# Driverless Vehicles



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

*New Law Allows Driverless Cars on Michigan Roads*



> :ap:
> 
> *Gov. Rick Snyder signs law allowing driverless cars on Michigan roads for research, testing*
> 
> ...


SOURCE

They're on Cali roads.

Now when will the Tri-States allow it?


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Which, or what is Tri-States?


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

People texting are driverless cars.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Nick said:


> Which, or what is Tri-States?


NY,NJ,CT AKA the Greater NYC Metropolitan area.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

The thing about driving I like the most is the feeling of being in control. I am not too sure that I would feel good barreling down some highway at 65.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

yosoyellobo said:


> The thing about driving I like the most is the feeling of being in control. I am not too sure that I would feel good barreling down some highway at 65.


driving is the most tedious task I can find. only if the streets were empty....

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

peds48 said:


> driving is the most tedious task I can find. only if the streets were empty....
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Different stokes for different folk.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

yosoyellobo said:


> Different stokes for different folk.


not arguing with that. what makes driving so stressful are the other drivers, driving the car itself is not that bad....

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Get you. For me I have never found in stressful.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

yosoyellobo said:


> The thing about driving I like the most is the feeling of being in control. I am not too sure that I would feel good barreling down some highway at 65.


I understand. I don't like riding with anyone. While I like technology and see this as a step toward "the car of the future" I don't want to ride ... I want to drive!


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

As I've said many times, imagine an alien species observing humans traveling in opposite directions a few feet apart in little wheeled pods on the ground at 60 mph, the only thing separating them is a painted line. Then you discover that they kill and maim each other by the tens of thousands per year. And they load their mates and offspring in these pods regularly. And they explain that they feel like they have some control and are in charge.

You then learn that few of them understand the laws of physics and think "OK, that explains this foolishness." Then you leave to look for truly intelligent species.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

phrelin said:


> As I've said many times, imagine an alien species observing humans traveling in opposite directions a few feet apart in little wheeled pods on the ground at 60 mph, the only thing separating them is a painted line. Then you discover that they kill and maim each other by the tens of thousands per year. And they load their mates and offspring in these pods regularly. And they explain that they feel like they have some control and are in charge.
> 
> You then learn that few of them understand the laws of physics and think "OK, that explains this foolishness." Then you leave to look for truly intelligent species.


I hate it when people make intelligent arguments.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

phrelin said:


> As I've said many times, imagine an alien species observing humans traveling in opposite directions a few feet apart in little wheeled pods on the ground at 60 mph, the only thing separating them is a painted line. Then you discover that they kill and maim each other by the tens of thousands per year. And they load their mates and offspring in these pods regularly. And they explain that they feel like they have some control and are in charge.
> 
> You then learn that few of them understand the laws of physics and think "OK, that explains this foolishness." Then you leave to look for truly intelligent species.


OK, insults aside have you got a better solution?

2.4926 trillion vehicle miles driven last year (2013) in the US. There are bound to be a few accidents and fatalities. My first question of the rude aliens would be "and you flew across the galaxy in THAT?"

About one death per 100 million miles in 2009 (per the census bureau). Zero would be better but don't make it sound like driving is suicidal.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Here's a possibly dumb question...

If you are in an accident with a driverless car... who is at fault?

And... IF the driverless car is determined to be at fault, who gets the insurance points since there was no driver?


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Here in Michigan a person must be at the wheel so he or she would get the points.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

peds48 said:


> not arguing with that. *what makes driving so stressful are the other drivers*, driving the car itself is not that bad....
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Very true.

As I have aged, I have notice my reaction time has slowed some. Making other drivers mistakes even more dangerous for me. I would really appreciate a vehicle that can react quicker then I can.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> OK, insults aside have you got a better solution?
> 
> 2.4926 trillion vehicle miles driven last year (2013) in the US. There are bound to be a few accidents and fatalities. My first question of the rude aliens would be "and you flew across the galaxy in THAT?"
> 
> About one death per 100 million miles in 2009 (per the census bureau). Zero would be better but don't make it sound like driving is suicidal.


Horses weren't exactly safe.

But the side benefits of the tech associated with driverless car development will be increased safety. Obviously many (most?) people on their sixth iPhone generally aren't on their second generation of automatic braking automobiles or even their first. Maybe if it came out as iBrakes humans would fret more about auto safety than they do now?

Anyway, I do point out the dangers of auto use because I watch people who worry themselves silly that some pedophile will harm their kid then regularly proceed to strap their kid into an auto they will drive seemingly without concern, I guess because they think they have it all under control. They don't, ever. The fact is that automobile accidents kill more children over the age of 4 than any other cause.

Is it suicidal? No. But after you respond to accidents for a few years, it's depressing to realize how many folks think they had it under control just before....



Stewart Vernon said:


> Here's a possibly dumb question...
> 
> If you are in an accident with a driverless car... who is at fault?
> 
> And... IF the driverless car is determined to be at fault, who gets the insurance points since there was no driver?


