Automakers are slowing their self-driving car plans and that could be a good thing

[FrodosNewPet]

Automakers are slowing their self-driving car plans — and that could be a good thing

http://www.businessinsider.com/self-driving-cars-not-feasible-in-5-years-automakers-say-2017-1/

Danielle Muoio | Jan. 8, 2017

It was barely two years ago that self-driving car companies were putting forth a Utopian vision of driverless cars whizzing through streets allowing passengers to sleep in steering-wheel-less cars.

~ snip ~

"I need to make it perfectly clear, [full autonomy is] a wonderful, wonderful goal. But none of us in the automobile or IT industries are close to achieving true Level 5 autonomy. We are not even close," Gill Pratt, the CEO of the Toyota Research Institute, said at CES. Level 5 is an industry term for cars that are fully autonomous and do not require human supervision.

~ snip ~

Nissan also thinks full autonomy is still ways off. Maarten Sierhuis, Nissan's head of research and development, told Wired that fully self-driving cars aren't going to happen in the next 5 to 10 years.

~ snip ~

Autopilot isn't a fully autonomous system, but it highlights a real tension in the industry: should automakers release autonomous systems before they're fully ready? Should regular human drivers be expected to monitor them effectively? If the answer is no, then when can we say the tech is ready enough, and can we really expect that level of confidence in 5 years?

~ snip ~

[Ezior]

1. Take all the time you need, please

Better to delay it by 10, 20 or 50 years than having cars crash all the time.

I hope we can have fully automated driving on divided highways soon, though. Including lane changes at interchanges and to overtake slower vehicles. And hopefully fully automated driving on most roads is ready in 40 years, when I retire. Let's see.

I think the right time to switch to fully automated driving is "when 50% less people are killed in accidents compared to human drivers". Human driver accidents are biased and kill more people who shouldn't use a car anyway (drunk people, speeding, etc.), so that 50% makes up for that bias. I guess about the same number of sane, rational drivers would get killed in fully automated cars vs. human driven cars then.

[Rhiannon12866]

2. I'll give them till next winter...

[bekkilyn]

3. Will be great when all human drivers are off the road. The sooner the better. (nt)

[FrodosNewPet]

4. Even if the SDCs are not ready?

Computers are great at doing what they are programmed to do. But they have no imagination. They are digital machines that need a lot of clock cycles involving math and "if thens" to understand an unpredictable world.

Someday they will be better drivers than most people. But that is several years down the road. Long before we were primates, long before we were mammals, our ancestors evolved to me in motion. Our senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell, equilibrium all evolved to help us move so that we could acquire food, water, and reproduction. A computer can, with MUCH complex programming, simulate these sensory inputs and calculate when and how much to steer, accelerate, and brake. But it is not "natural".

Beyond that is the political reality that a lot of people like driving. For at least the next 30 to 40 years, humans are still going to be behind the wheel of the majority of cars. Any politician proposing to ban humans from driving will have a short career in office.

[bekkilyn]

6. Shouldn't take anywhere near that long

Humans are horrible drivers and need to be off the roads yesterday. Even imperfect self-driving cars are safer than humans, humans being the biggest liability in the process. Yes, some adjustments may still need to be made before everything is largely automated, but 30 to 40 *years*? That's like 40 lifetimes when it comes to technology. If it takes that long, then we're just being lazy and not even bothering to try.

[brush]

31. You're kidding with this right? Have you ever driven a car in the Northeast?

[bekkilyn]

34. Nope, not kidding

Speaking of the northeast, check out this article:

Pittsburgh cyclists prefer self-driving cars
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2017/03/21/self-driving-cars-Pittsburgh-uber-bike-safety/stories/201703210129?pgpageversion=pgevoke|

[brush]

36. Didn't think so. The industry isn't even close to solving negative cold weather effects...

on sensors for automated vehicles. Not even close.

As for the article, pedestrians and cyclists preferred self-driving cars? Are you kidding me?

Asking people who don't have experience at the split second judgement responses needed when driving, and that's in good weather, is like expecting trump to be a competent president.

And didn't they discontinue that driverless car program in the article you reference because the driverless cars were running stop lights?

