Autonomous Cars

[loner]

some people talk about A.V others already talking about SEX and the Autonomous Cars
Autonomous Vehicles And The Rise Of Mobile Sex Workers
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11- ... ex-workers

I recall reading many years ago an insurance claim that went something like..

Couple having sex in vehicle -at critical point stationary vehicle is hit by other car not allowing 'timely withdrawal' and resulting in pregnancy. How the claim progressed I have no idea, but it could set a precedent

I have to admit, i am quite surprised at the number of people advocating the prospect of AVs in the near future.

What exactly is it and why?

- sinply excitement over the technology?
- convinience?
- as a means of improved safety?
- efficiency?
- cool science fiction movies that portray that to be the future?

I’d like to understand the hype behind it and why people here are advocating it.

Help me out here...

most tech in the A.V could be in the E.V .. i dislike A.V we shouldn't surrender all of our will to the machines
its very dystopian but yet again aren't we all already slaves to TPTB ?!!
Daimler pouring massive money in their f1 project as TPTB wish to pull the plug on ICE .. electrifying everything gain them ultimate control over humans population making their NWO they strive for it...
police state .. mass surveillance.. A.V .. face recognition etc etc etc ...
so keep in mind A.V is a must.

[Andres125sx]

I have to admit, i am quite surprised at the number of people advocating the prospect of AVs in the near future.

What exactly is it and why?

- sinply excitement over the technology?
- convinience?
- as a means of improved safety?
- efficiency?
- cool science fiction movies that portray that to be the future?

I’d like to understand the hype behind it and why people here are advocating it.

Help me out here...

My first post in this thread

In my imaginary perfect world wich will never become true as we all know politicians , autonomous cars will be the vast mayority, and people like myself who enjoy driving will have to pass a way more strict driving licence exam wich does include controlling the car in dangerous situations, but once passed there won´t be ridiculously slow speed limits wich even the police break as they´re way too slow, so those with a driving licence wich will be a minority won´t be forced to go as if we all are carrying 1000kg of nitroglycerine into the car


But there are A LOT of people who don´t like driving, and who I don´t like them driving as they´re VERY dangerous. I´m including my mom (72) and my best friend into this group. With people like them with an autonomous car, all of us will be safer when on the road, they will be VERY happy to keep the freedom a car provides but without driving wich they don´t like at all, and speed limits won´t need to be so low because people who is dangerous at the wheel won´t be at the wheel anymore

So basically road safety and excitement about the tech, but also a naive hope to be allowed to drive more freely

But it´s not a hype at all, they´ll be real in few years

[Gatecrasher]

But it´s not a hype at all, they´ll be real in few years

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/aut ... 605120.cms

Not sure of the source but it does fit with recent State approvals for Waymo.

[AJI]

I have to admit, i am quite surprised at the number of people advocating the prospect of AVs in the near future.

What exactly is it and why?

- sinply excitement over the technology?
- convinience?
- as a means of improved safety?
- efficiency?
- cool science fiction movies that portray that to be the future?

I’d like to understand the hype behind it and why people here are advocating it.

Help me out here...

I can only speak for myself, but convenience mainly.

I know you have your doubts about the tech ever being able to achieve the goals set, but it would appear the manufacturers didn't get the memo...

Apart from being a petrol head, like me, I'd like to know why you're so against the idea? Let's just assume that the tech will mature to the point you'd be happy with it for the sake of argument. Is there any other reason you dislike the idea of AV so much?

Ps As far as sci-fi goes, humans still control vehicles in the vast majority of films, so I doubt that has much to do with it. I mean, 'we' can build a 'death star', but some dude needs to use 'the force' to blow it up because he doesn't think the computer can do it

[Phil]

I'm not against it per se. Being a computer programmer, I'm a nerd & technology freak as much as I'm a petrol head.

I do have my doubts however over the feasibility of the tech and I think what is being set out to achieve is a 'gimmick' - an idea that sounds nice and great, but in the real world will prove to be far less 'wanted' when it's suddenly here and people realize it's something that isn't really needed.

Population is rapidly increasing and more to the point, there's a growing 'middle class' of people who can afford and want to drive. The net result being that there's a large increase in cars on the road and we are seeing more problems associated with that on a daily basis: More congestion, more traffic jams and it's becoming harder to get to places in an efficient manner. At the same time, the world is on a path to become more efficient. Part of this out of necessity; the cost of energy is increasing (as a result of higher demand but also greener-energy-sources = more expensive).

