

MrOilers
30-01-2018, 01:13 PM
Do you really want to trust GM with your life?

Thank goodness I don't!

Edmonton PRT
30-01-2018, 03:43 PM
How about Windows?

Your car crashes twice a week and freezes at 100kph, to be expected...

Edmonton PRT
29-03-2018, 06:23 AM
Tesla shares drop as questions around fatal Model X crash in California continue to swirl
March has been brutal for Tesla, with shares falling on all but five days. The trend continued Wednesday with a decline of as much as 9.7 per cent, the biggest drop since June 2016, to $252.10 U.S.

https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/business/2018/03/28/tesla-shares-drop-as-questions-around-fatal-model-x-crash-in-california-continue-to-swirl/tesla_crash.jpg.size.custom.crop.1086x562.jpg


The accident also potentially raises fresh questions about self-driving features after a deadly Uber Technologies Inc. accident that happened days earlier and sent ripples across the broader autonomous-vehicle industry.

“We have in the past questioned Tesla’s promise that the current hardware will be able to eventually provide full self-driving capability,” Cowen analyst Jeffrey Osborne, who rates Tesla as “underperform,” wrote in a note. Given regulators’ reaction to the fatal Uber crash, “we see a large risk” that the self-driving equipment and capabilities Tesla has been touting to customers many not meet the eventual government standards, he wrote.


<snip>


Wei Huang, 38, died when his Tesla collided with a highway barrier on southbound Highway 101 near Mountain View and caught fire, according to the California Highway Patrol. The driver’s LinkedIn profile identifies him as a software engineer who joined Apple Inc. in November after more than a decade at Electronic Arts Inc. Apple didn’t respond to a request for comment.


The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board said in a tweet on Tuesday that it was sending investigators to examine issues raised by the accident, including the post-crash fire and steps needed to make the vehicle safe to remove from an accident scene.


Tesla’s battery packs are designed so that when a fire occurs, it spreads slowly so people have more time to exit or be removed from the car. “That appears to be what happened here as we understand there were no occupants still in the Model X by the time the fire could have presented a risk,” the company said in its blog post.


The collision caused extensive damage partly because a safety barrier meant to reduce the impact into a concrete lane divider had been removed or crushed in a prior accident without being replaced, according to Tesla. Tesla owners have driven the same highway stretch with Autopilot engaged about 85,000 times since the system was introduced, and no accidents have been reported that the company is aware of, the carmaker said.


<snip>


The safety board’s probe into the Mountain View crash is the second this year involving the company’s vehicles. Tesla’s approach to autonomy, which includes cameras and radar, is just one of the designs automakers are developing under the watchful eyes of federal and state regulators. Other carmakers are supplementing their systems with a laser-based system called lidar.


The NTSB is also investigating this month’s Uber accident in Tempe, Arizona, in which a Volvo XC90 equipped with the ride-hailing giant’s self-driving system failed to slow the vehicle as a 49-year-old woman crossed the street pushing a bicycle. The pedestrian died from the collision.


Moody’s Investors Service on Tuesday downgraded Tesla’s corporate family rating to B3, six levels into junk, and said its outlook on the company is negative. The credit rater cited “the significant shortfall in the production rate of Tesla’s Model 3” and liquidity pressures as two chief concerns.
https://www.thestar.com/business/2018/03/28/tesla-shares-drop-as-questions-around-fatal-model-x-crash-in-california-continue-to-swirl.html

Edmonton PRT
31-03-2018, 09:18 PM
Update

6 seconds and you die

Tesla says vehicle in deadly California crash was on autopilot
Driver did not have hands on steering wheel for 6 seconds before crash, says electric car maker
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/tesla-fatal-crash-autopilot-selfdriving-car-1.4601297


The vehicle in a fatal crash last week in California was operating on autopilot, making it the latest accident involving a self-driving vehicle, Tesla has confirmed.


The electric car maker said the driver, who was killed in the accident, did not have his hands on the steering wheel for six seconds before the crash, despite several warnings from the vehicle. Tesla Inc. tells drivers that its autopilot system, which can keep speed, change lanes and self-park, requires drivers to keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel in order to take control of the vehicle to avoid accidents.

Previous Autopilot Tesla Accidents

https://cdn.autoconnectedcar.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/teslafirtruck.jpg

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tesla-freeway-crash-investigation-1.4502203


https://i.cbc.ca/1.4287028.1505304836!/cpImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_1180/tesla-crash.jpg?imwidth=720
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/tesla-autopilot-crash-ntsb-1.4287026

H.L.
31-03-2018, 10:34 PM
The family said the guy who died reported the autopilot problem to Tesla, ( more than once)they have no account of it, how convenient..

MrOilers
02-04-2018, 12:11 PM
I have no idea how Tesla's future will turn out, but Tesla's mission to jump start the Electric Vehicle race is already accomplished.

So far what we see are that driverless cars are every bit as much a detriment as a benefit.

Edmonton PRT
02-04-2018, 12:29 PM
In related news...

The first-ever attempt by the Russian Post to deliver mail using a drone resulted in a spectacular failure as shown by footage captured in the eastern Siberian city of Ulan-Ude on Monday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Sr6sB50-cc

Direct to home delivery...

KC
03-05-2018, 08:47 AM
Than “we” think. So the author has a direct line into your thoughts.


Bumps on the road: Why driverless cars are further off than we think | CTV News

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/features/bumps-on-the-road-why-driverless-cars-are-further-off-than-we-think-1.3824235

KC
03-05-2018, 08:49 AM
From aging drivers to self-driving cars, an in-depth look at the problems facing Canadian roads | CTV News
https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/features/from-aging-drivers-to-self-driving-cars-an-in-depth-look-at-the-problems-facing-canadian-roads-1.3824704

KC
22-06-2018, 08:16 AM
I have no idea how Tesla's future will turn out, but Tesla's mission to jump start the Electric Vehicle race is already accomplished.

