The Autonomous Self-Driving, vehicle tech, and general traffic thread

[StrandedonEarth]

No, this thread does not drive itself. The software and required techs just isn't there yet. Talk to ManeTi about that...

Since the Tesla thread tends to go off on a tangent in regards to self-driving and traffic laws, rules and regs (*whistles innocently*), I decided to start this this thread for the discussion of self-driving and autonomous vehicle news, as well as general discussion of traffic and the rules of the road because that is directly related. Discussion of other vehicular technologies is also encouraged. It should also be noted that Tesla is not the only player in the self-driving game, just the most prominent. While mandated techs and changes to traffic laws tend to the political, we need to keep the thread away form political will and motivations and just focus on any legal stuff we would like to see changed, or the thread may be visited by a friendly neighborhood moderator!

I held off on starting this thread until I had some sort of news to put in it, and finally there is something noteworthy. But first, some techs that I think should be made mandatory at some point.

To further the development of self-driving, all new vehicles should be at least capable of Drive-by-Wire (i.e. the vehicle can be controlled by a computer). That's not to say it should be active, but the capability should be there for down-the-road upgrades to autonomous or self-driving. Of course, the manual  controls would still be there, and to satisfy the the technophobes the DbW inputs could be unplugged from a relatively easy-to-access wiring connector. This would be something with a long lead time, say, within five years or so.

 I believe it needs to be mandated (sooner than later, like, ASAP)  that all new vehicles are equipped with Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB), since that tech is relatively mature and will prevent one of the more common accidents: rear-enders due to driver inattention. Insurance rates will also benefit. It would have prevented a four-car accident caused by this apparent road-rager: https://globalnews.ca/video/rd/4ecc0884-63d1-11ea-9565-0242ac110006/?jwsource=cl (sorry for the global news link, the video was uploaded to youtube but it's oriented vertically so hard to watch)

 

 

Edited March 13, 2020 by StrandedonEarth

[AngrybobH]

AEB is equipped on many (even low end) cars today. It, when active and not malfunctioning, will always reduce the severity of a crash but not always prevent it. AEB also enables smart cruise control with only extra software. Smart cruise (ICC in Nissan land) makes even human operated cars safer on the highway. Other techs that go along with those are blind spot warning and intervention, lane departure warning and intervention, and cross traffic alerts. Almost all of these technologies are on even modestly equipped cars and they only require a couple of sensors and software for the ABS module. Yes, most of these systems are run on your brake control module. Added weight is virtually nothing and cost of the 3 radars and 1 lane camera is the only reason they are not standard equipment.

As for drive by wire, almost all cars today are drive by wire except for steering. The transmission shifts (or doesn't for a CVT) by computer control only. Brakes can be entirely and fully operated by a computer, engine power is not directly controlled by the driver. You are being driven as much as you think you are driving. As they said in a technology class I had many years ago, "you are no longer the dictator. You are only a voting member of the control system." (also heard "meat servo") Now steering is a handled a bit differently. On some vehicles (Ford F150, Nissan Rogue and Sentra to name a couple) the steering assist is handled by an electric motor that is actually strong enough to steer the vehicle by itself. On higher end vehicles (like the Infiniti QX80) when the vehicle is running the steering column is decoupled from the steering gear and steering is handled entirely by the computer with some software tricks and an electric motor to trick the driver into thinking they are in direct control. With a couple of cameras, a computer, and some real good software a QX80 (and many others) could drive itself. The hardware is already here and already installed on existing automobiles.

I would like to see a self drive system become universal for highway travel. Intermediate technology could be deployed along roads to help cars navigate until the software gets up to speed. Road crews and emergency vehicles could carry transmitters to alert self driving cars (you already likely have a telematics (cell phone) module that sends and receives installed). Rest areas near the beginning of driver-must-operate areas could be set up for cars to stop in for sleeping or inattentive drivers. These things would get the tech out there and on the road in large numbers and allow the whole concept to mature. And, none of that tech is sci-fi, it all exists and is in production in some form. If the system was universal (like other car techs, OBDII, CAN, etc) you would avoid problems that like Tesla has had.

