It's the odd thing, I've blown hot and cold on Autonomous cars over the last few years.
But lets be honest, There's a fundamental dichotomy at the heart of the bastard things; They're selling everyone an, as yet unrealised, future version of the car as the solution to problems created almost entirely by cars. People are bloody addicted to Cars, to "Tech" to convenience, to overt displays of wealth. None of it's doing us any good.
How often is the solution to a problem, to acquire more of the thing causing the problem?
not least how buggy fairly basic (compared with a smart phone) infotainment systems can be
Qualcomm?, Snapdragon Ride Platform or whatever. In theory it should be an easy transition to provide a package based on smart phone experience/technology, but I don't expect it's as straightforward as it might appear and still plenty of opportunity for VW to cock the user interface up
For starters, in order for autonomous vehicles to work, they have to have an extraordinarily sophisticated sensor array, using LIDAR, IR cameras, and an AI system along with GPS that is capable of identifying and anticipating an almost infinite range of possible scenarios in cities and other built-up areas, as well as on non-urban roads - like several deer suddenly appearing through a gap in a hedge ten feet in front of a vehicle in the dark.
That isn’t hypothetical, it’s happened to me, the only reason I didn’t have a roe deer through my windscreen was the fact that my headlights were reflected back from their eyes as I passed another small break in the hedge as they ran across the field towards the road I was driving along, giving me time to slow right down from the 40 mph I was doing.
I’m prepared to put money on the fact that no autonomous system could have picked up and identified the brief flash of light I caught out of the corner of my eye.
I also know the road well, and anticipate something being in the road at some point, usually a hare, but I’ve had a deer come through an almost invisible break in a ten foot tall hedge further on, again, experience makes me wary, there’s no autonomous system I’d ever be prepared to trust with my safety.
In the deer scenario, surely you would just hit the override to take control or stop the autonomous vehicle?
There’s a fundamental dichotomy at the heart of the bastard things; They’re selling everyone an, as yet unrealised, future version of the car as the solution to problems created almost entirely by cars. People are bloody addicted to Cars, to “<em style="box-sizing: border-box; --tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246/0.5); --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; background-color: #eeeeee;">Tech” to convenience, to overt displays of wealth. None of it’s doing us any good
Hang on, there's two things in play here. One is the luxury feature of having your car drive itself, which is fun and all but no big deal. The other is having fully autonomous cars that can take you around the place, and you don't need to own it. But, you'll say, silly billy - that's just a taxi - well kind of, but taxis need to be driven by drivers who have families to feed and so on, which means it is prohibitively expensive to use them all the time. There is the possibility of fully autonomous cars improving personal transport and linking it better with mass transit. Now this needs a lot more than just self-driving car tech, but it won't happen without it so someone's got to develop it.
Plus when self driving works properly, lives will be saved, so there's that.
* Obviously some will say that we need humans to drive taxis so that they won't end up unemployed, but that's not really a risk as long as it happens relatively slowly - there are plenty of other jobs that need doing. We won't run out. Paying people to do a job that can be done by a computer just for the sake of paying them isn't a great way to run a productive economy IMO.
Maybe because both me and Mrs OD have new vehicles with lots of driver aides but it’s obviously how massively far these are from door to door full automation – not least how buggy fairly basic (compared with a smart phone) infotainment systems can be
There's a massive difference between proper safety critical systems and consumer level software. It's a bit like the difference between how you maintain your bike and how airlines maintain their planes.
In the deer scenario, surely you would just hit the override to take control or stop the autonomous vehicle?
There's no way someone riding in a fully autonomous car would be paying enough attention to react in time. Even if they're watching out and on the alert as opposed to reading a book or something, reactions will be much slower than if they were actively driving.
Insurance costs will also drive the adoption of autonomous vehicles. Insurance companies are only interested in stats, so once there is evidence that autonomous vehicles are performing better than human drivers, the relative insurance cost for human drivers will rise.
