How long before self driving dies?
-
I agree that automatic driving has the potential to drastically reduce the number of car accidents. However, given the litigious climate in the U.S. (and increasingly - in the rest of the world), I doubt whether any car manufacturer will actually advertise "automatic driving" as a feature. The only way that I see this happening is that car manufacturers be required to submit their cars for rigorous external tests, in return for receiving legal indemnity from lawsuits. Something similar exists for vaccines.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
The only way that I see this happening is that car manufacturers be required to submit their cars for rigorous external tests
I'm pretty sure the NHTSA is already responsible for that. For testing the self-driving features? Probably not so much. I don't really see a government agency keeping up.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
, in return for receiving legal indemnity from lawsuits. Something similar exists for vaccines.
Reagan indemnified pharmaceuticals back in the 80s. Sure, there's plenty of testing going on, but holding Big Pharma accountable should be a thing. [Edit] Worse, it's actually called the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Can't sue for harming your kids with a bad vaccine. That sounds so wrong...
-
Rage wrote:
These safety problems are addressed in autonomous driving cars.
Not sure I understand your statement. For example self driving cars are not going to prevent heated seats from catching on fire. That is one of the recalls. And Telsa has a recall in effect to reduce the ability of their cars to self drive. So very specific to self driving.
I don't see how any of that leads to OP's claim that self-driving cars will never happen. Recalls happen. All the time. My dad was a mechanic for over 40 years, and recalls have provided plenty of work, even for the silliest things. Buggy self-driving software? That's an over-the-air update, I don't see that as a big deal. I suppose retro-fitting an existing car with new sensors would be something else. But then, if there was a need for that, the manufacturers would just take the feature away and claim it was never sold as "fully self-driving" anyway.
-
Greetings and Kind Regards I assume Science / Technology march on ever forward. Sooner or later self-driving cars will be more or less perfect. I am rather surprised their legality occurred so quickly. I have always wondered why that was so as I assume a self-driving car would not know what to do in response to this not unusual situation Dancing policeman: America's most entertaining traffic cop - YouTube[^] . Then of course is the matter of software attacks which I find frightening.
BernardIE5317 wrote:
I assume Science / Technology march on ever forward. Sooner or later self-driving cars will be more or less perfect
That is a fantasy. The real world is limited not only by physics but by other things as well such as economics and popular perception. So for example faster than light travel is never going to happen because it is just not possible. Hypotheticals that attempt to circumvent that are even more fantasy and even more so driven by those other factors. It is not possible to recycle any with a 100% efficiency. It is not possible to create any process that even close to being 100%. It is not possible to have no one that is poor. Physically not everyone can have a plane. There just is not enough airspace not to mention how to pilot it. And if you avoid the physical limitations then people would still find a way to differentiate themselves. So for example those who can create poetry would be rich and those that can't would be poor. Nuclear power can not only provide significant power but also significantly reduce pollution. But that requires that you be able to convince the population to let you build them. Especially in the numbers needed.
-
You are both right and wrong -> The timescale plays an important role here. There will be a very long phase where the cars will be at AD level 2.5 to 3, e.g. only on some specific roads and the driver must be able to take over within seconds. AD will be a standard on highways in the coming 10 years, but that's it. The step to level 4 needs an established level 3, where almost all vehicles are connected AD vehicles. Then, level 4 can be rolled out, and only after we will jump to level 5. AD in all situation is extremely complex and requires lots of SW (there are already about 100 millions of LOC in SW of an average recent vehicle, this is 10 times what is required to fly a plane, and this is WITHOUT AD). During this time, people will accept that AD will not solve all crashes, and that they are using a machine that can fail. You sign term and conditions when you drive with the AD function, it is your decision and therefore will remain your responsibility, and it will clearly be put in disclaimers. If AD dies, it would only be because no driver would want to endorse responsibility of the system, but not because people will claim against OEM - at least, not more than today.
Rage wrote:
and the driver must be able to take over within second
That is not 'self driving' then. Someone who is typing on a computer, while balancing a super sized soda in the crook of their arm, is not going to be doing anything "within seconds". Look to one of the other posts that suggests the driver can sleep in the car. What you are referring to is enhanced safety controls on the car.
Rage wrote:
You sign term and conditions when you drive with the AD function, it is your decision and therefore will remain your responsibility,
That is not how it works in the US.
