Why driverless car's are a LONG way off.
Discussion
technodup said:
EnglishTony said:
And how long will it take to remove normal cars from the road? Assuming that you can find a Govt. brave enough?
Brave enough in what sense?The sense that they'll be doing it in the face of public disapproval? By the time we get to that stage the only opposition will be PH dinosaurs and the wee AA mouthpiece guy who pops up on the odd news report. "But, but, but..."
The rest of us will be enjoying carefree (car free?) travel. I just hope we get there before I die.
The public's love for driving is massively overestimated on here.
I can't fully switch off even as a passenger with a human driver, let alone with some retarded computer in charge. The world is just too complex for them to ever to be safe. It's not navigating clear skies at 40,000 feet with nothing in the way; There's all sorts of unpredictable crap that goes on I wouldn't trust it to deal with.
Mr Snrub said:
if the general public hate driving so much why do so many choose to do it instead of cycling or public transport?
Because in this hilly and wet country, with its poorly integrated public transport networks there's not any real alternative. Cycling has massively increased in recent years, trains are bursting at the seams but we all still have cars, it's not an either or. Autonomous has the potential to change everything.I hate driving. The only time I remember enjoying it was on a Highland road from Grantown on Spey to Forres. Then I 'got it'. Empty, twisty and quick on a nice day. But the rest of the time? Traffic lights, roadworks, congestion, 20 speed limits, speed humps and other drivers being idiots? You can keep it.
technodup said:
I hate driving. The only time I remember enjoying it was on a Highland road from Grantown on Spey to Forres. Then I 'got it'. Empty, twisty and quick on a nice day. But the rest of the time? Traffic lights, roadworks, congestion, 20 speed limits, speed humps and other drivers being idiots? You can keep it.
Exactly, but a lot of Pistonheaders cannot get their heads around the idea that one can enjoy cars AND prefer Driverless vehicles for the Rush Hour Commute. technodup said:
Mr Snrub said:
if the general public hate driving so much why do so many choose to do it instead of cycling or public transport?
Because in this hilly and wet country, with its poorly integrated public transport networks there's not any real alternative. Cycling has massively increased in recent years, trains are bursting at the seams but we all still have cars, it's not an either or. Autonomous has the potential to change everything.I hate driving. The only time I remember enjoying it was on a Highland road from Grantown on Spey to Forres. Then I 'got it'. Empty, twisty and quick on a nice day. But the rest of the time? Traffic lights, roadworks, congestion, 20 speed limits, speed humps and other drivers being idiots? You can keep it.
In fact if no one owned a car what would the point be in having different manufactures? No one cares what type of minicab turns up to collect them. Any sort of sports or performance cars would die instantly since the cars would never exceed the speed limit. Classic cars would be consigned to museums or the scrapheap, motorbikes will be banned, private garages, driving schools and car dealerships would all go bust. No need for buses, coaches taxis or traffic wardens either, so everyone employed in those fields would join the dole queue. If that's your ideal future you're welcome to it.
Mr Snrub said:
Pool cars might work if you live in the middle of a big city, but for the rest of us the logistics mean it would be unrealistic.
Obviously the whole concept is best suited to cities, but I'm glad we have a logistics expert on hand to solve the rest of the issues.Mr Snrub said:
Then that's not taking into account the massive drop in revenue from car tax, insurance, speeding fines and fuel sales.
Strange that the government is throwing money at tests then... I wonder if they've done some analysis... maybe they value taxes on manufacturing profits as preferable to speeding fines. Not to mention fewer fatalities.Mr Snrub said:
In fact if no one owned a car what would the point be in having different manufactures? No one cares what type of minicab turns up to collect them.
You'd be better asking Mercedes, Volvo, Google, Apple, Tesla, VW, Toyota, Nissan and the rest. They all think there's good reason to invest billions in it. Someone needs to let them know Mr Snrub of the Pistonheads forum, General Gassing section thinks they're wasting their time. Write them a strongly worded letter or something.Mr Snrub said:
private garages, driving schools and car dealerships would all go bust. No need for buses, coaches taxis or traffic wardens either, so everyone employed in those fields would join the dole queue. If that's your ideal future you're welcome to it.
Old jobs will be lost. And new jobs will be created in design, manufacturing, servicing, cleaning, programming, admin, marketing, sales and probably more we can't even think of yet.I know I'm being a bit facetious above but these arguments are head in the sand, fingers in the ears b
ks.AH33 said:
Nobody on here should be in favour of them anyway,
I decided to delete the bit telling you to go eff yourself.
EnglishTony said:
I think the major stumbling block is going to be customer resistance. Why would anybody want one?
The stty commute? Chauffered door to door, time to read the paper, drink coffee, even do an hours work mornings and evenings so you only have to do 6hrs actually "at" work?Yes please.