A Google driverless car was involved in an accident, though the press could never figure who was driving. I believe when general use comes about the law will require someone to be in the driver's seat and they will be the responsible parties.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

phrelin said:


> As I've said many times, imagine an alien species observing humans traveling in opposite directions a few feet apart in little wheeled pods on the ground at 60 mph, the only thing separating them is a painted line. Then you discover that they kill and maim each other by the tens of thousands per year. And they load their mates and offspring in these pods regularly. And they explain that they feel like they have some control and are in charge.
> 
> You then learn that few of them understand the laws of physics and think "OK, that explains this foolishness." Then *you leave to look for truly intelligent species*.


If we were a TV Network in the Cosmos, we would be the Comedy Channel.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

there are many warehouses today with driverless "cars" these vehicles that pick and drop merchandise have never had an accident (at least reported and that I am aware). in order for these "program" to succeed, every single car must be "driverless" and when this happen, accidents will be reduced to 0


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The more controlled the environment the better the success rate.

I just cleared 12 inches of snow out of my driveway so I can get to the street in the morning. Hopefully the county will plow the street before morning but if they don't I may be able to make it to the next big road which will be plowed. If not by morning I hope they at least get my street plowed one lane before I get home, It is harder to get home than get out.

I wonder how the Google car handles snow? The cues needed to maintain lane control are not always evident in the snow.

Answering my own question:
1) The cars have trouble detecting lane markers when there is snow on the road.

2) They can get lost when they come to changes in the road that aren't on the map.

3) They have trouble understanding when traffic cops direct traffic with hand signals.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2013/03/03/have-googles-self-driving-cars-hit-a-technological-roadblock/
Rebuilding every road in the nation to have good lane markers will be expensive (how about the California counties where they are not even bothering to maintain the pavement).

When your GPS errors and tells you to turn left into a river on onto a railroad track the human can catch it. Some day a Google car will make that fatal mistake.

And when going through a construction zone with a worker flagging traffic telling the difference between an octagon stop sign and an octagon slow sign is a challenge. Not to mention hand signals and flags.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

It's funny how people believe in the infallibility of machine over man... when you consider that man is building the machine... so by the associative properties of ineptitude, machines cannot be infallible


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> The more controlled the environment the better the success rate.
> 
> I just cleared 12 inches of snow out of my driveway so I can get to the street in the morning. Hopefully the county will plow the street before morning but if they don't I may be able to make it to the next big road which will be plowed. If not by morning I hope they at least get my street plowed one lane before I get home, It is harder to get home than get out.
> 
> ...


The article that you linked, answered all of those concerns. Obviously this is not happening overnight, but by doing baby steps, we eventually get there


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> It's funny how people believe in the infallibility of machine over man... when you consider that man is building the machine... so by the associative properties of ineptitude, machines cannot be infallible


Correct. men build machines, but machines don't have feelings and bad habits (read road rage and DWI, TWD, DUI...etc)


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

peds48 said:


> The article that you linked, answered all of those concerns. Obviously this is not happening overnight, but by doing baby steps, we eventually get there


I really do think we will gain a lot in safety from the research.

The idea of truly "driverless" cars almost becomes a puzzle to me. Someone in the car has to know where the car is taking them - there is a reason to have a driver designated even if that person merely observes to make sure the car is going to the right place. I guess someone could send their dry cleaning to the drive through dry cleaners without anyone being in the car. But it seems like Jeff Bezos' drones would be more effective as delivery and pickup service vehicles.

But I think collision avoidance software would work well when all the cars on the road are capable of monitoring each other. You couldn't have that everywhere on every car, but most certainly urban and suburban driving could be made safer.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> It's funny how people believe in the infallibility of machine over man... when you consider that man is building the machine... so by the associative properties of ineptitude, machines cannot be infallible


While I agree in general the idea is that Machines do far less and have far less variables because it's usually a specific task, and they aren't susceptible to the problems that humans are i.e. fatigue food hunger etc. those things generally can be better controlled the regular maintenance schedule than human. It's rare for a properly taken care of for machine to randomly get sick in the middle of it's shift where is for human we all know you get sick at any moment. So to speak.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> While I agree in general the idea is that Machines do far less and have far less variables because it's usually a specific task, and they aren't susceptible to the problems that humans are i.e. fatigue food hunger etc. those things generally can be better controlled the regular maintenance schedule than human. It's rare for a properly taken care of for machine to randomly get sick in the middle of it's shift where is for human we all know you get sick at any moment. So to speak.


Many human illnesses come from not being properly maintained. In a perfect world the mechanized helpers would be perfectly maintained and never break down. But people, the flaw in the process as Stewart points out, are involved in making sure their devices are perfectly maintained. Just as the human body is only as good as the way each individual treats it devices are only as good as their maintenance schedule.

