|
Paradoxish posted:If there's any kind of push to sunset manually driven cars within the next few decades (and I really doubt there will be), it's almost definitely going to come from manufacturers touting the safety benefits of more connected roadways and ultimately looking to reduce their own exposure to liability. I do think we'll start seeing requirements for new cars to include progressively more sophisticated level 2/3 autonomous systems, though. And connected roadways? We are spending less on infrastructure, not more. Freeways and highways around the country are falling apart at the seams in a political climate that prizes low spending. Total pipe dream straight from Wired magazine.
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 08:45 |
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Backup cameras will be mandatory in the US for all new cars sold as of 2018. Can't we just do the same with all of the mirrors on a car in a few years? Replace side mirrors with cameras that have better FOV and don't stick out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:Can't we just do the same with all of the mirrors on a car in a few years? Replace side mirrors with cameras that have better FOV and don't stick out. Of course, we arn't going to make old cars get them since that is something that we basically never do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
So in the autonomocarpocalypse, do our emergency services vehicles still operate a hybrid mode with human-directed driving every now and then? I'm assuming the Fire Dept/Ambulances will need meatspace pilots here and there, even if the roads magically part for them during an emergency.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
I'm looking forward to the glorious future where I have to root my car, and then flash it back when it's time for inspections.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
mkultra419 posted:Also, cultural incentives. How do you think the media is going to protray a drunk driver who kills someone while driving drunk in "manual" mode instead of using "auto" mode? How is a jury going to react to it? How many "my children would still be alive if that poor wasn't driving an outdated vehicle" stories do you think a senator with a lot of automotive companies in his state needs to start passing laws to force people to buy automated? cheese posted:You are off your rocker if you think we are anywhere near passing a law sunsetting manually driven cars. Totally off your rocker. Cicero posted:A couple decades from now sounds about right. quote:My uncle drives around in a car that is grandfathered into no seat belts and we have not even federally mandated proper motorcycle helmets, and those are simple things that clearly save lives. quote:And thinking that "rich" people (who apparently spend a lot of time driving around in their cars) are going to push for all the plebs to get self driving cars so they will be safer is just some odd, twisted thinking. Mostly because I assume the people who are so rich they have that kind of pull take their helicopter straight to their private jet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Cicero posted:The difference there is that those things only affect the people using them. If some other dude decides to not wear seatbelts, it's no skin off my back. Whereas compared to (presumably competent) self-driving cars, someone manually driving their old rustbucket represents a substantially larger threat to everyone around them. Cicero posted:How is it weird at all? People freak out about a much smaller number of terrorist deaths, once traffic fatalities are clearly preventable via policy, people are going to start thinking about them differently. And I'm not saying just the super rich, but the merely affluent, too. Maybe even the middle of the middle-class, depending on how quickly self-driving cars become mainstream. As far as car systems, what we will see in our life times is more and more automation of safety tasks. Auto braking systems that detect possible collisions faster than a person could? Sure. Side view cameras with indicators when a car is in your blind spot? Ya, no doubt. But level 4 systems where you take a nap and wake up at your destination? Not a chance. I.E., not with MY kids in the car they will say. Not when my 10 month old iPhone crashes while loading facebook. I'm not convinced we are even anywhere close to the technology that can handle all of the exigent circumstances that can occur while driving, let alone Americans awful roads, side alleys, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
cheese posted:Then why have we not not made Anti Lock Brake systems/electronic stability control mandatory for old vehicles? Those have a statistically significant impact on traffic accidents - cars with ABS are flat out more safe for their drivers AND the other cars on the road. quote:If we wanted safer driving, we should just install a breathalizer in every car. Far cheaper and it would halve traffic fatalities, but we both know that will never happen. quote:As far as car systems, what we will see in our life times is more and more automation of safety tasks. Auto braking systems that detect possible collisions faster than a person could? Sure. Side view cameras with indicators when a car is in your blind spot? Ya, no doubt. But level 4 systems where you take a nap and wake up at your destination? Not a chance. quote:I.E., not with MY kids in the car they will say. quote:Not when my 10 month old iPhone crashes while loading facebook. quote:I'm not convinced we are even anywhere close to the technology that can handle all of the exigent circumstances that can occur while driving, let alone Americans awful roads, side alleys, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I'm sure the first systems will be level 4 with certain conditions; That's called "level 3".
