Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Saluki |
I think that after all the years of auto pilot it is telling that there is still a well trained and highly compensated crew. A crew that is smart enough and trained to not spend the entire flight sleeping or chasing skirts or playing Pac-Man or smoking dope. In the end somebody must be ready at any instant to take full control of the plane knowing where they are and what is going on around them. As we all know they are in the sky where we can assume there are few things to hit. I can’t trust people to pay attention now. I’m working on a few million accident free miles. What percentage of error would you find acceptable? Mind you your family is right next to me on the bridge. The better the computer does the less incentive there is to have a competent operator available. The better it works the less likely the operator is going to be attentive to the situation. ----------The weather is here I wish you were beautiful---------- | |||
|
| Member |
[/QUOTE] Which is why they'll try to push it through before it's ready. The investors probably subscribe to the adage "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs".[/QUOTE] Or legs, ribs, skulls..... | |||
|
| Member |
I've chimed in on this before, but a huge component of the safety profile will be the standardized data generated by the cars (speed, location, brakes, manned/autonomous) all broadcast for other vehicles to "see". Car A will know what Car B has detected, and that it applied it's brakes at 30 percent to avoid an object in the road. An object, whose profile has also been sent to all the cars behind it, so they now too, can act to avoid it. They won't have to predict anything, because they will be getting situational updates of every car on the road each millisecond. And before the privacy arguments start, the information I'm talking about is the same observational data drivers use now to make decisions. Humans use optics, computers can get data packets broadcast by other vehicles to make decisions. It won't solve every problem, but I suspect it will solve most. | |||
|
| Savor the limelight |
So when one comes up on car Z at 50 mph closing speed, Z will let Y through A know to get out of the way. Perfect. | |||
|
Info Guru |
I've been in IT for close to 30 years. I think the technology is cool and I'm all for developing it to see where it goes. I am also one who would fight tooth and nail ever being mandated to own or use one. If someone likes it and wants to own it, more power to you. That's the same view I have of electric vehicles. You want to mandate that I own or use one? Not gonna happen as long as I can fight it. “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” - John Adams | |||
|
| Member |
The point is, these cars will have more situational awareness than any human driver. | |||
|
Member |
To compare driverless cars with autopilots is like comparing a poopy diaper to anvils. For one, there are a helluva lot less planes in the air than there are cars on roads. Secondly, there is a human monitoring the path of that aircraft for the entire time it's moving...even on the ground (talking air carriers here...not GA). Third, there are separation minima required that's fairly generous whereas cars are mere feet apart traveling 80, 98, 100 MPH on the road. The mind set of the pilot, even with the auto pilot engaged, is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond the synaptic activity of the average dolt driving around on the roads. Pilots are trained to CONSTANTLY consider Threat & Error Management in every phase of flight and to mitigate those threats before they result in an "Undesired Aircraft State"; down to something as simple as punching the buttons on the Flight Management System to navigate to a fix. As good as aircraft systems are today, there is no way on God's green earth that I would step foot in a pilotless aircraft...reference "Sully". I don't think the outcome of that event would have been quite as rosy without some gray matter plopped in a seat on the flight deck. Will it ever happen? SURE! But I'll be worm dirt looong before it does... "If you’re a leader, you lead the way. Not just on the easy ones; you take the tough ones too…” – MAJ Richard D. Winters (1918-2011), E Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil... Therefore, as tongues of fire lick up straw and as dry grass sinks down in the flames, so their roots will decay and their flowers blow away like dust; for they have rejected the law of the Lord Almighty and spurned the word of the Holy One of Israel." - Isaiah 5:20,24 | |||
|
| Member |
I’m not talking about LIDAR, or any optical sensor. I’m talking about cars sending their telemetry to other drivers. The same way WAZE works. I know there’s a car pulled over before I can see it because another user reported it. Same thing. Weather isn’t a factor. | |||
|
| Member |
In 2015 it was more than 15 per day in the USA - with the increased use of cellphones while engaging in ANY activity since then I'd say that number is probably trending up - significantly. to the conversation in general - if someone steps out when your car is 5ft away (as was the case here) - there is nothing you or the computer can do to avoid hitting that person unless you have some magic inertia dampers that allow you to literally stop on a dime. Shawn I reject your reality and substitute my own. --Adam Savage, MythBusters | |||
|
| Something wild is loose  |
Now consider the pilot eating lunch, looking for something dropped on the floor, putting on makeup, yelling at the passengers in the back, texting on a cellphone, or just drifting off to sleep. With other aircraft inches away. It might be nice to have the vehicle intervene, sometimes.... "And gentlemen in England now abed, shall think themselves accursed they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks that fought with us upon Saint Crispin's Day" | |||
|
Member |
