Autonomous Cars, Yes or No?

[Number4]

Driverless trucks to be trialled on English Motorway M6
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ection-M6.html

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Number4

Driverless trucks to be trialled on English Motorway M6
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ection-M6.html

i read the other day that there are around 4 million professional truck drivers in the USA and Canada ...all of whom are effectively going to be out of a job in about 10 years time.

its a scary future for a lot of people/families.

[Mike Harte]

Don't get too excited about this just yet. This report is the spin put on the story which was put out by another paper, which was based on unconfirmed reports that our Chancellor of the Exchequer will be going to announce in his Budget statement to Parliament on Wednesday 16th March. A word of caution though; British media always spends 2 or 3 weeks prior to our Budgets speculating about what may or may not be included, and very, very often get it completely wrong.

However, in recent years various ministers have found it necessary, and I've never really understood why, to leak or brief the media about what they are to shortly announce in Parliament. It certainly upsets the opposition parties in particular because it breaches Parliamentary convention, which is that government should always announce matters to Parliament before releasing the information to the public.

[bella]

when they say driverless trucks, what they mean is trucks with a "drives itself" mode on motorways. a condition of using the control is that a driver is present at the wheel and paying attention to the road.

we're still a very long way from trucks that could handle say, a busy roundabout in the middle of surburbia. there's a spectacular number of variables and calculations - getting the damn thing round the roundabout, giving up and sending it even though the cars already on the roundabout are going to have to apply the brakes a bit, avoiding the inevitable school mum in the wrong lane...

[SidewaysFeltham]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

As I took and passed my test in July 1963, I can totally agree with Sidesways Feltham and it was carried out on the streets around the North London suburb of London, Hendon, which included driving on both single and dual carriage way roads which and no speed limit then.In fact there were a number of other things in the test that young people just laugh at nowadays, the most obvious being the use of hand signals. This meant that regardless of the weather, the driver had to keep his window fully open so that you could indicate with your right arm completely out that you were slowing down or turning right. Mind you, I can't remember who was holding on to the steering wheel whilst you doing that and changing down gear at the same time .

And the car that I took my test in didn't have a synchromesh gearbox, so it was double-declutching, a skill that I would guess is not possessed by many youngsters. And as Sideways says, tyre technology has moved on hugely over the decades; the rain was just as wet 40 or 50 years ago, and we didn't have the advantage of modern patterns and compounds which help to keep cars, on the whole, on the straight and narrow. But what I have noticed is that the older generations seem to have better road craft skills when ice and snow are around compared to youngsters; maybe it's because we learnt how to drive on the older style tyres that gives us an edge. Obviously, there are exceptions.

Mike: when I am not in that paradise for drivers, Northern France where it is so much like the 1950s, I have the misfortune to live in Essex: the driving standards in Essex and East London are utterly appalling, as anyone who uses the A127, A130, M25 etc will know well.

Fortunately I learned and even taught, selectively, for a while, Defensive Driving skills. Boy do I need those skills now!

Perhaps young Essex drivers suffer dementia?? Since they have clearly forgotten all they were supposed to know?

On De-Skilling, it is an inescapable function of present Western society: whether it is driving, piloting airplanes, operating a centre lathe, whatever.

Last evening, I watched the engaging young Guy Martin who was involved in a project to rebuild an early Supermarine Spitfire, which crashed on the beaches near Dunkirk. For me, the section where they team had to re-size the precision steel pins used to fix the wings to the airfame was absorbing. Ensuring the pins had a 2 thou clearance through the dural fastening plates reminder me of hand reaming mounting holes. How many could do this today? How many actually own fixed and expanding reamers anymore? How many know how to use them?

Also most interesting was to consider, Reginald Mitchell designed a central monocoque (The airframe) and the Merlin engine was mounted on a small subframe bolted onto the monocoque bulkhead, identically to a D Type Jag or a Lotus 25 in the 1962 season. All other serious single seaters soon followed on: albeit, 26 years later!

[Akrapovic]

All of this anecdotal evidence is lovely but it just isn't supported by the statistics. You could argue we're less skilled, or you could point out that people don't need to know how to double d clutch since it isn't a relevant skill. What IS a relevant skill however is the ability to know the computer on your car rather well, which is something that many many of my elderly friends struggle with. So what exactly is the point in being skilled in things which aren't relevant?

