Autonomous Cars

[roon]

I don't remember gliding for range in helicopters though

Gliding in helicopters can best be summarised by the word: DOWN!

Slightly better than down with autorotation. I see 4:1, 3:1 glide ratios referenced. Similar to a parachute. 15 - 20 degree inclines.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-glide ... o-rotating

[roon]

I'm confident you could find anti automobile press from the horse and buggy era. Horses being the original AV, there would have been a fear of giving the human full control. Horses were pretty good at delivering injured or intoxicated riders to destinations along familiar routes. AVs are somewhat a return to this situation. Avoiding $500 ambulance fees surely a positive for certain situations. Uber already used to prevent drunk/drink driving. AVs will extend this.

Tesla have two large truck chassis in development. I won't be surprised if they get into or permit development of driverless emergency vehicles.

[Phil]

I would imagine the possibilities to get from A to B in the horse and buggy era to have been quite limited. Now days, you have all sorts of possibilities to choose from if you happen to be immobile, intoxicated or otherwise. You have cabs, you have Ubers, you have trains, buses, quite possibly subway and other means. My bet is for any living person who does find himself intoxicated at any time of day, there are at least an array of multiple options available to get home safely, other than an AV.

I'm still waiting to hear any benefits of using an AV over a taxi or Uber.

Cheaper?
I find this rather doubtful. Yes, there won't be a driver that needs to be payed, however there is still the car itself to content with. If it's an AV from a transport agency, there is cost involved. The car doesn't get to the pickup point for free and it doesn't get to stay in a parking lot recharging for free either. If it's an AV from ownership, again; ownership is expensive. Parking. Depreciation. Maintenance. Insurance. It all costs money who someone will have to finance. Not to mention that an AV will have to be more tightly regulated than a normal vehicle. Are the sensors functional? Well maintained? Not to mention that the software itself is developed, tested and maintained by someone who will most likely charge for it too. I'm doubtful the total cost will be lower / much lower than what i.e. Uber can offer.

Safer?
This is dependent on infrastructure and the technology. In a highly populated and dense environment, I'm again doubtful a human can be matched for instinct and awareness, no matter the number of sensors that are packed onto the car. Especially if we are comparing it to a supposedly responsible and employed cab driver. At best, it might be equal (I'm not aware the accident rate of cabs to be particularly high?).

Quicker?
How could an AV be quicker than any other vehicle? It shares the same tarmac as everyone else and the more vehicles are on the road, the more congestion there will be. There's no differentiation between a manned and unmanned vehicle. There are already dedicated lanes cabs and taxis can use. In most cities, there isn't room for more roads beyond what they already have because you can't physically move buildings. If the infrastructure is somehow improved, everyone profits, even normal vehicles.

Convenience?
I can definitely see a benefit for wanting an empty cab, not be in contact with other humans. It's one of the perks of using your own car to get to work as opposed to using public transportation networks that are most likely full, less comfortable and you have people to content with. On the other hand, are we simply moving into a world of complete isolation where social interaction reduces to a minimum? It's already happening with dating and socializing moving to online platforms. Maybe in the future, instead of going out there to get to work, everyone will work at home in complete isolation while having everything brought to them?

[henry]

@phil I think your points are all very reasonable.

AVs are not coming about to match demand by individuals but but by capital speculation. This is much the same as previous technology based commodities. People didn’t demand electric light or steam trains etc. As such they are designed to accrue benefis to the speculator.

That’s not to say that some benefits won’t flow to the consumer or society at large. Particularly safety. While I don’t expect AVs to match the ability of the better human they might well do better than the distracted, infirm, unhappy, risk seeking ones. You can add your own favourite safety disablers here, there are many. Of course AVs will have their own special ways to go wrong but they will be more amenable to correction.

The big players in this market are, as all good capitalists, intent on trying to build a monopoly in personal transportation. Or at least the bits that are profitable. Don’t expect them to be interested in you if you don’t live in a large conurbation. By 2050 that will still give them greater than 50% of the world’s population as their audience.