[mikegarrison]

Too much to respond to here, but on my car, no computer is shifting the transmission for me. I push the clutch pedal in and move the shifter, which is mechanically linked to the transmission and mechanically shifts the gears into a new alignment. I understand that such "manual transmissions" as we used to call them are less popular now than they used to be, but AFAIK they are still available in new cars. (My newest car is a 2005 model year.)

Also, the biggest problem that needs to be addressed is one that is currently plaguing my industry (commercial air travel). When the systems become more automated, pilots forget how to fly. As cars get more automated, drivers forget (or never learn) how to drive. But you pass through an "uncanny valley" sort of problem, where the computers can't always solve every problem and you rely on the pilot (or driver) to actually know how to fly (or drive). And you need them to respond instantly to an unexpected situation and get it right. People are not very good at that.

Pilots have *way* more training than drivers, and yet both those 737s should have landed safely if the pilots had just flown the airplane. (And if you don't believe me, how come a Lion Air crew safely flew the same airplane with the same problem the day before the fatal crash?) What's going to happen when we have millions of untrained drivers behind the wheel of cars that *mostly* drive themselves? It's going to be a disaster unless we go directly from "human driver" to "full-autonomous" in one step.

[Wjolcz]

9 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

What's going to happen when we have millions of untrained drivers behind the wheel of cars that *mostly* drive themselves? It's going to be a disaster unless we go directly from "human driver" to "full-autonomous" in one step.

The tech doesn't need full autonomy to provide more safety. I agree that a self-driving car might 'dull down' the driving skills of the driver, but at the same time if you have a basic-ish driving assistant that takes over control (either autobrakes or turns to avoid an obstacle or a human) when there's danger present then cars become much safer. I said it in the previous thread, but I will say it again: these days you don't need much to distract people. I recently almost got ran over by a driver who was looking at his phone. Maybe he would have learnt a lesson if the car suddenly stopped. That's why I'd argue that having even a basic autopilot is much safer than having none.

One way to solve the 'forgot how to drive, lol' issue is to allow people to use full autopilot only on highways (or other wide and high speed roads) and have an assistant always on in crowded cities despite the advancements in self-driving tech.

Edited March 14, 2020 by Wjolcz

[StrandedonEarth]

8 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Pilots have *way* more training than drivers, and yet both those 737s should have landed safely if the pilots had just flown the airplane. (And if you don't believe me, how come a Lion Air crew safely flew the same airplane with the same problem the day before the fatal crash?) What's going to happen when we have millions of untrained drivers behind the wheel of cars that *mostly* drive themselves? It's going to be a disaster unless we go directly from "human driver" to "full-autonomous" in one step.

And that's just it, the main mistake by Boeing w/regards to those crashes was not properly training pilots on the new systems (or not believing further training was required to fly the MAX). The dead aircrews simply did not know how to disable the MCAS system when it acted on bad data, while some crews did know how to handle it. I don't recall if the previous crews reported the issues, since a lack of follow-up action would have also contributed. But yes, the pilots should have known (should have been trained) how to deal with that situation. OTOH, I think that if the bird was so stall-prone that it needed an MCAS sytem, then maybe they shouldn't have pushed/stretched the design that far.

Which goes back to wanting vehicles to be drive-by-wire capable (but not necessarily active) until the software is fully capable of fully autonomous driving. That would make it easy to upgrade vehicles to full autonomy, once the software and sensor sytems are ready. And I do find it a bad joke that drivers of current self-driving vehicles are expected to be alert and ready to take over, when human nature makes it nigh-impossible to stay alert for extended periods without being engaged in the action. It's like being on sentry duty on a deserted island.

And the other thing I forgot in my OP:  V2X (vehicle-to-everything) communications is a must to allow autonomous traffic to flow at max efficiency. The icing would be having zones where pedestrians are required to wear a transponder of some sort (phone or smartwatch would suffice) so that vehicles are aware of them. It's for their own safety! (if Big Brother had its way, it would be implanted lol) 

11 hours ago, AngrybobH said:

AEB is equipped on many (even low end) cars today

Yes, it's common, but still not on everything. It needs to be made standard on all vehicles. The insurance companies would be grateful, although the collision lawyers would not be.

[mikegarrison]

1 hour ago, StrandedonEarth said:

And that's just it, the main mistake by Boeing w/regards to those crashes was not properly training pilots on the new systems (or not believing further training was required to fly the MAX). The dead aircrews simply did not know how to disable the MCAS system when it acted on bad data, while some crews did know how to handle it. I don't recall if the previous crews reported the issues, since a lack of follow-up action would have also contributed. But yes, the pilots should have known (should have been trained) how to deal with that situation. OTOH, I think that if the bird was so stall-prone that it needed an MCAS sytem, then maybe they shouldn't have pushed/stretched the design that far.

Pretty much all of your assumptions here are wrong, but this is the wrong thread to discuss it in.

The real point is that training goes stale. *Practice* is necessary to maintain competence. And mostly autonomous cars will be removing that practice from the lives of drivers. It was learned years ago that pilots need to have a certain amount of manual flying routinely in order to maintain their ability to do it when it is needed. The same will be true for drivers, but we don't have the same infrastructure or regulation for how people drive. We tend to give them testing early on. If they pass, it's assumed that they will practice just by doing the driving.

Expecting humans to be the failsafe backups for self-driving cars is a terrible idea.

1 hour ago, Wjolcz said:

The tech doesn't need full autonomy to provide more safety. I agree that a self-driving car might 'dull down' the driving skills of the driver, but at the same time if you have a basic-ish driving assistant that takes over control (either autobrakes or turns to avoid an obstacle or a human) when there's danger present then cars become much safer. I said it in the previous thread, but I will say it again: these days you don't need much to distract people. I recently almost got ran over by a driver who was looking at his phone. Maybe he would have learnt a lesson if the car suddenly stopped. That's why I'd argue that having even a basic autopilot is much safer than having none.

One way to solve the 'forgot how to drive, lol' issue is to allow people to use full autopilot only on highways (or other wide and high speed roads) and have an assistant always on in crowded cities despite the advancements in self-driving tech.

Your assumption here is that driver abilities will remain the same, so self-driving cars will only add to the safety. My point is that driver abilities will deteriorate -- and probably faster than the abilities of the automation can be brought up to speed.

Look at the incidents we have already seen. The idea that the human driver can always step in and recover from a mistake by the computer is completely false. Too much of driving is based on anticipation rather than reaction. Once you are reacting, it's generally too late. The computers *are* better at reacting than anticipating, but that's exactly why human drivers as backups to the computer are going to fail.

[Wjolcz]

2 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Your assumption here is that driver abilities will remain the same, so self-driving cars will only add to the safety. My point is that driver abilities will deteriorate -- and probably faster than the abilities of the automation can be brought up to speed.

I'm not assuming that the abilities will stay the same. I am fully aware that many planes have crashed due to human error. What I'm assuming is that if the moron behind the wheel is browsing Facebook and I'm in front of the car, that car (with an autobrake/collision avoidance feature) won't run me over. I really don't think it's an 'either this (human driver) or that (full autonomy)' situation. As long as I don't end up in hospital I don't care about driving abilities of anybody. If he/she don't remember how to operate a vehicle then maybe they should have their driving license taken away.

One example of this would be railroad traffic (talking about European standards here; I don't know how it works in the US). Trains have drivers who react to signals and input BUT there are also systems on tracks (which directly 'talk' to the trains) that are AUTOMATED and stop the train if the driver doesn't react accordingly. It's neither a driver-only vehicle nor does it have full autonomy. I honestly don't remember when was the last time train passengers died in a railway related accident. It's not like they don't happen but once they do they are all over the news because of how rarely they occur.

BTW, I'm not one of those anti-gasoline eco-friendly biker hippies, or whatever. I just can't help but notice that there are more cars on roads than ever and waiting for 'full autonomy' tech won't save anybody from dying in a car crash.

Edited March 14, 2020 by Wjolcz

[AngrybobH]

@mikegarrison you are right, of course, about many things here but you seem to have the assumption that humans are good at driving. They are not, in general, and training is nearly non-existent in the US. In the US we basically give out a drivers' license if you can sign your name (yes, an exaggeration). The longer people drive on a limited access high speed road the worse they get too (highway hypnosis and wandering minds because of monotony). Add in phones, radios, passengers, kids, french fries, drinks, smoking, and on and on. A large percentage of drivers can't be bothered to look out of the windshield for more than 2 seconds at a time. That is the reason all of these safety systems have/will become standard features. Car companies keep trying to make fool proof cars but they keep making better fools. To a certain degree this proves your point. The less drivers have to do the less they can do. But, people get in less (and less severe) crashes than they did before all the automated/safety systems started getting installed. So, it seems, removing as much human as you can from the control system is better for safety.

