Autonomous Vehicles

Well, if it's good enough for my robot vacuum to navigate my house.......

Hopefully your LIDAR enabled robot vacuum cleaner has saved a few lives! :p

On a separate topic, now that recreational marijuana sales have been made legal in California, will the "stoned" driver create an increase in road traffic accidents/deaths and will it increase the push in California to make fully autonomous vehicles even more necessary in the State? A conspiracy theorist might assume the two events are connected.

And now that California has made recreational pot legal, how far behind will Britain be?


https://nypost.com/2018/01/01/long-lines-to-buy-legal-weed-in-california/
 
I hate AV's - I want to be autonomous, not hand it over to some silicon valley AI technocracy that says I can't open the door handle of my car because the cloud says so - or puts it's monthly 'Drive' subsciption service up all the time and the car won't work without it. Don't get me started on tariff-shaping and geofencing!.
 
I hate AV's - I want to be autonomous, not hand it over to some silicon valley AI technocracy that says I can't open the door handle of my car because the cloud says so - or puts it's monthly 'Drive' subsciption service up all the time and the car won't work without it. Don't get me started on tariff-shaping and geofencing!.

As the multiple articles I have posted here suggest, the first commercial application of AVs for cars is likely to be a ride-hailing service similar to what Google is currently offering through Waymo in Chandler, Arizona. As the YouTube video previously posted suggests, the passenger (s) enters an SUV, states clearly where (within the geo-fenced area) they wish the vehicle to take them, presses the Start button and the journey begins. These trips are likely to be short-haul, like a ride-hailing service where there is little likelihood that you would need to "open the door handle". If the vehicle runs in to difficulties and/or the passenger has a strong need to exit the vehicle before the end of the journey, there appear to be two options: first, a Stop button which instructs the vehicle to pull over to the side of the road when it is deemed safe which would allow the passenger (s) to exit the vehicle and/or second, a Help button is pressed by the passenger and Waymo's call centre responds with assistance.

I do not understand how you interpret this ride-hailing AV service as "some Silicon Valley AI technocracy" which limits your ability to arrive at your destination presumably more cheaply and safely than a human driven vehicle.

Geo-fencing, is 3D mapping with precision to improve the safety and performance of the AV. Not sure what your problem with it is. Once passengers understand the technology including 3D mapping, LIDAR, sensors, cameras and radar, they will, I believe feel that the vehicle operating in a geo-fenced area is a safer option than not geo-fencing an area. I appreciate not every company pursuing AVs is using all of the above-mentioned technology but the vast majority of them are.

As to tariff-shaping: apart from a term I associate with either an Uber executive during rush hour or a city bureaucrat eager to tax passengers of AVs, I think that voters in that city will determine how they will raise revenue and which city officials to elect to achieve that---whether it is needed or not. But agree with you that I do not like the sound of this seemingly unnecessary tax.
 
Forecast: Autonomous-Vehicle sales to top 33 million in 2040, with ride hailing services leading the way in the US.

And 51,000 AVs sold in 2021 and 1 million sold in 2025.

http://www.thedrive.com/sheetmetal/17298/forecast-autonomous-vehicle-sales-to-top-33-million-in-2040

That's extremely optimistic lol.

I hate AV's - I want to be autonomous, not hand it over to some silicon valley AI technocracy that says I can't open the door handle of my car because the cloud says so - or puts it's monthly 'Drive' subsciption service up all the time and the car won't work without it. Don't get me started on tariff-shaping and geofencing!.

I agree. It's going to be turned in to another money grab which you have no control over. Which is why I'd never buy one. They are massively over-estimating how many people will tbh. An AV module in a car which you can switch on and off, maybe. But a full AV, no thanks.
 
Last edited:
Another partnership announed today at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas between Nvidia, Uber and VW:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...icial-intelligence-graphic-card-a8148076.html

I found the involvement of Uber to be significant as Waymo has sued Uber over the issue of stealing its technology inside a group within Uber. It appears that Uber will move its efforts away from the internal group and get behind Nvidia's developments in machine learning chips.
 