There seems to be a disconnect ... the thought that humans are so flawed that we need to replace them with machines. Yet somehow the machines will be less flawed than their creator? When a flaw is pointed out in a machine the answer is "we can fix that" yet when flaws are pointed out in humans the attitude is "give up we're beyond hope".

The problems that face the human machine are solvable. Fatigue can be cured by rest. If eight hours is too long to go without refueling how about having a lunch? Make the lunch an hour so the body can be properly refueled. If four hours is too monotonous to work then schedule a break. If the manual for our devices says to shut down reboot the system every hour and refuel every four hours why is that accepted as "normal maintenance" for a machine yet "goofing off" for the human machine?

More serious faults can develop in machines as well as humans. I've worked at places where machines "randomly" got sick. Yes, often the random illness can be traced back to the user (please don't execute attachments!). But now we're back to the "flawed humans" who will, as Stewart suggests, remain part of the process no matter how mechanized one tries to make the world.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

We have already replaced humans with "machines" in the workplace. Assembly lines use far fewer workers. I used to type out drafts. I would then grab a pencil and mark them up correcting typos, rewriting sentences, etc. then I would give them to a secretary or clerk-typist to have the final version prepared for my signature. Most of my peers dictated to a secretary who took shorthand (or into a dictaphone from which a secretary would prepare the final document). In most workplaces most of those typing positions were eliminated or in the last two decades never created.

Yes, my word processing software makes errors from time to time, as its spellchecker isn't perfect. But I fix the problem and fewer errors appear than ever before.

Jobs, particularly the tedious ones, get eliminated through the development of appropriate technology which is still implemented and operated by people, just far fewer people per unit produced. The eliminated jobs are frequently counted as "people replaced" as many, many times the economy fails to create enough jobs to replace those lost. Hence, people are replaced by machines - at least many folks say or write that.

Commercial aircraft have pretty darn good autopilots, but they are still controlled by pilots. The system even with both sometimes fails. IMHO cars will always have drivers but the "driverless" research will lead to "autodrivers" that can make driving less dangerous.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Yeah... that's exactly where I was going. James also makes an excellent argument that people could in many ways fix themselves easier than they could fix machines... at least for the most common human flaws that are thrown around.

edit...

Regarding people already being replaced... let's go with automated manufacturing vs people... Yes, machines are making stuff faster than people.. at least the amount of people normally employed at such places..

But is manufacturing perfect now? Are there never manufacturing problems? And when a problem happens on the assembly line... the machines can churn out a lot more mistakes faster too... than humans would IF a human was making the same error...

When humans make stuff and bad product comes down the line, they can correct it quicker before too much waste happens... but the machines can churn out the flaws faster too.

It pays to remember that we aren't living in a perfect world. People design the machines, people build the machines, people operate the machines, and people maintain the machines. Unless and until that changes, people are still the fly in the ointment and you're just trading one problem for another... not ridding the world of human problems.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

_*Driverless Car Experience*_



> VCC, Gold Plaza
> 
> Discover the road to driverless mobility in the all-new _Driverless Car Experience_, sponsored by *Bosch*. This TechZone will feature a variety of technologies that support the future of autonomous/automated driving including parking assist, collision avoidance and emergency braking and much more.


*SOURCE*

Look like DBSTalk members attending this year CES can ride in one of these


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I hope someone can give us a report on this - particularly things like collision avoidance and emergency braking.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Yeah... that's exactly where I was going. James also makes an excellent argument that people could in many ways fix themselves easier than they could fix machines... at least for the most common human flaws that are thrown around.
> 
> ...we aren't living in a perfect world. People design the machines, people build the machines, people operate the machines, and people maintain the machines. Unless and until that changes, people are still the fly in the ointment and you're just trading one problem for another... not ridding the world of human problems.


Any autonomous machine, whether built by humans or by other machines, will always have a kernel of human instruction no matter how minute, thus will always be subject to human-like fallibility. The fictional operating system, HAL 9000, is a prime example. From a human-logic view, the flaw in HAL's instruction-set was the inability to adapt its perspective to the changing environment and, because of its _'preserve the mission at all costs'_ directive, resisted emergency override by the surviving crew member.

When all else fails, refer to Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics", including subsequent iterations, such as the Zeroth Law, which introduces the possibility (likelyhood?) of ambiguity or internal conflict when balancing the good of _a man_ against the good of mankind.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

*Audi A7 Takes the Wheel at CES 2014*



> Audi gave CNET a demonstration of its autonomous vehicle technology, which it calls Piloted Driving, during CES 2014


.

Read More


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I like the concept of "Piloted Driving", particularly this: "In this initial conception, the car will use facial recognition cameras to tell if the driver isn't paying attention to the road or nodding off, then sound an alert." That feature alone would save lives.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

With the amount of tiime I spend fixing all the "fix crappy driver" toys on cars now, there's no way I would ever ride in a automatic drive car.. we can't even keep the stuff we have working reliablely for a few years bouncing down the road..not to mention how much more they cost already..

spending more than 2 weeks showing movies and playing on a simulator in what we call drivers training would be much more effective..


