http://www.cbsnews.com/news/this-fatality-could-slam-the-brakes-on-driverless-cars/
Quote
Joshua D. Brown, 40, of Canton, Ohio, died in the accident May 7 in Williston, Florida. According to a Tesla statement issued Thursday, the cameras on Brown's Tesla Model S failed to distinguish the white side of a turning tractor-trailer from a brightly lit sky and didn't automatically activate its brakes. Brown didn't take control and activate the brakes either, Tesla said.
Obviously, this was going to happen. I haven't been part of the debate or discussion. I've just been waiting to see what happens. But we knew this was inevitable. While it doesn't necessarily disqualify automated cars, it does dull some of the glitter, and hopefully will lead to something positive.
I personally think Tesla may have been pushing the technology past its capabilities. Yes, there were written warnings that the driver still had to pay attention (which is basically saying the driver still has to drive).
I wouldn't have an automated car myself for personal safety reasons. The fact is, I know that I can be distracted easy enough, and a driverless car that get's it right most of the time would be enough to cause me to pay less attention than I already do.
In the above incident, it sounds like the camera encountered sun glare. I assume a driver would have seen the truck while the car's camera could not, but maybe not. On a couple of occasions, I've encountered the sun in my eyes with such intensity, that I was completely blind, and afraid to apply the brakes, because I couldn't even see behind me, and knowing the glare would be temporary, I drove blind for a couple seconds, well maybe a bit longer.
On one of those occasions I found myself driving straight into an evening sun in unusually heavy traffic. While my blindness was intermittent, it came and went for an extended time. Had I been able to see better I would have pulled over and stopped, but the flow of the traffic was so fast that glimpses of pull offs were too brief to react to. After a minute or so, the traffic had slowed down and we came to an accident. A friend of mine had been bike riding with his wife and three kids, and had gotten caught in the same blinding incident, and his youngest child had been hit and killed by another blinded driver. They were doing CPR as I passed. I watched a medic beating on this little kid, and thought, it looks like that kid might be dead, and what I'm seeing is the last of a "save a life panic" by a medic.
Well that issue aside, sometimes live drivers may encounter untenable conditions beyond their control with or without automation, so the jury is still out for myself, although I'm content to do my own driving for now.
I personally don't trust a computer over my own instinct when driving...
While I don't think fully autonomous driving is a fully matured technology at this point in time it is probably statistically safer than people. I'm surprised to hear the Teslas rely on cameras though. I'd think radar or laser range detection would be more reliable.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 01, 2016, 10:25:01 AM
I personally don't trust a computer over my own instinct when driving...
It isn't the computer, Shir. Computers can react much faster and with greater precision than you ever will. It's the sensors as demonstrated by this accident. Even then in most circumstances the sensors are going to be more accurate than your eyes.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on July 01, 2016, 10:37:24 AM
While I don't think fully autonomous driving is a fully matured technology at this point in time it is probably statistically safer than people. I'm surprised to hear the Teslas rely on cameras though. I'd think radar or laser range detection would be more reliable.
That surprised me too.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on July 01, 2016, 10:37:24 AM
While I don't think fully autonomous driving is a fully matured technology at this point in time it is probably statistically safer than people. I'm surprised to hear the Teslas rely on cameras though. I'd think radar or laser range detection would be more reliable.
Agreed. Laser and radar technology makes much more sense, including the fact they work in low visibility situations. And its not fully mature, but remember not long ago that building a self driving car looked like a stack of file cabinets on a chassis. We have come a long way. Self driving cars are in our future.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on July 01, 2016, 10:40:07 AM
It isn't the computer, Shir. Computers can react much faster and with greater precision than you ever will. It's the sensors as demonstrated by this accident. Even then in most circumstances the sensors are going to be more accurate than your eyes.
I should rephrase; I trust my instinct and thinking ahead more than machinery reacting to their surrounding... even if they are statistically safer. Right now I'm sitting on zero accidents to the automated's one, so I like my odds.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 01, 2016, 12:29:38 PM
I should rephrase; I trust my instinct and thinking ahead more than machinery reacting to their surrounding...
