Warning flags
I think it's time to recall the early-days requirement for a jogging attendant running ahead of the vehicle, waving a red flag on a pole to warn of the approaching danger.
The governor of Washington has green-lit the testing of self-driving cars on the US state's public roads, with or without human operators, calling the technology "foolproof." Gov. Jay Inslee this week signed an executive order (PDF) that called for new rules on autonomous car testing and, for the first time, provisions to test …
"Listen car. Did you run over that doggo there then carried on nonchalantly as if nothing had happened?"
"Let me put it this way, Mr. Driver: No 9000 car has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error."
"The problem with your thesis is that code is ultimately written by humans."
Of course, however as there are huge differences in how safe people drive, there are huge differences in how safe people code. The self driving car industry (or whatever of it already exists) has the great advantage of still having a concept that appeals to people. Therefore they still get good people who are sick of recognizing product images to place more efficient ads.
However in the comming years, as more and more companies enter that market, that might fade, and you only have average or even sub average programmers in such companies. Also programmers will realize that, although self driving cars sound cool, any car-based future is likely to fail, simply because we don't have the resources to sustain everyone having a car.
"Of course, however as there are huge differences in how safe people drive, there are huge differences in how safe people code. "
Some of us have driven for many years over many, many thousands of miles without being involved in an accident while others are the IoT security of driving.
Have you ever heard of a politician... who wasn't technically illiterate
"Have you ever heard of a politician... who wasn't technically illiterate
Be careful what you wish for."
Ah, Thatcher. Chemist turned barrister turned politician.
The "scientist" who decreed that the price of a primary source of energy, gas, should be raised to make a secondary/tertiary form of energy, electricity, more competitive.
It only made sense once the privatisation of British Gas was announced.
-- between a blowing plastic bag in the road and a running child in the road?
"If you think self-driving cars can't get here soon enough, you're not alone. But programming computers to recognize objects is very technically challenging, especially since scientists don't fully understand how our own brains do it."
MedicalXPress.com article on perception.
"How does your brain perceive the difference --
-- between a blowing plastic bag in the road and a running child in the road?"
I understand your point, but applying the brakes seems like a reasonable response under both of these circumstances until they really can tell the difference.
Also, I suspect this is generally something that people are not very good at either. Maybe we can't tell. Plenty of children darting into roads get hit. Plastic bags impacts aren't recorded...
Additionally, I'd hope that the software can track 'unknown objects' while they are still on the sidewalk (or when they have JUST left the sidewalk ie. 100% awareness), such that the car could slow down in anticipation of the plastic bag / child running into the street. I.e. less emergency braking.
Also, automatic cars might Actually drive fairly slowly in an urban setting e.g. 15-20 mph. In the UK we have signs that say 20 is plenty. So while I wouldn't want to get run over at 20 miles an hour (fatality 5% chance), it's WAY more survivable than being hit at 30 mph (fatality 45%). And hopefully the car would be stamping on the brakes anyway.
Either way, automated cars erring on the side of caution in an urban setting seems reasonable, and who's to say that people are any better at not hitting children than plastic bags.
"How does your brain perceive the difference --
-- between a blowing plastic bag in the road and a running child in the road?"
I understand your point, but applying the brakes seems like a reasonable response under both of these circumstances until they really can tell the difference.
Well not necessarily. If a child steps out into the road in front of me I'll hit the brakes and pull what ever stunt is necessary to avoid them. If a plastic bag blows out into the road in front of me I'll look in the mirror first. So if that bloody great truck with the driver on his phone behind me is too close to stop before totally me I'll be a little more circumspect about braking. I don't want to die, but I'll die to try to avoid a dumb kid. I don't want to cause an accident for the sake of a bit of wind blown garbage.
We've already had a discussion here about the ethics of a computer deciding between killing a pedestrian (a non-paying human) and killing it's occupants (paying customers), those choices will need to be made and a human driver will make them in the heat of the moment while a computer program will have had to be taught who it should kill in order of preference.
"We've already had a discussion here about the ethics of a computer deciding between killing a pedestrian (a non-paying human) and killing it's occupants (paying customers), those choices will need to be made and a human driver will make them in the heat of the moment while a computer program will have had to be taught who it should kill in order of preference."