There’s no way someone riding in a fully autonomous car would be paying enough attention to react in time. Even if they’re watching out and on the alert as opposed to reading a book or something, reactions will be much slower than if they were actively driving.
The post that I was replying to described a situation where the driver saw approaching deer at some distance in an adjoining field through a gap in a hedge and did have time to react and slow down before they crossed the road. This was used this an example of why the poster would not entrust their safety to an autonomous vehicle (because the autonomous vehicle would not have spotted the approaching deer).
I'm suggesting this specific scenario does not actually make sense as a reason to reject autonomous vehicles, because if you were in an autonomous vehicle in that situation, you could still observe the approaching deer through the gap in the hedge and then manually override the vehicle. Of course, in all the other situations where deer jump across the road without no warning, the autonomous vehicle is going to react and slow the vehicle faster than a human driver, increasing the probability of a better outcome. Using an autonomous vehicle does not prevent a driver from observing, if they choose to do so, and in the scenario described it would provide an extra layer of security, rather than reducing the driver's safety.
As with many problems the first 80 % is “easy” but its the last 20% of edge cases which is really hard.
Except Tesla haven't even got 80% done yet, they just tell everyone they have...
I’m prepared to put money on the fact that no autonomous system could have picked up and identified the brief flash of light I caught out of the corner of my eye.
Oh, they'd 100% have picked it up. Cameras and computers don't have corners to their eyes (lenses?).
What do to with the information is the tricky thing.
Using an autonomous vehicle does not prevent a driver from observing, if they choose to do so, and in the scenario described it would provide an extra layer of security, rather than reducing the driver’s safety.
IMO, if a car is truly autonomous, then the occupant could be asleep in the back seat.
If they need to be sat at the controls, sober, paying attention at all times and prepared to override the car at a second's notice, then it's not an autonomous car, it's just got good Driver Assistance stuff.
The hard part of driving isn't the controls: it's the constant observation and vigilance required to avoid dangerous situations. If an autonomous car requires constant observation and vigilance and second-guessing what the automation is going to do next in order to step in at any moment then it's arguably going to make things more dangerous than just having the occupant work the controls themselves.
The deer example above is terrible. You're assuming you're better than a LIDAR system at spotting marginal stuff in the dark. I doubt that you are, and the example of whether it's deer, dogs, small children on space hoppers or drunk cyclists isn't relevant.
This is a conspiracy theory/technology fear thread. People in general like to laugh at such threads, forums, but here we are
The deer example above is terrible
It's a good example of the double standards being applied to vehicle safety. There's somehow an expectation that any autonomous system has to be perfectly safe before it can be adopted, but the truth is that if every vehicle was autonomous they could injure hundreds of people a month and still be better than the current situation. But if they did there would be an outcry about "killer machines on the road" and we're back at square one.
Maybe because both me and Mrs OD have new vehicles with lots of driver aides but it’s obviously how massively far these are from door to door full automation – not least how buggy fairly basic (compared with a smart phone) infotainment systems can be
Wait? What?
You think the autonomous driving software runs on the same hardware as current infotainment systems?
Wait? What?
You think the autonomous driving software runs on the same hardware as current infotainment systems?
Which bit of hardware does which function isn't really relevant to the public though.
To someone who doesn't work in the industry, it's simply 'a car', which is controlled by 'a computer'. If 'the car' throws an error when changing the radio station, is an average consumer going to trust it with the lives of their children?
If ‘the car’ throws an error when changing the radio station, is an average consumer going to trust it with the lives of their children?
Ever got onto a plane to be told there's a problem with the in flight entertainment system? I've not seen anyone demand to get off because they no longer trust that the avionics will work properly. I reckon most people would make the same distinction for a car.