We already have an AV - it's called a taxi (or Uber etc). The only potential an AV has over a cab is that it could be cheaper given you don't need a person driving it full time. However, it makes zero difference to the experience if there's an actual human or a computer driving it. The net result is the same; A car takes you from A to B without you having to drive it. But if that 'transportation-method' is stuck in congested traffic, well, the practical net-benefit over i.e. a train network decreases. And that net benefit will continue to decrease as the number of cars on the road increase further. The question then becomes; Even if there is a network of AV cars ready to be deployed (lets assume for a second they are faultless and safe), how many would want to use them? Are we talking hundreds? Thousands? Ten-Thousands? Millions? How many of those people rely on public transportation (e.g. cabs or buses/trains) already? How many of those are car owners? Would they give up car ownership and see AVs as a viable substitute?

Then there's the question of 'efficiency'. There is no such thing as 'zero emissions'. Energy is a finite resource. The future won't be millions of cars/vehicles driving around with one person in it. It will likely be public transportation that can reach a far higher efficiency, because hundredths/thousands of people can be transported at once. Try beating the London underground subway network with cars for time and energy efficiency. Therefore, any "investment" into AV is IMO shortsighted. Governments (especially Australia/Sydney, AJI) should be increasing their public transportation networks.

This is of course all under the assumption that AVs will and can be safe enough, "fit for purpose". Which is another doubt that I have. I tried to highlight in earlier posts the enormity of the task at hand. It may be 'relatively easy' to attach a few sensors to a car and make a piece of software to drive it. It's a little more challenging to make that piece of software able to drive it under easy circumstances. But to make it bullet proof for even the most challenging and unpredictable situations? Well that's where I see big stumbling blocks. Right now, there are only a 'handful' of these cars being driven around. A drop in the ocean so to speak. And they are all being driven with a contingency, a test-driver at the wheel ready to step in if he must. It's no surprise that there have been little to no accidents so far. Once you see these cars driving in the thousands without that 'backup' behind the wheel, I'll be interested to see how many accidents start to show up. And then hard questions will be asked: People will be questioning if these cars are safe enough. Even if the problem or fault for an accident does not lie with the automation software, people will still cast doubts over its ability, to trust something that they don't understand. To trust a machine. This could cast a serious cloud over the success of this technology. At the same time, there will also be an issue with accountability and liability. Lets assume an AV is involved in an (perhaps avoidable) accident where someone is killed. Who goes to jail? Will people be satisfied if the manufacturer (lets say Google/Waymo) accepts responsibility and pays a few million? A multi billion enterprise? Or will the public or those involved simply accept the accident as 'collateral damage'?

Make no mistake, accidents will happen. It's inevitable. The question is, will you be able to put faith into a technology that you don't understand? And will you trust the companies running these cars to be transparent about mistakes and shortcomings of the software when accidents do happen? One way or another, I see it as an incredibly difficult task to see them overcoming this without the help of the government.

And last but not least; Do people really want this? To give up their own freedom to be able to drive their own cars? Or will using AVs be like using Uber or a cab? A convenient, cheap transportation method while the rest of us continue to drive our cars on the road? I sure as hell enjoy driving enough to not want to give that up. That doesn't mean I am not happy to take a Uber or a cab every now and then. But is that occasional use enough to make it a viable business that costs billions in R&D to get there?

Investing in public transportation networks sounds much more far sighted than investing into AVs and in line with shaping the future to be a more efficient place. Of course, this future isn't in line with those living off and making billions off gasoline, cars and technology.

[Just_a_fan]

And last but not least; Do people really want this? To give up their own freedom to be able to drive their own cars? Or will using AVs be like using Uber or a cab? A convenient, cheap transportation method while the rest of us continue to drive our cars on the road? I sure as hell enjoy driving enough to not want to give that up.

I think that there are an awful lot of people for whom driving is a chore - it's something they do because that's how they get the kids to school, get to work, go shopping etc. Most people aren't petrolheads, most people don't enjoy driving for its own sake.

For these people, not having to worry about the process of driving or navigating or any of the other things is something to look forward to. Being able to just get in their transport pod, tell it where to go, and then do something else e.g. emails, phone calls, chat with the friend with them etc. is desirable.

Interesting that you use the word "freedom". Freedom to not have to actively drive is also important.

(I'm in the "I enjoy driving" camp, by the way - even just popping to the shop for a pint of milk. But there are times when I would love to be able to just get in and tell the car to take me to my next meeting.)

