Driverless Hype Collides With Merciless Reality

[TribbleFeeder]

You're so right. That kind of "data" is something a car's automated system at this point cannot factor. And your choice was spot-on. Let aggressive drivers move on so they're far from you. The hope is that major roads are under surveillance and police would be able to observe reckless drivers and intercept them. But... it doesn't appear to be done consistently, as the rise in aggressive drivers is obvious. People drive recklessly, partially enabled by cars that are so precise in handling and powerful in acceleration compared to cars from decades ago, and until they have an accident they think their driving style is OK, putting so many lives at risk.

Thanks!

I agree, millennials in particular are way worse drivers. We’re more aggressive because we have that “now now now” urgency, we’re far more detracted by technology, and we’re careless because the safety in most new cars is so advanced.

I wish there was a way all cars could be put on a server so they could “talk” to each other. Like you add some sort of plug in that connects you to other cars (especially self driving cars) so they can communicate. However I don’t know anything about cars. Or technology.

 

[rahullak]

Connected Cars and Telematics.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Yeah, there's been huge hype over driverless cars, and while it may seem like we're technically ready, really we're not and far from it. I kind of get frustrated seeing the big push for it. Thing is, there are just so many variables, accidents just being one of them. Laws in different countries is one, and I can think of a couple of others such as the state of roads and their upkeeps (ie potholes anybody?) and the quality of GPS data available. The last one, while GPS data has gotten better over the years, it's certainly not perfect and there are still areas where the quality of GPS data is very poor. Part of me wonders, what would a driverless car do if it were to encounter an area with either inaccurate data, or an area that hasn't been sufficiently been mapped out, because believe it or not there are still plenty of areas like that, mostly in out of the way places with less concentration of people.

I wish there was a way all cars could be put on a server so they could “talk” to each other. Like you add some sort of plug in that connects you to other cars (especially self driving cars) so they can communicate.

Heh, just picturing a bunch of KITT-like cars on roads talking to each other.

 

[Gary7]

Yeah, there's been huge hype over driverless cars, and while it may seem like we're technically ready, really we're not and far from it. I kind of get frustrated seeing the big push for it. Thing is, there are just so many variables, accidents just being one of them. Laws in different countries is one, and I can think of a couple of others such as the state of roads and their upkeeps (ie potholes anybody?) and the quality of GPS data available. The last one, while GPS data has gotten better over the years, it's certainly not perfect and there are still areas where the quality of GPS data is very poor. Part of me wonders, what would a driverless car do if it were to encounter an area with either inaccurate data, or an area that hasn't been sufficiently been mapped out, because believe it or not there are still plenty of areas like that, mostly in out of the way places with less concentration of people.

Heh, just picturing a bunch of KITT-like cars on roads talking to each other.

I don't think GPS would be much of a problem. By the time we have a plethora of driverless cars, they'll keep full downloads of regional maps and heuristically know the location just by determining location from roadway crossings. In fact, it may be the kind of thing where as needed, the on board computer will ask the occupants. "Excuse me, can you confirm the road we are on?" "Please tell me the name of the cross street we are presently at."

GPS will end up being more of a backup and periodic "update", rather than relying upon it second by second. Because in actuality, the roads do not change day by day. Construction is very slow. Lack of GPS can also be compensated by Internet apps, like Waze, for traffic info. The GPS signal monitoring also consumes power, so not having to rely on it as much will conserve energy.

 

[Owain Taggart]

they'll keep full downloads of regional maps and heuristically know the location just by determining location from roadway crossings.

OK, but in certain cases, there is no regional data. I know it sounds drastic, but it is what it is in certain areas, where roads will just appear as unnamed roads. And what about if the occupant is unfamiliar with the area with no clear signs in the area? Would this be a good time to pull out a physical map to tell the car where you think you are? Gotta love technology!

 

[Gary7]

OK, but in certain cases, there is no regional data. I know it sounds drastic, but it is what it is in certain areas, where roads will just appear as unnamed roads. And what about if the occupant is unfamiliar with the area with no clear signs in the area? Would this be a good time to pull out a physical map to tell the car where you think you are? Gotta love technology!

In those cases, it's "you're on your own the old-school way, buddy."

 

[Owain Taggart]

And that's exactly why I feel they wouldn't be as useful in less populated areas. Less population density means less attention to getting updates, etc.

And I don't even want to think what kind of hell a driverless car would be in a winter setting. It's not even so much as reaction time as having a car properly equipped to deal with the conditions. Most of these driverless cars are developed in climates where they likely never have to think of driving in snow or over ice (or even black ice for that matter), condtitions where simply setting traction control on won't cut it as it's all about being prepared for unforeseen conditions that a computer likely wouldn't be able to adapt to in a timely manner, nevermind avoiding transport trucks which it seems to have trouble doing without these conditions. One idea would be to use those heated roads, but it'd cost a fortune for the governments to implement.

 

[TribbleFeeder]

And I don't even want to think what kind of hell a driverless car would be in a winter setting.

This!

South philly in February is a disaster even when your car is well equipped and you’re paying paying attention. Most streets are too narrow for a plow to get down, not to mention people park like maniacs in the snow.

I can’t imagine how dangerous it would be for a driverless car to be on the streets.

 

[StarCruiser]

And that's exactly why I feel they wouldn't be as useful in less populated areas. Less population density means less attention to getting updates, etc.

