HAL couldn't open the pod bay doors!! What makes you think he would apply the breaks!?!

Assume with me that self-driving cars are extensively tested (and improved) for some number of years. Assume with me that at some point, and after tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of hours of data are accumulated, that it turns out they are safer than human drivers.

Do you allow them when that happens?

I don't know how long it will take, but I think self-driving cars will become safer than human drivers. Maybe that is five years, twenty years or even fifty years. I could be wrong and maybe a program will never become safer than the average human driver. But if they do, what do you do?

What does a driverless car do when a carjacker with a gun jumps out in front of it?

Or when it's stopped at a light and a gang of fine yutes surrounds it?

As good as they can be made, it doesn't take much imagination to take advantage of them. And these cars don't exactly have the computing power to play chess.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Assume with me that self-driving cars are extensively tested (and improved) for some number of years. Assume with me that at some point, and after tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of hours of data are accumulated, that it turns out they are safer than human drivers.

Do you allow them when that happens?

I don't know how long it will take, but I think self-driving cars will become safer than human drivers. Maybe that is five years, twenty years or even fifty years. I could be wrong and maybe a program will never become safer than the average human driver. But if they do, what do you do?

I'll continue driving myself around, that's what I'll do. Why give up my freedom for a false sense of safety? That's just plain ol' idiocy! I can go wherever I want , whenever I want, and pull over to take a piss whenever I want. See what I am getting at? I AM IN CONTROL....Me, not some guy writing code in his moms basement. Not some guy that decided to hack that software, because he felt like it. ME!!!!

If you are too lazy to pay attention to what you are doing, you shouldn't be behind the wheel in the first place. If you are pre-occupied with something other than driving, you shouldn't be behind the wheel. Take a fucking taxi or hop on the bus with the other schlubs.

Come test this self driving bullshit out in deer country. Or cow country. You'll see more wrecked cars than you can shake a stick at. Cars with all of the tech in them now cost considerably more than they used to, and adding self driving with all the radar and whatever else you need for it to operate would be VERY costly. Crash that once or twice and you'll bankrupt yourself or the insurance company (who'll likely drop you for costing them too much money). Cost sharing a vehicle isn't gonna work for anyone other than the millennials that use UBER in the cities, because in the rest of the country, we need our own cars to go greater distances, so it wouldn't be prudent.

wrightd is correct. I can look at situations with a wider field of view and try to predict what might happen when I see a group of kids playing ball, or a herd of deer in a field, or a millennial walking out of a restaurant straight into a crosswalk (which actually happened to me). A speed limit of 45 can be posted, but what happens when a speed of 10-15 is actually more prudent because you have a protest going on and people are darting across the road (also happened to me in Charlottesville).

Actually, existing technology on new Volvos (and a number of other new high-end autos) initiates emergency braking if an obstacle is detected in front of it and the car "determines" a collision is imminent. Only peripherally related to autonomous driving, and it has existed for some time, and works quite well, using both radar and optical cameras. It will not, of course, stop the car in time if an object appears immediately in front of the car at speed, say, a falling tree, a ball, a leaping deer, or in this case perhaps, a pedestrian stepping from between parked cars the instant the car passes. We don't exactly know the facts yet. Humans can indeed use predictive logic to anticipate dangerous situations, but of course, that doesn't always happen. Hence, accidents.

What we do know, is that an electronic system can be made to react faster than a human, and can be made close to, redundantly, but not completely, "fail safe." The human brain, much less so. That's why the existence of nuclear weapons doesn't keep me awake at night, knowing that they, probably, won't go off all at once where they are. Multiple redundant safeties are built in, even with magic electrons involved. With a human in the loop, as it was with this car. So I'll defer judgement until I know the details.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Assume with me that self-driving cars are extensively tested (and improved) for some number of years. Assume with me that at some point, and after tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of hours of data are accumulated, that it turns out they are safer than human drivers.

Do you allow them when that happens?

I don't know how long it will take, but I think self-driving cars will become safer than human drivers. Maybe that is five years, twenty years or even fifty years. I could be wrong and maybe a program will never become safer than the average human driver. But if they do, what do you do?