But having also worked around IT for a very long time, you know it can't work that way. As spokane228 noted, for this matrix to work, 'all' cars would have to be a part of the network for the system to adequately control traffic flow and behavior. Any manually operated vehicles would obviously be uncontrolled by the system, that would only be able to analytically predict their behavior with a lower level of accuracy. This is an "all in" type endeavor if the results are to achieve expectations. So I'd predict that government would have to pass legislation cloaked in the general welfare clause in the future banning manually driven cars. I don't believe the federal government in 20, 30, or 40 years is any more likely to care about American freedoms than the current government does. ----------------------------- Guns are awesome because they shoot solid lead freedom. Every man should have several guns. And several dogs, because a man with a cat is a woman. Kurt Schlichter | |||
|
| Member |
But I don't think that version is the future of this tech. You're describing technology that affords a vehicle the ability to perceive and predict the behavior of multiple attributes potentially affecting it. I think the real future of this tech is as spokane228 has described, in that 'all' vehicles will have to be on the grid and in the system. As such they'll not only predict what's going on around them, but they'll also interact with each other, adjusting each others speed, direction, etc. A simple example would be merging into traffic. Instead of tech only controlling the merging vehicle, imagine how much more efficient it would be if tech controlled 'all' the vehicles, whereby causing traffic as a whole to slow or speed up, opening gaps to merge, while controlling the entire traffic flow. For that sort of tech to work you'd need huge computing power improvements, huge software breakthroughs, and massive data transfer capabilities. When 5G finally gets here and all the bugs are addressed, that may address one of those requirements, but I think the others are still many years away. ----------------------------- Guns are awesome because they shoot solid lead freedom. Every man should have several guns. And several dogs, because a man with a cat is a woman. Kurt Schlichter | |||
|
Bald Headed Squirrel Hunter |
This is what I'm envisioning for the future of this technology. We are years away from this in both computing horsepower and bandwidth. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine  |
But this is the internet, man! That is what it is for. And this sort of technological change is the kind of thing that people get very dogmatic about anyway. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
| Mired in the Fog of Lucidity |
You would think UBER would screen their drivers a bit more carefully. This is a pretty significant black eye across the board. Operator of self-driving Uber vehicle that killed Arizona pedestrian was felon, report says http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018...lon-report-says.html | |||
|
Irksome Whirling Dervish |
Are saying his felony status was causative, contributory or coincidental to the accident? Pick one but be careful on how you answer. Anything besides coincidental will require some proof or evidence to support your answer. | |||
|
| bigger government = smaller citizen  |
Like socialism. Sweet. We can mandate cars, the amount of power and water any household can consume, and everything will be awesome. Like a Department of Transportation UTOPIA! Fuck you Venezuela. You guys didn't get socialism right, but the next people to do it will for sure get it right. “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.”—H.L. Mencken | |||
|
delicately calloused |
I don't see how totally safe automation works unless there is absolute central control... You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier | |||
|
| Mired in the Fog of Lucidity |
No, I'm saying that using felons is probably not the best choice for a highly scrutinized testing program such as this. Surely they could have found a less "tainted" group of drivers, particularly when many states won't allow felons to engage in ride-sharing work. Just poor judgement. This line particularly caught my attention: "Uber was hit with a $9.8 million fine in November 2017 by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission after investigators determined the company hired nearly 60 drivers with previous felony convictions, The Denver Post reported at the time. " | |||
|
Member |
You are absolutely right that a system in which all the vehicles in a roadway are autonomous vehicles communicating with each other could operate safely at higher speeds with less space between vehicles (read: more people on the road, getting where they are going faster) than a system consisting of independent autonomous vehicles or mixed autonomous and human-operated vehicles. I think there's a reasonable way to achieve this, too, with minimal disruption and without requiring universal adoption of networked autonomous vehicles. You just make special roads that are only for the use of networked autonomous vehicles. I'm sure to many this seems absurd - but we already do something similar with high occupancy vehicle/carpool lanes and toll roads that require wireless automated payment systems (EZ Tag, etc.).
I don't think this is actually true. The huge computing power and data processing requirements for autonomous vehicles are mainly because computer vision is hard. The information shared between networked autonomous vehicles would be much higher-level (and much lower-volume) than that. ("I'm here, going this fast in this direction, and you might want to look out for something coming up on the side of the road" is a lot less data than "here, look at the 100 MB of image and LIDAR data I took in the last second.") It's not my research area but I know some people that do what they call "swarm robotics" (large groups of cooperating, autonomous machines). They are usually using much, much less communication bandwidth than is provided by a 4G LTE cell signal. (They also typically communicate directly with each other rather than through some central communication node, but that's neither here nor there.) | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 13 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024