Self-driving cars - How do they make you feel?

[Pupik]

I guess this when we mention the ability of some aircraft to automatically land (not just autopilot), and that the technology has been out for over a decade. Been on an Airbus A320/321? Now, that's not to say the pilot couldn't override, nor would the autoland feature operate if certain conditions and parameters are not met.

I wouldn't be surprised if half the drivers out there wouldn't prefer it, once it was safe enough. And for routes I've taken many times before, it wouldn't be the worst idea ever. But I'm the type that rarely uses cruise control, and I try to use the automanualstickery lever on almost all my rental cars. Automakers can't even get automatic A/C and wipers to my liking.

I like the idea of automated transport, but I get to thinking that I'm going to be shouting at it like a coach on the sidelines!

 

[White & Nerdy]

Well of course it's unproven, it's new technology. The question isn't if it will happen, it's when. There are already working prototypes of a self driving car, Google's fleet have driven 500,000 miles in the SF Bay Area in city traffic, with two accidents. The irony is that one accident occurred while a human was driving, and the other was when the car was rear ended at a stoplight. The Ford Focus already parks itself. Do you actually believe that this technology will never work? Cars themselves were unproven technology at one point.

It may work, and yes, cars themselves were unproven technology, however, I don't think that's a straight-across apples-to-apples comparison. Of course, if I'm not mistaken it's still illegal to nap at the wheel anyway, so requiring the driver to pay attention anyway will probably prevent a large share of glitch fails.

You're making my point for me. You're paranoid and worried that the gestapo or a crazy ex is going to hack your car, but you're seemingly not worried about the 40% of driving deaths related to drunk drivers that would pretty much be eliminated. You're disregarding a massive improvement in road safety because you're worried that someone some day will use it to kill you instead of just killing you with something else.

A crazy ex can just cut your brake lines or break into your house at night. The secret police can rig your car with explosives, shoot you, kidnap you, arrest you, listen to your phone calls and find somewhere to ambush you, or...cut your brake lines. It's not like sabotaging a car is something that doesn't exist these days. I'd rather live with the very minute possibility that a crazy ex of mine somehow finds a way to hack my car than the risk of getting killed by a drunk or moronic driver.

True, but I think software hacking would be by far the hardest form of attack to watch out for and defend against. The ways someone could abuse autopilot systems and car-to-car communication are near as makes no difference endless. Physical sabotage is possible either way, but the thing with that is, the attacker has to get right up close to the target vehicle, which carries the risk of alerting the target and is more dangerous in general. The potential safety benefits are indeed great, but I think it would be less than smart to trust it to the point of sleeping en route, and the override switch should still be something that physically prevents the autopilot computer from exerting any effect on the car.

You're confusing personal computers with access to the internet, and a purpose built idiot proof system and network that's closed off from external sources. I also don't think you get the kind of tech these things will use, it's not going to be one sensor in each panel, there will be 360 degree coverage with lasers that will be constantly measuring and transmitting data to the car. This isn't going to be a weekend warrior modding his car, this is going to be something that some of the most intelligent and driven engineers in the world will work on, and you won't be torrenting to your car's self driving system.

Makes sense, but then how much dirt and grime can those lasers cut through? Probably not much, since they'll have to be safe to look at whatnot. Also, how much redundancy is there? If there isn't enough, there's a risk that an unlucky glob of dirt, or a few pieces of tape in less-noticeable areas, could prevent the system from working (annoying, or pontially deadly if the problem develops while in motion) or give it bad data (can't end well).

Nuclear power is for another thread, but once again, you're making my point for me. You're transfixed on these things that have an infinitesimal chance of happening while ignoring the massive problems with what we currently use, and the huge benefits of a change, and showing ignorance of the technology in question.

Infinitesimal, maybe, but nuclear disasters actually have occurred before, and the results are always catastrophic.

 

[Joey D]

Makes sense, but then how much dirt and grime can those lasers cut through? Probably not much, since they'll have to be safe to look at whatnot. Also, how much redundancy is there? If there isn't enough, there's a risk that an unlucky glob of dirt, or a few pieces of tape in less-noticeable areas, could prevent the system from working (annoying, or pontially deadly if the problem develops while in motion) or give it bad data (can't end well).

