Self-driving cars

angelburst29

The Living Force
Consider me backward, but I can't grasp what's behind the concept of a self driving car? The roads in the U.S. are a mess. Just driving in Pennsylvania alone, you can lose the whole front end in a pothole, especially if you happen to be driving at night. Center lines, denoting two way traffic are either faded or gone altogether. And if you find yourself driving on cement, instead of a dark coated roadway, chances are - it's a bridge. You can tell by riding over the metal strips every few feet and vibrating everything in the trunk. So, with crumbling infrastructure, not to mention all the detours due to road work, what's behind the idea of a self driving car?

Where's the lane? Self-driving cars confused by shabby U.S. roadways
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-autonomous-infrastructure-insig-idUSKCN0WX131

Volvo's North American CEO, Lex Kerssemakers, lost his cool as the automaker's semi-autonomous prototype sporadically refused to drive itself during a press event at the Los Angeles Auto Show.

"It can't find the lane markings!" Kerssemakers griped to Mayor Eric Garcetti, who was at the wheel. "You need to paint the bloody roads here!"

Shoddy infrastructure has become a roadblock to the development of self-driving cars, vexing engineers and adding time and cost. Poor markings and uneven signage on the 3 million miles of paved roads in the United States are forcing automakers to develop more sophisticated sensors and maps to compensate, industry executives say.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk recently called the mundane issue of faded lane markings "crazy," complaining they confused his semi-autonomous cars.

An estimated 65 percent of U.S. roads are in poor condition, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, with the transportation infrastructure system rated 12th in the World Economic Forum's 2014-2015 global competitiveness report.

Tesla, Volvo, Mercedes, Audi (VOWG_p.DE) and others are fielding vehicles that can drive on highways, change lanes and park without human help. But they are easily flummoxed by faded lane markers, damaged or noncompliant signs or lights, and the many quirks of a roadway infrastructure managed by thousands of state and local bureaucracies.

In other developed countries, greater standardization of road signs and markings makes it easier for robot cars to navigate. In the U.S., however, traffic lights can be aligned vertically, horizontally or "dog-house" style in two columns. Pavement markings use paint with different degrees of reflectivity - or don't exist at all.

"If the lane fades, all hell breaks loose," said Christoph Mertz, a research scientist at Carnegie Mellon University. "But cars have to handle these weird circumstances and have three different ways of doing things in case one fails."

MORE SENSORS, MORE COST To make up for roadway aberrations, carmakers and their suppliers are incorporating multiple sensors, maps and data into their cars, all of which adds cost.

Mercedes says the "drive pilot" system found in its recently unveiled luxury E Class 2017 sedans works even with no lane markings. The system - which incorporates 23 sensors - takes into account guard rails, barriers, and other cars to keep cars in their lanes up to 84 miles (135km) per hour, under "suitable circumstances."

Boston Consulting Group estimates that initial semi-autonomous features add $4,000 to a car's price. It estimated carmakers will have to spend more than $1 billion over the next decade in research investment for even more sophisticated autonomous features.

On a good road in daylight, cameras installed around a car are sufficient to distinguish road lines, traffic lights and signs. But without lane markings, the car needs more technology to judge its position.

Enter radar and lidar, which send out radio waves or light pulses to bounce off objects. The data sent back informs the car about objects, their distance and velocity. Triangulating between trees to the right, boulders to the left, and other vehicles ahead, for instance, can give the car its bearings.

A host of companies - including Silicon Valley firms Quanergy and Velodyne and international suppliers like Paris-based Valeo - are vying to reduce the cost and size of lidar from the bulky, $75,000 Velodyne version first seen on the roof of Google's self-driving car.
 
angelburst29 said:
Consider me backward, but I can't grasp what's behind the concept of a self driving car? The roads in the U.S. are a mess.

I don't quite grasp the purpose of your post. You spend a lot of space comparing the roads in the US with the rest of the world. Are you saying the government should invest more money in road maintenance to assist self-driving cars manufacturers?

I personally like driving on my own, but those physically challenged would benefit from self-driving cars. If the free market comes up with solutions, I'm fine with that. I just don't like government solutions which is what I think you are implying.
 
I think the idea was simply that the roads are such a mess and in need of repair, that these self driving cars would pose a big safety risk, being unable to navigate them well in the current shape the roads are in.
 
Well, google is a major player in the self-driving car market, and I think the attitude is a reflection of the companies who are working on it. These R&D departments are staffed mainly by yuppies who live in well-manicured environments. They are tested in high density areas where entrances and exits are well maintained and the roads well marked. I would love to see how the self-driving car goes up my dirt and rock two-track with branches hanging out into the driveway. I guess if you put enough tech on it, it will work, most of the time, but I wouldn't put my life in the hands of this thing when it could so easily fail. But these are the same people who are so enamored of their icrap and useless apps, so what would you expect? I see an overrated gizmo that is being pushed on millenials as being "hip" which happens to be oh so easy for the government or some hacker to control and "take care" of you when convenient. A lot of the run of the mill cars out now can be hacked and crashed. In my book, this whole push for autonomous vehicles falls within the same vein as cashless society; a much finer order of control.
 
angelburst29 said:
Consider me backward, but I can't grasp what's behind the concept of a self driving car? The roads in the U.S. are a mess. Just driving in Pennsylvania alone, you can lose the whole front end in a pothole, especially if you happen to be driving at night. Center lines, denoting two way traffic are either faded or gone altogether. And if you find yourself driving on cement, instead of a dark coated roadway, chances are - it's a bridge. You can tell by riding over the metal strips every few feet and vibrating everything in the trunk. So, with crumbling infrastructure, not to mention all the detours due to road work, what's behind the idea of a self driving car?