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I seem to remember Driver's Ed being more than two weeks ... I believe it was six weeks - but it was a long time ago.

Not an endorsement - just a funny commercial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jrad4bxDWKM


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

After watching an article on CBS News Sunday Morning on driverless vehicle I believe that only if the cars manufactures assume responsibilities for for any accident while the car is under the control the car. A Mercedes Benz which might be one of the first to bring one on the market will not do so until they are sure they could reduce the risk to a minimum. Personally I would not drive one unless any liability in a accident would be assume by the car manufacturer.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

yosoyellobo said:


> After watching an article on CBS News Sunday Morning on driverless vehicle I believe that only if the cars manufactures assume responsibilities for for any accident while the car is under the control the car. A Mercedes Benz which might be one of the first to bring one on the market will not do so until they are sure they could reduce the risk to a minimum. Personally I would not drive one unless any liability in a accident would be assume by the car manufacturer.


Yeah, that's what I was hinting at earlier.

If the argument is supposed to be that the self-driving car is safer and better and more reliable than a human... then why hold a human responsible if there is an accident? IF I'm going to be held responsible for an accident that I'm in while inside of my car... then I better be able to drive it so that at least I have a shot at avoiding the accident myself. IF I'm not in control, then I'm not liable.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

In the US we lose over 30,000 people a year to road accidents.

Here's the conundrum. What if automatic driving could reduce that to 500?

You don't seem to want to accept anything less than a PERFECT replacement for a HUGELY flawed original (human driver).

It'll be an interesting debate. I predict insurance companies will offer discounts to those who accept AND USE auto-drive.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

One feature I really liked on a segment yesterday - I think CBS 'Sunday Morning' was valet parking. . .the car drops you off and goes and parks. . . then picks you up.

Not that I would use it as I enter or exit close to the Mall - the few times I go to the mall, I'd rather get dropped off or picked up further away from the entrance. I hate parking lots and those drivers!


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

djlong said:


> In the US we lose over 30,000 people a year to road accidents.
> 
> Here's the conundrum. What if automatic driving could reduce that to 500?
> 
> ...


If the cars companies do a good job and the insurance companies offer discounts sign me up.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

djlong said:


> In the US we lose over 30,000 people a year to road accidents.
> 
> Here's the conundrum. What if automatic driving could reduce that to 500?
> 
> ...


That's not my position at all.

I'm turning that upside down.

What I'm asking is... IF the companies that develop this technology are so sure they could reduce accidents like that from 30000 down to 500... then why don't they put their money where their mouths are and take the blame for all remaining accidents if their technology is in charge?

IF they want me to use the technology and be unable to drive the car... then I don't want to be responsible for any accident that results from their technology in control. IF it is safer, maybe I could get used to it. I don't mind being in cars with other people driving that I trust... so if I learned to trust the technology it could be ok... BUT, don't have the technology glitch and drive me into an accident and then try to tell me the accident is my fault and I'm liable for it if I don't get to control the car.

That's my position.

And as an aside... I again say why make the claim that humans are "hugely" flawed and then be confident that those same humans can develop technology that will be more reliable than they are?


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

It's certainly easier to program computers to be more reliable than humans are. It's just covering all the bases - and the odd occurances that have to be considered. Drunk drivers, grills falling off the pickup ahead, etc.

Face it, today's airliners can take off and travel to their destination and land without pilots. In fact, they wouldn't land at the wrong airport!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

dennisj00 said:


> It's certainly easier to program computers to be more reliable than humans are. It's just covering all the bases - and the odd occurances that have to be considered. Drunk drivers, grills falling off the pickup ahead, etc.
> 
> Face it, today's airliners can take off and travel to their destination and land without pilots. In fact, they wouldn't land at the wrong airport!


Programmed by whom? Flawed humans?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Programming the computer to handle bad data is the key ... thousands of flights go well every day - we hear about the ones that don't. It is easy to say that the computer would never land at the wrong airport. But what would the computer do if it did? Would it have the intelligence to avoid a crash or would it just assume that the runway it landed on was the right one, the right length and end up going over the edge?

I'll believe the computer is better when it stops making mistakes. When the GPS never tells me to turn into a private road or non-road that shouldn't be on the map. When it knows the speed limit for every segment of every road. When it can see where the lanes are when the road is covered in snow.

We're a long long long way from that day.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Your GPS telling you to make a wrong turn isn't a good example -- it's only working from a database and has no on-board sensors to make those necessary decisions from current, local data. Vision, ultrasonic ranging, radar, lots more than a static database.

