City isn't keen on 5,000 erratic, traffic-jam-causing GM robo-cars on its streets Two San Francisco transit agencies have asked the US National Highway Transportation Safety Administration to check the safety of General Motors' Cruise self-driving cars. In a letter [PDF] submitted last week in response to an NHTSA docket [PDF] exploring GM's petition for a safety rule exemption, the directors of the San …
No company, not GM, certainly not Tesla, and not anyone else, has provided sufficient evidence that "self driving" (i.e. automated guessing) should be allowed on public roads. California should rescind it's license now.
In software terms it wouldn't even qualify as an alpha release. In movie terms, it is just storyboards showing what should happen buut not how it's going to happen.
Keep the driver behind the wheel
How about this... all self-driving cars must have a safety driver. The car logs every occasion when the safety driver has to intervene. When every car in the fleet has logged no interventions at all for a period of, say, a year, then maybe we begin to think about allowing vehicles without a safety driver.
And every occasion when the safety driver takes over 1 second to take full control.
And every occasion when the safety driver is not paying full attention regardless of whether there is an incident that requires intervention. Hell if you can keep track of what is happening on the road it must be child's play to keep track of the safety driver.
"How about this... all self-driving cars must have a safety driver."
It doesn't help. There was a fatal accident in Arizona where the car didn't see somebody crossing the road at night and the "safety driver" was fiddling with their phone. If there has to be a safety driver, it would be better to just have them driving the car in the first place.
It didn't help in *that* case. It probably would've helped in all *these* cases where the failure mode was "car didn't know what to do and just shut itself down in a travel lane". A safety driver would be right there to drive it away manually, as opposed to waiting 20 minutes for one to arrive from some central dispatch.
" It probably would've helped in all *these* cases where the failure mode was "car didn't know what to do and just shut itself down in a travel lane"."
Unless the car just came to a screeching halt and the driver behind was a bit too close. A car shutting itself down if it gets confused might solve one issue, but generate several more. I don't see this as being better.
Exactly.
This is the area I feel that there is a major problem. These systems are in a testing phase (Hell given the number of updates to every other SW system I touch they might always be). There might be cases where they can handle some situations better than some drivers, who knows. But they certainly can't cope with unexpected random shit as well as most (but perhaps not all) humans.
So they need to rely on the human taking over when the system doesn't know what to do next.
The key safety thing therefore is the machine to human hand over.
Here I think we hit the major snag. The better the automated response systems get the less the human will pay attention. We're only human after all. We get bored easily. We look for something else to occupy us. We're not going to sitting there paying 100% attention to what the automated system is doing. If we need to then what's the point, we may as well just do the driving ourselves.
So we get bored and our mind & body wonders off to do something else. Watch movies, play with the Internet, climb into the back seat and have sex, who knows. The UK driving test figures for stopping assume a "thinking time" or time to react of 0.7s, what chance of that for someone who's distracted?
This is my issue.
I don't think you'll ever be able to get an average user of an AV to react is a useful period.
I wonder what the average reaction time is to a fire alarm? Try googleing for this as it has been studied and it shows how real people respond.
"why can't it call home and then a remote techician drive the vehicle (Speed limited) so it's at least out of the way?"
Very quickly those people will join a union and be on a break when they are needed or required to begin their break right on the dot even if they are in the middle of moving the car.
It would also be a bad thing if the car winds up dead in the middle of an intersection or across a level crossing due to a dead spot in cell phone coverage and loses touch with the remote driver.
Sadly, I must agree with the above. Autonomous cars are NOT ready for use on actual streets, and letting them block intersections in a city is just irresponsible. Real-world autonomous driving, with the reliability required to make it not be the Bad Idea it is now, is an incredibly difficult task; that last 1% of corner cases is quite intractable. And THAT is the bit that AV developers and cheerleaders ignore or gloss over; acceptable real-world performance demands handling the railroad tracks and erratic crosswalkers at least as well as a human driver does, and current AVs just cannot.
But enough of that, let's look at the bigger picture. Do we REALLY want or need ubiquitous driverless single-passenger vehicles as the dominant transit modality, or is there a better solution in terms of sustainability, traffic congestion, and societal desirability? In urban areas, where most of the population lives, I would argue that mass transit (including, say, driverless streetcars?) with decent service frequency, reliability, and area coverage is a much better mobility solution than swarms of single-passenger vehicles competing for the same road space. Plus, mass transit doesn't present the income-based mobility barriers that private-hire vehicles do. That's a social equality issue these gadgets don't do a thing to address.
AVs are presently inadequate to the task of driving on real streets with real people, but even if we fix that, they're a poor solution to providing mobility to society at large.
> Autonomous cars are NOT ready for use on actual streets, and letting them block intersections in a city is just irresponsible.
From experience over the years of driving in the US including in SF I have to say that American drivers are some of the most tolerant in the world. Can you imagine what would happen if this were to happen in London during the rush hour? let alone in some of the European cities where failing to move with .5s of the lights changing is going to have every car in the queue hooting and their drivers cursing you and your descendants to the Nth generation. Somehow I can't see drivers in Boston being that tolerant either.
@Alan Bourke : this IS funny.
Although ... one problem I DO have is when driving long distances on highways. It's boring, and in reality there is not much to do, there are no particular dangers. The biggest danger might be to fall asleep. And it's a controlled environment, as opposed to a human city : there are no crossings, all cars go in the same direction, at similar speeds. Also, if cars could follow each other at short distance – 2 m ? – then wind resistance and thus gasoline consumption would be reduced.
So if they could come up with a way to have self-driving cars on highways I'd actually appreciate that. Apart from that, hands off my car.
"if our cars encounter a situation where they aren’t able to safely proceed they turn on their hazard lights and we either get them operating again or pick them up as quickly as possible"
Stopping in their tracks, as opposed to Teslas, which preferentially seem to forge ahead when confused, including accelerating into obstructions they don't 'understand'.
I have just had the 'pleasure' of driving behind a Tesla testing self-driving in city traffic (no human driver drives as badly as this vehicle did) and it did the following:
- Stopped in the middle of a busy junction, because pedestrians were doing what pedestrians do, which is cross when there are gaps in the traffic rather than waiting for the pedestrian lights to allow walking. It didn't do what human drivers do, which is edge forward.
- Got confused with tram-tracks and looked out it couldn't work out if they were lane markings, the kerb, or something else. (swerve, brake, brake, swerve, brake, swerve)
- Refused to overtake a cyclist in an adjacent cycle lane. Multiple times.
- Swerved to avoid a wet manhole cover (it probably mischaracterised it as a hole in the road)
- Exceeded the temporary speed limit signs placed at roadworks, by accelerating hard up to the limit that was in place for that stretch of road, then sticking to that limit.
- Instead of driving smoothly on the open road, shying like a horse and sending me Morse code in brake-light flashes, especially when coming to traffic calming road humps. People do brake for road calming obstacles, but not staccato, and certainly don't decide to send S.O.S. on an open road with no obstacles.
- Randomly swerving. Where's the road centre markings? Oops, no, no here, how about here, er...
It's difficult to characterise just how weird the driving was. The unpredictable braking, bursts of acceleration, and swerving were like a teenager in their first driving lesson, but of course, the car had no 'L'-plates.
My passenger at first thought it was someone trying to claim insurance by braking hard unexpectedly and having me run into the back of their car. It was my passenger that clued me in to the possibility that the Tesla was testing autonomous driving. They could see someone in the passenger seat, taking notes.
Now, I want autonomous driving to work: as I get older, I would like to avoid the huge hit to independence that losing the ability to drive gives you. So while I'm generally supportive of work to allow cars to drive themselves, I can see there is still a huge amount of work that needs to be done.
Perhaps cars running such tests should have 'L'-plates.
Yes, for Lunatic... they shouldn't be on the public road, period. I see your point about losing the ability to drive, but hopefully the tech will be fit for purpose WHEN that unfortunate day happens to you. Right now, it is not fit for purpose, and extremely dangerous
"Stopped in the middle of a busy junction, because pedestrians were doing what pedestrians do, which is cross when there are gaps in the traffic rather than waiting for the pedestrian lights to allow walking. It didn't do what human drivers do, which is edge forward."
Minor unrelated note here: interestingly, pedestrian behaviour isn't universal. It depends hugely on the circumstances of the city. I quickly learned to act like this (as a pedestrian) in Boston, because the traffic lights are massively car-friendly and pedestrian-unfriendly; if you stand around waiting for a walk sign at every crossing it'll take you two hours to walk half a mile. I don't behave this way in Vancouver, where I live, because lights are much more pedestrian-friendly, so I trust they'll change pretty fast if I wait for them.
In Saigon, you quickly learn to ignore any and all traffic signals and instead adopt the local informal road crossing policy, which is to do it whenever you want, quickly and confidently, with a hand pushed out to signal "I know what I'm doing, I'm going to keep walking, you just trust that and drive around me, and we'll all somehow miraculously be fine, most of the time"...
Simple. A self driving car should be issued a licence just like us humans, preferably passing the same test we have to pass. And then if it causes an accident, drives without due care and attention etc, it should get points, just like a human would. 12 points and an automatic ban. of course it's not the car...it's the software, so if a Teslube 5000 gets a ban, then all Teslube 5000s get a ban. But not a problem because our robot overlords never err.
With an automated car, the license could be far more active.
Instead of allowing free rein until found to be non-conformant, conformance with the rules could be imposed electronically. The car would be responsible for spotting pedsetrians, interacting with the owner etc. But on needing to access some shared resource such as a freeway or busy city street, the car would have to announce its intentions to the city traffic management system and obtain permission for literally everything it did in real time, such as making a turn, changing lane etc.
The owner still retains control of the car - they can change plans at any time - but the car has to achieve them in a way that meets not just the law but the instantaneous traffic management aims. No illegal turns, speeding, misparking or contributing to traffic jams. If you ask it to do something that overloads the system, you can't do it.
Similar to the road-train concept for freeways where you join a train of cars moving together, but applied to cities.
Not sure that an actual city is a suitable test environment for software developers. Imagine how much fun it'll be when Google and Tesla add their robocars into the mix, all running different proprietary software containing different rules and behaviours, interacting with each other in completely unpredictable ways on the street and causing all sorts of new and stupid traffic blockages.
The damage this will do to the city's economy will no doubt outstrip the cost of employing the taxi drivers that the driverless taxis have replaced.
"Is the brand/model actually called Hummer now? I thought it was Humvee."
Depends. In regular language, both are used with no difference between the military or the nun military version, though my subjective impression is that those who want to sound like they have any mil-tech competence (and usually havent) use humvee more often.
Thats my subjective impression however and i couldnt care less about those vehicles so i am not aware of any marketing speech regarding the name.
In Québec, it was the Buick LaCrosse.
This one is no urban legend:
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Buick-s-name-means-masturbate-in-Quebec-slang-2581410.php
https://www.cbc.ca/news/gm-faces-car-name-conundrum-1.775246
https://www.iheartradio.ca/cjad/news/what-s-in-a-name-a-brand-new-buick-model-might-have-some-quebecers-giggling-1.3485196
Any older big city is a master's level test for an autonomous car. Why does GM want to do their testing there instead of someplace like Alliance, Nebraska? The cars need to be able to handle the mundane flawlessly before they're tasked with figuring out too narrow roads laid out before cars were commonplace, winding roads on hills, one way streets, never ending road closures, double parked delivery vans and all of the other things in a target rich downtown on a weekday.
My suggestion is that all autonomous cars must be certified by an independent testing agency on a road course that contains many hazards found in a city. The DARPA Urban Challenge was held on a closed down military base which can be a good reuse of those facilities. They have residential zones, a shopping center and warehouses and all of it can be fitted with all manner of problems for an EV to solve. Important too is that the obstacles can be changed around so makers aren't building out their test vehicle specially to pass the test. Being closed to the public other than for some competition weekends, nobody is going to be harmed if the car has a brain fart and does something really stupid.
A company I was with won a NASA prize by building a rocket tailored to the contest. Like Scrapheap Challenge builds, it wasn't pretty, but it did the job. Had there been more and random things that could have been thrown at us, we would have needed to build a more complete rocket lander and been prepared to adapt at the last minute. I suppose the difference is that rockets aren't built to be general purpose vehicles and get designed with a specific mission in mind.