So far what we see are that driverless cars are every bit as much a detriment as a benefit.

Driverless cars should be considered as being in the development phase. Eventually they should be able to far surpass humans in driving safely. However they can’t even get the testing done safely because of human error and the idea that they can release millions of self driving vehicles onto the market with just the owner signing off on a piece of paper saying they will sit there ready to take over is insane.



Arizona Uber crash driver was 'watching TV' - BBC News

“It suggests she could face charges of vehicle manslaughter.”
...
“The Tempe police report said the crash was "entirely avoidable" if the Uber operator, Rafaela Vasquez, had been watching the road while the car was operating autonomously.
County prosecutors have received a copy of the police report, which was released on 21 June following a freedom of information request.
...
Ms Vasquez looked up from her phone screen about 0.5 seconds before the crash, said the report, but had been concentrating on her phone for about 5.3 seconds previously. At the time, the driverless Volvo car was travelling at 44mph (70km/h).




https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44574290



And in looking at the video, I still think the headlights were a problem. This car was moving at only 70 km/h.

howie
22-06-2018, 08:31 AM
^ "However they can’t even get the testing done safely because of human error and the idea that they can release millions of self driving vehicles onto the market with just the owner signing off on a piece of paper saying they will sit there ready to take over is insane."

And human error is the constant in all of this. There is no way around it.

Paul Turnbull
22-06-2018, 08:36 AM
^ "However they can’t even get the testing done safely because of human error and the idea that they can release millions of self driving vehicles onto the market with just the owner signing off on a piece of paper saying they will sit there ready to take over is insane."

And human error is the constant in all of this. There is no way around it.

That includes the humans designing these vehicles and writing the code.

Edmonton PRT
22-06-2018, 09:15 AM
...and doing the testing, quality control and certification.

Volkswagen Executive Gets 7 Years Jail Time For Emissions Fraud In The US
https://auto.ndtv.com/news/volkswagen-executive-gets-7-years-jail-time-for-emissions-fraud-in-the-us-1785609

New diesel scandal? German officials investigate Audi
http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/08/investing/audi-diesel-emissions-investigation/index.html

GM settles deadly ignition switch cases for $120 million
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/10/20/gm-settles-deadly-ignition-switch-cases-120-million/777831001/

General Motors will pay $120 million to settle claims from dozens of states in its massive ignition switch defect scandal. The settlement announced Thursday resolves one piece in the legal battles involving a case that left at least 124 people dead and 275 injured in small cars such as the Chevrolet Cobalt and Saturn Ion that were made by the old GM. The news release noted that "certain employees of GM and General Motors Corporation knew as early as 2004 that the ignition switch posed a safety defect because it could cause airbag non-deployment.



The Biggest Car Recalls in History
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/biggest-car-recalls

Toyota, Volkswagen, and General Motors have been in the headlines for leading some of the highest-profile automotive recalls in recent years, but those aren’t necessary the industry’s largest.
The federal government issued a record number of recalls in 2015; close to 900 separate recalls affected 51 million vehicles nationwide. The ones freshest in our memories are Toyota’s problem with sudden acceleration, General Motors’ faulty ignition switches, and Volkswagen’s cheating on emissions tests of its diesel vehicles, but some incidents in previous decades affected several million more.



How can we trust driverless cars from the same companies that brought us the Pinto, the Chevy Cobalt, faulty airbags and now a President who wants more deregulation on the industry.

KC
22-06-2018, 09:31 AM
...and doing the testing, quality control and certification.

Volkswagen Executive Gets 7 Years Jail Time For Emissions Fraud In The US
https://auto.ndtv.com/news/volkswagen-executive-gets-7-years-jail-time-for-emissions-fraud-in-the-us-1785609

New diesel scandal? German officials investigate Audi
http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/08/investing/audi-diesel-emissions-investigation/index.html

GM settles deadly ignition switch cases for $120 million
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/10/20/gm-settles-deadly-ignition-switch-cases-120-million/777831001/

General Motors will pay $120 million to settle claims from dozens of states in its massive ignition switch defect scandal. The settlement announced Thursday resolves one piece in the legal battles involving a case that left at least 124 people dead and 275 injured in small cars such as the Chevrolet Cobalt and Saturn Ion that were made by the old GM. The news release noted that "certain employees of GM and General Motors Corporation knew as early as 2004 that the ignition switch posed a safety defect because it could cause airbag non-deployment.



The Biggest Car Recalls in History
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/biggest-car-recalls

Toyota, Volkswagen, and General Motors have been in the headlines for leading some of the highest-profile automotive recalls in recent years, but those aren’t necessary the industry’s largest.
The federal government issued a record number of recalls in 2015; close to 900 separate recalls affected 51 million vehicles nationwide. The ones freshest in our memories are Toyota’s problem with sudden acceleration, General Motors’ faulty ignition switches, and Volkswagen’s cheating on emissions tests of its diesel vehicles, but some incidents in previous decades affected several million more.



How can we trust driverless cars from the same companies that brought us the Pinto, the Chevy Cobalt, faulty airbags and now a President who wants more deregulation on the industry.

Don’t forget Mercedes:
German regulator found 5 defeat devices in Daimler diesels, paper says
http://europe.autonews.com/article/20180610/ANE/180619954?template=mobile02&X-IgnoreUserAgent=1


The self driving cars will get better and better but the Uber death shows that the sensors used were no where near good enough for even driving at slow speeds.

Edmonton PRT
22-06-2018, 10:14 AM
Even recent events show that management was fully aware and complicit in fraud and endangerment of customers knowing that they could make more profits and line their pockets. Does anyone believe that greed will somehow dissappear when manufacturers build driverless cars? If so, I have a few bridges I can sell you at a great price.

howie
22-06-2018, 10:50 AM
As I said earlier, human error, whether by accident or by design, is the constant and the world bumbles along anyway.