3 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Expecting humans to be the failsafe backups for self-driving cars is a terrible idea.

It is also a terrible idea to expect the average driver to be the primary system.

I too drive a manual transmission(less than 10% of all passenger cars on the road in the US) and I pride myself on my ability to handle my automobile(manual trans drivers are 40% less likely to crash, old insurance stat from back in the '80s). I have an uncommon background with vehicles, though (racing), and I would not expect most drivers to be capable of handling that. If we had an extensive training and testing program for drivers in the US, perhaps I would expect the drivers around me to be competent. But, I don't even advocate for full autonomous cars for all situations, I advocate for highway self driving because the variables a far lower there and a driver entering a city without highway hypnosis is going to be generally safer.

3 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

anticipation rather than reaction

This is very true. reaction gets you into a situation where you (or a computer) must make a proper decision as quick as possible sometimes without all the facts. That's a bad place to be. But consider a situation on a highway where all the automated cars(and the equipped human driven cars) can send and receive a signal to each other about whats going on around them. A one or two car accident doesn't become a twenty car pileup. Also, AEB/FEB radars the car in front of the car in front of you so, reaction is better than what you as a driver can react to. An autonomous car highway system would not be perfect even with better tech than we have now but, I believe it would improve overall safety and fuel consumption. The added benefit would be pushing the tech to improve and the system would have to be able to deal with non-automated cars from the start so that tech would also improve. There would be no need for me (or you) to give up on actually actively driving, which I happen to enjoy.

1 hour ago, Wjolcz said:

waiting for 'full autonomy' tech won't save anybody from dying in a car crash.

Having 'full autonomy' won't save everybody, either. Technology fails, machines break, designers fu.....mess up, manufacturers cut corners, etc. But, I do believe more autonomous cars would begin to increase road travel safety.

[mikegarrison]

6 hours ago, AngrybobH said:

I have an uncommon background with vehicles, though (racing), and I would not expect most drivers to be capable of handling that.

FYI, while I never did any racing, I have over 100 track days and used to be an instructor for the local car clubs. Just saying that I do know the difference between street driving and the kind of training you get on a track. But I'm saying that if you think drivers on the street are bad now, just wait until the car has done all the driving for them for a couple years and then we'll see what their skills are like....

[wumpus]

On 3/14/2020 at 11:18 PM, mikegarrison said:

FYI, while I never did any racing, I have over 100 track days and used to be an instructor for the local car clubs. Just saying that I do know the difference between street driving and the kind of training you get on a track. But I'm saying that if you think drivers on the street are bad now, just wait until the car has done all the driving for them for a couple years and then we'll see what their skills are like....

Does this happen when people move to NYC (or Europe) and don't need a car for several years and then start driving again later?  I think that this should be a common enough experience.  I tried to google if having a gap in insurance caused painful rate hikes but only saw hits for "gap insurance".

On 3/14/2020 at 5:04 PM, AngrybobH said:

@mikegarrison (sorry, can't delete this)

Having 'full autonomy' won't save everybody, either. Technology fails, machines break, designers fu.....mess up, manufacturers cut corners, etc. But, I do believe more autonomous cars would begin to increase road travel safety.

"Won't save everybody" and "won't save a significant number of people" are two different things.  By the time my father hit 80 it was obviously time to hang up the keys, but he lives in North Carolina so there really aren't other options.  He's had at least one crash thanks to driving though a red light...

I'd really like to know why everything has to be mandatory or prohibited.  Presumably regulatory capture means that once a business is allowed to sell something, they want 100% market share.

[mikegarrison]

11 minutes ago, wumpus said:

"Won't save everybody" and "won't save a significant number of people" are two different things.

Yes, this is true.

