Driverless Audi RS 7 at racing speeds at Hockenheim

[RC45]

Ok - so why develop this tech? No redeeming value I can see at all for general civilian use.

Even autopilot aircraft require highly skilled operators behind the control sticks and while autopilot can be used for the entire journey, it is not.

Now for the complex question:

Automated car approaches a pedestrian crossing at speed, a person steps into the oncoming lane of the crossing runs towards the center of the road and a car is on a head on path towards the autonomous car in your lane - which direction does your autonomous car swerve?

Into the pedestrian killing them of does it hold out for surviving the head on collision?

And when is all said and done, who is culpable for which ever people died?

 

[Pseudopod]

I'm looking forwards to when I can have a few pints at the bar and text my car to come pick me up and drive me home.

 

[Akmuq]

This is vintage Slash right here.

 

[Zenith]

I understand that but I still feel like it's society being lazy.

In addition to the points made by @Liquid there's also the safety aspect to consider.

35,000 people get killed on the road per year, thousands more injured, and billions in property damage. Almost all of that is driver error. It's not lazy, it makes sense.

I like driving. I hate traffic. I'd love for my commuter car to be able to take me to work while I sit and read about the latest development in Magnetic Shock technology.

Ok - so why develop this tech? No redeeming value I can see at all for general civilian use.

Even autopilot aircraft require highly skilled operators behind the control sticks and while autopilot can be used for the entire journey, it is not.

Are you asking about self driving cars in general or high performance self driving cars? The former should be easy.

The latter is important because having a self-driving car that can work at high speeds may pave the way to high speed automated transport. If self-driving cars can virtually eliminate traffic collisions, why not have them speed up to triple digit speeds?

Automated car approaches a pedestrian crossing at speed, a person steps into the oncoming lane of the crossing runs towards the center of the road and a car is on a head on path towards the autonomous car in your lane - which direction does your autonomous car swerve?

Into the pedestrian killing them of does it hold out for surviving the head on collision?

And when is all said and done, who is culpable for which ever people died?

Self driving cars don't need to be perfect. They just need to be better than humans.

 

[Joel]

That remark always amuses me about new technology. "It's society being lazy". As if there's any sort of understanding of the time it takes to actually make something like this just to work correctly & then develop more advanced inputs.

As if pushing a pedal and fiddling with a steering wheel is a divinely valuable experience too. I drive my car because I'm lazy

 

[Liquid]

Automated car approaches a pedestrian crossing at speed, a person steps into the oncoming lane of the crossing runs towards the center of the road and a car is on a head on path towards the autonomous car in your lane - which direction does your autonomous car swerve?

Neither and it slams on the brakes having pre-calculated the situation with its radar guided cruise control?

What would a human do in that situation? Nothing is infallible.

 

[RC45]

Neither and it slams on the brakes having pre-calculated the situation with its radar guided cruise control?

What would a human do in that situation? Nothing is infallible.

What about the traffic behind the car now slamming on its brakes? They should just turn to pixie dust? The autonomous has to make a choice which inevitable collision to cause.

A human would make a calculated decision to swerve onto a side walk and minimize death and damage where possible - no machine will have that human capacity to evaluate self preservation while considering the other human situation and attempted life preservation - this is not the movies, it is reality.

And again - since you admit nothing is infallible, whom is culpable for the inevitable death/deaths in this traffic collision scenario?

Such automated general civilian traffic open lane driving has no value.

Closed circuit guided automated or track constrained public transportation possibly - train at the airport for example. Guided bus on a walled in lane etc.

But a car on the open public road without human intervention, this is a solution in search of a problem that does not exist - IOW a government sponsored boondoggle. As I am sure there is lots of state money backing these endeavors as they great weapons and military potential.

35,000 people get killed on the road per year, thousands more injured, and billions in property damage. Almost all of that is driver error. It's not lazy, it makes sense.

Automated cars will not eliminate any of this - if they could, all air travel would be totally automated yet it is not.

I like driving. I hate traffic. I'd love for my commuter car to be able to take me to work while I sit and read about the latest development in Magnetic Shock technology.