[bekkilyn]

39. I believe remaining issues will be resolved sooner rather than later. (nt)

[brush]

50. And you know more than the automakers who say driver-less cars are 30-40 years away?

[bekkilyn]

51. The article didn't state ALL automakers

And if the automakers who aren't pulling back continue to surge forward as there will surely be some who do, the others won't be able to afford to wait and still remain competitive, and certainly not for a lifetime of 30-40 years. Nearly half a century at the rate technology is moving seems ridiculous. Though I suppose if 45 causes a worldwide dystopian disaster, then I suppose lots of things would grind to a halt.

Plus, I absolutely refuse to have a defeatist attitude about this wonderful technology that's in the making!

[brush]

54. Just curious, do you even own a car and actually drive it?

[bekkilyn]

56. Yes, for decades (nt)

[Henry Krinkle]

37. Would be nice if bicycles could be programmed in a similar manner...

According to the survey: “One participant noted how an ‘(Autonomous vehicle) cannot do illegal things because it is not programmed to do them

[Alex4Martinez]

41. Watch this video:

[bekkilyn]

44. Ohhhh! I LOVE IT!! (nt)

[littlemissmartypants]

45. This deserves a cross post to Video & Multimedia.

Thanks for sharing this.

♡ lmsp

[Alex4Martinez]

49. Hi! Pretty funny, right?

I love the mom, especially!

[Henry Krinkle]

46. April 1st is still 10 days away...

but in this case, I'll allow it.

[safeinOhio]

5. Oh no, now they will have to wait

to lay off those millions of truck, bus, delivery and taxi driver jobs.

[dalton99a]

7. And driving school instructors

and people who do car reviews and commercials that rely on "driving experience"

[safeinOhio]

9. You are correct.

Snowball effect.

[yeoman6987]

10. True but I like the idea that disabled will not be stuck at home all day

I like that senior citizens can go to doctor appointments. So many positives with self driving cars.

[bekkilyn]

11. Agreed

Besides, we shouldn't be using the same types of arguments conservatives use concerning the coal industry to try to stop more beneficial things from happening in our society. What we do need to do though is take actions to ensure that anyone displaced by changing technology is appropriately helped and provided for so that they can re-integrate with new jobs rather than just throwing them out to fend for themselves.

[yeoman6987]

13. Bingo! Post of the week!!!!

[HughBeaumont]

20. "rather than just throwing them out to fend for themselves"

Unfortunately, with people running the country that think poverty is curable merely through "good ol' fashioned gumption, individual pluck and bootstrappin'", that's exactly what's going to happen.

[Alex4Martinez]

47. Unintended consequences: More trips taken, but mostly by rich kids.

Seriously, self driving cars now don't need licensed or sober drivers, so anyone with a debit card or daddy's credentials can party all day and joy ride.

Meanwhile, the slave wage workers can't afford this tech so use their old costly to own cars, sit in traffic, because public transit has been defunded.

Equity is the measure that most often escapes transportation planners.

[KittyWampus]

17. Where I live there are buses for disabled and seniors run by the town that take them to doctors

and shopping.

[mythology]

57. That exists, but where I live (Boston area), the service openly says it's not designed

to meet all of the transportation needs a disabled or senior person would need. It also requires scheduling a trip a day or more in advance.

There are also those seniors who value the freedom of having their own car. My grandfather continued to drive long after he shouldn't have because he couldn't be convinced to give up driving.

Obviously no matter what the future holds, the public services need to be maintained and where possible expanded. But if we can develop a safe system that would better the existing system, I'm all in favor of exploring that too.

[bekkilyn]

58. Lots of us don't have practical public transportation options other than cars

At least nothing outside of calling expensive taxi services that would be well outside the price ranges of many people to use on a regular basis. Some charities will provide some help to seniors to get to stores and appointments, but they aren't guaranteed town services, so if there aren't volunteers available, then that's that.

So basically, practically everyone outside of cities are forced to drive cars and if you're too poor or too disabled, then too bad. Maybe you can risk your life every day riding a moped or bicycle in traffic and bad weather if you're physically able. Oh and there are no bicycle lanes on most roads either. Some bicyclist hobbyists will do it for fun, but stories of bicyclists, moped riders, and pedestrians getting run down by cars and trucks pop up pretty often.

