Select to expand quoteHarrow said..
Is anyone that is sitting behind the wheel 'supervising' an autonomous car going to be ready for that 1 in 5600 miles intervention? I'd say just about never.
That's right you're either in charge and concentrating or just a dozy passenger. Maybe it'll turn out to be either fully autonomous or just emergency over-ride. Maybe after all the experimentation we'll still be steering cars but with our thumbs outside the steering wheel.
Trains are pretty autonomous they need a dead man switch.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_man%27s_switch
jalopnik.com/video-shows-driver-in-fatal-autonomous-uber-crash-was-l-1823970417
Amount of video and sensors to allow now to investigate accident is far exceed those in aviation accidents.Somehow video is not required for passenger airplanes- only for a fighter jet and bomber - to prove that they wasted precious ammunition for nothing.
We will need to learn to live with that camera now recording your everything outside and inside the car.
The greatest advantage of SD cars could be lost.if you did hope - Sex on the back seat while car drive itself long distance - will be big NO NO.But I guess that drinking and smoking should be allowed
Select to expand quote
I did read the article carefully and couldn't find any dead man switch that we could attach to our pedestrian bicycle to prevent an accident.
Say something that will stop bicycle from being pushed on the public by a person that is drunk or dead.
Oooops.
That is dead man switch we talk about but here we need actually dead women switch.Same with supervising driver.
Your dead man switch could be completely useless since the driver was women too.
Uber has been a bit lucky this time.
Because women drive over another woman.
Let's imagine catastrophe for automobile industry while it was the white man driving over black gay women instead,
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..
Is anyone that is sitting behind the wheel 'supervising' an autonomous car going to be ready for that 1 in 5600 miles intervention? I'd say just about never.
Agreed
However I repeat my assertion that is still too often, with a switched-on safety driver in there or not
Who here has a crash every 10,000 km?
None of us I bet.
But companies are pursuing this idea for seemingly no reason than to be the first and to make $$$$- if the best best we have now is a crash every 10,000km I think they should be on the roads at all yet.
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
Agreed
Seriously?
I think that you are afraid that after the self-driving cars the time will come for self-shooting guns. All the fun will be taken from us, humans when only self-driving cars will be able to chase pedestrian to smash them to a pulp.
Then riffles could fire by themselves, no human needed to push the button or trigger.
^^^ strange analogy
But ignoring that - there is all kinds of issues with that system, it is nowhere near as easy as they make it sound....... it only works in perfect light with a reasonably reflective target vs background, and can't compensate for wind as well as is needed to replace the human factor. I'll spare u the sniper specifics, but it ain't that good and most of the coverage is by media who want to scare us all into thinking average Joe can buy one and be a sniper in 5mins.
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
^^^ strange analogy
But ignoring that - there is all kinds of issues with that system, it is nowhere near as easy as they make it sound....... it only works in perfect light with a reasonably reflective target vs background, and can't compensate for wind as well as is needed to replace the human factor. I'll spare u the sniper specifics, but it ain't that good and most of the coverage is by media who want to scare us all into thinking average Joe can buy one and be a sniper in 5mins.
The rifle has a laser rangefinder. The camera already can see better than our eyes in any light conditions. Beside computer could shoot next shoot after the first one, just doing all required correction almost instantly. Next. There is no escape when a person is running, tumbling to avoid being shot. Computer mathematically computer your trajectory, velocity .The human sniper will be useless for moving targets .
Definitely if you on the receiving side you would rather prefer to be targeted by a human sniper then auto kills the machine.Actually the defense riffle on battleships is able to shoot down approaching missiles or bullet with another bullet.
No offense intended Macro - but stick to what you know, which doesn't seem to be firearms.
It looks very much like you have the traditional "Hollywood" education when it comes to ballistic topics.
Our rifle club often has the WAPOL Trogs borrow our range - training with their taxpayer funded tools, and often testing firearms that are waaaay out of any regular civilian's budget.
A while back, the Police turned up with another pricey toy to test, a big doo-whopper calibre [that civvies cant have], in a scary black stock [that civvies cant have], computer assistance with range finding, mirage - wind - humidity and temperature compensating, fancy everything you can think of and a lot of stuff that needed a tame geek to translate if you had any chance to understand WTF was being used.
Anyway, long story short - incredibly expensive hi-tech shootsenboomer being operated by young, fit, highly trained demonstrator bloke, was consistently outshot by a diabetic retiree using his 1970's rifle with olde schoole iron sights.
The only high tech he could claim was a pacemaker and a stainless steel hip.
Select to expand quotesn said..
No offense intended Macro - but stick to what you know, which doesn't seem to be firearms.
It looks very much like you have the traditional "Hollywood" education when it comes to ballistic topics.
Our rifle club often has the WAPOL Trogs borrow our range - training with their taxpayer funded tools, and often testing firearms that are waaaay out of any regular civilian's budget.
A while back, the Police turned up with another pricey toy to test, a big doo-whopper calibre [that civvies cant have], in a scary black stock [that civvies cant have], computer assistance with range finding, mirage - wind - humidity and temperature compensating, fancy everything you can think of and a lot of stuff that needed a tame geek to translate if you had any chance to understand WTF was being used.
Anyway, long story short - incredibly expensive hi-tech shootsenboomer being operated by young, fit, highly trained demonstrator bloke, was consistently outshot by a diabetic retiree using his 1970's rifle with olde schoole iron sights.
The only high tech he could claim was a pacemaker and a stainless steel hip.
I agree I do not know much about the firearm, besides pneumatic spear gun that I used once to catch a fish.As to future policing that will be resolved possibly differently.
All modern electric vehicles can be simply remotely switched off ( or even controlled - so police will ask offender vehicle to drive straight to the police station) . I am afraid the same will be done to all humans. Some sort of implant or wristwatch will be able to switch you off or on when needed.
Actually, I want to do some experiment is with dog trainers on my new cattle stock. No needed for my dogs anymore -either they did learn properties boundary or just get bored to escape.
Now I want to check if the same device could be used to steer a steer!
It is not easy to chase or direct a beast of hundred hectares plot.
So why not to remotely steer it to water, food, medicines or cattle crush yard!
If the experiment is successful, that same we could do with humans.
O irony, the future looks like that:
cars will be autonomous, self-driving
humans will be remotely operated like dogs and my cattle..
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..sn said..
No offense intended Macro - but stick to what you know, which doesn't seem to be firearms.
It looks very much like you have the traditional "Hollywood" education when it comes to ballistic topics.
Our rifle club often has the WAPOL Trogs borrow our range - training with their taxpayer funded tools, and often testing firearms that are waaaay out of any regular civilian's budget.
A while back, the Police turned up with another pricey toy to test, a big doo-whopper calibre [that civvies cant have], in a scary black stock [that civvies cant have], computer assistance with range finding, mirage - wind - humidity and temperature compensating, fancy everything you can think of and a lot of stuff that needed a tame geek to translate if you had any chance to understand WTF was being used.
Anyway, long story short - incredibly expensive hi-tech shootsenboomer being operated by young, fit, highly trained demonstrator bloke, was consistently outshot by a diabetic retiree using his 1970's rifle with olde schoole iron sights.
The only high tech he could claim was a pacemaker and a stainless steel hip.
I agree I do not know much about the firearm, besides pneumatic spear gun that I used once to catch a fish.As to future policing that will be resolved possibly differently.
All modern electric vehicles can be simply remotely switched off ( or even controlled - so police will ask offender vehicle to drive straight to the police station) . I am afraid the same will be done to all humans. Some sort of implant or wristwatch will be able to switch you off or on when needed.
Funny you should say that. There was nerdy bloke talking about that sort of thing as an alternative to incarceration on Radio National this arvo. He was trying to drum up support for a government grant. lol.
I think its coming one way or another.
Statistically you have more chance of being killed by a shark if your in the self driving cars domain you have to accept the risk.
