Maybe the problem isn't self-driving cars, it's Uber's self-driving cars.

https://www.engadget.com/2018/...ions-after-fatal-cr/


When an autonomous vehicle isn't sure it knows what to do, it makes the driver take over.

One little tidbit from the article:

"Specifically, while the former Google project Waymo could have its cars average 5,600 between incidents where a test driver needed to take control and GM's Cruise averaged some 1,200 miles, Uber's documents reveal it wasn't consistently meeting an internal goal of averaging 13 miles."

Dudes need to read the whole thread. The info posted here, by members intimately familiar with the technology, should have been enough to send the message that this technology is a huge folley, IMO. No matter how slick Slashdot, Vice, VOX, or who ever, makes it seem.

I'll start off by saying that I'm an OTR trucker. However, I'm old enough that I feel no threat from any autonomous technology, and can therefore be objective.

The people who continually say that truckers will soon be obsolete are misinformed, and have a misunderstanding of the responsibilities of the typical OTR driver. The self-driving tech does only one thing: drive. Until you can find a way to accomplish everything else the driver does, the fact that the truck can drive itself is meaningless. A ride-along driver coupled with automation does not solve any of the problems that an autonomous truck is designed to solve, such as savings, safety, increased duty cycle, and manpower shortages.

Here's an example:
I drive flatbed. Currently, the driver is responsible for legal weights, both gross, bridge (this is an axle based formula), and axle max. The shipper asks the driver where and how he wants it loaded. If there is later a weight problem, the driver is liable. Furthermore, the driver is strapping and securing as the load is being placed. Afterwards, the driver may tarp. Additionally, the driver is required after 30 minutes of driving to reposition or retighten the straps. This is just one little example.

So who does all this for the autonomous truck? The shipper? Fine. Who's equipment? Shippers or receivers have the necessary straps, bars, corner protectors, and other sundry items to properly secure the load? Who assumes the in transit responsibility? Currently, if something falls off a truck and kills someone, it's the driver who gets to go to jail. Will the shippers assume this liability in the future? Who's insurance is covering this liability? Shippers, owner of the autonomous truck (who was not there during the loading), or the owner of the property? If a tarp tears in transit and the freight gets wet, who's insurance gets to cover it? During a roadside inspection, who receives and follows the instructions of the inspecting officer, and who receives any citations generated? Truck owner? He didn't load it, the shipper did. Who services the truck itself in mid trip, such as fuel and light checks? Full service truck stops? Who takes responsibility for gelled fuel on cold mornings, or a frozen brake drum? All this infrastructure is currently nonexistent. All of this is for a straight up normal load, and doesn't even consider the abnormal circumstances.

In short, there are decades of regulatory and practical hurdles to overcome before trucks are driverless. You may see platooning, or even terminal-to-terminal autonomous box vans, but that is essentially already in existence. Its called railroad piggy-backs or intermodal. A real driver puts a trailer or conex on a train, it gets there without a driver, and another truck receives it on the other end.

If anything, if truck drivers will soon be nearly nonexistent, it is because fewer and fewer people are entering the field. It has become so regulated that it has lost any appeal it once had. The average trucker's age is 55, and the shortages of drivers has become severe. This is the whole push for the self-driving truck, but the people who are pushing it really don't know the job. If any part of the industry can be automated, it will be but a bandaid for the driver shortages that are currently being felt, and will be acute within a decade.

We have robots who can weld a damn fine weld, yet we still have professional welders. Why? The same answer is most likely applicable to the trucking industry.

Tesla's autopilot results in fatal crash.

quote:

One of the company's Model X cars crashed into a roadside barrier and caught fire on 23 March.

Tesla says the 38-year-old driver, who died shortly afterwards, had activated Autopilot moments before the accident.

But they did not say whether the system had detected the concrete barrier.

"The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive," a statement on the company's website said.

"The driver's hands were not detected on the wheel for six seconds prior to the collision."

