Aren't self-driving cars impractical?

[ponderingturtle]

These comments both assume the robo-car will be driving itself all the time. You could have a system that changes from human to machine control at certain points on the road - like on/off ramps, or certain major intersections, so that while you do have a mixed sytem during the transition, the particular road you're on at the moment will be one or the other, not both.

You'd need to engineer a system so that such transfers are safe, but that's a sovable problem, IMO.

I don't see building public roads for only self driving cars to be politically possible. I don't see that as likely, as it would be seen as a Lexus and BMW only road initially.

 

[Horatius]

I don't see building public roads for only self driving cars to be politically possible. I don't see that as likely, as it would be seen as a Lexus and BMW only road initially.

Perhaps we could start with roads in some foreign place where the rich folk don't care about such things. Once they work out the bugs, we can get Ford to start using in in North America. That also addresses the liability issue.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Perhaps we could start with roads in some foreign place where the rich folk don't care about such things. Once they work out the bugs, we can get Ford to start using in in North America. That also addresses the liability issue.

The point is that it is no the rich who block it, but the middle class and poor, who don't want to see expensive public investments for the rich. And roads are very obvious to the public so they are going to get noticed when they start using eminent domain to build them and such.

I guess in some countries you might have the right sort of demographics/political structure to make it work. But only the middle east seems likely.

 

[roger]

I'm looking outside my window right now and I see snow and ice. Snow and ice that requires manuevering, and cannot be input into a database.

On my way to/from work I drive through a few construction zones. They have men standing out there with stop/slow signs, and wave you through. Other places use cones to merge 3 lanes into 2, etc.

I also pass some industrial buildings. You have to deal with semi's backed up to loading docks, blocking a lane or more.

One time recently while driving through a bridge construction zone I had to zig quickly because of stuff falling from the overpass that was being worked on above me.

This weekend I drove to the mountains of WV to do some xcountry skiing. Among the hazards I encountered included:
dense foliage coverage (counts as a hazard if you are using GPS to navigate)
road kill
live animals (one time I made this trip and there were two farmers standing by the road waving their hands down in the "slow down" symbol. I did, and in a blind corner I encountered a large cow standing in the middle of the road, having busted through a fence).
potholes
a small blizzard
ice/snow on the road
sliding cars (see above)


I think we are a long way from being able to deal with those kinds of things. I can think of ways to completely change the infrastructure to deal with these things (transmitters along the road, secondary road systems for things like delivery trucks, dumptrucks, etc., etc), but that means redoing the entire us road system. That's not going to happen, so the systems will have to deal with the current chaotic system.

 

[Dave1001]

I don't see building public roads for only self driving cars to be politically possible. I don't see that as likely, as it would be seen as a Lexus and BMW only road initially.

I think it will start with autopilot car functions being confined to the left-most lanes of highways, and with human driven cars being able to share that (very boring, predictable) space

 

[Dave1001]

I'm looking outside my window right now and I see snow and ice. Snow and ice that requires manuevering, and cannot be input into a database.

On my way to/from work I drive through a few construction zones. They have men standing out there with stop/slow signs, and wave you through. Other places use cones to merge 3 lanes into 2, etc.

I also pass some industrial buildings. You have to deal with semi's backed up to loading docks, blocking a lane or more.

One time recently while driving through a bridge construction zone I had to zig quickly because of stuff falling from the overpass that was being worked on above me.

This weekend I drove to the mountains of WV to do some xcountry skiing. Among the hazards I encountered included:
dense foliage coverage (counts as a hazard if you are using GPS to navigate)
road kill
live animals (one time I made this trip and there were two farmers standing by the road waving their hands down in the "slow down" symbol. I did, and in a blind corner I encountered a large cow standing in the middle of the road, having busted through a fence).
potholes
a small blizzard
ice/snow on the road
sliding cars (see above)


I think we are a long way from being able to deal with those kinds of things. I can think of ways to completely change the infrastructure to deal with these things (transmitters along the road, secondary road systems for things like delivery trucks, dumptrucks, etc., etc), but that means redoing the entire us road system. That's not going to happen, so the systems will have to deal with the current chaotic system.

This ignores the possibility of scaled roll out and mechanisms to switch back to human driver (and in addition, to switchover to remote driver, predator drone style).

 

[Dave1001]

A lot of this is analogous to previous mixed usage periods:

1. switchover from horses to cars, with a mixed use period.
2. our current mixed use period of regular cars and SUVs.

with the non-prohibitive dangers and challenges both periods presented.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think it will start with autopilot car functions being confined to the left-most lanes of highways, and with human driven cars being able to share that (very boring, predictable) space

And that is fine, but I was saying that I don't see special roads being built for self driving cars. So any self driving car has to deal with the real world situation. This is why they are so hard to make, as opposed to robots moving things around in a hospital that has a much more controlled environment.