I don't. In fact I probably trust your instinct and thinking ahead behind the wheel less than you trust mine to carry a loaded handgun around on my hip. Statistically people carrying guns in public are less of a risk to others than drivers.
Quoteeven if they are statistically safer. Right now I'm sitting on zero accidents to the automated's one, so I like my odds.
You've got what, maybe a hundred thousand miles or so behind the wheel? Automated cars are in the millions now. Unlike you they don't get tired, distracted or pissed off. How many of your peers have zero accidents? Odds are you'll be involved in an accident before it is all over. Even if you aren't you'll be the exception not the rule.
Frankly I'm looking forward to 2022 when all new cars sold in the US will be equipped with collision avoidance. That's not going to stop those cars from being involved in accidents, but most of them that are will involve cars that aren't equipped with that technology.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 01, 2016, 12:29:38 PMI should rephrase; I trust my instinct and thinking ahead more than machinery reacting to their surrounding... even if they are statistically safer. Right now I'm sitting on zero accidents to the automated's one, so I like my odds.
Judging from myself and others' clearly imperfect driving records, I side with the machines. Driverless cars, unlike people, don't drive drunk or drowsy or distracted. They don't lose focus or have regrettably slow reaction times. They don't space out during a 6-hour drive or freak out while driving during stormy weather.
While the technology is there to make driverless cars a reality, its implementation is not perfect and these sorts of incidents are bound to happen. We may have to go through a transitional period where human drivers still have to occasionally take manual control. Eventually, that'd be phased out as the implementation improves.
I guess it's just an ideology thing for me, I feel like the conservative gun nut... The only reason i want it is because of a romanticized and very American idea of driving.
I probably log as many if not more miles per year of anyone on the forum, because I will in the course of a year take 3-4 600-1,000 mile trips and many shorter trips of 200 miles or more. As an older driver I am concerned about being too old and not have the reaction time I used to have. But I have developed skills to compensate where needed, and still have good reaction time and judgment. I have been in 4 accidents as a driver in my life, all fender benders. 3 out of 4 were the other driver's fault.
Autonomous or self driving cars eliminate a lot of human problems including bad judgment and slow reaction and also has the ability to watch your blind side, which is a biggie with me. As Pappy mentioned, sensors and autonomous instruments have much greater reaction time than humans.
I almost got nailed earlier today by an old woman in a Toyota at a roundabout who completely disregarded a yield sign. It is people like her that create the necessity of automated cars.
He seemed liked a pretty nice guy. From his videos you can see the limitations that this car still has though. Can't take sharp turns, needs very defined road markings and you are still suppose to keep your hands near the wheel at all times.
I think he was in a tough position where he is logging millions of miles in a self driving car and gets accustomed to it's consistency but are still suppose to be in control of the manual controls at all times and he relaxed more than a normal driver would.
I hope one day we can all be safer in cars that are self driving.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on July 01, 2016, 10:37:24 AM
While I don't think fully autonomous driving is a fully matured technology at this point in time it is probably statistically safer than people. I'm surprised to hear the Teslas rely on cameras though. I'd think radar or laser range detection would be more reliable.
This. Its not the least bit surprising to me that a self-driving vehicle caused a fatality. The bleeding edge is called the bleeding edge because sometimes it makes you bleed.
What is entirely surprising to me is that in this day and age a company could release a car that drives itself and makes certain decisions (apparently) based solely on optical camera data and have the balls to call it safe. We are living in a time where the limitations of optical camera lenses are well known and understood. We are also living in a time where technology already exists and is in use in the field which day in and day out reliably allows business jets and airliners the ability to not only 'see' through fog to the runway but also determine if the runway is clear or has another aircraft or ground vehicle sitting on it.
This accident was not only completely predictable but also ENTIRELY avoidable without any need to develop technology that does not yet exist.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 01, 2016, 12:29:38 PM
I should rephrase; I trust my instinct and thinking ahead more than machinery reacting to their surrounding... even if they are statistically safer. Right now I'm sitting on zero accidents to the automated's one, so I like my odds.
Understandable and normal to trust your instinct more. But that doesn't mean trusting your instincts is always the best choice when it comest to this kind of stuff. Because it isn't just statistics that prove computers are more skilled at performing certain driving tasks. Its cold hard test results.
