Oh HELL no... no, no, no (auto-driving cars)

[SirBrass]

http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/14/57...lf-driving-car

I don't even want to BE around a car with this tech. Aerospace software has very tight industry-self-regulated regs on how critical software is to be developed, and for good reason (namely to not have what was joked at in an old FarSide cartoon showing a crashing plane with the glass screen reading "Your copy of Microsoft Flight has expired"). Same here? I doubt it. I bet Google has its software running on dynamic memory allocation, etc. Dangerous as hell, and it only promotes operator laziness ANYWAY. The operator won't have ANY warning of the system failing or crashing other than "oh crap, something's wrong and I can't get control back!" unless that kill switch is a hardware kill, and the auto-drive is an add-on ECU to "driver required". Anyway, I wouldn't trust one of these things within a mile of me.

And all the slavish adoration piled on in the comments makes me sick. Idiots. Complacent humans in nominal control of these machines is already dangerous. Sure, go ahead and promote even MORE laziness and complacency.

Also, airliner autopilot doesn't count. Those pilots are supposed to be highly trained, and they also take over the controls any time there's serious interaction around other aircraft or air patterns to deal with. Auto-pilot (while capable of flying an aircraft from takeoff through landing) is generally only used at cruise, and 2 trained (well beyond the level an automobile operator is required to be trained) humans are there, ready to kill computer control at any time if necessary. That isn't what's set up here. This test demo was IN traffic, and relying on past data (which it can't be sure won't be changed due to road construction, unscheduled shutdown of lanes, new timing changes on lights, etc.), not on current conditions for traffic patterns beyond what it could "see."

No way in hell.

Any car, no matter how nice that comes with this, I will REFUSE to buy and dump shares of any company which starts promoting this as a good idea.

[gramicci101]

Agreed. Driving fun cars is my relief valve. Something that takes that away from me because it's "better" is anathema. And how long will it be before stuff like this is mandatory in every new vehicle because "think of the kids!"

"The ideal ride is meant to bore you."

Please just shoot me now.

[LadyFRZ]

Never really understood auto-driving cars...
But then again, I feel like a minority actually loving to drive.

I feel the road is just so unexpected, something bad could happen really quick if the car is auto-driving. Like someone cutting you off and slamming on their brakes,what would happen then?


Plus,thus.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qnd-hdmgfk"]I'm sorry, Dave - YouTube[/ame]

[Superhatch]

Self driving cars are just a few steps away, not much you can do about it. My expectation is that they are a few steps away, in some cities, with designated lanes, only at cruising speeds.

Were probably a long way off from getting in your car, speaking a location and then taking a nap. I don't think you don't have much to worry about in your lifetime.

[Rampage]

While I agree that some humans are absolutely terrible drivers, I am not sure that I trust technology enough to want to drive beside an autonomous car yet.

However, there have been times when I was on a long highway trip and I thought how nice it would be just to kick back, close my eyes and let the car do the driving until I get relatively close to my destination. I do not want a self driving car for around town or local trips but for long vacation trips where they just control the boring highway driving? Bring them on!

Engage cruise control and auto-pilot!

[Superhatch]

Side note: I'd wager that most of the people you drive next to on a daily basis are 1000 times more likely to be involved in an accident then a released version of this software would be.

In an age of mobile media, and less and less people engaging in driving were already at a point where we should be worried about being on the road. If you live in the US you can get a license and keep it for 70 years in some states without ever having to have you're ability rechecked. That's totally Fing insane. Add to that we have some of the most relaxed licencing in the civilized world and as noted, you should already be scared to be on the road.

[SirBrass]

Originally Posted by LadyFRZ

Never really understood auto-driving cars...
But then again, I feel like a minority actually loving to drive.

I feel the road is just so unexpected, something bad could happen really quick if the car is auto-driving. Like someone cutting you off and slamming on their brakes,what would happen then?


Plus,thus.

Actually, it's ability to react to immediate conditions is something I'm alright with. Problem is that there's not really any way to tell if it selected the correct countermeasure to the problem.

Example: a generic Google DriveMe (speculative name invented by me right now) unit which can be used in FF, MR, RR, FR, and AWD vehicles, is driving along at speed, and suddenly traction is lost. Depending on the slide, traffic around, etc., it can select an action... except it can't be specifically tuned for THAT CAR, which a human would instinctively know how to do if he or she was a good driver (note that I don't use "driver" and "operator" interchangably, and "operator" is not a nice term by me in this context). DriveMe does the normal numbskull thing and voila back end steps out further.