KC
22-06-2018, 12:55 PM
Even recent events show that management was fully aware and complicit in fraud and endangerment of customers knowing that they could make more profits and line their pockets. Does anyone believe that greed will somehow dissappear when manufacturers build driverless cars? If so, I have a few bridges I can sell you at a great price.
They want sales and they don’t want a competitor getting ahead of them so they will rush a product to market. It’s done that way all the time and often with serious consequences and little broad concern within society.

It’s up to other forces in society to recognize that there could be a lot of collateral damage (aka “death”) associated with the widespread adoption of the technology and those with objective reasoned fears need to push back and work to hold the corporate executives to account for rushing without concern for the damage they will cause.

Edmonton PRT
22-06-2018, 12:59 PM
They have wet dreams of replacing every car and truck on the road today...$$$$$$

KC
22-06-2018, 01:02 PM
They have wet dreams of replacing every car and truck on the road today...

And just as I pointed out in my post above about the MP’s comments, that’s not going to happen. So instead they need to design for reality and not try to blame the incompatibility of their current technology on the reality that roads are messy unpredictable places.

Someone walking across a road is among the most basic road hazards there are and so it sure looks like the technology is pretty useless - at this point in time.

howie
22-06-2018, 10:48 PM
They have wet dreams of replacing every car and truck on the road today...

And just as I pointed out in my post above about the MP’s comments, that’s not going to happen. So instead they need to design for reality and not try to blame the incompatibility of their current technology on the reality that roads are messy unpredictable places.

Someone walking across a road is among the most basic road hazards there are and so it sure looks like the technology is pretty useless - at this point in time.

So after having achieved the technology to guarantee 100% safe vehicles at some point in time, it will be necessary to have technology to guarantee 100% safe pedestrians. Dream on.

KC
23-06-2018, 01:44 AM
They have wet dreams of replacing every car and truck on the road today...

And just as I pointed out in my post above about the MP’s comments, that’s not going to happen. So instead they need to design for reality and not try to blame the incompatibility of their current technology on the reality that roads are messy unpredictable places.

Someone walking across a road is among the most basic road hazards there are and so it sure looks like the technology is pretty useless - at this point in time.

So after having achieved the technology to guarantee 100% safe vehicles at some point in time, it will be necessary to have technology to guarantee 100% safe pedestrians. Dream on.

Not at all. The systems though do have to perform a bit better than an average drunk driver. This process is consolidating the actions of hundreds of millions of independent actors into just a handful of systems owned by a handful of companies. The resulting oligopolies will attract an incredible amount of attention every time there’s an accident, especially at the introduction of mass production and adoption.

So if paid and thoroughly trained employees* can’t even stay focused on the road, it’s going to be impossible for these companies to say that they hold no liability when they put their systems in the hands of novices and inevitably the average Joe gets distracted and the vehicle runs over a toddler on a tricycle - all because the system is only designed to detect and react to the top ten most common obstacles.

My point is that they have to deal with the “reality” that every human driver deals with everyday and do a lot better, not just - as good as - normal drivers.


This car is on Autopilot. What happens next? - BBC News
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/business-44460980/this-car-is-on-autopilot-what-happens-next




* employees trained for testing of just a few cars across the country and where everyone is fully aware that the corporate reputation is on the line

Replacement
23-06-2018, 09:39 AM
We're giving fines for distracted driving, we're reducing speed limits to 30km, we're trying to reduce deaths injuries through driving and We're increasingly allowing autopilot driving?


When Edmonton, or Alberta, allows people to be driving Autopilot vehicles I will cease to drive. Simple as that. Quite frankly I will also never cycle on roads and will be more reluctant to walk on sidewalks.


Defensive driving is an artform and as per the BBC video the "autopilot" doesn't even manage a routine driving scenario and did not spot the stopped car. Instead it crashes into it. The other hazard not reflected in the video is that failure to spot a stopped vehicle ahead on a highway and resulting in you stopping at all in that lane, on a highway, obviously puts you at extremely great risk of being rear ended.


Could you imagine the terror of occupants when an autonomous vehicle does something like that which as a defensive driver you know to be crazy and potentially fatal?


Theres no way you could get me into one of these.

Doc Hollywood
23-06-2018, 02:09 PM
We're giving fines for distracted driving, we're reducing speed limits to 30km, we're trying to reduce deaths injuries through driving and We're increasingly allowing autopilot driving?


When Edmonton, or Alberta, allows people to be driving Autopilot vehicles I will cease to drive. Simple as that. Quite frankly I will also never cycle on roads and will be more reluctant to walk on sidewalks.


Defensive driving is an artform and as per the BBC video the "autopilot" doesn't even manage a routine driving scenario and did not spot the stopped car. Instead it crashes into it. The other hazard not reflected in the video is that failure to spot a stopped vehicle ahead on a highway and resulting in you stopping at all in that lane, on a highway, obviously puts you at extremely great risk of being rear ended.


Could you imagine the terror of occupants when an autonomous vehicle does something like that which as a defensive driver you know to be crazy and potentially fatal?


Theres no way you could get me into one of these.

It's why I don't see this driverless car thing working unless all cars are driverless. I'm talking 100% compliance. If people are behind the wheel you cannot foresee every scenario they do on the road. If you've driven long enough you have seen some really dumb stuff that defies logic so expecting a machine to figure out what the hell someone is doing behind the wheel seems to be asking a lot.

KC
11-11-2018, 08:46 PM
Autonomous vehicles will be moving brothels in no time, researchers predict

https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3066014/autonomous-vehicles-will-be-moving-brothels-in-no-time-researchers-predict

Edmonton PRT
23-02-2019, 12:14 PM
Don't trust your car's pedestrian collision avoidance technology.

BMW fails simple traffic test. Kills pedestrian dummies with gusto.

https://driving.ca/bmw/auto-news/news/watch-the-bmw-x1-bomb-in-iihs-auto-braking-tests

edmonton daily photo
25-02-2019, 01:10 PM
I hope we smarten up and make driverless cars on shared roadways illegal.