Let me go back to my thoughts about airplanes. I do think the automation in airplanes has made flying safer. But I also think it has left pilots less prepared to take over the flying. Of course there are some pilots who keep up their practice and training and such, just like there will be some drivers who head to the racetrack on the weekends even if they let the car drive them through the commute five days a week. But there are a whole series of crashes (not just the two recent ones) where flight crews failed to remember to do really basic things like control their airspeed, recover from a stall, or turn off a malfunctioning system and fly manually. And pilots have mandatory training, checklists to follow, co-pilots, etc.

So while automating driving may save some accidents, it will lead to other failure modes. And it is a big mistake to expect that human occupants in the car will be able to go from thinking about what they are going to have for dinner that night or chatting about the latest gossip to suddenly diagnosing a failure in the car automation and making emergency input that will avoid a crash. This case in California is a great example -- the guy *knew* that previously the car had made strange lunges toward the center barrier in that same spot, but on the day of his fatal accident he was busy playing a game on his phone.

If you get in a bus or a taxi, there is no expectation as a passenger that you can or will be able to drive the vehicle. As far as you are concerned it is fully autonomous. Yet, you can still be involved in a crash. I think that this is a better model for cars than the model of incrementally improving "active cruise control" but relying on the driver to still be watchful and ready to countermand the vehicle.

[StrandedonEarth]

Of course, self driving isn't just for cities and highways...

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/03/10/farming-construction-autonomous-is-going-to-be-more-than-vehicles/

I swear the intro to the tractor video is trying to evoke the Cylon theme from the BSG reboot....

A car? You want to make a measly little car autonomous?

[YNM]

On 3/14/2020 at 1:06 PM, mikegarrison said:

how come a Lion Air crew safely flew the same airplane with the same problem the day before the fatal crash?

Because they had a 3rd pilot onboard (crew movement) and they were lucky that a) he heard something about the MCAS system and b) the system didn't choose them to die that day (Ethiopia pilots turned the system off but it still worked on it's own). The reverse problem happens on AirAsia QZ8501 where the pilot decided that the plane was too stupid to warn him and reset the flight computer in-air. Also the SSJ-100 crash where they decided the GPWS was faulty because the mountains they were flying around doesn't exist.

 

As for the problem at hand :

1. We have automation done succesfully and routinely safely already - the only problem is that they either operate on a strictly one-dimension basis (elevators and trains) or on three-dimension but where the margins are larger (airplanes).

2. The problem is in data and training, and the fact that these will invariably take a long time due to the human nature of other drivers and users on the road (invariably controlled by a human - pedestrians are just humans on feet - or even worse an animal, like a pack of livestock).

3. Automation on cars isn't new, we all have started on cruise control decades ago, and lane following have started to become standard on these as well. Key point however is that the driver is still expected to be ready for anything on the road itself.

Edited March 12, 2021 by YNM

[mikegarrison]

3 minutes ago, YNM said:

Because they had a 3rd pilot onboard (crew movement) and they were lucky that a) he heard something about the MCAS system and b) the system didn't choose them to die that day (Ethiopia pilots turned the system off but it still worked on it's own).

I'm sorry, but none of that is true. Please look up the actual accident reports.

In particular, the trim system did not "still work on its own" for the Ethiopian pilots. They intentionally turned it back on. And there is no evidence that the third Lion Air pilot "heard something about MCAS". All he did is tell the other two pilots to follow the runaway trim procedure that all pilots are supposedly trained to know.

[kerbiloid]

I remember we had a documentary

Spoiler

 

Best automated planes are automated trains. Magnetic rails look magnetically.

[magnemoe]

9 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Of course, self driving isn't just for cities and highways...

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/03/10/farming-construction-autonomous-is-going-to-be-more-than-vehicles/

I swear the intro to the tractor video is trying to evoke the Cylon theme from the BSG reboot....

A car? You want to make a measly little car autonomous?

I wonder why they have no steering position on the tractor, outside it messing up the look obviously. 
Two reasons, primary is public roads an self driving tractor do not have to be certificated for public roads but you might have to drive on them to reach the field. 
Second is if it misread stuff, can easy see it refuse to cross puddles and bee to careful with soft ground who can get you stuck although remote control probably works better here. 
You also need to refill it both fuel and pesticide above although you use more fertilizer. 

