Self-Driving Vehicle Technology Is 'Absolutely Not Ready'

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I'm sure companies like Google probably didn't want to hear this, but I think this lady is right. Hell, I'll go one step further and say we won't see widespread use of self-driving cars until all cars are fully autonomous.

Then, as if to splash cold water on their ambitions, the committee called Missy Cummings, an engineering professor and human-factors expert at Duke University who argued self-driving cars are "absolutely not ready for widespread deployment." Cummings, 49, who was one of the Navy's first female fighter pilots from 1988 to 1999 and managed a $100 million Navy program to build a sensor-laden robotic helicopter, is director of Duke's Humans and Autonomy Lab.
 
One of the things I worry about computer driven cars. People know the car is build not to crash into them with that knowledge people may become more prone to cutting off these machines to get to point B. This action may cause injury and/or death to others on the road.
 
There is the grey area of driving while impared. If a car, even in a semi autominous mode, is driven by someone under the influence, can they be charged with driving while impared if the car computer is doing the driving (understanding that the driver is not involved a crash but just pulled over..but then what reason would there be to pull someone over if the robot car is driving perfect??)
 
groebuck said:
There is the grey area of driving while impared. If a car, even in a semi autominous mode, is driven by someone under the influence, can they be charged with driving while impared if the car computer is doing the driving (understanding that the driver is not involved a crash but just pulled over..but then what reason would there be to pull someone over if the robot car is driving perfect??)
Click to expand...
Yes. How about the car running to use the ac drunk driver in the back seat sleeping.. Probably yes.. DUI
 
I would trust self-driving cars a lot more, if the people programming them were living in LA. Many of the drivers around here (silicon valley) are super timid, and so are the google self-driving cars. I wouldn't want to be in one of them, because they're afraid to make lane changes (unless it's into a bus).
 
The lady offers a couple valid points but nothing that isn't already being dealt with and addressed. So far there are no horror stories of dangers posed by self-driving cars and they're all getting better by the day. Certainly, self-driving cars are probably already safer than a bunch of morons that are currently on our roads.
 
In the late 1800s accomplished scientists and engineers were writing books about why people will never be able to fly. That's how much credibility this has.
The technology is absolutely available. It might not be viable in the market system yet, because the equipment to make an absolutely bullet proof self driving car is too expensive as of yet. But the prototype vehicles are already much better at driving than the average joe. The longer we stall the issue the more deaths we allow to happen.
 
Ididar said:
The lady offers a couple valid points but nothing that isn't already being dealt with and addressed. So far there are no horror stories of dangers posed by self-driving cars and they're all getting better by the day. Certainly, self-driving cars are probably already safer than a bunch of morons that are currently on our roads.
Click to expand...
Under perfect conditions, maybe. I would not want to be in one on in a heavy rain, or a snowy day. They can't deal with these conditions yet. That's one of the problems I have with reports of how safe they supposedly are. They simply haven't had to deal with the full gambit of driving conditions that humans face all the time.
 
"Can humans be trusted to snack or nap in the car and take the wheel when needed?
No. "
They when are we even bothering with autonomous cars? What benefit are we getting if we have to basically be driving but not be driving? We are supposed to babysit the programming of eggheads locked in a room programming these things?

"We have to make sure the automation is good enough to at least get the car into a safe position. The car can never assume that when it needs to hand off control, the human will be ready at that instant.
Context is important. If a traffic policeman is gesturing and a car can't interpret the gesture, it could slow down and vibrate the seat and ask a human to take over. It's not critical that a human take over in that case. If they don't, the car can stop. "
Humans will never be "ready at that instant" because people will get lazy in always trusting the car. People are already texting while driving. What makes you think they won't when having to babysit an autonomous car? "If they don't, that car can stop" Great... so they will stop in the middle of an intersection because it's stupid, or in front of a fire truck waiting to get to the accident the officer is signaling for. What happens if an officer is signaling for you to get off the train tracks? lol

Autonomous cars scare the crap out of me. I fear not just for my safety, but for all of you guys and others.
 
groebuck said:
There is the grey area of driving while impared. If a car, even in a semi autominous mode, is driven by someone under the influence, can they be charged with driving while impared if the car computer is doing the driving (understanding that the driver is not involved a crash but just pulled over..but then what reason would there be to pull someone over if the robot car is driving perfect??)
Click to expand...