Medwards
25-02-2019, 02:26 PM
why? Antonomous vehicles will soon be able to have better detection of collusions that man could ever dream of. Quite the opposite, we should soon look to smarten up and make human-driven cars on shared roadways illegal.

Edmonton PRT
25-02-2019, 02:47 PM
You obviously did not see the BMW failures or tried driving new models that have self steering features that fail to operate with any reliability. My 2018 Honda Civic Touring self steering mode is unreliable (never able to keep it running for more than 3 km in optimum conditions) and the braking notice is also very erratic, sending alarms when not necessary but failing to alarm when more critical events have occured. My friend bought a 2019 Volvo XC90 and says the same about the Pilot Assist that he says is almost useless on dry roads and inoperable on snowy or wet roads.

https://driving.ca/bmw/auto-news/new...-braking-tests (https://driving.ca/bmw/auto-news/news/watch-the-bmw-x1-bomb-in-iihs-auto-braking-tests)

THE SELF-DRIVING CAR THAT WILL NEVER ARRIVE
Self-driving cars are delusional tech optimism rooted in greed, sorry


Optimism about self-driving cars has sustained a fever pitch for so many years, at this point, that some die-hard boosters of the concept would still insist it’s an inevitability. Countless journalists who have experienced, with their own bodies and two eyes, a self-driving car journey, have declared it the inevitable future. These journeys have only taken place thus far on little obstacle courses that amount to little more than a carnival ride, or in at least one case, a road test where the car does fine by itself until it encounters any remotely challenging human-interaction scenario. At that point, the PR handler or engineer in the driver seat slickly takes over driving just for a split second, hoping the journalist doesn’t register that those split seconds are when the self-driving cars’ abilities, or lack thereof, matter the most.


But it hasn’t been a great six months for self-driving vehicles. In March, a self-driving Uber car in Arizona killed a woman who was walking a bike across a street. Public relations messaging around the death first cast aspersions on the testing driver in the seat, saying he was a felon and then also maybe watching Hulu, and then on the victim, saying she was walking a bike across the street outside of a crosswalk, and how was a car AI to distinguish her as a thing it shouldn’t hit? Final reports suggested the car’s emergency braking system had been disabled by Uber itself, and that was the ultimate cause of the incident.


Laying the blame on a critical failure conveniently sidesteps the whole issue of whether a self-driving car can adequately identify a thing it shouldn’t run into, which should be almost the entire point of a car that drives itself. But then, per the Verge, “the vehicle decided it needed to brake 1.3 seconds before striking a pedestrian, but Uber had previously disabled the Volvo’s automatic emergency braking system in order to prevent erratic driving.” The car correctly identified a threat, but in a broken-clock-is-right-twice-a-day way, such that its threat identification reaction had become so annoying and frequent it was turned off. https://theoutline.com/post/5964/the-self-driving-car-that-will-never-arrive?zd=1&zi=35qj7zwq

KC
25-02-2019, 02:57 PM
Early days. The problem is the recent rush to get them on the market. I figure they need another 10 years or so to attain decent capabilities. No need to tar and feather something that has a huge potential to make life better (and longer for many).


Look at a the other devices, infrastructure and technologies we have today that were a mixed bag of costs and benefits early on but got better and safer over time. The car itself is a great example. Basically death traps early on and right up until the 1960s. Far higher death rates than rail, horse and buggy, etc. There was carnage on the roads!


Check this out:

The US rate has fallen from 24 down to 1.2 “Fatalities per 100 million VMT”. For nearly two decades they used to loose upwards of 50,000 people a year!!!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year

Medwards
25-02-2019, 03:18 PM
^ this

Edmonton PRT
25-02-2019, 03:21 PM
Yeah but a bit of slush, snow or a faulty sensor did not cause a 1960's car to crash.

I am not against improved technology but comparing the physical improvements to cars like crumple zones, collapsing steering wheel columns, padded dashboards, safer fuel tanks, improved suspensions , airbags and many other advances were passive safety systems. Autonomous cars rely on active safety systems and computers making decisions. The auto industry is rife with a history of poor quality, cheap parts, overselling features and unproven technology. The mantra, "Don't buy the first model year of a new car".

Compounding the problem is that cars are not maintained like airliners with regular maintenance and safety inspections. Additionally, drivers are often poorly trained, don't read their car's manual and often have never even cracked open their copy. Their reliance on unproven technology and trust that it may be safer in all condition is fraught with risk. No matter how good the technology, driving at high speed on black ice while texting your girlfriend oblivious to the conditions and trusting your car to get you home is a fool's paradise.

Already there are lawsuits against manufacturers and this will kill the technology simply because the marketing is too far ahead of the science and history will only repeat itself.

KC
25-02-2019, 05:40 PM
When you mention the owners manuals, you’re actually making a good case for autonomous cars.

The software updates will be rolled out to all cars and they will have to support old models for a long time or hand over the code to another entity.

Right now about 3,000+ people die everyday in car accidents. Humans aren’t doing all they well as is.




NASA - Shuttle Computers Navigate Record of Reliability

"The current quality of this software system is really almost unimaginable," said USA's Jim Orr, who has been working with the shuttle's computer systems and software in different positions since 1978. "It's that good."

The networked computers are set up so that four are operational and one is a backup that could fly the launch and entry if the others failed. The computers receive their information from a host of sensors and actuators throughout the orbiter, external fuel tank and solid rocket boosters.

It sounds like a lot of work for any electronic device, let alone ones that are running on far less memory than a cell phone. And keep in mind that the first few dozen shuttle missions used the first-generation GPCs, which boasted memory capacities of 416 kilobytes and were a third as fast. They also weighed twice as much and it took two boxes to do the job of one of today's GPCs.

That's where the software comes in.

Just like the computers themselves, the software code involved is much smaller than modern commercial counterparts. The shuttle's primary flight software contains about 400,000 lines of code. For comparison, a Windows operating system package includes millions of lines of source code.

