Only interest I could see is when I can let it drive me home from the pub!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The one problem with self-driving cars (as I see it)
- Thread starter moonman239
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A driver speeding 5 mph extra per hour doubles the chance of a serious accident
I think one place we can look for some idea of how this might unfold is commercial air flight. The first "autopilot" system was invented in 1914... a century later, much of the flight is automated, but it absolutely requires a human driver in multiple stages of the flight.
Given that flight traffic is highly organized, carefully timed, and monitored by thousands of air traffic controllers and it STILL isn't fully automated, I think we can figure cars will never become fully autonomous. And as long as they are not, you never get the efficiency benefits people cite when they talk about fully automated and optimized traffic patterns. None of those work with human drivers mixed in.
My own guess is things like Uber will slowly make cars less necessary for most people, and the problem will solve itself in other ways that we probably can't anticipate. Full automotive automation is a pipe dream IMO.
Given that flight traffic is highly organized, carefully timed, and monitored by thousands of air traffic controllers and it STILL isn't fully automated, I think we can figure cars will never become fully autonomous. And as long as they are not, you never get the efficiency benefits people cite when they talk about fully automated and optimized traffic patterns. None of those work with human drivers mixed in.
My own guess is things like Uber will slowly make cars less necessary for most people, and the problem will solve itself in other ways that we probably can't anticipate. Full automotive automation is a pipe dream IMO.
I'd like to know how self driving care deal with the following:
1) pulling over when a cruiser flashes the blues from behind, from the side, or from front.
2) can a self driving car self drive without a human?
3) if a cop is doing traffic detail then how does the self driving car know how to interpret a cop's hand gestures when I usually have trouble?
4) how does a self driving car self drive around garbage trucks?
5) how does the self driving car avoid driving into an unplowed street?
I'm no linguist, but I think that's what the "self driving" part of "self driving car" means.
Yes but there is a difference between being able to have your car drive you somewhere, rather than being able to summon your car.
When they can do this sign me up!
The question was "can a self driving car self drive without a human." Both of your examples are indicative of a car that self drives without a human, and is therefore self driving. What am I missing?
So in one you have to have a human sat behind the wheel ready to take over.
In the other (like the video) you don't have anybody in the car at all. So for example I can send my empty car to the mall to pick up my wife, but I can stay at home.
I believe option two is years (maybe decades) away at best.
Wow...paramedics for $1600? I had a heart incident about 3 years ago and it cost me $2500 for 1.2 mile ride to Emergency. Yeah, that's right, we have 'Affordable Health Care' I'm also in the Sac area.
But your point is right on. There will always be those of us that will pay the price of 'convenience'.
Damn,
$2500? One of my best friends is a Medic for AMR, I'll have to ask him. The $1600 I stated was from about 18 years ago when I had an ambulance ride. Hadn't realized it went up so much.
If I break my leg in the middle of the night, I'll crawl the mile and half to Kaiser.
I get what you're saying, but to me, the car either needs a human or it doesn't. If a person is required to be in the car, then it isn't what I would call "self driving."
It is promised that autonomous cars will finally mobilize the blind, elderly, and any others who cannot drive. So completely autonomous cars are absolutely one of the future goals.
But I think that is far, far off. Heck we live in an era where trains are still hitting each other, and I would think that trains would be vastly easier to make autonomous than a car, given the trains' extremely limited routes, superior right-of-way, lack of flexibility, known schedules, and more.
In fact, why the heck aren't trains autonomous? It would seem like they'd be the low-hanging fruit.
But I think that is far, far off. Heck we live in an era where trains are still hitting each other, and I would think that trains would be vastly easier to make autonomous than a car, given the trains' extremely limited routes, superior right-of-way, lack of flexibility, known schedules, and more.
In fact, why the heck aren't trains autonomous? It would seem like they'd be the low-hanging fruit.
The key roadblock to autonomous vehicles is indemnity. Who get sued when things go wrong? If you look at the typical software license then it contains an "as-is" clause with no expressed or implied warranty. In other words, if it crashes then you're on your own. This is pretty unacceptable when human life is involved so before any autonomous vehicle becomes legal it'll need indemnification clearly answered, as there are likely many class-action suits waiting for compensation.
In a sense, trains have become increasingly automated over the years. Heck, air brakes in the 1890s were a big step since a split train would go into full emergency(both ends) when the brake pipes came apart.
The engineer still has to watch signals, but increasingly they don't even have to "watch" for them thanks to in-cab signaling. Signaling itself has been at least semi-autonomous for years since you effectively use the train on the track as a giant electric switch to tell you that a block is occupied. Major yards used to have huge signal towers full of indicators, levers, and other information and controls-now when there is a signal tower there are often just one or tow guys up there to make sure nothing goes wrong. Many locomotives now will-again-dump the brakes if the train passes a red signal.
The caboose is now gone for all but local use(I still see a few cruising around the yards here). The conductor used to be back there to monitor the status of the train, report on things like brake pressure and how things were moving(a 100 car train does not behave the same along its entire length) as well as be able to apply brakes at the end of the train if needed(due to the way air brakes work, a brake application in the caboose will propogate the whole length of the train, although you might inadvertently tear the train in half). The caboose was also a visual indicator of the end of the train. Now all of those functions are done by an electronic box hanging off the last car with a flashing red light, sensors to monitor movement and brakes, and the ability to open the brake line. The conductor now sits in the cab(the former "fireman" seat that was retained well into the diesel era) to monitor that kind of stuff.
Getting a train moving-in the diesel and electric era-is not that complicated. There's a "reverse" lever that sets the direction of travel and then a throttle with 9 positions(notches). 0 is no power to the traction motors, while 1-8 are varying levels of power.
