Driverless cars and snow

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: pavil

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

Sonar?


Where are they driving?

a reply to: chr0naut

Like staring at roadwork?

When I lived in Austin I couldn't believe the traffic jams from looking at buildings near the roads being built. Thankfully dinosaur and princess art wasn't too close to the road. Apparently 6byear Olds were driving.

a reply to: pavil

So you haven't looked at the systems? Yes sonar.

Mostly for parking and slow moving or stopped traffic analysis.

I was driving along a two lane road (one lane each direction separated by a double-yellow line) the other day, and there were construction cones on the road warning of a parked construction vehicle blocking just about my entire lane. I simply drove around it, which required me to drive in the other lane for a moment.

It got me wondering if a driverless car would do that. Would it get around the obstacle by driving in the wrong lane for a little while (of course when nobody else was coming), or would its programming tell it to stop -- ostensibly to wait for the obstacle to move, which in this case was not happening anytime soon?


The same thing would be true on a residential road with a postman in a postal vehicle stopping at multiple roadside mailboxes to deliver mail from the vehicle, which means it would be blocking the majority of its lane....

My question in that case is this:
would the driverless car go around the postman (through the oncoming lane) when it was safe to, or would it just hover behind the mail vehicle, as if they were both in heavy traffic?

originally posted by: Mandroid7
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

The damage to the car is not really a consideration. You are applying ethical reasoning which computers cannot do.

The decision is based upon physics and harm minimization. The impact forces are significantly lower than in the other scenarios.

Collision with an object imparts equal force to both objects. As far as the computer knows, collision with the motorbike will be the best option for all involved.

The motorcyclist would have a good chance of survival with lower impact force, but that outcome is something entirely beyond the ability of the computer to discern. It really just deals with the physics.

As an experienced driver, I might choose to hit the motorbike, too (if I had time to think).

It was a no-win scenario from the start.

Perhaps, also, if the motorcycle was computer controlled, it would have allowed a safety distance 360 degrees around it while travelling and that would be commensurate with the speed of the traffic flow and the problem would not exist in the first place?

originally posted by: luthier
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.

No your sub does not "see" and identify anything, it's brakes are activated by range-finding calculations.

A range finding sensor on the front is available on most new cars now.

Here is a good Tesla article..

Tesla death

a reply to: Mandroid7

Lol. The sensor is the sight.

It didn't seem as if you had the technical knowledge of explaining what it was doing. My bad.

Who was at fault in the tesla death with beta tech and a heavy warning?

originally posted by: Edumakated

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.

Automobile accidents are usually more about physics than ethics.

I would not trust my wellbeing to a computer designed to to make valid ethical determinations. It would simply suck at it.

I would implicitly trust a computer system to calculate outcomes in terms of physics.

Tool for the job, type of thing!

originally posted by: luthier
Lol. The sensor is the sight.

It didn't seem as if you had the technical knowledge of explaining what it was doing. My bad.

You could very well have been correct.

If you have an EyeSight equipped Subaru, you have two forward facing cameras, as well as the range finder.

a reply to: peck420

I do. It's brand new. It's beside the point. He doesn't like the tech. That's fine. But don't spread false information on safety.

Tesla is playing with fore releasing a beta but they also warn you.

a reply to: chr0naut

You are pointing out exactly why it is a bad Idea to leave ethical questions to a computer.

Your assumption that a motorcycle can sustain a fender bender is wrong.

Assume for argument the motorcycle will go under the back tire and die, the kid will die, or the empty parked car will get hit.

I am driving, I will hit the parked car every time.

I calculate an escape route everywhere as I drive, not just focus on the immediate road.

Dude, making motorcycles computer controlled?

I'm not even going to touch that one.

The motorcycle is allowed to drive in his lane, the car deals with its own problems in it's own lane, or it is an illegal lane change.

Don't try and change reality, because you like tech, the "well what about this scenario" is the reality on the road right now.

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: chr0naut

You are pointing out exactly why it is a bad Idea to leave ethical questions to a computer.

Your assumption that a motorcycle can sustain a fender bender is wrong.

Assume for argument the motorcycle will go under the back tire and die, the kid will die, or the empty parked car will get hit.

I am driving, I will hit the parked car every time.

I calculate an escape route everywhere as I drive, not just focus on the immediate road.

Dude, making motorcycles computer controlled?

I'm not even going to touch that one.

The motorcycle is allowed to drive in his lane, the car deals with its own problems in it's own lane, or it is an illegal lane change.

Don't try and change reality, because you like tech, the "well what about this scenario" is the reality on the road right now.

I now understand the logic by which people buy guns to protect themselves from being shot!

Thank you.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Mandroid7

Lol. The sensor is the sight.

It didn't seem as if you had the technical knowledge of explaining what it was doing. My bad.

Who was at fault in the tesla death with beta tech and a heavy warning?

It's all good , I have a basic understanding of these systems, not an expert at all, but I spend a lot of time driving, and have been in wild positions, that are almost unreal, like getting on a ramp, hitting black ice, having the back end slide under a semi trailer, then turning into the trailer to do a 360 the opposite way, sliding the whole car away from it.

Several other things like this have saved my life, that would not happen with a computer brain doing the driving.

There are just too many variables with driving.

Driving down a highway would be acceptable to me for driver-less cars, it's easier to notice problems, and usually a clearer view for the sensors.

The Tesla thing was Tesla claiming it was driver error, the driver failed to keep his hands on the wheel. The Feds came back saying that beeping because his hand weren't on the wheel wasn't enough and they share responsibility for the fatality.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: chr0naut

You are pointing out exactly why it is a bad Idea to leave ethical questions to a computer.

Your assumption that a motorcycle can sustain a fender bender is wrong.

Assume for argument the motorcycle will go under the back tire and die, the kid will die, or the empty parked car will get hit.

I am driving, I will hit the parked car every time.

I calculate an escape route everywhere as I drive, not just focus on the immediate road.

Dude, making motorcycles computer controlled?

I'm not even going to touch that one.

The motorcycle is allowed to drive in his lane, the car deals with its own problems in it's own lane, or it is an illegal lane change.

Don't try and change reality, because you like tech, the "well what about this scenario" is the reality on the road right now.

I now understand the logic by which people buy guns to protect themselves from being shot!

Thank you.

I can see you are excited by the tech, let's just make sure it's safe first

a reply to: Mandroid7

I am not even kidding when I say my daughter and I were driving out in farm fields and it was windy, out of nowhere a beanie baby slammed down on our windshield. There were no trees anywhere, no houses, no other cars. Weird stuff happens while driving all the time. I'm so glad she was with me because I don't think anyone would have believed it.


There are other questions, like what if a car's tire gets punctured, battery goes out. The ethical questions are really scary to think about. I've been driving a very long time, I hate for a robot car to decide it's my time to go, because it's better to hit me than a bus or something like that.

a reply to: Mandroid7

Again I disagree and so does anyone who understands the technology.

Tesla as I said took a chance releasing beta tech to the public. This is so start gathering information to make the system better faster. I am.not sure it's ethical bit it will expedite the process.

If all vehicles have this tech it will be very much safer in most situations.

Drunk driving. Gone

Tired driving gone

Distracted driving gone.

The car will understand and be souch more sensitive than you with a wheel and pedal. It's basic understanding of the chain reaction of response. It will feel the black ice before your steering wheel, it may already know the ramp is icy from the car before you, the tractor trailer will see you and know your spinning out...

Now releasing it as a beta you have a point.

a reply to: JAGStorm

HAHA, I've heard of raining frogs, but beenie babies?

That's just awesome.

Iv'e dodged a flying canoe, and a flying extension ladder, both came at my windshield like a spear from god.

Yeah all those control under failed mechanical situations are questionable too.I agree.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Mandroid7

Again I disagree and so does anyone who understands the technology.

Tesla as I said took a chance releasing beta tech to the public. This is so start gathering information to make the system better faster. I am.not sure it's ethical bit it will expedite the process.

If all vehicles have this tech it will be very much safer in most situations.

Drunk driving. Gone

Tired driving gone

Distracted driving gone.

The car will understand and be souch more sensitive than you with a wheel and pedal. It's basic understanding of the chain reaction of response. It will feel the black ice before your steering wheel, it may already know the ramp is icy from the car before you, the tractor trailer will see you and know your spinning out...

Now releasing it as a beta you have a point.

Update in progress.....

Life over

a reply to: JAGStorm

You don't think they plan fore mechanical issues?

Maybe there should be an ethical/unethical button.

Do I die or a bus of children. You could press the buss of children button and leave it that way.

What happens to a car when the battery goes out?

I think your assuming there are a lot of good drivers on the road.

originally posted by: Mandroid7

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Mandroid7

Again I disagree and so does anyone who understands the technology.

Tesla as I said took a chance releasing beta tech to the public. This is so start gathering information to make the system better faster. I am.not sure it's ethical bit it will expedite the process.

If all vehicles have this tech it will be very much safer in most situations.

Drunk driving. Gone

Tired driving gone

Distracted driving gone.

The car will understand and be souch more sensitive than you with a wheel and pedal. It's basic understanding of the chain reaction of response. It will feel the black ice before your steering wheel, it may already know the ramp is icy from the car before you, the tractor trailer will see you and know your spinning out...

Now releasing it as a beta you have a point.

Update in progress.....

Life over

Right. That's a very plausible situation..

Your aproaching ludite level arguments.