Tech FAIL of the Day?

undertheradar said:

but when the rest of the world rejects autos and roads as we know it, we will follow, kicking and screaming like little children getting a vaccination.

Click to expand...

Man, the US can't even get behind the Metric system, and we don't even care about measurement as much as cars.

Most of you who are objecting are objecting to the idea that computerized systems may be less reliable than human drivers, that they may get hacked, have bugs, not respond to emergency situations correctly, etc.

In the US, "the number of traffic fatalities fell three percent between 2009 and 2010, from 33,808 to 32,788" (source). This is the lowest number since 1949, and is about 1 death per 64,000 miles traveled.

I think computers can drive better than humans can, by a factor of at least 100, if not 1000. Even taking into account hacker and terrorist attacks. There are a lot more drunk drivers, senile drivers and just plain bad drivers than there are hackers and terrorists. A thousand times more, if not a million.

The pity is that as soon as the first person gets killed while riding a vehicle under computerized control, the whole concept will go in the dustbin and we'll go back to killing 5 times more Americans each year than have died in the entire Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

For all of you that say Hack... use strong enough Encryption, hacking cannot be done, but jamming could, however, if each car had the technology to be a leader car and sense all around it, then having a lack of a leader truck would not matter.

Its funny to see everyone call different fails.... What if heart attack, what if this, what if someone dumps something out the back... well what if this happens today?? Shit happens and I have seens some huge wrecks most are alcohol related... It was bad and after a Tampa Bay Game.

This idea could work where if many cars are going to near the same place they could communicate so that each car would not have to totally drive itself. It allows each car to get closer and use the drafting to save fuel mileage and the difference between 2 cars and 10 isn't huge but there is a difference from 2 to 4 and this has been studied. Government does not neccessarily be involved as it would be the cars that have the ability to drive themselves completely if needed, even in stop and go traffic where it can't communicate with other cars ala googles cars.... but where they can talk, it just would get better. So at a green light instead of the slinkly where each car takes off and there is a pause after each car, each car would probably start to move closer to the same time, allowing for more efficient traffic from city to rural.

I laugh at people here in the US that say we are too big.... and I think thats a reason self drivng cars that do have the off switch are/would be great... if I needed to go to LA in Cali from Chicago in IL, I wouldn't have to stop at all. I could plot the course and go, let the car find a car train to join for times, and near fuel up times, look up a place and pull into it. As long as it could wake me up to put gas in it and then get going again or charge it up or whatever, that would be great. The car train idea and the increased aero would help electic cars get much better "fuel" economy.

I don't see a problem or a fail with this at all. The testing using a truck maybe seem stupid, but its just a step in a final direction where the car can drive itself period and make a decision to join a "train" of other cars going to similar places and pull off and so on....

I think it would be a possible WIN or an EPIC WIN in 10-20 years..... where I can choose to drive my car, or my car drive me, given my state of mind. Cars can drive themselves already as I had said and google has shown... take it to a national level and add a highly encrypted form of communication that we know cannot be broken and true hacking will be something that can't happen... it will be jamming... For those of you that say you can always hack it, DirectTV has shown that anti-hacking countermeasures can be done as in their latest cards which I know still of no major group that has cracked their cards. I hear rumors, but once invesitgated, they never pan out. Or if someone has done it, will not share because they realize the change that can be made overnight will cause them a redo of x years of work.

I agree with those who see Steve's FAIL being the actual FAIL.... The idea isn't stupid, cars tend to go to the same routes from one suburb to urban area's, I just think he messed up in his lack of forsight. Ditch the truck and make the lead car ANYONE's car thats in self drive mode going someplace and let the cars that join it determine if its going to a place thats close enough to join and let it get really close to save fuel, but at the same time, that other car has the ability to drop back or do whatever if the signal breaks, is jammed or whatever. It would take road terrorists to cause accidents and even then cars that drive themselves would "see" massive slowing and slow down and stop.

I think the only FAIL here is the FAILURE of humanity to look forward.... UK or USA... I know there are many times for many people where it would be safer for a CPU to drive the car than the person, just ask the chronic texter or drinker or pot smoker or so on... This could allow for faster cars, safer transportation on the roads and a way to make your life less stressful. After all, currently the least safest form of transportation for mass of people is... the car.... I only see this making it leaps and bounds safer. Will there be issues??? Hell yes, are their plane Crashes and train delrailments that kill hundreds?? But the number one killer of transportation is the drunk drivers then distracted driver then probably distraught driver and so on... take them out and have the car drive you and talk to the other cars and you can remove the most dangerous elements of driving...

Eventually this will be an EPIC WIN of proportions never imagined... but the part is that you never lose the ability to drive your car if you want, but do expect the fastest lanes to eventually be those where the car drives itself... Some what like I, Robot in some ways....