Yes, we have a long way to go, but not as long as it was.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dennisj00 said:


> Your GPS telling you to make a wrong turn isn't a good example -- it's only working from a database and has no on-board sensors to make those necessary decisions from current, local data. Vision, ultrasonic ranging, radar, lots more than a static database.


It is a perfect example. One does not get an infallible system from fallible people.



dennisj00 said:


> Yes, we have a long way to go, but not as long as it was.


I spend half of my life dealing with failed computer systems and automation. We will never reach infallible ... it is a good goal but something can always go wrong. Building all of the infrastructure needed to support driverless autonomic vehicles won't happen in my lifetime. We can barely support the infrastructure needed for current vehicles.

A good first step would be trains. They run in a controlled environment ... on rails. One does not need to have perfect GPS to make two trains traveling toward each other at 60+ MPH pass on separate tracks - one just needs to know what track each train is on and make sure they are different. When long distance cross country trains are running fully automated in their controlled environment we can talk about how driverless vehicles will work in the less controlled environment of public highways.

We (as a society) do not have the money to upgrade the railroad system to allow for fully automatic train operation. Where are we going to find the money to upgrade the road system?


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

But you're NOT going to see a driverless vehicle that uses only a GPS database.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Stewart Vernon said:


> That's not my position at all.
> 
> I'm turning that upside down.
> 
> ...


Take this from the point of view of a person who's been a computer programmer for over 40 years.

Testing. That's how you do it. Ever wonder how the Mars Rovers kept going 10 years into their 90-day mission? And that's exactly what Google is doing now. Unbelievable amount of testing. And when those are done - MORE testing.

I watched some programs on the DARPA challenge that had autonomous vehicles with NO databases run a course of over 150 miles depending on nothing but sensors as input - and this was 5 years ago.

Computers don't get tired. They don't drive when their girlfriends made them mad. They don't get drunk. They won't have blind spots and they can see through fog far better than we can. They won't fall asleep at the wheel. They won't mistake the gas pedal for the brake and plow through 10 people at a bus stop or drive through the front window of a pharmacy.

The companies that develop this aren't going to take the responsibility completely away from humans. After all, if "Freedom Industries" can avoid prosecution for poisoning over a quarter million people in WV by declaring bankruptcy, there's NO WAY a company will assume that liability.

As I said, I think the insurance companies will drive this with discounts - at least at first. What's likely to happen as this technology progresses is that, eventually, in the distant future, you will get hit with surcharges by your insurance company if you DON'T use auto-drive. It will not be a question of whether or not you trust the auto-drive hardware/software package, it'll be whether or not your insurance company trusts YOU more than, say, Google. The least reliable part in any car on the road is "the nut behind the wheel". Me? I have a pretty good track record in 35+ years of driving (3 low speed fender benders, nothing since the 1990s) but I know that I don't have the attention span of a computer. Redundant systems will take care of the problems that can arise from malfunctions.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dennisj00 said:


> But you're NOT going to see a driverless vehicle that uses only a GPS database.


Nor will I see a driverless train that relies only on GPS. The arrogance is that the machine can drive better than a human without fail.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Let me try this another way. Forget computers for a minute.

If I get into a car with James... and James is driving... and James accidentally runs us off the road and hits a barn... James is responsible. I'm not held liable.

So... back to the computer now... IF the computer is driving the car, what makes the computer any different than James? Why do I suddenly become responsible for my driverless/computer car if it gets in an accident when I'm clearly not the driver and not in control of the car any more than I am when James was driving?

Until they clear that hurdle, I don't even want to consider it.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Let me try this another way. Forget computers for a minute.
> 
> If I get into a car with James... and James is driving... and James accidentally runs us off the road and hits a barn... James is responsible. I'm not held liable.
> 
> ...


While I agree with you in principle some law maker will probably say you are responsible because you chose to put the vehicle into driverless mode.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

so if I send the car with no one in it to pick up something, I'm not there so I'm not responsible 

just glad I won't live long enough to ever see them..


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

MysteryMan said:


> While I agree with you in principle some law maker will probably say you are responsible because you chose to put the vehicle into driverless mode.


So ... would you hold Stewart responsible because he let me drive?

In a state that allows driverless cars it would be as legal for the car to drive as for me to drive. In a state where driverless cars were not allowed it would be as if I didn't have a license. But as an "unlicensed driver" I would still be held responsible for my driving ... not Stewart. Why wouldn't the driverless car be held responsible instead of Stewart?

Until states get to the point where THEY trust driverless cars enough not to penalize the passenger behind the wheel I'm with Stewart. I'll drive ... and leave the driverless cars alone until they learn how to drive with responsibility.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

djlong said:


> Take this from the point of view of a person who's been a computer programmer for over 40 years.
> 
> Testing. That's how you do it. Ever wonder how the Mars Rovers kept going 10 years into their 90-day mission? And that's exactly what Google is doing now. Unbelievable amount of testing. And when those are done - MORE testing.
> 
> ...