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:That's called "level 3". quote:The car senses when conditions require the driver to retake control and provides a "sufficiently comfortable transition time" for the driver to do so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Level 3 says that And what would it do if the weather forecast was incorrect, or there was an accident in front of it, or a parade blocking the route? If it depends on conditions that can change unpredictably, then it needs to hand over to a driver (or cease operation) if they do, which means L3 AIUI. L4 isn't just complexity of operation, but also complexity of conditions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Yes, but the magnitude is very different. A competent self-driving system might eliminate 90%+ of traffic fatalities. That's huge, far larger than existing safety improvements, which are much more incremental. Cicero posted:Most people would look at that as an invasion of privacy, and too heavy-handed. The difference with self-driving cars is that in a lot of ways they're desirable for the user as well, since you'd be able to do something else while driving. Cicero posted:It's one thing to think we won't get level 4 systems within the next decade, that's at least plausible, but not within the next several decades? That's absurdly pessimistic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
cheese posted:You are stuck in some kind of rationalist fantasy if you think level 4 is a guarantee in the next few decades. There's that dude up-thread who has been talking to the US automakers and apparently they say L4 by 2020? That's probably aggressive, but is it off by 25 years? (I found the 2020 claim surprising, I admit, and would be interested in more detail, but that was the claim.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Car-to-car is a whole other can of worms. cheese posted:And connected roadways? We are spending less on infrastructure, not more. Freeways and highways around the country are falling apart at the seams in a political climate that prizes low spending. Total pipe dream straight from Wired magazine. Whoops, sorry, I just wasn't very clear. I was talking entirely about car-to-car communication, not actual road infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Whoops, sorry, I just wasn't very clear. I was talking entirely about car-to-car communication, not actual road infrastructure. What would the cars communicate with each other that isn't better handled by sensors on the vehicles?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:What would the cars communicate with each other that isn't better handled by sensors on the vehicles? "I anticipate making a lane change in 1 minute" "My preferred crash areas are here" "I brake in the following acceleration range" "I'm experiencing an emergency and request priority access to this lane" twodot fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Ahahaha there's no way in hell congress will ever mandate 100% driverless cars by banning manual vehicles or even just sunsetting their manufacture. People in this country lost their loving poo poo over the government doing the same thing with incandescent light bulbs for fucks sake. Car culture is an integral part of American culture and you'll see blood in the streets before the government literally takes away the right for people to manually drive their old cars and trucks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
counterpoint: merica sucks
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 23:22
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Ahahaha there's no way in hell congress will ever mandate 100% driverless cars by banning manual vehicles or even just sunsetting their manufacture. People in this country lost their loving poo poo over the government doing the same thing with incandescent light bulbs for fucks sake. Petulant dittoheads lost their poo poo, which they do every time a Democrat in power does a thing. You're right about the second part, though. I can't imagine even the snootiest urban left coast politician daring to deprive middle Americans of their pickups or muscle cars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:What would the cars communicate with each other that isn't better handled by sensors on the vehicles? Simple things like knowledge of intentions (ie, "I'm braking and intend to slow down to at least [x] miles per hour") would drastically improve the efficiency of highway traffic. Like, I'm pretty good at maintaining following distance in general, but I'd be ten times better at it (and put less wear on my brakes and use less gas) if I had the intentions of the driver that I'm following beamed directly into my head. The point wouldn't be to replace sensors, it'd be to allow a pack of autonomous cars in close proximity to drive in the most efficient way possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:Petulant dittoheads lost their poo poo, which they do every time a Democrat in power does a thing. Paradoxish posted:Simple things like knowledge of intentions (ie, "I'm braking and intend to slow down to at least [x] miles per hour") would drastically improve the efficiency of highway traffic. Like, I'm pretty good at maintaining following distance in general, but I'd be ten times better at it (and put less wear on my brakes and use less gas) if I had the intentions of the driver that I'm following beamed directly into my head. The point wouldn't be to replace sensors, it'd be to allow a pack of autonomous cars in close proximity to drive in the most efficient way possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:And what would it do