Ethics? Odds are that the choices will be made based on factors like who has a premium account with the company operating* the autonomous vehicle(s) involved and who doesn't.
* You're not assuming you'll be able to buy your own robocar, are you? It's going to be "Mobility as a Service" or something like that. Even if you are the sole person using one particular car.
If a child steps out into the road in front of me I'll hit the brakes and pull what ever stunt is necessary to avoid them.
An autonomous car is being tested on the roads of Washington when the Governer. Jay Inslee, for it is he, steps onto the road. The autonomous car takes decides the best course of action is to swerve to avoid him when a child steps onto the path the vehicle would be taking moments later. What should it do?
If it detects a collision is unavoidable, it should go onto damage minimalisation mode and alert the emegency services before impact (if that impact is guaranteed).
Next, calculate the potential injuries. Adult vs child vs driver. Driver has a protective box around them, can we put them into something without hurting anyone else?
What vehicle are we in? A child is going under a car, an adult more likely over it. What's following behind to hit the adult afterwards? Can we hit the adult at an angle that'll knock them to the side (pavement) rather than leave them in the road?
I'd work down those lines. While this is a worst case scenario, it'll still play out better than a meatsack who will instinctively avoid each obstacle as they arise without weighting them.
The more defined the environment the device operates in the easier it is to understand the edge cases. And thus to write software that will be able handle the edge cases. Cars, however, do not operate in a well defined environment. It is likely there are the situations that either not considered or badly handled. Tbe examples you noted either fairly well defined or still have a human in the loop.
Even if all cars were automated, they still have to deal with pedestrians, cyclists, animals etc. that are not automated.
The only way to be 100% certain would be to only run these vehicles in a controlled environment where nothing else could interfere and there is no chance of unpredictable situations.
> Even if all cars were automated, they still have to deal with pedestrians
And if I know that a auto-car is going to stop then I'll just walk across the road. WGAF!
I'm not waiting for no silicon driver. If the resulting emergency stop causes the meat payload to spill their coffee WGAF! to that too.
If the motor-vehicle driving software was subject to the combination of testing, checks and analysis, as well as the acceptance of responsability that I know (having worked on) safety critical medical device software is, I might feel more sympathy for self-driving cars. But my impression is that this software is not carefully planned and subject to FDA style regulations as all medical device software is.
Feel free to enlighten me - what IEC software standard is the AI systems of these self driving cars complying to?
They don't need to be foolproof - they only need to be better than human drivers. And they definitely will be - we just don't know whether that's 1 or 10 or 50 years. Massively better.
When (not if) the risk becomes less than a human driver, then insurance will cost less. If It's up to society to make insurance work, and to stop lawyers trying to make money by sue-ing the programmer.
So, mr. Governor is certain that the robocar is absolutely trustworthy. I wonder what will happen when a robocar inevitably runs someone over - because, statistically, the chance for this is 100% regardless of how good the software is.
Wouldn't it be better to just recognize that a robocar is successful not if it never causes an accident, but rather if it causes *less accidents than humans*?
Foolproof was probably not the word that most describes the sentiment he wanted to put across.
If you read the quote, he was trying to say that an automated car doesn't drive drunk, on drugs, on the phone, tired, distracted by dogs/cats/kids/significant others etc. or without due care and attention. all of which are 'foolish' things for a human driver to do.
No, they are called idiot lights because they are there as a cost reduction by bean-counters over functional gauges. Idiot lights only tell you when something HAS failed, as opposed to a gauge with an educated driver who can see that something isn't right and stops and has it fixed BEFORE it fails. Good examples are the ammeter gauge and oil pressure gauge.
I'll take the gauge any day over a stupid light.
Lots of people.
For example, a robocar could take me to the pub and bring me home sloshed.
It could take me to the airport then go back home, instead of paying through the nose for airport parking.
It could take my kids to and from school while my wife and I are on a beach in the Caribbean.
Loads of things.
For example, a robocar could take me to the pub and bring me home sloshed.
Uber.