Once again, I'll point out that the current driving test contains far more content than it ever has done, as well as introducing a theory test, hazard perception test and takes place on far more crowded and stressful roads than in the past. Yet the pass mark remains the same. Those terrible deskilled drivers of today are taking in more information and ticking more boxes than previous generations, and having the same success rate. I know that might hurt some of the older generations pride, but that's just the facts. Sorry guys!

[SidewaysFeltham]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i read the other day that there are around 4 million professional truck drivers in the USA and Canada ...all of whom are effectively going to be out of a job in about 10 years time.

its a scary future for a lot of people/families.

Clearly, and strangely, the answer for interstate transport will be, err, trains.

With more localised deliveries from the goods yard to the final destination.

Consider: freight carried by carts drawn by horses and bullocks.

Replaced by railroads, which indeed, opened up the USA and particularly the West, moving steers from the railheads to the main meat processors.

Trains increasingly replaced by large interstate trucks.

Fast forwards: trucks replaced by much more efficient freight trains using electricity, rather than oil.

In 1930s USA, internal airlines impacted upon passenger railways.

1950s on internal flights became cheap.

2000s on: high speed "Bullet Trains", using maglev technology reach speeds of 400/500/600 Km per Hour (Japanese bullet trains already reach 320KPH). Speed of sound is 1,236, so they have quite a ways to go!

[Mike Harte]

[QUOTE=SidewaysFeltham;3620644]Clearly, and strangely, the answer for interstate transport will be, err, trains.

With more localised deliveries from the goods yard to the final destination./QUOTE]

Funny you should say that, and it may be applicable in the States. However, back in the 60s , or was it the 70s, British Rail introduced Freightliners which were supposed to take goods trucks off the trunk roads and motorways. My firm actually used them for a limited period, mainly for goods we sending from London to Airdrie, but that didn't last long. They out-priced themselves, very much like the train companies do now for flexible tickets for long journeys.

Although Freightliners still exists, it is not the same as it was intended, and I believe that the original firm was more or less decimated by the mid 80s. In the meantime, road haulage has multiplied many times over, and still rules the roost in the UK, which I think will continue for many years to come.

[SidewaysFeltham]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

All of this anecdotal evidence is lovely but it just isn't supported by the statistics. You could argue we're less skilled, or you could point out that people don't need to know how to double d clutch since it isn't a relevant skill. What IS a relevant skill however is the ability to know the computer on your car rather well, which is something that many many of my elderly friends struggle with. So what exactly is the point in being skilled in things which aren't relevant?

Once again, I'll point out that the current driving test contains far more content than it ever has done, as well as introducing a theory test, hazard perception test and takes place on far more crowded and stressful roads than in the past. Yet the pass mark remains the same. Those terrible deskilled drivers of today are taking in more information and ticking more boxes than previous generations, and having the same success rate. I know that might hurt some of the older generations pride, but that's just the facts. Sorry guys!

Clearly, these whizzy tests aint working, Old Chum!

The risk of motor vehicle crashes is higher among 16- to 19-year-olds than among any other age group. In fact, per mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are nearly three times more likely than drivers aged 20 and older to be in a fatal crash.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ivers-2011.pdf

http://www.brake.org.uk/events/15-fa...the-hard-facts

http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/...-%20110511.pdf

[chillibowl]

so this might me getting overly paranoid about the big brother state....the fear of cars being hacked has been around for a bit now but a few days ago the FBI and a US safety department released a warning about concerns they have about this.

http://www.wired.com/2016/03/fbi-war...ing-real-risk/

makes sense and obviously a new level of caution must be implemented when adding 3rd party equipment to your car now and one wonders what level of security the car companies are building into their software or are they much more focused on just getting the software to work to be bothered about security.

but those issues aside, given the FBI's recent demands that Apple help the US government break its own encryption makes me more curious about the governments motives are and the unintended consequences of having hacked systems carry out important tasks for us.

and forget about what the government wants to do with this info (its not like drive much more then to work and home anyways) but soon we will have another tool at our disposal to spy on one another, our family members, our employees, our loved ones. its scary to think what some people will do this power of control!

obviously safety first so more pros than cons...but the ability to get in one's own car and drive wherever you want is synonymous with the concept of freedom i grew up with. its a little sad to think that there is a generation coming up who may not grow up thinking a car means freedom.

[SidewaysFeltham]

Now here's a point, Chilli.