Are pilots using the in flight entertainment touch screen to control flight functions now? I didn't think aeroplane manufacturers worked in the same kind of regulatory landscape as that which has allowed car manufacturers to strip the switchgear off their dashboards and make drivers use touchscreens and other touch interfaces while travelling at speed.
It’s a good example of the double standards being applied to vehicle safety. There’s somehow an expectation that any autonomous system has to be perfectly safe before it can be adopted, but the truth is that if every vehicle was autonomous they could injure hundreds of people a month and still be better than the current situation. But if they did there would be an outcry about “killer machines on the road” and we’re back at square one.
To some extent it transfers the burden of responsibility (ethically, even if governments legislate so that it is not legally transferred) from the driver to the OEM though. Release too early to cash in, and the OEM risks getting a name for causing deaths on the road.
That said, Tesla do seem to be getting away with it so far, apparently people value convenience more.
It’s not confirmed if FSD was on or not. If it was not FSD the reaction time of the driver is extraordinary.
Obviously, this will need regulatory approval. Remind me who runs Tesla?
That said, Tesla do seem to be getting away with it so far, apparently people value convenience more.
It's probably worth pointing out that automobile regulation in the USA is nothing like automobile regulation in EU/UK. In the EU/UK you have to put everything new thru safety regulation first (NCAP?) to be allowed on the road. In USA you do what you want until people start dying and then NHTSA might step in at some point to regulate it. Hence why Tesla can get away with all sorts of shizzle in the US that would never be allowed on the road here without certification.
Must admit I don't know if the likes of Weymo etc are NHTSA regulated (or some other gov dept) in the US or whether they are self regulating.
Release too early to cash in, and the OEM risks getting a name for causing deaths on the road.
. . . and risks a big expensive multi billion law suit with punitive damages, whereas the deaths caused by individual drivers “just” incur relatively low payouts from the vehicle insurance industry.
I was nearly in a nasty accident today - caused by driver inattention and that would 100% have not even been a near miss with a fully autonomous car. I spotted a police car with blues and twos on 3 cars behind. there was a truck roadside parked ahead of me. I signaled left and pulled in - fairly sharply. The car behind me started to follow me then without indication pulled out to overtake me into the path of the police car. Good anticipation and reflexes from the police driver prevented what would have been a 3 car smash
This morning a ratchet strap hit the (two week old) windscreen of my van. I saw it coming and moved myself in the cab rather than try and brake or avoid, due to the lack of time, space and danger of anchoring up on the motorway. The adaptive cruise didn’t flinch, but I wouldn’t expect it to.
My colleagues van braked for a bin liner a while back.
I assume AI would be able to work it out. With a greater array of sensors , It’ll be interesting to see how they cope and what decisions they make for strangely shaped road debris.
Wait? What?
You think the autonomous driving software runs on the same hardware as current infotainment systems
Nope - I question car manufacturers ability to implement systems when something as simple as infotainment systems are so buggy. Given how complicated safe fully autonomous driving systems need to be I doubt the ability of car manufacturers to develop and implement such complex systems when they can't get a basic, media player, map, AC system working. Let alone establishing cross manufacturer compatibility so different makes of cars communicate properly.
Part of the problem seems to be that they are developing their own solutions rather buying in something from Google or similar.
With the aircraft example - surely a much simpler environment in some respects, in a vastly more expensive vehicle constantly monitored by two professionally qualified humans moving on preselected and predictable routes and remotely monitored by other humans in air traffic control
I really want autonomous vehicles, I dislike driving and believe it would be hugely safer. It just seems a very long way from were we are now
Ever got onto a plane to be told there’s a problem with the in flight entertainment system?
No, if I fly it's normally budget, but even then - on planes, we know there's a pilot and indeed a co-pilot to take control if neccessary. If it was some futuristic 'cockpitless plane' with no pilots and some of the tech appeared to be going wrong, I suspect people might be a bit more nervous.
If it was some futuristic ‘cockpitless plane’ with no pilots and some of the tech appeared to be going wrong, I suspect people might be a bit more nervous.
That is - by a country mile - the biggest hurdle in getting autonomous control in trains, planes etc. The fact that the public just do not trust it.
There's a secondary psychological thing in that "the public" in trains, planes etc are not in control whereas in their own private car they believe themselves to be in control (and most people believe themselves to be above average drivers) so they're usually more accommodating of autonomy/AI in their own car than they would be if it were in a plane.
That's in spite of the fact that a modern airliner can, with the appropriate programming, land itself perfectly fine.
Given how complicated safe fully autonomous driving systems need to be I doubt the ability of car manufacturers to develop and implement such complex systems when they can’t get a basic, media player, map, AC system working
They're car manufacturers, they'll buy the platform in from the likes of waymo (AV) or Seeing Machines (ADAS/DMS).
Human driven cars are pretty safe. Obviously, one death caused by a motor vehicle is one too many, but, according to the internet, there were 332 billion miles driven last year in the UK.
And it's only going to get safer. I think DMS will shortly (if it isn't already) become mandatory in the EU for new cars, certainly if you want any sort of hands off eyes off on the road and/or a 5star NCAP rating.
(And not the current Tesla cabin camera bollox, infra red that 100% works in both bright direct sunlight and at night)
something that kills 1600 people a year directly and more than that indirectly I do not think of as safe.
For what it's worth, I've been in the industry since 2015 and had a ride in a Wayve car in the summer. It was very impressive. The tech has certainly moved on in that time despite it maybe not looking that way to the casual observer. Deployments like the Waymo SF taxis are really paving the way for broader, real world deployments. It's not on a rapid curve like some had believed, but it progress is being made.
something that kills 1600 people a year directly and more than that indirectly I do not think of as safe
Something that directly accounts for only about 13% of accidental deaths, and a tiny proportion of total deaths, seems relatively safe to me. Especially when a very disproportionate amount of those deaths are 15-25 year olds, meaning for the rest of us driving accounts for well under 10% of accidental deaths.
What does account for most accidental deaths is falls, "poisioning" ( drink and drug deaths), and suicide.
So lets keep the actual risk of driving in proportion, and not let it divert finite resources away from other, arguably more important programs, for reductions in drug deaths, suicides, and dangerous work practices.
I'm in Scottsdale at the moment and waymo driverless cars are everywhere. Some of you need to change the way you think about them as they are brilliant. They are based on a jaguar I pace with spinning radars on the roof,rear and front bumpers and the side doors
We were outside our hotel when one came to drop a passenger off and we stood Infront of the car to see what happened and it would not drive off untill we moved.
I question car manufacturers ability to implement systems when something as simple as infotainment systems are so buggy.
Different teams, different processes, different criteria, different levels of testing, different levels of regulation, different platform, different hardware - in fact, the only thing that's the same is that it's some form of program running on some form of silicon processor. Everything else is different.
Surely with all these AI robots on the way you could make *any* car autonomous by simply telling the robot to drive the car.
Some of you need to change the way you think about them as they are brilliant
I ‘m sure they are brilliant and will only get better… like cars are getting better. But that’s the problem. I know that I’m wasting my breath and that there is so much inertia in the car and tech industries that the progress is unstoppable.
But… my point is that that this will be a new level of motornormaitivity the like of which we have yet to see. And if autonomous vehicles are the answer we have got the question wrong.
AVs will continue to improve but will still have ‘requirements’ that planners and policy makers will strive to accommodate. They do that now with cars which get prioritised over everything else… to the detriment of so many aspects of our lives. Their needs will dominate in decision making; public transport and active travel will be remain an afterthought. Our urban planners will design streets where AVs will work… streets where pedestrians and cyclists will remain at a disadvantage. Governments will submit to the will of large corporations who will make lots of money from the adoption of AVs.
This is a conspiracy theory/technology fear thread.
I’m not sure it is. I don’t think that the rise of self driving cars is occurring as a result of any conspiracy. I think it’s due to a combination of technological advances and the fact that AVs will make money. We know that the motor industry has prevailed for decades and cars have shaped our settlements in a way that can’t be easily undone. That happened because there was cash to be made, but it wasn’t the only way that towns and cities could have been organised and it wasn’t the best way.
As I say, I am wasting my time saying this but if the rise of self driving cars was replaced with investment in smart integrated transport systems where public and active travel was made the overriding priority and cars, self driving or otherwise, were heavily regulated and treated as the transport choice of last resort… I think our urban areas would be healthier, happier and more sustainable.
I’m in Scottsdale at the moment and waymo driverless cars are everywhere. Some of you need to change the way you think about them as they are brilliant. They are based on a jaguar I pace with spinning radars on the roof,rear and front bumpers and the side doors
We were outside our hotel when one came to drop a passenger off and we stood Infront of the car to see what happened and it would not drive off untill we moved.
Gosh! well I'm convinced. I take it all back, the Tech Bro's are definitely not treating the real world like their own wide open test lab.
Hang on, there’s two things in play here. One is the luxury feature of having your car drive itself, which is fun and all but no big deal. The other is having fully autonomous cars that can take you around the place, and you don’t need to own it. But, you’ll say, silly billy – that’s just a taxi – well kind of, but taxis need to be driven by drivers who have families to feed and so on, which means it is prohibitively expensive to use them all the time. There is the possibility of fully autonomous cars improving personal transport and linking it better with mass transit. Now this needs a lot more than just self-driving car tech, but it won’t happen without it so someone’s got to develop it.
Plus when self driving works properly, lives will be saved, so there’s that.
* Obviously some will say that we need humans to drive taxis so that they won’t end up unemployed, but that’s not really a risk as long as it happens relatively slowly – there are plenty of other jobs that need doing. We won’t run out. Paying people to do a job that can be done by a computer just for the sake of paying them isn’t a great way to run a productive economy IMO.
I honestly don't care about the imaginary future ownership/rental/private hire models, that's just how the someone else (with disgusting amounts of hoarded wealth) is going to try and make (even more disproportionate) profits from people's general need for transport. The "silly fun" that's "no big deal" is just novelty that is used to push an idea that in the long run won't benefit most people and novelty tends to wear off. As far as I can see all the tech Bro's do is reinvent things that already work but with a touchscreen, crippling software issues and a higher price tag.
You are of course right ultimately the Elon's of this world do want to reinvent the Taxi without the expensive meatsack behind the wheel, which is fine I guess we should start getting used to the idea of tech-redundancy... All of us.
Of course deleting the human OS from taxis is intended more so the Billionaire Tech-tosspot class don't have to deal with paying other sweaty humans for their labour, I'm still not sure why rich people should get to dictate such things, or indeed be allowed to fellate and fund their preferred Rapist/Liar/Manchild into office just so they can have an easier time with regulators (who's primary function is ensuring public safety not profitability). But it seems I'm in the minority and the world is generally more happy to embrace a new tech-oligarchy cos it means cool phones and Jonny cabs...
The idea that FSD cars only need to be 1% less deadly to be a worthwhile endeavour is horseshit the "Tech" will never be infallible it will encounter unfamiliar situations that exceed it's programming, it will continue to make new and more novel mistakes than the meat based alternative would have and accountability for such things will inevitably become fuzzy. You're just exchanging one set of safety risks for a whole host of others that are still not fully understood. We will end up slowly redesigning our towns and cities for the convenience of yet another piece of transport technology, at public expense, mostly so that private capital can extract the benefits...
It just feels like a huge waste of resources, the next internet bubble, massive overvaluing of those Jags with LIDAR glued on charging around cities like San Francisco where the money, innovation and effort could be better expended addressing homelessness, or dealing with climate change more mundane but very pressing problems... The funny thing is I've been to SF and didn't really fancying driving, thus I discovered that their public transport system is actually pretty good.
If FSD lets the Car industry drag on for another 20 years great, stick another £10k on the price of a car so all the autonomous doodads and gizmos can be bolted on only for the old duffers that can actually afford them to turn it all off anyway. Humanity is doomed...
Of course deleting the human OS from taxis is intended more so the Billionaire Tech-tosspot class don’t have to deal with paying other sweaty humans for their labour
I dunno, a taxi driven by computer can only be safer than the current crop of taxi drivers who have seventeen phones scattered around the steering wheel, the seat so low they can’t see out anyway, a total disregard for any road laws or driving standards, an internal sat nav that instinctively knows the best traffic jam to sit in, a pathological dislike for vulnerable road users, and an attitude that regular maintenance and testing is below them.
You are of course right ultimately the Elon’s of this world do want to reinvent the Taxi without the expensive meatsack behind the wheel, which is fine I guess we should start getting used to the idea of <em style="box-sizing: border-box; --tw-border-spacing-x: 0; --tw-border-spacing-y: 0; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246/0.5); --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji';">tech-redundancy
Jobs will become redundant, as has been happening since the start of the industrial revolution, but the last 200 years should demonstrate to you that people don't become redundant. Were you all upset about filing clerks becoming redundant once electronic databases were invented? No, because it meant that people doing productive work could get the information they needed immediately instead of having to wait a few hours. It's not a zero sum game, it is possible for both sides to win.
I hate taking taxis. Most of them drive badly, they're too hot and they're really expensive. So yes whilst tech bro billionaires will make money, the travelling public will also get a better service IMO at the same time.
It just feels like a huge waste of resources, the next internet bubble, massive overvaluing of those Jags with LIDAR glued on charging around cities like San Francisco where the money, innovation and effort could be better expended addressing homelessness, or dealing with climate change more mundane but very pressing problems
Sure, much of what we do is a waste of resources (probably more so than that) but that's the system we have and changing that is a far harder problem than working out the difference between a wheelie bin and a cyclist.
@Flaperon I once got an official taxi at Cardiff Central and the driver had his phone resting on the dash in front of the instruments and he was watching telly.
Meanwhile the simple cheap Stuff That Works like trams and buses gets ignored
I don’t think those things are being ignored, more a case of overlooked as the big financial wins for the transport industry are still centered on personal cars.
It needs a fundamental, mental shift in people's heads and politicians heads. Lots of people will spend £10k or even £15k a year on owning/leasing, fuelling and insuring a car. But **** me, you mention taxing them another £500 in order to start to provide better public services, inc public transport, and the right wing meeejah go bonkers and all the bleating sheeple are up in arms.
Self Driving cars are an expensive distraction from the real and obvious way forward
In fairness, public transport is quite difficult to get right. You need to build your city around the concept right from the start - which we used to do, then from the 60s onwards we gave up. This was a major blunder on the UK's part.
The big issue that going back is incredibly expensive and unpopular. Near me, they wanted to demolish a nondescript 90s build house in a large development full of thousands of the damn things so that they could provide walking and cycling access to another estate they are building and provide a joined-up walking/cycling route which I have to say was badly needed. The local residents kicked up a massive fuss as if their way of life was being persecuted and their campaign was based on all sorts of bollocks. Fortunately, they failed, and the house has gone. That was ONE single house. Now imagine how much work it would be to stick a train line through the suburb to link up with the other train lines through Cardiff that were ploughed through in Victorian times when no-one gave a shit about the poor people.
What's even sadder is that there was a swathe of countryside between here and the place with the railway line and they couldn't even leave a gap for a future link just in case. So now the ten thousand of us who live out here face tortuous bus service or we drive. Remedying this ongoing planning ****-up is nearly impossible in the current political climate. You can come up with the ideas but you can't get people to vote for them.