Use a water jet to clean it off while driving down the road, it works with headlamps just fine and I'm sure the system could be perfected to work on the lens over a laser.

Infinitesimal, maybe, but nuclear disasters actually have occurred before, and the results are always catastrophic.

You sound like a whiny, liberal, hippy who's clueless.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Use a water jet to clean it off while driving down the road, it works with headlamps just fine and I'm sure the system could be perfected to work on the lens over a laser.

Sure, but now you're making the system even heavier, and potentially making the car uglier as well (even with a tightly-toleranced pop-out system).

You sound like a whiny, liberal, hippy who's clueless.

Far from it. It's just that, rare as they may be, nuclear power plant failures tend to release a lot of extremely dangerous material, with potentially far-reaching effects even on areas that are still technically habitable.

 

[Joey D]

Sure, but now you're making the system even heavier, and potentially making the car uglier as well (even with a tightly-toleranced pop-out system).

My MINI Cooper had the headlight washers, it probably added a couple pounds to the car and it worked brilliantly. You also couldn't see them as they were part of the headlamp trim.

Far from it. It's just that, rare as they may be, nuclear power plant failures tend to release a lot of extremely dangerous material, with potentially far-reaching effects even on areas that are still technically habitable.

The only people I see that hate nuclear power like that and spew such nonsense are the type of liberals that even liberals hate.

Now take off the tinfoil hat. Nuclear power won't kill you and driverless cars aren't going to be hacked by your crazy ex girlfriend so that they kill you. The biggest issue with automated cars is going to be the manual operated ones they share the road with.

 

[Joel]

It may work, and yes, cars themselves were unproven technology, however, I don't think that's a straight-across apples-to-apples comparison. Of course, if I'm not mistaken it's still illegal to nap at the wheel anyway, so requiring the driver to pay attention anyway will probably prevent a large share of glitch fails.

For a while (and when I say a while I mean likely most of our lifetimes) it will be illegal to nap at the wheel. The Google prototypes already do this, the driver stays awake and if the car finds something it doesn't fully understand it will notify the driver that they have to take over. The first thing this will be used with is freeway driving, it's overall not that complex and is something that could easily be automated. We're still a long way from having auto driving cars in school zones, but implementing this for freeway driving will happen reasonably soon. Again, this technology isn't a matter of if, it's a matter of when. There are Google execs who literally have their car drive them to work every day.

True, but I think software hacking would be by far the hardest form of attack to watch out for and defend against. The ways someone could abuse autopilot systems and car-to-car communication are near as makes no difference endless. Physical sabotage is possible either way, but the thing with that is, the attacker has to get right up close to the target vehicle, which carries the risk of alerting the target and is more dangerous in general. The potential safety benefits are indeed great, but I think it would be less than smart to trust it to the point of sleeping en route, and the override switch should still be something that physically prevents the autopilot computer from exerting any effect on the car.

You are really just nitpicking minor things that you think might just be an issue here. These will be robust systems that aren't going to be accepting data input except from specific sources. You won't be able to hack them like you can with a laptop or other common computers. It just won't be a major issue, there will be central locations that signals come from and they will be locked up tight and guarded with physical security measures and armed guards. It won't be as simple as hooking up a USB cord to your phone and plugging in to the car, and it will not in any way be something that the average person (in your psycho ex case) could do. The physical kill switch could be problematic if you have a convoy of cars moving closely on the freeway and then one driver decides he's driving manually, so we'll see how that works as it rolls out but I do think it's something worth considering.

Makes sense, but then how much dirt and grime can those lasers cut through? Probably not much, since they'll have to be safe to look at whatnot. Also, how much redundancy is there? If there isn't enough, there's a risk that an unlucky glob of dirt, or a few pieces of tape in less-noticeable areas, could prevent the system from working (annoying, or pontially deadly if the problem develops while in motion) or give it bad data (can't end well).

The cars will be communicating with each other so it's not going to be completely blind. This really is a non issue, it's as simple as either a washer or more redundancy (of which there will be tons). The "added weight" of a sensor washing system is just not a concern. In fact, I think you'd like the fact that overall the weight of cars could be reduced from this tech. Who needs all that safety crap and 17 airbags when the car just doesn't crash in the first place?