Then take a train - the train runs on a private specialized system - not shared by other non-compliant vehicles.
Your proposal would require the entire road network to be blocked to private civilian manual use. Cheaper to just run trains, trams or busses.

Are you asking about self driving cars in general or high performance self driving cars? The former should be easy.
The latter is important because having a self-driving car that can work at high speeds may pave the way to high speed automated transport. If self-driving cars can virtually eliminate traffic collisions, why not have them speed up to triple digit speeds?

Again, your model supposes all transportation must change to this model - it already exists, public transportation. Again - a solution looking for a problem to solve.

Self driving cars don't need to be perfect. They just need to be better than humans.

Not true at all. They will need to be perfect - otherwise what is the point? Who is culpable for deaths caused by autonomous cars?

 

[GTlondoner]

Public autonomous vehicles will only work if ( ignoring pedestrians for a second )
1. Every signal vehicle on the road was autonomous - which not everyone could afford - so will not happen.
2. There was separate roads specifically for autonomous vehicles only - that would be a huge cost to governments.

I know USA has some separate roads in the central reservation of highways for testing these cars,
But how many of you have pulled out of the pits in GT and had a little swerve just as the computer gives you control, I know I have many times.
So how safe would the transfer from computer back to human be ?

And lets bring back them pesky pedestrians, People are stupid and step out in front of cars.
As RC45 said, Would the computer just brake hard and risk hitting that person, Or swerve into the parked car or wrong side of the road like most humans would, Because at that moment it seemed like the safest option ?

That said who else would get in the back of that Audi ;P

 

[Zenith]

Automated cars will not eliminate any of this - if they could, all air travel would be totally automated yet it is not.

Uhh... Yes they would?

Computers do not get distracted, tired, or bored. They don't even blink. If you don't think automated cars have far more capacity to be safe drivers than humans then you are kidding yourself.

Then take a train

The train is public. I like my private car. I want to leave when I want, I want to sit in a place that I picked out and maintained.

the train runs on a private specialized system - not shared by other non-compliant vehicles.

I don't want to run on a specialized system. I want to run on my system.

Your proposal would require the entire road network to be blocked to private civilian manual use. Cheaper to just run trains, trams or busses.

What are you talking about? It's the same road system we have today, only a computer drives instead of me.

Again, your model supposes all transportation must change to this model

Public autonomous vehicles will only work if ( ignoring pedestrians for a second )
1. Every signal vehicle on the road was autonomous - which not everyone could afford - so will not happen.
2. There was separate roads specifically for autonomous vehicles only - that would be a huge cost to governments

Wrong. We already have self driving cars driving in traffic in the Bay Area. Nothing has changed, not laws, not infrastructure.

it already exists, public transportation. Again - a solution looking for a problem to solve.

Is this a joke?

The problem is tens of thousands of people are killed commuting every year.

The problem is that sitting behind a steering wheel in traffic is boring and a waste of my precious time.

The problem is that this could all be made more efficient by removing the human element.

The solution is to hand the responsibility of directing my chosen mode of transportation to something that follows my orders, runs on my schedule, and does the nitty gritty work for me. It's just like everyone having a private driver, except this one is a computer instead of a person and is therefore better at the task.

Not true at all. They will need to be perfect - otherwise what is the point? Who is culpable for deaths caused by autonomous cars?

Wrong again.

Computers aren't perfect, toasters aren't perfect, mass production machinery isn't perfect.

Nothing we automate these days is perfect, yet we replace human labor anyways because it only has to be better.

 

[McLaren]

What about the traffic behind the car now slamming on its brakes? They should just turn to pixie dust? The autonomous has to make a choice which inevitable collision to cause.

A human would make a calculated decision to swerve onto a side walk and minimize death and damage where possible - no machine will have that human capacity to evaluate self preservation while considering the other human situation and attempted life preservation - this is not the movies, it is reality.

Your answer was already given.

Neither and it slams on the brakes having pre-calculated the situation with its radar guided cruise control?

If it's the same type of vehicle, it will react accordingly whilst allowing the appropriate amount of distance to perform the maneuver. If it's a person, they will either do the same, or show fault by not allowing the appropriate amount of distance.