For those of you who can just go outside, walk a few feet, and hop onto a bus or some other easy option, you are very fortunate. In many other places, it's own and drive a car (and pay and deal with all the insurance and upkeep costs) and that's your option. They aren't luxuries but required in this type of environment unless you can find someone to volunteer to drive you.

[KittyWampus]

61. And that's why we need to re-engineer society for the future and not just keep status quo

with individual cars being the norm.

[bekkilyn]

62. I am in FULL agreement with you here!

While I love the idea of self-driving cars and think they will ultimately help get a bunch of cars off the road, we still need to be moving away from the "one or more cars for every person" model and more towards alternate transportation options and also more "self contained" communities where long commutes aren't even necessary for daily functions. A big problem is that most of our country is designed with the idea that everyone has a car, but that idea becomes more and more impractical and costly (not just monetary, but also environmental) every year.

[mvd]

8. I just hope it is in my lifetime. I am 40 now

I do not drive, so this would be an immense help.

[KittyWampus]

12. We could make the effort to re-engineer society to not need individual cars...

but Americans are so brainwashed at this point I wonder if we'll ever grow up as a group.

[yeoman6987]

14. It would be nice if we had fast speed trains everywhere but the expense is prohibited

Even California is finding it difficult to do just between LA and San Francisco. I think if they had done it in the 50's all over the place maybe having fewer cars would be the result. Now. I don't see that happening and it is not the American collectives fault but the politicians most of who are dead.

[KittyWampus]

16. Rightwing talking point which I'm sick of hearing. We re-engineered society almost 100 years ago.

It's time to do it again.

Conservatives will always say things must stay the same. Keep the status quo.

Self driving cars are the status quo.

[yeoman6987]

18. Sounds like you will lose out. Self driving cars are the future

Progress is hard but that's why we believe in it and call ourselves progressives. The days of the trains are gone. Conservatives like trains and coal.

[LanternWaste]

29. Hence, the GOPs desire to see Amtrak succeed and the massive increase to the FRA budget?

"Conservatives like trains and coal..."

Hence, the GOPs desire to see Amtrak succeed and the massive increase to the FRA budget? Adorable allegations...

[LanternWaste]

27. More accurately, "the collective will is prohibitive..."

"but the expense is prohibited..."

More accurately, "the collective will is prohibitive...", as a greater percentage of national budget have been used for singular projects in the past such as the interstate system.

(Source: The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events" Congressional Research Service. 10 October 2012.)

[bekkilyn]

15. Maybe once there is more automation

and they can just use an app or something to summon transportation whenever they need it, they might realize they don't need to actually own a car for themselves, and then maybe other more consolidated public transportation options would become more and more practical, even in suburban areas.

I've hated this "car blight" on our society since I was a child and have never understood why it was wonderful for people to have the "freedom" to have to have long, stressful commutes in stop-and-go traffic everywhere and pay thousands and thousands of dollars, plus yearly upkeep and insurance every year, in order to do it. It's a sickness once you start thinking deeply about it.

[Calculating]

23. You're obviously just not a car person

I love cars. To me, a car represents the personal freedom of movement. The freedom to go where I want, when I want. I also enjoy driving sometimes(When not in gridlock) and take pride in modifying my car for looks and performance. I cannot imagine wanting to give up my personal car for a system where you'd have to call in the nearest automated car for a ride. Aside from that being inconvenient and non-fun, just imagine how colds/flu/other germs would spread around from such a system. You don't know if the guy who rode in that car before you was sick and sneezing all over everything.

[bekkilyn]

28. I'm definitely not a car person

But I'm sure there will still be some areas where hobbyists can continue to drive manual cars for fun. For the rest of us who just need to get from place to place though, automation is a huge godsend, not to mention being able to make better use of our commute times without all the risk from texters, drunks, people half-asleep, dealing with kids, fiddling with electronics, etc.

People love horses too, but when cars took over, it made using horses for primary transportation needs impractical, so onward and upward we go!

[bekkilyn]

32. I'm responding to my own post, but

I just had a pretty neat thought. So once all the cars are automated, the cars could come with virtual reality simulators that could simulate driving across the country (or flying in a spaceship!) for people to be able to enjoy a virtual driving experience but without all the usual hassles. So while your automated car is dealing with navigating a crowded city street, you're driving down a long, lonely scenic stretch going as fast and free as you please! Or you could be dogfighting aliens near pluto.