"The driver had about five seconds and 150m (490ft) of unobstructed view of the concrete divider... but the vehicle logs show that no action was taken," the statement added.

Tesla's Autopilot system does many of the things a fully autonomous machine can do. It can brake, accelerate and steer by itself under certain conditions.

In 2016, a Tesla driver was killed in Florida when his car failed to spot a lorry crossing its path.

It led the company to introduce new safety measures, including turning off Autopilot and bringing the car to a halt if the driver lets go of the wheel for too long.

Federal investigators said last year that Tesla "lacked understanding" of the semi-autonomous Autopilot's limitations.



The accident in California comes at a difficult time for self-driving technology.

Earlier this month, Uber was forbidden from resuming self-driving tests in the US state of Arizona.

It followed a fatal crash in the state in which an autonomous vehicle hit a woman who was walking her bike across the road.

It was thought to be the first time an autonomous car had been involved in a fatal collision with a pedestrian.

The company suspended all self-driving tests in North America after the accident.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43604440


Looks like that driver thought the car could stop for him if it's true his hands weren't on the wheel or engaging the brakes. It reiterates my point that the more technology we have, the more likely people are going to rely on it instead of taking responsibility for their own actions.

These stories will become very common. Fools, all around.

You will never catch me in some bug-brained "self-driving" (what a joke) car.

quote:

Originally posted by Brett B:
So which is it? Is the technology safe enough for self driving, or is the human driver still ultimately responsible?

These companies are trying to have it both ways.

Unless something has changed, Tesla has always billed Autopilot as a "this is a convenience feature you have to monitor" thing, not a "this car drives all by itself, take a nap," thing.

There are different degrees of vehicle autonomy, and Autopilot is relatively low on the totem pole.

https://www.caranddriver.com/f...-5-explained-feature

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
These stories will become very common. Fools, all around.

You will never catch me in some bug-brained "self-driving" (what a joke) car.

This really is the problem though. There are several of us that have no desire to be anywhere near these things, yet, they are being forced upon us with gusto.

I could only imagine how I would react if someone in one of these cars crashed into my family on the highway. As it stands, nobody is responsible. The companies are saying it's not their fault that someone relied on the technology that they were sold as being "robust and ready" for daily activity.

It's fine for someone to want to be the guinea pig, but I feel that those folks should have private facilities to test it, and re-test it, and test it for another 5 decades. Pit them all against one another, not against the unsuspecting that have no use for such reliance on fake security.

These cars are nothing more than a status symbol for the self important....or is it impotent?

A true hazard for all!

ETA for maladat:
Nobody foresaw that the tech would be abused? No fail safe protocol with head/eye sensing tech that is currently available? How convenient will it be when one of these things are being "misused" and it kills your family?

Also, Tesla has a lot riding in the success of their vehicles....I'll take their internal investigation with a grain of salt and see what the NTSB says. Even then, I would be skeptical enough to believe someone is being paid off to keep the wheel rolling, so to speak.

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:

ETA for maladat:
Nobody foresaw that the tech would be abused? No fail safe protocol with head/eye sensing tech that is currently available? How convenient will it be when one of these things are being "misused" and it kills your family?

I get what you're saying, but this is the same kind of argument made in favor of biometrically locked "smart guns."

Wanting tools or technologies to have safeguards to prevent misuse is understandable but it's also a slippery slope.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
These stories will become very common. Fools, all around.

You will never catch me in some bug-brained "self-driving" (what a joke) car.

This, in spades. No matter how well programmed a wad of computer chips becomes, it will never be able to be human. The day someone actually makes it happen, we will all be in more danger than from moving automobiles.

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:

ETA for maladat:
Nobody foresaw that the tech would be abused? No fail safe protocol with head/eye sensing tech that is currently available? How convenient will it be when one of these things are being "misused" and it kills your family?

I get what you're saying, but this is the same kind of argument made in favor of biometrically locked "smart guns."

Wanting tools or technologies to have safeguards to prevent misuse is understandable but it's also a slippery slope.