Here's the big fault to your question.

Automated car approaches a pedestrian crossing at speed, a person steps into the oncoming lane of the crossing runs towards the center of the road and a car is on a head on path towards the autonomous car in your lane - which direction does your autonomous car swerve?

The automated car & another car are approaching a crosswalk from opposite directions. So why does the human decide now is a good time to cross?
The fault of any deaths is on the person, not the vehicles, for crossing into an intersection with oncoming cars.

Here's a fun question. If the oncoming car is swerving to miss the person, why is it swerving towards you & not the sidewalk on the opposite side of the road? You've already established the person is in the middle of the road.

You're trying to play an easy what if scenario that questions the intelligence of the computer when its the person crossing & person driving the oncoming car that could have avoided putting the computer into the situation in the first place.

 

[RC45]

Your answer was already given.

If it's the same type of vehicle, it will react accordingly whilst allowing the appropriate amount of distance to perform the maneuver. If it's a person, they will either do the same, or show fault by not allowing the appropriate amount of distance.

Here's the big fault to your question.

The automated car & another car are approaching a crosswalk from opposite directions. So why does the human decide now is a good time to cross?
The fault of any deaths is on the person, not the vehicles, for crossing into an intersection with oncoming cars.

Here's a fun question. If the oncoming car is swerving to miss the person, why is it swerving towards you & not the sidewalk on the opposite side of the road? You've already established the person is in the middle of the road.

You're trying to play an easy what if scenario that questions the intelligence of the computer when its the person crossing & person driving the oncoming car that could have avoided putting the computer into the situation in the first place.

There you go. You just answered why ALL vehicle would have to be automated and pedestrians banned.

Humans will do what they want when they want. You plan on banning free will as well/

And the car in your lane is not swerving to avoid the pedestrian - it is either a malfunctioning automated car or it is a human driver purposefully driving in your lane.

You again just answered why automated cars wont work out - unless ALL humans are removed from the equation.

Solution seeking a problem

 

[McLaren]

There you go. You just answered why ALL vehicle would have to be automated and pedestrians banned.

So, you admit then, that humans are at fault for your scenario yet you proposed it in a way that made the automated vehicle incapable of making a rational decision. Nice.

Humans will do what they want when they want. You plan on banning free will as well/

Nope. You reach for them clouds, though.

And the car in your lane is not swerving to avoid the pedestrian - it is either a malfunctioning automated car or it is a human driver purposefully driving in your lane.

You said a person is entering a crosswalk from the opposing side and goes to the middle of the road.

a person steps into the oncoming lane of the crossing runs towards the center of the road

Then proclaim a car is headed in your direction.

a car is on a head on path towards the autonomous car

Person walks into middle of road opposite of you. Car oncoming is now headed directly towards the automated car for head on collision.

Simple logic would conclude the oncoming car is swerving towards you to miss the pedestrian who stepped into the road on their side.

You again just answered why automated cars wont work out - unless ALL humans are removed from the equation.

Solution seeking a problem

Nope. You attempted a "what if" scenario about an automated car choosing to either kill someone or hit the oncoming car head.

Into the pedestrian killing them of does it hold out for surviving the head on collision?

You attempted to conduct a scenario that placed an automated car in a lose-lose situation that would place it in immediate fault.

And when is all said and done, who is culpable for which ever people died?

The person at fault is the one who steps into the crosswalk with oncoming cars.

You're merely attempting to salvage your silly scenario now by acting like you were proposing that humans would cause the computer to fail instead of the computer itself.

 

[RC45]

You attempted to conduct a scenario that placed an automated car in a lose-lose situation that would place it in immediate fault.

Yes - a real life situation. Real life is not pure, clean or fair. real life is not a 2,000 acre Federal park for Google to drive around in.

It is filled with blind, deaf and distracted people - pets, children, debris etc.

The person at fault is the one who steps into the crosswalk with oncoming cars.

No, the person in the cross walk has right of way.

So again - when the automated car kills someone, who is culpable?

