Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

driverless cars to hit california ( sorry!)


  • Please log in to reply
410 replies to this topic

#301 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,233 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 13 February 2013 - 00:35

So are these measures applied before any new vehicle concept is allowed on the road? I don't think so. New concepts generally hit the showrooms (low profile if there is a possibility some buyers might have reservations eg DBW) then safety stats are accumulated with the motoring public as guinea pigs. Check the runaway Toyota thread.

The benchmark safety stat would/should not be the average. That number would include accidents involving/caused by ageing and unsafe vehicles. It would be more relevent to use accident rates for late model vehicles only.

Advertisement

#302 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,032 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:33

That's a ridiculous standard.

It's not really a standard, but rather the sample size required to be statistically fairly sure that Google cars kill less than regular cars.

#303 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,499 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 13 February 2013 - 03:29

The benchmark safety stat would/should not be the average. That number would include accidents involving/caused by ageing and unsafe vehicles. It would be more relevent to use accident rates for late model vehicles only.

Now that's something I haven't seen - how does the age of the vehicle affect the serious accident rate in it, once you square away the (many and important) other factors involved? My gut feeling is that once you take driver age and gender out of it then you have accounted for such a high proportion of the serious accident rate that things like vehicle age wouldn't matter much.

1 in 300 million miles would reduce the annual road toll in Aus to 267, crudely.



#304 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,233 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 13 February 2013 - 04:42

I worded that poorly. By "accident rate" I meant rate of fatal accidents, rate of serious injury accidents etc. These would certainly be related to vehicle age.

#305 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,499 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 13 February 2013 - 11:38

I worded that poorly. By "accident rate" I meant rate of fatal accidents, rate of serious injury accidents etc. These would certainly be related to vehicle age.

Mmmm. I'm not so sure. I left out vehicle mass, that is definitely significant. If you are wearing a safety belt, and in a heavy car, and you are 35-60 years old, you are not going to crash much, and if you do you'll be less likely to have a serious injury per mile travelled than anybody else. Call that greg's hypothesis #1.



#306 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,233 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 13 February 2013 - 11:57

Come on - you've seen the videos where the old tank is crashed head-on with the small/medium late model. I know 5th gear did one and there was a GM test posted here by Magoo (or perhaps McGuire).

#307 Youichi

Youichi
  • Member

  • 2,996 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 13 February 2013 - 13:20

Come on - you've seen the videos where the old tank is crashed head-on with the small/medium late model. I know 5th gear did one and there was a GM test posted here by Magoo (or perhaps McGuire).


You mean "Injury rate" or "Injury Severity" rather than "Accident rate" I think we'd all agree that crashing an 1950's car is more likely to result in an injury than a 2010 car.

I don't agree that the age of the car has any effect on the "Accident rate", and the UK police would agree with me, they record "influences" on all accidents they report on, in 77 different categories, and none of them are related to age of vehicle.

In fact one could argue that any car older than 20 years, is more likely to be driven carefully and with respect to it's limitations, than a modern car.

#308 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,032 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 13 February 2013 - 14:08

I wouldn't be surprised if proliferation of stability control had an impact on accident frequency, which would make car age a factor.

#309 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,922 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 13 February 2013 - 15:32

If there is no significant correlation between ASC and accident rate, what's the point of it?

#310 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,089 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 13 February 2013 - 15:57

It makes you like, go faster, and stuff.

#311 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,499 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 13 February 2013 - 22:12

If there is no significant correlation between ASC and accident rate, what's the point of it?



The motor insurance umbrella organisation in the USA (IIHS I think it is) reckons that ABS has no measurable effect on accidents, but that rollover mitigation and/or stability control (I can't remember which, I think they said ESC) does have a positive effect, and they actually lowered the premiums on cars with it.

Which is kind of odd. If people are compensating for ABS by driving faster then why don't they compensate for ESC by driving faster? It can't be that they don't know it is there, the bloody thing flashes at me and knocks the car off cruise control much more often than the ABS intervenes(I haven't actually set the ABS off in a car for over a year, call me Mr 3 second gap).