It could take me to the airport then go back home, instead of paying through the nose for airport parking.
Uber.
It could take my kids to and from school while my wife and I are on a beach in the Caribbean.
Uber.
Why do you want to deprive Uber from being able to squeeze their slaves some more and boost Kalanick in the "being an absolute arse" ratings[0]?
[0] mistyped as 'ragings' at first.
here is a link to the top 5 causes of RTAs in the UK
http://www.seriousinjurylaw.co.uk/resources/blog/5-major-causes-of-uk-road-traffic-accidents-and-how-to-avoid-them/
which ones do you think could be reduced by removing the meatsack ?
I think it could show an improvement (ie a decrease) in all of them. From my limited understanding the key technologies are in place albeit still costly (eg LIDAR) the things that need work are (in no particular order)
1) security , cos that always needs work
2) legal framework - road traffic laws I think all assume a person is responsible for the control of the vehicle and the decision making process (IANAL)
3) complexities of a mixed environment,, there will always be people like me who want to drive though for fun more that the commute if this does take off, eg the possibility that the autonomous vehicle is capable of making an error must be taken into account in any accident investigation and any claims that is not possible ignored.
getting these things out on the roads has risks associated with it and I think the manufacturers/developers need to take safety as seriously as the Aircraft or space industries do in their designs. If the main selling point is safety then the vehicles had better prove to be safe. I guess the arguments will be around defining "safe" legally and unambiguously. The car industry doesn't have a great track record in independently making things safer. Though as it will be easier to market them as bringing convenience I expect the safety stuff to drop down the priority list under commercial pressure.
Is the nut behind the wheel.
Old joke. But one worth remembering. It's not always bad driving that causes accidents, either, but bad maintenance: I know somebody who drove around with mismatched wheels (not tyres, but wheels).
The question is whether driverless cars will cause fewer accidents than humans. That remains to be seen.
True. And given the sheer stupidity of half the drivers on the road, coupled with fatigue, lack of skill, alcohol, drugs and poor vehicle maintenance, it's not hard to imagine a world in which self-driving cars easily exceed the safety record of those driven by humans.
But then there is the question, how much risk, and how many accidents, will we still be prepared to tolerate? Achieving fewer traffic deaths than we have now is desirable but not necessarily impressive. There must be some vastly lower accident rate that we should aspire to and work towards and which future passengers will consider acceptable—just as they understand that today, getting into a western-built plane belonging to a major western airline means they'll be safer aboard than they are at home in the tub.
So we have to work towards something that is outstandingly reliable and safe. What it will never, ever be, of course, is "foolproof": a word bandied only by fools themselves.
My suspicion is that the bigger challenge in all of this is yet to come, and it won't be lidar, radar, GPS, or any of the increasingly quotidian bits of building a good automotive robot—those problems are all solvable.
No, the biggie, lumbering across the horizon to complicate everything horribly, is security. It won't be difficult to make a self-driving car that drives safer than a human. Butu it will be extremely difficult to make one which is as resistant to hacking and sequestration as a human.
"But then there is the question, how much risk, and how many accidents, will we still be prepared to tolerate?"
Almost certainly, the answer to that is none. At least the more shrill segments of the media will tell us that's what we should think. People "accept" road deaths and injuries today, despite the shockingly high numbers, because most are human error and humans make mistakes, right? Take that and transfer it to automated machinery, and "people are being killed by machines, BLAME SOMEONE!!!!, SUE SOMEONE!!!!!"
There are also Konsumers Everywhere insisting on super-cheap deliveries, with ultra-short delays.
They, too, will have to be ready to pay higher S&H costs, so those truckers can get decent wages, not be forced to drive 60 hours a week, and have enough vacations to spend with their families.
I wonder if we'd have segregated lanes for semi-autonomous vehicle by now if the promise of fully self-driving wasn't on the table as being "Real Soon Nowtm"
It was proposed quite some while ago to add in an extra barrier on motorways/freeways for what would be quite simple automation of long distance driving. But no government is going to invest billions in something they are told will be obsolete within a very short time. I wonder what the reality of self-driving cars will actually be in a few years? Will we reach a point where it actually works or a point where, like fusion power, we realise it's actually 20 or 30 years in the future?
wondering how these cars will see the lanes in a snowstorm?