-
A closed system, like a warehouse or construction yard, is not comparable to a city. Consider what happens if there is an accident in a warehouse. - Immediate stoppage of most everything. - Immediate response to the injury - Any claims of monetary damage, at least in the US, usually are limited to actual provable damages and might even be covered solely by workers compensation. Additionally, especially in a warehouse, the unexpected is very low. No cows or bears. No high speed chases (cars or foot). No broken water mains. In a city none of that is true.
jschell wrote:
In a city none of that is true.
Current cities, no. But in an idealized city of the future... maybe. Maybe not.
-
Slightly distracting from your main point, maybe, but what I don't understand about self-driving cars is that everybody is doing his own thing. Why not make this a collaborative effort? So when one unanticipated scenario comes up, someone writes a fix once, the community at large tests it (like bug fixes in open source - in theory) and every manufacturer gets to benefit from it. It seems to me things would evolve a lot more quickly than having everyone roll his own version, no? Is this a matter of patents? Or each car manufacturer using different types of sensors, so there isn't one common/re-usable source of data that can be acted upon?
In the US, such an effort (unless run by the Government) might run up against anti-trust law.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
The very thought that in the coming two generations, people are likely be unaware of ... (a) manual transmission, (b) actual "driving while sitting in the driver's seat", (c) there's something called driving licence ... is somewhat unsettling.
I'm sure that an engineer of 60 years ago, told that (a) mental arithmetic, and (b) use of slide rules would disappear would feel the same way.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
BernardIE5317 wrote:
I assume Science / Technology march on ever forward. Sooner or later self-driving cars will be more or less perfect
That is a fantasy. The real world is limited not only by physics but by other things as well such as economics and popular perception. So for example faster than light travel is never going to happen because it is just not possible. Hypotheticals that attempt to circumvent that are even more fantasy and even more so driven by those other factors. It is not possible to recycle any with a 100% efficiency. It is not possible to create any process that even close to being 100%. It is not possible to have no one that is poor. Physically not everyone can have a plane. There just is not enough airspace not to mention how to pilot it. And if you avoid the physical limitations then people would still find a way to differentiate themselves. So for example those who can create poetry would be rich and those that can't would be poor. Nuclear power can not only provide significant power but also significantly reduce pollution. But that requires that you be able to convince the population to let you build them. Especially in the numbers needed.
Greetings and Kind Regards I am not certain the relevance of your observations re/ self-driving cars but please permit a few comments of my own. re/ faster than light travel : In 1000y we will learn how to bend space and time to our will. Just as the visiting Space Aliens are doing. If they can so can we. re/ recycle : No doubt you are correct if for no other reason the general public is unconcerned and uncooperative. Exempli gratia I learned only today coal can be converted to animal feed. Amazing. "Science Marches On" re/ poverty : This is not obvious to myself. I imagine a time in future in which robotic economy transforms the world to a lazy man's paradise where all needs are met. re/ airplanes : No doubt you are correct. I for one do not wish to own one. re/ poetry : No doubt you are correct. Exempli gratia "Roses are Red Violets are Blue I do not Know How to Fly Please Where is the AirCrew?" I have proven your kind self correct. re/ Nuclear Power : I am rather optimistic in particular re/ so called "micro-reactors". Otherwise you are of course correct. Things always depend on something. Somehow the Pyramids got built. A few parting thoughts from Arthur C. Clarke : "The one fact about the future of which we can be certain is that it will be utterly fantastic." “The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible.” “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
-
Greetings and Kind Regards I am not certain the relevance of your observations re/ self-driving cars but please permit a few comments of my own. re/ faster than light travel : In 1000y we will learn how to bend space and time to our will. Just as the visiting Space Aliens are doing. If they can so can we. re/ recycle : No doubt you are correct if for no other reason the general public is unconcerned and uncooperative. Exempli gratia I learned only today coal can be converted to animal feed. Amazing. "Science Marches On" re/ poverty : This is not obvious to myself. I imagine a time in future in which robotic economy transforms the world to a lazy man's paradise where all needs are met. re/ airplanes : No doubt you are correct. I for one do not wish to own one. re/ poetry : No doubt you are correct. Exempli gratia "Roses are Red Violets are Blue I do not Know How to Fly Please Where is the AirCrew?" I have proven your kind self correct. re/ Nuclear Power : I am rather optimistic in particular re/ so called "micro-reactors". Otherwise you are of course correct. Things always depend on something. Somehow the Pyramids got built. A few parting thoughts from Arthur C. Clarke : "The one fact about the future of which we can be certain is that it will be utterly fantastic." “The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible.” “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
BernardIE5317 wrote:
In 1000y we will learn how to bend space and time to our will. Just as the visiting Space Aliens are doing. If they can so can we
There are no aliens here because they can't exceed the limit either. If they could then they would have populated the planet long before we existed.