#312 pugfan

pugfan
  • Member

  • 174 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 13 February 2013 - 23:48

Come on - you've seen the videos where the old tank is crashed head-on with the small/medium late model. I know 5th gear did one and there was a GM test posted here by Magoo (or perhaps McGuire).


5th gear one was an 80's Volvo against a 5 star Renault Modus (I think) and very worth a watch. I thought it was interesting that although the Volvo had passenger compartment deformation, the extra mass meant deceleration was slower. The Modus had no deformation and an airbag but the deceleration was much more extreme in the Modus.

#313 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,499 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 14 February 2013 - 00:07

5th gear one was an 80's Volvo against a 5 star Renault Modus (I think) and very worth a watch. I thought it was interesting that although the Volvo had passenger compartment deformation, the extra mass meant deceleration was slower. The Modus had no deformation and an airbag but the deceleration was much more extreme in the Modus.

Yes, you can't get round the Newtonian physics, F1=-F2 and a=m/F

A modern small car vs an old tank might end up hurting its occupants less, but the systems have to cope with higher peak accelerations.

There is an exception-if you can get the engine to decelerate very quickly then the cabin can see lower accelerations if the crumple zone is between the engine and the cabin. I think FWD cars have been using that strategy for 35 years, whereas RWD you often try and push the engine under the tunnel.

#314 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,922 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 14 February 2013 - 00:21

I was chatting with a policeman acquaintance this morning and he was describing a chase they had recently of a stolen late model Mercedes. He said the pursuing officers were quite impressed with the driver of the stolen car's ability to negotiate corners at very high speeds neatly and with apparent control. When they finally got the car stopped it was clear the driver was significantly impaired by drink/illegal drugs--to the extent he had trouble getting out of the driver's seat.

Credit ASC and associated electronic wizardry they concluded.

#315 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,369 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 15 February 2013 - 10:24

Lots of positive things are said about how much more crashworthy modern cars are but one never seems to be mentioned - less rust.

Modern cars are far better rustproofed than 20 years ago - galvanised panels and weld thru primers etc. have largely eradicated serious structural rust.

Rust significantly reduces the real world crash absobtion ability as the seams split open. Way back a test of a new and older Austin 1100 in the UK showed that quite dramatically. The 1100 wasa real rust bucket and the older one just fell apart on impact.

I don't know how big an effect less rust weakness is in modern real world crashes but it must have been a positive benefit to road safety which mfrs get no credit for.

#316 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,233 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 15 February 2013 - 22:20

Rust significantly reduces the real world crash absobtion ability as the seams split open. Way back a test of a new and older Austin 1100 in the UK showed that quite dramatically. The 1100 wasa real rust bucket and the older one just fell apart on impact.

I don't remember them as a rustbucket here in Aus (Morris 1100). From memory the primer coats were applied in an immersion process.

Here it is - the Rotodip. http://www.elevenhun...com/rotodip.php

#317 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,778 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 16 February 2013 - 02:36

A reduction in fatalities isn't the only benefit though. How about the benefit through a (presumably) massive reduction in accidents that don't result in fatalities. Medical fees, crash repair fees, insurance fees, reduction in sick leave, etc, etc, all that broken window economic activity that could be redirected elsewhere.

Presumably the fatal accident rate could actually be worse and still result in a net benefit to society but then you'd be putting a price on someone's life, which for some reason people feel uncomfortable about.

There goes your argument! The crash industry lobby, the funeral industry looby alone will point out they actually do need the work, They employ a lot of people. If they were so safe!! the insurance industry will miss out too as they will have far less customers.
This may be quite a black comment but it is the economic truth. That is ofcourse that if these cars actually were safe. And actually can get insurance at all. No third party insurance = no driving at all.

#318 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,778 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 16 February 2013 - 02:49

Lots of positive things are said about how much more crashworthy modern cars are but one never seems to be mentioned - less rust.

Modern cars are far better rustproofed than 20 years ago - galvanised panels and weld thru primers etc. have largely eradicated serious structural rust.

Rust significantly reduces the real world crash absobtion ability as the seams split open. Way back a test of a new and older Austin 1100 in the UK showed that quite dramatically. The 1100 wasa real rust bucket and the older one just fell apart on impact.

I don't know how big an effect less rust weakness is in modern real world crashes but it must have been a positive benefit to road safety which mfrs get no credit for.