The thing that keeps things from being fully autonomous is slack management. Basically, slack is the free play between couplers and it is quite significant on long trains. When you start a train, you are "stretching" it, and this is important because the locomotive is really only "starting" one car at a time. Where it comes into play most notably is when a long train is traveling over uneven terrain and you can have the train both stretched and bunched at various locations throughout it. Poor management of this can lead to a broken train or derailment.
Once again, it's important when stopping. Braking(at least in the US) still works on the same basic Westinghouse patent that's well over 100 years old, and brakes are applied on individual cars by decreasing the pressure in the train brake line. Once again, on a train that's a couple of miles long, it will take a while for a pressure reduction made in the locomotive to propogate all the way to the end of the train. If the brakes are applied too fast, the end of the train can be moving much faster than the beginning, and you get the type of derailment where the train turns into an accordion.
Many braking decisions are still made by the engineer according to conditions and specifics of the train, and like take off and landing in an airplane, it's pretty darn hard to automate them.
Our autonomous trains started running in 1987.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Railway
Well it is because we don't need to pay as much attention as we do now if it was self-driving... Just like we "trust" computers or GPS devices to find the best route always.... However, if u ask me, we "trust" tech way too much now-days...
This is why we must still keep out hands on the wheel even with self driving because are u gonna just go with the gut and say "Yes, i trust my car completely it will not break down" ? We can't even say that today.
No one even has a backup plan anymore ...
They'll have automated-only car lanes or roads!
Slaps sticker on my car. Now I can drive in the fast lane.
Remembers when carpool lanes came out and blow up dolls became the running joke for getting into the fast moving lane.
[doublepost=1469324736][/doublepost]
Yeah, I don't rely on gps units. Too often I find myself being directed to a road that hasn't been built yet, or one that doesn't exist anymore.
I also frequently find that they have you drive past your destination on the left, then have you turn right into a parking lot, then turn around in the parking lot, then turn left back onto the road to head back where you came from, and finally turn right into the place it had you pass a mile back.
I could have just turned left when I got to that spot before and avoided what amounts to a 2 mile u-turn.
But, then again, that's Apple Maps.
Google maps usually gets me somewhere more directly.
Passenger rail in one city in the UK is quite different from freight rail in the US.
Heck, freight rail in the US is quite different from the UK. Up until the 1980s, most UK freight trains got away with a heavily weighted brake van at the rear of the train. Braking was controlled only at the two ends. By contrast, using UK terminology, US trains have been running "fully fitted"(brakes on the entire train) since before the turn of the century. UK passenger trains have been fully fitted(often with vacuum brakes, though, and not Westinghouse air brakes) for a lot longer than freight trains.
About the only thing US and UK railroads really have in common is the track gauge(and if Isambard Kingdom Brunel had been able to have his way, that wouldn't have been the same). The general design of vehicles, length and size of trains and average run distance are quite different. One of the larger English steam locomotives was the Gresley A-class Pacifics. The Flying Scotsman(an A3) visited the US a number of years back, and it's astounding to see side by side photos-it's about the physical same size as the venerable EMD SD-40-2 road switcher once common in the US. There's a short line near me that runs a LOT of SD-40-2s and SD-40T-2s, and they are often double headed to pull a 20 car train.
As far as I know, Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor has a fairly high degree of automation, particularly in the Accela.
I foresee driverless car convoys. Cars driving in close proximity to each other in groups of 5-6 to gain massive efficiency gains in aerodynamics. They can join up with each other easily and separate as needed safely.
The problems with self driving cars are not to do with driving as they are already bette than human drivers. It's things like having no internet in remote areas to control a car if you have ordered it or have walked away from it. It's congestion that prevents you car arriving swiftly or incidents on the road that might leave your car stuck or needing to do a manoeuvre that it can't complete legally like a u-turn or going through a faulty red light etc.
I really love the idea of driverless cars, they can be used in many new ways potentially. Bus services could be revolutionised with an uber like experience. You could have your vehicle pick up kids from school or childminding services and monitor them on their way. You could have elderly drivers assisted in their car but they might not have full control of their senses giving them back freedom of movement. So many good things could be done and not just in the form of a traditional personal vehicle but as more than the single car.
The problems with self driving cars are not to do with driving as they are already bette than human drivers. It's things like having no internet in remote areas to control a car if you have ordered it or have walked away from it. It's congestion that prevents you car arriving swiftly or incidents on the road that might leave your car stuck or needing to do a manoeuvre that it can't complete legally like a u-turn or going through a faulty red light etc.
I really love the idea of driverless cars, they can be used in many new ways potentially. Bus services could be revolutionised with an uber like experience. You could have your vehicle pick up kids from school or childminding services and monitor them on their way. You could have elderly drivers assisted in their car but they might not have full control of their senses giving them back freedom of movement. So many good things could be done and not just in the form of a traditional personal vehicle but as more than the single car.
Come and drive in London where the streets are to a great extend medieval - it will blow your mind
I've been to London, it's pretty bad. Boston is pretty similar. No forethought to transportation logistics. The old "hey let's build a road right here" planning.
People tend to get pretty confused with our very rudimentary subway system too. That's never a good sign.
I think this long articles describes quiet well some of the problems of self-driving cars. At some point the technology is going to be good enough, but WHEN it needs our help, then we are the real problem.
Crash: how computers are setting us up for disaster
We increasingly let computers fly planes and carry out security checks. Driverless cars are next. But is our reliance on automation dangerously diminishing our skills?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/crash-how-computers-are-setting-us-up-disaster
Crash: how computers are setting us up for disaster
We increasingly let computers fly planes and carry out security checks. Driverless cars are next. But is our reliance on automation dangerously diminishing our skills?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/crash-how-computers-are-setting-us-up-disaster