And for those that talk about how to save fuel and how a CPU will never know how to do so, example going down a hill, not hitting the brake and speeding, and technically breaking the law, to go back into gear and go up the other side, or coast until your back at speed... all of those gains you make are lost in a few miles of un-coordinated city driving... But coordinate city driving and highway driving and your car will be able to hypermile itself... From the drafting of open highways to the steady gas pedal of the city, thats where the big milage is from... remember Mystbusters and their drafting experiment where it goes up and up and up to over double behind a big rig, but they get inches from the rig and it goes down, why, because Grant had to work the throttle a lot more to stay that distance, because he had to wait to see what the truck was facing... but imagine if that lead truck/car knew everything... oncoming windspeed, traffic, merge zones, heck with some radar for just scanning for object can provide enough info to get wind feedback ahead enough to make adjustments and talk to the car behind and so on so they can get 6 inches away and run safely.... Its that most humans can't. Every watch NASCAR at Talladega.... its an extreme example, but one that shows how two is so much more than one, to the point of 2 cars being 15 to 18 mph faster together than apart and thats no exageration. Top speed by themselves is usually 190 and they form these 2 car pods that can do over 206. Now take that to the road, but roll back the speed of those 2 cars to 190, the fuel saved would be substantial.

And that 18 MPH is not with a big rig in front or any computers, but 2 extremely great human drivers doing the job.

Oh what fast CPU's and great communication could do to our transportation is nothing short of a transportation revolution. Each period in the US has had one... from the horse to the car, but no Interstate until the 60's... but many don't think that the Big Highways are that young.... But most we drive on here in the US are 70's and later now.... So we have our jets for long distance, what about 75-100 miles or 100-200 miles where you have work to do, phone calls to make, texts to send... Thats the trend, so something either has to give, or get added... we as humans were never meant to drive in the first place genetically, let alone do it drunk, or while texting or so on...

The technology maybe here for networks of cars to work together ad-hoc or by itself to get you from A-B with out you being involved.

I'm not having a problem with this Steve. My only concern is with things that arise from mechanical failures, such as blow-outs, engine trouble, etc.

evilsofa said:

Most of you who are objecting are objecting to the idea that computerized systems may be less reliable than human drivers, that they may get hacked, have bugs, not respond to emergency situations correctly, etc.

In the US, "the number of traffic fatalities fell three percent between 2009 and 2010, from 33,808 to 32,788" (source). This is the lowest number since 1949, and is about 1 death per 64,000 miles traveled.

I think computers can drive better than humans can, by a factor of at least 100, if not 1000. Even taking into account hacker and terrorist attacks. There are a lot more drunk drivers, senile drivers and just plain bad drivers than there are hackers and terrorists. A thousand times more, if not a million.

The pity is that as soon as the first person gets killed while riding a vehicle under computerized control, the whole concept will go in the dustbin and we'll go back to killing 5 times more Americans each year than have died in the entire Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

Click to expand...

We need more traffic deaths to help with population control. Or something...

Nokia said:

can only imagine what would happen when they hack the shit out of this.

Click to expand...

for the lulz then.

why not make the interstates have 2 center lanes with a special line of transmitters that the lead car could track it and nobody would be driving the train. A series of transmitters along the center line fo the road would allow for updates of ahead conditions and it could be done i see issues with people taking a nap in a train but other than that i donno.

Lunas said:

why not make the interstates have 2 center lanes with a special line of transmitters that the lead car could track it and nobody would be driving the train. A series of transmitters along the center line fo the road would allow for updates of ahead conditions and it could be done i see issues with people taking a nap in a train but other than that i donno.

Click to expand...

Google's automated cars have already proven that putting stuff like this in the roads would be a waste of money. We have the technology today to have the cars dynamically react to the conditions ahead in real-time without the need for intervention.

IceEmQuick said:

Every watch NASCAR at Talladega.... its an extreme example, but one that shows how two is so much more than one, to the point of 2 cars being 15 to 18 mph faster together than apart and thats no exageration. Top speed by themselves is usually 190 and they form these 2 car pods that can do over 206. Now take that to the road, but roll back the speed of those 2 cars to 190, the fuel saved would be substantial.

Click to expand...

You've got it exactly, but it only works with close proximity, sufficient speed to make air resistance a meaningful part of the equation, and only works well on straight or gently curved roads.

For normal drivers, driving that close manually on the freeway is a recipe for disaster; if truck A brakes, by the time the successive reaction times of drivers B, C, D, and E kick in, E will be residing comfortably in truck A's wheel well. It works in racing because the drivers are skilled, drive with the same set of 30-odd people every week and know their habits, and don't stop suddenly because one of them decided he really needed a McSnack.

This plan fails if all the cars are not maintained to spec - if car C has bald tires, an automated braking action becomes an automated death trap.

The real downside is that anyone who elects not to be part of the grid can foul up the auto-driver, which means that we'd see legislation forbidding people to drive their own cars. I don't see motorcycles fitting into this plan at all -- not only do they not behave like cars, but they'd foul up the aero effect -- so legislatures would be trying to ban them from freeways also.

If we're going to take all the trouble to automate the whole freeway system, I think we'd be better off bringing the work to people at home via telecommuting, not trying to treat masses of 2-ton vehicles like TCP packets. Automate data, not flesh.