if the weather forecast was incorrect, or there was an accident in front of it, or a parade blocking the route? If it depends on conditions that can change unpredictably, then it needs to hand over to a driver (or cease operation) if they do, which means L3 AIUI. L4 isn't just complexity of operation, but also complexity of conditions. cheese posted:Might. And I'd argue that some of the more low hanging fruit features like collision detection w/auto braking would eat up a lot of that 90%+. In fact, I daresay that the current rapid pace of safety features might end up taking some of the wind out of the self driving car sails, at least from a safety point of view. quote:But forcing people to get rid of their perfectly fine old cars and buy a new one with total computer control is not heavy handed? quote:Have you seen the roads in our country? The weather? Remember you are talking about getting automated cars to the point where we are sunsetting functioning cars because the safety advantage and financial benefits of totally automated cars is overwhelming. quote:Going to tax payers and saying "Sorry you have to get rid of your 2040 Honda Fit because automated cars are just that much better". A significant and growing percentage of Americans don't even believe in vaccines for fucks sake. You are stuck in some kind of rationalist fantasy if you think level 4 is a guarantee in the next few decades. quote:Car culture is an integral part of American culture and you'll see blood in the streets before the government literally takes away the right for people to manually drive their old cars and trucks. ...on private roads, of course.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Cicero posted:IIRC automatic braking has reduced crashes by like 9% or something. Definitely good, but the problem seems to be that if you only intervene at the last moment, you can't necessarily prevent a crash. You're right that there's going to be a steady ramp-up to full self-driving across the marketplace, but what I'm suggesting is that at some point, people will lose their tolerance for, say, people driving old classic cars that they may see as dangerous to others. Cicero posted:It is, obviously, but there's at least a clear upside for the consumer who is being forced (self-driving is convenient; a breathalyzer doesn't help you at all if you don't drink and drive), and because it will be something that most people will choose freely, I think it will be seen as less onerous to force people to get a car with such a system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
cheese posted:I love when we go full circle and come back to the awkward reality of automated cars: they will exist largely to fill the role that should be occupied by widespread public transportation. That's because "autonomous cars will/won't happen within our lifetime" and "we should have better public transportation" are completely separate arguments that have no relationship to each other. Human driven cars and public transportation already fill the same roles. Autonomous cars, if they ever exist, would fill the same demand that exists for personal transportation. If you can convince people to take the bus instead of an autonomous car then you can convince them to take the bus instead of their regular ol' manually driven car too. I mean, you won't get any argument from me that public transportation is and always will be the better option. That has nothing to do with feasibility or likelihood of autonomous cars, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
cheese posted:Has there even been enough data gathered on that yet? I would imagine there is a cumulative effect with increasing adoption of automatic braking. quote:I'd also have to think it's main benefit would be in lessening the severity of crashes, not so much in avoiding them. Every mph you can subtract off the rate of collision you save lives. quote:And vaccines don't cost you anything, nor do they impact your "Freedom". We are not going to take away peoples manually driven cars. Its not happening. edit: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2014/04/the-road-to-self-driving-cars/index.htm quote:The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has seen a 7 percent reduction in crashes for vehicles with a basic forward-collision warning system, and a 14 to 15 percent reduction for those with automatic braking. Cicero fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:That's because "autonomous cars will/won't happen within our lifetime" and "we should have better public transportation" are completely separate arguments that have no relationship to each other. Human driven cars and public transportation already fill the same roles. Autonomous cars, if they ever exist, would fill the same demand that exists for personal transportation. If you can convince people to take the bus instead of an autonomous car then you can convince them to take the bus instead of their regular ol' manually driven car too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Cicero posted:What? To anti-vaxxers, mandating vaccines definitely takes away your 'freedom'. In fact, now that I think about it, the situations are fairly analogous. The main reason we mandate vaccines is less to protect the individual kid whose parents don't like vaccines, and more because of public safety (herd immunity).
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
cheese posted:I disagree. A number of the arguments for self driving cars have to do with efficiency, as in "think how much we could lower congestion on the freeways in rush hour if all the cars could communicate and computers could pack them in 3 inches from each other".