Really? Then please explain to me why most of my fellow motorists complain about their cars computer system giving them faulty readings? My wife's 2013 Ford Explorer XLT tells her it needs a oil change when that maintenance is performed regularly well within the scheduled time frames. Today I used it to go to our local Post Office. The true outdoor temperature was 4 degrees yet the car's computer system was telling me it was 39 degrees. My neighbor's car's check engine stays lit all the time. He's taken it back to the dealer several times times to no avail. The flight recorder of Asian Flight 214 revealed during the last 2.5 minutes of the flight there were multiple auto pilot modes and multiple auto throttle modes but it did not reveal if those modes were commanded by pilots. Sounds like more testing and redundant systems are needed.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

James Long said:


> So ... would you hold Stewart responsible because he let me drive?
> 
> In a state that allows driverless cars it would be as legal for the car to drive as for me to drive. In a state where driverless cars were not allowed it would be as if I didn't have a license. But as an "unlicensed driver" I would still be held responsible for my driving ... not Stewart. Why wouldn't the driverless car be held responsible instead of Stewart?
> 
> Until states get to the point where THEY trust driverless cars enough not to penalize the passenger behind the wheel I'm with Stewart. I'll drive ... and leave the driverless cars alone until they learn how to drive with responsibility.


Would I hold Stewart responsible? No. But I know a good lawyer who could!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

MysteryMan said:


> While I agree with you in principle some law maker will probably say you are responsible because you chose to put the vehicle into driverless mode.


And with that in mind... I would not get inside said vehicle if I was to be held responsible whether I was driving or not.

There actually would be no advantage from my perspective to turn control of the car over to a computer if I was still going to be held responsible. Why would anyone ever agree to such a situation?

They will not find a lot of buyers and users of such technology if the people backing the technology don't have the confidence to assume responsibility for its use.

Are the passengers responsible for a bus crash? or a plane crash? or a train derailment?


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Stewart Vernon said:


> And with that in mind... I would not get inside said vehicle if I was to be held responsible whether I was driving or not.
> 
> There actually would be no advantage from my perspective to turn control of the car over to a computer if I was still going to be held responsible. Why would anyone ever agree to such a situation?
> 
> ...


The law states that someone has to be in the vehicle to monitor performance and take the wheel if necessary so technically you're not a passenger. That good lawyer I mentioned in post #55 would prove you were negligent with your monitoring duties.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

MysteryMan said:


> The law states that someone has to be in the vehicle to monitor performance and take the wheel if necessary so technically you're not a passenger. That good lawyer I mentioned in post #55 would prove you were negligent with your monitoring duties.


Yet Stewart does not have to monitor my driving. He can sleep, read, text message or watch TV on his cellphone. He can even sit in the back seat and pretend I am his chauffeur.

States that allow driverless vehicles do not trust them to this point. They require a licensed driver to be behind the controls "just in case". That ringing endorsement by states willing to take the risk to allow "driverless" vehicles shows the level of their willingness.

If one were in the control seat of a driverless car and decided to text message or talk on a cellphone in a state that allowed driverless cars but did not allow text messaging or cellphone use what law would reign? Would the performance monitor be allowed to use their phone while monitoring the car's driving?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

MysteryMan said:


> The law states that someone has to be in the vehicle to monitor performance and take the wheel if necessary so technically you're not a passenger. That good lawyer I mentioned in post #55 would prove you were negligent with your monitoring duties.


You're still making my point for me.

Why would I agree to ride in a car that I can't drive but that I will be held responsible for the driving? It's a non-starter.

The law would have to change, the insurance company would have to change, and the car manufacturer's would have to change... or I will not ride in said car.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> You're still making my point for me.
> 
> Why would I agree to ride in a car that I can't drive but that I will be held responsible for the driving? It's a non-starter.
> 
> The law would have to change, the insurance company would have to change, and the car manufacturer's would have to change... or I will not ride in said car.


The change would have to be lead by the car manufacturer. Less say that Mercedes Benz come to the conclusion that they could indeed make an ultra safe driverless car. It should be no problem for them to pick up the cost of providing liability and accident insurance. It most likely would be on a contingency basis with a large upfront payment with adjustment later on as the true cost is calculated. If Mercedes fail the market will take of the driverless car but if they succeed the other car manufacturers, the law and insurance companies will have to follow.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

MysteryMan said:


> Really? Then please explain to me why most of my fellow motorists complain about their cars computer system giving them faulty readings? My wife's 2013 Ford Explorer XLT tells her it needs a oil change when that maintenance is performed regularly well within the scheduled time frames. Today I used it to go to our local Post Office. The true outdoor temperature was 4 degrees yet the car's computer system was telling me it was 39 degrees. My neighbor's car's check engine stays lit all the time. He's taken it back to the dealer several times times to no avail. The flight recorder of Asian Flight 214 revealed during the last 2.5 minutes of the flight there were multiple auto pilot modes and multiple auto throttle modes but it did not reveal if those modes were commanded by pilots. Sounds like more testing and redundant systems are needed.