And I don't even want to think what kind of hell a driverless car would be in a winter setting. It's not even so much as reaction time as having a car properly equipped to deal with the conditions. Most of these driverless cars are developed in climates where they likely never have to think of driving in snow or over ice (or even black ice for that matter), condtitions where simply setting traction control on won't cut it as it's all about being prepared for unforeseen conditions that a computer likely wouldn't be able to adapt to in a timely manner, nevermind avoiding transport trucks which it seems to have trouble doing without these conditions. One idea would be to use those heated roads, but it'd cost a fortune for the governments to implement.

Yep - another reason why they will always be 30-50 years in the future...

 

[Owain Taggart]

I can’t imagine how dangerous it would be for a driverless car to be on the streets.

Yeah, humans have enough trouble not causing collisions during winter. I don't see driverless cars being any better. In fact I expect them to be much worse. It's not like the difference between rain and dry pavement, but the differences between snowfall amounts and other states of what's on the ground in different temps, ie slush, deep snow, ice, snow with ice underneath. Now, I grant it that where a driverless car might have an advantage during winter would be during a blizzard with whiteout conditions where visibility is low, and where the car can simply follow the road. but then I wouldn't want to be out driving in those conditions anyway.

 

[Santaman]

Also, even if they get them working what about in 10 years? stuff will eventually break, wiring won't hold up forever, sensors degrade etc etc etc, as for weather, fog, heavy rain, snow, extreme heat, there's a lot more that can influence the performance of sensors...

 

[TribbleFeeder]

I’m sorry, I don’t understand how anyone could think they were a good idea. I’d rather have driverless planes than cars.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I would be absolutely terrified at the concept of pilotless planes.

The thought of being miles up in the air, in a plane with no crew, would be one of the most chilling things I can think of. I would never fly on a plane like that. I mean, imagine being all the way up there...absolutely at the mercy of the plane that you're on...and there's no one in control? I'm getting chills just thinking about it right now.

Driverless cars, on the other hand? That's different. Of course car crashes have the potential of causing serious damage (to people and property)...but at least when a car crashes, it's a lot more localized, as it were. A plane crash would not only kill everyone on board but if it crashes into a populated area, there's way more collateral damage. That's why there will never be planes with no pilots - it's just too dangerous.

I mean, what about things like turbulence? Engine failure? Medical emergency? Terrorism? Bad weather? I don't see a computer being able to deal with those.

 

[TribbleFeeder]

I would be absolutely terrified at the concept of pilotless planes.

The thought of being miles up in the air, in a plane with no crew, would be one of the most chilling things I can think of. I would never fly on a plane like that. I mean, imagine being all the way up there...absolutely at the mercy of the plane that you're on...and there's no one in control? I'm getting chills just thinking about it right now.

Driverless cars, on the other hand? That's different. Of course car crashes have the potential of causing serious damage (to people and property)...but at least when a car crashes, it's a lot more localized, as it were. A plane crash would not only kill everyone on board but if it crashes into a populated area, there's way more collateral damage. That's why there will never be planes with no pilots - it's just too dangerous.

I mean, what about things like turbulence? Engine failure? Medical emergency? Terrorism? Bad weather? I don't see a computer being able to deal with those.

Oh boy, haha I’m sorry it was supposed to be meant in jest. That would be really horrible

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I can't say I'm a hundred percent in love with the concept of driverless cars, either. Not so much the risk of failure (which is still pretty steep), I'm just more in favor of universal, personal rapid transit.

I mean, why go to so much effort making drivers obsolete? We should be trying harder to make CARS obsolete. Ideally, like this:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

(Side note: I have no idea why the formatting is so weird in this clip. The actual program is in like 1/3 of the available area, and so much empty space? )

 

[Gary7]

^ There will always be a need for cars... it's just the scope that will change. In cities and suburbs, they should pretty much reduce to 10% of what they are today. It's further outside major infrastructure where they'll still be relied upon.

Eventually they'll become something more like what's depicted here:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Another thing we could see is the redesign of the automobile into something capable of being "interlinked" with a public transportation engine, for taking a small fleet of cars to a particular designation, requiring only one human driver versus multiple.

 

[GNDN18]

What? No torches and pitchforks?

It’s the beginning of the second Dark Ages.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

These cars will need an infrastructure that is not rated D- by a society of engineers. At ths rate, by the time we get driverless cars, that score will probably be a F. I would not give my life over to a computer if I am driving over a bridge which has corroded to the point where it could collapse at any time and I do not have the capacity of attempting to save my life.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

People will still be injured or die in accidents involving driverless cars -- shit happens. However, the accidents will be different -- probably mostly down to programming or sensor errors, assuming manually driven vehicles have beeb eliminated. Even if the injury and death rate were much lower than at present, I suspect many, if not most, people will feel innately prejudiced against this technology. It's not rational but it's the human response. We trust human bus and taxi drivers, even though they can and do screw up, causing mahem, but not robots. At least robots don't usually try to engage in conversation (apart from the Johnnycab robot taxi driver in the 1990 version of Total Recall).

 

[Relayer1]

Even if the injury and death rate were much lower than at present, I suspect many, if not most, people will feel innately prejudiced against this technology. It's not rational but it's the human response.

Once the technology is mature and robust it will be safer - much safer.

There will still be accidents and people killed and these will be used as evidence in arguments against automation - I know someone who survived an accident only because he was NOT wearing a seatbelt. That doesn't mean you are not safer wearing one and that the legislation making their use compulsory is wrong.