 

[roger]

This ignores the possibility of scaled roll out and mechanisms to switch back to human driver (and in addition, to switchover to remote driver, predator drone style).

I didn't address it because it seems very far fetched to me. I don't want a system where people are largely unpracticed driving, but suddenly given control in a difficult situation. I don't want a system where people have been zoning out and ignoring things for 1 hour suddenly have to take charge of the car.

Yes, eventually all of that could be solved. But my objection was that we are not anywhere near that, not that we could never get there.

 

[IllegalArgument]

I think one of the major selling points of these 'self-driving cars' would be that speed limits could be increased quite a bit. For instance, if you are on a highway where only self-driving cars are permitted to drive on, why not raise the speed limit to 180km/hr? I've seen videos of lines of these self-driving cars driving at extremely fast speeds, in perfect precision about a foot away from each other.

Also, if these onboard computers had a live always on Internet link (Which could easily be done today through Cellemetry or Satellite), and up to the minute road, traffic and weather conditions, speeds limits could be variable by the second, and every car would automagically adjust.

It opens up an awful lot of exciting possibilities for sure.

Seems like a neat idea till a car blows a tire in that perfect formation.

In the future a car might be able to handle a situation like that better than a human, but I would still like plenty of room and speeds set well within human or machine reaction times.

 

[Dave1001]

And that is fine, but I was saying that I don't see special roads being built for self driving cars. So any self driving car has to deal with the real world situation. This is why they are so hard to make, as opposed to robots moving things around in a hospital that has a much more controlled environment.

oh, I agree with your assessment. I just thing the necessary technology is already in place, it's mostly just software programming and design issues now. Because anything that makes people pay a little more for cars is a great market for car manufacturers (think satellite radio), and because business and the self-employed will love the write-off, I see this technology developing very rapidly as a product. In 5 years tops cars will be making long highway trips and commutes in autopilot while human occupants nap, work, or engage in leisure. In 10 years tops cars and segway-type sidewalk vehicles will transport human occupants through complex urban environments like New York City, anywhere door to door. It's a little harder to predict when this will move to airspace (flying self-piloted cars from take-off to landing), but if I had to nail down a date, it would be 20 years from now.

 

[roger]

In 5 years tops cars will be making long highway trips and commutes in autopilot while human occupants nap, work, or engage in leisure.

Please cite the road construction projects now in place that are preparing for this.

 

[Dave1001]

I didn't address it because it seems very far fetched to me. I don't want a system where people are largely unpracticed driving, but suddenly given control in a difficult situation. I don't want a system where people have been zoning out and ignoring things for 1 hour suddenly have to take charge of the car.

Yes, eventually all of that could be solved. But my objection was that we are not anywhere near that, not that we could never get there.

I actually think we're quite near that. I think the analogy is fire and emergency evacuation from public buildings and vehicles. Fight Club the movie demonstrated the absurdity of the precautions and the resources we're offered. Offering real control-override of the vehicle I think is reasonable in our current and near-future transitionary period when people are still practiced drivers, but after a few years we might as well stick in surplus laminated emergency instruction cards from commercial airline companies. And make car seat cushions floatable.

 

[Dave1001]

Please cite the road construction projects now in place that are preparing for this.

This would be on current highways. I think the leftmost lanes of current American highways, and the stable traffic patterns in them are suitable for existing car autopilot technology.

 

[ponderingturtle]

oh, I agree with your assessment. I just thing the necessary technology is already in place, it's mostly just software programming and design issues now. Because anything that makes people pay a little more for cars is a great market for car manufacturers (think satellite radio), and because business and the self-employed will love the write-off, I see this technology developing very rapidly as a product. In 5 years tops cars will be making long highway trips and commutes in autopilot while human occupants nap, work, or engage in leisure. In 10 years tops cars and segway-type sidewalk vehicles will transport human occupants through complex urban environments like New York City, anywhere door to door. It's a little harder to predict when this will move to airspace (flying self-piloted cars from take-off to landing), but if I had to nail down a date, it would be 20 years from now.

Mabey. It depends on market and many other things. It would have legal hurdles first, can you sleep while driving and such. IF the car is driving and rearends someone who is liable.

I could see the military starting first.

Now one it gets to the public I suspect that it would be with in 5 to 10 years that most cars sold would have such a system.

 

[Ben Tilly]

As others have pointed out, I think this is the wrong approach.