What's behind it is probably just a need to keep the economy going in areas that can justify continuing investment in research and development. The overall infrastructure for self-driving cars in the U.S. is obviously too shoddy at present, but that's just more reason to spend more money and create more work, I think.
 
If it is applied correctly this tech can serve a great purpose for making driving more safely. But with every tech revolution. If it is meant to replace human jobs like it certainly will for the transport logistics business it can only mean greater instability for society. Millions if not more people will be fired in just a short-amount of years in-between. Not only that. Society in its essence is meant to teach us responsibility. Jobs can us teach us many lessons. It also prevents poverty of course.

Take that away and only entropy can result from it. I am not that kin on the whole tech revolution. At least, how it is being applied.
 
The purpose for "self driving" cars -- is to gain the capability to shut down every passenger vehicle at any time, any place "they" choose. (And to eliminate anyone they target, via "accidents.")

I've thought through every other possible motive ("benefit") -- and I can't find any.

It's "controlling technology" they're after. And I see Google, Apple, and FB the key players in the "controlling technology sphere." They already know what you're thinking (search) ... saying (phones) ... where you are ... and all your friends.

What C's have described years ago, have become reality. And we all caved in, willingly.

Now imagine a scenario with no flying ... and no driving.

FWIW.

PS
It's important I think to keep in mind there's an internal as well as external component to our "awareness of reality." Neglecting the former -- plus excessive attention to the latter, is detrimental to our efforts. The true power source after all (according to C's) ... lies in the former. But I could be wrong.
 
How high-speed chases could become a thing of the past.

The police could be controlling your self-driving car
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-police-could-be-controlling-your-self-driving-car-2016-04-02

Although today’s roads aren't filled with self-driving cars (aka autonomous vehicles: AVs), billions of dollars are being bet — by car companies from Ford F, -2.96% to Tesla TSLA, +3.40% , tech companies from Alphabet’s Google GOOG, +0.67% GOOGL, +0.89% to Apple AAPL, +0.92% and the U.S. government — on the proposition that they soon will be.

If and when the bets pay off, the basic features — good and bad — of AV systems will already have been established, hence hard to change.

It is time to start thinking about the rules of the new road. Otherwise, we may end up with some analog to today’s chaos in cyberspace, which arose from decisions in the 1980s about how personal computers and the Internet would work.

One of the biggest issues will be the rules under which public infrastructures and public safety officers may be empowered to override how autonomous vehicles are controlled.

It is not hard to imagine why they might want such override power. One is for traffic control. As AVs proliferate there are many advantages to having them talk with intelligent roadways, the better to use scarce freeway space. Controls may also be imposed to leave lanes clear for emergency vehicles or crowded busses. Road conditions that are hard to detect by AV sensors, like weather-related lane closures, may also be more efficiently and fairly handled by having roadways or emergency crews redirect AVs away from problematic lanes, as well as around police, fire, and EMS activity. Overrides could be used to restrict certain vehicles from sensitive locations, like military sites.

More intrusive controls may be called for to deal with crime. For instance, high-speed chases could become a thing of the past. The vehicles of drunk/drugged individuals who insist on doing their own driving could be pulled over if their cars’ actions could be controlled from the outside. To prevent great mayhem, police may dearly want to override the use of automated vehicles by terrorists or other criminals. (Note - Aren't we all considered "terrorist" now, by our government?)

These capabilities cannot be conjured overnight, but must be engineered well in advance. AVs would have to be built with a capacity to accept real-time commands — which in turn, requires some communications channel plus the requisite software to override the AV’s internal logic — and in very standardized ways so that a single command is interpreted the same way by all AVs.

There have to be authentication standards and encryption standards to limit commands to those who are authorized to use them. There should be techniques that direct commands to one AV rather than all in the neighborhood.

Rules and protocols would have to be developed to ensure there are no (or very few) non-autonomous vehicles and to ensure that terrorists, criminals, or hackers cannot “jail-break” their cars in order to evade external command override.

And all this must keep in mind the possibility that other governments around the world — notably China’s — may be as or more eager to see AVs built with such capabilities, but not necessarily to U.S. standards.

Last, but by no means least, is whether such override systems could possibly be made hack-proof. A system to allow authorized people to control someone else’s car is also a system with a built-in mechanism by which unauthorized people — aka hackers — can do the same.

Even if hackers are kept out, if every police officer is equipped to override AV systems, the number of authorized users is already in the hundreds of thousands — or more if override authority is extended to members of the National Guard, military police, fire/EMS units, and bus drivers.

The likelihood that car makers, repair personnel, and entertainment companies will want to communicate with other parts of the car adds further complications. It is unlikely that every last one of them will play by the rules.

Clearly, whether and how government gets that kind of power is a question both serious and deep. Better start thinking about it now.
 
Back
Top Bottom