Driverless cars and snow

a reply to: LookingForABetterLife

Great article and I'm with you, thanks but NO thanks!

The other thing that somewhat makes me sad is that I also love driving, is that going to be extinct? Will driving only be available on closed courses?

I saw some old photos in our townships office and there were all these people riding horses, looking happy as can be. I bet they were sad too when we went to cars.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Call me crazy but the article was pretty favorable towards the tech once it's been put through trials

Apparently you all live in a place with great drivers around you. Consider yourself lucky.

I have been rear ended at stoplights twice so it's not my experience

a reply to: JAGStorm

The computer will plan a path of travel and the various sensors will attempt to verify that it follows that path.

The computer/s can react faster than a human and can apply braking independently to each wheel in loss of traction situations.

Currently, driverless solutions are going through development and new capabilities will be added and new scenarios encompassed in the process of maturity of the technology.

In European countries, the development of driverless cars for snowy and icy conditions was one of the initial scenarios that they needed to deal with and most current models with traction control already have the tech inbuilt.

Most of the safest cars (according to ANCAP, the Australian New Car Assessment Program) are so because of their computerized safety systems. While few are 'driverless', they are integrating more components that will be mandatory components of driverless car systems.

I can get on board for speed matching cruise control on the highway, but it is available already on the Denali and other cars.

The Johnny cab from Total Recall has a long way to go to be safe.

Computers have a long way to go to match the human brain's intuition.

The fly-by-wire airplane comparison is moot because we are talking open space flying.

All these things such as abs brakes, traction control, and suspension adjustment in swerve situations all help control a car, but don't make the actual maneuvers, well aside from the emergency braking systems that stop a car if the range is closing too fast to the car in front of you. That's pretty ba tech, but it's just an assist, not the observer of the surroundings.

I like new tech and all, but pushing cars with a pc brain onto human roads is retarded.

Down here in Florida, drivers like to change lanes like they are on crack. If you don't understand how these Floridians operate, you will find yourself slamming into the back of a parked car. They jump out of the stopped lanes at lights at the last minute and leave you looking at a parked car going 65mph.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: JAGStorm

The computer will have a feel for what the car is doing beyond a human. It will feel tires slipping etc and use a velocity to match what it feels.



The question will be who does it kill. The driver or three pedestrians.

True but my understanding of how cars drive driverless is that they scan the road ahead. In a white out conditions the whole road is white, there are no discernable lanes for the AI to use for reference. I could see that being an issue.

I'm sure it's something they have been addressing.

On ice, even a good human driver can be rendered useless.

a reply to: Mandroid7

You have made a false post. You obviously don't understand the tech.

It probably has 5 to 10 years maximum before it's capable of driving better than humans in most situations.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
My neighbor was driving in our small neighborhood she was going around a turn, which happened to be covered in fresh ice, her minivan slid and ended up stuck in her front yard. I saw this and avoided the curve as I could tell by the snow marks what had happened.

How on earth will driverless cars make those kinds of decisions? Will there just be a big o'l pile of cars in her front yard?

There are so many nuances to driving in our area, deer jutting out at you, farm animals, very slippery hills, logs falling on roads.
I just can't see driverless cars in these areas, maybe highway, but these backroads seem to need instant human decision making.

Driverless cars won't prevent all accidents, but it will prevent the most common. There will always be some off the wall scenario that a computer simply can't react to but maybe a human will. However, these situations are but a small fraction of accidents. The biggest issues the systems will have as they are adopted is that human driver's are unpredictable and don't follow the rules of the road.

I ride motorcycles and I can tell you that 90% of car drivers are brainless idiots with no awareness of their surrounding. Being exposed on two wheels makes you hyper sensitive to how people drive cars.

The computers will learn what situations to look out for much like I have when I am on my bike. For example, if I see a line of cars backup, I fully expect that a car will try to jump out of line, so I cover my brakes and look for that idiot. When I approach intersections, I am looking for any indication that a car in oncoming traffic may turn left in front of me. The technology is there.

Like in the OP example, when I see a line of parallel parked cars with limited visibility, I know that potentially someone could step out so I adjustment speed accordingly and cover brakes as necessary. I live across the street from a park / playground and cars park on both sides of the street. It creates a lot of blind spots and balls/kids routinely run out into the street. Dumb human drivers constantly speed down the street despite it being patently obvious that you need to proceed with caution due to the park and blindspots created by the parallel parked cars.

A computer would register this scenario and make the adjustments, unlike the dumb humans who drive my street.

Computers react far faster than a human can even process visually or with feel. This is how traction control, ABS and all the other nanny systems work. The systems can detect very minute changes in wheel speed every millisecond and make adjustments so you don't lose traction under braking, acceleration, and cornering.

a reply to: pavil

They use more than optical cameras. Also use sonor, radar, lasers...

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: luthier

Car is driving, kid pulls out, motorcycle next to car, distance closer than brakes can stop, no escape route because of parked cars. Which target does the car hit?

As the motorcycle is already traveling with the car, impact forces with it can be expected to be less than with a near stationary object.

The potential outcome of the impact with the motorbike is likely to be less damaging, considering that the computer cannot make ethical choices, nor does the computer consider the density and mass of impacting objects.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: JAGStorm

The computer will have a feel for what the car is doing beyond a human. It will feel tires slipping etc and use a velocity to match what it feels.



The question will be who does it kill. The driver or three pedestrians.

True but my understanding of how cars drive driverless is that they scan the road ahead. In a white out conditions the whole road is white, there are no discernable lanes for the AI to use for reference. I could see that being an issue.

I'm sure it's something they have been addressing.

On ice, even a good human driver can be rendered useless.

My car is a 2014 Audi A7, and it has infrared, auto-braking, sensors galore, and it's almost 4 years old.
The pace of machine learning is unbelievable, so I have no doubt the algorithms will increase in capabilities exponentially.

As far as whether to hit a kid or 3 pedestrians, it may find a 3rd potential outcome that only damages property and not people.

a reply to: luthier

How is my post false?

Your post says maybe in 5 years, or maybe in 10 years.

I am talking about the reality now.

a reply to: Mandroid7

How many driverless cars are there now?

There are already cars that take over in emergencies and as another poster said they are the highest safety rated. Even my Subaru has the tech.

In 5 or ten years the majority of cars is what I meant will be self driving not just the expenaive ones.

To get back to your situations the sonar, radar, lasers, stereo cameras and GPS will see things you can't even see far ahead of what you can see.

originally posted by: Mandroid7
I can get on board for speed matching cruise control on the highway, but it is available already on the Denali and other cars.

The Johnny cab from Total Recall has a long way to go to be safe.

Computers have a long way to go to match the human brain's intuition.

The fly-by-wire airplane comparison is moot because we are talking open space flying.

All these things such as abs brakes, traction control, and suspension adjustment in swerve situations all help control a car, but don't make the actual maneuvers, well aside from the emergency braking systems that stop a car if the range is closing too fast to the car in front of you. That's pretty ba tech, but it's just an assist, not the observer of the surroundings.

I like new tech and all, but pushing cars with a pc brain onto human roads is retarded.

Down here in Florida, drivers like to change lanes like they are on crack. If you don't understand how these Floridians operate, you will find yourself slamming into the back of a parked car. They jump out of the stopped lanes at lights at the last minute and leave you looking at a parked car going 65mph.

A driverless vehicle is more likely to choose to collide with a car changing lanes dangerously, than with a stationary object.

The vector sum of the velocities is far less with an object in motion with the general direction of movement of the driverless car, than one at rest.

a reply to: chr0naut

The motorcyclist dies, the kid dies, or the parked car gets smashed.

You pick the motorcycle to die?

Your choice is based off of the least property damage to your own car?

Damn dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: luthier

Car is driving, kid pulls out, motorcycle next to car, distance closer than brakes can stop, no escape route because of parked cars. Which target does the car hit?

As the motorcycle is already traveling with the car, impact forces with it can be expected to be less than with a near stationary object.

The potential outcome of the impact with the motorbike is likely to be less damaging, considering that the computer cannot make ethical choices, nor does the computer consider the density and mass of impacting objects.

In the movie, I Robot, this scenario was part of the development of the main character. Robots were advanced enough to calculate odds of survival in wrecks and make decisions. The hero in the movie was saved by a robot who let a child die and saved the adult because the robot assessed the adult had a greater chance of survival. The hero then held a grudge against robots for letting the child die because he thought he woudl have been able to save the kid.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Mandroid7

How many driverless cars are there now?

There are already cars that take over in emergencies and as another poster said they are the highest safety rated. Even my Subaru has the tech.

In 5 or ten years the majority of cars is what I meant will be self driving not just the expenaive ones.

To get back to your situations the sonar, radar, lasers, stereo cameras and GPS will see things you can't even see far ahead of what you can see.

My SUV has the auto braking. It has saved my bacon a couple of times. Every now and then it comes on when I don't need it, but it does work.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: JAGStorm

The cars will sense weather changes, temp, humdity, etc better than the driver.

There will be some things the intuition of a driver will be better for but by majority a definite improvement

A driverless car will also ignore things that are immaterial to the job of getting from A to B safely.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Mandroid7

How many driverless cars are there now?

There are already cars that take over in emergencies and as another poster said they are the highest safety rated. Even my Subaru has the tech.

In 5 or ten years the majority of cars is what I meant will be self driving not just the expenaive ones.

To get back to your situations the sonar, radar, lasers, stereo cameras and GPS will see things you can't even see far ahead of what you can see.

I drive 30k miles a year, all across the country, I have seen zero driver-less cars.

I talked about the crash avoidance braking tech already, it is great as an assist, just like ABS

There is a big difference between assist and driving the actual car.

The new Soobs beep when you approach the lines in the road, it is obnoxious.

Driverless cars would be awesome on driverless roads.

Assuming we get to the point where the tech is safe,

I like driving, and don't feel like being put on a remote control, google maps is bad enough routing me 10 miles out of the way to pass a shopping mall.

..or the time I was routed from a main interstate to a side road that took 30 min from my route and had a row of 20 cop cars doing random pull overs.

It is all too big brother to me.

Nothing wrong with tech, just don't let it imprison and control you.

a reply to: Mandroid7

My sub actually brakes if it sees an accident up the road before I do.

That is nothing like abs.

Have you seen any Google or tesla cars? The tesla requires you leave your hands on the wheel.

They will just go slow. Very, very slow.

For your health and safety, they will stop. Eventually the battery will go flat and you will freeze to death.