Aren't self-driving cars impractical?

[Michael Redman]

Most modern consumer technology comes out in Asia before the US, and often Europe, too. Liability concerns are probably not the reason.

I think cars that continue to be driven by humans, but which actively monitor the situation and actively avoid accidents are a more likely next step than cars that self-navigate.

 

[Ben Tilly]

Most modern consumer technology comes out in Asia before the US, and often Europe, too. Liability concerns are probably not the reason.

I'd heard that liability concerns are the reason. I've never heard any alternate theory provided. If you have an alternate, I'm all ears.

I think cars that continue to be driven by humans, but which actively monitor the situation and actively avoid accidents are a more likely next step than cars that self-navigate.

I'd agree. It would, after all, be a logical next step after things like ABS.

Cheers,
Ben

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'd heard that liability concerns are the reason. I've never heard any alternate theory provided. If you have an alternate, I'm all ears.

Explain how liability concerns effect cellphones? The ones in the US are also less advanced than in europe and asia.

 

[Ben Tilly]

Explain how liability concerns effect cellphones? The ones in the US are also less advanced than in europe and asia.

Good example. And that one has very different causes.

A good deal of that discrepancy is that the USA wound up prematurely sticking with the wrong standard. Secondly they have wound up being marketed very differently in the USA than elsewhere. (In part this is tied to different geography, in part to a different pricing structure.)

However that said, I'll note that the USA is ahead in one respect on cellphones. The portion of the population that chooses to only have a cellphone is much higher in the USA than in Europe or Japan. (Or at least this was true a couple of years ago, which was the last time I looked. And the reason had to do with the pricing structure.)

Another area where Asia is going to lead the way for idiosyncratic reasons is the switch to IPv6. The reason for that being, of course, that they have far too small a fraction of the IPv4 address space for the number of users that are coming online.

But something like self-parking cars doesn't have any obvious difference like that in the markets. And the USA is the largest market in the world for cars. Why would Toyota forgo a potential competitive advantage in that market?

Cheers,
Ben

 

[roger]

I don't want a car that self parks; I want a car that finds the nearest parking spot. I'd pay for that.

 

[Michael Redman]

I'd heard that liability concerns are the reason. I've never heard any alternate theory provided. If you have an alternate, I'm all ears.

Why would Toyota forgo a market advantage? I don't know. Why do Japanese companies frequently forgo the competitive advantage of selling the latest gadgets in the US as soon as they come out in Japan? I don't know. But they do. I don't have an alternate theory, except whatever it is that causes the same situation in other industries.

The fact that you may have heard that it was due to liability concerns is, in my opinion, of absolutely no value. In case you haven't noticed, there's a certain industry in this country that spends a great deal of time and money planting the idea in everyones minds that lawsuits are the cause of all our ills. That industry is driving changes in our legal system, and that industry is experiencing profit growth that would make some oil executives blush. Unless I heard it directly from an auto company, I wouldn't pay very much attention.

 

[Dave1001]

I think cars that continue to be driven by humans, but which actively monitor the situation and actively avoid accidents are a more likely next step than cars that self-navigate.

Who claimed otherwise? In fact, I'd hazard that pretty much everyone in this thread who thinks that cars that self-navigate are a near-term reality would agree with you.

 

[Michael Redman]

I don't want a car that self parks; I want a car that finds the nearest parking spot. I'd pay for that.

Exactly. Parallel parking isn't hard. Find a space can be. I really like the idea of a car that can drop you off at the door and go park itself.

 

[Dave1001]

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

I think there are a variety of possibilities. Not every product lag in the United States is due to liability concerns. I think relatively few are. For example, all sorts of cell phone and computer gadgetry have lagged in introduction to the US for reasons other than liability concerns. One possibility is that Toyota tested out the technology in the Japanese market first.

This isn't to say that the American tort system deserves continuing scrutiny. But it should be deliberative, evidence-based review, not bumper sloganish denunciations of trial lawyers, in my opinion.

 

[Ben Tilly]

Why would Toyota forgo a market advantage? I don't know. Why do Japanese companies frequently forgo the competitive advantage of selling the latest gadgets in the US as soon as they come out in Japan? I don't know. But they do. I don't have an alternate theory, except whatever it is that causes the same situation in other industries.

