California Green-Lights Driverless Car Testing

R

rgMekanic

[H]ard|News
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
6,943
California has passed statewide regulations that permit the deployment of autonomous cars, without a driver being present. Apple Insider is reporting that the new laws will go into effect on April 2nd, with some stipulations. The regulations state that a "communication link" must be maintained between the car and a "remote operator" at all times, and if there is any indication of a problem, assume "immediate physical control" of the car.

While I'm not a fan of the driverless car already, reading about the insurance requirements, remote operators "law enforcement interaction plans" and everything else that it requires makes it even less appealing to me. Perhaps far into the future when things like this are more streamlined, but as of right now it seems the costs for an average person would be massive.

Of note, manufacturers looking to operate one or more autonomous vehicles must create a law enforcement interaction plan that provides instructions on how to contact a remote driver, ensure the car's autonomous mode is disengaged and safely move the vehicle out of traffic. The action plan also requires companies to furnish a description of the test vehicle's operational design.
 
My first PC (a TRS-80 model 1) was damn expensive. But they got cheaper and better with time. So will driverless cars, probably a lot faster as there are a lot more large companies working on it than there were on PC's in late 70's early 80's. These cars have came a long way from those early DARPA tests where they couldn't handle a simple obstacle course a decade ago.
 
I don't understand the reasoning behind this. Why remove the most advanced improv backup system called human? Is a human so expensive that they can't afford to put them in there? How is a remote operator going to be any more effective? This just seems dumb all around.
 
darckhart said:
I don't understand the reasoning behind this. Why remove the most advanced improv backup system called human? Is a human so expensive that they can't afford to put them in there? How is a remote operator going to be any more effective? This just seems dumb all around.
Click to expand...
This is just the beginning, all the info oems gather from this will be put in regular cars with steering wheels. By the time this is actually available it'll probably be 20 years before all road scenarios are perfected.
 
gxp500 said:
Thank you california for beta testing this for the rest of us...
Click to expand...

Michigan passed no driver present over a year ago. Not sure which companies are rolling out testing out there though.

We get squat for winter snow driving conditions in Cali cities so it would be wise to do testing in Michigan during winter months.
 
darckhart said:
I don't understand the reasoning behind this. Why remove the most advanced improv backup system called human? Is a human so expensive that they can't afford to put them in there? How is a remote operator going to be any more effective? This just seems dumb all around.
Click to expand...

There is nothing more dangerous than any human driving, especially if they were not actively driving and were required to take control in an instant.

Self driving cars are not decades away, they're a few years away. This is what people need to understand.

In the very near future a person driving a car will be classified the same as someone smoking: They're doing something dumb that will probably end poorly for them.



 
Last edited:
Tweak42 said:
Michigan passed no driver present over a year ago. Not sure which companies are rolling out testing out there though.

We get squat for winter snow driving conditions in Cali cities so it would be wise to do testing in Michigan during winter months.
Click to expand...
There's these big tall things called the Sierra Nevada, granted it's been a bit bad this year, but I'm predicted to get 2-3 feet of snow this Thursday-Friday and there are cities e.g. South Lake Tahoe, Truckee etc. that can get quite congested with traffic. Really though all they need to do is test on I80 near Donner Summit anytime it snows, plenty of chances to see how good it is at dodging human drivers.
 
travisty said:
There is nothing more dangerous than any human driving, especially if they were not actively driving and were required to take control in an instant.

Self driving cars are not decades away, they're a few years away. This is what people need to understand.

In the very near future a person driving a car will be classified the same as someone smoking: They're doing something dumb that will probably end poorly for them.



Click to expand...

I think he means for the average car buyer. Sure Merc, BMWs and commercial use vehicle might have them in a few years but it proabably be 10 years before the common Ford, Toyota, and other cheaper brands roll it out at a affordable cost. Might be more then 10 years before legislation catches up also.
 
Sort of related: What is the aero drag hit with the enormous Camera/Ultrasonic/Lidar/Radar/WiFi/GPS/AI Processor ELINT pod on the roof? I imagine that thing is -10 MPG at highway speed.
 
travisty said:
There is nothing more dangerous than any human driving, especially if they were not actively driving and were required to take control in an instant.

Self driving cars are not decades away, they're a few years away. This is what people need to understand.

In the very near future a person driving a car will be classified the same as someone smoking: They're doing something dumb that will probably end poorly for them.



Click to expand...



And 3D TV is the wave of the future!

Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it will catch on, or even a good idea.

Comparing smoking to driving is just a bit overdramatic, you think? Smoking serves no useful purpose, and the very act of doing it slowly kills you. You can't train a safe smoker.