If you can find it, read Sir Ran Fiennes's book "The Feather Men". Bearing in mind he is ex-special forces (SAS). The SAS are experts at what is called (by them) Jarking. Look it up.

As motor cars have become endlessly complicated, more and more solid state (digital) systems interact.

In order to control incipent skidding, steering rear wheels are used. Same with advanced self-parking systems.

Technologists talk now about "The Internet of Things": by which they mean anything and everything. Generation 5 cellular technology allows rapid wide bandwidth internet connection...

We have already seen the dire problems experienced by Toyota a few years back. Conflate the various issues.

As systems advance manufacturers will build-in software updates via GSM linkage since it is easier and cheaper for them. However once that link is in place then nothing much to stop hackers breaking the security and taking over the vehicle.

[chillibowl]

nice, i will take a look and see if i can find it.

but i feel like that story would just add to my paranoia so maybe i should avoid it lol!

[SidewaysFeltham]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

nice, i will take a look and see if i can find it.

but i feel like that story would just add to my paranoia so maybe i should avoid it lol!

Seems you just might be able to download for free!

http://bastudio.eu/?c=1&p=34108

[chillibowl]

i know that movie. did not realize it was based on that book.

nice find. thanks for the link!

[mountainstar]

I say no thanks.

From what I have seen personally and know within the industry, the technology is actually further away than some predict.

I grew up with computers from a very young age and I knew there were a lot of possibilities of what it could do and over the decades it's ended up about where I thought it would. I would say that I am not anti technology but perhaps I want technology to be part of my life but not all of my life. To me what's the point of living just living a mind numbed life pressing a few buttons at home, having a car drive you around and twiddling with your phone?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by SidewaysFeltham

Clearly, these whizzy tests aint working, Old Chum!




https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ivers-2011.pdf

http://www.brake.org.uk/events/15-fa...the-hard-facts

http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/...-%20110511.pdf

You need to go back and read how the discussion began, as the argument wasn't that current teenagers are better than older generations. The claim was made that current modern vehicles deskill the current generation of drivers. That is what I was disputing.

Teenagers will always have a higher accident rate. But they also has a higher accident rate in the 1960s than the older generation of the 1960s. But the claim that overall, today's drivers are worse because the cars are better has no evidence to support it other than anecdotal evidence.

Remember: a lot more cars, a lot more people, a lot more complicated roads, a more complex driving test and the result is the same pass rate and less accidents. That's impressive! Tell me more about how bad today's drivers are whilst we have less accidents in more busy roads.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Remember: a lot more cars, a lot more people, a lot more complicated roads, a more complex driving test and the result is the same pass rate and less accidents. That's impressive! Tell me more about how bad today's drivers are whilst we have less accidents in more busy roads.

Three points. Firstly, there has always been a quota of driving test passes permitted in each month. You will find that, statistically, more tests are passed in the beginning of the month than in the later part.

Secondly, it will all depend on how figures are calculated to determine whether teenagers as a percentage have more or less accidents than decades ago. A direct comparison can only be satisfactory if statistics are being collected in exactly the same way now as then, and if those statistics are being used in an identical fashion. I have a sneaky feeling that may not prove to be the case.

Lastly, even though the test may be more complex nowadays, although I have no evidence of that fact as I took the test almost 53 years ago and am taking your words as the truth, cars are far easier to drive nowadays and their road holding vastly superior which gives younger drivers a huge advantage.

[Akrapovic]

So people are only passing exams because of a prescribed pass rate that just be achieved? We give people a chance to prove they're good and then we claim the test is rigged when they do? That's some mind bending gymnastics you have to do to justify that. And scarily similar to what we say about school exam results today too. We know for a fact that there is more stuff in the exams and the results are better than ever. Must be proof the exams are easy right? We just love to tell younger generations just how rubbish they are in this country. I think nostalgia is like heroin for older generations.

You don't need my word that the driving test is more advanced than it used to be. We know there's more in it, because there is. Theory Test, Hazard Perception, Independant Driving and soon we'll have GPS Following. These didn't exist before. More boxes have to be ticked to pass now. That isn't my opinion. The tests are also done on more busy roads than in the past. And as the test results from around the nation show, it's harder to pass in busy areas. The Scottish Highlands has a higher pass rate than central London.

And thirdly, if you're driving fast enough in your driving test that the road holding ability of the vehicle comes into the equation, you've already failed your driving test. You shouldn't be answer near the limit of the vehicle.