You absolutely positively cannot stop a non-ABS equipped vehicle in shorter (or even the same) distance as a properly functioning ABS equipped vehicle of similar weight and configuration. I used the qualifier 'properly functioning' which might give you an ah-ha moment, but don't get too excited. If the ABS system is not properly functioning, the most you will ever do is tie. You will still never beat it. I know there a people out there who believe they can beat an ABS system. Those people are wrong.
I read an article the other day about how we now have AI technology for fighter planes that can beat every single fighter pilot who goes up against it every single time. Its not matter of the AI being 'statistically' better. The AI wins every single time. These are guys who fly fighter combat missions for a living and know the aircraft inside and out. And in simulator fights against the AI, they lose every single time.
We are genetically wired to go with what we know. And although its not there yet, this technology will quickly surpass our own abilities. But years from now there will still be geezers who will swear they can drive better. And those geezers will be wrong.
Quote from: Johan on July 01, 2016, 09:03:19 PM
What is entirely surprising to me is that in this day and age a company could release a car that drives itself and makes certain decisions (apparently) based solely on optical camera data and have the balls to call it safe. We are living in a time where the limitations of optical camera lenses are well known and understood.
I'm thinking this must be a misprint or a journalistic error. A camera can tell you something is there, but I would think you need more than an image to drive. Estimating distance is also required, and I don't know how that can be done with just a camera.
Good point.
I don't want an automated car. I'm a control freak and I want control over my car not some computer. Computers make mistakes too and malfunction at times. Nothing is perfect.
Driverless car drivers are STILL SUPPOSED TO PAY ATTENTION?! How's that working RIGHT NOW with non automated cars? DDOOHH!!!
There just might be a flaw in that admonision. You know darn well; everything outlandish, under the sun, that can be done in an automated car; will be done. As long as the tech works; I guess it doesn't matter................................until.................................the tech doesn't work. BAH!! Why worry; I've never had anything mechanical or electronic break down on me! :lolhitting:
Yup, this will sure put the brakes on automated cars; because as we all know, no one has ever been killed by a manned vehicle. Nope, no sir.
Quote from: doorknob on July 02, 2016, 02:07:20 PM
I don't want an automated car. I'm a control freak and I want control over my car not some computer. Computers make mistakes too and malfunction at times. Nothing is perfect.
While I understand the desire to maintain personal control over the situation, there are plenty of instances where personal control is given up for the sake of expedience and reliability. Stepping on a plane is a good example of that. As a passenger, you have zero control over whether that bird stays in the air. And what's more, the pilots rarely exercise direct control, either. Much of the flight is on autopilot - control is transferred to a machine that automatically and reliability plots the course. And while psychologically, being on a plane can be a difficult experience, statistically, it's very safe.
Driverless cars feature not just that same kind of psychological unease but a major change to a part of our daily life, which never goes over well. Resistance to that is understandable. But statistically, it's much, much safer. We're talking about a 90% decrease in traffic fatalities (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/09/self-driving-cars-could-save-300000-lives-per-decade-in-america/407956/) - 30,000 fatalities a year to roughly 3,000. And there are other benefits - insurance savings, less traffic congestion (faster travel times), more leisure time. Less trouble with the law too, since driving infractions are pretty much impossible. The benefits are so massive that they outweigh any psychological unease. I'd even argue that looking at this as a loss of control is a bad way of looking at it. It's relief from a burdensome chore. Instead, you get to watch movies or read books (or browse AF) during those long and previously tedious car trips. At least, in the not too distant future when the implementation improves to the point where that's possible.
Decades from now, we'll look at old movies featuring manual cars and be astounded that we ever lived that way. Just think about it from a martian's perspective - hopping in vehicle, navigating traffic, sitting behind a slowpoke, being tailgated, getting cut off, narrowly avoiding a blindspot lane-changer, pulling to the side to let an ambulance go by, seeing a high-speed police chase, seeing someone's car get t-boned at an intersection - imagine what that must look like from the outside. Even something as mundane as waiting for a light will seem strange in the future. And personally, I can't wait for that future.
QuoteIt's relief from a burdensome chore.
Speak for yourself... I love driving.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 02, 2016, 10:09:42 PM
Speak for yourself... I love driving.