Since car accidents involving autonomous vehicles are still rare, I believe we will all wish to know more details about this particular crash in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. A truck and a self driving car operated by Ford's Argo self driving car unit crashed. Details of the accident are still sketchy, esp if the car was in self driving mode when its four occupants crashed.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...driving-car-crash-hospital-argo-ai-pittsburgh
 
They seem to be a magnet for accidents. Theres barely any on the road, yet some have been in multiple accidents "which were not their fault" :P
 
was struck by a box van running a red light

Presumably you didn’t read the article?

Obviously that’s totally the (driver of the) autonomous vehicles fault...

Autonomous vehicles have driven several million miles at this point and most incidents are published. One of the biggest causes of the accidents they are involved in appears to be due to impatience of other drivers, so yes, again almost certainly not the autonomous vehicles “fault”, just like when they are struck by vehicles running red lights and by vehicles reversing into them.
 
One of the biggest causes of the accidents they are involved in appears to be due to impatience of other drivers, so yes, again almost certainly not the autonomous vehicles “fault”, just like when they are struck by vehicles running red lights and by vehicles reversing into them.

So basically, the typical AV is like your stereotypical elderly overcautious driver who ends up being routinely involved in repeated minor accidents, none of which are their "Fault".

The sort of driver who will drive for miles behind a cyclist/caravan or sit at a junction /roundabout for minutes at a time because they will not overtake or pull our until the road ahead is clear of traffic to the horizon.

Or will start to pull out and then suddenly stop because "something is coming" because a vehicle suddenly becomes visible quarter of a mile away.

Or brakes sharply because something is coming the other way...

Or is unable to anticipate when another driver is likely to make an error or do something dangerous.

Aaand so on....

In other words the sort of Human driver that many would feel really isn't up to the job and who should hang up their keys.

But hey, if it an Av its just fine.:p :D
 
Well generally they’re considered more fluid. They don’t brake suddenly and they stick to the speed limit. That, and the fact they’re obviously automated cars may have something to do with it.

Too many of today’s drivers are impatient and have way to much pent up aggression, hence the number of crashes in every day life.

Perhaps that is an argument to force the change to a fully automated system faster, because motorists just can’t be trusted?

Obviously you’re not the one at fault, because you’re one of the 90% of drivers that think they’re better than average. :p

That said not having crashed is not an indication of being a safe driver. There’s plenty of people that leave devistation in their wakes, they’re just too oblivious to notice and rely on others to avoid incidents. Perhaps this is where automated vehicles will fall down in the near future.

Edit: here’s some good examples of the issue self driving vehicles face.

https://www.google.ca/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL2N1MF1RO

Oct 4 (Reuters) - General Motors Co's self-driving unit, Cruise Automation, told California regulators its vehicles were involved in six crashes in the state in September, but said none of automated vehicles were responsible.

The accidents did not result in any injuries or serious damage, according to the GM reports, but did demonstrate the challenges for developers of self-driving cars confronted by crowded urban streets.

*****

The incidents also demonstrate the difficulties of self-driving cars that obey all traffic laws coexisting with less careful human drivers. In total, GM Cruise vehicles have been involved in 13 crashes reported to California regulators in 2017, while Alphabet Inc's Waymo vehicles have been involved in three crashes.

California state law requires that all crashes involving self-driving vehicles be reported, regardless of severity.

Most of the crashes involved drivers of other vehicles striking the GM cars that were slowing for stop signs, pedestrian or other issues. In one crash, a driver of a Ford Ranger was on his cell phone when he rear-ended a Chevrolet Bolt that was stopped at a red light.

In another instance, the driver of a Chevrolet Bolt noticed an intoxicated cyclist in San Francisco going the wrong direction toward the Bolt. The human driver stopped the Bolt and the cyclist hit the bumper and fell over. The bicyclist pulled on a sensor attached to the vehicle causing minor damage.

In another incident on Sept. 15 in San Francisco, a Dodge Charger in the left-turn lane attempted to illegally pass a Bolt in driverless mode. The GM Cruise employee took control of the vehicle and the Dodge scraped the front sensor and fled the scene without stopping.

"All our incidents this year were caused by the other vehicle," said a Rebecca Mark, spokeswoman for GM Cruise.
 
Last edited:
In other news GM are hoping to start a completely driverless ride sharing system next year, with modified Bolts that don’t have a steering wheel or pedals.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/gm-cruise-self-driving-car-launch-2019/amp

They’re also requesting a change/bending of the rules to allow them to use them on the road.