We are talking about a convenience compared to a GOD GIVEN RIGHT....Yeah, that's the same

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:

ETA for maladat:
Nobody foresaw that the tech would be abused? No fail safe protocol with head/eye sensing tech that is currently available? How convenient will it be when one of these things are being "misused" and it kills your family?

I get what you're saying, but this is the same kind of argument made in favor of biometrically locked "smart guns."

Wanting tools or technologies to have safeguards to prevent misuse is understandable but it's also a slippery slope.

We are talking about a convenience compared to a GOD GIVEN RIGHT....Yeah, that's the same

Regardless of the subject, it's still the same sort of argument (X should have Y feature to prevent misuse).

The second amendment and your stance on natural rights may affect how you judge the merit of the argument applied to different subjects, but it's the same argument.

Personally, I tend to dislike the "aw, you poor little thing, we have to protect you from yourself" attitude, regardless of where it appears.

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:

ETA for maladat:
Nobody foresaw that the tech would be abused? No fail safe protocol with head/eye sensing tech that is currently available? How convenient will it be when one of these things are being "misused" and it kills your family?

I get what you're saying, but this is the same kind of argument made in favor of biometrically locked "smart guns."

Wanting tools or technologies to have safeguards to prevent misuse is understandable but it's also a slippery slope.

We are talking about a convenience compared to a GOD GIVEN RIGHT....Yeah, that's the same

Regardless of the subject, it's still the same sort of argument (X should have Y feature to prevent misuse).

The second amendment and your stance on natural rights may affect how you judge the merit of the argument applied to different subjects, but it's the same argument.

Personally, I tend to dislike the "aw, you poor little thing, we have to protect you from yourself" attitude, regardless of where it appears.

I agree, it's the same logic the anti's use.

I get why people are not in favor of autonomous cars, but what Tesla has is not at all billed as autonomous (even though in reality it is).

you have to make contact with the wheel every so many seconds.

if people misuse something, banning it for all of the people who use it responsibly is just wrong IMO.

Call it a God given right all you want, but the Constitution can be changed. Logic such as what you've used would be the tool to do it. I presume you'd not be okay with that. this is why they banned large pops in NY.

What Tesla and other companies are doing is putting a technology in their cars in the family of cruise control and auto braking. It is capable of much more, but not sold as such. It is the precursor to autonomous vehicles, but it is not that...yet.

Talk about bad timing. California approves fully driveless cars to be tested on their roadways.

quote:

Now California's DMV can allow fully driverless car testing

But it may take a while before you see one in the wild.



Automakers can now start testing fully driverless cars on California's roads. According to the state DMV's new regulations that became effective on April 2nd, it can now issue three types of autonomous vehicle testing permits. The first kind is the original one it approved years ago, which needs a driver behind the wheel, while the other two could pave the way for the release of Level 4 to 5 autonomous vehicles. See, the second type of permit it can dole out will allow automakers to test fully driverless vehicles, and the third will give the companies permission to deploy them.

While it may seem like California introduced its new permits at a bad time -- Uber and Tesla were recently involved in fatal accidents while their self-driving technologies were engaged -- the state approved the new regulations way back in February. The rules also include conditions automakers must be able to meet before they can get their hands on those permits.

To be able to get permission to test driverless cars, for instance, they must have already tested them in a controlled environment. Also, their creation must meet Society of Automotive Engineers' definition of a Level 4 or 5 autonomous vehicle. That means their cars should be able to drive and stop themselves with no human interaction need; Level 5 vehicles can also have no steering wheels, gas or brake pedals. That said, California requires automakers to monitor their driverless vehicles using remote human operators, who can take over their controls if and when needed.

It may take a while before you see Level 4 or 5 autonomous cars driving around The Golden State, though. A DMV spokesperson told TechCrunch that nobody has applied for deployment yet and only one company has applied for a permit to test fully driverless cars.

https://www.engadget.com/2018/...verless-car-testing/


I am not a fan of lawyers but when stuff like this happens and someone gets killed, someone needs to be held responsible and unfortunately there's no accountability in Government and the only thing Uber and the like understand is the hit to their bottom line.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

quote:

whats next? sex by proxy?

shit..lets stop eating and just get wired to an IV...

how about sex, with an autonomous robot, while getting an IV and being driven home by an autonomous car...