Infinitesimal, maybe, but nuclear disasters actually have occurred before, and the results are always catastrophic.

Three Mile Island was catastrophic? Chernobyl was in the crumbling late Soviet Union, and Fukushima taught us not to build a reactor on a major fault line.

 

[Crash]

As cool as it is, you absolutely cannot substitute a pair of human eyes and hands when behind the wheel of a car. You just can't. There is no replacement.

If anything, I see this as more of a promotion for laziness. It's cool and all, really it is. But I can bet you it will flop. A lot of people simply love to drive. Taking that away from the human race over the next however many years and totally phasing out manual real human driving before younger kids can get to experience driving is a mistake in my eyes.[/QUOTE]

I know, right? Taking horses away from the human race over the next however many years and totally phasing out manual real human riding before younger kids can get to experience driving is a mistake in my eyes.

I wish that people would stop being so lazy with getting into a car and being able to turn a key, then be able to travel across a large state in half a day while being warm and being able to listen to your radio. I miss the days when you have to put a saddle and stirrups onto horses before you can set off, and you have to work to get to your destination.

Oh yeah, also with this:

A lot of people simply love to drive.

And the vast majority of people don't.

Also, what about motorsports? You cannot sit there and tell me racing of any kind isn't popular. How will it work? Will it die off? Will all the cars being raced have any human interaction at all?

When cars replaced the horse, people still ended up racing horses. I don't see why this wouldn't be the same with cars.

Then there is offroading. Strictly speaking after my time here, if you can't control a vehicle offroad, how the hell are trucks going to work then?

Ever heard of the DARPA Grand Challenge?

If not, you should at least read the basics about it.

Read the book called The Giver if you want an idea where the world is going. The human factor in anything is slowly diminishing in many ways and will eventually be gone, and while I might not be around to see it, the world is seriously in trouble and is doomed to fail. If you can't see it, then you need your eyes checked.

Uh, no. The premise of The Giver is that information is being taken away from the people in an effort to numb everyone to the same level, thus allowing everyone to have a life devoid of pain, but also devoid of joy. The book has nothing to do with automation whatsoever. If anything, information in the modern world is getting increasing easier and faster to access and distribute to more people around the world.

There's nothing lazy about not wanting to drive for ten hours to get to another city. An automatic car is basically a little bus or a train. If I'm going to go from Melbourne to Sydney, I'd rather have the car drive while I read a book and maybe take a nap. When I get there I will be refreshed and ready to do something useful, instead of exhausted and needing to go to sleep.

There's times when driving a car is great fun, and times when it's just a chore that needs to be done to get from A to B. I see nothing wrong with eliminating the chore part, because there's nothing that says it has to get rid of the fun part too.

Enthusiast cars will always exist, just like there's still enthusiast hikers, horse riders, sailors, and every other sort of transportation that is no longer strictly the most efficient but is still kind of fun.

This. A million times this. Props for putting why self driving cars could be a good idea so succinctly and eloquently.

A machine can't learn.

Maybe not right now, but then hence the research into artificial intelligence.

Making an automated car where you still have control over speed would be pointless because you really aren't gaining anything over a normal car, except for the fact it can steer itself, which, IDK about

I would love to be able to take my own car, go have a drink and know that the car can take me home whenever I want, rather than having to wait and pay for a taxi or a bus, or hope for a ride.

What is fun about them when they go a set speed and that speed only and you have absolutely no control over it all? All you do is punch in a GPS where you want to go and it takes you there. Sooner or later road speed limits are going to be programed into GPS units so the car knows what speed to travel. You get back to me when riding a train 35 mph is more fun than racing a couple of cars around a track.

And some trains now regularly travel in excess of 150mph.

If all vehicles on the road become automated, I am willing to bet that the vehicle and system speed will go up, since the human factor is taken out of it.

It absolutely increases the laziness of society. Once they start giving us fully automated cars, what will be next? You going to come up with some sort of device that feeds me too because you don't want me to lift my arm to put food in my mouth? I mean come on dude. You may as well make everything automated and put people out of jobs even more than they've already done with robots and computers in the last 25 years. The average lifespan will begin shorten rapidly the more they come up with because we can't be bothered to be self sufficient.