I'm surprised that there isn't a high-profile racing series for self-driving vehicles.
True enough, racing circuits are inherently safe in as much as everyone travels in the same direction and there's runoff and stuff, but the robots would still have to content with the unpredictable behaviour of the other vehicles. Along with the occasional bit of wind and rain. And if that's not enough, send out some robotic humanoid pedestrians to cross the track periodically.
-A.
My answer off-hand would be that the San Francisco area contains a larger proportion of persons who think that self-driving cars are useful and practical. Alliance, Nebraska, presumably has less of its population with emotional investment in the glamour of tech.
It did occur to me in looking at the article that Detroit would be a fine place to test the cars. There is more room on the streets than there was 20 years ago; GM is a large contributor to the local economy; and if you wish to do all-weather testing, Detroit has weather you won't see in San Francisco.
"Alliance, Nebraska, presumably has less of its population with emotional investment in the glamour of tech."
It's pretty typical of middle America, flat and not densely populated. They could give people rides or just shift the cars around at random to test how they do. I used it as an example as I visited in 2017 for the total solar eclipse and can remember some of the features. I doubt I'll ever visit SF again. I used to go to a trade show that was held there every few years, but I'm not in that industry anymore and the town has really gone downhill. I won't visit Chicago anymore for many of the same reasons.
I can't help feeling that this is mainly an American thing. They can't even be bothered to change gears manually.
Some of us actually quite like driving, gears and all. But I suppose that there are some who would prefer not to.
They should take a bus. Or a train. Or a (mini-)cab. Possibly even an Uber.
If your beef is that you have some weird fear of shared transport spaces, that's fine so long as you understand that if your pristine vehicle drives itself then it won't do so in the same manner that you would. It won't matter in the slightest bit how important it is that you make that meeting in time or get to the airport before your plane takes off or get your wife to the hospital before she pops your sprog*. It won't bend the rules. It won't take cheeky shortcuts. It won't go faster than the speed limit, no matter how unreasonable you might find it. Since, by definition, self-driving vehicles will be more heavily regulated than those with a sentient pilot, it might insist on taking nice safe toll roads that you wouldn't normally fancy paying for. It might be subject to Police orders to avoid certain places, possibly for your own good, possibly not.
This might be A Good Thing. It's probably not what you had in mind.
-A.
* Or (possibly more likely) your husband before he expires of a heart attack.
"They can't even be bothered to change gears manually."
That would mean not having any hands on the wheel or needing to find a place for my beer.
Flippancy aside, an automatic transmission can do a better job with day to day driving. I like being able to have a snack or non-alcoholic drink while driving and it's easier if I'm not having to shift. Some days it's the only way I can get lunch down my neck. For the first couple of decades of driving, all of my cars had a manual transmission. It is a good skill to know as there might be a time when you need to drive one even if you can't drive it well to be able to at least not jerk and stall can be good enough.
If your driving somewhere where you need to be changing gear often enough that it interrupts your meal, then you really should be concentrating on the road, not eating lunch!
If you are prepared to take the risk of eating lunch while driving, FFS at least wait until you are on a long , fairly straight road where there are inherently less distractions and risks!
"then you really should be concentrating on the road, not eating lunch!"
I am coordinated enough to be able to hit my mouth with a burrito while still watching the road. What would make it more of a problem is having to keep setting the burrito down and picking it up again when I need to change gears.
Are you so set against people having an automatic transmission that this really bothers you that much?
I can say that it usually is a time when I'm on a fairly straight highway. Everything is peachy until the person in the left lane speeds up just as I'm approaching a HGV in front of me and wind up having to slow down so I can let them pass before I can move over to get around the truck which would mean shifting gears with a manual transmission. Did YOU miss my signal or were YOU just being a D?
"Some callers complained of erratic driving (including signaling in one direction while moving in the other direction) or a Cruise AV blocking a transit vehicle, but the most common complaint to 9-1-1 has been about Cruise AVs blocking travel lanes for extended periods causing traffic backups,"
This just sounds like a typical Prius driver.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