Yes, I've seen cases where people were arrested for DUI because they were sleeping in the car with the key in the ignition (not running). Some cops will stretch it, others will realize that the person is doing the right thing (sleeping it off).
 
The lady is right. It will be many years (if ever) before self-driving cars become viable.

Once there is an actual attempt to introduce self-driving cars into "the wild" there will be a backlash of epic proportions. Look at the reaction to Google Glasses. Does anybody doubt that Google was surprised at the level of hate and hostility Google Glasses inspired? People will not like surrendering their free-will and autonomy to robot cars. If you think the "Car Culture" is going to surrender quietly than you are a fool.

Self Driving Cars: there will be violence...
 
Yes, autonomous cars are not ready, but how many drivers are? My one question to autonomous driving is, who will be responsible when it leads to accidents? Right now, google pays for all the damages done to its first at fault accidents because it belongs to google. In the future, will the manufacturer be responsible or the owner of vehicle who actually isn't driving it?
 
Jim Kim said:
And how is that different than most drivers.
Click to expand...
Well, for one, there are many people with proven track records of safe driving in these conditions. This can't be said of autonomous vehicles yet. The reality is, heavy rain and snow currently confuse the sensors of Google's cars and I don't think that other companies have faired better yet. I'm absolutely certain that none of them would have a clue on how to drive in an actual snow storm, or how to deal with city streets just after one.
 
toast0 said:
I would trust self-driving cars a lot more, if the people programming them were living in LA. Many of the drivers around here (silicon valley) are super timid, and so are the google self-driving cars. I wouldn't want to be in one of them, because they're afraid to make lane changes (unless it's into a bus).
Click to expand...
It looks like Google released a statement about what caused the accident with the bus. They updated the ai to hug the right hand of the turn lane (to allow through traffic), but sandbags near a storm drain were blocking it's path, so the car decided to come to a stop and then use the center of the wide lane (once it had the right of way). Google self-driving car crashes into a bus (update: statement)

In a wide lane meant for turning and through traffic, every driver is going to treat that situation as two separate lanes or as a car parked along the curb ready to pull into traffic. I wouldn't expect anyone to yield to a stopped car that's inching into moving traffic at 2mph in either situation. Their patch changes the prediction to assume that large vehicles wont yield, but I don't think that would prevent this from happening again with regular drivers in the future. Hopefully, they'll use this situation to run simulations of parking along the curb like a taxi or delivery driver.
 
The comment in the article about how the autonomous car may not know what to decide in a particular situation totally surprised me. So, these cars are autonomous up to a point and that the human occupant may have to take control under some circumstances. You know what? I'll just drive the car myself.
 
groebuck said:
There is the grey area of driving while impared. If a car, even in a semi autominous mode, is driven by someone under the influence, can they be charged with driving while impared if the car computer is doing the driving (understanding that the driver is not involved a crash but just pulled over..but then what reason would there be to pull someone over if the robot car is driving perfect??)
Click to expand...

California's current attitude on the situation is probably going to be the norm for the other states. A self driving car does not in any way absolved the operator of the vehicle from responsibility for it's safe operation. Doesn't matter if the car is doing the driving, the "designated driver" must still be prepared and able to assume control if necessary and it's going to be on that driver to correctly make the judgement call for when it's necessary.

Look, self driving cars are not going to remove responsibility from the owner/operator. Programmers are not going to get your tickets because your car was speeding and car manufacturers are not going to cover your insurance deductible if your car is in an accident.
 
I really dislike negative nancy type people. When is anything ever ready? It is stupid as being ready to be a parent. You are NEVER ready..but you can prepare. You do it, you learn...you move on. If we all had her attitude..we still wouldn't have planes....maybe not even cars.
 
Trepidati0n said:
I really dislike negative nancy type people. When is anything ever ready? It is stupid as being ready to be a parent. You are NEVER ready..but you can prepare. You do it, you learn...you move on. If we all had her attitude..we still wouldn't have planes....maybe not even cars.
Click to expand...