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Level 3 says that Untraining people how to drive and then forcing them to take control again in more hazardous conditions sounds like a very bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
cheese posted:I disagree. A number of the arguments for self driving cars have to do with efficiency, as in "think how much we could lower congestion on the freeways in rush hour if all the cars could communicate and computers could pack them in 3 inches from each other". This is directly a moving lots of people efficiently question, and one we could address with public transportation. The safety angle is another, although again, I'm confident the deaths/injuries per million miles traveled for rail, buses, etc is probably lower than personal cars. The only reason self driving cars make sense is that we have already invested so much in turning America into a personal auto country that its probably too late to turn back now. You're missing the point, though. People in these threads are almost always talking about the feasibility of autonomous cars, or why manufacturers and ultimately consumers might choose them over manually driven cars. Getting people onto public transportation is about killing off the demand for personal transportation, and if you can't do that with manually driven cars (where public transportation already offers the benefit of not actually having to drive), then you'll never be able to do it with autonomous ones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Simple things like knowledge of intentions (ie, "I'm braking and intend to slow down to at least [x] miles per hour") would drastically improve the efficiency of highway traffic. What if the autonomous car lies to you about its intentions? ReidRansom posted:Untraining people how to drive and then forcing them to take control again in more hazardous conditions sounds like a very bad idea. This has been observed in airplane pilots: http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/hazards-automation quote:...[A] new study published by Casner and Schooler in Human Factors reveals that automation has also caused some pilots’ skills to atrophy. In the experiment, a group of sixteen pilots, each with approximately eighteen thousand hours of flight time, were asked to fly in a Boeing 747-400 simulator. As the simulated flights progressed, the researchers systematically varied the levels of automation in use. At some point in the flight, they would disable the alert system without advising their subjects and introduce errors into the instrument indicators. Casner and Schooler wanted to see if the pilots would notice, and, if so, what they would do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Untraining people how to drive and then forcing them to take control again in more hazardous conditions sounds like a very bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Cicero posted:True, I was thinking it'd be more like, "maybe don't be driving on the road during the white-out blizzard". Dumbasses already think snow tires, 4WD and ABS make them invulnerable to winter weather. I can only imagine the false sense of security you'll inevitably see with automated cars in bad weather.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
I'd like to see what happens if a self-driving car network gets in a crash environment, and Car A, which has one 45 year old tech guy in it, is on a direct collision course with Car B, which has a young black family of four in it, and as they're hurtling towards each other, both cars determine, and share information, that an incident is completely inevitable, and that a head on collision will result in a 60% chance of survival for each occupant of each car, but Car A veering wildly out of the way provides a 99% chance of survival for the family in Car B, but only a 20% chance of survival for the guy in Car A, so car A veers out of the way, killing it's passenger, but saving the lives of the young family. Basically I want to know is who will be gauche enough to be the first company to offer a software package that more highly prioritizes your life than the lives of other people on the roads, and once that happens, who will hack it so that your car broadcasts itself with the human life value of a full school bus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
All cars should be programmed to favor other drivers' lives over their owners, except for special "rear end in a top hat Edition" cars that cost more and must be specially labelled for extra keyability.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Yeah, I'm suggesting that Congress might just ban them anyway, even with many still on the road. You would need some level of critical mass of existing self-driving cars before they would so, of course. A couple decades from now sounds about right. I don't know what you're smoking, but you need to loving share. An outright ban on manually operated cars would be absurdly destructive to the economy, and your other 'solution' is the most laughably regressive plan I could come up with short of legalizing feudal style indenture for the poor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
certainly, in the next ten years, we will see legistlature come into play to begin the process of banning manually driven cars, despite the fact that it's still completely legal to ride a drat horse down the street.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I don't know what you're smoking, but you need to loving share. An outright ban on manually operated cars would be absurdly destructive to the economy, quote:and your other 'solution' is the most laughably regressive plan I could come up with short of legalizing feudal style indenture for the poor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:certainly, in the next ten years, we will see legistlature come into play to begin the process of banning manually driven cars quote:despite the fact that it's still completely legal to ride a drat horse down the street.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 08:45 |
|
|
Cicero posted:
Yes and the car.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 02:43
|
|
