Car 'autopilot' concerns?

thesquireofbanwell

If this system fails to see a light coloured truck against a white sky I dread to think of the possible
consequences to a cyclist on our much narrower roads beloved of cyclists.
Sample article,one of many;
http://fortune.com/2016/07/02/fatal-tes ... lind-spot/

bendertherobot

As long as we're not 10 feet up in the air we'll be fine. Tesla's record is far far better than humans.

Pross

^This. If all vehicles were fully automated there would no doubt still be collisions but there would be far fewer than with humans in control. I heard a lecture on the subject a couple of weeks ago and the biggest concern at the moment is that pedestrians would take advantage of the safety features by walking across the road in front of them knowing they will automatically stop which will lead to increased congestion and longer journey times. Some may argue it would be a good thing to re-balance transport in favour of non-motorised use.

bendertherobot

It also took 130 million miles (autopilot) for one fatality. Compared to 94 million in the US for other cars and 60 million worldwide. And it sounds like a bit of a freak one as well. Tesla will learn from it and adapt. A knee jerk into this is not warranted.

morstar

On an emotional level it's really scary as we feel we have no control ( no brexit puns please). Despite our own fallibility, we have no reason to believe we will cause a crash ourselves so proceed with confidence. Relinquish control and then experience an accident and we question the techonology. It's completely understandable but emotions do need to be removed from the equation. The only way we'll accommodate increasing volumes of traffic is through self drive tech.

ugo.santalucia

morstar wrote:

On an emotional level it's really scary as we feel we have no control ( no brexit puns please). .

Crap, I was so ready...

morstar

ugo.santalucia wrote:

morstar wrote:

On an emotional level it's really scary as we feel we have no control ( no brexit puns please). .

Crap, I was so ready...

Oh go on then!
The word has just been ruined though. Can't hear it without thinking brexit.

frisbee

He was watching a film apparently.

BelgianBeerGeek

I simply cannot wait for these devices. What a way to get back from the pub. And when you tell your insurance people "I have a machine that does the driving" surely we all win!
As someone who owns cars on sufferance, the next step is communal cars. Just whistle one, and it's there. Sweet...

cougie

I believe they're only working on roads with clear white lines - so the average Road appealing to cyclists won't let it work currently.

And in the future - I'm sure that they'll be better than the average driver. They'll see us and give us proper clearance

DeVlaeminck

Being them on though I still find it hard to suspend disbelief that driverless cars will replace human control in the next 40 years or so. Presumably once a tipping point is reached we might see human control limited by law or phased out completely.

Giraffoto

The huge sticking point is going to be getting them to work with human drivers. It will be far more of a challenge than if we could just replace all of the cars in one fell swoop with self-driving ones.

wiznaeme

Apparently there are no manufacturers who deny the inevitability of these vehicles and that the first cars without steering wheels will come off the production lines within ten years. If they identify cyclists properly I'm looking forward to it.

surrey_commuter

The experts see driverless cars and communal cars going hand in hand in cities. As the average car spends 98% of it's time not moving this will have grave consequences for manufacturers and insurers.

Those thinking of the cycling angle - imagine what the roads will look like with 90% less cars on them. All those parking spaces will be a new lane.

Here is a thought for you. You can program a driverless car to avoid an accident but what if it can not avoid an accident. How do you program to make the least worst decision?

eg - cyclist coming other way when two children run into road do you program the car to run over the children (their fault) or swerve into the lone cyclist as you are saving one life.

rolf_f

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Here is a thought for you. You can program a driverless car to avoid an accident but what if it can not avoid an accident. How do you program to make the least worst decision?

eg - cyclist coming other way when two children run into road do you program the car to run over the children (their fault) or swerve into the lone cyclist as you are saving one life.

It's a well known issue. Of course, the car driver probably doesn't mind which option as both will damage the car similarly. Of more concern to the driver is the accident where the choice is between hitting the children/cyclist or avoiding them by driving into a big lump of concrete.

Driving my own car I'd prefer to hit the cyclist every time as I know I'm nice but the cyclist could be Boris Trump.

earth

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

I simply cannot wait for these devices. What a way to get back from the pub. And when you tell your insurance people "I have a machine that does the driving" surely we all win!
As someone who owns cars on sufferance, the next step is communal cars. Just whistle one, and it's there. Sweet...

Great thing is insurance companies will have very little to insure against.

I'm going to get one and send it out as a Taxi while I'm at work.

surrey_commuter

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Here is a thought for you. You can program a driverless car to avoid an accident but what if it can not avoid an accident. How do you program to make the least worst decision?

eg - cyclist coming other way when two children run into road do you program the car to run over the children (their fault) or swerve into the lone cyclist as you are saving one life.

It's a well known issue. Of course, the car driver probably doesn't mind which option as both will damage the car similarly. Of more concern to the driver is the accident where the choice is between hitting the children/cyclist or avoiding them by driving into a big lump of concrete.

Driving my own car I'd prefer to hit the cyclist every time as I know I'm nice but the cyclist could be Boris Trump.

But who makes the decision on who to sacrifice? it raises all sorts of moral issues

fenix

Whatever the logic is - the cars are still going to be safer for us as they won't be able to break the speed limits.

If people can't take control and speed in them I suspect that the cars could be designed to be safer for everyone and drivers will still buy them.

kingstongraham

We're all assuming this will be positive for cyclists - the only people still in control of vehicles on the road. How long is that going to be allowed?

If we stick to the centre of the road, we become virtually impossible to overtake don't we? Is that a good thing?

DeVlaeminck

It did cross my mind too but the reasons for encouraging cycling - pollution, fitness, congestion - should still stand. You are right though once the idea of someone being in control of a vehicle on the road becomes unusual there are bound to be people who ask why cycling should be allowed.

cougie

Er car drivers can do the same now if they wanted to.
But they don't cos they're not stupid.
It'd be ludicrous to ban bikes and set the health of the nation back.

finchy

Can't we just fit bikes with transponders, so that self-driving cars will know we're there?

wiznaeme

finchy wrote:

Can't we just fit bikes with transponders, so that self-driving cars will know we're there?

And that will be registration plates on bikes. Many issues there...

finchy

WiznaeMe wrote:

finchy wrote:

Can't we just fit bikes with transponders, so that self-driving cars will know we're there?

And that will be registration plates on bikes. Many issues there...

I meant completely voluntarily. Or even just little anonymous radio transmitters. I would pay for one if it reduced the chances of being squashed. While we're at it, why not fit them to hedgehogs?

Giraffoto

finchy wrote:

WiznaeMe wrote:

finchy wrote:

Can't we just fit bikes with transponders, so that self-driving cars will know we're there?

And that will be registration plates on bikes. Many issues there...

I meant completely voluntarily. Or even just little anonymous radio transmitters. I would pay for one if it reduced the chances of being squashed. While we're at it, why not fit them to hedgehogs?

If we want to make ourselves more visible to radar we need a miniature version of the radar reflectors you get on boats, like this:


If you made it about the size of a Rubik cube you could fit one under the saddle and one under the stem. Anyone got a 3D printer that does aluminum, and a kickstarter account? Make it a bit smaller and it could be fitted inside the downtube of a carbon frame - where it would still be nicely visible to radar.

kingstongraham

All I'm saying is that it will take an enormous mindset shift to allow people outside your car to have more control over it than the people inside it.

Maybe it just means more "motorway" type roads where only automated vehicles are allowed.

finchy

Giraffoto wrote:

finchy wrote:

WiznaeMe wrote:

finchy wrote:

Can't we just fit bikes with transponders, so that self-driving cars will know we're there?

And that will be registration plates on bikes. Many issues there...

I meant completely voluntarily. Or even just little anonymous radio transmitters. I would pay for one if it reduced the chances of being squashed. While we're at it, why not fit them to hedgehogs?

If we want to make ourselves more visible to radar we need a miniature version of the radar reflectors you get on boats, like this:


If you made it about the size of a Rubik cube you could fit one under the saddle and one under the stem. Anyone got a 3D printer that does aluminum, and a kickstarter account? Make it a bit smaller and it could be fitted inside the downtube of a carbon frame - where it would still be nicely visible to radar.

That would be good, but how do you fit them to hedgehogs?

pblakeney

KingstonGraham wrote:

We're all assuming this will be positive for cyclists - the only people still in control of vehicles on the road. How long is that going to be allowed?

If we stick to the centre of the road, we become virtually impossible to overtake don't we? Is that a good thing?

Justification - Cyclists don't kill people. Drivers do.
(Mostly)

haydenm

My dad is convinced cars with autopilot will mean he can get home from the pub when he is pissed. Personally I can't see that being the case until human controls are removed completely as the driver will (in the eyes of the law) still technically be in control of the car. This guy watching a film does call that into question a bit...

seanoconn

HaydenM wrote:

My dad is convinced cars with autopilot will mean he can get home from the pub when he is pissed. Personally I can't see that being the case until human controls are removed completely as the driver will (in the eyes of the law) still technically be in control of the car. This guy watching a film does call that into question a bit...

Unless there is a way of mapping your journey (this is where you come in HaydenM) to prove you aren't in control of the vehicle at any time.

haydenm

seanoconn wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

My dad is convinced cars with autopilot will mean he can get home from the pub when he is pissed. Personally I can't see that being the case until human controls are removed completely as the driver will (in the eyes of the law) still technically be in control of the car. This guy watching a film does call that into question a bit...

Unless there is a way of mapping your journey (this is where you come in HaydenM) to prove you aren't in control of the vehicle at any time.

But how will the plod give out fines on the spot? The policing element is difficult and I can only assume they wont bother trying to find a way around it. I do have a friend who works in the in car electronic systems department at Jag/landrover, maybe we can team up, my basic self taught knowledge of mapping will be invaluable...