IceEmQuick said:

....Ditch the truck and make the lead car ANYONE's car thats in self drive mode going someplace and let the cars that join it determine if its going to a place thats close enough to join and let it get really close to save fuel, but at the same time, that other car has the ability to drop back or do whatever if the signal breaks, is jammed or whatever. It would take road terrorists to cause accidents and even then cars that drive themselves would "see" massive slowing and slow down and stop.

Click to expand...

^This is the key right here. If the car is in self drive mode, then it doesn't matter what happens to the driver. It won't affect any of the surrounding cars. And cars can join up in true adhoc fashion without any problems. And, as for hacking... do you really think that you'll be around a single moving vehicle like this long enough to perform a hack?

There is also one key problem with this that no one has brought up yet either. And this would be the sole reason why I would never use this tech. What about my paint job?! running that close to another car, and the nose of your car is going to catch all the little pebbles and grit from the road surface and it will just eat away at the nose of the car. I love my car, and paid way to much money for it just to have it get a nose job!

This is why its gonna be a cluster fail:

People are too stupid. They'll take their hands off the wheel and read the paper when not a part of the train and slide into a school bus...

what happens if the truck driver falls a sleep at the wheel it has happened you know...

good concept for commuter traffic.
But what about long distance, coast to coast or across the state.
I would rather pull my car onto a high speed train, maybe with in-car movie, hot food made to order, just sit back and enjoy the ride. you could go on vacation, use your vehicle, but only drive it when you arrive.

siralexu said:

what happens if the truck driver falls a sleep at the wheel it has happened you know...

Click to expand...

if you watch the vid, they explain about driver recognition system, that monitors the driver.
In the event of the driver falling asleep, the safety system would kick in and bring the convoy to a stop.

First thing that comes to mind are law suites. Who is going to be held accountable should somebody exploit a vulnerability in the transmission of data and causes a HUGE crash costing several lives... OR if the "Professional Driver" gets sideswiped by a driver not controlled by this system. They may be professional drivers but that doesn't mean that accidents don't happen to them too.

I will refer to a previous post here on HardForum

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRyZSTJ2jqA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRyZSTJ2jqA[/ame]

I'm sorry, but putting my life in the hands of a "professional driver" is not something I'm cool with.

This is a "cool" concept but not practicle and it's a waste of money on volvo's R&D. It promotes lazy and unsafe drivers.

Lunas said:

That is why I said center lanes with sensors to detect stuff like that and stop any trains and if all semi are in the center lanes and are more or less controlled by the navigation system the truckers will then not need to be professionals as they would be reduced to glorified baby sitters

Click to expand...

My point is that it doesn't protect you from the other idiots on the road.

Ouch, a 9 min. video. I'll pass.

For all the problems that involve accicents, you'd basically have the same problem with a single bus.

Professional driver falls asleep, lots of people die: Bus
Tire blows out, lots of people die: Bus
Someone rams professional driver, lots of people die: Bus

Pros vs Bus, you get to drive to destination once autopilot HWY section is done, no waiting for bus transfers or walking to final destination.

Cons vs Bus, burns more gas.

I say HWY section, since the chance of running over a pedestrian in the city might be high. Same for losing cars on the wrong side of train tracks or across intersections during red lights etc. I picture this system as working in the carpool lane. That would also make it easier for cars to auto pilot if communication is lost since there would be less merging etc.

People don't realize that Google already has completely automated cars on the roads right here in America.

Steve said:

Just my opinion...BUT...Auto detection is fail if you are accelerating to avoiding being rear ended when your Volvo slams on the skids for you. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Yes, but the whole scenario in the video is defeated by ..... a city bus. (we already have those)

10 cars and a truck to get 10 people to work is a GOOD idea?

Click to expand...

I think we have another fail analogy here. Call me crazy, but, I'd rather be the one rear-ended by a car from behind so the OTHER car is at fault and HE has to pay for the crash and it goes on HIS insurance as opposed to speeding up, getting rear ended any-way and slamming into the car in front or avoiding the rear end but slamming into the car infront making the accident 'My' fault and going on 'My' insurance.

In regards to the Bus idea, good luck with getting that idea to catch on Steve! Buses are far more efficnet but do you know what beats a Bus? Bicycles! Even more energy-efficient, albiet slow, possibly lower health-care costs as a society(obesity crsis gone?), crashes generally won't perminately disable someone if they are wearing helmets, etc etc. The problem is, as long as there is a more convenient option people will use it becasue people are inheritantly lazy, selfish a-holes. IE, "I don't want to have to share the bus with THAT steve guy. I'm drive myself in my own 'Bus' aka a car." "I don't want to ride by bicycle. That's hard work even though it might be better for society as a whole. I'm going to drive my highly inefficient SUV to work and use my giant trunk space to carry my lunch.

wgm3446 said:

First thing that comes to mind are law suites.

Click to expand...

What's a law suite? Is that some fancy room where lawyers hang out?

You can automate my car over my cold dead corpse....

I am not a control freak but that's one aspect of my life I will never put in the hands of anything the government or a corporation tries to force on me.

"I'm from the government and we're here to help" - that ring a bell?