 

[DDE]

I think all of this is beside the point. Neither the driver nor the car manufacturer would be willing the bear liability for the AI's missteps.

[StrandedonEarth]

22 minutes ago, DDE said:

I think all of this is beside the point. Neither the driver nor the car manufacturer would be willing the bear liability for the AI's missteps.

That’s what insurance companies are for. Insurance companies are big believers in statistics. When (if) the statistics show that the AI is safer than a human operator, then human-operated machines will have  higher insurance rates than autonomous. Or vice versa  hi

The miners in the Caterpillar video seem to like the system 

9 hours ago, magnemoe said:

You also need to refill it both fuel

It’s electric, both base charging and onboard solar. And autonomous monitoring should reduce the need for pesticides. 

[mikegarrison]

26 minutes ago, DDE said:

I think all of this is beside the point. Neither the driver nor the car manufacturer would be willing the bear liability for the AI's missteps.

Well, there are third-party driving AIs. An outfit called Comma.ai sells one (although of course they say it is a driving aid rather than a replacement for a driver).

[magnemoe]

16 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

That’s what insurance companies are for. Insurance companies are big believers in statistics. When (if) the statistics show that the AI is safer than a human operator, then human-operated machines will have  higher insurance rates than autonomous. Or vice versa  hi

The miners in the Caterpillar video seem to like the system 

Insurance companies are big believers in statistic, lawyers and politicians are not, I guess self driving cars might get in easier in Europe. 
On the other hand US companies know that the one who crack self driving will earn billions and it will obviously be an crash program  
Stuff like farming and mining is much easier as you don't have to deal with so many fools. 

 

25 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

It’s electric, both base charging and onboard solar. And autonomous monitoring should reduce the need for pesticides. 

It looked like an smaller tractor to me, not the tiny indoor ones, say 100 HP, well you are not pulling harrows or plows with it but pesticide and trimming weed would work, and yes an AI might be very good at this. 
The solar panels is an joke, yes they make sense on an car to run the fans during summer but pointless on an EV outside running the fans. 

[StrandedonEarth]

28 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

The solar panels is an joke, yes they make sense on an car to run the fans during summer but pointless on an EV outside running the fans. 

I look at the solar panels as range extenders. Not going to do a lot, but allows it to do more on a single charge. Probably cheaper/lighter than adding more battery capacity 

[mikegarrison]

19 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

I look at the solar panels as range extenders. Not going to do a lot, but allows it to do more on a single charge. Probably cheaper/lighter than adding more battery capacity 

Depends on the usage rate of the vehicle. Right now I'm driving my car maybe once every two weeks. Solar panels could possibly bring in a decent amount of power in a situation like that.

(My car is actually gasoline powered and has no solar panels.)

[DDE]

1 hour ago, StrandedonEarth said:

That’s what insurance companies are for.

There isn't an actuarial table thick enough to stop the torrent of grieving families that will want someone, anyone to blame.

[magnemoe]

Just now, mikegarrison said:

Depends on the usage rate of the vehicle. Right now I'm driving my car maybe once every two weeks. Solar panels could possibly bring in a decent amount of power in a situation like that.

(My car is actually gasoline powered and has no solar panels.)

This, if you put the tractor outside and did not use it for a week then perhaps it has some benefit but anybody would plug an ev into an charger anyway as you might need it. 
It also last much longer in an garage who is nice for the wallet and the environment. So many tractors are over 30 years old. 

Now neighbor of my boss is an old guy who don't drive much, he has an very nice hybrid but then he went on an long trip the car stopped, the petrol was too old
And this is an issue with modern cars, they are over optimized, not only all the gadgets but brakes who rust because an lack of use. 
Not making suspensions to handle speed bumps is my problem, but I see seat belts as very important for safety as they keep you in place in turnabouts, its an 60 km/h zone after all  

[mrfox]

6 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Depends on the usage rate of the vehicle. Right now I'm driving my car maybe once every two weeks. Solar panels could possibly bring in a decent amount of power in a situation like that.

(My car is actually gasoline powered and has no solar panels.)

But those same panels would be better utilised installed on your roof. The car can charge from them when needed.
Same reason nature don’t put leaves on animals.