Oh yeah, it's a blast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw_cJnmjfBg
I loved to drive when I was young, and I still do for short periods, but generally speaking I'd have to say having to drive the car is not my first choice. Of course, this has nothing to do with the safety of cars. That is an entirely different issue.
When debating auto safety, we should be cautious to avoid a logical fallacy, for which there is still no name that I can think of. Let's call it the argument from perfection: "That can never work because it will always be flawed." For one thing, if that is the standard, then we would have to admit that allowing drivers to drive manually will never work.
If the goal is to reduce risks, that can only be determined statistically. We can't just think an answer. We have to measure to find out which causes fewer problems. This doesn't disqualify the "argument from personal satisfaction." We can justify driving for personal reasons too, but let's not confuse that with safety.
My point wasn't that human drivers are safer that is actually yet to be seen. My point was that NOTHING is perfect. I've never had an accident. Don't take MY right to drive manually away! Accidents will still happen regardless of human or automated drivers and which is safer is a moot point since automated cars are still in the works. Right now a computer has not been safer or as efficient as a human driver. When that day comes I still want the option to drive. But no doubt people with this opinion despite the fact that I've never had an accident and manage to avoid them on a regular basis my right to drive will be taken away by people with said opinion.
Like I said I'm a control freak I want control over my car!
Quote from: doorknob on July 03, 2016, 08:10:33 AM
Like I said I'm a control freak I want control over my car!
You can get a Saint Christopher medal or a Jesus statue for your dash board. That way you can control the car, but still be protected. It's amazing what a simple statue of Jesus, molded out of ordinary plastic (and made in China to boot), can do for you when you drive your car. It significantly ups your odds and they only cost $4.99. I once bought one for a dollar at a wrecking yard.
Here's a Jesus on a spring for your dashboard from Amazon
https://www.amazon.com/Accoutrements-11093-Dashboard-Jesus/dp/B000CIS34U/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1467552467&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=plastiic+jesus
Partial list of reviews from Amazon Customers. There are lots more at the site. Even some of the 5 star reviews are a riot
QuoteShowing 1-10 of 17 reviews(1 star). Show all reviews
1.0 out of 5 stars
Disappeared after three days
By E V January 10, 2015
I would definitely not buy this again. The figure itself was fine when it first arrived, but three days after I put him on my dashboard he mysteriously disappeared. The car was locked at the time. Has not been seen since.
1.0 out of 5 stars
Cheaper than a locksmith
By C H January 30, 2014
I bought this because I keep leaving my keys in the ignition and locking myself out. So hoping the spring stretches long enough for Him to unlock the door for me next time. If He does, I'll give this review more stars
1.0 out of 5 stars
We're in Texas here, not Canaan man...
By X March 23, 2015
Big mistake putting this guy in the car. I always carry a water bottle in the car for refreshment, and got into alot of trouble when I was pulled over for speeding after he changed the water I was drinking to wine. Maybe he thought that would be funny or something. Buried him in the backyard when I got home from that; he seems to have disappeared from the ground a few days later.
1.0 out of 5 stars
Oh God, Loaves and Fishes
By S S February 17, 2015
Everything was great until I got hungry and stopped for a Fish Sandwich. Suddenly my backseat started to fill with buns and fish patties. Then, the front seat started to fill. Then I ran off the road because I couldn't see or steer from all the damn loaves and fishes. To top it off, my soda turned into wine, so that when the cops showed up, I got a DUI.
On a side note, can anyone recommend a good upholstery cleaner that removes the smell of tuna from a car?
.... You would think after His 3 day feat, He could at least get to my po box within 6 weeks ....
Quote from: SGOS on July 03, 2016, 07:18:32 AMWhen debating auto safety, we should be cautious to avoid a logical fallacy, for which there is still no name that I can think of. Let's call it the argument from perfection: "That can never work because it will always be flawed."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy (the argument that a proposed solution should be rejected because it doesn't completely solve the problem.)
Question; How will these cars find directions in places with absolutely zero internet connection (or on areas like military bases where the maps of restricted)? As someone who has spent alot of time out in the middle of absolute nowhere... how does the direction service work when you are no longer in civilization?