Edited by mondeoman on Thursday 2nd June 22:08
technodup said:
Highland road from Grantown on Spey to Forres.
Fantastic road but a few years ago some idiot parked his car on it's roof in the scenery on a Sunday afternoon. I'd only had the car for a few weeks!That just wouldn't be as much fun in a self driving car, but you'd have more time to look at the scenery I guess. Sometimes it's nice to get a bit closer to that scenery and become one with nature
Anyway, commercial vehicles will be the vanguard of autonomous transportation simply due to money and I am certain they will be fully legislated and in common use within 10 years. The money to be saved on fuel alone never mind the lack of down time for rest and tacho breaks (that will take longer that 10 years imho) will see to it.
Mr Snrub said:
Are you sure you're on the correct website? I find it very worrying that people are happy about the prospect of our freedom of movement being constantly monitored and curtailed. You don't have to have your bedroom lined with tinfoil to see how dangerous that would be. Also, if the general public hate driving so much why do so many choose to do it instead of cycling or public transport? Countless government initiatives to "encourage" people out of cars have failed, simply creating more congestion and pollution. This could be alleviated by scrapping thousands of pointless traffic lights and bus lanes, but no government has the balls to do that.
I'm not sure my freedom of movement is going to be curtailed at all.Right now, the main reason I don't cycle or motorcycle much more is that some wonk in a car will probably kill me if I do. I really struggle to see how, in any practical terms, that's less of a curtailing of my freedom that almost anything the government is likely to do.
Seriously, what are they going to do? Catch me? If they could do that they could catch the texters, or the MLMs, or the million plus uninsured drivers, now, which they evidently can't or won't. No, they're going to be too busy telling the four remaining paid police officers to stamp out chai lattes or whatever fad the government has decided to ban that particular week. Compare that to what thousands of people a year face: no trial, no lawyers, just - if you're lucky - a hospital visit and being told that hey, it's only your legs.
Bicycles are healthier, motorcycles are, if we're brutally honest, more fun than any modern production car - especially away from the "ragged edge" stuff you should really be doing on a track - walking is cheaper, horses are more interesting. All have a far better claim to be free as in speech.
Edited by paranoid airbag on Thursday 2nd June 22:34
V8RX7 said:
In general would I trust a machine not to crash into me or your average:
Mum, uninsured scumbag, drink/drunk driver, young driver showing off etc
I'll take the machine.
However generally for where / what I drive, I'd rather drive myself.
..Because no electronics every malfunction, breakdown, wear out or have any glitches. No sir, 'mechanical failure' is a rare term.Mum, uninsured scumbag, drink/drunk driver, young driver showing off etc
I'll take the machine.
However generally for where / what I drive, I'd rather drive myself.
rxe said:
My point is not that the automation can never make mistakes - but it does need to be able to work through any problem presented to it.
By way of example, how about low sun reflecting off a shiny road surface. The optical camera is saying "there something there, but I can't see it". The LIDAR is saying "nothing there". At that point the car is getting inconsistent data, and stops. It either demands a take over (which will be a problem if the driver is not in the car at the time), or just waits. When several thousand these cars do the same thing, we have a big problem.
Now the human will know what they are seeing, hopefully just slow down and drive through it. The other big problem is an object in the road. Every day we drive through litter, and make instant judgements about whether that bag has to be avoided (looks full) or can be driven over (is empty). How is machine vision meant to discriminate between a plastic bag blowing down the motorway, and something solid falling off the lorry in front? Both the optical camera and LIDAR are saying "solid object moving towards me at 10m/sec", and the car would have to take sudden avoiding action.
These are just two silly examples - pretty much on every journey, I see something strange that would defy a rules based system. If you look at the data coming out of the Google trials, you'll see that these are real problems that have not been solved yet.
I don't see insurance as a problem, that's just money and the will to do it. If the ability to drive home from the pub after a good night out costs me an increased premium, so be it, much better than getting cabs.
As someone else has said - this is all a question of timescale. I don't think this will be solved in a decade. Probably not for two decades. But eventually it will be solved.
I think if you google around, you will find that currently a driver can be blinded by low sun and be unable to see ahead at all, yet can elect to not stop and carry on, can run over and kill the cyclist that he cannot see, and be pretty much let off as the 'accident' was 'understandable'.By way of example, how about low sun reflecting off a shiny road surface. The optical camera is saying "there something there, but I can't see it". The LIDAR is saying "nothing there". At that point the car is getting inconsistent data, and stops. It either demands a take over (which will be a problem if the driver is not in the car at the time), or just waits. When several thousand these cars do the same thing, we have a big problem.
