Self-Driving Cars

[Libertarian666]

Who is it that is in charge of Amtrak?  Who is in charge of the highway system?  Who is in charge of the Post Office?  Who is in charge of the Veterans Administration?  Who gave the "stand down" orders for Benghazi?  Who is it that says Islam is a peaceful religion?  Who is in charge of border security?  Etc. 

And we want more of that in charge of a self-driving car system?  R I G H T !  Go for it.  It will improve the gene pool.

... Mountaineer

I'm pretty sure Mark was not advocating for any kind of government-run self-driving car netwrok.

I think his point is that a network of very close following cars is one that is primed for catastrophic failure, and he would prefer a system that is instead designed to have small failures.

I agree with what Mark said wholeheartedly; his comment is my experience too ... many leave out the consequence part and focus only on the probability part of risk assessment.  I was just looking forward to who will most likely run a nationwide system of self-driving vehicles ... I doubt it would be private industry, mainly because of the potential for "put you out of business" lawsuits.  Thus, it will fall to those who pretty much are not capable of running much of anything successfully, i.e. profitably and competently.  Thus, more tax burden yada, yada, yada. 

... Mountaineer

The good news is that there is no need for "a nationwide system of self-driving vehicles", and thus no need for anyone to run it. All that is required is that the states permit the operation of self-driving vehicles.

[l82start]

and that each vehicle manufacturer makes their self-driving  technology compatible with, and able to recognize and communicate with the other self driving vehicles as well as people driven vehicles.

[Libertarian666]

and that each vehicle manufacturer makes their self-driving  technology compatible with, and able to recognize and communicate with the other self driving vehicles as well as people driven vehicles.

That is optimal but not necessary. All that is necessary is that the self-driving car be at least as safe, both for the occupant and others, as a non-self-driving car. That requirement does not necessarily imply ANY communication with other vehicles.

[Mountaineer]

I'm pretty sure Mark was not advocating for any kind of government-run self-driving car netwrok.

I think his point is that a network of very close following cars is one that is primed for catastrophic failure, and he would prefer a system that is instead designed to have small failures.

I agree with what Mark said wholeheartedly; his comment is my experience too ... many leave out the consequence part and focus only on the probability part of risk assessment.  I was just looking forward to who will most likely run a nationwide system of self-driving vehicles ... I doubt it would be private industry, mainly because of the potential for "put you out of business" lawsuits.  Thus, it will fall to those who pretty much are not capable of running much of anything successfully, i.e. profitably and competently.  Thus, more tax burden yada, yada, yada. 

... Mountaineer

The good news is that there is no need for "a nationwide system of self-driving vehicles", and thus no need for anyone to run it. All that is required is that the states permit the operation of self-driving vehicles.

You are quite right.  However, I would also think there is no reason for anyone to run liquor distribution control, car driver's license fees, marriage license fees, etc., etc.  It's just that big expanding government wants to get its grubby little hands on everything it can.  Power tends to fill a vacuum.

... Mountaineer

[l82start]

and that each vehicle manufacturer makes their self-driving  technology compatible with, and able to recognize and communicate with the other self driving vehicles as well as people driven vehicles.

That is optimal but not necessary. All that is necessary is that the self-driving car be at least as safe, both for the occupant and others, as a non-self-driving car. That requirement does not necessarily imply ANY communication with other vehicles.

optimal sounds good to me... 
i wonder how a self driven car working off a camera/laser and GPS gets from the left lane over to the right lane to exit in heavy traffic w/o vehicle to vehicle communication? it seems like a tough decision making process for a computer to make unless all cars can read turn signals and know to let other cars in (a lesser form of communication compared to direct car to car) i would think multiple redundant systems (car to car plus reading signals + some stuff i cant think of) would be the way to go... if not necessary

[Mark Leavy]

The good news is that there is no need for "a nationwide system of self-driving vehicles", and thus no need for anyone to run it. All that is required is that the states permit the operation of self-driving vehicles.

This is a very good point, tech.
Let the innovators take a shot at it and see what they can come up with.

Laser scanners, predictive control, etc. *could* turn out very well if the designs are guided by what the public really wants (as measured by what they would pay for).

From a purely engineering standpoint, I think that the results would be better if the designs assume that there is NO collaboration amongst any state or governing bodies and that all self driving cars must be prepared to deal with whatever they encounter.

[dualstow]

A new snag is that California requires a steering wheel, but Google is thinking about putting in a temporary wheel and foot controls to satisfy testing requirements.

Also, I saw a recent headline that the cars don't work in the rain. 

Interesting article from last year:
http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2013 ... riving-car

[l82start]

not sure if a link to this article has been posted yet, it covers car to car  communication as well as some other topics... http://news.yahoo.com/cars-drive-themse ... nance.html

[Benko]

http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria- ... automation
September 4, 2014
    The Hazards of Going on Autopilot
    By Maria Konnikova

    Only one pilot had been able to complete the test without making a mistake. The rest exhibited the same behavior that Casner and Schooler had identified in their earlier study: mind-wandering. The more the pilots’ thoughts had drifted—which the researchers affirmed increased the more automated the flight was—the more errors they made. In most cases, they could detect that something had gone wrong, but they didn’t respond as they should have, by cross-checking other instruments, diagnosing the problem, and planning for the consequences. “We’re asking human beings to do something for which human beings are just not well suited,”? Casner said. “Sit and stare.”?

    The more a procedure is automated, and the more comfortable we become with it, the less conscious attention we feel we need to pay it. In Schooler’s work on insight and attention, he uses rote, automated tasks to induce the best mind-wandering state in his subjects. If anyone needs to remain vigilant, it’s an airline pilot. Instead, the cockpit is becoming the experimental ideal of the environment most likely to cause you to drift off.

    http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria- ... automation

So if the coming cars are 100% automated and never make a mistake you are fine, but if they are partially automated and require any attention/supervision from you...

[dualstow]

Self-driving or not...

As vehicles become computers on wheels, the risk of car hacking is real, according to {some guy} from {some university}
...
“The security protection on cars is virtually non-existent; it is at a level of protection that a desktop computer system had in the 1980s,”? he said.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/car-hacking-w ... g-your-car