"From a complexity point of view, Microsoft Windows is probably more complex because it has to do so very, very, very much," Orr said.

Shuttle programmers, on the other hand, focus solely on what the software must do for a mission to succeed. The machines simply don't have the room to support programming for other things.

"There are a lot of things that have to happen very precisely," Orr said.

Plus, shuttle software is written to successfully adjust to failures, such as when one...”

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/flyout/flyfeature_shuttlecomputers.html

Edmonton PRT
25-02-2019, 05:51 PM
New technology can be judged differently.

Example.

The Titanic sunk on its maiden voyage with 1517 lives lost but people kept using passenger liners. My uncle survived the worst maritime sinking in history with up to 9,000 lives lost and people kept taking ocean voyages.

Airships had done hundreds of thousands of miles of air travel and on its second season, it caught fire with only 35 lives lost and it spelled the end of airships .

A few major crashes with autonomous vehicles such as running down children in a crosswalk and they will be banned forever.

Edmonton PRT
25-02-2019, 06:00 PM
The Electronic Highway: How 1960s Visionaries Presaged Today's Autonomous Vehicles
https://spectrum.ieee.org/image/Mjc5NTMwOA.jpeg


As you read these excerpts, try to keep in mind that the article was published in 1969, and that the 1980s, a decade away, represented the distant future:
An examination of traffic conditions today—congested roadways, a large number of accidents and fatalities, extremely powerful automobiles—indicates the need for improvements in our highway system. Unfortunately, conditions will be much worse in the next decade, for it is predicted that the total number of vehicles registered in the United States in 1980 will be 62 percent greater in 1960, and 75 percent more vehicle miles will be traveled. If one should look further ahead to the turn of the century, he would see vast sprawling supercities, with populations characterized by adequate incomes, longer life-spans, and increased amounts of leisure time. One predictable result is greatly increased travel. The resulting traffic situation could be chaotic, unless some changes are instituted beforehand.

It is obvious that the traffic problems cannot be solved simply by building more and larger highways, for the for costs are too high, both in dollars and in the amount of land. Many alternative solutions have been suggested: high-speed surface rail transportation; a high-speed, electrically powered, air-cushioned surface transportation system… However, in the opinion of the writers, a majority of the of the public will not be satisfied with only city-to-city transit or even neighborhood-to-neighborhood transit via some form of public transportation. One needs only to witness the common use of private automobiles where such transit already exists. The role of a personal transportation unit is certainly justified by the mobility, privacy, and freedom afforded the occupants. It seems certain that this freedom, which dictates the spatial pattern of their lives, will not be relinquished.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwdjM2Yx3gU
1960s Citroën DS driverless car test

KC
25-02-2019, 06:20 PM
Now this is interesting:





Self-Driving Cars' Massive Power Consumption Is Becoming a Problem | WIRED
“...

A production car you can buy today, with just cameras and radar, generates something like 6 gigabytes of data every 30 seconds. It's even more for a self-driver, with additional sensors like lidar. All the data needs to be combined, sorted, and turned into a robot-friendly picture of the world, with instructions on how to move through it. That takes huge computing power, which means huge electricity demands. Prototypes use around 2,500 watts, enough to light 40 incandescent light bulbs.

“To put such a system into a combustion-engined car doesn’t make any sense, because the fuel consumption will go up tremendously,” says Wilko Stark, Mercedes-Benz's vice president of strategy. Switch over to electric cars, and that draw translates to reduced range, because power from the battery goes to the computers instead of the motors. ...”

https://www.wired.com/story/self-driving-cars-power-consumption-nvidia-chip/




I imagine interconnecting vehicles, smartphones, etc. would dramatically cut the power needs. If the system already registers say 90% of what’s around it and approaching it (even we’ll beyond the sight of human drivers), then it would focus on anomalies like anarchists, unabombers and oghers without smartphones glued to their heads, dogs (though they soon should have tracking collars), birds, falling rocks, etc.



Best of Dug from Up - YouTube
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LEZ_xL1S4hs&feature=youtu.be


"Bananas" Parking Clip - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y16HUOAmT0

Edmonton PRT
06-03-2019, 08:04 PM
Just watching CBC about all the Hyundai engine failures that have failed on drivers doing 120kph and have caused 300 engine fires. This and all the recalls on all brands gives consumers little confidence that the failure prone auto industry can pull off a reliable and safer driverless car.

KC
06-03-2019, 08:28 PM
Just watching CBC about all the Hyundai engine failures that have failed on drivers doing 120kph and have caused 300 engine fires. This and all the recalls on all brands gives consumers little confidence that the failure prone auto industry can pull off a reliable and safer driverless car.

Yet people continue to buy cars.

Anyone buy a computer in the last 40 years?

Get on a plane?


VW says driverless vehicles have limited appeal and high cost | Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/article/autoshow-geneva-autonomous-electric/vw-says-driverless-vehicles-have-limited-appeal-and-high-cost-idUSL5N20S64F

Edmonton PRT
06-03-2019, 08:56 PM
What other choice for you have? A horse?

Between a normal car and a driverless car, I trust my driving over anything that has Microsoft written on the hood.

KC
07-03-2019, 01:49 AM
People like you probably won’t be the initial target market.

Kids that don’t want to be bothered getting a drivers license.
People that can’t get a drivers license.
People that are going to lose their drivers license. (Old age)
People that need one vehicle to serve several family members. ...

Edmonton PRT
07-03-2019, 06:35 AM
Yeah but when they die in car due to a computer glitch, you don't think that their family won't sue the manufacturer?

Edmonton PRT
12-03-2019, 11:29 AM
One example, Boeing 737 Max 8

Marcel Petrin
12-03-2019, 11:39 AM
Why don't you tally all commercial flight crashes between human and computer error, and we'll see who "wins"?

Edmonton PRT
12-03-2019, 12:41 PM
If you believe that computers can do it better, would you take a flight without pilots? In both instances, the Boeing 737 Max 8's were flying in clear skies and then plunged to the ground.

