Cars are getting way too technical

grogi

Jasmine Damp Skirmish wrote: »

If a motor goes bang there's sweet fa Tesla can do with an update. that's gona be the huge limit on these cars. Who gona buy a 10 year old electric car if you need to bring it to a main dealer if something happens to the motor.

Fortunately it is not the demand for 10-year-old cars that creates the market...

grogi

grogi wrote: »

Fortunately it is not the demand for 10-year-old cars that creates the market...

Fortunately , however that has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Its about mechanics capability of servicing said cars when they reach the age where main dealer servecing is not economical. I.E 3 years +

What you refer to though does matter, it flows down. If you buy a Tesla or any ev and its worth 25/20% trade in after 5 years because they are uneconomical to repair you will soon see the new market take a hit. People don't like to burn money.

Consensus seems to be the electric motor will hold up well, I wonder can the same be said for the computer system and complicated electrics being serviceable by a non main dealer mechanic..

eeguy

Jasmine Damp Skirmish wrote: »

Yeah but say an Indy?

I would imagine you could get computer engineers now who would struggle understanding a new high end cars electrics systems let alone a mechanical engineer\mechanic

To be honest it'll be all black boxes.

Oh this box has broken, unplug it and plug in a new one. The system realises the swap and updates itself.

Old box is returned to manufacturer for recycling or refurbishment.

I'd give it 5 years before an announcement for a publicly available autonomous car. Maybe another 3 years before the first one is released.

In about 20 years you'll be paying extra for the option to drive your own car.

kirving

Autonomous cars are way closer than 5 years.

Tesla Autopilot on the Model S can accelerate, brake, lane change, steer on the highway, park itself, and is available TODAY.

Every major car manufacturer(and lots of others) is working on this technology.

Off topic though. The fact is autonomous cars won't get abused like human drivers do, and electric motors have basically 1 moving part, and are relatively quick to swap out should there be an issue, certainly easier than an engine swap.

bazz26

This thread reminds me that my Nokia 6310i still works but doesn't need a charge yet.

Del2005

bazz26 wrote: »

This thread reminds me that my Nokia 6310i still works but doesn't need a charge yet.

And I've a bicycle that runs forever. But I'll stick with my smartphone that requires charging every night and my hybrid without gears.

gctest50

Jasmine Damp Skirmish wrote: »

Yeah but say an Indy?

I would imagine you could get computer engineers now who would struggle understanding a new high end cars electrics systems let alone a mechanical engineer\mechanic

Fairly similar


Cash registers went from this sorta yoke :





to this :






no one died

topmanamillion

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Autonomous cars are way closer than 5 years.

Tesla Autopilot on the Model S can accelerate, brake, lane change, steer on the highway, park itself, and is available TODAY.

Every major car manufacturer(and lots of others) is working on this technology.

Off topic though. The fact is autonomous cars won't get abused like human drivers do, and electric motors have basically 1 moving part, and are relatively quick to swap out should there be an issue, certainly easier than an engine swap.

I'm reminded of what Jeremy Clarkson said about autonomous cars a few years back.
Something along the lines of:
"The idea of an autonomous car is wonderful. Sit back and let the car take you where you want to go.
The problem is there'll be someone called Keith and Keith will buy an autonomous car and when it breaks down Keith will think it's a wonderful idea to repair it himself. This will lead to a situation where you meet Keith coming in the opposite direction travelling at 80miles an hour in his botched car and you'll be in your car that you can't stop".

aido79

I think we're looking at the probability of driverless cars becoming more popular in the next 5-10 years due to increased technology in automation. After that in the next 20 years we are more likely, when fusion technology really takes off(pardon the pun), to see alot more cars in the air and not using actual roads.

El_Duderino 09

topmanamillion wrote:

I'm reminded of what Jeremy Clarkson said about autonomous cars a few years back. Something along the lines of: "The idea of an autonomous car is wonderful. Sit back and let the car take you where you want to go. The problem is there'll be someone called Keith and Keith will buy an autonomous car and when it breaks down Keith will think it's a wonderful idea to repair it himself. This will lead to a situation where you meet Keith coming in the opposite direction travelling at 80miles an hour in his botched car and you'll be in your car that you can't stop".

Your car can stop. Kieth's car is botched not yours. How is that different to now? Drivers fall asleep at the wheel these days. Worst case scenario of the driverless era will be as bad as every second, right now - best stick to the current system which is less safe option cos of a Clarkson anicdote?

Handing over control to your most trusted significant other can be nerve wrecking. Handing control to a computer you can't even see will also be a nervy time at first.

So far driverless cars have proven way safer than people driven cars. It's like when you hear a moron who watched a show about plane crashes and thinks flying is SO dangerous that they won't fly again

Interslice

vectra wrote: »

I suppose you don't use a smartphone either?
Watch tv from an antenna possibly?
Pullout the paper map on a journey instead of having satnav?

Etc. Etc,,

Yes and??

El_Duderino 09

Interslice wrote:

Yes and??

And... technology moves on. People either adapt and enjoy the new tech or put on their rose tinted specs, reject it and complain as the world passes them by.

Ah the good old days, when cars NEVER broke down. And when they did break down you could ALWAYS fix it yourself with duct tape and a screw driver. And when you couldn't fix it the mechanic could ALWAYS fix it in minutes by holding a spanner to the engine and pressing his ear to the spanner to hear the vibrations.

Interslice

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And... technology moves on. People either adapt and enjoy the new tech or put on their rose tinted specs, reject it and complain as the world passes them by.

Ah the good old days, when cars NEVER broke down. And when they did break down you could ALWAYS fix it yourself with duct tape and a screw driver. And when you couldn't fix it the mechanic could ALWAYS fix it in minutes by holding a spanner to the engine and pressing his ear to the spanner to hear the vibrations.

I just recognise the difference between good and bad technology. 600 channels of bollix etc.

Interslice

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And... technology moves on. People either adapt and enjoy the new tech or put on their rose tinted specs, reject it and complain as the world passes them by.

Ah the good old days, when cars NEVER broke down. And when they did break down you could ALWAYS fix it yourself with duct tape and a screw driver. And when you couldn't fix it the mechanic could ALWAYS fix it in minutes by holding a spanner to the engine and pressing his ear to the spanner to hear the vibrations.

I just recognise the difference between good and bad technology. 600 channels of bollix etc.

grogi

Interslice wrote: »

I just recognise the difference between good and bad technology. 600 channels of bollix etc.

Technology advanced enough is not distinguishable from magic... And people are afraid of magic, that's understandable...

NyOmnishambles

gctest50 wrote: »

Fairly similar


Cash registers went from this sorta yoke :

even after the digital ones became common and affordable for a small rural shop keeper the older one still had the advantage that in the winter when it was likely that the power would fail a couple of times due to storms you could hand crank the mechanism for the old one and they worked perfectly if a little slowly

Interslice

grogi wrote: »

Technology advanced enough is not distinguishable from magic... And people are afraid of magic, that's understandable...

Aye the atomic bomb is a paul daniels special. All technology ever was good? Idiot.

Jayop

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Your car can stop. Kieth's car is botched not yours. How is that different to now? Drivers fall asleep at the wheel these days. Worst case scenario of the driverless era will be as bad as every second, right now - best stick to the current system which is less safe option cos of a Clarkson anicdote?

Handing over control to your most trusted significant other can be nerve wrecking. Handing control to a computer you can't even see will also be a nervy time at first.

So far driverless cars have proven way safer than people driven cars. It's like when you hear a moron who watched a show about plane crashes and thinks flying is SO dangerous that they won't fly again

Don't forget that it will make it even easier for the illuminate to know where you are too. :eek:

El_Duderino 09

Interslice wrote:

I just recognise the difference between good and bad technology. 600 channels of bollix etc.

With respect, that's the problem. Adapting to technology doesn't mean doing exactly the same thing with the new technology as you did with the old. It means a rethink about how to use the technology.

The modern solution is to decide what you want to watch and stream it immediately. The old style way is to sit flicking between 600 channels of bollix and complain about modern technology.

Driverless cars will also mean a complete rethink about driving. For one thing you can reimagine the seating areangement there would be no need for fixed forward facing seats. Car seating means people in front are faced away from the ones on the back. It means talking to the back of the driver's head. Travelling can mean family time, facing each other chatting as if you were around the kitchen table. Or snoozing in a reclining chair.

Think of all the people on the road today who are driving while eating a breakfast roll, doing their make up, texting etc. All creating a danger by dividing their attention. All those people can flick on auto drive and get there safely.

It's hard to argue against, in my opinion.

CiniO

gctest50 wrote: »

Fairly similar


Cash registers went from this sorta yoke :





to this :




no one died

There's one significent difference.

There were very few people who actually derived pleasure from using old style tills, comparing to using new electronic ones.
And those people who did, I'm sure they are still using the old ones.

On the other hand, there's huge proportion of drivers, who actually enjoy driving and dervice pleasure from doing it.
And that's the reason, why normal cars, won't disapper for a very very long time.
I'm sure there will be self driving cars in the future, but it will only be some percentage of traffic among other cars being driven by humans same as this days.

grogi

CiniO wrote: »

On the other hand, there's huge proportion of drivers, who actually enjoy driving and dervice pleasure from doing it.
And that's the reason, why normal cars, won't disapper for a very very long time.
I'm sure there will be self driving cars in the future, but it will only be some percentage of traffic among other cars being driven by humans same as this days.

As I said before - the insurance premiums will reduce the numbers of those who drive to just few.

Sabre Man

Just think about the possibilities: a car that automatically stays in or returns to the left lane instead of hogging the middle lane on a motorway when there is nobody to overtake. Wouldn't that be great? I have no doubt this will be a reality at some stage.

vectra

Interslice wrote: »

Yes and??

In other words
Go with the flow.

Most if not all new cars are superior to old buckets that were around many moons ago.
I remember the garages being extremely busy in my town when I was very young.
I wounder what the mechanics were up to all day?

They awere hardly fixing cars that never broke down were they?

Take for instance the safety factor.

Brakes Now they are superior to old drum brakes that I remember.

I have active cruise control in my current car.
That has kicked in when I may not have been 100% alert and I was damn glad I had it.

Where would I have been 30 years ago in a mk1 escort with crap brakes?

Lights..
I remember light with a big huge ballon of a bulb inside a headlamp unit that would not illiminate 10 feet in front of you.
Now look at the lights we have.

Tyre technology
Old Vs new?
Which would you go for?

Need I go on?

lawred2

bimble wrote: »

Its not that long ago when you could fix a car yourself with a few spanners a screw driver and a basic socket set.
But to see what they are putting into cars now is just insane, and where will it stop.
Cars that park themselves, if you cannot park a car you should not be driving in the first place
Stop and start at traffic lights, where the money you saved on fuel goes to pay for twice as many starter motors
Then there's the cars that stay a certain distance from the car in front again, basic driving skills, that the driver should be capable of. what happen if the owner of a car with this tech has to drive a car or van without these aids, they have become reliant on, it would be carnage
While safety should always come 1st we are headed to the day when the driver will be a thing of the past
Then there's the fact that I don't want a car full of tech, power steering and central locking is as high tech as I want. 10 or 20 years from now will we be able to buy a car you drive yourself
Not to mention the fact that with all this tech, cars are no more reliable than they were in the early 90s
Now cars have to be hooked up to a computer which from my experience tell the technician absolutely nothing so end up change several parts until the problem is solved so it ends up costing more. Bring back the simple cars with simple mechanics and simple to fix, that we drive ourselves

you'd be happier with a horse and cart by the sound of it

bimble

lawred2 wrote: »

you'd be happier with a horse and cart by the sound of it

Your getting the wrong end of the stick, while there will always be safety improvement, better lights, brakes, traction control etc.
We do a driving tests for a reason, if someone is not capable of parking a car themselves or staying a safe distance from the car in front, they simply should not be driving on the road.

Instead of making cars that allow bad drivers to stay on the road, they should be taken off the road. Its the same people who have been in numerous accidents. I know of a girl who wrote off 4 cars before the age of 21, she shouldn't be allowed on the road again.

Iv been driving 27 years never had a claim against me, yet my insurance stays the same if not increases every year to pay for the bad drivers.

That's why these aids are being put in cars now, is because the are more poor drivers than good drivers on the roads, hence why in the not too distant future I will have no option but to by a car full of driver aids that i don't want

wonski

bimble wrote: »

That's why these aids are being put in cars now, is because the are more poor driver than good drivers on the roads, hence why in the not too distant future I will have no option but to by a car full of driver aids that i don't want

I doubt that was the main reason.

It's like saying that remote unlock was introduced because drivers were not capable of using a car key

lawred2

bimble wrote: »

Your getting the wrong end of the stick, while there will always be safety improvement, better lights, brakes, traction control etc.
We do a driving tests for a reason, if someone is not capable of parking a car themselves or staying a safe distance from the car in front, they simply should not be driving on the road.

Instead of making cars that allow bad drivers to stay on the road, they should be taken off the road. Its the same people who have been in numerous accidents. I know of a girl who wrote off 4 cars before the age of 21, she shouldn't be allowed on the road again.

Iv been driving 27 years never had a claim against me, yet my insurance stays the same if not increases every year to pay for the bad drivers.

That's why these aids are being put in cars now, is because the are more poor drivers than good drivers on the roads, hence why in the not too distant future I will have no option but to by a car full of driver aids that i don't want

Surely vehicle technology that makes her safer to other road users is a good thing...

El_Duderino 09

CiniO wrote:

On the other hand, there's huge proportion of drivers, who actually enjoy driving and dervice pleasure from doing it. And that's the reason, why normal cars, won't disapper for a very very long time. I'm sure there will be self driving cars in the future, but it will only be some percentage of traffic among other cars being driven by humans same as this days.

No argument there but there is a major distinction between cash registers and cars. Cars have 2 distinct uses: pleasure and transport.

I will often add half an hour to my journey on a leisurely Sunday drive but don't think anyone would honestly add half an hour to their commute to work for the pleasure of driving.

Of course manually driven cars will always be around for pleasure driving. That's the pure way to drive. Getting places is a different matter though. Automated cars would be quicker in traffic and much, much safer.

Commute to work in the automatic car, take the manual for a spin in your in time.

It's a bit like the old records. People still use them on a relaxing evening but nobody would consider taking a 13inch record player for a walk. The modern solution has completely won the battle of convenience vs pure music sound, but records still exist for purists to enjoy.

H3llR4iser

Driverless cars have some applications, but the way the idea is being "sold" to us is unrealistic; The concept that, in just a few years everybody will travel on an "autonomous car" is probably one of the stupidest flights of fancy mankind ever embarked into.

One of the biggest issues nobody talks about is the fact autonomous cars won't ever be able to share the road efficiently with humans, be them drivers, pedestrians or cyclists. The reason is simple - no matter how refined your AI is, there will be scenarios and situations occurring that it can't deal with efficiently. A very simple example: human driver at a stop sign, looks around, sees autonomous car coming up. The human driver knows the AI will do anything to avoid an accident, so he/she just starts, knowing the AI-driven car will stop; Second human driver does the same, and a stream after - the self-driving car is now paralyzed in place. You just witnessed a simple, yet effective exploit of the characteristics of the AI.

Is there a way to close such exploit? Yep, just tell the software that "if somebody jumps a stop sign, just crash into them"...and you've created a conundrum, where you have a theoretically "absolutely safe" vehicle which is programmed to crash in some circumstances. Knowing that, most people would simply not want to be on such vehicle.

In the end, mass adoption of autonomous cars would require either an absolutely enormous investment in infrastructure, creating "self driving cars" corridors or roads, or an abrupt ban on human driving - which is an impossible task to tackle without imposing a massive financial burden on the private citizen and cars manufacturers.

Another issue lays in legal matters. Autonomous cars WILL evenutally get into accidents, since there is no "absolute safety" whatsoever with moving things. In such scenario, how will the legal blame be assigned? Will it be on the software makers? The developer who wrote that specific subroutine? The human in the car who didn't press the big red "STOP" button? The road management company? Good luck with that.

Finally, most of the companies developing the technologies behind self-driving cars are American and see the whole thing from an American perspective - one that uses the private car in every situation and abhors public transport, which is by no means a "one size fits all" approach. Some in this thread made the example about having to commute by bus, and how an autonomous car would allow them to be just as relaxed but not having to share space. That's exactly the problem: 50-60 people occupying one vehicle, all of a sudden become 50-60 vehicles on the road. If I could sit in my car playing a videogame to work, I wouldn't use the DART - even if it took one hour instead of 30 minutes. It would lead to an insane increase in traffic which current roads (not just in Dublin but throughout Europe and anywhere else where public transport is in actual use) would simply be completely unable to cope with, and we'd be back to the "massive infrastructure investment" issue.

Plus, the time spent in a driverless car would still be time spent commuting - yeah, you could read a book but certainly not do housework or be "in the pub" in that time. It's not like an AI taking the wheel will magically transform a car into a teleporting device.

Jayop

bimble wrote: »

Your getting the wrong end of the stick, while there will always be safety improvement, better lights, brakes, traction control etc.
We do a driving tests for a reason, if someone is not capable of parking a car themselves or staying a safe distance from the car in front, they simply should not be driving on the road.

Instead of making cars that allow bad drivers to stay on the road, they should be taken off the road. Its the same people who have been in numerous accidents. I know of a girl who wrote off 4 cars before the age of 21, she shouldn't be allowed on the road again.

Iv been driving 27 years never had a claim against me, yet my insurance stays the same if not increases every year to pay for the bad drivers.

That's why these aids are being put in cars now, is because the are more poor drivers than good drivers on the roads, hence why in the not too distant future I will have no option but to by a car full of driver aids that i don't want

Then it stands to reason that your insurance will go down or you will only need 3rd party f&t saving you money in the future.

ongarite

H3llR4iser, watch the TED video already provided in this thread.
It goes some really crazy real world examples, with the Google driverless car AI able to cope with it fine.
That video is from last year so I can only imagine its improved again as the programming get better.

Driverless cars are approaching quickly in the US with GM and Lyft in a partnership to have driverless taxis on the road within 3 years. Uber with a similar plan also. Driverless trucks from Mercedes Benz too in trails.
http://www.wired.com/2016/01/the-lyft-gm-deal-and-why-you-probably-wont-buy-a-self-driving-car/

El_Duderino 09

bimble wrote:

Your getting the wrong end of the stick, while there will always be safety improvement, better lights, brakes, traction control etc. We do a driving tests for a reason, if someone is not capable of parking a car themselves or staying a safe distance from the car in front, they simply should not be driving on the road.

You got hold of the entirely wrong stick. This would take responsibility away from the terrible driver and mean they aren't a danger to anyone. If you want to prioritise having a go at bad drivers, fine. If you're interested in making roads safer then driverless is your solution.

Driverless would mean all drivers are as safe as your good self. That means you are in less dangerous from bas drivers and everyone can get where they're going.

I have a lot of time for someone who says 'I don't want driverless cars to get popular because i want to drive my car myself' as opposed to someone who says 'driverless can't work because (insert spurious argument here)'.

If you're worried about safety, convenience or fast flowing traffic, then driverless is your obvious solution.
If you are worried about driving and fixing your car for pleasure then go ahead but don't stand I'm the way of progress for people who want it.

Jayop

Remember the will Smith movie which started with him driving a car which was normally driverless and getting a bollocking for it.

El_Duderino 09

H3llR4iser wrote:

Driverless cars have some applications, but the way the idea is being "sold" to us is unrealistic; The concept that, in just a few years everybody will travel on an "autonomous car" is probably one of the stupidest flights of fancy mankind ever embarked into.

It depends on time frames snd imagination of the audience. I remember watching 'tomorrow's world' in the late 80s. They said that in a few short years we could all have a super computer that will fit in your pocket. I wrote this post on exactly that device described but it took 20 years to become ubiquitous.

H3llR4iser wrote:

One of the biggest issues nobody talks about is the fact autonomous cars won't ever be able to share the road efficiently with humans, be them drivers, pedestrians or cyclists. The reason is simple - no matter how refined your AI is, there will be scenarios and situations occurring that it can't deal with efficiently. A very simple example: human driver at a stop sign, looks around, sees autonomous car coming up. The human driver knows the AI will do anything to avoid an accident, so he/she just starts, knowing the AI-driven car will stop; Second human driver does the same, and a stream after - the self-driving car is now paralyzed in place. You just witnessed a simple, yet effective exploit of the characteristics of the AI.

So under the new system there could be problems caused by humans. I think we already deal with human problems today. Not a biggie.

H3llR4iser wrote:

Is there a way to close such exploit? Yep, just tell the software that "if somebody jumps a stop sign, just crash into them"...and you've created a conundrum, where you have a theoretically "absolutely safe" vehicle which is programmed to crash in some circumstances. Knowing that, most people would simply not want to be on such vehicle.

So a person/dog/stray sheep jumps out in the road and it could cause a problem. That happens today but without all the advantages of driverless.

H3llR4iser wrote:

Another issue lays in legal matters. Autonomous cars WILL evenutally get into accidents, since there is no "absolute safety" whatsoever with moving things. In such scenario, how will the legal blame be assigned? Will it be on the software makers? The developer who wrote that specific subroutine? The human in the car who didn't press the big red "STOP" button? The road management company? Good luck with that.

We have legal problems with liability today. You mentioned some new problems and if anything the black box would help solve those problems.

H3llR4iser wrote:

Plus, the time spent in a driverless car would still be time spent commuting - yeah, you could read a book but certainly not do housework or be "in the pub" in that time. It's not like an AI taking the wheel will magically transform a car into a teleporting device.

This is the strangest of all the scenarios you bring up. It's obviously better to commute while reading a book but it's not a teleporter so there's no point? It's better but it's not perfect so don't bother.

Imagine if someone actually suggested using a teleporter. I'd love to hear your argument against that: 'You still have to go to work, the teleporter won't do your job for you so it's not worth changing anything'.

Driverless cars would only solve a lot of the problems we have today, not all of them. Talk about letting the good be the enemy of the perfect.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

Driverless cars would only solve a lot of the problems we have today, not all of them. Talk about letting the good be the enemy of the perfect.

Perfect being the enemy of the good.

eeguy

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Wall of text

I don't think you have any understanding of how this tech operates and you're making up scenarios that fit with your incorrect assumptions.

AlanG

Lots of good points from H3llR4iser in my opinion. In particular how people will be able to exploit AI. Why should a pedestrian or cyclist ever give way if they know for sure a car will stop? How does the AI choose between two types of unavoidable crashes.

Other issues that would have been interesting to see addressed in the TED talk would be leaf fall, flooding, debris on roads, snow and heavy rain. Another thing rarely mentioned is the average speed done during the millions of miles of testing. Only tests conducted at speeds within 5k of the speed limit are really comparable to day to day driving.

Personally I think I will see this within my lifetime but the hype curve is big for this technology.

H3llR4iser

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Of course manually driven cars will always be around for pleasure driving. That's the pure way to drive.

You are wrong on this - let automated cars be widespread enough, and a total ban on human driving will sooner or later be imposed on grounds of "safety".

ongarite wrote: »

H3llR4iser, watch the TED video already provided in this thread.
It goes some really crazy real world examples, with the Google driverless car AI able to cope with it fine.
That video is from last year so I can only imagine its improved again as the programming get better.

Driverless cars are approaching quickly in the US with GM and Lyft in a partnership to have driverless taxis on the road within 3 years. Uber with a similar plan also. Driverless trucks from Mercedes Benz too in trails.
http://www.wired.com/2016/01/the-lyft-gm-deal-and-why-you-probably-wont-buy-a-self-driving-car/

I will watch it, but there's no chance in hell the tech can deal with a human driver PURPOSELY exploiting its inherent characteristics, unless a high degree of aggression is built into the AI - which will make people not want to be driven around by it.

For example:
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/03/google_self_driving_cars_lack_a_human_s_intuition_for_what_other_drivers.html

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you're worried about safety, convenience or fast flowing traffic, then driverless is your obvious solution.
If you are worried about driving and fixing your car for pleasure then go ahead but don't stand I'm the way of progress for people who want it.

But, for you it's fine to stand in the way of people who want to drive themselves. I will reiterate: driverless cars WILL result in the banning of human driving. Maybe not in 10 years, but it will definitely happen.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It depends on time frames snd imagination of the audience. I remember watching 'tomorrow's world' in the late 80s. They said that in a few short years we could all have a super computer that will fit in your pocket. I wrote this post on exactly that device described but it took 20 years to become ubiquitous.

Different things. A "pocket supercomputer" doesn't have legal ramifications, and also is something completely new that doesn't require a major replacement of not only existing technology, but of a gigantic, architectural underlying infrastructure.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So under the new system there could be problems caused by humans. I think we already deal with human problems today. Not a biggie.

So a person/dog/stray sheep jumps out in the road and it could cause a problem. That happens today but without all the advantages of driverless.

What would be the advantage of driverlessness in such situation? Better reaction times? For sure. No human can match a computer in that.

But how would the AI react to somebody essentially taking the piss off of it? We know it'd happen. What is your solution to the issue other than "it's better!"?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We have legal problems with liability today. You mentioned some new problems and if anything the black box would help solve those problems.

True - but not nearly of the same extent. In the end, the ultimate responsibility lays with the driver.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This is the strangest of all the scenarios you bring up. It's obviously better to commute while reading a book but it's not a teleporter so there's no point? It's better but it's not perfect so don't bother.

Imagine if someone actually suggested using a teleporter. I'd love to hear your argument against that: 'You still have to go to work, the teleporter won't do your job for you so it's not worth changing anything'.

Driverless cars would only solve a lot of the problems we have today, not all of them. Talk about letting the good be the enemy of the perfect.

You mentioned that the time spent in "traffic" would be better used doing other things. That when you get home, you still have to do chores and the likes. An autonomous car would do nothing for your housework. You'd still spend your time in traffic. The only real solution to that issue is working remotely - which a great chunk of workers today could easily do. No traffic, no expenses, no wasted time. But no, let's put a tonne of money into driverless cars.

Also, you completely fail to mention how you and another 50 bus passengers, each using a single "driverless car", would be a better thing than one single bus being on the road. Or me and another 200 train passengers.

eeguy wrote: »

I don't think you have any understanding of how this tech operates and you're making up scenarios that fit with your incorrect assumptions.

Enlighten me on how the technology is infallible, in any way that it's not the advertisement speech; Is it capable of essentially dealing with human drivers / wasters doing stuff to confuse the AI on PURPOSE? And doing so without any level of aggression, which we know would scare people away from getting into an AI driven car; it's not just a silly "Terminator" scenario, it's just that feeling the driver doesn't care about his/her own skin isn't exactly the most reassuring situation.

It's the reason airlines don't employ drones - most people would not want to fly on them, one of the things that reassure people is that the pilots would (in most cases) at least try to save their own skin in an emergency.

I'm as much a fan of technology as the next guy, I'm an effing software engineer for crying out loud. I get why people desperately want to dream about this specific technology and why are they so willing to believe what the companies developing it tell them; If I could get into the car, have it drive me to work while I watch a movie, not have to worry about parking because it's gonna drive itself home and come collect me at 7pm, I'd be very happy. I'd also want to be able to disengage all the automated stuff and go around some hairpins in an "unsafe" way on Saturday.

I'm not saying it won't or can't happen, just that it is unlikely it will unfold the way Google et all want us to believe it will; AI vehicles are still a far, far, far cry away from being able to efficiently share the road with humans, and will be for quite some time. Most people commit the fundamental mistake of thinking that AIs are as "easy" to develop as something like smartphones - they aren't. We're still struggling badly to replicate human (or even animal) intuition. Autonomous vehicles will happen (some train systems already are autonomous, see the London DLR), but not without a significant investment in infrastructure, which will take time.

El_Duderino 09

AlanG wrote:

Lots of good points from H3llR4iser in my opinion. In particular how people will be able to exploit AI. Why should a pedestrian or cyclist ever give way if they know for sure a car will stop? How does the AI choose between two types of unavoidable crashes.

The AI car will stop faster than a human but it's not going to magically stop on a 6 pence (olden times reference for people who prefer old money). If you jump out in front of a car travelling at 100kph and it slams on the breaks and only hits you at 60kph, who wins? Back here in reality, people probably won't jump out in front of cars in significantly greater number than now.

Are we talking about Luddites? If people really want to break a system, they can. Gandhi proved that.

If it becomes a problem couldn't they legislate for it? It might mean getting serious about Jay walking offences. Cars are likely to ba fitted with safety cameras so it could be easy to fine someone or hold them criminally responsible for causing a serious accident (facial recognition tech is getting scarily good). Is it lack of imagination or what makes you think these problems would be so resistant to solutions?

How do people decide between 2 types of unavoidable crashes? Most people probably freeze and do nothing or twitch and hit whoever they hit. Somehow some people think that's preferable to the computer making an actual decision.

Interslice

vectra wrote: »

In other words
Go with the flow.

Most if not all new cars are superior to old buckets that were around many moons ago.
I remember the garages being extremely busy in my town when I was very young.
I wounder what the mechanics were up to all day?

They awere hardly fixing cars that never broke down were they?

Take for instance the safety factor.

Brakes Now they are superior to old drum brakes that I remember.

I have active cruise control in my current car.
That has kicked in when I may not have been 100% alert and I was damn glad I had it.

Where would I have been 30 years ago in a mk1 escort with crap brakes?

Lights..
I remember light with a big huge ballon of a bulb inside a headlamp unit that would not illiminate 10 feet in front of you.
Now look at the lights we have.

Tyre technology
Old Vs new?
Which would you go for?

Need I go on?

My point is some tech is good and other is bad. Tyres improving is obviously good as is fuel injection and many others things we take for granted. Much of the other stuff. .. parking sensors and sat nav for example just piss me off. I dread the day when cars come with this stuff as standard. Cruise control I do like but it's not exactly high tech in its simplest form... although I don't like the idea of it being in every car. I think we are better off that some people drive paddy spec micras that require 2 hands on the wheel and both eyes open.

El_Duderino 09

H3llR4iser wrote:

You are wrong on this - let automated cars be widespread enough, and a total ban on human driving will sooner or later be imposed on grounds of "safety".

You seem pretty sure. I'm thinking of cegarettes which we know are not safe. We legislated to make sure the harm is limited but they're not illegal and people can smoke as much as they want. I think there will be a solution where safety and pleasure driving can coexist.

H3llR4iser wrote:

But, for you it's fine to stand in the way of people who want to drive themselves. I will reiterate: driverless cars WILL result in the banning of human driving. Maybe not in 10 years, but it will definitely happen.

See above. Serious lack of imagination to see all these things as unsolvable problems. Even if cars were banned there would almost certainly spring up a race track outside every town where people go to razz their car. Imagine if road cars were built won't with enjoyment in mind. No compromise with the need to do 250,000 miles in its lifetime. You might enjoy the new world.

H3llR4iser wrote:

Different things. A "pocket supercomputer" doesn't have legal ramifications, and also is something completely new that doesn't require a major replacement of not only existing technology, but of a gigantic, architectural underlying infrastructure.

Are you serious? The internet wasn't legislated for 20 years ago. Now we all have a super computer in our pocket with the internet. Lots of legal ramifications but they were dealt with so you take them for granted. We will deal with driverless cars and their new legal ramifications. Some will be preemptive, others will be reactive. Normal progress.

H3llR4iser wrote:

What would be the advantage of driverlessness in such situation? Better reaction times? For sure. No human can match a computer in that.

You're looking for one extreme example where the new system will have little advantage over the current system and trying to pretentious there are no benefits anywhere. Yes if people go out of their way to break a system, they sometimes succeed. They will be martyrs for manual driving.

H3llR4iser wrote:

But how would the AI react to somebody essentially taking the piss off of it? We know it'd happen. What is your solution to the issue other than "it's better!"?

H3llR4iser wrote:

True - but not nearly of the same extent. In the end, the ultimate responsibility lays with the driver.

I'm not a legal expert. I don't think the system is perfect now and I think they will have to adapt rules or rewrite some rules completely. Normal business.

H3llR4iser wrote:

You mentioned that the time spent in "traffic" would be better used doing other things. That when you get home, you still have to do chores and the likes. An autonomous car would do nothing for your housework. You'd still spend your time in traffic. The only real solution to that issue is working remotely - which a great chunk of workers today could easily do. No traffic, no expenses, no wasted time. But no, let's put a tonne of money into driverless cars.

I really don't get this point. You want a driverless car to do the ironing whilst you commute? Sounds like you're blaming driverless cars for things which are not it's fault or its job to fix.

My employer encourages working from home. Change job maybe? Again you're looking for things to blame on driverless cars before they even go on sale.

H3llR4iser wrote:

Also, you completely fail to mention how you and another 50 bus passengers, each using a single "driverless car", would be a better thing than one single bus being on the road. Or me and another 200 train passengers.

Good point. I presume the market will sort itself out here. If the roads become busier, then people will move back towards public transport... just like they do now.

H3llR4iser wrote:

It's the reason airlines don't employ drones - most people would not want to fly on them, one of the things that reassure people is that the pilots would (in most cases) at least try to save their own skin in an emergency.

Don't get me started on people's perception of safety. I listened to a woman who will never fly again after watching a show about plane crashes. No amount of real information would change her mind. Some people are stupid. Can't be helped and it's not my job anyway.

gctest50

bimble wrote: »

Your getting the wrong end of the stick, while there will always be safety improvement, better lights, brakes, traction control etc.
We do a driving tests for a reason, if someone is not capable of parking a car themselves or staying a safe distance from the car in front, they simply should not be driving on the road.

Instead of making cars that allow bad drivers to stay on the road, they should be taken off the road. Its the same people who have been in numerous accidents. I know of a girl who wrote off 4 cars before the age of 21, she shouldn't be allowed on the road again.

Iv been driving 27 years never had a claim against me, yet my insurance stays the same if not increases every year to pay for the bad drivers.

That's why these aids are being put in cars now, is because the are more poor drivers than good drivers on the roads, hence why in the not too distant future I will have no option but to by a car full of driver aids that i don't want

Don't use them then

H3llR4iser

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You seem pretty sure. I'm thinking of cegarettes which we know are not safe. We legislated to make sure the harm is limited but they're not illegal and people can smoke as much as they want. I think there will be a solution where safety and pleasure driving can coexist.

Cigarettes, like alcohol, are something that from a logical standpoint should have been banned long time ago. They aren't because, quite simply, they are a major source of income for most governments through heavy taxation. There isn't anything that can substitute them (except illegal drugs, maybe), and people are so hooked up they don't mind paying taxes through their nose.

Driving is different - most people don't like it and see it as a necessary evil for getting from A to B. Given the opportunity, they'd give it up immediately, as you perfectly exemplify. There would only be an exceedingly small subset of people choosing to drive themselves, and it won't live very long if there would be skyrocketing taxation and insurance costs involved.

Governments and administrations would also quickly realize that keeping human driven cars on the roads is an expense - afterall, if a driverless vehicles management system is seamlessly integrated, it would not require as many traffic lights, road signals nor signage and the likes. They'd need to be specifically maintained for human drivers.

Lastly, once the automated vehicles are everywhere, there'd be heavy pressuring to remove human drivers from the roads as they'd be an "unnecessary risk". And it will happen, whether me and you like it or not.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

See above. Serious lack of imagination to see all these things as unsolvable problems. Even if cars were banned there would almost certainly spring up a race track outside every town where people go to razz their car. Imagine if road cars were built won't with enjoyment in mind. No compromise with the need to do 250,000 miles in its lifetime. You might enjoy the new world.

See above - such racetracks would essentially be unable to sustain themselves with just you, me and another 30 people showing up. There'd be the very same scarcity of tracks that there is today, because people won't be interested just like they aren't nowadays. Most of the people who today say "I like driving" have never been and never will be on a track, and won't go there in a world of driverless cars. Road cars built solely for "enjoyment" would essentially be race cars - with the related costs.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Are you serious? The internet wasn't legislated for 20 years ago. Now we all have a super computer in our pocket with the internet. Lots of legal ramifications but they were dealt with so you take them for granted. We will deal with driverless cars and their new legal ramifications. Some will be preemptive, others will be reactive. Normal progress.

It's something that did not exist before, it appeared along the course of a very long time and that doesn't have the intricacies of physical, moving objects, and did not replace 1:1 something that previously had a clear, legally responsible figure involved.

Again, this is where the absurdly simplistic view most people have of the technology is at an enormous fault - it isn't simply "progress just like a smartphone". You can't physically kill somebody with an internet connection (well, I guess you could hire an assassin with it...), you can with a car. They simply cannot, even by mistake, be put on the same level.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're looking for one extreme example where the new system will have little advantage over the current system and trying to pretentious there are no benefits anywhere. Yes if people go out of their way to break a system, they sometimes succeed. They will be martyrs for manual driving.

No, I'm looking at a very, very, very likely scenario. People do things "just because they can" all the time. For example cyclists and pedestrians routinely ignore red lights as we talk - they do so because they know most drivers will relent, as running somebody over is seldom gonna work in favour of the motorist. If they KNEW the cars, automated, would just faultlessly stop do you seriously think they wouldn't take advantage of it - more than they do today? I'm not talking about "what if a meteorite strikes the road", I'm talking about real and very easy to achieve scenarios.

You can legislate for it for sure, but it already is - you can't cross with the "red man" showing, and you should stop at a red light even if you're on a bicycle, it doesn't seem to stop these events much. The cars will have cameras? Perfect, who's gonna look at all the footage and distinguish between a genuine near miss and, say, a group of pedestrians just jaywalking around? That task can't be automated. Base it on reporting? Could be done, but again human nature would be to overabuse the system and press that "report it!" button at the smallest hiccup, resulting in a whitewash of "false positives".

Google themselves admitted their cars have an awful lot of trouble "reading" other drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. There are University researches about how easy it is to "fool" an AI, even the most advanced ones. I'm not just making stuff up.

People like you and many others go on an simplistic "everything will be better" crusade without really explaining why and how in detail, other than "it will be safer"; You brush away any real and realistic concerns with "technology advances all the time" by drawing comparisons with incomparable, different and unrelated advances in other fields, claiming the technology will do nothing but bring dramatic improvement in our lives, with no added issues and that in any case "it will be legislated for".

As I stated countless times now, autonomous vehicles will happen but they won't be the "drop in" scenario Google et all promote. They'll require a major rethinking of entire cities - it will start with the creation of "autonomous vehicles only" lanes.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I really don't get this point. You want a driverless car to do the ironing whilst you commute? Sounds like you're blaming driverless cars for things which are not it's fault or its job to fix.

My employer encourages working from home. Change job maybe? Again you're looking for things to blame on driverless cars before they even go on sale.

Look man, it's something you said, not me:

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sounds like fun... for 15-20 mins. Do it for an hour and a half each way and it will become a chore and it's 3 hours of dead time out of your life, every working day. We're talking about different things.

It's possible for 20 mins. I'm talking about a long commute. 3 hours of traffic isn't fun because you still have all the domestic jobs to do when you get home and then you can think about socialising... whilst sitting in traffic. Still having fun?

You talk as if a driverless car would give you more time to do the "domestic jobs" and to "socialize". A lot of people seem of the strange idea that automatic cars will decrease traffic - probably they think about the system you can see in "Minority Report"; but they will increase it at the beginning because of all the folks dumping public transport. As you said, it will normalize eventually, but it's another thing that'll require time.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Don't get me started on people's perception of safety. I listened to a woman who will never fly again after watching a show about plane crashes. No amount of real information would change her mind. Some people are stupid. Can't be helped and it's not my job anyway.

And I would agree on the general point, that one is a gross overreaction - you stand more chances of being killed by a falling flowerpot while walking.

Yet, it is hard to blame somebody for feeling more secure in a vehicle driven by somebody whose life is at stake just like theirs, as opposed to something that is either remotely or autonomously controlled. People don't mind it on railways because they are perceived as inherently safe - even 'though there were deadly accidents on the DLR (not caused by the automation directly, btw) but they will raise questions on cars and planes. It's a factor, maybe one that will eventually subside, but that can't just be ignored.

eeguy

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Second wall of text

You argument boils down to "we can't do it right now, so therefore it will take decades".

I understand you're a software developer, but there's a tendency for people to look at technological progress linearly, when in reality it's an exponential.
Every decade we double the rate of progress.

Give it 5 years and Google will be ready to license their tech to Ford or Toyota.

Google's cars drive have driven 2 million miles in the last few years, and simulate 3 million miles of driving daily.

CelticRambler

The way I see it, those of us who like "hands on" driving (without being into all the obsessiveness of tyre brands, brake pad colours and the diameter of injection systems) will quite simply be priced out of existence because of insurance premiums. There's no doubt that autonomous vehicles will be considerably safer than human-driven ones. As in the airline industry, when there is an accident, it'll almost always be shown that a panicked human overriding the good/prudent decision of the onboard computer is to blame.

All the provocations referred to by H3llR4iser will strengthen the argument that humans in charge of propelling themselves (whether on foot or on wheels) are idiots and should be made to pay dearly for the privilege of driving any vehicle that goes faster than 20kmh. For all that some boardies and facebookers might protest, there'll be no protest by the mainstream car-using population because whether motorheads like it or not, most of us really don't care that much.

As soon as Apple announces the release of their iCar, there'll be a queue all night to be the first to buy one; soon after, there'll be four times as many people buying an Android Auto and hacking it. As mentioned above, taxi-firms won't need to be persuaded of the advantages, but neither will ordinary people. Think about your average two-car family - where do those cars sit all day? In the work car-park, going nowhere, or at home on the drive because you decided to take the bus/Dart/Luas. There'll be an immediate saving for such a family if the car can drop worker 1 at his/her place of business, then come home on its own to take the children to school (while you do the ironing :rolleyes: ) and return again to pick up worker 2 and drop them at their office, from where you might instruct it to drive over to granny's so she can do her shopping and collect the children from school in the afternoon.

Most likely, the number of cars on the road won't change, simply because there'll be more reason to *not* have a second car in the family than to buy a self-driving one if you don't already have/use a car.

Jayop

eeguy wrote: »

You argument boils down to "we can't do it right now, so therefore it will take decades".

I understand you're a software developer, but there's a tendency for people to look at technological progress linearly, when in reality it's an exponential.
Every decade we double the rate of progress.

Give it 5 years and Google will be ready to license their tech to Ford or Toyota.

Google's cars drive have driven 2 million miles in the last few years, and simulate 3 million miles of driving daily.

This is key. Does anyone really see Google or Apple to getting into the large scale motor manufacturing business? Their tech will be licensed and ready to roll out very very soon.

The biggest delay will be in updating the law in countries like Ireland. Will they allow for drink driving if you're not in control of the vehicle?

gctest50

Jayop wrote: »

This is key. Does anyone really see Google or Apple to getting into the large scale motor manufacturing business? Their tech will be licensed and ready to roll out very very soon.

The biggest delay will be in updating the law in countries like Ireland. Will they allow for drink driving if you're not in control of the vehicle?

Be okay if there was no steering etc controls, just "press button A for chipshop, press button B for home"

The Healy-Rae lad would be delighted with these yokes :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3422307/London-s-driverless-cars-adapted-shuttle-pods-used-Heathrow-s-Terminal-5.html

London's first driverless cars will be tested on the city's streets this summer as part of an £8 million project.

The vehicles will be adapted from shuttle pods already being used to ferry passengers at Heathrow Airport's Terminal 5, but are now being developed to work without their dedicated tracks.

It is expected that seven of the cars, which resemble small automated train carriages, will be tested out on the streets of Greenwich, south London, this July as part of three pilot schemes.

John T Carroll

Jayop wrote: »

This is key. Does anyone really see Google or Apple to getting into the large scale motor manufacturing business? Their tech will be licensed and ready to roll out very very soon.

The biggest delay will be in updating the law in countries like Ireland. Will they allow for drink driving if you're not in control of the vehicle?

They didn't allow it previously anyway when you weren't in control of your vehicle due to drink driving.

Jayop

John T Carroll wrote: »

They didn't allow it previously anyway when you weren't in control of your vehicle due to drink driving.

boom boom!!

TBF though if they're going to allow for driverless taxi's which will probably be the first adopters then they will have to allow for people to be drunk in them.

H3llR4iser

People still think in terms of car ownership. If anything, the autonomous cars will only make sense if they are actually a shared, public resource - only in such scenario they can reduce traffic and make it more efficient. Car ownership won't exist anymore.

I'm waiting to see what the automakers will come up with as slogans as soon as those things take over. I can think about a few:

BMW - Ultimate Facebooking Machine;
Alfa Romeo - The mechanics of doing nothing;
Ford - Everything we do is driven by Google;
Subaru - Don't Think, Don't Feel, Don't even dream about driving;
Seat - Auto aburrimiento (that's boredom in Spanish);
Toyota - Let an AI drive your dreams;
Jeep - Don't have fun out there;

It will make for some...interesting commercials.