Quote from: doorknob on July 03, 2016, 08:10:33 AM
My point wasn't that human drivers are safer that is actually yet to be seen. My point was that NOTHING is perfect. I've never had an accident. Don't take MY right to drive manually away! Accidents will still happen regardless of human or automated drivers and which is safer is a moot point since automated cars are still in the works. Right now a computer has not been safer or as efficient as a human driver. When that day comes I still want the option to drive. But no doubt people with this opinion despite the fact that I've never had an accident and manage to avoid them on a regular basis my right to drive will be taken away by people with said opinion.
Like I said I'm a control freak I want control over my car!
I could've sworn I addressed this earlier. Like I said before, people are naturally resistant to major changes to daily life and particularly to loss of control (although this loss of control is perfectly normal and acceptable in other contexts, like boarding a plane). But there are such massive advantages to driverless cars that we'd be nuts to not implement it. Undoubtedly, there will be people crying bloody murder over this, but that's what always happens when there are major changes in how people do things.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 03, 2016, 01:52:57 PM
Question; How will these cars find directions in places with absolutely zero internet connection (or on areas like military bases where the maps of restricted)? As someone who has spent alot of time out in the middle of absolute nowhere... how does the direction service work when you are no longer in civilization?
http://www.alphr.com/cars/7038/how-do-googles-self-driving-cars-work
"Externally, the car has a rear-mounted aerial that receives geolocation information from GPS satellites, and an ultrasonic sensor on one of the rear wheels that monitors the car’s movements.
Internally, the car has altimeters, gyroscopes and a tachometer (a rev counter) to give finer measurements on the car’s position. These combine to give the car the highly accurate data needed to operate safely.
No single sensor is responsible for making Google's self-driving car work. GPS data, for example, is not accurate enough to keep the car on the road, let alone in the correct lane. Instead, the driverless car uses data from all eight sensors, interpreted by Google's software, to keep you safe and get you from A to B."
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 03, 2016, 01:49:33 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy (the argument that a proposed solution should be rejected because it doesn't completely solve the problem.)
Well, I'll be damned!
Quote from: doorknob on July 03, 2016, 08:10:33 AM
When that day comes I still want the option to drive. But no doubt people with this opinion despite the fact that I've never had an accident and manage to avoid them on a regular basis my right to drive will be taken away by people with said opinion.
Who says you won't still be able to drive it yourself if you want to? I've seen nothing to indicate to me that driverless cars will be required to be completely driverless i.e. no way to drive it manually. In fact, in the near term they will almost definitely be required to be equipped with complete manual controls that can be accessed and utilized at any time.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 03, 2016, 01:52:57 PM
Question; How will these cars find directions in places with absolutely zero internet connection (or on areas like military bases where the maps of restricted)?
Simple. On board memory. This is the way just about every dash mounted GPS is able to find directions now even though almost none of them are able to connect to the internet on their own.
Look! The only thing I want to know is can these high falutin auto cars out run the cops? Because if they can't; what good are they?
Update on the incident if you haven't already seen it. Seems the lad (the deceased driver) "may" have been watching a DVD, and not minding the store. Hey! Did I mention the decapitation--bet that's not in the sales brochure! Might be some ISIS warlords interested in that aspect of the auto drive feature though.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/dvd-player-found-tesla-model-154828277.html
Actual automated travel exists. Subways/tramways. They have a human driver though, and they still kill people. They don't go where you want to go, and don't go when you want to go. What y'all want is a fully automated persona subway/tramway. Never going to happen. You sheeple will be tricked into becoming European, giving up your car/truck, getting everywhere on tramway or train (no subways outside the big city, in spite of utopian drivel about hyper-chunnel travel). You are going to lose your individuality and freedom, for the common good. Europeans won't notice anything different, they never were free in the first place.
I can't remember the movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger, but there's an automated taxi of the future with a mechanical bobble headed driver that talks to the passengers. It's really nuts, and made such an impression on me that it's the only thing about the movie that I can remember. An accident lands the car upside down and totals the taxi, but the automated driver just keeps talking and politely advising the passenger to "have a nice day."
Total Recall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjRXyWFLkEY
Yeah, that's it. Although it didn't happen quite the way I remembered it.