[LanternWaste]

30. We do tend to invest our emotions into things if the commercial branding was successful

We do tend to invest our emotions into things if the commercial branding was successful and we bought into it. Bias can do that.

[Idoru]

48. Condescending much?

Why is this attitude so common among those who advocate for driverless cars?

And I've been saying this was still a long way off for a year now, to the refusal of said advocates. Told you so.

[NCTraveler]

19. I wish they would re-think transportation completely. We've just spent too much on infastructure.

I'm still excited about this technology.

Better for the environment.
Safer.
Increase individual freedom for millions.
Economically enticing.

The list of positives goes on. Yes, there will be some major negative aspects. They do not overcome the positives.

[KittyWampus]

21. I think you stated that very well.

[JHan]

40. +++++++++++

[Proud Liberal Dem]

22. Honestly

I don't like the idea of self-driving cars that much. Seem too dangerous to me

[Calculating]

24. What happens when the computer needs to make a judgment call?

IE choose between hitting that homeless guy who walked out into the road, or swerving to a car next to you and causing a crash? I just don't know if I could ever trust a computer with actual judgement calls.

[bekkilyn]

25. Once the remaining issues are worked out

They will be much safer than human-driven cars. In fact, the majority of the problems self-driving cars experience currently are caused by the human-driver side of things. People feeling like they will be more dangerous seems more in line with the way people feel scared of flying in an airplane even though airplane travel is vastly safer than car travel. People are afraid to feel like they don't have control even though they, themselves are usually the actual liabilities. Once people get more used to the idea, and start enjoying being able to do more productive things (including sleep!) during their commute times, they won't know how they managed to live without automated transportation.

[longship]

33. Try a semi truck traversing the Grapevine, the scariest drive in SoCal.

Look up the Tejon pass, eight lanes of white-knuckled interstate highway terror. The emergency run out lanes for the trucks are spaced generously. Driving it with an intelligent driver is bad enough. In winter, it is regularly closed, the whole damned eight lane interstate!

No sane person would put an autonomous vehicle, let alone an autonomous semi truck on that roadway.

I've driven it only once. It scared the shit out of me. Needless to say, I stayed acutely focussed on my driving and stayed as far away from big trucks as possible.

I now live in an area where there is winter and few paved roads. No autonomous vehicle could navigate here, especially in winter. The road I live on gets slippery-slidey even when it just rains. The county keeps it well graded and clears the snow, but no autonomous vehicle could safely navigate it. They would all end up in the ditch, or in Grass Lake.

[bekkilyn]

35. Traffic patterns will change with more automation

You're thinking of how things are right now surrounded by impulsive and emotional human drivers vs. how things would be in the future. As far as hairpin turns and winter weather and such, the programming will account for these issues as well as have a much better response rate than humans. And they won't respond in crazy ways because they are scared when and if something unexpected happens.

[longship]

38. I will believe it when I see it.

People tend to overestimate future trends in the short term, and underestimate them in the long term, the latter mostly on unforeseen emerging technologies.

Autonomous vehicle advocates remind me an awful lot about that utter kook, Ray Kurzweil and his Singularity rubbish, although I must admit that at least autonomous vehicles are plausible. Nevertheless, both Kurzweil kooks and autonomous vehicle advocates make the same mistake, extrapolation on past data, always a dangerous thing.

My argument is that autonomous vehicles are not, and will not be practical any time soon. Where I live, I don't want one of them anywhere near me.

First, drive the fucking Grapevine, or any other of the numerous mountain passes, before you advocate that vehicles be driverless. I want intelligence, not algorithms behind the wheel!

[bekkilyn]

43. Many of our advances in science and technology

are due to "kooks" and ideas that seemed extremely wacky at the time. Sometimes people were even put to death for heresy over them.

I think you have a lot more faith in human judgment than I do though.

[FrodosNewPet]

53. 5 Things That Give Self-Driving Cars Headaches

The problems are not unsolvable, but they are significant and expensive. I have heard a description of the current state of the technology is that it is drives like a scared and tentative teenager.
[hr]
5 Things That Give Self-Driving Cars Headaches

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/06/automobiles/autonomous-cars-problems.html?_r=0

By Neal E. Boudette | June 4, 2016

~ snip ~

Where Did the Lines on the Road Go?

Snow, rain, fog and other types of weather make driving difficult for humans, and it’s no different for driverless cars, which stay in their lanes by using cameras that track lines on the pavement. But they can’t do that if the road has a coating of snow.

~ snip ~

Detours and Rerouted Roads

~ snip ~

Very few roads have been mapped to this degree. Moreover, maps can become out of date as road conditions change. There may be construction or detours. An intersection with a four-way stop might get a traffic light or become a roundabout.

~ snip ~

It Might Be a Puddle. Or Not.

Self-driving cars use radar, lasers and high-definition cameras to scan roads for obstacles, and the images they generate are assessed by high-powered processors to identify pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicles. But potholes are tough. They lie below the road surface, not above it. A dark patch in the road ahead could be a pothole. Or an oil spot. Or a puddle. Or even a filled-in pothole.

~ snip ~

Having to Make Tough Decisions

In the midst of busy traffic, a ball bounces into the road, pursued by two running children. If a self-driving car’s only options are to hit the children or veer right and strike a telephone pole, potentially injuring or killing the car’s occupants, what does it do? Should its computer give priority to the pedestrians or the passengers?

~ snip ~

[hr]
That last issue in particular is a major challenge. People want your self driving car to kill you, not them. On the other hand they want THEIR self driving car to kill you, not them.
[hr]
Moral Dilemma of Self-Driving Cars: Which Lives to Save in a Crash

http://www.livescience.com/55175-self-driving-cars-moral-dilemma.html

By Edd Gent, Live Science Contributor | June 23, 2016

~ snip ~

New research has found that people generally approve of autonomous vehicles (AV) governed by so-called utilitarian ethics, which would seek to minimize the total number of deaths in a crash, even if it means harming people in the vehicle. But it gets more complicated than that. The study, based on surveys of U.S. residents, found that most respondents would not want to ride in these vehicles themselves, and were not in favor of regulations enforcing utilitarian algorithms on driverless cars.

~ snip ~

"The moral dilemma for AV is something that is brand-new. We're talking about owning an object, which you interact with every day, knowing that this object might decide to kill you in certain situations," study co-author Jean-François Bonnefon, a research director at the Toulouse School of Economics in France told reporters in a news briefing yesterday (June 22). "I'm sure you would not buy a coffee maker that's programmed to explode in your face in some circumstances."

~ snip ~

A majority of the study participants still supported a utilitarian approach when they imagined themselves or loved ones in the vehicles, and they also agreed that cars should be programmed this way. But when asked if the government should legislate for this, or if they would buy a self-driving car governed by these types of utilitarian ethics, the researchers found that most people said "no."

~ snip ~

[LanternWaste]

26. Asked in 1922: Should automakers release automobiles before they're fully safe

Asked in 1922: Should automakers release automobiles before they're fully safe and accidents are impossible?

[DeminPennswoods]

42. Radar and sensors can be notoriously finicky

That's what these cars will depend on.

[Thor_MN]

52. In the meantime, make cars that have the sensors, and use them to learn.

Also, the data could be used to flag dangerous drivers.

[Mr. Sparkle]

55. Tesla will do it in the next 2 years, they are way ahead of the competition n/t

[Lee-Lee]

59. Two things are not ready for self driving cars- Americas Roads and Courts

Self driving cars depend on clear, well marked lanes to help the computers keep them where they need to be. While that may work great in your above average income areas where you find Teslas now, get into Americas rural and poor urban areas and it is far from the case. Highway striping can be gone, badly faded, and in areas with lots of construction even wrong: And while those self driving cars work well out in the desert of Las Vegas and SoCals dry climate they cannot function in snow covered roads with no lanes or even road surfaces visible.

It's been shown that a person with a can of white spray paint can make a "self driving car trap" by painting their own white lines.

There are a ton of problems yet to be faced out in the real world.

Then there are the courts. Now in an accident responsibility is argued between the drivers unless there is a proven defect in the car. But when those decisions start being made by lines of code is the driver to blame if they didn't touch the wheel? If not, does that make the manufacturer a defendant in ever auto crash lawsuit, because they wrote the code that made the error therefore they are to blame for the mistake? If so that alone will keep self driving cars off the market totally.

[CK_John]

60. IMO, when it's 70% unemployment who will buy cars???