I will say again, the playing field is not even.

If you compare transatlantic voyages by ocean liners vs Zeppelins, a single crash where most people survived doomed the Hindenburg and airships forever.

A few people killed due to computer glitches in driverless cars and they too will be doomed forever.

Airliners are strictly controlled, pilots constantly trained and evaluated, regular maintenance and safety inspections. Yet, we both agree that pilots are the major cause of accidents but computers have yet to have total control so the jury is still out. Computers have failed, software and sensors placing an aircraft in peril and pilots are there to solve the problem and many have been able to bring the plane safely to the ground.

The same level of care for automobile drivers is not the standard. There is not constant training and evaluations, no mandated regular maintenance and safety inspections.

Remember, the auto industry is rife with mistakes, factory defects, poor design, safety flaws, recalls and a lack of maintenance.

And you expect drivers to trust automakers and MicroSoft to drive your car?

https://barkpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/wsj-car-recalls-graph-600x434.jpg





The untold story of QF72: What happens when 'psycho' automation leaves pilots powerless?
For the first time, the captain of the imperilled Qantas Flight 72 reveals his horrific experience of automation's dark side: when one computer "went psycho" and put more than 300 passengers at risk.
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/the-untold-story-of-qf72-what-happens-when-psycho-automation-leaves-pilots-powerless-20170511-gw26ae.html

"We were never given any hint during our conversion course to fly this aeroplane that this could happen. And even, I think, the manufacturer felt this could never happen. It's not their intention to build an aeroplane that is going to go completely haywire and try and kill you."

The events of October 7, 2008, are not merely about how three Qantas pilots found themselves fighting to save a passenger plane from itself. It serves as a cautionary tale as society accelerates towards a world of automation and artificial intelligence.


Airplane computer systems can be hacked, report says
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/airplane-computer-systems-can-be-hacked-report-says/


Airline computer outages like Delta’s are bound to repeat themselves. Here’s what to know.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/travel/airline-computer-outages-like-deltas-are-bound-to-repeat-themselves-heres-what-to-know/2016/08/11/578a83cc-5d8d-11e6-9d2f-b1a3564181a1_story.html?utm_term=.a73a77b226a9
Catastrophic computer outages that paralyze an entire airline are few and far between. Except this summer.

Last month, Southwest Airlines canceled 2,300 flights after a router in one of its data centers failed, delaying hundreds of thousands of passengers. And last week, Delta Air Lines suffered a massive computer failure, which triggered the cancellation of 451 flights in a single morning.

10 Air Disasters Caused By Computer Errors
https://www.bestcomputersciencedegrees.com/10-air-disasters-caused-by-computer-errors/

kkozoriz
12-03-2019, 01:38 PM
Now imagine the hackers doing this to millions of cars at once.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be working on driverless cars but we need to be aware that hackers and terrorists will be doing the same.


HACKERS REMOTELY KILL A JEEP ON THE HIGHWAY—WITH ME IN IT

I WAS DRIVING 70 mph on the edge of downtown St. Louis when the exploit began to take hold.


Though I hadn't touched the dashboard, the vents in the Jeep Cherokee started blasting cold air at the maximum setting, chilling the sweat on my back through the in-seat climate control system. Next the radio switched to the local hip hop station and began blaring Skee-lo at full volume. I spun the control knob left and hit the power button, to no avail. Then the windshield wipers turned on, and wiper fluid blurred the glass.


As I tried to cope with all this, a picture of the two hackers performing these stunts appeared on the car's digital display: Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek, wearing their trademark track suits. A nice touch, I thought.


The Jeep’s strange behavior wasn’t entirely unexpected. I'd come to St. Louis to be Miller and Valasek's digital crash-test dummy, a willing subject on whom they could test the car-hacking research they'd been doing over the past year. The result of their work was a hacking technique—what the security industry calls a zero-day exploit—that can target Jeep Cherokees and give the attacker wireless control, via the Internet, to any of thousands of vehicles.

https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/

Edmonton PRT
12-03-2019, 02:15 PM
If computers have trouble in airplanes with clear blue skies, what can we expect from driverless cars in real world conditions?

A California road is one thing, what about in Canada?

Here are examples of pictures I took in Montreal yesterday

Will a computer see the potholes and pool of water? Will they splash the pedestrian on the sidewalk corner?
https://previews.dropbox.com/p/thumb/AAX5Qfv_U4kMZqI9pVincYZ0KURxRSvp3EpKN4R7-OQoufNgCNHVFt6xM91zsZp_PV9Wmf1zuzbICoOemCDtXsClxbw V0GULcxT9BYoq63MAMagiYobz3CjUoZNzU4lPGnbEFUJlVPj92 hZrqDMxV7UDBY4agdTfk-XN5tIvJbUrPOzCDAT8rEUdhxO2R_EN3dUUsI5LFlqK__UjqnXZ uLX8BgtbjEmqVmJ3rQmwYMQO5Li9sI4lp8pC3q6m-jQ6h27KJstsbCYkjwS32q8mOp2YtFXgnI-ZdBbFFSoFzHYmuA/p.jpeg?size_mode=5

more potholes, real axle busters.
https://www.dropbox.com/preview/Public/potholes2.jpg
https://previews.dropbox.com/p/thumb/AAVRzm6SGCBSXjiePsDMSw27qqUec6k7pbCBI1YAR7k4AQUv7T QVmRnbr5ba62RwUC1bzOrDBTrqC-DU9k-0dS-DPbRDXra9CFrajwNEzM6bFg862-JSRVwDhON81I7y81Qm85P22chTLC0ilktjrpk7aiWpwqvdDqo6 JZNLhgmlNLXN6TEtsbFsuu1IXZLT4Y4f4-jvLP3FgFtJcqALAzF6h6uxPYGJMV98pNLd--xJ3Y8R45jVBsn3FV_CQ7dNUI0W7q0pa4nBk1qZMoBAHKaT3D7R sR_KbJ1YBCesRvdyAQ/p.jpeg?size_mode=5