I will again present the autopilot enabled aircraft - with redundant systems, extreme maintenance schedules, highly trained operators and ALL other vehicles in the domain ALL operating under the control of a ground based system - even they do not pass all control to the machines.

Automated cars are a pipe dream solution desperately trying to find a problem.

 

[McLaren]

Yes - a real life situation. Real life is not pure, clean or fair. real life is not a 2,000 acre Federal park for Google to drive around in.

It is filled with blind, deaf and distracted people - pets, children, debris etc.

Irrelevant. You're attempting to bring in other variables acting like the computer can't comprehend them all, thus it would cause an accident when going back to your scenario, the person was at fault.

No, the person in the cross walk has right of way.

So again - when the automated car kills someone, who is culpable?

Go walk in front of a busy intersection & try that statement again. Humans don't have the right of way to enter a crosswalk 100% of the time.

Common sense dictates if you see a vehicle coming at a certain rate of speed, it's probably not worth playing chicken, either.

I will again present the autopilot enabled aircraft - with redundant systems, extreme maintenance schedules, highly trained operators and ALL other vehicles in the domain ALL operating under the control of a ground based system - even they do not pass all control to the machines.

Automated cars are a pipe dream solution desperately trying to find a problem.

Dat stretch to prove a point. How complex are aircraft again compared to a vehicle? And what exactly have we developed in the last decade? I'm pretty sure these were pipe dreams back before the new millennium.

This lasted 2 years in orbit without nothing but man on earth behind it.

Humans have done nothing really but keep watch over these expensive pieces of equipment & tell it a basic command. The aircraft calculates everything else on what it can & can not accomplish with the command. It wouldn't be any different in an automated vehicle; you tell the car what to do & it calculates it. We have already seen similar technology in the GT-R; it is not 100% fail safe, but it can adjust to your imperfections to correct them, hence the "Playstation" names it was given when it first came out.

The issue with your post isn't your current thought that humans & machines can not be on the road together. It's that you placed the computer in a lose-lose situation as an example that it would kill someone as computer-error, not human-error. You proposed the computers were incapable of dealing with humans on the road, & now you've flipped them.

 

[Zenith]

I like how they're "solutions in search of a problem" even though people are already buying them.

You can get all "muh freedom!" as you want. It won't stop other people from buying a product with obvious utility.

 

[Joel]

Even if we suppose that humans have some sort of innate "intuition" that makes us excellent drivers (we don't), the ledger is still firmly in favour of the computers. Computers don't get tired or fall asleep at the wheel. They don't drive drunk. They don't drink coffee, eat a burger, and wrangle 2 kids in the back at the same time. They don't get upset and cry while driving. They don't have allergies and sneeze behind the wheel. They're not thinking about what they're going to have for dinner. They don't panic when faced with an emergency situation. They're able to actually multi-task.

What I find funny is that the crowd to post videos of soccer mom's causing pile ups are so against an invention that will take the wheel out of the hands of those people. They complain about people going slow in the left lane, dumb drivers, etc, but resist the idea of a car that drives itself and won't make these kinds of mistakes. The tech is already there, Google's self driving cars have driven over a million miles in the SF Bay area, the only accidents they've been in have been human error (one car was rear ended at a red light, another car had an accident in a parking lot while a human was driving it). It's not really a matter of if they'll become commercially viable, but when.

It's really simple. It ties into the electric car thing too, I don't know why car guys get so butthurt about these kinds of inventions because it won't effect them. If you enjoy and are passionate about driving, great, don't buy an electric or self driving car if you don't like them. They're always going to make V12 Ferraris, Mustangs, and Camaros, but perhaps there won't be as many boring Corollas on the road and they'll be self driving and electric.

Self driving cars could be perhaps the single most important quality of life invention since the car itself. Just imagine the possibilities, instead of sitting in frustrating traffic for an hour, you sit back and relax for an hour and come home rested instead of pissed off. Instead of driving home after a few beers because you don't want to leave your car, you press "Home" and are taken there. Instead of having to take work home, you can finish what you need to do while you're on your way home, or on your way in to work. When you go on vacation, instead of driving for hours and arriving tired, you've been relaxing and will be rested and ready to enjoy your destination when you get there.