Now the human will know what they are seeing, hopefully just slow down and drive through it. The other big problem is an object in the road. Every day we drive through litter, and make instant judgements about whether that bag has to be avoided (looks full) or can be driven over (is empty). How is machine vision meant to discriminate between a plastic bag blowing down the motorway, and something solid falling off the lorry in front? Both the optical camera and LIDAR are saying "solid object moving towards me at 10m/sec", and the car would have to take sudden avoiding action.
These are just two silly examples - pretty much on every journey, I see something strange that would defy a rules based system. If you look at the data coming out of the Google trials, you'll see that these are real problems that have not been solved yet.
I don't see insurance as a problem, that's just money and the will to do it. If the ability to drive home from the pub after a good night out costs me an increased premium, so be it, much better than getting cabs.
As someone else has said - this is all a question of timescale. I don't think this will be solved in a decade. Probably not for two decades. But eventually it will be solved.
I think an autonomous car will be able to do better than that.
heebeegeetee said:
rxe said:
My point is not that the automation can never make mistakes - but it does need to be able to work through any problem presented to it.
By way of example, how about low sun reflecting off a shiny road surface. The optical camera is saying "there something there, but I can't see it". The LIDAR is saying "nothing there". At that point the car is getting inconsistent data, and stops. It either demands a take over (which will be a problem if the driver is not in the car at the time), or just waits. When several thousand these cars do the same thing, we have a big problem.
Now the human will know what they are seeing, hopefully just slow down and drive through it. The other big problem is an object in the road. Every day we drive through litter, and make instant judgements about whether that bag has to be avoided (looks full) or can be driven over (is empty). How is machine vision meant to discriminate between a plastic bag blowing down the motorway, and something solid falling off the lorry in front? Both the optical camera and LIDAR are saying "solid object moving towards me at 10m/sec", and the car would have to take sudden avoiding action.
These are just two silly examples - pretty much on every journey, I see something strange that would defy a rules based system. If you look at the data coming out of the Google trials, you'll see that these are real problems that have not been solved yet.
I don't see insurance as a problem, that's just money and the will to do it. If the ability to drive home from the pub after a good night out costs me an increased premium, so be it, much better than getting cabs.
As someone else has said - this is all a question of timescale. I don't think this will be solved in a decade. Probably not for two decades. But eventually it will be solved.
I think if you google around, you will find that currently a driver can be blinded by low sun and be unable to see ahead at all, yet can elect to not stop and carry on, can run over and kill the cyclist that he cannot see, and be pretty much let off as the 'accident' was 'understandable'.By way of example, how about low sun reflecting off a shiny road surface. The optical camera is saying "there something there, but I can't see it". The LIDAR is saying "nothing there". At that point the car is getting inconsistent data, and stops. It either demands a take over (which will be a problem if the driver is not in the car at the time), or just waits. When several thousand these cars do the same thing, we have a big problem.
Now the human will know what they are seeing, hopefully just slow down and drive through it. The other big problem is an object in the road. Every day we drive through litter, and make instant judgements about whether that bag has to be avoided (looks full) or can be driven over (is empty). How is machine vision meant to discriminate between a plastic bag blowing down the motorway, and something solid falling off the lorry in front? Both the optical camera and LIDAR are saying "solid object moving towards me at 10m/sec", and the car would have to take sudden avoiding action.
These are just two silly examples - pretty much on every journey, I see something strange that would defy a rules based system. If you look at the data coming out of the Google trials, you'll see that these are real problems that have not been solved yet.
I don't see insurance as a problem, that's just money and the will to do it. If the ability to drive home from the pub after a good night out costs me an increased premium, so be it, much better than getting cabs.
As someone else has said - this is all a question of timescale. I don't think this will be solved in a decade. Probably not for two decades. But eventually it will be solved.
I think an autonomous car will be able to do better than that.
technodup said:
I hate driving. The only time I remember enjoying it was on a Highland road from Grantown on Spey to Forres. Then I 'got it'. Empty, twisty and quick on a nice day. But the rest of the time? Traffic lights, roadworks, congestion, 20 speed limits, speed humps and other drivers being idiots? You can keep it.
Honest question, why do you come here then?I hate public transport, so I don't go onto bus forums telling them they need to be banned. (i'm assuming forums for bus users exist, somewhere)
AH33 said:
Honest question, why do you come here then?
Because it's full of information, opinion and views on a whole range of subjects I am interested in. The business section is busy(ish) compared to specific business forums as one example.Don't get me wrong I'd like an Aston as much as the next man, I'd probably enjoy driving it more than the X-Type I have. But ask me my interests and cars/driving wouldn't feature on the list.
Sal Kar said:
youngsyr said:
They already can.
funny mentioning that, because they actually CAN'T deal with the sun being low in the sky.
Someone better tell the Swedes - pretty sure they have extended periods of the sun being low in the sky?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/car-manufactur...
Edited by youngsyr on Friday 3rd June 15:18
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff