Autonomous Cars

[RC3]

Got to have a clutch and a manual shift. Driving an automatic is boring and almost put me to sleep behind the wheel at night. On long trips, it sounds awesome, but for everyday driving, nah.

[Dolomite`s Breezy]

Creepy .....

[peejman]

Insurance companies will drive people into these things. The difference in insurance rates is expected to be quite dramatic; not initially but as the technology develops.

I have adaptive cruise control on my my main vehicle - it is amazing - set it for 5 miles an hour over the speed limit (or whatever speed you want) and sit back and let the car slow down and speed up along with traffic, while maintaining a safe following distance. It will brake the vehicle down to a full stop and then start back up again following traffic (or no traffic) up to the maximum speed I have set. Speed limit changes, I change the adaptive cruise control limits up or down accordingly. It makes driving in traffic amazingly less stressful!!

You trust computer programmers and the person driving the car directly in front of you a lot more than I do. Edited October 7, 2015 by peejman

[Jonnin]

You trust computer programmers and the person driving the car directly in front of you a lot more than I do.

 

A computer can react much faster than you can.  By orders of magnitude.  As for trusting the programmer, you already do... your car would stop dead in the road if the geek behind its computer did his job wrong.    As for the guy in front of you, if his car is also automated, he can't really screw up anymore, can he (this is the #1 benefit to me...  an end to traffic incidents caused by idiots).

 

 

And on insurance, the idea is that *everyone* uses the automatic car which 1) allows cars to talk to each other (I am here, you are there!), 2) does not do stupid human stuff like changing lanes without signals or speeding or talking on its phone instead of driving or drinking and driving or thousands of other human screw ups  3) can use extra information (in a fully set up world, it could know when a light would change and compute the velocity required to make the light well in advance, avoiding stopping at lights more often and certainly avoiding the "stop or floor it" decision of a yellow light, etc.   They would also know if nearby emergency vehicles were coming and clear a path, for another example of extra data. Just to name a few of the things that are possible ... most of them are already possible. 

[peejman]

A computer can react much faster than you can. By orders of magnitude. As for trusting the programmer, you already do... your car would stop dead in the road if the geek behind its computer did his job wrong. As for the guy in front of you, if his car is also automated, he can't really screw up anymore, can he (this is the #1 benefit to me... an end to traffic incidents caused by idiots).


And on insurance, the idea is that *everyone* uses the automatic car which 1) allows cars to talk to each other (I am here, you are there!), 2) does not do stupid human stuff like changing lanes without signals or speeding or talking on its phone instead of driving or drinking and driving or thousands of other human screw ups 3) can use extra information (in a fully set up world, it could know when a light would change and compute the velocity required to make the light well in advance, avoiding stopping at lights more often and certainly avoiding the "stop or floor it" decision of a yellow light, etc. They would also know if nearby emergency vehicles were coming and clear a path, for another example of extra data. Just to name a few of the things that are possible ... most of them are already possible.

True, I can't react faster than the computer, but I don't need to. I can look 4 cars ahead in traffic and anticipate what might happen. I can see the 3rd car ahead weaving around so I slow down or change lanes. So when that driver slams on the brakes because they weren't paying attention, I've already reacted and it takes zero or much less action to avoid.

And yes, programmers have been writing software for car ECU's for a long time. After 30+ years of development, they've got the basic functions pretty well under control. Something as advanced as a fully autonomous car? Gonna take a long time for me to trust one.

Also, there appears to be little to no standardization for these. Every manufacturer is doing their own thing. What's going to happen when a Mercedes, Toyota, and a Fiat are in line together. The people who programmed those cars may not have anticipated the same scenarios and may have programmed conflicting reactions. Who knows what the end result will be.

[monkeylizard]

in a fully set up world, it could know when a light would change and compute the velocity required to make the light well in advance, avoiding stopping at lights more often and certainly avoiding the "stop or floor it" decision of a yellow light, etc.  

 

What lights? If they can all communicate, both traffic flows can adjust to "zipper" into one another with neither direction needing to stop. That's going to be waaaay down the road if ever, but it's possible.

[RC3]

True, I can't react faster than the computer, but I don't need to. I can look 4 cars ahead in traffic and anticipate what might happen. I can see the 3rd car ahead weaving around so I slow down or change lanes. So when that driver slams on the brakes because they weren't paying attention, I've already reacted and it takes zero or much less action to avoid.

And yes, programmers have been writing software for car ECU's for a long time. After 30+ years of development, they've got the basic functions pretty well under control. Something as advanced as a fully autonomous car? Gonna take a long time for me to trust one.

Also, there appears to be little to no standardization for these. Every manufacturer is doing their own thing. What's going to happen when a Mercedes, Toyota, and a Fiat are in line together. The people who programmed those cars may not have anticipated the same scenarios and may have programmed conflicting reactions. Who knows what the end result will be.

Wouldnt the fiat and toyota move away and let the mercedes pass and then gang up on it?  Thats sounds pretty plausible.

[Jonnin]

What lights? If they can all communicate, both traffic flows can adjust to "zipper" into one another with neither direction needing to stop. That's going to be waaaay down the road if ever, but it's possible.

right, that is farther in the future.  But I agree, this is doable as well. 

 

as for standardization, its all R&D level so of course people are doing their own thing.  If it becomes a "product" fit to be used by all, there will be standards and guidelines including behavior "rules of the road".   And the unmanned vehicle R&D is pretty good... its 30+ years old now, and people can now download free software, buy a cheap gps, and make their own which work pretty well off the roads.    Its not ready for traffic yet.  Someday, it will be.  The culture may never embrace it --- lots of things we can actually DO that people prefer we DON'T, actually.   But someday the capability will be there.

 

the car can look 4 or more ahead too.  IF you install the right camera/infrared/lidar/radar/etc stuff on it it can see for miles ahead, actually, if you wanted it to do so.    They can also anticipate pretty well and recognize when things are abnormal.   None of that is even cutting edge.

 

Trust is earned.   It takes time.   I doubt we see them in even 20 more years.  

Edited October 9, 2015 by Jonnin

[monkeylizard]

the car can look 4 or more ahead too.  IF you install the right camera/infrared/lidar/radar/etc stuff on it it can see for miles ahead, actually, if you wanted it to do so.    They can also anticipate pretty well and recognize when things are abnormal.  

 

The car doesn't need to look 4 cars ahead. It just needs to talk to the car that's 3 cars ahead which itself is only looking 1 car ahead.. Classic game of "telephone" but without the information loss along the way.

Edited October 9, 2015 by monkeylizard

[Spots]

I work in a factory making machine cast Toyota parts. We use a ton of automation, and even with the multimillion dollar budget we have, those autonomous machines require constant supervision and overwatch. We have robots that move parts around and out the 8 robots in my area I have to reset, home out or reboot one or more every night. Automation has a long way to go before I trust it enough to be able to drive in a mixed group of autonomous and human driven cars in an open and changing environment safely.

Sent from behind the anvil

[johnwilliams5721]

And yes, programmers have been writing software for car ECU's for a long time. After 30+ years of development, they've got the basic functions pretty well under control. Something as advanced as a fully autonomous car? Gonna take a long time for me to trust one.

As a programmer all I can say is download and install this patch over the last patch and you'll be good to go until the next patch.

[Jonnin]

The car doesn't need to look 4 cars ahead. It just needs to talk to the car that's 3 cars ahead which itself is only looking 1 car ahead.. Classic game of "telephone" but without the information loss along the way.

 

Need both.  Wireless comms will always be problematic and the machine needs to LOOK for itself and be aware of its surroundings.    I mean, if the car 2 cars up is all over the road because its gps went nuts, you don't want to trust it to tell you where it currently is and what its doing.   It should locate and avoid the other vehicles as if they didn't have any broadcasting.   (which isn't too hard to do since the cars already on the road do it this way).

Edited October 10, 2015 by Jonnin