The car has rotating sensor on the car roof to map and identify all objects around it. Even though the woman shouldn't have walked in front the car, the video shows she was moving at a fairly constant pace as she crossed the road and didn't suddenly pop out from behind a parked car. How the guidance system didn't work out it was going to hit her and apply the brakes is a massive fail as far as I can tell.
I still can't believe these things are allowed on the road. Yes, it is amazing that they can drive on a busy road at all, but they are not ready, and we now have a pretty good example of what I have always thought....the observing driver in the car is pretty much useless in an emergency situation.
The legal outcome is going to be rather interesting.
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..
Actually, I want to do some experiment is with dog trainers on my new cattle stock. No needed for my dogs anymore -either they did learn properties boundary or just get bored to escape.
Now I want to check if the same device could be used to steer a steer!
It is not easy to chase or direct a beast of hundred hectares plot.
So why not to remotely steer it to water, food, medicines or cattle crush yard!
If the experiment is successful, that same we could do with humans.
O irony, the future looks like that:
cars will be autonomous, self-driving
humans will be remotely operated like dogs and my cattle..
put a salt lick in paddock , once they find it move it to where you want them to go usually hay will do the same .
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..
The car has rotating sensor on the car roof to map and identify all objects around it. Even though the woman shouldn't have walked in front the car, the video shows she was moving at a fairly constant pace as she crossed the road and didn't suddenly pop out from behind a parked car. How the guidance system didn't work out it was going to hit her and apply the brakes is a massive fail as far as I can tell.
I still can't believe these things are allowed on the road. Yes, it is amazing that they can drive on a busy road at all, but they are not ready, and we now have a pretty good example of what I have always thought....the observing driver in the car is pretty much useless in an emergency situation.
The legal outcome is going to be rather interesting.
There is no doubt that technology is not ready to be on roads yet.
The question is how to makes it ready without actually being on the road?You could not simulate all those life events in Sin City simulation. Or this approach will take us ages to complete.What is could see as the very fair approach is that the US is doing this experiment on their own soil on their own people.Usually, in a situation like that, they would rather prefer testing to do done in Africa or New Zealand.
im sure as the product matures it has the potential to get safer than people. especially japanese female drivers.
but when it fxcks up, or blue screens or whatever, and it wipes out a kid. When. It's always going to end in tears and there's no one to blame other than a software glitch. It's fatally flawed in that we will never trust a computer that we make to make life or death decisions for other people. Imagine catching a plane with no pilots? You need a person whose entire life savings and freedom are at stake if they fxck up (as you are when driving a car). Our legal system and our sense of justice is centered around that. Not because some pointdexter forgot a few lines of code a few software builds ago. How often does your phone or laptop or whatever bug out. Remember the milennium bug?
How many people are we prepared to kill till we get it right? Wont be long before the trials get very unpopular and we have the NIMBY effect.
I dont want my kids being pedestrians while elon irons the bugs out of his crappy device
Select to expand quotemyusernam said..
How many people are we prepared to kill till we get it right?
Pick a number. But when they do get it 99.999% right in 5 years time, I'll guess it'll make up the debit in about 5 minutes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
"According to the World Health Organization, road traffic injuries caused an estimated 1.25 million deaths worldwide in the year 2010. That is, one person is killed every 25 seconds. "
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
Pick a number. But when they do get it 99.999% right in 5 years time, I'll guess it'll make up the debit in about 5 minutes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
"According to the World Health Organization, road traffic injuries caused an estimated 1.25 million deaths worldwide in the year 2010. That is, one person is killed every 25 seconds. "
So, in Australia there are 5.4 road fatalities p.a. for every 100,000 people in Australia. Since Australians have an average life expectancy of 82.5 years, that means each of has a 0.45% chance of being a road fatality at least once in our life.
Or to put it another way, 1 in 224 Australians will die from being a road fatality.
^^
Look at these numbers: conventional car crashes killed 37,461 in the United States in 2016, which works out to 1.18 deaths per 100 million miles driven.
www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/usdot-releases-2016-fatal-traffic-crash-data
Uber announced that it had driven 2 million miles by December 2017 and is probably up to around 3 million miles today. If you do the math, that means that Uber's cars have killed people at roughly 25 times the rate of a typical human-driven car in the United States.
And Uber ordered 24 000 Volvos !
Edit: was reply to Ian K
one robot runs over someone , and the media are all over it ! please make them cover every accident that is caused by a drug****ed or dead**** bogan driver .
We know surprisingly little about the victim.Beside mention that possibly homeless and without family.
On another hand some families will be quite happy in similar case to sacrifice one of their own as compensation could be astronomical.
We don't know if victim was under influence of something that could explain why she did walk straight onto the road without looking. We don't know if her vehicle had obligatory lights turned on? Lets remember - 10 PM at night. Robot car had the same chance to avoid lady as you kangaroo jumping in last second.
If she was wearing helmet? Did she left suicide note by any chance?If she jump to the bridge to the river? Should bridge builder being sued too?
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
"According to the World Health Organization, road traffic injuries caused an estimated 1.25 million deaths worldwide in the year 2010. That is, one person is killed every 25 seconds. "
It is unrealistic to expect the introduction of SD Car will cut the number 1.25 mln to Zero (instantly) .You always could smash your head, hand or leg while closing door. On another hand it is quite difficult to imagine the now proud mother will run over their own child while reversing in one of thous automatic vehicles. But this sort of accidents hurt family hearts the most.
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..Ian K said..
"According to the World Health Organization, road traffic injuries caused an estimated 1.25 million deaths worldwide in the year 2010. That is, one person is killed every 25 seconds. "
It is unrealistic to expect the introduction of SD Car will cut the number 1.25 mln to Zero (instantly) .You always could smash your head, hand or leg while closing door. On another hand it is quite difficult to imagine the now proud mother will run over their own child while reversing in one of thous automatic vehicles. But this sort of accidents hurt family hearts the most.
...Or a self driving hand-brake fail parked on a hill, after the owner has switched it off and left it now that would be something for an SD truck or bus!
This is all nothing yet.I could not imagine how you could make electric car safe in any flooding situation.
We just need to wait to see people electrocuted inside and outside sinking cars.All good video of 4x4 Land cruiser diesel crossing river will be all gone with EV.
Can someone explain the point of having a self driving car.....if it needs a human [awake and alert] with feet on the pedals, hands on the wheel and eyes on the road - "just in case" the electronics have a hiccup??
might as well disconnect the electrickery stuff, or not bother with it at all.
Select to expand quoteSandS said..
one robot runs over someone , and the media are all over it ! please make them cover every accident that is caused by a drug****ed or dead**** bogan driver .
No, did you miss the part where I and Dimitri mentioned they have a ridiculously high crash rate?
If I wanted to test my new car on the road, that crashes wayyyy more then others, do u think they would let me?
Bloody geeks with their oooh we're so clever crap. Lets not worry about crashes because ooh look what we did, our processing rate is way better than last years one blah blah hand on it.
Autonomous Uber - the answer to a question nobody asked.
Select to expand quotesn said..
Can someone explain the point of having a self driving car.....if it needs a human [awake and alert] with feet on the pedals, hands on the wheel and eyes on the road - "just in case" the electronics have a hiccup??
might as well disconnect the electrickery stuff, or not bother with it at all.
Not me, I agree with that assertion, what's the point if you have to babysit the contraption, that makes it basically worthless.
Would the babysitter really be paying that much attention if it's a SD car, even if you're supposed to? I say no.
You're either driving the car or you're not, there really is no in-between.
Select to expand quotesn said..
Can someone explain the point of having a self driving car.....if it needs a human [awake and alert] with feet on the pedals, hands on the wheel and eyes on the road - "just in case" the electronics have a hiccup??
might as well disconnect the electrickery stuff, or not bother with it at all.
SN we need to adapt you live in WA and see on the news all the time we can't seem to put our phones away while driving this is the answer