Will driverless cars "see" pools of water on highways and roads? A 2" pool can easily cause aquaplaning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaplaning) and cause a car to lose control.
This 200 ft long pool is up to 6" deep and punctuated with large potholes. Drivers went very slow and cautious. The pedestrian on the sidewalk did not get splashed.
https://previews.dropbox.com/p/thumb/AAVHxSy1v3fDD-Phe3BPWW92pmIpatxT8U_s0NhazL_eUGF-sIEiQWa9IRwyrpLde6pThMB3mjRpt0q2_Feat33Ic9BRsDueW_ MNByVr9YtvzLCre46cxjYfgI5N6mcAfGgKJ62AAcj23WavYNRi Vsfza48xCT39izQNQNH88Yn0iaxewxrWK2ylmGdEW_2jKn5kFi h-89X-N-56IImZHc4iUyUVDxLrp3q47MMSWijtrQckBqAQab6JYa86thYS njwsexGMlkvzcK2sqeQxuucZ2yWUsVRyIpuPZeS7Ihuswg/p.jpeg?size_mode=5

Here is a typical street parking scenario. How will a driverless car know how soft or hard is the snow. Will it even try to park in a rough spot? Will it get stuck. Will the computer get confused and shut down. Does the computer know that parking will be banned overnight for snow removal? (note orange signs)
https://previews.dropbox.com/p/thumb/AAWl2I4fLP7WMqevGQPlSsSGx1eulv-0J6ud7iCMR9QKyCNoUwWFvEq9dvT95sV7yrsFsQX5A4r2HWgV4 4D9fiu1H-O0kDSjpgcgkYjhbDxgFHFd4lp4apPAQXB8an_SgwP-6ACwsZuEAPBxoyhv-zTuPt0_fp0h9EyEY0FVsn-yAfgQ4Gg7dqmFFv2A4c4USpbI6f2zbJkoN_0sDCRjEwAKw-Yt3rpqCnHkGMcrM-cjifFM2nu137MmqmN_kC50QdPPKE2CwgGQbLqK3Q9kJQkZPzrD yk31B7VsStXo1OFcoQ/p.jpeg?size_mode=5

Will the computer park 6" beside the curb and get stuck? Will it be smart enough to even know where the curb is? Will it park like other drivers away from the curb and prevent getting stuck? (note more parking bans)
https://www.dropbox.com/preview/Public/Parking.jpg
https://previews.dropbox.com/p/thumb/AAWKVEBmgM3IMHiQZMU08Xlc98EERk1DlY7eElP2cXheKdhSf2 cNEwAJxn8RQXweRdx81cX4DBWOhkXqeYfTIm7FvHmnyK57GZhZ oFN83nmMww1o916e7f-vc_OZ9VeetgRHGHXNJv6pAWmqs0O8gFEAOM3kEZxeEpdR2B2-5nNsoutcWOSWRd9zJNpGDpAnyr9l9KLGWiLunvcUA54nimrrFw nlQkbfCiJafxelHjI9tjoaWx__Ntk9MrVxX51wljuPnYUj45Du _QEZKMdrkTKBUpi6RAwouHLgBeKdk2ux9g/p.jpeg?size_mode=5

In Montreal and elsewhere in Canada, people have to cope with winter parking. Here people back in at an angle to prevent getting stuck. As you can see, some are angled in and others parallel parked depending on the circumstances. Do you think any computer could figure this out?
https://previews.dropbox.com/p/thumb/AAWPjOJHHWEoVW933E16Ylbnfal92tZRo8UfO0VtUL7rww8zKA XsUTnzQHfRGoObu_q53B3Ce-yvaRJvtmZn44ZVuG2JMesaKMy8ZHzdV5qFNVYMLhmGnIzzyQ3t UzV3hZON3Luta2mCvtJkSGSI93ouI3ZQ4STB9y8nyky__5Zd9A RoGXPtQh5ubyd6aWbbSQFjHPLaHJ_jCmo62xOjP1y1bYom4Jbd 1p_KqHKIKljuG7mJxYP9a1ihUwMaW5d1o20Cxr-ZEaH95bJ-STdkAXz34cNWLiVpjCMhL11yrvMcyg/p.jpeg?size_mode=5

Here is an example from last year
https://previews.dropbox.com/p/thumb/AAVwLUgizIAi2_GOT-39UUryYw5T6Q8IrAdomXczn_ByHC6rMGXu8osafzCyPoOPaa_l 4klkeTrD1QwnCgIXetVCp-1_qWYg-dZlMVcWxAaYDsRETMTHZIRmcEhqTg9rQazmNuKweADqL-sHfAA8CxmwXgrxA7JlXdLOgGW_MUuNyLVYYRxF8RDQfPpwSP20 LOo0bnFyQzl1aRHHLcuaBAbZKJKyZpDauy9VdN9nAl-Huu_bxfDtSZ5CTnD1qC5dcQq6mEYg4DU5g6mPMx5JubkjcHopF hhCdzyBr9wpu8sopg/p.jpeg?size=1600x1200&size_mode=3

These examples are just a few examples that exist in many cities, towns and elsewhere in Canada and northern US states.

This is reality, it is not a test.

Edmonton PRT
12-03-2019, 04:34 PM
Ethiopia crash of Boeing 737 Max might be latest example of backfiring safety efforts
James Bovard, Opinion columnist Published 9:25 a.m. ET March 12, 2019
If software and sensors are to blame, then the Boeing accidents are another reminder that safety policies can have unintended fatal consequences.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/03/12/ethiopian-boeing-737-max-8-crash-safety-cause-indonesia-column/3133013002/

If software and sensors designed to prevent crashes actually increased the risk of catastrophe, then the Boeing accidents are another reminder that safety policies can have unintended fatal consequences.