[SidewaysFeltham]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

You need to go back and read how the discussion began,

No, actually, you do...

This was the plank of your contention:

I completely disagree with the idea that a modern vehicle is "de-skilling" current drivers.

ALL advances in technology, essentially involve degrees of de-skilling.

Calculators led to kids not having arithmetic skills:

WP Systems caused the decline of spelling ability:

WP Systems and Email killed handwritten personal letters:

GPS negated the needs for real navigation skills using charts, chronometers, sextants and geometric skills:

Automotive fault diagnosis has removed many car mechanic's abilities to drill down to first principles when chasing faults:

Computerised airplanes has led to flight crew's diminishing ability for precise control, since flying a large aircraft needs regular practice. All OK until the onboard computers die...

Existing systems advances in average automobiles (e.g. ABS) clearly de-skills. It must necessarily follow, logically, since ABS removes the ability to understand and practice purposefully induced skidding.

Statistics:

UK Government Demographics:

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...nts2010-02.pdf

http://www.iam.org.uk/media-and-rese...g-says-the-iam

Look at Fig 6:

http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/...-%20110511.pdf


Now, let us examine the dates of implementation of the whizzy tests you state "have improved driver ability".

Mandatory Driving Test introduced 1 April 1934 (Appropriate!):

Theory test added July 1996: Age today (17 +2016 - 1996 = 37)

Hazard perception Test added November 2002: Age Today (2016 - 2002 +17 = 31)

If we presume drivers were 17-18 when passing these new tests, and then consider the copious statistics, above, then clearly and indisputably, as I stated, previously, your whizzy tests aint working, Chum!

Q E D

[Akrapovic]

The idea that all technology deskills is an idea that only works if you ignore the skills required to use new technology. The ability to actually use a computer is far more relevant than hand writing in today's world. This is not deskilling but rather a a transfer of skills to a more relevant area. This is why the idea that modern drivers are less skilled because they do not double d clutch is nonsense. Today's drivers are more skilled at dealing with the over congestion and information overload than older generations.

Thank you for providing links and then posting the information in the thread. Unfortunately there appears to be a bit of a breakdown of understanding on what we're discussing. You appear to be taking my posts as talking about the youngest possible generation of drivers, hence the mentioning of 17 year olds (you'll notice I haven't mentioned age brackets and certainly nothing that young). The original discussion was not about teenagers who have just passed their test, but the difference between the people who passed tests decades and decades ago, and the drivers of today. The 50s and 60s were even mentioned and some wildly inaccurate claims of the test being the same as 50 years ago were banded about.

You won't find me arguing that 17 year olds are better drivers than 50 year olds. I don't think anyone would (or has) made that claim. But I will dispute that a 25 year old is fundamentally a worse driver because he doesn't know how to use an outdated clutch system, despite passing a more stringent test in a more stressful environment.

Q E D T P and any other letters you'd like.

On the rest of your examples, I don't really agree. The example of not being able to fly a plane without a computer is a particularly bad one since it's all electronic and doesn't physically work without it. So if the onboard computer goes down, then the best pilot in the world isn't flying your plane. And kids using calculators is a good thing since the maths and especially science they are doing has advanced a lot since we were in school. I also don't agree these examples are relevant to the example of cars and clutches and only serve to driver is further off topic.

Edit: just a note that I think the assumption about ages is most likely being tied to an assumption on my age. I am not a teenage driver (I wish). I'm not even a 20s driver. I'm well into my 30s. Whilst I would never say I am old and certainly not as experienced on the road as someone in their 60s. So I am not defending younger generations out of pride of my age, because that isn't my generation!

[mountainstar]

Vehicle dynamics and physics are still the same. There may be some different control inputs and such but you still need skill to make it down the road.

[275 GTB-4]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

and who is to say protecting life in general or human life would be the priority?

if the program looks at this in terms of liability then perhaps the conclusion it comes to is that value of the life of an 80 year old retired person is less than the potential property damage so when it attempts to avoid an accident it does so from the point of view of which outcome will cost its owner more money and attempt to avoid that...taking out the old person or driving into that house.


scary stuff.

I say NO to auto no mouse cars....technology is way to immature...

However, taking the above scenario one step further...I would like to think that the auto car would make the decision to drive the bomb carrying Jihadist over the cliff into the quarry rather than continuing on route to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW in DC

[chillibowl]

'the internal sensor has detected an onboard explosive device...it will now drive you to a secluded area and self destruct. thank you for choosing Google.'

[Paul D]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

'the internal sensor has detected an onboard explosive device...it will now drive you to a secluded area and self destruct. thank you for choosing Google.'

Nice one!

But seriously, on the subject of autonomous cars - I'm afraid it has to be a no, and here's why:

For as long as the autonomous cars have to share the roads with humans, it can never work. Why? Because it doesn't matter how sophisticated your software may be, you can't program it to make a moral or ethical decision. It's been said that these cars will be incapable of making an error. Sorry, but not with current technology they won't. Computer crash, glitch, momentary lock-up - all things that happen with alarming regularity with current technology.

Don't even get me started on hackers! By definition, these autonomous cars will have to be connected to the internet, and the moment they are, they're hackable. The hackers would have a field day. They're already hacking into some of the latest cars allowing them to bypass security systems, start engines, etc. Imagine the fun they'd have with driverless cars!

Someone else said it may work if all vehicles were driverless, because then there would be no human element to err, and the autonomous cars wouldn't be capable of error. Well, even ignoring what I've already said above, there are still a few sticking points here. Firstly, there is no way that anyone reading this will be alive long enough to see a scenario where all vehicles are driverless - it just isn't going to happen in our lifetime. Secondly, even if it did - vehicles aren't the only road users are they? What about pedestrians, cyclists, animals? For as long as there are humans sharing the same environment as the autonomous cars, then there is the potential for a human to do something unpredictable that the computer hasn't anticipated (for which read: been programmed for). And as it simply isn't practical to completely separate all humans from any roads, then this will always be a problem.

Now, I haven't even mentioned yet the legal black-hole that autonomous cars will create! Just imagine it - the lawyers must be rubbing their hands together already just at the thought of it all! Picture this scenario: you're happily being driven along a hilly road in your autonomous car, sitting back and enjoying this month's edition of 'Computer Geek Monthly' when, without warning, a woman pushing a twin buggy pram just shoves it out into the road to cross, without looking - right in front of your motorised computer. In the split second that it has to consider things, your computer, being capable, as it is, of a gazillion calculations a second, decides that braking in a straight line will not allow it to stop before hitting the woman: likely result, woman and possibly two babies die. So it considers other options. Unfortunately, there are half a dozen cyclists three abreast oncoming on the other side of the road, and calculations show that swerving in that direction to miss the woman & pram will result in collision with the cylists: casualties calculated at two or possibly three cyclists die, with one or possibly two others suffering serious injury. So, now running out of options, the computer realises that there is only one realistic option remaining, and that is to swerve the other way, away from the oncoming cyclists and away from the woman & pram - but this means leaving the road to the left where, sadly, just beyond the pavement but before the car can be stopped, there is an almost sheer drop down into a river: likely outcome - you die! Despite this, the computer decides that this is the best course of action, because one death (yours) is a better outcome than the deaths of a woman and children or the deaths of several cyclists. Result: car crashes off the embankment into the river, and you die, but the woman, children and cyclists are all unharmed. The computer considers this the best possible outcome. Do you?

What if the ensuing inquiry reveals that the woman with the pram is an alcoholic and was completely p*ssed that day when she just stepped out without thinking? As a result, she is prosecuted, and found guilty of gross negligence (or whatever) - not gonna be much comfort to you is it?

You might say it's an extreme example, and maybe so, but the fact is that these life or death decisions do arise, on a daily basis, on our roads. You may also argue that given the same scenario with a human driving, someone still had to die. Yes, agreed, but here's the difference, and it's a huge one: to err is to be human, and whatever decision a human made in that split second is difficult to criticize, because, as humans, we have emotions, morals, ethics and self-preservation instincts - and the humans involved in such events simply have to live with the decision they made.

But hand that decision to a computer - and this is where the lawyers will be getting excited - and all of a sudden, there's a huge (read wealthy, and very public) company behind that decision, and it's been taken by a software engineer in a pre-meditated manner, not by someone in a split-second life or death situation. And guess what? All of a sudden, there's culpability, at least enough for the lawyers to get in a fight over it, and then it's all going to get very messy, very quickly I reckon.

So, I think I'll just stick to being in charge of my own fate thanks, whatever it may be! I won't be going in any autonomous cars...

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by Paul D

Don't even get me started on hackers! By definition, these autonomous cars will have to be connected to the internet,

Really? Look up the definition of autonomous.