Autonomous cars are coming and it's going to be glorious

[werepossum]

Maybe their angle is local freight service or deliveries, in which case concerns about passengers would be moot. Not only could you replace FedEx trucks, but even when you went to the supermarket you could just have your purchases loaded onto an autonomous truck which would then drive itself to your home.

Could be. I've wondered for years why Google isn't teaming up with UPS and FedEx and USPS, whose trucks are already running most roads most weeks. Perhaps Google isn't teaming up with UPS and FedEx and USPS because they are planning to replace UPS and FedEx and USPS?

You know that we share the road with delivery trucks right? An autonomous vehicle that weighs 8,000 pounds had better have it's shit together.

Quite true. But hey, at least the computer won't be watching porn or sexting while driving.

Pilots still have to take manual control... don't hold your breath. Its funny you have it planned out to the extent that you're worried about cops writing tickets when there are intersections without traffic lights and bridges that are 20 years past their life expectancy. You're the one living in a fantasy land, not the luddites.

That is true, but becoming confused and stopping in the middle of the road is generally less catastrophic than becoming confused and stopping in the middle of the air.

 

[OverVolt]

I agree, remember that Google didn't even have a steering wheel in their most recent autocar until California told them they had to have one to be street legal. The only controls in the car was a start and emergency stop button.



I don't know what you are thinking. The google navigator on my phone already dynamically routes around road construction, tells me to get in the left lane to avoid road hazards, and calculates on the fly faster routes based on real time traffic and road condition reports. In the recent floods here in Dallas it was able to successfully find a route to work that did not include any flooded roads.



That is almost here, Elon Musk recently announced that The 2016 Tesla Models S and will have that feature.

Did you read the article because the self-driving maps are far more complicated and I've literally had a construction zone appear in front of me as the trucks pulled over and starting coning shit off. A one in a million event happens 300 times a day. Thats quite a challenge.

You are exactly the type of person I had in mind that posts here. The premise behind having a map based self-driving car is flawed. The maps will never be up to date enough. You think you are changing my mind but really you are just one of a zillion other people like you on this board.

Google navigator is not as technologically rigorous as the maps required for autonomous driving. They are similar to the 3d mapping they do for videogames and it requires several slow passes. Technology understanding fail.

 

[WelshBloke]

You think you are changing my mind but really you are just one of a zillion other people like you on this board.

Why does anyone need to change your mind? This isn't going to be your decision to make.

 

[OverVolt]

Why does anyone need to change your mind? This isn't going to be your decision to make.

Its not even a decision its understanding the capabilities of technology. Something you'd assume people on this board were good at doing, buy they are not. No one is deciding anything. The capabilities just are what they are.

 

[glenn1]

Did you read the article because the self-driving maps are far more complicated and I've literally had a construction zone appear in front of me as the trucks pulled over and starting coning shit off. A one in a million event happens 300 times a day. Thats quite a challenge.

Public authorities will likely have transmitters which automatically send information about such events to the autonomous car fleet. Likely the car will know about it before you do, if you ever find out because the car may simply re-route you around it several miles ahead of the actual obstruction.

You are exactly the type of person I had in mind that posts here. The premise behind having a map based self-driving car is flawed. The maps will never be up to date enough. You think you are changing my mind but really you are just one of a zillion other people like you on this board.

Google navigator is not as technologically rigorous as the maps required for autonomous driving. They are similar to the 3d mapping they do for videogames and it requires several slow passes. Technology understanding fail.

It's called a proof of concept. Doing it this way is a tiny, iterative baby step towards developing a more robust solution. You try it with a very labor intensive, prescriptive solution in order to "fail faster" and continuously improve over time. 10 years ago "autonomous cars" couldn't drive 8 miles by themselves, now they can drive using detailed Google map constructs, before long they'll be far better at driving than any human could possibly be.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Did you read the article because the self-driving maps are far more complicated and I've literally had a construction zone appear in front of me as the trucks pulled over and starting coning shit off. A one in a million event happens 300 times a day. Thats quite a challenge.

You are exactly the type of person I had in mind that posts here. The premise behind having a map based self-driving car is flawed. The maps will never be up to date enough. You think you are changing my mind but really you are just one of a zillion other people like you on this board.

Google navigator is not as technologically rigorous as the maps required for autonomous driving. They are similar to the 3d mapping they do for videogames and it requires several slow passes. Technology understanding fail.

I think you are the one that does not understand this technology. I, and others here, are trying to tell you that this technology is already here and working. We can do all the things that you are saying it can't do. There are cars out there driving autonomously right now, doing all these things. They are putting in millions of miles on auto-drive to find those edge cases, and on the occasion that they hit something they can't already handle, there are teams of people figuring out how to handle it and creating robust systems to handle all similar cases. Within the decade almost all new cars sold will be autonomous. The first fully autonomous cars will be in dealerships in the next 5 years.

The real problems these cars face are not technological, they are sociological. It is in convincing people like you, who think that technology stopped advancing sometime in the mid 90's, that these cars are safe. That is something that will just have to happen through exposure.

 

[BoberFett]

Public authorities will likely have transmitters which automatically send information about such events to the autonomous car fleet. Likely the car will know about it before you do, if you ever find out because the car may simply re-route you around it several miles ahead of the actual obstruction.



It's called a proof of concept. Doing it this way is a tiny, iterative baby step towards developing a more robust solution. You try it with a very labor intensive, prescriptive solution in order to "fail faster" and continuously improve over time. 10 years ago "autonomous cars" couldn't drive 8 miles by themselves, now they can drive using detailed Google map constructs, before long they'll be far better at driving than any human could possibly be.

Listen to Overvolt. He's the only person who understands technology. There's NO WAY we'll ever have computers in our pockets streaming capable of streaming the entirely of humanity's knowledge and entertainment over the air.

And I'm sure there's no way a computer will ever be able to recognize a cone and go around it. If there's one thing computers are bad at, it's pattern recognition.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

NPR's On Point did a 46 minute segment about driverless cars, which you can listen to here:

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2015/07/21/detroit-vs-silicon-valley-the-future-of-the-driverless-car

 

[sm625]

I love the mindless attacks from the braindead drones who have absolutely no idea what they are yammering about. Whatever you think, whatever your perception is of this technology, I assure you it is not a product of rational thinking. You're programmed to love this crap, no matter how bad it screws you in the end. I know religious freaks when I see em and I see plenty here.

It will not increase traffic flows rates. I've already covered that. But the other thing it will not do is make the roads more safe. Cars are already being hacked, this is a true fact that is unavoidable in the real world. Assuming you even care about facts.... But then obviously you dont. Every system in the world has been hacked. If its connected to the outside world, its been hacked. In order to have a network of autonomous vehicles you have to completely surrender all notion of actual true autonomy. You want to take a vehicle that is autonomous and safe and turn it into something that can and will be used by anyone as a lethal weapon, at any moment. You either have utter blind faith in security that is totally at odds with what we actually have in the real world, or you are just maliciously stupid. Take your pick. No one will be safe on the roads, because any vehicle, at any time, can become a victim of malicious software. Why take that risk? Why introduce such a huge risk that bears such a huge financial cost? For what benefit? To make a few people richer and destroy yet more jobs. You want this so bad. What the hell is wrong with you to make you so damn blind and stupid. I can only pray that your personal choice to be blind and stupid places no one's lives in danger except your own. But unfortunately that's not the way the world works. Your stupid mindless love of all things unsecure, costly, and ultimately destructive will be everyone's ruin including your own. Maliciously stupid. Now you want to push your malicious stupidity onto everyone who travels on the roads.

 

[WelshBloke]

I love the mindless attacks from the braindead drones who have absolutely no idea what they are yammering about.

 

[woolfe9998]

Right now!

We're all wrong and driverless cars will never happen in the future, because, like, Salon article, plus we all know technology never advances beyond what it is Right Now.

Technology will continue to advance, but the technological hurdles described in that article are daunting. And the trouble is that ALL of them have to be solved because where safety is the issue, there isn't much margin for error.

I think the technology may come, but it's a lot farther off than some here have suggested.

 

[OverVolt]

I think you are the one that does not understand this technology. I, and others here, are trying to tell you that this technology is already here and working. We can do all the things that you are saying it can't do. There are cars out there driving autonomously right now, doing all these things. They are putting in millions of miles on auto-drive to find those edge cases, and on the occasion that they hit something they can't already handle, there are teams of people figuring out how to handle it and creating robust systems to handle all similar cases. Within the decade almost all new cars sold will be autonomous. The first fully autonomous cars will be in dealerships in the next 5 years.

The real problems these cars face are not technological, they are sociological. It is in convincing people like you, who think that technology stopped advancing sometime in the mid 90's, that these cars are safe. That is something that will just have to happen through exposure.

The totally autonomous version of the google car goes 25mph and drives those 1 million miles on the same roads over and over it has mapped near google HQ. Just saying. Its not going 55mph in a construction zone on the highway anytime soon. Sorry all you are doing is proving that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[SparkyJJO]

I don't mind the concept of autopilot on a car as long as I am able to override the thing any time I want. I have a fun car, I intend to drive it for fun, and that means actually controlling it not some computer. And I generally like driving anyway, even if I am just in my truck headed to work or whatever.

There are days where it would be nice to just push the button and end up at work 15 minutes later while I snooze a little more

 

[glenn1]

I love the mindless attacks from the braindead drones who have absolutely no idea what they are yammering about. Whatever you think, whatever your perception is of this technology, I assure you it is not a product of rational thinking. You're programmed to love this crap, no matter how bad it screws you in the end. I know religious freaks when I see em and I see plenty here.

It will not increase traffic flows rates. I've already covered that. But the other thing it will not do is make the roads more safe. Cars are already being hacked, this is a true fact that is unavoidable in the real world. Assuming you even care about facts.... But then obviously you dont. Every system in the world has been hacked. If its connected to the outside world, its been hacked. In order to have a network of autonomous vehicles you have to completely surrender all notion of actual true autonomy. You want to take a vehicle that is autonomous and safe and turn it into something that can and will be used by anyone as a lethal weapon, at any moment. You either have utter blind faith in security that is totally at odds with what we actually have in the real world, or you are just maliciously stupid. Take your pick. No one will be safe on the roads, because any vehicle, at any time, can become a victim of malicious software. Why take that risk? Why introduce such a huge risk that bears such a huge financial cost? For what benefit? To make a few people richer and destroy yet more jobs. You want this so bad. What the hell is wrong with you to make you so damn blind and stupid. I can only pray that your personal choice to be blind and stupid places no one's lives in danger except your own. But unfortunately that's not the way the world works. Your stupid mindless love of all things unsecure, costly, and ultimately destructive will be everyone's ruin including your own. Maliciously stupid. Now you want to push your malicious stupidity onto everyone who travels on the roads.

Just like they've hacked the fuel injection systems in your car? Or the airbags? Or electronic stability control? Or the dozens of other computer run systems in a modern car, without which you'd be pushing the heap?

Yeah, thank goodness we have people like you to ensure we don't "surrender our true autonomy" because otherwise we'd be running such "huge risks."

 

[OverVolt]

Just like they've hacked the fuel injection systems in your car? Or the airbags? Or electronic stability control? Or the dozens of other computer run systems in a modern car, without which you'd be pushing the heap?

Yeah, thank goodness we have people like you to ensure we don't "surrender our true autonomy" because otherwise we'd be running such "huge risks."

Electronic ignition vs autonomous driving is like what a dot matrix printer is to reading a pdf on a cloud from your phone.

There is only so much you can do... basically shut down someones car. That is pointless and there are easier ways to tamper with someones car other than hacking it.

But something like a server at an intersection that negotiates traffic flow and you hack it to get emergency vehicle priority. Now we're talking. Not that this is a rational discussion on any level but whatever. Cars are not currently networked together very well despite "running on code" like oh no can't see the voodoo men hiding in the code my shits gon' get hacked. The risk come from networking them all together. Not networking ECU's together within a car but the networking that would be required for autonomous cars to negotiate traffic flow that you guys are all predicting.

Such complexity brings with it reliability issues. IBM claims that approximately 50 percent of car warranty costs are now related to electronics and their embedded software, costing automakers in the United States around $350 and European automakers 250 per vehicle in 2005.