I really dislike people against people who are cautious. What is stupid about being ready to be a parent? You mean like buying diapers and a baby crib before the baby gets here? Really? Wouldn't have planes or cars? Apples to oranges, sir. That's like saying we wouldn't have lightbulbs. Planes and cars are inventions. Autonomous is not an invention. It is a "feature". Autonomous cars are something that will be solely responsible for people's lives by some programmers locked in a room. It is the programmers who will decide what happens. We have no control thus no responsibility... at least until at the last second the computer will shift responsibility to the passenger (there is no "driver" in autonomous) and then blame it on the owner. That will not fly with me.
 
Trepidati0n said:
I really dislike negative nancy type people. When is anything ever ready? It is stupid as being ready to be a parent. You are NEVER ready..but you can prepare. You do it, you learn...you move on. If we all had her attitude..we still wouldn't have planes....maybe not even cars.
Click to expand...


Well after reading just the first few paragraphs of that article I am thinking your comment is pretty unfair. This woman sounds pretty smart, and I think just maybe she knows her business. Just getting into the questions and answers part of the article puts some light on it.

I'm stopping just shy of saying "read the article" because I don't know how anyone with a brain could read it and come up with your statement.

And since I am not quite ready to call you and idiot, read the article (y)
 
I can't wait to get my Tesla Model 3 so I can have autopilot. I do not need 100% self driving but just to have it on the highway makes me 100% happy.
 
Trepidati0n said:
I really dislike negative nancy type people. When is anything ever ready? It is stupid as being ready to be a parent. You are NEVER ready..but you can prepare. You do it, you learn...you move on. If we all had her attitude..we still wouldn't have planes....maybe not even cars.
Click to expand...
So you are against critical thinking? It's wrong to identify problem areas and work on a correction? If the problem areas are being drastically underestimated by some people it's wrong to proceed in a logical and rational manner? Personally I don't want Dr. Frankenstein in charge of self-driving car development...

What is it with people wanting to give up free-will and control of their lives?
 
ShagnWagn said:
..... Autonomous cars are something that will be solely responsible for people's lives by some programmers locked in a room. It is the programmers who will decide what happens. We have no control thus no responsibility... at least until at the last second the computer will shift responsibility to the passenger (there is no "driver" in autonomous) and then blame it on the owner. That will not fly with me.
Click to expand...

No, I think I am going to disagree here. The car might wait to the last moment to shift control but the owner/driver is going to remain responsible at all times and no matter how much the manufacturers try to sell us on the idea that we can be doing other things like watching a show, studying, playing a game, surfing porn, whatever is your distraction. The government isn't and they are going to continue to hold the individual responsible at all times. There will be no out.

I have not decided which is better, remaining legally responsible and all means I might as well keep control instead of buying into this fantasy that I won't need to stay on top of it and just sit there like a lump doing everything except what matters. Maybe after 15 or 20 years it might change, or maybe the cars will all get so good it will be immaterial, like an act of god, that someone actually get's into an accident. But between now and then, I don't think any programmer is going to be paying your insurance claim when you get into a scrap.
 
lcpiper said:
No, I think I am going to disagree here. The car might wait to the last moment to shift control but the owner/driver is going to remain responsible at all times and no matter how much the manufacturers try to sell us on the idea that we can be doing other things like watching a show, studying, playing a game, surfing porn, whatever is your distraction. The government isn't and they are going to continue to hold the individual responsible at all times. There will be no out.

I have not decided which is better, remaining legally responsible and all means I might as well keep control instead of buying into this fantasy that I won't need to stay on top of it and just sit there like a lump doing everything except what matters. Maybe after 15 or 20 years it might change, or maybe the cars will all get so good it will be immaterial, like an act of god, that someone actually get's into an accident. But between now and then, I don't think any programmer is going to be paying your insurance claim when you get into a scrap.
Click to expand...

I don't blame you for disagreeing. Of course the company is going to weasel a way out of their faulty programming. It was their responsibility for cars getting stuck full throttle (Toyota, right?, plus others). Who here wants to have a self-wrecking car and paying insurance deductibles every time there is a sandbag in the gutter? Haha ;) . If self-wrecking cars are forced on us, then I will make my own EULA like websites and software companies do. "By selling (forcing?) an autonomous car, the manufacturer of this vehicle takes full responsibility for any and all liabilities." :)
 
ShagnWagn said:
I don't blame you for disagreeing. Of course the company is going to weasel a way out of their faulty programming. It was their responsibility for cars getting stuck full throttle (Toyota, right?, plus others). Who here wants to have a self-wrecking car and paying insurance deductibles every time there is a sandbag in the gutter? Haha ;) . If self-wrecking cars are forced on us, then I will make my own EULA like websites and software companies do. "By selling (forcing?) an autonomous car, the manufacturer of this vehicle takes full responsibility for any and all liabilities." :)
Click to expand...