The fact that you may have heard that it was due to liability concerns is, in my opinion, of absolutely no value. In case you haven't noticed, there's a certain industry in this country that spends a great deal of time and money planting the idea in everyones minds that lawsuits are the cause of all our ills. That industry is driving changes in our legal system, and that industry is experiencing profit growth that would make some oil executives blush. Unless I heard it directly from an auto company, I wouldn't pay very much attention.

So you have no alternate theory and you reject out of hand the only theory that has been offered.

I don't have a link to the manufacturers saying that. But googling around on this topic I found something related involving self driving cars, http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=107011 is very interesting. It has an announcement by GM (a US company) that they're planning to sell a car that can drive itself in busy highway traffic. But they're planning to sell it in Germany, not the USA. And edmonds (which is a pretty good resource on all things automotive) cites as the likely reason..liability issues.

Which, incidentally, suggests that some of us were right on how self driving cars are going to become reality. They'll start with simpler parts of the problems and slowly build up to complex reality.

Cheers,
Ben

 

[Cuddles]

What happens now?

Accidents.

 

[Dave1001]

So you have no alternate theory and you reject out of hand the only theory that has been offered.

I don't have a link to the manufacturers saying that. But googling around on this topic I found something related involving self driving cars, http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=107011 is very interesting. It has an announcement by GM (a US company) that they're planning to sell a car that can drive itself in busy highway traffic. But they're planning to sell it in Germany, not the USA. And edmonds (which is a pretty good resource on all things automotive) cites as the likely reason..liability issues.

Which, incidentally, suggests that some of us were right on how self driving cars are going to become reality. They'll start with simpler parts of the problems and slowly build up to complex reality.

Cheers,
Ben

Great find, Ben. Although I remain skeptical of your claim that America's tort law system is what drives some technologies being introduced in Europe and Japan first, I do appreciate the quality research you're doing to inform us all on this topic.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

No I was looking for something with 4wd(I got really annoyed by a $50 5'tow) and don't need that much space. So I was looking at compact SUV's and subaru's. The subaru's fit nicely, but the Rav4 did not and the matrix just felt off.

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.

I have that same build (call it being 6'5" with a 32" inseam)

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

I was not looking for a van. I just have expected to need to get a full sized van if I ever wanted one.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Accidents.

See it is not a change. You are letting perfect become the enemy of better.

 

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

See it is not a change. You are letting perfect become the enemy of better.

But as I've already mentioned, using a sign-recognition system for a self-driving car to gleen road information as opposed to a database would be a step backwards from what we already have.

The car would have no clue what the speed limit would be for the road ahead. Or traffic. Or road conditions. Or construction. Today with my GPS, I at least know how long it's going to take me from point A to point B, because speed limits are in the map database. If it only relied on information it could currently 'see', it's no better than a human driving. And yet there would be no need to artificially limit it to the capabilities of a human.

This type of system might work best with a database and being able to respond to visual cues. 'Hey, that sure doesn't look like a road! It looks more like a staircase!'.

However, I still hold to my original idea that a database of road information would be a better solution than relying on visual information. Data is king as far as I'm concerned.

 

[roger]

Well, why would we have speed limits if we had these cars? The reason for speed limits is to keep people from driving faster than conditions allow. Before we are going to let a car drive itself, it is going to have to be able to identify all possible dangers in the area, and respond appropriately. Kids playing beside the road? I slow down. Kid kicking a ball? I slow WAAAAY down. Animals feeding? Slow down a bit. Empy straight road where I can see there are no possible hazards? I'd probably be far in excess of the speed limit, if I wasn't a perfect law abiding citizen.

So, why should an auto driving car obey speed limits? The car should never overdrive past it's safety margin - analyze possible hazards, estimate worst case stopping/evasion scenerio, and select a speed to minimize or negate any danger (I suggest minimize because so long as the car is safer than a human driver it needn't be perfectly safe - that's a social decision) .

One answer, of course, is that if it is a mixed use street - human drivers are in the mix. An auto-car might be able to safely exceed the speed limit, but that would entice the human drivers to attempt the same speeds.

So, I don't see how the database will help. The cars have to be able to deal with things that are not in the database; any discrepency between the database and the real world must be decided in favor of the real world conditions. Hence, we have a car that can drive based solely on real world conditions. What does the database add in that case?