Unfortunately, policymakers routinely ignore the unforeseen costs of well-intended safety efforts. For instance, the Transportation Security Administration, seeking to make air travel perfectly safe from terrorists in the months after 9/11, spawned airport checkpoint regimes that are so intrusive that many Americans choose to drive instead. A Cornell University study estimated that TSA’s heavy-handed policies helped boost traffic fatalities by at least 1,200 additional deaths.


A Business Week analysis noted, “To make flying as dangerous as using a car, a four-plane disaster on the scale of 9/11 would have to occur every month, according to an analysis published in the American Scientist.…People switching from air to road transportation in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks led to an increase of 242 driving fatalities per month — which means that a lot more people died on the roads as an indirect result of 9/11 than died from being on the planes that terrible day.”


Boeing’s market value takes $25B hit as countries ground 737 MAX 8 aircraft
https://globalnews.ca/news/5048105/boeing-shares-ethopian-plane-crash/

KC
12-03-2019, 07:45 PM
Wow, you and Trump may be right about the technology getting ahead of itself.


Whatabout...




The Day - Auto evolution: The surprising history of some everyday vehicle features - News from southeastern Connecticut

Electronic stability control

Electronic stability control uses sensors to measure data such as turning force, lateral acceleration, and the angle of the steering wheel to determine if the vehicle is traveling the way the driver wants it to. If not, it automatically activates the brakes on individual wheels or selectively uses the throttle to help restore control. The feature is especially useful during evasive maneuvers, as it helps prevent the vehicle from rolling over.

Although the system has its roots in traction control systems developed in the 1980s, the invention of electronic stability control is credited to engineer Frank-Werner Mohn. During a Mercedes-Benz test trip in 1989, Mohn lost control on an icy road in Sweden and wound up in a ditch. The incident inspired the idea of connecting a vehicle's antilock brake system to the onboard computer to make it more effective.

Electronic stability control was successfully ...”



https://www.theday.com/article/20190218/BIZ09/190219597

Edmonton PRT
12-03-2019, 08:09 PM
What about autopilot?

The first was developed by the Sperry Corporation in 1912. We still put pilots in planes.

There is a huge difference between autopilot and driverless cars, especially with millions of non-autonomous cars and pedestrians in a dynamic interaction where two cars approach each other on a highway at 220 kph, less than a meter apart. Can you tell me where autopilots on aircraft are used where airliners are even 100 meters apart?

Spudly
12-03-2019, 08:31 PM
There's no thread for it and discussion seems to have gravitated here, so...

The Preliminary Report on the Indonesian crash:
http://knkt.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_aviation/baru/pre/2018/2018%20-%20035%20-%20PK-LQP%20Preliminary%20Report.pdf

Edmonton PRT
23-03-2019, 02:57 PM
Husband tests Tesla auto-braking on wife, nearly hits her
A man demos how not to test Autopilot's features
https://driving.ca/auto-news/news/news-roundup-husband-tests-tesla-auto-braking-on-wife-nearly-hits-her

A driver wishing to test his Tesla’s Autopilot Emergency Braking system and the strength of his marriage found a willing pedestrian subject in his wife. The video of the stunt showed the Model S braking automatically from 30 km/h when the woman suddenly steps in front of it. Take two doesn’t go so smoothly, requiring the man to apply the brakes himself and narrowly missing his partner. The video has since been removed.

KC
25-03-2019, 08:05 AM
Smile! You’re on Volvo’s privacy-invading cameras | Driving

https://postmediadriving.wordpress.com/volvo/column/lorraine/lorraine-complains-smile-youre-on-volvos-privacy-invading-cameras

howie
25-03-2019, 08:14 AM
^ Another use for a spot of duct tape.

Edmonton PRT
25-03-2019, 08:27 AM
Or a 1/4" drill

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/709867092082733056/bWLvzGAS.jpg

edmonton daily photo
25-03-2019, 08:48 AM
Carful PRT Central is going to send killer probes back through time to Assassinate you if you pose too much of a threat...

(Star Trek Discovery)

Edmonton PRT
02-04-2019, 02:28 PM
Researchers trick Tesla Autopilot into steering into oncoming traffic
Stickers that are invisible to drivers and fool autopilot.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/04/researchers-trick-tesla-autopilot-into-steering-into-oncoming-traffic/


Tesla autopilot module's lane recognition function has a good robustness in an ordinary external environment (no strong light, rain, snow, sand and dust interference), but it still doesn't handle the situation correctly in our test scenario. This kind of attack is simple to deploy, and the materials are easy to obtain. As we talked in the previous introduction of Tesla's lane recognition function, Tesla uses a pure computer vision solution for lane recognition, and we found in this attack experiment that the vehicle driving decision is only based on computer vision lane recognition results. Our experiments proved that this architecture has security risks and reverse lane recognition is one of the necessary functions for autonomous driving in non-closed roads.

Edmonton PRT
28-05-2019, 01:49 PM
Tesla On Autopilot Slams Into Stalled Car On Highway, Expect More Of This
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lanceeliot/2019/05/26/tesla-on-autopilot-rams-into-stalled-car-on-highway-expect-more-of-this/

Edmonton PRT
17-06-2019, 05:27 PM
Tesla drivers are getting caught sleeping on Autopilot


https://electrek.co/2019/06/16/tesla-driver-caught-sleepingn-autopilot-blame/


“Images and video were captured by a passenger in Miladinovich’s [the witness’s] car. He said the Tesla driver appeared slumped over with something tied around the steering wheel.

“If his little thing tied around that steering wheel fell off, and he was still sleeping, he would have slammed into somebody going 65 miles per hour,” Miladinovich said.”

He is probably referring to an Autopilot nag defeating device, like the Autopilot Buddy, which was shut down by NHTSA last summer and later relaunched as ‘phone mount’ to get around the ban.

The device is used to trick the Autopilot system into thinking that someone is applying pressure to the steering wheel in order for it to stay active