BernardIE5317 wrote:
coal can be converted to animal feed. Amazing. "Science Marches On"
The sources for those claims are suspect.
BernardIE5317 wrote:
I imagine a time in future in which robotic economy transforms the world to a lazy man's paradise where all needs are met.
You can also imagine a world where fairies are enslaved and they use magic to produce everything. But I already addressed that. First there are some commodities which cannot physically be allowed for all that want it. Like private planes. Not enough airspace. Not enough runways. Second in such a society as I said humans will seek to differentiate themselves in other ways. And thus, as an example, creative talents such as poetry might be used to meet that need. And some will not have the talent. So they will be poor.
BernardIE5317 wrote:
I am rather optimistic in particular re/ so called "micro-reactors".
They are in fact micro. And they still must be built somewhere.
BernardIE5317 wrote:
A few parting thoughts from Arthur C. Clarke :
Few things about quotes is that they are nothing but quotes. They don't change reality. Technology does not increase forever because reality does not increase forever. As an example the increasing speed of computers which once was described with a quote has now reached a very real physical limit.
-
BernardIE5317 wrote:
In 1000y we will learn how to bend space and time to our will. Just as the visiting Space Aliens are doing. If they can so can we
There are no aliens here because they can't exceed the limit either. If they could then they would have populated the planet long before we existed.
BernardIE5317 wrote:
coal can be converted to animal feed. Amazing. "Science Marches On"
The sources for those claims are suspect.
BernardIE5317 wrote:
I imagine a time in future in which robotic economy transforms the world to a lazy man's paradise where all needs are met.
You can also imagine a world where fairies are enslaved and they use magic to produce everything. But I already addressed that. First there are some commodities which cannot physically be allowed for all that want it. Like private planes. Not enough airspace. Not enough runways. Second in such a society as I said humans will seek to differentiate themselves in other ways. And thus, as an example, creative talents such as poetry might be used to meet that need. And some will not have the talent. So they will be poor.
BernardIE5317 wrote:
I am rather optimistic in particular re/ so called "micro-reactors".
They are in fact micro. And they still must be built somewhere.
BernardIE5317 wrote:
A few parting thoughts from Arthur C. Clarke :
Few things about quotes is that they are nothing but quotes. They don't change reality. Technology does not increase forever because reality does not increase forever. As an example the increasing speed of computers which once was described with a quote has now reached a very real physical limit.
re/ speed limit : Traveling through bent space / time does not exceed c. re/ aliens : Have you met with them? Is that how you know so much about them? re/ magical fairies : In 100y robots will be so. They will only require natural resources for manufacture. re/ micro reactors : Everything needs to be built somewhere. Just like the pyramids and coal burning power plants. re/ computer speed : I recall reading something about Quantum Computers recently also Photonic computers. "Science Marches On" Where you Charles H. Duell in a previous life? btw Why all the blank spaces? Never mind. It seems to be related to quotes something I never do as I consider it rude. Though I do not see why they are inevitable. Here is an experiment.
Quote:
Here is a quote.
No needless space.
-
In the US, such an effort (unless run by the Government) might run up against anti-trust law.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
Well, I wasn't suggesting someone should own a monopoly on the technology...rather, it should be a collaborative effort among all car manufacturers. And if that was managed, in turn, by the government, then there's no chance of anyone running afoul of any anti-trust law...
-
re/ speed limit : Traveling through bent space / time does not exceed c. re/ aliens : Have you met with them? Is that how you know so much about them? re/ magical fairies : In 100y robots will be so. They will only require natural resources for manufacture. re/ micro reactors : Everything needs to be built somewhere. Just like the pyramids and coal burning power plants. re/ computer speed : I recall reading something about Quantum Computers recently also Photonic computers. "Science Marches On" Where you Charles H. Duell in a previous life? btw Why all the blank spaces? Never mind. It seems to be related to quotes something I never do as I consider it rude. Though I do not see why they are inevitable. Here is an experiment.
Quote:
Here is a quote.
No needless space.