In 2005, Toyota voluntarily recalled 160 000 of its 2004 and some early 2005 model year Prius hybrids because of a software problem that caused the car to suddenly stall or shut down. The time needed to repair the software was estimated at about 90 minutes per vehicle, or about 240 000 person-hours. Even at cost, that is a lot of money.

Last year alone, there were several automotive recall notices related to software problems. For example, in May 2008, Chrysler recalled 24 535 of its 2006 Jeep Commanders because of a problem in the automatic-transmission software. Then in June, Volkswagen recalled about 4000 of its 2008 Passats and Passat Wagons and about 2500 Tiguans for a problem in the engine-control-module software that could cause an unexpected increase in engine revolutions per minute when the air-conditioning is turned on. In November, GM recalled 12 662 of its 2009 Cadillac CTS vehicles for a software problem within the passenger-sensing system that could disable the front passenger air bag when it should be enabled or enable it when it should be disabled. It is a tribute to the automotive software developers, though, that there aren’t many more recalls, given all the software in cars.

The increased use of software has not only affected car warranty costs but has also made cars harder to repair—so much so that insurance companies increasingly find it cheaper to declare cars damaged in accidents total losses than it is to fix them.

It is not hard to understand why. ”In a premium car you have 2000 to 3000 singular functions that are related to software,” Broy says. These are then combined into the 250 to 300 functions used by the driver and passengers to operate the car’s systems.

And unlike most commercial aircraft, which have strict firewalls between critical avionic systems and the in-flight entertainment systems, there is more commingling of information between the electronic systems used to operate the car and those for entertaining the driver and passengers. According to a Wharton Business School article entitled ”Car Trouble: Should We Recall the U.S. Auto Industry?,” a few years ago, some Mercedes drivers found that their seats moved if they pushed a certain button; the problem was that the button was supposed to operate the navigation system.

Apparently you skipped that part?

 

[alcoholbob]

Could be. I've wondered for years why Google isn't teaming up with UPS and FedEx and USPS, whose trucks are already running most roads most weeks. Perhaps Google isn't teaming up with UPS and FedEx and USPS because they are planning to replace UPS and FedEx and USPS

They might be worried about people hacking into autonomous cars and stealing truckloads of insured merchandise. They can track their own employees at the hubs and also fire they if they get caught on camera stealing or having suspicious holes during their delivery schedule.

I heard this year a hacker group will be releasing part of code they used to hijack some vehicles at the black hat conference.

 

[WelshBloke]

Electronic ignition vs autonomous driving is like what a dot matrix printer is to reading a pdf on a cloud from your phone.

There is only so much you can do... basically shut down someones car. That is pointless and there are easier ways to tamper with someones car other than hacking it.

http://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/

You can do a lot more than just turn the engine off. Killing the brakes and jamming the throttle would make for a fun ride.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

See, you don't support cobblers. No wonder we never see those jobs around. It's all on you

I bet he/she probably doesn't even ride a horse drawn carriage to work either. All toward the determent of the horse drawn carriage industry who is missing out on those vital jobs not being created.

 

[Jeff7]

I bet he/she probably doesn't even ride a horse drawn carriage to work either. All toward the determent of the horse drawn carriage industry who is missing out on those vital jobs not being created.

And any mechanism as complex as an internal combustion engine will surely never be reliable. You mean to say that you wish to contain thousands of small explosions in order to make a box on wheels move forward? Without incinerating the occupants? Madness.



I will admit that it is disappointing that Google's cars are so heavily reliant on their precious maps. The vehicles in the DARPA challenges a few years ago seemed like they were much more autonomous. They had a sort of flight path, but were able to make a lot of on-the-fly decisions.

As for why Google's cars act like a "nervous driving student," my guess is that management's instruction was "There are to be zero accidents caused by this vehicle." If you're engineering something that is to have a 0% failure rate, you're going to have to make a lot of sacrifices.

So imagine that you've been carjacked, and the carjacker will shoot you if you have a single accident while driving him from Boston to San Diego, but he's also not in any particular hurry. You're probably going to drive very cautiously.