General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSelf-driving cars can be fooled by fake signals
You'd think that self-driving cars would be most vulnerable to remote hacks, but the biggest danger may come from someone nearby with a handful of cheap electronics. Security researcher Jonathan Petit has determined that you can fool LIDAR (the laser ranging common on autonomous vehicles) by sending "echoes" of fake cars and other objects through laser pulses. All you need is a low-power laser, a basic computing device (an Arduino kit or Raspberry Pi is enough) and the right timing -- you don't even need good aim. Petit managed to spoof objects from as far as 330 feet away in his proof-of-concept attack, and he notes that it's possible to present multiple copies of these imaginary objects or make them move. In other words, it'd only take one prankster to make a self-driving car swerve or stop to avoid a non-existent threat.
There's no guarantee that this will be a major issue if and when self-driving cars become commonplace. Petit's technique only works so long as LIDAR units' pulses aren't encrypted or otherwise obscured. While that's true of many commercial systems at the moment, it's possible that production-ready vehicles will lock things down. Still, this is a not-so-friendly reminder that car makers have a lot of work ahead of them if they're going to secure their robotic rides.
http://www.engadget.com/2015/09/05/self-driving-car-lidar-exploit
Just one reason those 'magic' self-driving Google cars are nothing more than PR.
They work, but it'll be generations before they are widely trusted and used.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)That's probably problem number one.
If I hit your car, you sue me.
If my self driving car hits you, you sue the manufacturer.
dragonlady
(3,577 posts)they will sue you as well. No question about that.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)And this is going to factor into getting these self driven cars on the road.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Can you imagine the discovery process going deep into the code used to control the car, the liability issues between manufacturers, code writers, testers, etc. The legal mess of the expert testimony.
All that stuff has been pretty well fleshed out with today's cars and now virtually no accident lawsuits involve the car makers unless they can alledge bad design was a contributing factor.
But with self driving cars the car maker will be a defendant every single time because they wrote the code that controlled it- in fact even the car owner could have standing to sue the maker in every single accident case if the car was self-driving.
I think it will take a major change in U.S. law giving the automakers immunity from such lawsuits before we see them out in consumer use.
Not fooling anyone.
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)At least the robot cars fail safe. Distract a human with high powers pulsing lights and you might even end up with a body count.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)for example, is committing a felony.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)A whole bunch of jokers seem to think it's hilarious to shine laser pointers into airliner cockpits overhead.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)And some autonomous vehicles are already being used:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141013-convoys-of-huge-zombie-trucks
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)autonomous features, and the reality is that within a few years, much sooner than most people realize, human drivers will be about as useful as a kid with a toy steering wheel.
As to the safety issues - sure they exist. However there is simply no comparison with the safety issues with human drivers. The robots win hands down.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)They are constantly monitored and corrected by humans. It's like a kid lining up a toy train that has derailed.
They are nowhere near 'autonomous.'
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)long after they have ceased to be.
Logical
(22,457 posts)HappyPlace
(568 posts)Not you, of course, but it needs to be kept in mind.
There's a LOT of pushback against High Speed Rail and against light rail and other public transit.
And a lot of opponents say that Uber and Google cars and V2V technology will save the day, and that V2V technology in particular will triple the capacity of highways because we'll all be driving in "car trains".
Well, it's just not so, V2V only increases density where traffic is light and moving, by decreasing inter-vehicular distance.
A lot of cars have collision avoidance, I don't know how long before a significant number are autonomous for braking and steering, but there will be glitches and a growing number of people cannot afford a new vehicle.
I'm all for just killing the auto era altogether where possible, and millenials are looking for a world without cars, too.
that's all, rant off!
Ron Green
(9,821 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Public transportation that is funded properly is best for society with cars filling in the gaps.
If we had adequate public transportation, there would be much less traffic, traffic accidents, need for self-driving cars.
Note- I said LESS and not non-existant.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)to get some people to pay for other people's transportation.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)nt
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Even here in Portland, with an excellent, comprehensive bus and light rail system, there are enormous sections of the metro area in which you are only within a mile or more of a transit stop. For people who aren't that mobile (or don't want to deal with a long walk in the rain...it's the Northwest, after all), that's not going to work for the daily commute.