I already have mapping software on my Pocket PC that when connected to my matchbook sized GPS device can tell me the following:
1) Exactly where I am within 1-2 feet accuracy
2) The name of the street I am on
3) Whether the street is One Way or not.
4) Where the next intersection is
5) The current speed limit
6) My current speed
7) The exact route to get to my destination
8) How long it will take me to get to my destination based on my average speed, and the speed limits on the roads I will take to get there

And this same software comes with some disclaimers that you should pay attention to. Search for the word "river" in http://www.newsbits.net/1999/19990109.htm to find a relevant amusing incident.

Furthermore if you wish to discover exactly how unreliable that data is, try using it to navigate around Boston. (I was once part of a discussion among programmers from Boston. They each had favorite examples of how various mapping solutions don't work for different areas of Boston.)

So we're not that far off as it is. The only problem with it, is that the maps are not completely up to date. But who has this information? Municipalities. When new roads are being built, or construction is happened on existing roads they have all of this information. If this information was constantly being updated in a publically available database, the car would have absolutely no need to read street signs.

I am not trusting my life to the quality of data entry at municipalities. Nor, I think, would anyone who actually has experience with accepting and cleaning data feeds from different sources.

And that's just based on general principles! When I think through personal experiences, well I know of a "street" that was on city maps in Victoria, BC for 20 years that was actually a footpath, and I can find you signs in Santa Monica that were supposed to be taken down over a year ago that are just sitting on the interstate. And those are just errors that come immediately to mind off of the top of my head.

This is not even getting into the fact that in event of an accident there may be emergency signs that are only up for a few hours. Is this the kind of thing that needs to go in and out of a GPS system? (I guarantee that it won't actually be maintained...)

(Plus there is the Boston Problem.)

Cheers,
Ben

 

[Ben Tilly]

A lot of this is analogous to previous mixed usage periods:

1. switchover from horses to cars, with a mixed use period.
2. our current mixed use period of regular cars and SUVs.

with the non-prohibitive dangers and challenges both periods presented.

I'd like to solve the second problem by banning SUVs. Or at least requiring that SUV owners get and maintain a license demonstrating a true need for operating such hazardous equipment. A license that excludes over 90% of current SUV drivers. (In particular if your reason is that you feel safe in an SUV, then you're a moron who doesn't understand statistics. If you have a bunch of kids, then get a minivan instead. They don't look as cool but they do a lot better in accidents.)

Cheers,
Ben

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'd like to solve the second problem by banning SUVs. Or at least requiring that SUV owners get and maintain a license demonstrating a true need for operating such hazardous equipment. A license that excludes over 90% of current SUV drivers. (In particular if your reason is that you feel safe in an SUV, then you're a moron who doesn't understand statistics. If you have a bunch of kids, then get a minivan instead. They don't look as cool but they do a lot better in accidents.)

Cheers,
Ben

But I can find more SUV's I can actualy see out of to drive than I can minivans.

If they build a minivan that a tall man can drive instead of short women, I might concider it if I needed it.

 

[Ben Tilly]

I think you overstate the effect of trial lawyers to retard the deployment of new technology in America. There's a reason cars are widely available in the first place in America despite the existence of trial lawyers. There isn't a substantively new problem introduced with self-driving car technology, in my opinion. People sue car companies now, and they'll sue car companies then. Juries and judges will still make their own decisions on the topics of liability and damages. Let's not overreduce complex social phenomena.

Self-parking cars are only just now becoming available in the USA. They have been around in Japan and England since 2003. My understanding is that the gap was due to concern about liability issues.

Would you care to offer your theory on why this feature took so long to enter the USA?

Thanks,
Ben

 

[Ben Tilly]

But I can find more SUV's I can actualy see out of to drive than I can minivans.

If they build a minivan that a tall man can drive instead of short women, I might concider it if I needed it.

Have you test-driven a Toyota Sienna? I have, and visibility was very good. Furthermore it was one of the best-fitting seats that thi 6' 3" man has ever found.

Fitting a person to a car is a matter of both size and proportions. I'm tall with normal legs and a very long torso. In a normal car I have to lean the seat back (so my head doesn't hit the ceiling), scoot the seat forward (so my arms reach the steering wheel) and then put up with my knees bumping the steering wheel. In the Sienna I had enough headroom that I didn't need to lean the seat back, and there is a telescoping steering wheel so reaching the wheel is a complete nonissue.

If you're under 7' tall, you should have no problem getting comfortable in that van. (And you'll be safer as well.) If you're taller than that, it is still worth giving it a try.

Cheers,
Ben