• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

DRIVERLESS Cars Hit The Road (Waymo)

driverless cars

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic
⌛⇒ write a quiz!

#1 theone

  • Life Member
  • 130 posts
  • 315
  • Location:Canada
  • NO

Posted 19 November 2018 - 12:00 AM


 

 

Hopefully one of these will drive us to the singularity :)

 



#2 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 15,920 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 19 November 2018 - 05:24 PM

It is a shame that more countries and communities are not testing driverless cars on low-speed, well-marked, controlled roadways. The risks in these places are extremely low. The cars could immediately benefit the elderly, disabled and disadvantaged persons in such communities, while also proving the safety of the vehicles.


Edited by Mind, 01 December 2018 - 12:10 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert

#3 Rocket

  • Guest
  • 707 posts
  • 99
  • Location:Usa
  • NO

Posted 30 November 2018 - 07:23 PM

I for one don't trust driverless cars. yet. You are risking loss of life and great physical injury to 1's and 0's flying around on a circuit board. My vehicle has some kind of stop-sense technology so that I can't back up and hit something. I was backing up in my driveway with nothing behind me and system sounds a loud alarm and hit the brakes very hard bringing me to a complete stop... Only there was absolutely nothing behind me. We're not there yet technologically.



#4 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 15,920 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 01 December 2018 - 12:32 PM

Self-driving car crash rates are already LOWER than the human driver crash rate, (per million miles driven). 3.2 vs. 4.2.

 

Human psychology and statistics are very interesting. If you were gambling in Las Vegas and you knew there was a certain way to gamble that would decrease your odds of losing from 4.2 down to 3.2 percent, you would do it every time. Yet when our lives are literally on the line, on the roads, we would rather go with the higher odds of death, driving ourselves. Even if the technology "is not there yet" (not perfect), it is already better than human drivers, and will only get better as each day passes.

 

I wonder what crash rate would be "good enough" for most people? It will NEVER be zero. If the crash rate was half that of human drivers, wouldn't that be good enough? If it was less than 1 per million miles, that would be more than 4 times better than human drivers and pretty spectacular and would save thousands upon thousands of lives each year, yet I suspect there would be a lot of resistance to the cars.

 

It seems for a lot of people the autonomy/freedom and control of driving yourself is quite valuable and worth the much higher risk of death. I like driving myself, but I would have a self-driving car right now (for low-speed city routes) if my city would allow it (and I could afford it), because I know my risk of dying is higher if I drive myself (vs. public transportation or self-driving cars).



#5 Rocket

  • Guest
  • 707 posts
  • 99
  • Location:Usa
  • NO

Posted 01 December 2018 - 05:19 PM

Self drving cars are not conscious and a car on a road is 10000x totally different than an airplane on autopilot. For example if I see a large crater in the road covered by a thin sheet of plywood, I know not to drive over it. a self driving car with a LIDAR will continue to see the road as smooth and unbroken, drive over the plywood and into the crater, killing everyone in the vehicle.  If I see an oil slick on the road, on the freeway, I know that if I drive into it at 80mph that I will kill myself and my passengers. The LIDAR will not see it, not know it is oil, drive into and kill the occupants. If I am driving and see a heard of deer standing on the side of the road, I know to slow down because the deer can and do run in front of vehicles... The LIDAR and computer systems may not even see the deer through the foliage and don't have the intelligence to slow down in case the deer run in front of the vehicle. If I am driving on the Pacific coast hiway and I see a rock slide at high altitude and in front of me, I know to stop. The self driving car will not see it and drive into the rock slide.

 

I can come up with many, many scenarios that self driving cars are not capable of handling. Self driving cars cannot handle many, many conditions that drivers with consciousness can. 

 

I  am not even certain self driving cars are capable of driving on snow covered roads as they cannot see the lane markers, and the road is obscured by the snow... The car doesn't have consciousness to know from experience where the road begins and ends and where lanes begin and end. And then what about when there is no lanes in a heavy snow fall and drivers "make" their own lane for safety reasons? I am not certain self driving cars are capable of driving in heavy rain as the LIDAR cannot penetrate the rain.

 

If I am flying a Piper Warrior and I turn on the autopilot, the plane will hold an altitude and heading and the odds of hitting something in the sky is about 1 in a billion. Practically speaking the only thing I have to worry about is the plane flying into a weather system as the plane isn't conscious. There are no deer in the sky, nor are there rock slides, nor are there obstacles. The only thing to worry about is weather systems and the 1 in a hundred million chances of hitting another airplane.

 

We are a long way away from making self driving cars truly self driving and truly safe.

 

I just so happen to work in engineering on electronic modules. If you knew how loosey goosey automotive engineering gets, you would not trust self driving cars. There are a lot of lazy engineers and there are a lot of mistakes that are not caught and there are a lot of scenarios that cannot be tested and ALL scenarios CANNOT be tested for... You test a certain number of scenarios and extrapolate the data to mean that the system *should* operate Okay.

 

This isn't my opinion. It is a 100% fact that tall scenarios cannot be tested for and what is tested for is extrapolated to mean a system *should* operate Ok. That's one thing in an airplane with practically speaking nothing to hit. Its another thing on the ground with an infinite number of possibilities of things to hit and run into and an infinite number of road conditions with VERY VERY close tolerances between opposing traffic. Planes don't fly within 2 feet of each other in opposing directions the way cars do.

 

 

 

 


Edited by Rocket, 01 December 2018 - 05:26 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert

#6 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 15,920 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 02 December 2018 - 01:10 PM

Even with all of the scenarios that exist on the roads, self-driving cars are already safer than human drivers (albeit not tested much on snow-covered roads). Humans obviously do not handle "all of the scenarios" very well. In the U.S. alone 40,000 people per year die on the highway, well over 90% of the deaths due to human error.

 

Most human drivers are bad distracted drivers and kill thousands of people. If self-driving cars can cut that number down by even 1 person, it would be worth it, even if the self-driving cars are not perfect. I am unsure why we should resist saving lives. I am unsure why there can't be more controlled testing around the world.


  • Agree x 1




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users