This is way off the subject but relevant. Over the years I have watched demo derbys, wether I want to or not! They are part of the show at many speedways.
In the distant past the best cars for them was Barge Fairlanes. They took a hell of a pounding and came back for more. The similar vintage Chevs all folded the back of the car either down onto the ground or way in the air and then the tailshaft fell out.
Then the big cars were banned, Aussie cars only. And king of those events was the 70s Chrysler Valiant wagons, or even better utes. Most of these are rusty, and sometimes VERY rusty old pigs. But they are just so strong they take it. 70s Falcons are ok, and the 70s Holdens again crumble and the tailshafts fall out. And Commodores get one hit and die!
So with all the hoo ha about rust at least these cars prove that despite it they are still very strong. And far stronger than anything modern .
These days most demos are 4 cyl cars where again 70s Coronas seem to be the strongest, though not that strong. Though again often very rusty.
Though a Landcrab may be a reasonable contender, though I suspect a hit in the front wheels will kill it quick. Though they are stronger than most Pommy cars of the era.

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 16 February 2013 - 02:50.


#319 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,922 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 28 August 2013 - 14:38

http://www.wired.com...tonomous-drive/

 

Nissan Promises to Deliver Autonomous Car by 2020

Advertisement

#320 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,233 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 29 August 2013 - 02:45

So now we have a timeline. Not surprising.



#321 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,517 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 29 August 2013 - 19:48

So what of the Google experiment?  They seem to be considering the next step of a driverless cab service (and given the average cab driver in any country of the world, that can't be a bad thing) - see http://www.independe...ce-8784747.html.

 

Interesting that the only accidents so far to the Google cars seem to have due to human error: "one involved the car being rear-ended after stopping at a red light and the other occurred after a human driver took control of the vehicle."

 

So, advantage robot?



#322 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,052 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 04 January 2014 - 21:54

Anyone remembers that discussion we had?

http://www.autoblog....-by-2050-study/

 



#323 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,517 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 05 January 2014 - 20:08

I thought it was going to be 2020 when autonomous vehicles took over?  Why has it slipped by 30 years in just a couple of months?  Or could it be that these are all wild fantasies with little or no connection with reality?



#324 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,499 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 05 January 2014 - 21:26

Big news, not everybody changes their car every year. 2020 is the earliest date I can remmeber having seen for autonomous cars being available. So if you've got a lazy hundred thousand perhaps you'll be able to buy one then. The rest of us can enjoy driving in traffic jams and tailgating for a couple of decades after that.



#325 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,466 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 06 January 2014 - 01:40

I must admit I got it totally wrong in conceptualizing how the whole thing will come to pass, and I vastly overestimated how long it will take for autonomous vehicles to arrive. 



#326 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,923 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 06 January 2014 - 02:08

I thought it was going to be 2020 when autonomous vehicles took over?  Why has it slipped by 30 years in just a couple of months?  Or could it be that these are all wild fantasies with little or no connection with reality?


It was the movie car-chase requirement, they completely underestimated the degree of additional computing power and code-cutting challenge :rolleyes:



#327 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,089 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 06 January 2014 - 17:52

I must admit I got it totally wrong in conceptualizing how the whole thing will come to pass, and I vastly overestimated how long it will take for autonomous vehicles to arrive. 

 

2020 seems way too soon. 2050 is unfathomably far away in tech and societal terms. 



#328 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 382 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 07 January 2014 - 02:13

2020 seems way too soon. 2050 is unfathomably far away in tech and societal terms. 

 

Does it? It may be somewhat sneaky but the required parts have been accumulating for a while...

 

- Audi (others do this too?) automatic driving in slow traffic:

 

 

- active cruise control (rented a 2013 Golf that had ACC in England, it was brilliant)

 

- lane-keeping/assist (Nissan in 2001, many others)

 

- Some cars have the ability to interpret road signs - very important to handle roadworks and other temporary conditions. Electronic maps/databases (of speed zones and the like) are fine and good, but they're never 100% matched to reality

 

And of course there's Google's driverless cars, which have been around for a few years and in 2012 had already covered over 300k miles with quite some success.

 

It is happening, but incrementally and without fanfare. By 2020? I don't know. Surely not much longer though.