In the medium term the approach might be twofold. Build expensive AVs for sale to the wealthy to parade and exploit to avoid public transportation while freeing up time to gain more wealth. This will be attractive to the makers of wealthy peoples’ cars. Build and run fleets of vehicles, probably also expensive, as driverless Ubers. This will be attractive to the makers of mass market vehicles. Why build a car and sell it for a one off $1000 profit when you can keep it and run it for 5 years making $1000 a week?

All the other things you mention may eventually accrue as benefits to the general population, but only if they are profitable or society, via their governments, regulate the providers to achieve them.

[Andres125sx]

Phil, AVs will provide a main benefit over any other car, not only an uber

More than 3000 people die on the roads... DAILY!
https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/

We get shocked with sporadic terrorist attacks where some hundreds are killed, but we consider normal than thousands people die on the road every day of the year, without exception, for decades...

Considering the vast mayority of accidents are caused by distractions, it´s pretty obvious AVs (when development is finished) will be several orders of magnitude safer than ANY driver. This alone will reduce accidents dramatically and will make AVs worth
Reaction times are reduced to milisecods instead of tenths (or seconds if the driver is distracted), increasing the oportunities to avoid the accident
Constant 360º monitoring
Vehicle and pedestrian detection even at a dark night without any light, with fog, etc

All the rest is secondary IMHO, even our right to drive I´m afraid... and I´ll cry the day I cannot drive anymore, but when you look at it from the big picture....

[Tommy Cookers]

....the vast mayority of accidents are caused by distractions .....

they're caused by mistakes not distractions
increased mistakes in the design of the rules
and (mostly) failure to comply with the rules
a requirement for compliance is now seen as a breach of our human rights
concepts like right or wrong and responsibility are unfashionable and so dismissed as obsolete
eg non-powered road users are exempt from obligations of competence and sobriety

all powered and unpowered road users should transition to AVs and to AV-structured rules at the same time - to the second
then, handily, we humans won't need to be compliant - the machine will do this and our pride will be unviolated

[Andres125sx]

....the vast mayority of accidents are caused by distractions .....

they're caused by mistakes not distractions

That´s semantics. Mistakes are usually caused by lack of proper focus on the road, it may be "I didn´t see you", "I couldn´t brake soon enough", or some more hundreds possible mistakes, but the root cause is a distraction.

It will depend on the analyst if he name it mistake or distraction, but also on the driver. Imagine you get distracted with your phone, the car in front hit the brakes suddenly, you don´t notice soon enough and crash. You will probably say he hit the brakes suddenly and you didn´t have enough time to react, it will be considered a driver mistake because it is, you didn´t respect safety distance with the car in front, but that mistake could have been neutralized if you were focused on the road and hit the brakes instantly after the car in front, but if you were distracted the extra second you´ll take before noticing will make imposible an emergency stop and will crash.

Yes it was a mistake, but if not distracted there would have been no accident. AVs will directly erradicate this thousands accidents.

[Andres125sx]

Also I think reaction times will make a huge difference. The comparison we always do about 3 tenths for humans while miliseconds for AVs is actually too kind with humans. That´s the reaction time for a properly focused human, with both hands on the wheel, but we all know most drivers are not focused on the road but talking with their passengers while looking at them through the mirror, doing something he should never do while driving, or simply so bored he´s almost falling asleep. In this pretty common situations reaction times will be increased by a huge factor (2x, 3x, 4x..) very easily.

And even if properly focused, some physical limits will be solved with AVs, some months ago I almost crash with an electric skate while turning right because he was exactly behind the A-pillar when I did look in that direction. AVs don´t have any dead angle.

[Zynerji]

Also I think reaction times will make a huge difference. The comparison we always do about 3 tenths for humans while miliseconds for AVs is actually too kind with humans. That´s the reaction time for a properly focused human, with both hands on the wheel, but we all know most drivers are not focused on the road but talking with their passengers while looking at them through the mirror, doing something he should never do while driving, or simply so bored he´s almost falling asleep. In this pretty common situations reaction times will be increased by a huge factor (2x, 3x, 4x..) very easily.

And even if properly focused, some physical limits will be solved with AVs, some months ago I almost crash with an electric skate while turning right because he was exactly behind the A-pillar when I did look in that direction. AVs don´t have any dead angle.

How do you feel about AV's making the decision that you are the most expendable in an impending accident?

