Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 135

Thread: Don't Fear Driverless Cars

  1. #1
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,050

    Default Don't Fear Driverless Cars

    This article has some excellent ideas as to the impact of driverless cars on society.
    http://www.city-journal.org/2014/eon0801bf.html

  2. #2

    Default

    Perhaps relevant for this thread on robocars (I relaize title isn't best though)?

    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...hlight=robocar

  3. #3

    Default

    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/0/163eb...#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....

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    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.)

  5. #5

    Default

    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

  6. #6
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,248

    Default

    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
    Parkdale

  7. #7
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  8. #8
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,248

    Default

    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
    Parkdale

  9. #9

    Default

    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_...ature=youtu.be

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    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.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    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.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    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.

  13. #13

    Default

    We have been told by other posters that we should not be on the bleeding edge of technology.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    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.

  15. #15

    Default

    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.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  16. #16

    Default

    Oh, Maybe this is a good idea for uber.


    j/k
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  17. #17
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post

    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...
    be offended! figure out why later...

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post

    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)
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  19. #19
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,941

    Default

    There is just no way this is going to happen.

  20. #20
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,668

    Default

    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.

  21. #21

    Default

    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/technolog...liable/375569/
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  22. #22
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,668

    Default

    Regarding engine vs brakes: http://www.caranddriver.com/features...d-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.

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Replacement; 19-01-2015 at 01:58 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  24. #24
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Regarding engine vs brakes: http://www.caranddriver.com/features...d-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.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  26. #26
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,668

    Default

    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.

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    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?
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  28. #28
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,668

    Default

    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.

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    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
    Last edited by Replacement; 19-01-2015 at 03:10 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    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.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    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.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  32. #32

    Default

    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.

  33. #33

  34. #34

    Default

    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?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  35. #35

    Default

    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...w-and-ice.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...r-reveals.html

  36. #36
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  37. #37

    Default

    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.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  38. #38

    Default

    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...
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  39. #39

    Default

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




    ~
    Last edited by KC; 09-04-2015 at 12:31 PM.

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    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
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    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.

  42. #42
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,387

    Default

    Freightliner unveils the first road-legal self-driving truck
    http://arstechnica.com/cars/2015/05/...driving-truck/

  43. #43

    Default

    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/15/05/5...slas-autopilot
    Last edited by KC; 15-05-2015 at 09:34 AM.

  44. #44
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    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," 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.

    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/se...rnia-1.3069113

  45. #45
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,668

    Default

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/self...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.

  46. #46

    Default

    News is that Suncor is apparently signing up with Komatsu for driverless trucks.

    Expect more layoffs.

  47. #47

    Default

    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/busines...375/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...
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 10-06-2015 at 12:32 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  48. #48
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    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.

  49. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    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.
    Last edited by KC; 10-06-2015 at 02:23 PM.

  50. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    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...CMO-EN07272015
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  51. #51

    Default

    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.

  52. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    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.

  53. #53

    Default

    ^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.

  54. #54
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,545

    Default

    Is there a need for two threads on self-driving cars?

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  55. #55

    Default

    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.

  56. #56

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by KC; 16-09-2015 at 08:23 AM.

  57. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    Is there a need for two threads on self-driving cars?
    Three if you include the robo car / robo train thread.

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snake Eyes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    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.

  59. #59
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,387

    Default

    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/don...vers/?ncid=rss

  60. #60

    Default Toyota promises driverless cars by 2020

    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

  61. #61
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,545

    Default

    Why Self-Driving Cars Must Be Programmed to Kill

    Would you get in a car programmed to kill you?

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  62. #62

    Default

    ^interesting, I'd say, kill the pedestrians instead.

  63. #63
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    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.

  64. #64
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    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?

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  65. #65
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,387

    Default

    Humans Driving Cars Are More Likely to Hurt Other Humans Than Self-Driving Cars
    http://gizmodo.com/study-humans-driv...the-1739440432

  66. #66
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,387

    Default

    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-auto...ell-1748162067

  67. #67
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,387

    Default

    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/2...fornia-in-2016

  68. #68

    Default

    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):



    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

    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.

  69. #69
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,387

    Default

    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-us...0UQ2F620160113

  70. #70

    Default

    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-s...shes-1.2734776
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  71. #71
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    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-s...shes-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...
    Last edited by kcantor; 13-01-2016 at 05:53 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  72. #72

    Default

    I am not comparing anything. I am just the messenger reporting the news.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  73. #73
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    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.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  74. #74
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,459

    Default

    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.

  75. #75
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    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.?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  76. #76

    Default

    That would be level zero, as per post # 68.

  77. #77
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    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?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  78. #78

    Default

    ^ 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.

  79. #79

    Default

    Heck with the Google car. I am waiting for the MicroSoft version based upon the Window ME platform...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  80. #80
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,387

    Default

    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/2...h-the-blizzard

  81. #81

    Default

    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, 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.
    Last edited by FamilyMan; 29-02-2016 at 01:47 PM.

  82. #82
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,387

    Default

    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-t...ans-1443463523

  83. #83
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,387

    Default

    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/...-driving-cars/

  84. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    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/...-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.
    Last edited by KC; 22-03-2016 at 05:55 PM.

  85. #85

    Default

    Funny!
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  86. #86

    Default

    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/20160...ange-your-life

  87. #87
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,387

    Default

    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.

  88. #88

    Default

    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?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  89. #89
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,387

    Default

    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.

  90. #90

    Default

    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.




    ~
    Last edited by KC; 23-03-2016 at 03:04 PM.

  91. #91

    Default

    Driverless cars as public toilets. I hadn't considered that.

    http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20160...-human-problem

  92. #92

    Default

    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-w...adas-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.



    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/2016/10/25/133...rcial-delivery
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  93. #93
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EdmontonPRT
    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
    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.

  94. #94

    Default

    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
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  95. #95
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,387

    Default

    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-...nin-1796226021

  96. #96

    Default

    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/...ck-on-freeway/
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  97. #97
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,668

    Default

    The guy was hammered and in all likelihood didn't even have autopilot engaged. Non-story.

  98. #98

    Default

    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.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  99. #99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    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???



    Ice Rain





    Ice covered cars that prevent sensors from working,





    Road closures that may not be updated on every car computer
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  100. #100
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,668

    Default

    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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •