Tesla Working On Autonomous Cars: Musk Wants Teslas With Auto-Pilot 287
cartechboy writes "Do you like driving? Well then, you're going to hate the future, because automakers are racing to beat each other to the starting line of the self-driving car race. By 2020, autonomous vehicles may arrive from Cadillac, Nissan, Volvo, Mercedes, Audi, and even Google. But now Tesla wants to jump into the ring. CEO Elon Musk told the Financial Times that the electric-car maker will build a self-driving car...within three years. You'll note that's much sooner than 2020, which means Tesla would beat other, larger automakers to the punch. For those who fear self-driving cars, Musk said the autonomous Tesla could drive 90 percent of the time, but that in his opinion, a vehicle without a human in the cockpit isn't feasible. Like it or not, our roads will probably be safer because you won't actually be driving — well, OK, that other guy who's texting or talking or drinking a huge coffee or ... you get the idea."
Dear Elon (Score:4, Interesting)
Please focus on making the Models and Model S 2.0 affordable. A vehicle with abase price greater than $50,000 is not affordable and is NOT what you promised when you first announced the Model S pre-order for $5000.
Get the price down! Let Google and MIT develop the self driving tech for you.
KTHNXBYE
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Affordable & reliable 1st, autonomous later.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKqJccK_EkM [youtube.com]
The Problem with Self Driving Cars (Score:2)
For me, as a "manual" driver, I can't put my blinker on and look into your eyes to communicate that I really need to move over and exit the freeway.
For me, with a self driving car, the damned thing might start letting everyone and their mother in law get in front of me.
Re:The Problem with Self Driving Cars (Score:4, Insightful)
Self driving cars do something that people are incapable of doing. they signal and then SLOW DOWN to merge behind traffic. I know, I know, Completely and utterly Insane to SLOW DOWN and go behind someone instead of flooring it and then jerking the wheel hard to cut in front of that car so you can slam on the brakes and make your exit.
Re:The Problem with Self Driving Cars (Score:4, Informative)
First, make sure it is safe to change lanes and there are no pedestrians, vehicles, or other obstacles in your planned path of travel. Use your mirrors to see your adjacent and rear surroundings. By using the BGE mirror setting you do not have to turn your head in order to see your surroundings. The BGE mirror setting also reduces the two typical blindspots into four mini blindspots. The four mini blindspots are not large enough to completely hide a vehicle.
Next, turn on your turn signal. You want other vehicles around you to be aware that you plan on changing lanes. Do not simply flick your turn signal so that it flashes once. Two flickers isn’t enough either. Leave your turn signal on throughout the entire lane change process. If you must let off the accelerator and let the traffic in the other lane pass you slowly to get in the gap behind them, never floor it to get ahead of other traffic. Re-check your surroundings by using your side and rearview mirrors. Determine the gap you will move into and ensure nothing is in the way. The gap should be large enough to allow you to enter the lane without disrupting the flow of traffic. Other vehicles should not have to slow down, speed up, or change lanes because you entered their lane.
Once you have determined there is ample room and time for you to enter a new lane, you can smoothly move into the new lane. Do not turn the wheel abruptly or sharply, causing the car to jerk into the new lane. All it takes is a slight turn of the wheel to smoothly move into a new lane. Either maintain your current speed or accelerate slightly just before and during the lane change. Do not slow down, as this will cause vehicles behind you to get closer and possibly cause a collision.
After you are in your new lane, turn off your turn signal. Readjust your speed to keep with the flow of traffic in your new lane. Check your mirrors to reacquaint yourself with the new conditions behind you and to ensure the vehicle behind you is not too close to you after you entered the lane.
This is from the DOT drivers education handbook. and yes you DO slow down and get behind other cars in the other lane, you do NOT pull the gun it, dart in and hit your brakes dooshbag maneuver.
Re: (Score:3)
Self driving is a good thing, if done right (Score:2)
Picture this the vast majority of the cars running this your in manual mode. All the self driving ones get out of your way. The autopilot wont let you rear end or otherwise collide with anybody/thing else but otherwise stays out of your way. Speed limits are vastly increased.
Oddly I think there is a higher chance of the government trying to make more money off of that tech, auto tickets etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Reviews (Score:5, Funny)
With a self-driving car he won't need to worry about the New York Times test driving it incorrectly.
Autonomous safety (Score:4, Interesting)
I think autonomous cars will be safer in general because they can avoid accidents caused by fatigue and lack of concentration during long trips or heavy traffic. However, I think that as long as autonomous cars are mixed in with other cars operated by human drivers, there will be the potential for worse accidents of the more extreme kind. For example, an oncoming car suddenly swerving into your lane head-on. I would assume the AI would apply maximum brakes and that's it. A human (especially an experienced driver) could take more extreme action, like going off the side of the road to avoid a head-on collision. That is an option I doubt would be built into an AI system (intentionally wrecking the vehicle to prevent a more extreme accident - what if the AI incorrectly identified a scenario that didn't actually exist and decided to drive off the side of the road?)
If autonomous cars do prove to be as successful and safe as they could potentially be, there will be a hard push to force humans out of the driver's seat. It would start by building or designating high speed roadways that only allow autonomous vehicles. It will continue spreading from there.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. There is simply no way that autonomous cars can safely be used on the same roads as human-operated ones. It just isn't going to happen. You might as well try to mix human-driven cars with 60 MPH horses.
A lot of interesting technical feats are about to become practical, but not implementable due to human factors. We'll have to eliminate human drivers at some point, whether we like it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. There is simply no way that autonomous cars can safely be used on the same roads as human-operated ones. It just isn't going to happen.
Google's fleet of self-driving cars have logged over a million miles driving on the same roads as human-operated cars.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Autonomous safety (Score:2)
Those experimental self-driving cars still have a human at the helm, paying close attention to everything that's going on. Rest assured that this is not a model for how those cars would actually be used by everyday drivers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the biggest problem...the transition.. It will take a urban municipality to mandate an area wide transition. Create the infrastructure. Provide the self-driving cars. Outlaw human driven cars. Think Minority Report shuttles that ran around the city and up the buildings.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more worried about a different problem: If people mostly use autonomous cars their driving skills will deteriorate. We are already seeing this with airline pilots (air france 447 or the recent SFO crash) where the pilots become dependent on automation, and don't have the proper skills when it is not available. These are professional pilots with required recurrent training. What about an average driver who lets his car do 99% of the driving for him - how will he do when he needs to drive but the auto
Re:Autonomous safety (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, an oncoming car suddenly swerving into your lane head-on. I would assume the AI would apply maximum brakes and that's it. A human (especially an experienced driver) could take more extreme action, like going off the side of the road to avoid a head-on collision.
This reminds me of "I don't wear a seat belt because jumping out of the car saved my live when the car went off a cliff." arguments. In sixteen years as a driver I've been in one real emergency and it was as a passenger, talking to older people they've had maybe one or two major accidents and a handful of close calls, not counting fender benders in the parking lot. Most people - and I'd say 90% of the people on the road, if you want to count yourself to the last 10% feel free - are distracted and too slow to act, too shocked to react, panic, react instinctively or make some very poor split-second decisions. Instantly slamming the brakes is a good choice and probably above average, it's potentially not the best choice but I imagine it'd be just as much post-accident imagination as reality.
Remember, it's really hard to collect realistic data on this. You can't put people in a simulator and get realistic results because people know they're there to be observed and experimented on. In reality it'll happen on the 235th time you've driven the exact same commute and driving on mental autopilot, you're a bit tired from yesterday but need to get to work, you're mentally thinking about the stuff you need to pick up after work and boom, out of the blue there's this idiot suddenly swerving into your lane head-on. Your reaction is probably not as good as you think it is. And while human drivers on average won't change much, they can collect crash data and improve. Instead of once-in-a-lifetime they'll have thousands of crashes to analyze for optimal behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
I would assume the AI would apply maximum brakes and that's it. A human (especially an experienced driver) could take more extreme action, like going off the side of the road to avoid a head-on collision.
Seriously? "You assume"
Your whole rant smacks of Dunning-Kruger effect [wikipedia.org].
What makes you think that you are a better driver than a computer? Do you think you are an above average driver? Did you realise that the majority of drivers think they are above average? [abc.net.au]
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think Google hasn't thought of this? I have no doubt that the algorithm makes use of all available options and without a doubt does so much faster and more efficiently than any human ever could.
So...
Google Car is rolling along at 150km/h. There's a baby in the road. Car can either run over the baby or crash into a concrete block and probably kill the people inside.
Which will it pick?
Re: (Score:2)
Well we'd first need to start by applying the 3 laws of robotics....
Re: (Score:2)
Since the prior probability of a baby on the Autobahn is close to zero the car will probably conclude that it has misidentified a small animal as "baby" and proceed by slowing down smoothly and smashing into the baby at speed.
If the car was sure about the baby it would have to take a more difficult decision. Most human drivers would kill the baby rather than themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
I dont know what the robot would do. But you on the other hand would hit the baby and then crash after realizing that you just hit a baby.
Re: (Score:2)
If the car is looking to 'minimise casualties' the best course of action is usually a head on collision.
who told you that? If the car is looking for the best possible collision it's always going to be into the back of another vehicle. Both vehicles have crumple zones and whiplash arrestors.
Re:Autonomous safety (Score:5, Insightful)
Which would YOU pick? Bearing in mind the car is travelling at 150km/h, and you probably have less time to decide than you do reading this sentence.
So you see something on the road at 50m, which takes your brain 200ms to identify it. You identify it as a baby, which takes, let's say, 500ms (humans are surprisingly good at that). You really quickly check your mirrors and scan the upcoming road to make sure you're not driving into something dangerous (500ms), and see that you are. You identify it as an immobile pillar, highly dangerous.
Now let's throw in some time to moralise this decision. It doesn't matter how long, but let's say 500ms.
You turn the wheel to avoid the crash, which takes 200ms, and the car begins to turn, and in say 200ms, neatly avoids the baby. Right?
Uhh, not quite. You haven't even finished checking your surroundings yet, and that baby is currently underneath your front left wheel (150km/hr * 1200 miliseconds = 50.00000004 metres). Note: 150km/h is 0.0416666667 metres a milisecond.
Your autodriving car, however, sees the baby at 50m. It doesn't care that it's a baby, because it's a solid lump in the middle of the road, and it should be avoided. If it were a wombat, it would wreck your shit at 150km/hr, and honestly a concrete pillar is probably not that much worse.
Let's see how the auto driving car fares.
So your car sees something on the road at 50m, which it takes 200ms to identify. It doesn't spend any further time on this because objects on the road must be avoided. It begins slowing the car while it decides, and a coprocessor tightens the seat belts, primes the air bags, and potentially sounds the horn (or notifies other self-driving cars by wireless that, hey, shit's about to go down yo).
It doesn't need to check its surroundings because, as an automated system, it has full 360 vision at all times and doesn't slack off, get distracted, get tired, have a fight with the ex over the kids or get an SMS or any number of factors that could distract a driver. And before you say "But I constantly pay attention at all times on the road and never, ever slack off ever", firstly bullshit, and secondly you can't do it as well as it does anyway.
There's no moralising in this equation. It just wants to avoid hitting things.
It begins turning the wheel to avoid the crash, which takes 200ms, and the car begins to turn, and in say 200ms, neatly avoids the baby.
What other things can it do?
Let's see: how about talk to other cars wirelessly, informing them that there's a hazard and steering around it. So only this car needs to dodge, all the others are aware of it and react accordingly -- and even get out of the way of the dodger, so that it doesn't have to slam into the concrete. How about the car can (at the speed of a computer, faster a human brain) calculate its current speed, distance to target, potential impact threat of a solid object that size, and just decide to break instead. How about the car (for whatever reason) gets into an accident and automatically informs the first responders, possibly even transmitting things like: "Three passengers. Caucasian female, African male, Asian female. African male is allergic to penicillin." If you want to go truly sci-fi, then it gives real-time status feeds. "Asian female is hemmoraging, heart rate is high, possibly tachycardia. Caucasian female was thrown from the vehicle and cannot be monitored."
The advent of self-driving cars is like the invention of the internet. We don't even KNOW what it'll do to our society, but I'm really excited about it and I want one now now now now now now now now now, and not JUST so I don't get stuck being the designated drivers simply because I also own a car.
Re: (Score:2)
Your post is awesome
Way better than the drooling morons that think computers can't possibly drive a car.
Re: (Score:2)
I like this post. I don't usually ever compliment posts, but you made an interesting story to prove the hypothetical math, and I enjoyed reading it.
Re: (Score:2)
So...
Google Car is rolling along at 150km/h.
If you actually cared about problems like this, you wouldn't be driving at these speeds. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really think Google hasn't thought of this? I have no doubt that the algorithm makes use of all available options and without a doubt does so much faster and more efficiently than any human ever could.
Right, because Google solves all problems and never has bugs. If God were to recreate the heavens and the earth tomorrow, he'd probably consult Google first.
machines are entirely built from the ground up to serve a very specific purpose. That's why we have them - they're better than what a human could do
Which explains why even the most sophisticated aircraft autopilots, when they encounter a situation they can't handle (e.g. unable to understand the situation the sensors are indicating), kick out and let a human handle it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to wait for the OCP version... (Score:2)
Cars are meant to be driven (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Call me old fashioned but to me, cars are meant to be driven. If I want to "be driven" I'll take a taxi, a bus or some other public transportation.
On the contrary. Cars are "meant" to be used as their owners want to use them. There are lot of times I would prefer to be driven but:
1) Buses are slow, inconvenient, and often don't go where and when I want to go.
2) Taxis are expensive and can also be inconvenient depending on where your end points are.
3) Chauffeurs can be very convenient but not many can afford to keep one on staff. Think of self driving cars as chauffeurs for the rest of us. (or maybe the 5% since Teslas pretty expensive)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Also, if we go to war and GPS gets compromised, we would be SO vulnerable, its not even funny thinking about it.
If we go to war with an adversary capable of disrupting GPS then we will likely have others problems, like the roadway disappearing in a mushroom cloud.
Actually, there's no reason why a self driving car could not continue onward in the absence of GPS. Inaccuracy in the maps means that is already has to recognize intersections visually. Traveling to a new destination might be tricky without an Internet connection or a manual mode of operation.
Re: (Score:2)
And all of the above involves sharing the ride with strangers that maybe you don't want present. Whether it's sharing things with close friends, having a family argument, lover's quarrel or make-out session, tightly guarded business secrets or that you'd like to watch some porn the privacy of having your own ride is entirely different. Never mind how bizarrely inconvenient a cabin trip would be with 1) and expensive with 2) or 3), sometimes a rental car is the only sane choice whether you'd like to drive or
Re: (Score:2)
I have to wait for a taxi, or travel to the nearest bus stop or starting/ending point for some other public transportation.
I want to go where I want to go _now_, from _here_. That's why people have their own cars.
Re: (Score:2)
So call it something else, say "automated human conveyor", if you prefer. Who really cares what they're called if they're better than what we have now.
I forsee... (Score:2)
I forsee a not-so-far-off time when it will actually be illegal to manually drive your car unless under some kind of emergency.
A few years after that, the mechanisms that allow a person to drive a car will not even be included in new cars.
As a classic car hobbyist who enjoys driving, that whole possibility scares me a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Just imagine how modern airplane pilots feel. We've had autopilot for decades. No more "buzzing" the tower, no more "detours" to land on exotic landing strips... Can't even do a barrel roll, FFS.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus a big downside as far as I can see would be the idea that as bad as many drivers are, imagine how bad they will be when the need arises to actually drive the car. After a very short time many will become used to playing games, sleeping, surfing the internet while the car drives, that they will lack the most basic real world experience t
what about utility companies work trucks and bucke (Score:2)
bucket trucks and other stuff like that will need manual mode or auto drive with drive any where and park any where.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you need to worry - worst case you will be banned from the highway and your insurance rates will suck.
Makes even more sense for electric (Score:2)
Auto-pilots welcome, however... (Score:3)
Perhaps it's just because I'm old enough to know that I'm not, never have been and never will be the great driver that I once thought I was. I also know that driving is the most dangerous thing that I do on a regular basis, it being so easy to make a fatal mistake. In addition, most commutes are pretty boring; I usually wish I could spend the time reading something instead. The idea of having my own personal chauffeur is also appealing for other reasons, such as if I drink too much, or perhaps it would eventually even be possible for the vehicle to drop me off in one place and then park itself somewhere else (although society would then have to develop laws for dealing with driverless vehicles). Another major advantage is that filling the roads with autonomous vehicles may also prove to be the ultimate solution to the problem of traffic jams.
The challenges involved in the creation of auto-pilots that we can all trust involve safety, security and privacy. First, no one is going to entrust their life to such a system unless it proves to be safe. Moreover, human psychology will undoubtedly require that the auto-pilot be much safer and more efficient driver than the owner of the vehicle can ever hope to be, or else they probably won't want to use it.
Second: security. For example, back-door access and remote control. It's one thing for a malevolent third party to take advantage of your computer, but the idea that anyone might be able to take advantage of your vehicle while you're in it seems completely unacceptable to me. One theory about the recent death of investigative journalist Michael Hastings is that someone gained remote control over his car (at least the accelerator and breaks), which according to eyewitnesses seemed completely out of control just before he crashed. I can imagine even more sinister things involving a car with a real auto-pilot, for instance a remote control kidnapping where the victims are locked into their own vehicles and then driven to an unknown destination.
Third: privacy. I would just hate the idea that my vehicle's manufacturer was also working happily with, for example, intelligence agencies to use my car to spy on me, or marketing companies to more effectively target me with advertising. Just because you own a vehicle with an auto-pilot does not mean that you should expect to have your rights trampled upon.
The beginning of a solution for all of this would be for the vehicle manufacturers to collaborate on as open source project for the auto-pilot and vehicle communications software. In my view that approach would certainly lead to better safety, security and privacy, but somehow I don't think it will work out like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Third: privacy. I would just hate the idea that my vehicle's manufacturer was also working happily with, for example, intelligence agencies to use my car to spy on me, or marketing companies to more effectively target me with advertising. Just because you own a vehicle with an auto-pilot does not mean that you should expect to have your rights trampled upon.
Hope your car doesn't have OnStar or its equivalent.
Re: (Score:2)
Feasible YET (Score:2)
For those who fear self-driving cars, Musk said the autonomous Tesla could drive 90 percent of the time, but that in his opinion, a vehicle without a human in the cockpit isn't feasible yet.
FTFY.
It's only a matter of time before vision and human prediction algorithms become adept enough to completely replace human drivers. Far before that happens, I expect to see automated vehicle only (AVO) lanes with significantly higher speed limits.
"a vehicle without a human in the cockpit... (Score:2)
Agreed. But then what's the point? The human-driver still has to be 100% involved, because:
- 10% of the situations can't be handled by the auto-driver
- the auto-driver can't identify all instances when the human-driver is needed
- the 10% when the human-driver has to take over can happen at any time
Re: (Score:2)
I think there will be lots of infrastructure required before we'll see autonomous cars.
Agreed.
And, considering the piss-poor job we do maintaining our current infrastructure... things do not bode well.
Re:Infrastructure (Score:5, Funny)
You sir are wrong. I'll just direct your to this introduction of the 'Auto Pilot' feature on the new 1958 Imperials [imperialclub.com]
Specifically, this section:
Re: (Score:2)
You sir are wrong. I'll just direct your to this introduction of the 'Auto Pilot' feature on the new 1958 Imperials [imperialclub.com]
Specifically, this section:
You do realize that the link you posted is simply an early cruise control? The "auto-pilot" does not handle turns or anticipate braking and definitely, is no Johnny Cab.
Re: (Score:2)
*whooosh*
Re: (Score:2)
The joke wasn't the only thing that was wooshing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Infrastructure (Score:5, Insightful)
I think there will be lots of infrastructure required before we'll see autonomous cars.
Autonomous cars have driven hundreds of thousands of miles on existing roads. So why do you think additional infrastructure is needed? It seems to me that the opposite is true: less infrastructure will be needed. Parking spaces can be narrower (passengers will exit before the car is parked), parking lots/garages can be smaller and remotely located, lanes can be narrower, road construction can be reduced as road capacity increases, traffic lights can be phased out, etc. Public transportation will become more more popular as it shifts from big, infrequent, inconvenient buses to small, on-demand, direct-to-your-door vans. The result will be fewer cars on the road.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
They'll fart unicorns, too.
Re:Infrastructure (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Infrastructure (Score:4, Insightful)
Pilots don't use autopilot to land.
Your self driving car will prompt you to take the wheel if conditions are too averse. If you refuse, it will simply refuse to drive itself.
Re: (Score:2)
No?
Are you sure about that?
Not the simple sort of autopilots that you have on GA aircraft, no. But airliners are routinely landed automatically.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Infrastructure (Score:4, Insightful)
white wash, frost on camera lens, ambiguous terrain because of massive snow on the road
None of these are particularly difficult for current autonomous cars. They have multiple sensors, including GPS, radar, camera, inertial sensors, and rotation sensors. Snow may interfere with cameras, but have no effect on the others. An autonomous car also has access to far more information than you do, such as exactly where the road is, the location of other cars, and the exact location of signs and mileage markers (this data is collected and saved as the cars drive).
Re: (Score:2)
None of these are particularly difficult for current autonomous cars. They have multiple sensors, including GPS, radar, camera, inertial sensors, and rotation sensors. Snow may interfere with cameras, but have no effect on the others
You must live in a more temperate climate. Snow does indeed affect both GPS and radar.
An autonomous car also has access to far more information than you do, such as exactly where the road is
I think you mean was. I doubt that I'm the only one who curse GPS systems when they want you to turn at intersections that were closed or moved years ago.
Unless infrastructure changes, including sensors in the road, there's no way every single car will automatically be updated to know that last night, road crews put dividers on Route 749 so you can't make a left.
Humans, on the other hand, can see the sign warning of cha
Re:Infrastructure (Score:5, Insightful)
ambiguous terrain because of massive snow on the road,
Unlike humans, it will probably do the smart thing and stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It will always let you drive...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should I pay for that expensive addition then?
If 4 inches of snow is that common where you live, you shouldn't. But don't project your unique use case on the rest of us :)
Re: (Score:3)
Many of the conditions that you claim (white wash, frost) would probably be much more trivial for electronics to work under than a human. Poor visibility conditions occur because humans can only use a narrow range of the electromagnetic spectrum, whereas the instruments can use sensors which operate at frequencies where these conditions wouldn't occur, or even better, at much broader frequencies, to mitigate this danger... plus they probably have much better sensitivity and signal processing than the human
Re: (Score:3)
Self driving car could be better than humans on bad roads. System could easily note environmental data (temp, RH) as well as differences between its control inputs and what the car actually does (slipping due to snow, rain, ice), and modify its control laws. Unlike humans, it won't get tired, impatient, worried, sleepy, drunk, etc.
Vehicle response vs. control input systems are in use on several modern combat aircraft - battle damage alters the aircraft flight characteristics, the flight system modifies its
Re: (Score:3)
There's a huge amount of legal infrastructure which isn't present. Who's responsible when an autonomous vehicle is involved in a deadly situation? If the human, then what's the point, since they would always need to be attentive and able to gain very quick override? If the computer, how long will manufacturers assume that liability? They have disclaimers? Good luck with getting insurance.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
autopilot for cars so like all the cost of the auto drive system with no real benefits?
unlike a plane you need to ready to to take over on the fly all the time with little thinking time to work out why the system kicked out of auto drive mode. I hope the person who get's hit sues Tesla in that case.
Speak for yourself. I'd love to more thoroughly pay attention to calls and texts when commuting and would love a service where it goes auto-pilot for 90% of my commute which is in the left-most lane of an interstate (going whatever is the safe max for that stretch of the road).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
unlike a plane you need to ready to to take over on the fly all the time with little thinking time to work out why the system kicked out of auto drive mode.
Only a complete retard would think that it works this way. It doesn't just "kick out" of auto drive. It will always make a best effort to drive safely. There are, however, certain situations, such as dirt roads and construction areas, where it will recommend the human take over. If the human fails to do so, the car will continue to drive safely, or pull over and stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Only a complete retard would think that it works this way. It doesn't just "kick out" of auto drive. It will always make a best effort to drive safely. There are, however, certain situations, such as dirt roads and construction areas, where it will recommend the human take over. If the human fails to do so, the car will continue to drive safely, or pull over and stop.
what if something like happens where it needs to make a move now and can't just keep driving safety as is?
Like something falling off the truck
Re: (Score:2)
Is it a valid legacy for your children? Is satisfiying a sense of living in sci-fi movie so important you actually want to surrender your freedom of movement? Modern cars can alreay be shut down from distance by LEO, imagine if they can lock the doors and drive you direct to gitmo like camps? America os the only advanced country willing to
Re: (Score:2)
I think the owner of such a car should end up paying for accidents through insurance costs, unless a driving algorithm was fundamentally flawed.
The common public won't accept that. If I buy a self-driving car, there is no way I'm doing to (directly) pay if it crashes while it does the driving.
From the common person's perspective, a self-driving car should be no different than hiring a taxi. Get in and state the destination, then don't care about the details of how it gets there.
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't having a fun to drive car that you don't drive be a little bit pointless?
If I could drive it downtown manually and park it, go drinking and dancing till 4 in the morning, then crawl into the back seat with my new lady friend and have it take us back to my place, that would be the best car ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
before that it would be irresponsible to trust immature technology.
No, it would be irresponsible to continue to trust humans once computers can do better. The computers don't have to be perfect, they just have to be better than humans. That is not a high bar.