This is full level four being let out commercially with no backup from a human driver. Should be interesting to see.
 
They seem to be a magnet for accidents. Theres barely any on the road, yet some have been in multiple accidents "which were not their fault" :p

A magnet for accidents?

The biggest defect in the car today is the human driver. Below is a link to a TED talk on self driving cars from a Director of Uber given 7 months ago but just as relevant today. During the 20 minutes or so that the Director gives his speech, 35 people in the world will die as a result of an auto traffic accident with 95% of the fault being that of the driver. 1.3 million people are killed on the roads globally each year and your concern is the potential for a fender bender with a self driving test vehicle? Really?

What would your reaction be if I told you that every day of the year, the number of people killed on the roads mostly due to human error is equal in deaths to a Boeing 737 jetliner dropping from the sky every day and killing all its occupants? Would you be happy to fly if that was the accident rate? I think not. Something must be done to change these needless deaths and I believe through the technological development of the self driving vehicle, we can prevent many deaths.

Meanwhile as the TED talk speaker discusses, there are so many other benefits to society from the advent of the self driving vehicle including rethinking how we design our cities and towns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHV4AiCvSmw
 
Interesting note about Fiat Chrysler in this link and what its future might be.

The article discusses a few strategies.

FCA has tried to form a strategic partnership with a US car manufacturer but so far to no avail. However it has performed extremely well under current management.

There has been talk of a Chinese manufacturer attempting to buy FCA or perhaps some of its brands but I do not see President Trump agreeing to a deal involving a Chinese buyer.

As to self driving vehicles, they have formed a partnership with Waymo and have produced many SUVs for Waymo's testing. I do not see Waymo being interested in FCA beyond FCA being one of many suppliers of vehicles to Waymo's ride hailing fleet of vehicles.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...w-fiat-chrysler-sergio-marchionne/1028185001/
 
A magnet for accidents?

The biggest defect in the car today is the human driver. Below is a link to a TED talk on self driving cars from a Director of Uber given 7 months ago but just as relevant today. During the 20 minutes or so that the Director gives his speech, 35 people in the world will die as a result of an auto traffic accident with 95% of the fault being that of the driver. 1.3 million people are killed on the roads globally each year and your concern is the potential for a fender bender with a self driving test vehicle? Really?

What would your reaction be if I told you that every day of the year, the number of people killed on the roads mostly due to human error is equal in deaths to a Boeing 737 jetliner dropping from the sky every day and killing all its occupants? Would you be happy to fly if that was the accident rate? I think not. Something must be done to change these needless deaths and I believe through the technological development of the self driving vehicle, we can prevent many deaths.

Meanwhile as the TED talk speaker discusses, there are so many other benefits to society from the advent of the self driving vehicle including rethinking how we design our cities and towns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHV4AiCvSmw

That's not a lot. Road accidents aren't even close to being one of the biggest killers.

But, I have a better safety record than the AVs. So having to use one would statistically put me and everyone around me at greater risk. Can't argue with statistics right...
 
Last edited:
That's not a lot. Road accidents aren't even close to being one of the biggest killers.

But, I have a better safety record than the AVs. So having to use one would statistically put me and everyone around me at greater risk. Can't argue with statistics right...

I believe most people in the world would accept that saving many of the 1.3 million people killed in road accidents mostly caused by human driver error is a worthy goal that self driving vehicles can help us achieve.

You may well be the greatest driver ever to inhabit the earth. But the driver coming at you at speed, perhaps drunk, perhaps arguing with a passenger, perhaps exhibiting road rage, etc and who runs into you through no fault of your own and causes you massive injury or loss of life is an issue that can and should be addressed. If as I believe, self driving vehicles can massively reduce the chance of this happening to you and many other drivers around the world, it is a worthy effort.
 
This won't stop deaths on the road in the way they think it will. With millions of AVs some WILL go wrong and crash. Even the best IT systems don't have an expected up time of 100%, at 99% that's still a lot of accidents.
 
Improvement is improvement, if we rejected every technological advance humanity has made on the basis that it wasn't going to be perfect, we'd still be sat in caves gathering berries.
 
Back
Top Bottom