[Big Tea]

After analyzing the above question, I think there is a big slice of chauvinism in there.
I look around when i am driving and think the road is full of idiots now, and self driving would be a good thing.
However, I bet it is exactly what the guy behind me is thinking.

I do (should be did) enjoy driving, but 99% of driving today is 15 feet behind the car in front and 15 feet infront of the car behind and tentative emerging from junctions before a vehicle zooms around the corner then taking as long finding a parking spot as the trip took.

Do I enjoy driving that much? No not usually. Far better to let the machines get on with it and have a track day now and then.

[subcritical71]

There are numerous possibilities for the tech, not just getting people from point A to point B (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/11/wa ... ery-pilot/). I could see any delivery service becoming driverless (or better yet, combined with several delivery services so that every store doesn't have to have a truck on the road to the same address, therefore reducing traffic congestion). But that's another story.

I like the idea of AV because of the technology involved. I know a lot of the arguments center on what is better statistically. I don't believe anything humans do or design will ever be 100% perfect, but 100% doesn't exist today so I'm willing to give other things a try and see how they do longer term. I'm sure those guys who made the first wheel crashed a few carts before they made the first braking system, it's a good thing they didn't give up because of a few crashed carts...

[Phil]

I think that there are an awful lot of people for whom driving is a chore - it's something they do because that's how they get the kids to school, get to work, go shopping etc. Most people aren't petrolheads, most people don't enjoy driving for its own sake.

So it's driving out of a necessity then. But I'm questioning if this necessity is actually solved by having an automated car. For the foreseeable future, the only AVs that will be roaming the streets at best, will be as a service in direct competition to cabs and Uber. Those that drive cars out of necessity, can't see them wanting to use AVs as a substitute of a 'cab service' that they could already be using, unless of course, the AV are substantially cheaper.

I could well imagine that in order to get these cars on the market, car manufacturers could build in the functionality that the car can be driven in "automated mode", e.g. for all intends and purpose "self-driving". However, I'm not sure if it would be safe enough to drive these cars completely autonomous. Would the driver still be responsible? Still need to step in, if needs be? Could he even afford to do something while driving, like emails etc or would he still need to be concentrating on the road because the 'software' can not be fully trusted? If yes, why get the automated car in the first place? I can already picture the accidents and lawsuit over someone having an accident in one of these things while asleep and trusting something while not having read the fine print in the purchase contract.

[Andres125sx]

But it´s not a hype at all, they´ll be real in few years

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/aut ... 605120.cms

Not sure of the source but it does fit with recent State approvals for Waymo.

Actually, that´s not an AV (L5) yet, they claim 99.9% of the time, so not sure if it even fits L4 category as it looks like it´s still demanding some human intervention.

There´s still a few years before anyone can purchase a real AV. We´re seeing a lot of progress in several automatisms so current cars are now L2 and some even L3 (Tesla), but even that Waymo still need more develpment and is not even a proper L4... Don´t take this as a criticism, they´re offering first real L3/L4 in the market, that´s awesome, but not a L5 yet

[Big Tea]

I think that there are an awful lot of people for whom driving is a chore - it's something they do because that's how they get the kids to school, get to work, go shopping etc. Most people aren't petrolheads, most people don't enjoy driving for its own sake.

So it's driving out of a necessity then. But I'm questioning if this necessity is actually solved by having an automated car. For the foreseeable future, the only AVs that will be roaming the streets at best, will be as a service in direct competition to cabs and Uber. Those that drive cars out of necessity, can't see them wanting to use AVs as a substitute of a 'cab service' that they could already be using, unless of course, the AV are substantially cheaper.

I could well imagine that in order to get these cars on the market, car manufacturers could build in the functionality that the car can be driven in "automated mode", e.g. for all intends and purpose "self-driving". However, I'm not sure if it would be safe enough to drive these cars completely autonomous. Would the driver still be responsible? Still need to step in, if needs be? Could he even afford to do something while driving, like emails etc or would he still need to be concentrating on the road because the 'software' can not be fully trusted? If yes, why get the automated car in the first place? I can already picture the accidents and lawsuit over someone having an accident in one of these things while asleep and trusting something while not having read the fine print in the purchase contract.

I think that at least for the first few years the AV will be an 'also' rather than a replacement and as stated above will be a local work horse until the eventual shift to not owning your own vehicle and the change will be very gradual.

The car on your drive for your mind but AV to work or shops or entertainment for convenience. It will still be seen almost as a necessity or status symbol until everyone who is driving now is quite old.