-
Well, I wasn't suggesting someone should own a monopoly on the technology...rather, it should be a collaborative effort among all car manufacturers. And if that was managed, in turn, by the government, then there's no chance of anyone running afoul of any anti-trust law...
Quote:
by the government, then there's no chance of anyone running afoul of any anti-trust law... getting anything done.
FTFY
>64 There is never enough time to do it right, but there is enough time to do it over.
-
Quote:
by the government, then there's no chance of anyone running afoul of any anti-trust law... getting anything done.
FTFY
>64 There is never enough time to do it right, but there is enough time to do it over.
-
re/ speed limit : Traveling through bent space / time does not exceed c. re/ aliens : Have you met with them? Is that how you know so much about them? re/ magical fairies : In 100y robots will be so. They will only require natural resources for manufacture. re/ micro reactors : Everything needs to be built somewhere. Just like the pyramids and coal burning power plants. re/ computer speed : I recall reading something about Quantum Computers recently also Photonic computers. "Science Marches On" Where you Charles H. Duell in a previous life? btw Why all the blank spaces? Never mind. It seems to be related to quotes something I never do as I consider it rude. Though I do not see why they are inevitable. Here is an experiment.
Quote:
Here is a quote.
No needless space.
BernardIE5317 wrote:
Traveling through bent space / time does not exceed c.
Suggestions about that is completely hypothetical. Not to the extent that it is just waiting to be developed but rather that if something was built then it might allow that. Suggestions about that often (always?) involve materials that either cannot be created with engineering or are so expensive that the amount needed could never be created.
BernardIE5317 wrote:
Have you met with them? Is that how you know so much about them?
Invalid statement. It does not prove anything. Nor lead to proof.
BernardIE5317 wrote:
In 100y robots will be so
Actual history suggests otherwise. Development of robots has been ongoing for at least 70 years. Compare that to the 70 years after the introduction of the internal combustion engine. Compare that to the 40 years between the introduction of satellite phones and now. Technology in not built on 'break throughs'. It is built on incremental improvements on existing technology.
BernardIE5317 wrote:
I recall reading something about Quantum Computers recently also Photonic computers
Quantum computers were introduced in the 1980s. Quantum computers are NOT a replacement for current computers. The problems they solve are different. IBM, just last year, announced (hoped) that they will deliver a quantum chip in 2033. So 10 years from now. So not even close to the speed rate that was anticipated both for current computers and even quantum computers.
-
BernardIE5317 wrote:
Traveling through bent space / time does not exceed c.
Suggestions about that is completely hypothetical. Not to the extent that it is just waiting to be developed but rather that if something was built then it might allow that. Suggestions about that often (always?) involve materials that either cannot be created with engineering or are so expensive that the amount needed could never be created.
BernardIE5317 wrote:
Have you met with them? Is that how you know so much about them?
Invalid statement. It does not prove anything. Nor lead to proof.
BernardIE5317 wrote:
In 100y robots will be so
Actual history suggests otherwise. Development of robots has been ongoing for at least 70 years. Compare that to the 70 years after the introduction of the internal combustion engine. Compare that to the 40 years between the introduction of satellite phones and now. Technology in not built on 'break throughs'. It is built on incremental improvements on existing technology.
BernardIE5317 wrote:
I recall reading something about Quantum Computers recently also Photonic computers
Quantum computers were introduced in the 1980s. Quantum computers are NOT a replacement for current computers. The problems they solve are different. IBM, just last year, announced (hoped) that they will deliver a quantum chip in 2033. So 10 years from now. So not even close to the speed rate that was anticipated both for current computers and even quantum computers.
Science Marches On. Sometimes w/ breakthroughs sometimes w/ increments. Huge corporations are betting Billions you may perhaps be wrong. As for myself I adhere to he maxim "If it can be imagined Science sooner or later will achieve it." - Cheerios
-
How long before self driving cars claims stop? I am talking about the claim of replacing all cars and not about autonomous vehicles driving around a warehouse. Consider this as a scenario in 2021 42,000+ people died in automobile accidents in the US. About 1,000 were children. Notice that injuries are a lot higher. So lets say self driving cars worked and so deaths dropped by two orders of magnitude. So 420 people and 10 children. Now in any modern accident in the vast majority of cases a driver is found to be at fault. Drunk, texting, distracted, reckless, etc. So in the above with a self driving care no person can be at fault. Because they were not driving. Now in some of those cases, especially with children, someone is going to blame the car. Not the specific car, but the manufacturer of the car. And then they will sue them for 10 million. Or 100 million. Consider that just in past week a door (sort of) blew off an airplane and all planes of that type were grounded. Is the government going ground a couple million cars? Might even be possible with self driving, just send a signal. One of self driving car companies is likely going out of business because their car drove to the side of the road with a pedestrian underneath. Now if a person had been driving the driver presumably would have been at fault - if anyone could have determined the correct behavior in that bizarre case. Seems like slamming on the brakes, in the middle of a highway, might not be the best action. So what is right? Who gets to decide that? And even if the action was exactly right, is a lawsuit against the company still going to happen?