While Autonomous vehicles may make sense in certain situations, such as fleet vehicles and long haul truckers, they will never totally replace human drivers. While the accident rate per 100,000 miles will likely be lower for Autonomous vehicles, for the foreseeable future Humans will still be the ones doing the driving. For a lot of us the act of driving is enjoyable, removing that freedom in the name of "safety" will be intolerable for most people.

There is still a very long way to go before driverless cars are going to be a common sight, how many million miles a year in this country alone do humans drive? how many do robots drive?
 
motomonkey said:
And 3D TV is the wave of the future!

Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it will catch on, or even a good idea.

Comparing smoking to driving is just a bit overdramatic, you think? Smoking serves no useful purpose, and the very act of doing it slowly kills you. You can't train a safe smoker.

While Autonomous vehicles may make sense in certain situations, such as fleet vehicles and long haul truckers, they will never totally replace human drivers. While the accident rate per 100,000 miles will likely be lower for Autonomous vehicles, for the foreseeable future Humans will still be the ones doing the driving. For a lot of us the act of driving is enjoyable, removing that freedom in the name of "safety" will be intolerable for most people.

There is still a very long way to go before driverless cars are going to be a common sight, how many million miles a year in this country alone do humans drive? how many do robots drive?
Click to expand...

I disagree that most people like driving. I certainly like to and the thought of not being allowed to or discouraged from driving upsets me. However, many people consider it a chore. Some simply cannot and have to rely on others.

Even I, who go out on drives for fun, wouldn't mind a self driving car for a boring 30 or 45 minute commute in thick traffic each day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rahh
like this
travisty said:
There is nothing more dangerous than any human driving, especially if they were not actively driving and were required to take control in an instant.

Self driving cars are not decades away, they're a few years away. This is what people need to understand.

In the very near future a person driving a car will be classified the same as someone smoking: They're doing something dumb that will probably end poorly for them.



Click to expand...



Sorry, disagree.

The mixture of automated and human drivers is a horrendous driving condition.

Quite simply, humans have a wider range of choices available to them than a driverless car will.

And differences in reaction times and the actual reactions themselves will likely CAUSE more accidents.
 
Since we tend to learn from failures, the "remote operator" requirement seems likely to actively retard progress.
 
Chas said:
Sorry, disagree.

The mixture of automated and human drivers is a horrendous driving condition.

Quite simply, humans have a wider range of choices available to them than a driverless car will.

And differences in reaction times and the actual reactions themselves will likely CAUSE more accidents.
Click to expand...

All the more reason to get human drivers off the road sooner rather than later. Then again, I honestly don't understand this country's fascination with the act of driving.
 
Chas said:
differences in reaction times and the actual reactions themselves will likely CAUSE more accidents.
Click to expand...
Florida has sober 18-yr olds, drunk 21-yr olds, and almost-senile 90-yr-olds on the road.
A far greater range of "reaction times and actual reactions."

Show me some evidence that the difference in reaction times and reactions causes car crashes.
Show me that, on a per-car basis, distracted and impaired driving -- something robots won't suffer from -- doesn't cause at least an order of magnitude more problems.
 
rgMekanic said:
California ... "law enforcement interaction plans" ... makes it even less appealing to me. Perhaps far into the future when things like this are more streamlined.
Click to expand...

Just wait until your cute 17-yr old daughter is being driven home by her car on a dark and lonely road, and some horny town clown (i.e. local cop, the mayor's retarded pervert nephew) decides to pull her car over and "negotiate a ticket" with her.

Just say no to letting cops carjack you at will.
 
Chas said:
Sorry, disagree.

The mixture of automated and human drivers is a horrendous driving condition.

Quite simply, humans have a wider range of choices available to them than a driverless car will.

And differences in reaction times and the actual reactions themselves will likely CAUSE more accidents.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding reaction times. Are you implying that a sober person in their mid 20's has a similar reaction time to a 90 yr old?

As far as humans having a wider range of choices, do we? Are you able to stop your front right wheel, accelerate your rear left wheel, and neutrlize your other alternate wheels while turning the steering wheel exactly 32° to the left to avoid an accident that you saw 3 cars up using your radar vision? I highly doubt it but a sufficiently sophisticated self driving car could do this easily.
 
bugleyman said:
All the more reason to get human drivers off the road sooner rather than later. Then again, I honestly don't understand this country's fascination with the act of driving.
Click to expand...
What's not to like steering a 3 ton machine with a lot of combustion power and the windows down with your favorite jams through the countryside? You honestly can't grasp why someone would like that? Do you drive angry everywhere you go because you don't like driving? I seem to see a lot of these kinds of people on the road and they seem to be the most dangerous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mord
like this
bugleyman said:
All the more reason to get human drivers off the road sooner rather than later. Then again, I honestly don't understand this country's fascination with the act of driving.
Click to expand...

It's called "trust".
 