Cool.

You know, I figure there will be a point in the future where the tech will be almost flawless. Between now and then, the little guy will get what he always gets, the shitty end of the stick
 
I am gonna be like the fresh prince and drive that audi myself wooooooooooooooooooo




I don't have a license. My wife drives. I am a failure
 
lcpiper said:
Cool.

You know, I figure there will be a point in the future where the tech will be almost flawless. Between now and then, the little guy will get what he always gets, the shitty end of the stick
Click to expand...

Agreed, I'm sure it will get much better but how many trillions of dollars will it take? They are already several billion into it now. Autonomous cars feel like democrats - someone else deciding your fate. ;) Oh wait a second. Looky what we have here. http://gizmodo.com/7-big-ideas-for-spending-obamas-autonomous-car-cash-1754082304 I wonder where this funny money came from. Added on to the $18 TRILLION dollars he has sunk us in?

If they ever make roads where outside variables never happen (like in tubes), then I can see them getting popular. Was it Minority Report where they were all in tubes?
 
ShagnWagn said:
Agreed, I'm sure it will get much better but how many trillions of dollars will it take? They are already several billion into it now. Autonomous cars feel like democrats - someone else deciding your fate. ;) Oh wait a second. Looky what we have here. http://gizmodo.com/7-big-ideas-for-spending-obamas-autonomous-car-cash-1754082304 I wonder where this funny money came from. Added on to the $18 TRILLION dollars he has sunk us in?

If they ever make roads where outside variables never happen (like in tubes), then I can see them getting popular. Was it Minority Report where they were all in tubes?
Click to expand...


Someone's gotta recoup all that development money :eek:
 
ShagnWagn said:
Agreed, I'm sure it will get much better but how many trillions of dollars will it take? They are already several billion into it now. Autonomous cars feel like democrats - someone else deciding your fate. ;) Oh wait a second. Looky what we have here. http://gizmodo.com/7-big-ideas-for-spending-obamas-autonomous-car-cash-1754082304 I wonder where this funny money came from. Added on to the $18 TRILLION dollars he has sunk us in?

If they ever make roads where outside variables never happen (like in tubes), then I can see them getting popular. Was it Minority Report where they were all in tubes?
Click to expand...

Someone else is always deciding your fate at different points in time. Did you machine out each part of your car or do you trust the parts put in there? Many new cars are already fly by wire so you are just asking the computer to give your car more throttle and then it decides to do so. Just a thought.
 
Darunion said:
Someone else is always deciding your fate at different points in time. Did you machine out each part of your car or do you trust the parts put in there? Many new cars are already fly by wire so you are just asking the computer to give your car more throttle and then it decides to do so. Just a thought.
Click to expand...


Decision being a defining difference? :D
 
Google cars have proven they can handle normal 'legal rules of the road' driving. What they are still having issues with are the informal real world rules of the road. Slow creeping at a 4 way stop was one. And how will they handle large farm vehicles on country roads during harvest season? Will their image sensors be able to see Farmer Brown waving the car past his combine that is doing 10mph while taking up 3/4 of the road?

I found her reference to the very strict testing needed for aviation to be interesting in light of a recent accident report involving an Airbus jet. One crew person had setup the take off parameters wrong in the computer, a 2nd crew person caught it and thought it was re-entered correctly. During the take off, the computer, confused by the still incorrect setup, starting issuing verbal warnings normally only heard during landings. The Pilot in Command, concerned by the weird messages, aborted the take off too late and the result was a wrecked aircraft. There wasn't anything really wrong with the aircraft and it would have flown just fine. If the 'very strict testing' still allows for the computer to confuse a take off with a landing, then I can safely believe that we are a ways away from having self driving cars that are fully real world ready. But I do support the work Google and others are doing. The only way to improve self driving programs is to test, use, find the oops, modify, repeat.
 