There's already been hundreds of thousands of hours of data accumulated. Waymo (Google's self-driving car group), by itself, has more than 5 million autonomous miles driven on public roads.

There are obviously still issues that need to be worked out, but the day when autonomous vehicles are safer than the average human driver is not far off (if it isn't already here).

Update is that some bag lady pretty much jumped in front of the car mid block and there's no way any driver, human or robot, could have avoided the collision.

https://www.sfgate.com/busines...481.php?t=11286f4b07

quote:

Originally posted by berto:
Update is that some bag lady pretty much jumped in front of the car mid block and there's no way any driver, human or robot, could have avoided the collision.

https://www.sfgate.com/busines...481.php?t=11286f4b07

Geez, if only there were a few people in this thread who said it was interesting that the human behind the wheel wasn’t able to avoid the accident either. If only people mentioned maybe it wasn’t avoidable do to the pedestrian’s actions..aybe it would have stopped some from foaming at the mouth and jumping to conclusions.

People get all crazy about this tech, but it’s coming, it will be part of our lives. It was only a few months ago when people said I was crazy for saying in 10 years my kids wouldn’t drive.

In those few short months I’ve seen both Cadillac and Infiniti advertise their new Tesla type “auto pilot” systems for highway driving. The wave is coming fast and furious, just embrace it and figure out how to utilize it. There is no stopping it simply because the huge amounts of money to be made.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by mark_a:
I for one can not wait until self driving cars become mainstream. I would be happy for now if it was highway only.

I have a lot of customers that are 4-6 hours away. I have to travel the night before to attend morning meetings.

Programming the destination, leaving at midnight and sleeping most of the way sounds way better than being away from home so many nights.

Oh wow, so you think you'd just be able to sleep without a care in the world as your car drives you to your destination? Isn't that special.

Don't be so negative and think it's about selfishness.

One excellent potential use is for families who need to transport people around. For example, you could tell the car to take you to work and then go pick up the kids from school and take them home and thereafter come pick you up at work.

If you have a senior citizen who doesn't have the ability to drive but is otherwise capable of taking care of their affairs, you could have the car take them to the bank, grocery store or pharmacy. Quite a few possibilities for keeping you from spending your life on the road and for helping people get along with their lives.

Unbelievable.

So you really would put the car in complete control? Freak me.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by mark_a:
I for one can not wait until self driving cars become mainstream. I would be happy for now if it was highway only.

I have a lot of customers that are 4-6 hours away. I have to travel the night before to attend morning meetings.

Programming the destination, leaving at midnight and sleeping most of the way sounds way better than being away from home so many nights.

Oh wow, so you think you'd just be able to sleep without a care in the world as your car drives you to your destination? Isn't that special.

Don't be so negative and think it's about selfishness.

One excellent potential use is for families who need to transport people around. For example, you could tell the car to take you to work and then go pick up the kids from school and take them home and thereafter come pick you up at work.

If you have a senior citizen who doesn't have the ability to drive but is otherwise capable of taking care of their affairs, you could have the car take them to the bank, grocery store or pharmacy. Quite a few possibilities for keeping you from spending your life on the road and for helping people get along with their lives.

Unbelievable.

So you really would put the car in complete control? Freak me.

Under the right circumstances I might. Personally I like driving so I doubt I will even want a self driving car as my own. But I take a lot of Uber and taxis as it is. Given sufficient testing data I would trust a computer as much as I trust most taxi drivers.

I trust a computer now more than I trust half the idiots I see on the road on any given morning while taking my kids to school.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
In my dispationate voice:

Accidents will happen as the technology is developed. It's the nature of an advancing society.

How many people died in helpcopter trial and error tests, test pilots, astronauts and anything else that isn't just sitting at home on the couch?

.

This is not a valid argument. The individuals you noted we're willing participatants, and knew and accepted the risks. This pedestrian was simply a woman going about her day with no idea she was wandering into the path of a technology test. Furthermore, aircraft and helicopter tests are carried out in remote areas far from civilians. You don't test a brand-new aircraft prototype over an urban area for obvious reasons.