Edited by indigoid, 07 January 2014 - 02:21.


#329 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 382 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 07 January 2014 - 02:16

Also (and, fair warning, despite Googling I have no source for this; could easily be one of those urban legend things) I heard about a guy who had a fairly well-optioned VW Passat who died peacefully while driving with the ACC and lane-steering features active. Supposedly his car pulled up behind another car at some red lights and, lacking further input, stayed there.

 

Once upon a time I'd have dismissed this as ludicrous, but it doesn't seem nearly as far-fetched now.



#330 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,644 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 07 January 2014 - 05:03

That Audi technology would make most of my drive home most days. I'd enjoy that sometimes.

#331 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 849 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 08 January 2014 - 05:25

Why would anyone think that self-driving cars are a good thing? Why spend extra money to buy a self-driving car when you can get the same result travelling by bus, train or subway? Buses, trains and subways are basically self-driving vehicles.



#332 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,233 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 08 January 2014 - 07:36

Why would anyone think that self-driving cars are a good thing? Why spend extra money to buy a self-driving car when you can get the same result travelling by bus, train or subway? Buses, trains and subways are basically self-driving vehicles.

Don't you drive a car?

 

I find I can do many things in my car that would be a major hassle if I only had access to buses, trains and subways. Given that advantage already exists, I would love the added option to have my car to chauffeur me door to door, then go park itself. Wealthy folks pay a lot of money for that privilege.



#333 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,517 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 08 January 2014 - 19:35

Meanwhile, in Yorkshire, the self driving car is apparently already in use.

 

Important Legal Note: Do not attempt to do this in your own car.



#334 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,499 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 08 January 2014 - 21:44

"Why would anyone think that self-driving cars are a good thing?"

 

I like the idea of being able to read or sleep in my car on the way to and from work. My accidental experiments thus far have been unsuccessful.

 

I'd also like to be able to drive to the pub and not have to think about how much I'm drinking.

 

The vast majority of my driving is bumper to bumper rubbish in towns, something i would more than happily assign to a computer, and for that matter I'm not much interested in freeways.

 

Then there's the next step of getting out the car at the destination and telling it to bugger off to a car park. And then ringing it up to come and get me.

 

Those are my reasons. I would expect a reduction in small accidents, and if it were integrated with traffic lights, and improvemnt in travel times and fuel usage.



#335 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,778 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 08 January 2014 - 21:56

Why would anyone think that self-driving cars are a good thing? Why spend extra money to buy a self-driving car when you can get the same result travelling by bus, train or subway? Buses, trains and subways are basically self-driving vehicles.

A bus or train? Cattle class transportation. Lets stand on a moving vehicle carrying a brief case or grocerys. I don't think so!
Though trusting a computer to drive me, bugger that too. Look at the failures with all the leading manufacturers with cars that peple actually drive!
And all the service faults that happen with modern computer driven cars. Some manufacturers vehicles you need a pernemant booking with a tow truck and many others are stuck full rich or in limp home mode. Often just poor earths or voltage drop BUT would you trust it too drive you??

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 08 January 2014 - 22:01.


#336 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,466 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 08 January 2014 - 22:01

"Why would anyone think that self-driving cars are a good thing?"

 

I like the idea of being able to read or sleep in my car on the way to and from work. My accidental experiments thus far have been unsuccessful.

 

I'd also like to be able to drive to the pub and not have to think about how much I'm drinking.

 

The vast majority of my driving is bumper to bumper rubbish in towns, something i would more than happily assign to a computer, and for that matter I'm not much interested in freeways.

 

Then there's the next step of getting out the car at the destination and telling it to bugger off to a car park. And then ringing it up to come and get me.

 

Those are my reasons. I would expect a reduction in small accidents, and if it were integrated with traffic lights, and improvemnt in travel times and fuel usage.

 

 

 

+1.  Thanks. You supplied all my reasons and then added several more I hadn't thought of. 



#337 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,089 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 08 January 2014 - 22:34

A bus or train? Cattle class transportation. Lets stand on a moving vehicle carrying a brief case or grocerys. I don't think so!
 

 

I keep forgetting you have a Maybach.