Dead Parrot said:
Google cars have proven they can handle normal 'legal rules of the road' driving. What they are still having issues with are the informal real world rules of the road. Slow creeping at a 4 way stop was one. And how will they handle large farm vehicles on country roads during harvest season? Will their image sensors be able to see Farmer Brown waving the car past his combine that is doing 10mph while taking up 3/4 of the road?

I found her reference to the very strict testing needed for aviation to be interesting in light of a recent accident report involving an Airbus jet. One crew person had setup the take off parameters wrong in the computer, a 2nd crew person caught it and thought it was re-entered correctly. During the take off, the computer, confused by the still incorrect setup, starting issuing verbal warnings normally only heard during landings. The Pilot in Command, concerned by the weird messages, aborted the take off too late and the result was a wrecked aircraft. There wasn't anything really wrong with the aircraft and it would have flown just fine. If the 'very strict testing' still allows for the computer to confuse a take off with a landing, then I can safely believe that we are a ways away from having self driving cars that are fully real world ready. But I do support the work Google and others are doing. The only way to improve self driving programs is to test, use, find the oops, modify, repeat.
Click to expand...

Just adding this in, not arguing your statement.

In controlled environments. In tougher environments human drivers frequently have had to take over.

I think You are correct about what is required to improve and make autonomously driven cars a real alternative. But I don't know if there is a real way to speed this up. If you just throw these cars out there into the mix they might generate a whole lot of resistance as people will frequently not forgive them past errors. A bad rep is tough to live down sometimes.

And I don't know if the manufacturers are willing to accept a long running development path that requires a great deal of investment before they can even begin to get a pay off. This is a real issue when you have to convince consumers that the product is ready and the product is a substantial investment. Rushing this will go badly.
 
Last edited:
i remember reading in a rolling stone article (I think I have it here somewhere....) where they interviewed an autonomous car programmer about making a decision.

Edit: here we go:

"Let's say a Google car is driving down a two-way road and a bicyclist happens to be pedaling next to it. What happens if, just as you are passing the biker, a car that is coming the other way swerves into your lane? If the Google car had to choose between a head-on collision or moving over and hitting a bicyclist, what would the car do?"

"It will not hit the bicyclist," Dolgov states flatly. "If we can give more room to the oncoming car and do the best we can to let it not hit us, we will do that and get on the brakes as hard as possible to minimize the impact."

Inside the Artificial Intelligence Revolution: A Special Report, Pt. 2

Eff that. I'm not letting my car decide to kill me rather than some bicyclist.
 
Kit woulda clipped that cyclist just right and flipped his as right in through the moon roof AND missed the head-on bumper crusher.
 
Link to previously mentioned Airbus accident information: NTSB: Pilot mistakes caused US Airways accident in Philadelphia

This happened after decades of flight computer development, testing and real world use by Airbus jets. Yet a simple stupid human trick confused the computer into going into the wrong mode, landing vs takeoff. Google and others have a LOT of work ahead before their cars will be truly ready for full deployment. One can only imagine the stupid human tricks millions of barely trained users will manage to do to autonomous cars.
 
/dev/null said:
i remember reading in a rolling stone article (I think I have it here somewhere....) where they interviewed an autonomous car programmer about making a decision.

Edit: here we go:

"Let's say a Google car is driving down a two-way road and a bicyclist happens to be pedaling next to it. What happens if, just as you are passing the biker, a car that is coming the other way swerves into your lane? If the Google car had to choose between a head-on collision or moving over and hitting a bicyclist, what would the car do?"

"It will not hit the bicyclist," Dolgov states flatly. "If we can give more room to the oncoming car and do the best we can to let it not hit us, we will do that and get on the brakes as hard as possible to minimize the impact."

Inside the Artificial Intelligence Revolution: A Special Report, Pt. 2

Eff that. I'm not letting my car decide to kill me rather than some bicyclist.
Click to expand...


cars aren't smart enough to make these decisions. It would do its default behavior
 
I think the quest for completely autonomous vehicles is stupid as shit. I say it in every thread, but they will never be able to handle the snowstorms we see up here with the technology we have available. If they want to keep them locked to the southern states that would be fine with me. Keep it to parallel parking assist and simple autonomous actions IMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top