Cost. That's the explanation. Right now, truly redundant and reliable systems cost *money* - though the price is always coming down. I'll go one further for you. Those complaints that you mention? Cheap parts and not enough testing. Remember, Ford let out cars they KNEW were hazards on the road. I, too, had a CHeck Engine light that never went out that the dealership could never fix. Not until I went to ANOTHER dealership did they bother to look deeper into the problem and discover a melted wiring harness too close to the exhaust manifold giving faulty data to the engine computer.

Those electronics *stink on ice*. But there's better stuff coming and the reliability gets better. It's all in how important the system is. Do you think that outdoor temperature sensor is tested the same way the anti-lock brake system is? Of course not.

If I look into my crystal ball, I think you're going to see auto-piloted *electric* cars happen sooner or in greater numbers than 'conventional' cars. Cars like the Tesla Model S have FAR fewer moving parts - far fewer things to break and, subsequently, far fewer factors to keep track of. Those auto-pilot systems are VERY expensive right now. Google's uses LIDAR, if memory serves, and Tesla's Elon Musk isn't sure that'll ever come down in price enough to get mainstream adoption.

Oh - and those trouble-prone cars that I had? All American. Pieces of crap from GM (Pontiac, Olds, Chevy). I had a fairly long lasting Dodge because I was strict about maintenance but my Toyota has put them all to shame. If Tesla can keep the quality going as they introduce their new 'car for the masses' in 3 years, I will happily go back to a domestic manufacturer.

It almost takes a complete re-thinking of what transportation and driving really is. Henry Ford once said "If I'd asked the public what they wanted, they would have asked for a faster horse" - and I think that's part of what we have here. We're so ingrained in the 'status quo' that our brains use confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance to shoo-away radical new ideas.

But that's why I referenced the insurance companies. They're the ones that have crunched the numbers and (with government help sometimes) gotten almost universal implementation of anti-lock brakes, air bags, traction control and other technologies dating back to seat belts. I don't know how many people here remember that the old thinking was that being THROWN CLEAR OF AN ACCIDENT was considered 'safer' than wearing seat belts!

And that's where the push will come from. Over 300,000 miles of auto-piloted miles in those Google cars and not ONE SINGLE AT-FAULT ACCIDENT (as of August 2012, according to Google). For comparison, the statistics I can find say there were about 11 million accidents over the course of 3 trillion miles driven annually or 0.37 per hundred thousand. One professor stated that, when Google gets to 725,000 miles accident-free, they can make a conclusive claim that they're safer than human drivers. So it's coming. I don't know how much closer Google is to that 725K number but there haven't been any at-fault accidents in those cars (one accident was when the driver was 'on manual control' and the other was when the Google car was stopped at a red light and rear-ended by another car - you just can't do anything about that).


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

You've reinforced my point. Cost. If manufactures are willing to use cheap parts and not enough testing with today's computer systems for cars you can safely bet your testicles they'll gamble and do the same with those Google cars. NASA had the most stringent quality assurance standards yet look what happened during the Apollo 13 mission. As for Henry Ford, had he known about performance enhancing drugs he could have given the public what they wanted, saved on cost , and still make a fortune.


----------



## steve053 (May 11, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> You're still making my point for me.
> 
> Why would I agree to ride in a car that I can't drive but that I will be held responsible for the driving? It's a non-starter.
> 
> The law would have to change, the insurance company would have to change, and the car manufacturer's would have to change... or I will not ride in said car.


I get where you're comming from, but most drivers are already relying on computers in their vehicles: anti-lock breaks, traction control, fuel injection, airbags etc. The fact is you're not 100% in control of your vehicle.

I look at future driverless cars and compare it to commercial air flight. The majority of time the plane is on 'auto pilot', and presumably 100% of the time is being monitored by the flight crew. An over generalization/simplification: the pilots are responsible for the flight. Obviously they can't control everyting (maintainence, faulty parts, extreme conditions, etc) but they can and do control a lot.

My guess is that States will require someone to assume the 'pilot's' role. In the beginning this most likley will require the 'pilot' to be physically in the driver's seat, but who knows.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

steve053 said:


> I get where you're comming from, but most drivers are already relying on computers in their vehicles: anti-lock breaks, traction control, fuel injection, airbags etc. The fact is you're not 100% in control of your vehicle.
> 
> I look at future driverless cars and compare it to commercial air flight. The majority of time the plane is on 'auto pilot', and presumably 100% of the time is being monitored by the flight crew. An over generalization/simplification: the pilots are responsible for the flight. Obviously they can't control everyting (maintainence, faulty parts, extreme conditions, etc) but they can and do control a lot.
> 
> My guess is that States will require someone to assume the 'pilot's' role. In the beginning this most likley will require the 'pilot' to be physically in the driver's seat, but who knows.


You're talking about tools vs giving over control.

The hammer actually pushes the nail into the board, but I control the hammer. Anti-lock brakes and air-bags are features... but I'm still driving the car and making most of the decisions. Nobody said 100% control was required to be in control. I'm not 100% control of my bodily functions at all times 

The airplane auto-pilot isn't a fair comparison either. There are far less planes in the air at any given time than there are cars. Planes can basically fly in a straight line or controlled curve for extended periods without there being a concern of them running into anything or encountering another plane on their path. So the autopilot isn't really making decisions. It's akin to cruise control in a car so you can rest your foot and keep a constant speed on a straight road with light traffic on a long trip.

Also, if something goes wrong on your flight, the pilot is the first to be held responsible... only being let off the hook if there is a mechanical failure that can be blamed on maintenance of build problems... If I'm going to be held liable as the driver, I'd better actually be the driver. I'm not going to be a passenger in a driverless car and be more liable than I would in a car driven by a taxi driver.

Consider that too... driverless cars would replace taxis... so if I get into a driverless taxi am I now responsible for that too?


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

MysteryMan said:


> You've reinforced my point. Cost. *If manufactures are willing to use cheap parts and not enough testing* with today's computer systems for cars you can safely bet your testicles they'll gamble and do the same with those Google cars. NASA had the most stringent quality assurance standards yet look what happened during the Apollo 13 mission. As for Henry Ford, had he known about performance enhancing drugs he could have given the public what they wanted, saved on cost , and still make a fortune.


I'm guessing here, but I suspect are you still riding a horse.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Drucifer said:


> I'm guessing here, but I suspect are you still riding a horse.


While I do own horses I drive a 2012 Ford F-250 XLT and a vintage 1969 Buick Riviera.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

So protesters show up at the house of the lead Google engineer.

It used to be the geeks were made fun of, then admired, now frightened by them.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/01/protestors-show-up-at-the-doorstep-of-google-self-driving-car-engineer/


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Article on Yahoo this morning reported a massive pile up on I-94 in northwest Indiana. Three killed, over 20 injured, more than 40 vehicles involved. Would love to see what impact driverless vehicles would have had with this tragedy.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

MysteryMan said:


> Article on Yahoo this morning reported a massive pile up on I-94 in northwest Indiana. Three killed, over 20 injured, more than 40 vehicles involved. Would love to see what impact driverless vehicles would have had with this tragedy.


they would refuse to drive in that kind of weather.... Lol

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

MysteryMan said:


> Article on Yahoo this morning reported a massive pile up on I-94 in northwest Indiana. Three killed, over 20 injured, more than 40 vehicles involved. Would love to see what impact driverless vehicles would have had with this tragedy.


Interesting to speculate.

With forty vehicles involved, I bet way more than half were following too closely.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

MysteryMan said:


> Article on Yahoo this morning reported a massive pile up on I-94 in northwest Indiana. Three killed, over 20 injured, more than 40 vehicles involved. Would love to see what impact driverless vehicles would have had with this tragedy.





peds48 said:


> they would refuse to drive in that kind of weather.... Lol


Seen videos of that accident. It was mostly tractor trailers. You figure those drivers would be the most experience. And yet they were unable to handle the road conditions.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Drucifer said:


> Seen videos of that accident. It was mostly tractor trailers. You figure those drivers would be the most experience. And yet they were unable to handle the road conditions.


Don't be so quick to judge. The majority of accidents involving tractor trailers and cars are caused by those driving cars. Cars use hydraulic brakes, tractor trailers use air brakes. Cars are roughly 16 feet long and weigh between 3,000 and 5,500 lbs. Tractor trailers can weigh up to 80,00 lbs or more. The average length of a tractor is 22 ft, the average length of a trailer is 53 ft. While the average truck driver knows how to safely share the road with cars the average car driver does not know how to safely share the road with tractor trailers. The average car driver drives 33 miles in a day. The average OTR driver drives 500+ miles a day. Those of us who hold a Class A Commercial Drivers License are considered to be professional drivers, those who do not aren't.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

*US To Push For Mandatory Vehicle-To-Vehicle Wireless Communications*



> The US government will work to enable wireless communication links between cars, technology it expects will reduce accidents and, eventually, decrease fuel consumption and speed travel.
> 
> The *National Highway Transportation Safety Administration* said Monday it's finalizing a report on the subject based on a 3,000-vehicle study of vehicle-to-vehicle communications that began in Ann Arbor, Mich., in 2012. That report should be released in the coming weeks -- and then the *Department of Transportation*'s push for using _*V2V*_ technology in  cars and light trucks will get serious.
> 
> ...


*READ MORE*


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

"Hey you big stinking diesel smoking bus, get the **** out of the way!" I'm sure this will help everyone pay attention................


----------