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by DetonicsMk6:
Out of the crosswalk is a freebie. First inside the crosswalk death and the company executives go to jail. I realize you have to "break a few eggs to make an omelet" but what happens when it's your little chickadee?

Don't want to drive? Take a bus or a taxi.

Is that the way we do it with human drivers. Does the driver himself go to jail if he kills a pedestrian? Does the transportation manager of Yellow Cab go to jail if a cabbie kills someone.

As many have said, if driverless cars become as safe as human drivers, and if there is sufficient flexibility in the system that accomplishes that level of safety, then we should switch.

N.B. I have not yet read the whole thread, but this is the second or third time I have felt compelled to respond to jhe888’s comments.

As a software engineer in a former life, I have little trust in software, however I’d bet that however poor the software is today, it is already *MUCH* better than many of the folks I often see on the freeway in commiefornia supposedly driving while absorbed in their phones. On the other hand, I suspect that the software is light years away from being able to operate as well as Italian drivers in Italy.

In Italy right now on vacation and had a really interesting conversation with Antonino, the driver who helped us out in Naples and the Amalfi coast. He talked about how bad Italian drivers in general and drivers in that part of Italy in specific are. It was clear to me that they are much better drivers than the vast majority of those I run across in commiefornia. Sure, they regard traffic signals and lanes as mere suggestions at best, but they are fully engaged and paying attention all the time. Pedestrians step off the curb in front of them with little to no warning and they get stopped without endangering, much less hitting them. They drive in a very pushy manner, always budging in, but at the same time they allow others in. They move several orders of magnitude more traffic through the same amount of pavement as CA drivers and apparently with a lot less metal bent, at least it appears that way anecdotally.

the flaw in this entire thread is that there has never been a compelling need to have a driverless vehicle in the first place

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
the flaw in this entire thread is that there has never been a compelling need to have a driverless vehicle in the first place

Hush you! You’ll make the investors upset!

Z

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
the flaw in this entire thread is that there has never been a compelling need to have a driverless vehicle in the first place

A bunch of drunk driving assholes or cousin fucking morons who don’t know the difference between a gas pedal and a brake pedal is enough of a compelling reason for me. Over the years I have been hit by other idiot drivers 5-6 times. Never was it by a self driving car

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dusty78,

quote:

Originally posted by reflex/deflex 64:

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

I'd like to see the robot they develop to get out of the autonomous car, retrieve the correct package and deliver it to the doorstep.

For the commercial market a necessity to facilitate the elimination of drivers, you'll just need a person to schlep the parcels.

Or a drone that will lift off from the back of the truck and fly the package to the doorstep.

You'll first see the tech in long haul trucking. If the truck isn't moving, it isn't making money. Having a robot that doesn't fatigue would probably change the game for this use.

Let’s hear all of you early adopters praise the idea of a 40 ton robot observed by a sweatpants and flip flop wearing greencard carrying immigrant playing world of Warcraft over the road. Of course he’ll pay special attention while he’s next to you.

If you get this autonomous shit I guess you deserve it. I only hope they mount a strobe on top. Once again if it’s so damned good the man who designed and installed it ought to sign the dash agreeing he is going to prison with you for any liability incurred while the system is in use.

I thought that green card carrying immigrants were the kind that we wanted. The kind I was before I became a citizen. Guess I’m confused being an immigrant and all.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
the flaw in this entire thread is that there has never been a compelling need to have a driverless vehicle in the first place

I would have thought the reason this tech was being pursued is obvious. The trucking industry alone is a huge market.

People like me who would get rid of their car if I could call an autonomous Uber is another huge market.

Lives lost to drunk/distracted driving is another easy one.