 

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Well, why would we have speed limits if we had these cars? The reason for speed limits is to keep people from driving faster than conditions allow. Before we are going to let a car drive itself, it is going to have to be able to identify all possible dangers in the area, and respond appropriately. Kids playing beside the road? I slow down. Kid kicking a ball? I slow WAAAAY down. Animals feeding? Slow down a bit. Empy straight road where I can see there are no possible hazards? I'd probably be far in excess of the speed limit, if I wasn't a perfect law abiding citizen.

So, why should an auto driving car obey speed limits? The car should never overdrive past it's safety margin - analyze possible hazards, estimate worst case stopping/evasion scenerio, and select a speed to minimize or negate any danger (I suggest minimize because so long as the car is safer than a human driver it needn't be perfectly safe - that's a social decision) .

One answer, of course, is that if it is a mixed use street - human drivers are in the mix. An auto-car might be able to safely exceed the speed limit, but that would entice the human drivers to attempt the same speeds.

So, I don't see how the database will help. The cars have to be able to deal with things that are not in the database; any discrepency between the database and the real world must be decided in favor of the real world conditions. Hence, we have a car that can drive based solely on real world conditions. What does the database add in that case?

Obviously they would have to be able to see what's in front of them. But without relying on a database, how would the car know to choose a different route because the road 20 mins away has heavy traffic, or an accident, or construction, or goes through a school zone?

I would agree that real world conditions would trump database information, but could you not see the advantage to having information about all roads on your route before you even set out on your trip?

 

[ponderingturtle]

But as I've already mentioned, using a sign-recognition system for a self-driving car to gleen road information as opposed to a database would be a step backwards from what we already have.

Yes, becuase any roadclosing will be rigously reported. Sign recognition is needed, or you will have cars driving into areas that are closed.

The car would have no clue what the speed limit would be for the road ahead. Or traffic. Or road conditions. Or construction. Today with my GPS, I at least know how long it's going to take me from point A to point B, because speed limits are in the map database. If it only relied on information it could currently 'see', it's no better than a human driving. And yet there would be no need to artificially limit it to the capabilities of a human.

Good to know that is will be ignoreing icy roads and detors and traffic accidents.

All of these are based on visual signals, and will continue to be so. That is why you need a car to look at its suroundings, and when you have that you can have it see and read signs easily.

This type of system might work best with a database and being able to respond to visual cues. 'Hey, that sure doesn't look like a road! It looks more like a staircase!'.

However, I still hold to my original idea that a database of road information would be a better solution than relying on visual information. Data is king as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, and you will be having all kinds of accidents because of it. as for some reason the ice was not in the database.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Obviously they would have to be able to see what's in front of them. But without relying on a database, how would the car know to choose a different route because the road 20 mins away has heavy traffic, or an accident, or construction, or goes through a school zone?

I would agree that real world conditions would trump database information, but could you not see the advantage to having information about all roads on your route before you even set out on your trip?

So what? That is just GPS systems that exist to day. That so trivial to include that it is pointless to mention. But being able to see signs is vital, unless you are suggesting some way that the car can have the deer or the car the broke down on its database.

And if you are postulating such a perfect database, why not have flying hydrogen powered cars as well?

 

[roger]

I would agree that real world conditions would trump database information, but could you not see the advantage to having information about all roads on your route before you even set out on your trip?

Sure, I was just dealing with the speed limit aspect. I probably didn't word my post carefully enough, or got off on a tangent.

Here's another question/issue - a lot of times, I'm navigating by following somebody's directions. You know, go down the street 'til you see the Citgo, then take the second right, then the first left. Or, I'm driving down the road and looking for a restaurant. When I see one that appeals, I pop in. Or, I want to drop somebody off at the door of a business or whatever, then drive and find a parking spot. Databases don't work for that stuff.

That's not an argument that databases are useless. For long distance point to point stuff, they are good. For more spontaneous stuff (find a unmuddy place to park so I can unload my bike near the bike path in a section where it is pretty), they aren't useful at all. Any automatic system is going to have to support that kind of interactive driving and very complex problem solving.

That's not an argument against anything you said personally, Ripley, but more free form observations that the problem is quite difficult, and we aren't close to having the technology to deal with some of the problems of full automatic driving.