In this case I bet the driver will be charged as they clearly didn't take evasive action quick enough. I saw a story on the news last night about Tesla drivers reading books, playing games, even doing paddicake with a passenger while the vehicle auto drives. Clearly not active and engaged to take over in the event of a problem.

That would require a leap of law that isn't currently enforced anywhere and that new standard that you're proposing wouuld require the driver of a vehicle or an AI car to anticipate the criminal activites of someone and then to take preemptve action accordingly.

You can hit them up for neglicence but when the precipitating fact is that someone illegaly crossed the street, which is a criminal activity in any city, it's hard to say the driver or AI car is at fault.

That burden isn't placed on you now so why try to impose it on an AI car? Eventually I'm sure the AI car will eventually have that ability however today the law doens't support what you're suggesting because, quite frankly, it's an impossible standard to enforce.

No shift in law at all. The driver is still responsible for the vehicle, even in AutoDrive mode, especially in a test. If the driver took no action to prevent the accident, then there is negligence.

We don't know many facts. The news says pedestrian, but they also show a mangled bike being photographed by police. Did the person wander out in the street on or pushing a bike? Or were they riding and got hit from behind. That hasn't been reported yet.

However if you take the computer out of the mix, and it was a normally driven vehicle with a distracted driver, or one who simply wasn't properly watching the road, you probably have a strong case for negligence regardless of what the pedestrian did.

Most likely this will be a precedent setting case.

Just the other day outside my ER a woman was hit while crossing a busy street at night. Happens with human drivers too. The pedestrian was said to be in pieces and didn’t even make it into the ER.

Doubtful this turns in to anything based on Tempe police issuing some new info and as I long suspected, the car is not at fault.

According to a report in the San Francisco Chronicle, Herzberg was “[p]ushing a bicycle laden with plastic shopping bags,” and “may have been homeless.” After reviewing video footage of the impact taken by the Uber vehicle, Tempe police chief Sylvia Moir said that “it’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway.”

It wasn't the fault of the driver or the car but the pedestrian.

It amazes me that on this computer generated board, peopled by above average folks, that many seem comfortable with trusting not only their lives, but the lives of their families to a freaking computer...

Let me see a show of hands from those who have experienced "the Blue Screen of Death", or if you're an Apple user, "The spinning Beachball of Death".

It is difficult for me to develop a case of the Warm Fuzzies for the concept of turning over control of my destiny to a damn computer.

I have, in my working years, been a commercial driver of both heavy Class 8 trucks coast to coast, and both school and intercity busses. Last time I added up all the commercial miles it was somewhat over 3 1/2 million accident free miles.

How? Carefully developed techniques that allowed me to predict the actions of others based on visual clues in the surroundings. An example would be observing vehicles in heavy traffic as much as 15 - 20 cars ahead, watching for early brake lights, swerving or erratic vehicle operation, etc. These techniques have to be learned and practiced regularly. They have served me well.

I've experienced both the Blue Screen and Spinning Beachball problem with computers. I trust my abilities more than those of some programmer or lines of computer code.

Sorry, No Sale here!
Don

Your car, right now, has anywhere from 10 million to over 100 million lines of code in it. Right now. Without being autonomous. A new F150 has 150 million. So you are already "trusting your life" to a computer - your modern car. Unless you drive a Model T.

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
In my dispationate voice:

Accidents will happen as the technology is developed. It's the nature of an advancing society.

How many people died in helpcopter trial and error tests, test pilots, astronauts and anything else that isn't just sitting at home on the couch?

.

This is not a valid argument. The individuals you noted we're willing participatants, and knew and accepted the risks. This pedestrian was simply a woman going about her day with no idea she was wandering into the path of a technology test. Furthermore, aircraft and helicopter tests are carried out in remote areas far from civilians. You don't test a brand-new aircraft prototype over an urban area for obvious reasons.

In this case I bet the driver will be charged as they clearly didn't take evasive action quick enough. I saw a story on the news last night about Tesla drivers reading books, playing games, even doing paddicake with a passenger while the vehicle auto drives. Clearly not active and engaged to take over in the event of a problem.

That would require a leap of law that isn't currently enforced anywhere and that new standard that you're proposing wouuld require the driver of a vehicle or an AI car to anticipate the criminal activites of someone and then to take preemptve action accordingly.