#338 CSquared

CSquared
  • Member

  • 621 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 08 January 2014 - 22:55

"Why would anyone think that self-driving cars are a good thing?"

 

I like the idea of being able to read or sleep in my car on the way to and from work. My accidental experiments thus far have been unsuccessful.

 

I'd also like to be able to drive to the pub and not have to think about how much I'm drinking.

 

The vast majority of my driving is bumper to bumper rubbish in towns, something i would more than happily assign to a computer, and for that matter I'm not much interested in freeways.

 

Then there's the next step of getting out the car at the destination and telling it to bugger off to a car park. And then ringing it up to come and get me.

 

Those are my reasons. I would expect a reduction in small accidents, and if it were integrated with traffic lights, and improvemnt in travel times and fuel usage.

+1 to all of this, plus I can't wait for Google software to take over from the person merging in front of me at 35 mph, cutting across two lanes because they almost missed their exit, or rear-ending me because they're texting.



#339 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 382 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 09 January 2014 - 01:56

A bus or train? Cattle class transportation. Lets stand on a moving vehicle carrying a brief case or grocerys. I don't think so!
Though trusting a computer to drive me, bugger that too. Look at the failures with all the leading manufacturers with cars that peple actually drive!
And all the service faults that happen with modern computer driven cars. Some manufacturers vehicles you need a pernemant booking with a tow truck and many others are stuck full rich or in limp home mode. Often just poor earths or voltage drop BUT would you trust it too drive you??

 

I felt liberated when I moved to Sydney from Canberra, for most of the reasons Greg mentioned. I still ride bikes, but only for fun. I do domestic shopping and commuting via trains or on foot. No road car.

 

I too am concerned about quality - but generally more so with mechanical failures and with the way the manufacturers handle them. Eg. BMW motorbikes that were known to spontaneously have their front wheel fall off or (in a different model) dump oil all over the rear tyre - no safety recalls issued. And now they're dithering over an issue with fuel leaks in yet another model...



Advertisement

#340 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,466 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 09 January 2014 - 02:13

I can totally visualize driving the one or two miles over surface streets to the highway/turnpike, then turning over control and spending the next hour or two reading or surfing the net while my car drives me to my destination. Would be so much more comfortable and convenient than a bus or train -- or even a plane, because I can bring along as much gear as I like. And the possibility of adding another hour or two per day of productive work or goofing off time is very appealing.  



#341 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,644 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 09 January 2014 - 03:20

I have every reason to believe "another hour or two of work" is what we'll get, says the cynic in me. I think Greg nailed it perfectly. I dread driving home in bumper -to - bumper traffic each day. I'd love my car to look after that for me.

#342 RogerGraham

RogerGraham
  • Member

  • 106 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 09 January 2014 - 10:22

As a general observation, it's fascinating/interesting/frustrating to see how some people can blind themselves to the opportunities offered by new technology.

 

In this particular case some of the opportunities are immediately obvious, although Greg's excellent list added a couple I hadn't thought of, and there's undoubtedly more to come!  It'll be an interesting ride, so to speak.



#343 mrdave

mrdave
  • New Member

  • 22 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 09 January 2014 - 14:32

I think the whole driverless idea is great. My only concern is it would rely too much on the owner to ensure that the camera/sensors were cleaned or suitably maintained, as well as the rest of the vehicle. Imagine that your driving a car with defective brakes. You would know that they were defective and avoid driving the vehicle, or drive the vehicle in such a way to compensate for it. I would be concerned that if there was a defect in mechanical part of the vehicle or with the driverless sensing system that it could be, well...bad. For that reason I think it would be too much responsibility for the average motorist, and I'm sure the service and maintaince costs would be a lot higher then what we currently have with a nut behind the wheel.  I would assume that these vehicles would have to be maintained to the highest level as the computer may not be able to compensate for it. And the other concern is how would it cope with a sudden mechanical failure?

 

The only way I could see these working is as a communal transport like a taxi. (anyone seen blade runner?). to be fair the current cost of owning, insuring, service etc. a vehicle are quite high. I could see these working instead of buses and trains. Reason being is buses/trains are so unpractical, having to somehow get to the station to get on the train/bus (which follows an inefficient route with stops etc.)to take you somewhere which is a bit nearer to where you want to be, but stilling having to commute from there to your final destination. These driverless cars could replace that, taxis, and all cars in general. Also think about how often you use your car. How often is it parked outside your house/place of work or where ever. The amount of down your car has is so inefficient.