 

[RewindTape]

He he he.... Quite a discussion this stirred up. I didn't anticipate that, I was just thinking this is cool technology.

But I can see both sides of the argument and am so far undecided.

To those that want to keep driving to humans, and some of the more cunning monkeys:

I would also be very upset if an automation malfunction and/or design error (that will happen) caused a driverless car to ram my car when I was out driving. Would I automatically be to blame, even if the accident would have been easily avoided if the driverless car passanger had not been reading a newspaper at the time?
And Imagine the outcry if a driverless car rammed into a bus stop full of people!
Look at how we rack down on driving games' artificial "intelligence".
​

To those that can't wait to own a fully functional driverless car, robots, androids, and other future technology:

Having your own private chauffeur that you only need to pay once, and that can be connected to your daily schedule, friends, and "intelligent home" sounds kick ass! Useful technology that answer my questions, remind me of when to go where, etc. My mind would be freed of a lot of mundane tasks that keep it busy during a normal day. Already I send links to my friends when traveling longer distances so they know how far I've come and when to expect me which is convenient for both me and them.
I think it will be quite a while until we see this technology in widespread use though. You can incentivize a shift by insurance premiums, laws, etc. But as there's nowhere, as far as I know, that even has obligatory car breathalyzers, adaption will take a long, long time. Essentially you disqualify the common sense of everybody driving a car.
I am also skeptical of having to ride in a driverless car seeing how an all-knowing driving game artificial "intelligence" handles a very, very simple environment. I'll not be a premiere consumer of this, but wait for the n:th generation.
​

And losing touch with nature and each other is a choice we can make already today.

Carry on!

Edit: Language not well.

 

[RewindTape]

... The tech is already there, Google's self driving cars have driven over a million miles in the SF Bay area, the only accidents they've been in have been human error (one car was rear ended at a red light, another car had an accident in a parking lot while a human was driving it). ...

This, I didn't know! Do you have any useful links on the subject?

 

[Legro]

I don't think that I made it clear that I think that self-driving car is good thing. They are like Taxis that without taxi drivers and the cost of using taxi. And they are most likely to make roads safer and more pleasant place to be. But I don't think that self-driving cars should take the wheel at race tracks it just doesn't make any sense to me.

Edit: There was serious typo in my post. Now it's fixed.

 

[Joel]

This, I didn't know! Do you have any useful links on the subject?

http://www.businessinsider.com/googles-self-driving-cars-get-in-their-first-accident-2011-8
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/science/10google.html?_r=1

 

[Omnis]

Did they use ballast?

 

[Cano]

You can get all "muh freedom!" as you want.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Now for the complex question:

Automated car approaches a pedestrian crossing at speed, a person steps into the oncoming lane of the crossing runs towards the center of the road and a car is on a head on path towards the autonomous car in your lane - which direction does your autonomous car swerve?

Into the pedestrian killing them of does it hold out for surviving the head on collision?

And when is all said and done, who is culpable for which ever people died?

In the scenario that you describe; if the automation performed no more badly than a human might have done (swerve instinctively to the path of lesser carnage) then the manufacturer would have a reasonable argument in court...but ultimately hold the liability as the "driver" (or provider of instructions to drive).

In actual fact the car would be unlikely to approach at speed; all cars would do the same speed for the conditions/area/juncture and the speed for that particular area would thereby be appropriate and safe.

Once Ford's in his Flivver the car will know where everybody is from their bluetooth anyway

 

[SVT Cobra GT]

I'm looking forwards to when I can have a few pints at the bar and text my car to come pick me up and drive me home.

By sliding up your leather jacket sleeve and talking thru a black digital watch and referring to the car as 'pal'?

 

[TenEightyOne]

By sliding up your leather jacket sleeve and talking thru a black digital watch and referring to the car as 'pal'?

It would be the end of the "I've only had one ****, pint-stable" joke that our officers love so much

 

[buickgnx88]

I'm thinking that auto racing is one area where it wouldn't make sense to have self-driving cars, unless you ironically want to simulate racing AI in a video game.