You can hit them up for neglicence but when the precipitating fact is that someone illegaly crossed the street, which is a criminal activity in any city, it's hard to say the driver or AI car is at fault.

That burden isn't placed on you now so why try to impose it on an AI car? Eventually I'm sure the AI car will eventually have that ability however today the law doens't support what you're suggesting because, quite frankly, it's an impossible standard to enforce.

No shift in law at all. The driver is still responsible for the vehicle, even in AutoDrive mode, especially in a test. If the driver took no action to prevent the accident, then there is negligence.

We don't know many facts. The news says pedestrian, but they also show a mangled bike being photographed by police. Did the person wander out in the street on or pushing a bike? Or were they riding and got hit from behind. That hasn't been reported yet.

However if you take the computer out of the mix, and it was a normally driven vehicle with a distracted driver, or one who simply wasn't properly watching the road, you probably have a strong case for negligence regardless of what the pedestrian did.

Most likely this will be a precedent setting case.

Given the currently available information, I doubt it. Just because a car hits a pedestrian doesn't mean it's the driver's (human or computer) fault.

I was walking years ago and watched someone step out into the street in front of a bus. Glancing hit, broken arm for the pedestrian. When the police arrived, they ticketed the pedestrian for something like "failure to yield to a vehicle in the roadway."

quote:

Originally posted by Doc H.:
Your car, right now, has anywhere from 10 million to over 100 million lines of code in it. Right now. Without being autonomous. A new F150 has 150 million. So you are already "trusting your life" to a computer - your modern car. Unless you drive a Model T.

Excuse me, Doc, but I must take exception to your premise that because my car has many lines of computer code imbedded in it already, that I "am already trusting my life to a computer".

Computer code may control the climate control system, even the fuel injection system, etc. None of those auxiliary systems in any way are in a position to jeopardize my life, or even well being. Even the computer augmented anti-lock system is required by law to default to manual mode if a computer glitch should occur.

Should the entire system shoot craps and die, the worst that happens is I have to coast the vehicle to the side of the road.

A less stringent example at which I draw the safety line is that of computer controlled "steer by wire" systems... No thank you!

Different strokes for different folks I guess!
Don

Down to the basics, an automobile essentially does three things - it goes, it stops, it turns. All of those systems in a modern car, just like in modern aircraft, may be in some way electronically controlled - with computer input - often with human interaction but sometimes without. Hydraulic steering is not dead, but it is no longer the default. Your brakes may be controlled by electronic signals to the hydraulics. The simpler the system, the less automated interaction. A failure in my piezoelectric injectors - all computer controlled - would instantly cause my engine to stop - maybe when I'm trying to pass on a short stretch around a curve. That kind of trusting your life. You may think of equivalents, but the point is, computers are very much part of your driving life, whether we realize it or not. And generally the failure of any one component just means an irritating trip to the shop. I suppose it's a matter of level of trust and risk acceptance. I trust the many-millions-of-computer-code-line plane I'm on to get me to my destination. Otherwise I wouldn't get on it. Same for my very much computer-controlled car. I still shoot a 1911, by the way. Best gun ever designed.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Do you allow them when that happens?

Given the likely timetable for that implementation and my current age, I suspect I'll be dead and the final decision will fall to those who survive me.

But I have a different thought for ya. It appears with the current generation of millenials, driving is viewed as nothing more than a hassle. Getting from point A to point B while being able to lose themselves in their phones and tablets during the commute is the only focus. On the other hand, I view the trip itself as what makes driving enjoyable. Experiencing the drive with all its stimulants (wind, weather, smells, challenges, sights, and yes, risk too) are what makes driving a pleasurable experience rather than a task or hassle. Remove all that with these automated wheeled boxes, and commuting from place to place becomes little more than a more flexible mass transit ride.

Personally, I'll stick to driving myself for as long as I can. Its truly one of life's little pleasures people my age will be unwilling to relinquish.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
the fact that someone was behind the wheel means that person is responsible

self-driving cars are a stupid idea

if you're smart enough to buy a car, you should be smart enough to drive it

or use the bus

I don't have a horse in this race but how do you feel about autopilots on planes?