OR, it's in a curve and an emergency maneuver is needed and the car is a MR car or a car setup for minor oversteer like ours (a proper car). Throttle lift, brake on... hello snap oversteer.

No way for the computer to know. It only knows based on the aggregate input from all kinds of cars driving in normal traffic and a selection of maneuvers for stopping in a straight line. True this is what is mostly used in emergency freeway maneuvers is it in any sense the only kind of emergency maneuver a driver should be prepared for.

Also, let's say that it can tell that something that is outside its bounds is happening and operator needs to take back manual control. Well, if the operator is being his or her normal operator self and reading the news on his/her smart phone or tablet, sipping $tarbuck$ and listening to the blather on the radio, he or she will be totally caught unawares when the computer politely says "auto drive disengaged. take back manual control". Seconds matter, and the operator not paying attention is going to take a LONG time relatively to effectively do so. Crash has already happened.

Because this tech promotes complacency. Partly a training issue (compared to airline pilots who generally both have the time and altitude to assess and regain control, and are also not supposed to be very distracted while overseeing flight director/auto-flight's control of the aircraft), but do you see driving requirements suddenly go to the kind of level airline pilots need to fly commercial airliners? Yeah right. And even if they do, it's not going to be a very good program b/c big government is not very good at these things. And those inclined to good driver education (like... drivers, not operators) won't want these things anyway.

At least with AT and cruise control, one must still pay close attention (in some cases closer attention than with hand near shifter and foot controlling throttle) to the road and to traffic. Even if the law says that a person must still pay attention while being in the driver's seat of an auto-drive car, do you think most people inclined to the tech will do that? They'll LOOK like they're attentive, but I doubt it. Most who hate driving will be zoned out, and totally unsuited to the operation of a motor vehicle if the car suddenly surrenders control (if it surrenders control).

And then there's the assimov speculations. What if the car decided that letting you crash into the wall and die is safest b/c then only YOU die, not others. And what if that code got inserted during an update without your knowledge (Go watch the Doctor Who multi-part episode about the Sontarans and the ATMOS control system in vehicles.... ), oops.

The only way for cars to be safe is for the driver /operator to be alert at ALL times and have full access/override authority to the controls. This defeats the actual purpose of auto-drive, except as a kind of safety net (which really isn't a bad idea... except if it has gone truly into the crapper, I doubt anything other than the AI based on the combined skills of Mario Andretty and Ayrton Senna could recover control effectively or safely), which we already have in some "let me drive you" numb-me-up-scotty road-going tubs.

Biased? Oh hell yes. Maybe a little too cynical? Yup. Doesn't mean I'm entirely wrong either.

[chas3wba0]

I don't like how technology has to head in this direction :T Everything is just becoming automated and devoid of the human element, resulting in the inevitable "smarter technology--dumber people" outcome... I get why this could be useful in specific applications, e.g. for disabled people, but do we really need this for everyone just so they can be on Facebook the whole way to work?

Although I agree with Superhatch, the advent of smartphones has made the roads much more dangerous than before due to distraction and sheer stupidity of drivers, so perhaps this new tech is a necessary band-aid for damage that has already been done

[tahdizzle]

Originally Posted by Superhatch

Self driving cars are just a few steps away, not much you can do about it. My expectation is that they are a few steps away, in some cities, with designated lanes, only at cruising speeds.

Were probably a long way off from getting in your car, speaking a location and then taking a nap. I don't think you don't have much to worry about in your lifetime.

I has cruz control.

[SirBrass]

Originally Posted by chas3wba0

I don't like how technology has to head in this direction :T Everything is just becoming automated and devoid of the human element, resulting in the inevitable "smarter technology--dumber people" outcome... I get why this could be useful in specific applications, e.g. for disabled people, but do we really need this for everyone just so they can be on Facebook the whole way to work?

Although I agree with Superhatch, the advent of smartphones has made the roads much more dangerous than before due to distraction and sheer stupidity of drivers, so perhaps this new tech is a necessary band-aid for damage that has already been done

I think the advent of "smart" phones (which aren't. it's just caused humans to act dumber) has just exacerbated poor societal trends.

As far as computers being "smart", they're nothing of the sort. The FIRST lesson anyone seriously interested in computer programming learns is that computers are as dumb as a pile of rocks. An idiot savant outside his element is far smarter than any computer has the capability to be outside science fiction (the fantastical kind, not the more "reality speculation" kind).