 

[Bopop4]

I'm thinking that auto racing is one area where it wouldn't make sense to have self-driving cars, unless you ironically want to simulate racing AI in a video game.

That would be cool, have teams try and program the fastest driver they can.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Ok - so why develop this tech? No redeeming value I can see at all for general civilian use.

I would recommend looking, then.

What about the traffic behind the car now slamming on its brakes? They should just turn to pixie dust? The autonomous has to make a choice which inevitable collision to cause.

A human would make a calculated decision to swerve onto a side walk and minimize death and damage where possible - no machine will have that human capacity to evaluate self preservation while considering the other human situation and attempted life preservation - this is not the movies, it is reality.

While this was already answered very thoroughly, I'll point out one other flaw in your argument; you're trying to argue that a human would make a calculated decision, and that a machine would not. You think it'd be out of reach for the program to accept heading onto the sidewalk as an option? You think a human can make a calculated decision faster than a machine? The average driver's reaction time - at least with regards to accident reconstructions - is a massive 1.5 seconds. Sure, we can get much faster (say, 0.2 seconds), but that's in utterly optimal situations.

Such automated general civilian traffic open lane driving has no value.

Closed circuit guided automated or track constrained public transportation possibly - train at the airport for example. Guided bus on a walled in lane etc.

Except an individual car has many more options for its destination. It can avoid possible congestion - of course, there'd be less of that with automated cars.

But a car on the open public road without human intervention, this is a solution in search of a problem that does not exist - IOW a government sponsored boondoggle. As I am sure there is lots of state money backing these endeavors as they great weapons and military potential.

Tell the people that deal with hours of traffic on highways in places like California or even around here, just outside of Toronto, that this has no value. I shouldn't have to explain the domino effect that causes traffic jams, and how cars that communicate with one another, and operate at increased efficiency, would minimize that.

Not true at all. They will need to be perfect - otherwise what is the point? Who is culpable for deaths caused by autonomous cars?

That's a tremendous attitude to have towards technological advancements: "If it isn't perfect out of the box, it's not worth doing".

 

[Exorcet]

I understand that but I still feel like it's society being lazy.

Would you say that it is good to spend more time just trying to survive than anything else? Technology gives us more free time, and allows to be the exact opposite of lazy. What people do with their time is their business.

I personally would rather live in a world where I could spend all day trying to build custom aircraft while society works in the background, automated, than having to take 12 hours out of the day hunting animals just to have a 50% chance of making it past age 30.

Ok - so why develop this tech? No redeeming value I can see at all for general civilian use.

Even autopilot aircraft require highly skilled operators behind the control sticks and while autopilot can be used for the entire journey, it is not.

Now for the complex question:

Automated car approaches a pedestrian crossing at speed, a person steps into the oncoming lane of the crossing runs towards the center of the road and a car is on a head on path towards the autonomous car in your lane - which direction does your autonomous car swerve?

Into the pedestrian killing them of does it hold out for surviving the head on collision?

And when is all said and done, who is culpable for which ever people died?

You can program the car to check all crossings 100% of the time. A person can forget, and cause a large mess.

There you go. You just answered why ALL vehicle would have to be automated and pedestrians banned.

Humans will do what they want when they want. You plan on banning free will as well/

Humans are a problem in the system because they are imperfect. The pro-machines argument is that they (machines) will remove human flaws in some areas. There is no connection to a ban on free will.

And the car in your lane is not swerving to avoid the pedestrian - it is either a malfunctioning automated car or it is a human driver purposefully driving in your lane.

You again just answered why automated cars wont work out - unless ALL humans are removed from the equation.

As long as human drivers are tolerable, so are machine drivers. There is no reason to not expect that machines have the ability to match humans in all areas. Brains are physical, meaning they can be built. A machine with human intelligence and superhuman reaction speed may not be possible now, but it seems like it's almost a given eventually.

 

[Slash]

than having to take 12 hours out of the day hunting animals just to have a 50% chance of making it past age 30.

What's wrong with hunting?