[Andres125sx]

but in the real world will prove to be far less 'wanted' when it's suddenly here and people realize it's something that isn't really needed.

This is exactly the point where your thesis fails Phil. Your needs are yours, any other will differ. Also, most things in modern world are not needed, but that wasn´t an obstacle for its success. If it makes people´s lifes more easy, it ´s more than enough to suceed.

Petrolheads like you and me don´t really need it, true, but we´re a small percentage of population, more than a half of current population (being conservative) don´t enjoy driving and/or see it as dangerous and really dislike it, so all those will see it as a need as soon as it´s available and safe.

Into the cities probably close to 100% of people would enjoy AVs if possible, do you like driving into a traffic jam? Anyone will prefer to let the car drive by itself and brose the net meanwhile or take a nap, even petrolheads. And congestions will be reduced because AVs won´t crash with the car in front because of a distraction collapsing streets frequently, they won´t collapse intersections blocking cars in both directions, etc.

[henry]

@phil

Thanks, you raise some really interesting points. I’d like to answer each of those in turn but I’m time limited so I’ll offer a general point and a couple of details I’m aware of.

Firstly, as I said an earlier post, I don’t think anyone is going to offer the general public a general purpose self-driving car in the foreseeable future. Elon Musk says he will but IMHO he’s overselling the degree of autonomy and range of situations Teslas will cope with.

You ask what advantage a ride hailing service using autonomous vehicle will have over say Uber. The answer is return on capital and cash flow. Right now GM can make and sell a car to a taxi driver. They make maybe 8% margin, these are not the high end high margin part of their offering. If they make and operate the taxi themselves they can sweat it over several years. The objective appears to become Transport Service Providers. Ideally they will operate as subscription. You pay them a monthly fee and they get you to your destination using whatever means they have at their disposal. That may well be a combination of their cars and other forms of public transport.

You suggest that people will prefer public transport and offer the London Tube as an example. Strangely enough rider numbers are slowly going down on the tube network, even as congestion on the roads gets worse. Here’s a charming website where you can compare the journey numbers on the network. http://tubecreature.com/#/total/current ... 9/51.4989/ It shows the change in station entry/exit events from year to year. TFL are concerned about this because their plans have been predicated on steadily rising numbers.

You also claim that all autonomous journeys have supervisory humans in the car and that’s not quite right. Waymo have been operating a small number of vehicles without supervisors in Phoenix. How successful that has been has not yet been publicised.

I’m not a torch bearer for autonomous vehicles. I am fascinated by the complete set of issues they raise, technical, sociological, political, financial, moral and legal. I’m most concerned by the sociological side. The potential for disruption is huge and the drivers, global capital, are legally required to maximise shareholder value and not social good. Strong political control through regulation will be required if these vehicles do become feasible otherwise they will become one more area of financial led social exclusion.

[Gatecrasher]

Actually, that´s not an AV (L5) yet, they claim 99.9% of the time, so not sure if it even fits L4 category as it looks like it´s still demanding some human intervention.

There´s still a few years before anyone can purchase a real AV. We´re seeing a lot of progress in several automatisms so current cars are now L2 and some even L3 (Tesla), but even that Waymo still need more develpment and is not even a proper L4... Don´t take this as a criticism, they´re offering first real L3/L4 in the market, that´s awesome, but not a L5 yet

I think L5 is still a year or two away (still limited by area or weather), but the pace of research and data is exponentially increasing. I think continuous 5G at a minimum will be required for a real true L5 system. These networks will take a few years to cover all of the US.

The population in Phoenix has grown substantially in just the last 30 years, so most roadways are new and are very well laid out, one of the easier places to drive. It does however gets some crazy thunderstorms during the winter so this might account for the 0.1%

I did see another vendors car driving down my street a few weeks ago, the start of one of many I am sure.

[Just_a_fan]

There are general trends away from "involved driving" - the rise in automatic gearboxes, cruise control, active cruise control etc. are all things that reduce the driver's involvement in the process of getting from A to B. With active cruise control and lane keeping assistance, one could (if of a mind to) drive on a motorway with very little direct driver involvement other than just fine tuning the line to stay in lane. Active cruise controls these days will take you right down to full stop and then move off again when the car in front does. On a straight bit of road, you'd also not need to be involved. These systems are increasingly available and becoming more popular.

It's not a huge leap from that to periods of "hands off driving" (slight contradiction but you know what I mean). From there to extended periods of the same isn't that far away either. All the time, the manufacturers and their systems will be learning and improving. Full AV will suddenly be upon us and we won't have noticed it's development.