A computer has the ability to take direct human input and make a ride smoother, sure, but it is responding to human input as well as other input. Take high performance super-sonic aircraft. Certain of those aircraft cannot fly without computer control (with human direction), b/c the aircraft operates in unstable control conditions (for best performance), and thus a constantly running control laws program is active and adjusting control surfaces to maintain control where the pilot has pointed it. But that aircraft is still fully human operated. That aircraft won't go where the human has not told it to go. All the computer is doing is keeping the aircraft going in the same direction it was told to point the aircraft in, and operating all the surfaces to achieve that. Same rationale behind airliner auto-pilot: it provides a smoother ride b/c the computer can react to conditions and maintain stability more smoothly.

[chas3wba0]

Originally Posted by SirBrass

I think the advent of "smart" phones (which aren't. it's just caused humans to act dumber) has just exacerbated poor societal trends.

As far as computers being "smart", they're nothing of the sort. The FIRST lesson anyone seriously interested in computer programming learns is that computers are as dumb as a pile of rocks. An idiot savant outside his element is far smarter than any computer has the capability to be outside science fiction (the fantastical kind, not the more "reality speculation" kind).

A computer has the ability to take direct human input and make a ride smoother, sure, but it is responding to human input as well as other input. Take high performance super-sonic aircraft. Certain of those aircraft cannot fly without computer control (with human direction), b/c the aircraft operates in unstable control conditions (for best performance), and thus a constantly running control laws program is active and adjusting control surfaces to maintain control where the pilot has pointed it. But that aircraft is still fully human operated. That aircraft won't go where the human has not told it to go. All the computer is doing is keeping the aircraft going in the same direction it was told to point the aircraft in, and operating all the surfaces to achieve that. Same rationale behind airliner auto-pilot: it provides a smoother ride b/c the computer can react to conditions and maintain stability more smoothly.

Good point. A computer/software is only as "smart" as it's creator or programmer. It's advantage is that it can think much faster, but only along predetermined scenarios (let's not bring AI into this yet).

Tying that to the whole self-driving vehicle thing, I see it as a viable way to minimize--if not remove-- the risks and dangers of inconsiderate human drivers at their worsts, essentially by taking their freedom to act selfishly out of the picture. Also, the software that runs these cars don't know fatigue, and will likely react better and faster to certain emergency situations than most inexperienced drivers would.

This can be a good thing for your average Joe who sees driving as a chore and falls asleep at the wheel everyday after work, but for those of us who actually take pleasure in the art of driving, it's an abomination

[SirBrass]

Originally Posted by chas3wba0

Good point. A computer/software is only as "smart" as it's creator or programmer. It's advantage is that it can think much faster, but only along predetermined scenarios (let's not bring AI into this yet).

Tying that to the whole self-driving vehicle thing, I see it as a viable way to minimize--if not remove-- the risks and dangers of inconsiderate human drivers at their worsts, essentially by taking their freedom to act selfishly out of the picture. Also, the software that runs these cars don't know fatigue, and will likely react better and faster to certain emergency situations than most inexperienced drivers would.

This can be a good thing for your average Joe who sees driving as a chore and falls asleep at the wheel everyday after work, but for those of us who actually take pleasure in the art of driving, it's an abomination.

It's bad for lazy joe too, b/c if it can't cope it'll HAVE to drop to manual mode and lazy joe won't be able to react fast enough b/c the whole point was for him to not have to take control.

For an alert driver (instead of the lazy commuter operators who only drive b/c they have to and loathe every minute of it), this won't be a problem. But an alert driver isn't the kind of person who is being stupid and inconsiderate in the first place.

As a safety net, sure, this is fine (for certain emergency situations). For everything else, it's just bad bad bad for everyone. It ruins things for drivers and just encourages irresponsible inattentiveness on the part of the operators who wanted to be driven by something else.

IMO, the lazy drivers should just hire a cab. With all they'd save on not having to pay for a car, insurance, and gas, it'll be comparable over the same amount of time. Or at least a significantly less pain in the butt to the rest of us. THERE a human would still be in control, but Joe Schmo won't have to be bothered to actually do the driving.

[Model Citizen]

Will auto pilot let me post about going from supercharged to turbocharged at speeds greater than 55mph in the passing lane?


Cause that would be an improvement imo.

[Rayme]

The funny thing with self driving cars is that they will be able to drive without occupant.

Car drop you at work, go park itself back home and comes back to pick you up..if you dont want to pay for parking. Or can go grab your kids and bring them to soccer practice without you. Or drive grandma to the doctor while you work. Sounds like another technology eliminating human interaction, like the smartphone already does. Kinda makes you think right?

I'm not going to complain, the man driven cars are far from going away.