Oh sure, we can implant beacons of some sort, buried RFIDs or whatever, but until they're everywhere there might be that kind of visibility problem I don't want to see those empty driver's seats near me in winter.
All it takes is one child killed or crippled by an autonomous car driving around with a human behind the wheel (or without a wheel) and they'll set back the cause of autonomous cars by a decade.
Stupid states are competing to see who can have the most lax regulations to encourage development of the technology in their state, but only a foolish governor would call the software "foolproof" at this point! Hell, I'm not sure I'd consider any software "foolproof"...
"All it takes is one child killed or crippled by an autonomous car driving around with a human behind the wheel (or without a wheel) and they'll set back the cause of autonomous cars by a decade."
Yes, it's an oddly human thing. Kids die or are crippled every day, many times per day, all over the world, by cars driven by humans and few people bat an eye at that.
Yes, it's an oddly human thing. Kids die or are crippled every day, many times per day, all over the world, by cars driven by humans and few people bat an eye at that.
But in those cases the driver is almost always to blame, are held liable, and cannot escape the consequences.
With a self driving car, who is liable? Who goes to jail? I've yet to hear any of the self drive researchers / developers volunteer for that role, and it certainly shouldn't be the car's occupants...
It's a big social deal if the law says no one is to blame anymore.
However I doubt it'll get that far; when the discussion is concluded it will be the manufacturers, and I can't see them having the stomach for it.
If we eventually get these, will there be no driving test for them, and will I be able to drive to the pub, get pissed, then put it on auto and sit in the back seat to drive home ?
Edit
Thinking about it I suspect that while being able to get off the train and phone my car to come and get me (empty), that once inside there will be a BRB meaning that I become "in charge" :(
The link to the so called dangerous bugs is an article about self driving cars not merging into the bike lane before turning right. As a bike commuter in WA, I can assure you that most drivers do not merge into the bike lane before turning right. I think they don't know they are supposed to. They intuit that they are not allowed to drive in the bike lane so they avoid it even when turning right. I've just learned to always watch the driver on my left. The self driving cars should definitely get this right, and I would not be surprised if there are dangerous bugs, but this particular behavior is not worse than human drivers where Jay is from. The Spawn of Satan, because it looks like a haunted sports car to me.
"The link to the so called dangerous bugs is an article about self driving cars not merging into the bike lane before turning right."
We have similar problems in the UK. Few drivers seem to understand cycle lane markings, ie a solid line means stay out, cycles only and a dashed line mean shared space, be careful. Not helped by so many cyclists who seem to think they can switch between "pedestrian" and "vehicle", without getting off the bike, randomly and with no notice, purely to suit their own convenience, eg at junctions and/or traffic lights. Or the one I saw yesterday riding the wrong way down the road in a cycle lane and never once realised that all the cycle lane markings (a picture of a cycle painted in the lane) were "upside down" and the signs were not visible.
There was one car,
It hove downstream.
She pulled it together
Collect horsepower in a jar,
knows how many penalties he's got
Skynet does a risk assessment:
His nibs inside is living next door.
No countermand,
no flagman on the road.
No triggering
of forward-prop.
These spoons
are perfectly aligned!
They run past
one another.
Bam-bam
Bam ba bam ba bam
Bam ba bam
Bam-bam
Bam ba bam ba bam
Bam ba bam
It's become a habit
A way to start the day
With car parts, bottles and cutlery
Or whatever they find
Lying around
Bam-bam
Bam ba bam ba bam
Bam ba bam
I realize that a great deal of effort and research is underway attempting to work issues of obstacle identification through low light and glare, or being able to identify the proper course on a three lane road in the Pennsylvania hills at night in the rain.
Just wondering if anyone has seen any work on reacting to mechanical issues? A tire rupture at highway speed? A leaking brake fluid line? Once the cars are on the road there will be pressure to control costs that will lead to 'less than top quality' components ... that will break.
And will they have a special driving mode when college students load them down and lash a mattress to the roof before having them drive to the dorm at uni?