Personally, I don't have to use my car much on a week-to-week basis. But I live in the center of town, with a bus stop literally across the street, and only about half a mile from a light rail stop (plus I'm pretty fit and don't mind the rain). For many, the situation is different. And as I mentioned, Portland is exceptionally mass-transit-friendly for a spread-out Western city.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)in a multi-modal public transportation system.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Why would you need your own car when you could just signal for Google Cab and have it take you where you're going? No more driveways or garages.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)MindPilot
(12,693 posts)is that me and it so rarely share a destination. Unless the transit system is completely removed from the roads like a subway, public transportation--usually a bus--instead of alleviating congestion, just adds to the traffic.
Its time to admit that the private automobile is mass transportation.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Because the personal vehicle won't be around in 30-50 years. It's coming up on its end as a viable technology.
It's just not tenable anymore. People are going to have to grok onto the concept that it's just not feasible to turn their noses up at mass transit...we're all going to have to do it. Cars are killing the planet and society. Private automobiles aren't mass transit...they're not even a viable transportation technology looking forward more than a few decades.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Thank goodness progressives with foresight are seeing the need for this. As our country ages, we will need automatic driving cars. I am thrilled with this.
rockodman
(20 posts)I thought that was a long range tracking system used on Battlestar Galactica. Must be Cylon activity.
https://www.fanfiction.net/s/7078145/1/The-Farthest-Ones-From-Home
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)IDemo
(16,926 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)distracted, drunk, frustrated or angry.
If they have average driving records only a few percentage points safer than human drivers, insurance companies will start insisting that they be installed and used in cars or your premium will go through the roof, or they may refuse coverage entirely.
treestar
(82,383 posts)all you have to do is turn it off and start it again.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)MindPilot
(12,693 posts)Driverless cars is a technology that is in its infancy and needs a lot of refinement. I doubt if that will take generations. I think by the end of the decade we'll see autonomous clusters of driverless cars capable of safely moving down the freeway at well into triple digit speeds. The trucking industry will probably be on the front lines of adopting driverless technology. Imagine being able to move a load of cargo from a dock in Long Beach to a warehouse in Boston without ever needing to stop.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)I expect the first autonomous trucks on the regular road to be part of convoys where the lead truck
is controlled by a human driver.
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Portland has a reasonably extensive (and growing) light rail system, and I like it quite a bit. The two-car trains are quiet and comfortable, and the fare is also good for use on the bus system. Some of the lines are quite crowded during commute hours, but when I consider how many cars that means aren't on the road, it's easier to accept.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Expanding public transportation, particularly high speed rail between cities, and light rail/subway systems in metro areas would be a plus. But any public transportation system will have to account for autonomous cars and trucks on the roads.
longship
(40,416 posts)And in the winter are snow covered. In the warmer months are likely to be wet after a rainstorm.
How does an autonomous car manage that. Hell, even when I know where the road goes it is difficult to keep on the roadway after a big snow squall.
Autonomous cars are useless in winter anywhere and likely cannot handle unpaved roads.
Logical
(22,457 posts)who have doubted technology in the past.
longship
(40,416 posts)I would bet my bottom dollar that no autonomous vehicle would be able to successfully navigate it. There are absolutely no visual clues as to the where the road goes.
And that is the same with every snow covered paved road as well.
The autonomous vehicle is a pipe dream.
drm604
(16,230 posts)Of course, that assumes that the roads have been properly mapped.
It may also be possible to use other wavelengths of light (like infrared) to see where the road is under the snow, at least better than humans can.
longship
(40,416 posts)And, in case you remain unconvinced consider its stated accuracy, 3-4 meters. I don't think that's good enough, do you? Maybe close enough for targeting a bunker buster, but not for navigating I-80 through the Rockies in winter, let alone summer.
So the GPS argument just doesn't play. Plus, have you ever tried to access a satellite in a snow storm? Sorry, your autonomous vehicle just drove you over a cliff.
drm604
(16,230 posts)But combined with other things such as using infrared sensors, which I mentioned in my post, it can add up to being quite accurate. Overall, combined technologies, including GPS, can be more accurate than a human, which is all that is necessary.
longship
(40,416 posts)As anybody with satellite TV can attest.
So what are you going to do then?