Anyone who has read a shrink wrapped license should have an inkling of how this is going to go down. My prediction:* Car is provided with autonomous driving capability, but it's not enabled by default.
- User reads the license (!) and accepts it. License of course places all of the risk back on the owner who agrees. By accepting this license Neither car yard nor the device manufacturer or installer, gives any other express warranties, guarantees, or conditions regarding autonomous driving. and installer exclude all implied warranties and conditions, including those of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose. If your local law does not allow the exclusion of implied warranties, then any implied warranties, guarantees, or conditions last only during the term of the limited warranty and are limited as much as your local law allows.
- Final point - car manufacturer identifies the driver/occupant by breaching your privacy and using sensors in the car (weight, seat adjustment etc) or a profile to identify the person who is "in control" of the vehicle. PS: Elon Musk is not silly. His autonomous driving already takes this approach. Driver must be ready to take control etc. That it's totally impractical is irrelevant. It's all about blame.
-
I think most programmers would never get in a self driving car. We all know how buggy our own code is. Heh, just thought buggy Buggy code.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated. I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
Buggy2
Software Zen:
delete this; -
How long before self driving cars claims stop? I am talking about the claim of replacing all cars and not about autonomous vehicles driving around a warehouse. Consider this as a scenario in 2021 42,000+ people died in automobile accidents in the US. About 1,000 were children. Notice that injuries are a lot higher. So lets say self driving cars worked and so deaths dropped by two orders of magnitude. So 420 people and 10 children. Now in any modern accident in the vast majority of cases a driver is found to be at fault. Drunk, texting, distracted, reckless, etc. So in the above with a self driving care no person can be at fault. Because they were not driving. Now in some of those cases, especially with children, someone is going to blame the car. Not the specific car, but the manufacturer of the car. And then they will sue them for 10 million. Or 100 million. Consider that just in past week a door (sort of) blew off an airplane and all planes of that type were grounded. Is the government going ground a couple million cars? Might even be possible with self driving, just send a signal. One of self driving car companies is likely going out of business because their car drove to the side of the road with a pedestrian underneath. Now if a person had been driving the driver presumably would have been at fault - if anyone could have determined the correct behavior in that bizarre case. Seems like slamming on the brakes, in the middle of a highway, might not be the best action. So what is right? Who gets to decide that? And even if the action was exactly right, is a lawsuit against the company still going to happen?
I think it's targeted wrong in terms of spending too much effort on local city driving. The infrastructure of most cities and towns isn't conducive to AVs. Using a controlled vehicle in an uncontrolled environment is difficult and requires myriad sensors and strong AI analysis and controls. Cruising down a highway where all the vehicles are operating in concert in a controlled space, sure why not?
-
I agree that automatic driving has the potential to drastically reduce the number of car accidents. However, given the litigious climate in the U.S. (and increasingly - in the rest of the world), I doubt whether any car manufacturer will actually advertise "automatic driving" as a feature. The only way that I see this happening is that car manufacturers be required to submit their cars for rigorous external tests, in return for receiving legal indemnity from lawsuits. Something similar exists for vaccines.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
The problem is not the car or the software, it's the environment. My understanding is that the auto-drive vehicles continuously scan the environment, looking at the road, lines on the road, signs, other vehicles, etc. This works great if everything is marked well and signs exist. However, if the road is unmarked (fresh pavement), the lines are badly worn, or there are old-n-new lines, things get dicey. Recently I drove through construction where there were three sets of lines, two looked fresh, and all ended abruptly at different places. *I* had a problem figuring out where my lane was. How is software going to do it? Self-driving vehicles will continue until someone connected to money gets seriously injured or killed. THEN the house of cards will come crashing down.
