Tesla car fails driving test on automatic. Are we yet ready for driverless?

[studiot]

Thatcham vehicle test track demonstration that current autopilot driverless car can involve itself in a crash situation.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-44460980/this-car-is-on-autopilot-what-happens-next

Edited June 13, 2018 by studiot

[Blue_Ring]

I have always been wary of the idea of driverless cars for one main reason, the eyes are one of the most complex pieces of technology in the world, we cannot possibly try to recreate this through cameras or sensors, the eye will always be the most perceptive thing out there, not even touching on the processing power of the brain, its simply not possible to recreate and improve the capabilities of a human driving a car through technology.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Blue_Ring said:

the eyes are one of the most complex pieces of technology in the world, we cannot possibly try to recreate this through cameras or sensors,

That’s just silly. We can’t even see in infrared or in 360 degrees or when the windshield is wet or across long distances with acuity or ad infinitum...

Edited June 14, 2018 by iNow

[Endy0816]

This appears to be only partially automated.

I think we really need full automation in our vehicles or nothing. We bore too easily to be good partners.

Cost is probably going to make 'partials' a long term problem though. Always going to be cheaper to skimp.

[Spedley]

That was a very good example of why cars won't be fully autonomous for a while yet.  Assuming the car could do anything it was told, I find it hard to specify what to do in that situation.  The car needs to be far more aware of it's situation, e.g. how many lanes there are, which lanes are safe etc.

I think the first real use of fully autonomous cars will be a dedicated lane on motorways where cars travel fast and in convoy with only automated vehicles permitted, probably in communication with each other acting more like a train.  There would be a significant speed/efficiency advantage, very safe travelling and a gain of public trust and acceptance.

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 6/13/2018 at 9:07 PM, Endy0816 said:

This appears to be only partially automated.

I think we really need full automation in our vehicles or nothing. We bore too easily to be good partners.

Cost is probably going to make 'partials' a long term problem though. Always going to be cheaper to skimp.

That is a very good point. Perhaps the automation system could produce an alarm if it senses some "confusion" or doubt on it's part, or when approaching such things as pedestrian crosswalks.

[StringJunky]

14 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That is a very good point. Perhaps the automation system could produce an alarm if it senses some "confusion" or doubt on it's part, or when approaching such things as pedestrian crosswalks.

I think it has to be accepted people may be killed in some situations by automation just as they would by a human driver. I will say though , the inability to surmise there is a stationary car in front of a moving one that pulls out in front of you  needs to be addressed.

[Scott of the Antares]

I doubt fully driverless cars will become mainstream for a long time because if one is involved in a crash where your vehicle is at fault but you weren’t at the controls, then surely the liability lies with the manufacturer? I can’t see them exposing themselves to this kind of financial risk, even with far more robust technology. As long as these is a driver in the hot seat, we will have to have insurance and take on this burden away from manufacturers.

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think it has to be accepted people may be killed in some situations by automation just as they would by a human driver. I will say though , the inability to surmise there is a stationary car in front of a moving one that pulls out in front of you  needs to be addressed.

True, but we go to jail if we are responsible for killing someone when driving. Do we give AI a free pass?! That sets a bad precedent! *cough skynet on wheels cough*

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think it has to be accepted people may be killed in some situations by automation just as they would by a human driver. I will say though , the inability to surmise there is a stationary car in front of a moving one that pulls out in front of you  needs to be addressed.

To SJ: The idea being the ability to look past the vehicle in front of you (or in your example pulling out in front of you) to anticipate what might be reasonably required?

To anyone: How does current technology handle someone lane changing right in front of you, faster than you could respond if you had to brake? (maybe given the faster response this is not a problem given equal braking power??)

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

To SJ: The idea being the ability to look past the vehicle in front of you (or in your example pulling out in front of you) to anticipate what might be reasonably required?

 

Yes. Looking just in front of you is the worse kind of driving. By looking ten cars, or whatever, in front you have a better idea of what's going to happen in the near  future

23 minutes ago, Scott of the Antares said:

I doubt fully driverless cars will become mainstream for a long time because if one is involved in a crash where your vehicle is at fault but you weren’t at the controls, then surely the liability lies with the manufacturer? I can’t see them exposing themselves to this kind of financial risk, even with far more robust technology. As long as these is a driver in the hot seat, we will have to have insurance and take on this burden away from manufacturers.

True, but we go to jail if we are responsible for killing someone when driving. Do we give AI a free pass?! That sets a bad precedent! *cough skynet on wheels cough*

The day AI becomes legally responsible is the day they get citizens rights.  

Edited June 16, 2018 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

Isn't that the point of a limited liability company though? Even the owners are exempt a s long as they are operating in good faith...or at least able to claim to be. If it is in the public interest overall then it should work itself out, even if the vehicles initially require a higher minimum of insurance...which could in time reverse where driver cars require more.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Scott of the Antares said:

I doubt fully driverless cars will become mainstream for a long time because if one is involved in a crash where your vehicle is at fault but you weren’t at the controls, then surely the liability lies with the manufacturer? I can’t see them exposing themselves to this kind of financial risk, even with far more robust technology. As long as these is a driver in the hot seat, we will have to have insurance and take on this burden away from manufacturers.

I would say that is completely up to the lawmakers. If they want to spur growth and liability laws are inhibiting manufacturers, they will just change the laws.

Quote

True, but we go to jail if we are responsible for killing someone when driving. Do we give AI a free pass?! That sets a bad precedent! *cough skynet on wheels cough*

Well, perhaps if you are reckless, but a death doesn't necessarily mean there will be jail time.

[Endy0816]

Renting auton vehicles with the company handling liability would make the most sense IMO.

We have millions of dollars sitting parked for 8 hour stretches each day :/

 

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That is a very good point. Perhaps the automation system could produce an alarm if it senses some "confusion" or doubt on it's part, or when approaching such things as pedestrian crosswalks.

They tried that...

https://nypost.com/2017/10/31/google-ditched-self-driving-car-feature-after-users-napped-behind-wheel/

Happily we can keep improving hardware and software. More sensors, make things easier to be sensed by the vehicles and have them share information with each other.

Edited June 17, 2018 by Endy0816

[studiot]

12 hours ago, Spedley said:

I think the first real use of fully autonomous cars will be a dedicated lane on motorways where cars travel fast and in convoy with only automated vehicles permitted, probably in communication with each other acting more like a train.  There would be a significant speed/efficiency advantage, very safe travelling and a gain of public trust and acceptance.

This makes a lot of sense. +1

I'm pretty sure the UK MinTransport has some sort of thoughts/proposals about this and , but sorry I haven't a reference at the moment but I seem to remember it involved a simple system linking and locking 'trains' of heavy goods vehicles to top the all to frequent event of one lorry running into the back of another in a motorway procession.

Edited June 17, 2018 by studiot

[mistermack]

I think the question of liability will be one for the insurance companies. Right now, you have to have third party insurance so that even if you are the one at fault, it's the insurance company who is responsible to cover the damage. 

If the vehicles are insured, and it can be shown that they have fewer crashes than humans, then I can't see the problem. The question of blame would only come into it, if there was a lack of proper maintenance, or not following laid down regulations. 

The chances are it will very quickly become much safer than human drivers. When you tot up all of the human things that we do wrong, it's horrendous. It's a wonder we are allowed to drive at all.

Maybe when ALL cars are driverless, the computers will be able to talk to the car in front. So if a problem arises, the information is passed back down the road so that all the following vehicles are ready for it. That way, you wouldn't get the multiple pile-ups that you get now, especially in fog.

[Eponymous]

Blue Ring summed it up perfectly.