Autonomous cars are a SciFi wet dream until a car can drive itself across I-80 at the height of winter.
Notice that the only places we see them is in the deserts, SoCal, NV, etc. Why would that be? Because they cannot handle bad weather!!!! Snow would fuck them up badly. To say nothing about unpaved roads, which where I live are the majority.
Logical
(22,457 posts)It's odd...
Chan790
(20,176 posts)There are entire short stories set in what is supposed to be the far-future...31st century and main forms of transport are balloons (more like lighter-than-air airships but functionally...balloons), trains and walking.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)present a real challenge.
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)First, the signals that detect the edges of the road could "see" through the snow. Human drivers will often panic and clamp on the brakes or over-correct the steering. The system would be able to sense a skid or loss of traction and compensate for it far faster and more accurately that a human driver.
This is a civilian application of some of the surveillance technology being developed for military drones.
longship
(40,416 posts)There is no way an autonomous vehicle could navigate it in the winter. It would likely end up in the fucking lake. The only way I can navigate it is that I have driven it hundreds of times. At night!!! In Winter!!!
Try that in a Google car and I will retract my claim. Yup! It'll end up in the lake, which is only a couple feet from the road's edge. BTW, an oncoming car pushes one to the limit because the road is barely wide enough for two car widths. Thankfully, meeting another car is rare.
I stand by my claim. Autonomous vehicles wouldn't even be able to handle I-80 in the winter. And through Colorado?
Pipe dreams.
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)My grandfather was completely convinced that the human body couldn't survive sustained speeds over 50mph.
I had an aunt who believed that an electrical outlet spewed electricity out into the room, contaminating the air.
Remember the resistance to seat belts because people believed they would survive a crash better if they were "thrown clear"?
And not but a couple years ago right here on DU, the Tesla was roundly ridiculed as a "toy for the rich".
longship
(40,416 posts)Then I will admit I am wrong.
Of course, the Grass Lake Road winter test is something a bit more complex. One has to know the road to navigate it, and it curves all over the damned place. And where it cuts closest to the lake (within a yard or so) the level of the road is below the level of the fucking lake. I have driven it in winter, but not in recent years. It is fucking treacherous even in good weather in summer.
Winter is my issue with autonomous vehicles. That is something that has never been attempted, let alone addressed.
So I stand by my posts.
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)therefore the aforementioned technology is useless and should not be developed any further.
Edison's new light bulb won't illuminate a ball park so this whole electricity thing is a SciFi fairy tale.
longship
(40,416 posts)Let me make my point clear.
If one is going to argue that our roads are going to have autonomous vehicles on them one must account for the variety of conditions that they will have to safely navigate.
Autonomous vehicles can be made very safe, no doubt. However, they are only being tested in areas and conditions which are not typical. A vast proportion of the USA Interstate Highway system experiences severe winter conditions, conditions against which autonomous vehicles are never, ever tested. This is deliberate and with good reason. The technology is urgently unable to handle such conditions. So far, so good.
But the claims of autonomous vehicle advocates include increased safety on the interstates (often including long haul trucking). But interstate travel in the USA doesn't just happen in clear weather, or in summer.
So the test has to be the worst conditions, winter, something that has not happened.
What good is a technology that only works in good weather? And only in summer? How is such a technology going to be implemented? And how useful is a fair weather only system?
That's right. It isn't.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)in good weather when they first developed too. There's nothing, physically, that prevents autonomous vehicles from being able to navigate roads(or even off-road) in adverse weather conditions in the future. At this time, no, but you develop technology such as this in conditions where variables are more easily controlled, and then move on from there.
longship
(40,416 posts)My argument that autonomous vehicles are only tested in fair weather warm climates has not been addressed.
What good is an autonomous vehicle that cannot handle conditions which are prevalent over a vast area of the country's interstate highway system for a significant proportion of the year?
You keep missing the mark, my friend. A fair weather only system is useless given the expense and technology involved.
Instead, there are many technologies which help a driver be safer. Those are available now in high end cars. They should become available for everybody, like anti-lock brakes, which I can personally attest are wonderful on snow and ice covered unpaved roads, and paved roads too.
But a vehicle driving by itself? Dream on unless it is on rails, or something. Who would buy a vehicle that is only useful during warm weather?
Again! Autonomous vehicles are never tested in winter conditions, which happen to occur in a rather vast part of the country.
One should address that before one trots out yet another straw man.
Best regards.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)your use of "dream on" is assuming they will NEVER test them in winter conditions or that technologies will never develop and mature to a point where it is feasible for autonomous cars to be able to successfully navigate the roads, paved and unpaved, during adverse weather conditions.
You take a complaint that's valid now, that these are fair weather systems, then extrapolate that because of this, they will never work in winter, or in adverse weather conditions. This is exactly what you are arguing, so its not a strawman.
10 to 15 years down the road, who is to say that such systems will have the same limitations?
longship
(40,416 posts)1. They are tested only in clement weather conditions. See "DARPA Grand Challenge" for results, which are increasingly improving, but sadly now ended.
2. Any practical implementation will undoubtedly require improvements to infrastructure to enable it. Such improvements are not even on the drawing board.
3. Any practical implementation will require cooperation of diverse industries who will benefit most from the technology. Good luck with the Teamsters.
4. Then, there's fucking winter, which seems to inflict a vast proportion of the USA for months and which has never, ever been an environment for an autonomous vehicle test.
So how can anybody credibly claim that this technology is the coming thing.
It may be. But not likely in my lifetime. People tend to over estimate short term advances, and under estimate long term ones. That is in our nature, I think.
I remain skeptical by looking at what data we have. And there's none that says we will have autonomous vehicles anytime soon. (I reserve that opinion to exclude rail, where the route and traffic is constrained.)
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)You mention in your number 1 that performance is improving, something you then poo poo in your number 4. These vehicles are being designed around current infrastructure, not future tech, not embedded magnets or other expensive or impractical devices, but rather based on current road technology and standards.
I don't see what your number 3 has to do with anything, I would imagine the development of autonomous vehicles will mirror that of electric vehicles(with convergence). Competitors and cooperative ventures will both have a role to play. The Teamsters, not so much.
The issue is this, unless these computers will perform worse than humans, you don't really have an argument.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Someone that lives in the extreme south of the US?
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)You made up a nightmare scenario to discredit the implementation of a technology that is in very early stages of development. And because it won't yet operate flawlessly in your nightmare scenario, you claim the technology is useless.
Don't you think it would make sense to get it working really well in good conditions and then move on to testing in bad weather?
metalbot
(1,058 posts)The answer is "not very well".
I actually think self driving cars are going to have HUGE advantages over humans in poor conditions, in part by saying "this car should not be on the road right now, because conditions are terrible".
longship
(40,416 posts)But now only as augmentation, as is demonstrated by high end cars. They have all sorts of tech built in. Eventually that tech will be available in Fords and Chevy, instead of Mercedes and Volvo, who seem to be leading the way.
But autonomous vehicles are a far, far reach beyond tech augmentation. One does not need infrastructure changes or clear weather for augmentation to be useful. It is an add on, not a replacement. There is quite a difference between the two.
That is my point. We may get there eventually, but I would bet that personal transportation will be a thing of the past before autonomous transportation happens.
Just my conjecture.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)The solution is so simple as to be amusing. You just have to define the edges of the roadway with some sort of local area sensor beacon (RFID tech seems most likely) so that the car knows where the curbs are when the road is not sensible through on-board sensors...then being able to calculate the boundaries of the roadway, because it responds to conditions better than a human...the car will drive Grass Lake Road west of Hawkins, MI in a raging snowstorm at 3am better than you can do it on a sunny summer noonday.
The technology is not there yet...but we're close enough that this is not even on the list of major logistical obstacles to the deployment of autonomous cars. We know the solution...we've just not perfected the technology. That's what one calls a phase-II issue...you fix it after you prove the viability of the concept.
longship
(40,416 posts)I only have DU because we recently got cell reception here. Before that, it was dialup.
So it's laughable that one would claim that Grass Lake Road would get RFID any time soon, if ever. It doesn't even have pavement, let alone two lanes. The only reason it isn't wash boarded is that there are residences there with school kids. So they grade the road during the school year and plow it in the winter for the school bus. Plus, there's the beavers dragging tree branches and leaving them across the road. And the always problem of a wash out. Did I say that the roadway is lower than the level of the lake at some points?
But yup! We're gonna have RFID any day now.
Dream on. I would settle for Internet. At least we have cell phones now.
And you think the county is going to place RFID?
Chan790
(20,176 posts)the roadway is going to basically not exist for a major emerging technology...and that basically means tough shit for those people...they live on a road that doesn't functionally-exist and will likely come to cease to exist at-all.
Yes, I realize that answer comes down to "So...F those people" but...they're screwed. The technology doesn't have to be able to go everywhere...it needs to be able to go 97-99% of everywhere. The other 1% are people who are going to be defined by the technology passing them by. They'll be the minority still driving non-autonomous cars or they'll move or the technology will spread to their area eventually. (I do feel their pain...my town didn't even have cable until 1991. It sucked...but it wasn't an impediment to deployment of cable TV or the growth of cable providers.) If you have a self-driving car and that's your destination...you're also SOL. Things not navigable by the technology will be invisible to the technology. Sic transit gloria Mundi.
So maybe not your road but we're 5 years from a autonomous car that can navigate the Coquihalla (British Columbia Highway 5) in the dead of winter in the dead-of-night. It's considered the most dangerous wintertime highway in North America...that and not far-rural roadways will the winter-test of an autonomous technology. If a Google car can be made to regularly and safely navigate the Coq...that's a coup d'grace to the opposition.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)I suppose autonomous cars will fear beavers.
longship
(40,416 posts)These discussions are always good friendly fun.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)While not snow this demonstrated off road capability 10 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge_(2005)
bananas
(27,509 posts)earlier this year, which was about a related subject - automated theorem proving in mathematics.
And I think the point you're trying to make about autonomous driving is similar to the point that article was making about automated theorem proving: they might work well in many circumstances, but there are also many circumstances where they just won't work at all.
You stumbled on the first paragraph because of the jargon, so I'll just quote these other three paragraphs:
The Revolution Will Not Be Formalized
https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2015/05/the_revolution_will_not_be_for.html
May 18, 2015
The Revolution Will Not Be Formalized
Posted by Mike Shulman
<snip>
What is the future of computer-verified proof? Is it the future of mathematics? Should we be happy or worried about that prospect? Does it mean that computers will take over mathematics and leave no room for the humans? My personal opinion is that (1) computer-verified proof is only going to get more common and important, but (2) it will be a long time before all mathematics is computer-verified, if indeed that ever happens, and (3) if and when it does happen, it wont be anything to worry about.
The reason I believe (2) is that my personal experience with computer proof assistants leads me to the conclusion that they are still very far from usable by the average mathematician on a daily basis. Despite all the fancy tools that exist now, verifying a proof with a computer is usually still a lot more work than writing that proof on paper. And thats after you spend the necessary time and effort learning to use the proof assistant tool, which generally comes with quite a passel of idiosyncracies.
Moreover, in most cases the benefits to verifying a proof with a computer are doubtful. For big theorems that are very long or complicated or automated, so that their authors have a hard time convincing other mathematicians of their correctness by hand, theres a clear win. (Thats one of the reasons I believe (1), because I believe that proofs of this sort are also going to get more common.) Moreover, a certain kind of mathematician finds proof verification fun and rewarding for its own sake. But for the everyday proof by your average mathematician, which can be read and understood by any other average mathematician, the benefit from sweating long hours to convince a computer of its truth is just not there (yet). Thats why, despite periodic messianic claims from various quarters, you dont see mathematicians jumping on any bandwagon of proof verification.
<snip>
longship
(40,416 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)It amazes me how technology short sighted some people are.
Of course there will be self driving cars in the next 10 - 15 years.
Google is driving 1000s of miles a day in these already.
They will work out the liability issues easily.
People hate progress.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)of a flying car would be way too much.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)that a flying car is a really really bad idea for the same reason most people aren't keen to get in a Cessna or a Piper...when they have mechanical failures or crash or run out of gas...you tend to plummet and die.
The flying car was never actually a possibility as much as an amusing sci-fi trope. Nobody really should have a flying car,
Logical
(22,457 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)Autonomous vehicles just cannot handle snow storms. I don't know if they can even handle rain storms.
There likely will always be a need for a human driver at the controls.
Logical
(22,457 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)Plus, it is constrained to one dimension. It is really easy to be safe when one has those constraints.
Again, I will believe it when a car drives itself on I-80 from coast to coast in winter without crashing. That isn't going to happen. And that is relatively easy, a wide Interstate highway. The roads near me? GPS is not accurate enough to tell the road from a lake.
Logical
(22,457 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)All the Google car trials happen in sunny California, or Las Vegas, or other desert climates.
The test is to navigate I-80 during winter, through the Rockies. Or even through northern Nebraska! That ignores where I live where most roads aren't even paved. And yes, winters here in rural MI can be brutal.
Some folks are living in a SciFi wet dream. In order for autonomous vehicles to have a fair chance one would likely have to change the infrastructure.
However, it could be done with rail, where ones path is constrained. But not on today's roadways, and certainly not in winter.
Logical
(22,457 posts)missed a lot of history in this area.
People used to say the only way was wires under the street. That has already been proved not to be needed.
longship
(40,416 posts)Stop with them and address my specific objections!
Explain how autonomous vehicles can navigate in winter conditions.
That's right. You can't because they are never tested under those conditions. Why? Because they cannot handle those conditions.
Yet one of the prevalent arguments for autonomous vehicles is long haul trucking. But ask any trucker about driving in winter.
The use for this tech can best be for where the route is constrained, RAIL!
I love the Google Cars. They are cool. But we will likely never see autonomous vehicles on the Interstates. (For one, no insurer would allow it.) However on rail there would be definite advantages. Plus the Google Cars can bring more safety to everybody's car, as is being implemented in high end cars these days.
Eventually the cost of the tech will come down and we will all have it. But cars will not likely drive themselves unless roadway infrastructure was wholly replaced by something different in kind to allow such a thing. And winter will always be a problem.
Logical
(22,457 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)Here is the cutting edge of this technology. Note that although it is very promising, it is still no where near good enough to be put on our highways.
Regardless, the technology demonstrated is awesome!
DARPA Grand Challenge.
I would love to see a DARPA Grand Challenge under winter conditions, for instance through an Interstate highway mountain pass, with severe curves and precipitous drop offs at the road's edge. And in a blinding white out, or maybe just a mere two inches of fresh snow and clear weather.
Those are the conditions on US highways for months every year. That is the test of whether an autonomous driving vehicle is ready to hit the road.
Fortunately, DARPA is funding such research. But I just don't think that they'll solve the winter problem as easily as you apparently think they will.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)It seems like we'll eventually get autonomous vehicles. But if someone thinks they know for certain where highly experimental technology will be in 10 years, they're probably wrong.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)sakabatou
(42,083 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)the trend among producers working on the technology has been to remove the driver controls so that manual override is an impossibility. They found that people who can take the controls will take the controls and their odds of getting into an accident are even higher than if they'd been driving all along. Conversely, the autonomous car is better at accident avoidance than 99% of human drivers. So...the best circumstance in terms of safety is the one where the car drives itself and you are powerless to take control.
Statistical
(19,264 posts)Try removing a stop sign or making all traffic signals green at the same time and see what happens. Generally people don't do that because a) they aren't sociopaths and b) there are criminal penalties.
Just one reason those 'magic' self-driving Google cars are nothing more than PR.
Just one reason those 'magic' horseless carriages are nothing more than PR. - A "DUer" circa 1880s.
Logical
(22,457 posts)ladjf
(17,320 posts)goldent
(1,582 posts)But I don't expect a truly self driving car as people imagine it in 20 years. It reminds me a little of the nuclear car that had a small nuclear reactor in the trunk - it was feasible but never caught on. What is coming are convenience and safety aids (self parking, watching to keep in your lane).
Throd
(7,208 posts)I can see the appeal they may have for some, but I really enjoy driving.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Last edited Thu Sep 10, 2015, 06:29 AM - Edit history (1)
even for someone who loves driving there are undoubtedly times when they
would rather just do something else while getting to their destination. Perhaps
when they are spending an hour in stop and go commuting traffic or when they
have a 10-hour interstate highway trek to make. One should distinguish between
cars that have only an autonomous mode and cars that can switch between
autonomous and manual mode. If the car you buy in 2025 has the option to
be autonomous anytime you want you just may find yourself using the feature
at times even if it is only to parallel park.