#344 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,923 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 11 January 2014 - 05:39

BRG said:
I think the whole driverless idea is great. My only concern is it would rely too much on the owner to ensure that the camera/sensors were cleaned or suitably maintained, as well as the rest of the vehicle.

275 GTB-4 said:
You just opened a whole new can of worms....would the system shut down the car and sulk if you drove through a muddy puddle? a hail storm? a grasshopper plague? and a new game for the kids...smear or spray something over the camera/sensors and watch the fun. I could go on and on...and I mostly do! :(

Edited by 275 GTB-4, 11 January 2014 - 22:41.


#345 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,517 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 11 January 2014 - 11:27

You just opened a whole new can of worms....would the system shut down the car and sulk if you drove through a muddy puddle? 

A good point.  For the last several weeks, I have been negotiating various flooded roads in Surrey, sometimes passable, sometimes not.  How would an autonomous car cope with suddenly finding that the High Street is under a foot of water?  Drive on regardless, or turn round and find another route, or just crash (in the Microsoft sense, I mean)?  Given that currently many drivers follow their satnavs's instructions irresepctive of what they can themselves see, we cannot rely on the 'driver' to decide to override the computer controls.



#346 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,052 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 12 January 2014 - 00:28

There will be setbacks for the autonom cars too. Crashes and discussions around it. We are getting close when mainstream media is talking about it in regards to standard cars getting this.

 

Still funny this one. :rotfl:


Edited by MatsNorway, 12 January 2014 - 00:29.


#347 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,923 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 12 January 2014 - 09:51

A good point.  For the last several weeks, I have been negotiating various flooded roads in Surrey, sometimes passable, sometimes not.  How would an autonomous car cope with suddenly finding that the High Street is under a foot of water?  Drive on regardless, or turn round and find another route, or just crash (in the Microsoft sense, I mean)?  Given that currently many drivers follow their satnavs's instructions irresepctive of what they can themselves see, we cannot rely on the 'driver' to decide to override the computer controls.


Its just PRIMARY safety...airliners have had the ability to fly and land on autopilot for years...but primary safety considerations mean human in the loop is mandated.

#348 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,517 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 12 January 2014 - 20:18

Its just PRIMARY safety...airliners have had the ability to fly and land on autopilot for years...but primary safety considerations mean human in the loop is mandated.

So what does that mean?  If the autonomous system sees a puddle it will give up and hand over to the human?  



#349 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,457 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 12 January 2014 - 21:00

The floods thing, all joking aside, is an interesting point. Drivers have the subconscious ability to read the terrain, know the length of visible stem on a daffodil before the flower head and thereby judge the depth of water; they know the height of their exhausts off the road and therefore know what depth they can drive through; see how much of another car's wheel is visible; all these things register without a deliberate attempt to gather such information. It will require some database to encompass all that the average driver knows without knowing he knows...



#350 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,923 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 13 January 2014 - 05:21

So what does that mean?  If the autonomous system sees a puddle it will give up and hand over to the human?


The floods thing, all joking aside, is an interesting point. Drivers have the subconscious ability to read the terrain, know the length of visible stem on a daffodil before the flower head and thereby judge the depth of water; they know the height of their exhausts off the road and therefore know what depth they can drive through; see how much of another car's wheel is visible; all these things register without a deliberate attempt to gather such information. It will require some database to encompass all that the average driver knows without knowing he knows...


The automated system will not be allowed to take control in the first place, unless a big bunch of "what ifs" and "WTFs!" are solved.

Hey Bloggs, you do realise that as long as you keep the revs up, your exhaust pipe can be under water? (its when the water starts to come into the inlet side you risk damaging an engine due to hydrostatic lock).

 

As for your theoretical, I would image that the autonomous system would tend to be risk averse when faced with a few unknowns, and throw on its hazard lights and try to either back out or do a u turn whatever to find an alternate route.


Edited by 275 GTB-4, 13 January 2014 - 05:21.