Rahh said:
What's not to like steering a 3 ton machine with a lot of combustion power and the windows down with your favorite jams through the countryside? You honestly can't grasp why someone would like that? Do you drive angry everywhere you go because you don't like driving? I seem to see a lot of these kinds of people on the road and they seem to be the most dangerous.
Click to expand...

So...you went from "doesn't grasp fascination with driving" to "doesn't like driving" to "angry and dangerous"?

Ah, Internet...how I love you.
 
Chas said:
It's called "trust".
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't trust people to be good drivers. People get into more accidents per hour (or mile) driven than self-driving cars do. In fact, from what I've seen, it isn't even close...people are much worse.
 
Rahh said:
What's not to like steering a 3 ton machine with a lot of combustion power and the windows down with your favorite jams through the countryside? You honestly can't grasp why someone would like that? Do you drive angry everywhere you go because you don't like driving? I seem to see a lot of these kinds of people on the road and they seem to be the most dangerous.
Click to expand...

Umm all that changes with autonomous driving is:
A 3 ton machine driving the passengers as they have the windows down, relaxing, and watching the countryside as it goes by.

Sounds lovely!
 
Chas said:
It's called "trust".
Click to expand...

I trust humans to be human - imperfect, easily distracted, curious animals (i don't want this to sound negative as this is what makes us all different). All of which are not good for driving at high speeds. Nothing about our evolution has prepared us to drive; it's no natural whatsoever. In the time it's taken me to write this post someone will have died in a car crash (on average).

At this point autonomous cars are showing a roughly 90-95% drop in accidents. I'd much prefer AI designed specifically for driving than human's attempt to do what we're not built to do.


How we might look if we had evolved to drive: https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/21/g...lved-human-body-could-survive-a-car-accident/

graham.png
 
Last edited:
travisty said:
Umm all that changes with autonomous driving is:
A 3 ton machine driving the passengers as they have the windows down, relaxing, and watching the countryside as it goes by.

Sounds lovely!
Click to expand...

Difference in preference. I'd take driving over riding 90% of the time. I fly enough it's just boring and sometimes annoying. Bus, coach, van, taxi, uber are all the same to me. Boring. Scenery might be pretty, but just sitting there looming... ugh, I'll pass.

I never get tired of driving an even half fun car through a canyon or twisty mountain road. Mmmm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rahh
like this
travisty said:
Umm all that changes with autonomous driving is:
A 3 ton machine driving the passengers as they have the windows down, relaxing, and watching the countryside as it goes by.

Sounds lovely!
Click to expand...

Far from lovely for me. Yep, there are those that like to drive and operate bad ass machines and there are those that just like to ride. You are correct in your statement that all that changes is you don't drive which was the point in the first place. LOL!
 
If we take out car fatalities and no one smokes anymore we'll have to find another way to kill off our over population of the world.
 
Rahh said:
If we take out car fatalities and no one smokes anymore we'll have to find another way to kill off our over population of the world.
Click to expand...
The largest populations in the world and fastest growing ones don't have the abundance of cars like we do.
 
bugleyman said:
Personally, I don't trust people to be good drivers. People get into more accidents per hour (or mile) driven than self-driving cars do. In fact, from what I've seen, it isn't even close...people are much worse.
Click to expand...
Self Driving cars have most of their miles at ridiculously low speeds in controlled environments. Any stats right now are pretty much pointless.
 
It will not be a few years until these can fully replace a human driver, it will be some time down the road. In well marked city areas, sure, we will see them pretty soon. However issues with weather, hell, just poorly marked roads make the current systems all but useless. As for which is safer, in relation to the AVERAGE driver, I will say that the systems in the next few years will probably be better. As most people do not care for driving and it is seen as a hassle and most drivers are oblivious to what is around them, however there are a smaller percentage of total drivers that these systems will probably never catch up to, at least not in our life time. I see these systems as a good thing, so long as they don't try and ban human driving, as I love driving myself and doing road trips, however in stop and go traffic to work etc I would myself probably use an automated system as I could spend my time working.
 
jpm100 said:
Self Driving cars have most of their miles at ridiculously low speeds in controlled environments. Any stats right now are pretty much pointless.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that "controlled environments" part. Waymo cars are ALL OVER THE PLACE in Phoenix...

Meanwhile, freeway driving is a very, very easy case for self-driving cars.
 
well they are weird anyways over there...they're all homo and smoke that reefer lol
 
California lost. Arizona has been doing this for a year! Much freer for auto makers, and much easier roads, weather for testing,.
 
ol1bit said:
California lost. Arizona has been doing this for a year! Much freer for auto makers, and much easier roads, weather for testing,.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter how long Arizona has been ahead, car makers will flock to California to do their real-world testing. They can potentially sell more self-driving cars in LA county alone that the whole of Arizona. There's a reason all cars sold in the US are compliant to stricter California emissions and safety standards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top