Are you comfortable with your car deciding to put you into a ditch, at the cost of your life, to save the 3 children with "non-monitoring parents" that just ran into the road in front of you?

[Greg Locock]

You are postulating an example which requires perfect knowledge. That is why the trolley problem is such an idiotic example. You deal with each emergency as it arises. Would you run 3 children over because you might drive into a ditch if you swerve? No. And then you might die? Right, so why expect an AV to be any different.

[AJI]

How do you feel about AV's making the decision that you are the most expendable in an impending accident?

Are you comfortable with your car deciding to put you into a ditch, at the cost of your life, to save the 3 children with "non-monitoring parents" that just ran into the road in front of you?

Is the vehicle with the children in it also AV? I presume 'non-monitoring parents' means yes?

[Zynerji]

You are postulating an example which requires perfect knowledge. That is why the trolley problem is such an idiotic example. You deal with each emergency as it arises. Would you run 3 children over because you might drive into a ditch if you swerve? No. And then you might die? Right, so why expect an AV to be any different.

I wouldn't kill myself to save others that were clearly in the wrong.... Why would I allow a machine to force that decision into my life?

[Zynerji]

How do you feel about AV's making the decision that you are the most expendable in an impending accident?

Are you comfortable with your car deciding to put you into a ditch, at the cost of your life, to save the 3 children with "non-monitoring parents" that just ran into the road in front of you?

Is the vehicle with the children in it also AV? I presume 'non-monitoring parents' means yes?

No. Just standing on the sidewalk watching their phones more than their children.

FYI: This happens to me in St. Louis Missouri at least 3 times a month.

[AJI]

No. Just standing on the sidewalk watching their phones more than their children.

FYI: This happens to me in St. Louis Missouri at least 3 times a month.

Ahh, well, would the car be smart enough to steer away from the children and into the parents? I suppose there will be 3rd party developers offering that option as a plug-in?

[Andres125sx]

Also I think reaction times will make a huge difference. The comparison we always do about 3 tenths for humans while miliseconds for AVs is actually too kind with humans. That´s the reaction time for a properly focused human, with both hands on the wheel, but we all know most drivers are not focused on the road but talking with their passengers while looking at them through the mirror, doing something he should never do while driving, or simply so bored he´s almost falling asleep. In this pretty common situations reaction times will be increased by a huge factor (2x, 3x, 4x..) very easily.

And even if properly focused, some physical limits will be solved with AVs, some months ago I almost crash with an electric skate while turning right because he was exactly behind the A-pillar when I did look in that direction. AVs don´t have any dead angle.

How do you feel about AV's making the decision that you are the most expendable in an impending accident?

Are you comfortable with your car deciding to put you into a ditch, at the cost of your life, to save the 3 children with "non-monitoring parents" that just ran into the road in front of you?

First, there´s no AVs (L5) yet, so your assumption is plain false and demagogic

Second, AVs will react some tenths faster than you, so it will increase the chances that NOBODY gets hurt

Third, you said this happens to you 3 times a month at least... I assume you´re alive yet so you never decided to kill yourself... how many children have you killed? None? Then what´s the reason you assume an AVs will have to decide who to kill when you didn´t have to take that decision yet even when dealing with that situation 3 times a month and even when your reaction times are way slower than any AV?

Fourth, if there´s no way to avoid killing 3 children, or killing myself, I think I will never run over 3 children voluntarily, and will always assume I can do an evasive maneouver without killing anyone. Even if it´s running over 3 children or crashing with a wall/tree, I think I will always hope I can survive that crash easier than 3 children being hitted by a car, because that´s the reality, you´re protected by a car with active and passive safety protecting you



That sort of hypothetic scenarios are so demagogic I´m wondering about the reason I took the effort to reply. You will never decide to kill yourself or kill others, you will always try to avoid the accident and kill none, nobody will stop the time and ask you: "this situation will kill someone, choose who will die" . Everybody will try to avoid the accident, even the AVs. It´s an AV, not a sheer, he doesn´t know the exact space it will take to brake, or to make an evasive maneouver (as both of these will depend on the grip wich is different in each street/road), so it will do the same as you, trying to avoid the accident in a hope there´s enough grip to avoid it and nobody will die