Re: (Score:2)
Pffft!
I will enjoy watching robocars negotiate roadworks where they need to go on the 'wrong' side of the road (or off the road entirely), obey hand/audio ('stick it between those cones a minute, while we back the digger out, thanks mate') signals from workers, read diversion route information from improvised signs etc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't having a fun to drive car that you don't drive be a little bit pointless?
Only if you only drive for fun. Stop and go traffic is tedious and dull in every car that I have driven. I imagine it is pretty dull and even more tedious in a Ferrari or Lamborghini.
Re:Pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if you only drive for fun. Stop and go traffic is tedious and dull in every car that I have driven. I imagine it is pretty dull and even more tedious in a Ferrari or Lamborghini.
An self-driving car will make it even more dull and tedious, unless the car allows the driver to simply sit back and read a book. But every announcement I've read so far seems to indicate that the driver needs to stay alert in case they need to take over the driving, which sort of defeats the purpose.
Either give me a totally self-driving car so I can tune out, or a car that has manual transmission so I have something to occupy my brain while I drive.
Re:Pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
In Denmark, the law requires you to walk around the vehicle and inspect it for damages and that e.g. lights work, each and every time you get in the vehicle to drive. Also, to check if an animal or small child should be under the vehicle.
I have never even heard about anyone doing this.
My current vehicle has parking sensors, front and back. The manual states that you should never rely on these solely, but always use your own judgement. They are only a help, not to be relied on. In the approx 3 years I have had them, they have not only worked flawlessly (and, they beeep, if they are covered in snow, such that I know to clean them), they have worked *way better* than my own judgement. I have come to rely on them to the extent that I "fear" driving cars without them, because I forget they are not there.
Sometimes there is a big difference between what the law requires, what the manifactor has to put in the manual, and the real world.
My bet is, that when we get the selfdriving cars, most people will take a good long nap in stop-and-go traffic. Or perhaps read a book. Or check email. And, we will all know this "public secret".
Re: (Score:2)
You might have noticed that most cars on the road are not fun to drive. You can tell the people in fun-to-drive cars, because they seem to believe that the rest of us are mere obstacles on their plaything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pointless (Score:4, Funny)
The frustration in your eyes is OUR sport.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh noes, it's ROAD RAGE!
The BMW will always cost more than the shitbox, that's the problem with threatening the driver of the shitbox.
For the record, I stay right and pass left and left lane slowpokes are just the worst - but it's hilarious to watch aggressive "drivers" in traffic. Around the beltway in DC, I can go 20 miles watching a guy bob and weave while I camp in a lane. He probably gained 60 seconds in 25 minutes of driving.
Re: (Score:2)
There are people who love to drive, and then there are the people who do not own a BMW.
Re: (Score:2)
I enjoy driving enough that I built a race car. I hate driving on the road, though, unless there's a clear twisty road - but how often does that happen? I'm probably only an average driver, but it's hard to judge. I haven't caused an accident in probably 20 years, and I haven't gotten a traffic ticket in 15. I've had some people run into the back of me, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. A 'driverless' car is worthless if it requires a driver.
If the car is driving itself, no-one's going to be sitting there ready to take over the instant it runs into something it can't handle. We've seen what a disaster that's been with autopilots for aircraft, where the crew typically have a minute or more to resolve the problem before they crash, rather than, perhaps, a few seconds in a car.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. A 'driverless' car is worthless if it requires a driver.
Yes, just like autopilot for airplanes is worthless.
We've seen what a disaster that's been with autopilots for aircraft, where the crew typically have a minute or more to resolve the problem before they crash, rather than, perhaps, a few seconds in a car.
But most drivers don't resolve a problem before they crash. Meanwhile, a self-driving car will at least have forward-facing radar that can help prevent some of their crashes.
Re:Not really... (Score:5, Insightful)
Might as well announce that you're going to lower gravity...
That's his other company. [spacex.com]
Re: (Score:2)
How so? Do you honestly believe that these cars are, or ever will be, auto driver only?
Yes. Once autonomous cars are on the road, the advantages will be obvious, and the objections will fade away.
Mountains of lawyers won't allow that, and they'll all have a little * on the advertisement saying how an adult capable of driving a car must be paying attention at all times.
More likely the exact opposite: As preventable deaths are reported, that were caused by humans interfering, there will be a demand to get people out of the loop. Soon insurance companies will void your policy if you drive your own car.