It absolutely does not.

If you want to start complaining about technology making people lazy, start living by example by growing and hunting all your food with spears and bows and arrows, walking everywhere and chopping and gathering your own wood as the only means to cook and to have heat.

Making things easier I totally get. There are certain things I enjoy myself like say a remote start for my car and my iPod and cellphone. I don't have a problem with that. My problem lies when you start to substitute the human factor for things that shouldn't need simplifying anymore. It's already refined enough.

Why do you get to choose what is refined enough or not? Why is remote start ok? Why can't you stop being lazy, get out to the car and just start it?

My point is, once this takes off who knows what else they will do that will affect ours lives that drastically. Driving has been around for 100 years or so. There's no point in changing it now if we all got along fine with it thus far.

Riding horses was the primary method of transportation for hundreds if not thousands of years. Why should mankind have gone to a car? There was no point in changing it if mankind got along fine with it for that long.

I imagine this being a lot like the Segway. Everybody thought they were cool when introduced, but ultimately the proved too expensive for the masses. New cars are already getting more and more expensive thanks to safety and fuel economy regs, etc. I can't imagine adding automated driving tech to cars would make them any more affordable.

These will be toys for rich nerds.

Segway failed because there was minimal consumer demand, making it very difficult for them to drive down the cost of each unit. As more and more cars are equipped with autopilot or technologies needed for autopilot, the cost will come down as the economies of scale are leveraged.

Just like radios, AC, air bags, ABS, traction control, stability control and numerous other technologies started out being expensive "toys for rich nerds," over time, their cost have fallen so much that the majority of those technologies are standard equipment.

This will reduce the typical level of driving riding knowledge still further, waste time, money, and resources, crowd out legitimate manual-operation cars horses, and contribute to the already-rampant philosophy of "I don't care how fast my car horse goes or what size its engine its strength is, just as long as it has __________ and __________." "Fun-to-driveride" will be pretty much extinct, as most people will only do their own driving ride their horse when they absolutely have to. Not to mention, this could introduce security vulnerabilities and potentially deadly software mechanical glitches - if there's one thing the general experience of driving riding wasn't missing, it's the irritation of turning on a device expecting method of transportation to use it, only to see "a critical update mechanical fix is required before you can do anything at all. U mad bro?"

So, overall, I hate it.

Fixed that for you.

Give me equine, or give me death!

I don't trust machines driving a 1500kg brick. Better?

I take that you've never flown on a jet plane before, and you never will either?

Makes sense, but then how much dirt and grime can those lasers cut through? Probably not much, since they'll have to be safe to look at whatnot. Also, how much redundancy is there? If there isn't enough, there's a risk that an unlucky glob of dirt, or a few pieces of tape in less-noticeable areas, could prevent the system from working (annoying, or pontially deadly if the problem develops while in motion) or give it bad data (can't end well).

Considering that laser and radar based parking sensors and adaptive cruise controls (where the car adjusts your speed depending on the car in front of you) have been on the market and working just fine, even with grim and dirt on the sensors, for years, I think the same, or even improved sensors will work just fine.

 

[Nicksfix]

I'd much rather be the one in control of my car. Especially when your driving a 3/4T 4x4 pulling a loaded trailer.

 

[niky]

Dirt and grime... goodness me. One wonders how the stereoscopic cameras that run road-marking recognition, obstacle-detection and tracking run when the windshield is dirty.

Oh yeah... wipers.

-

Automated cars are coming. And they will be no scarier than riding a train.

I don't particularly like trains. But I hate commuting by driving even more.

Driving is fun and lovely when you're all alone on a winding country road. But 99.9% of driving takes place in areas and situations we would never voluntarily drive in. Sure, I like being in control on the highway. Bumper to bumper traffic in the city? J.E.S.U.S. take the wheel, I'll be reading my paper.

 

[JMoney]

If the computer systems are bad, then I would be extremely afriad of driving- especially in double-crossovers (my hometown has one, if you don't know what they are then look them up). I call the one in my town the DOUBLE DIAMOND OF DEATH.

But, if the computers are good, then I will still be sad because the cars will probably only go the speed limit- no faster. Although there will be fewer idiots driving on the road.