Clubjazz - Honda Jazz & HR-V Forums

Other Hondas & General Topics => Off Topic (Non-Honda) => Topic started by: Jocko on November 17, 2017, 07:43:06 AM

Title: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on November 17, 2017, 07:43:06 AM
Volvo has unveiled its self driving truck prototype.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/motoring/2017-11/17/content_34638451.htm (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/motoring/2017-11/17/content_34638451.htm)
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on November 19, 2017, 10:37:58 AM
So the government is supposedly going to make an announcement in the budget allowing the testing of driverless vehicles in the UK, with a view to having the first cars on the road by 2021. Should be interesting.
Jeremy Clarkson has got in on the show with reports he was nearly killed twice by driverless cars making major mistakes, and he had to take over. Sounds like he is talking about Tesla on Autopilot. A system we all know is flawed.
Wasn't Clarkson the guy who did a report for Top Gear on the Tesla and said the battery died on him before it reached its indicated range? Then Tesla picked it up and drove it back to their headquarters?
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: culzean on November 19, 2017, 03:23:32 PM
Wasn't Clarkson the guy who did a report for Top Gear on the Tesla and said the battery died on him before it reached its indicated range? Then Tesla picked it up and drove it back to their headquarters?

There is 40 to 50% of a BEV battery that is not available for normal use, this is reserved for future use to maintain range as the battery efficiency drops, Clarkson may well have run out of 'normal' battery but the Tesla Techs used their laptop or dongle to access enough 'unavailable' capacity to get the car home.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on November 19, 2017, 03:28:45 PM
May well have done.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on November 21, 2017, 06:04:29 AM
Uber has struck a deal to buy up to 24,000 self-driving cars from Volvo.
The agreement envisages that the pick-up service will purchase the vehicles over the course of three years beginning in 2019.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42055841 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42055841)
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Top Badger on November 21, 2017, 07:08:01 AM
 8) Clarkson is (amongst other things ;) ) a `petrol-head` & was probably bribed by the oil companies to slag off leccy motors.  ::)
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: culzean on November 21, 2017, 09:53:43 AM
Uber has struck a deal to buy up to 24,000 self-driving cars from Volvo.
The agreement envisages that the pick-up service will purchase the vehicles over the course of three years beginning in 2019.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42055841 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42055841)

They will also need to get 100,000+ 'safety drivers' from somewhere...............if they want to run cars 24/7
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: sparky Paul on November 21, 2017, 10:16:02 AM
I think uber expect that things will have moved on by 2019. Whilst this might sound extremely optimistic, it would not surprise me to see true level 5 cars appearing sooner than you might think.

When it comes to accidents, it is inevitable that autonomous cars are bound to make mistakes, and those mistakes could inevitably lead to fatalities. However, there are bound to be upsides, and I think back to my recent near-death experience... I met a car doing 60mph on the wrong side of the road, just over the brow of a hill, overtaking a lorry on double white lines. Would an autonomous vehicle have made the errors this driver did? I think probably not.

The question is, how many deaths will the public accept? One fatality per 100 million miles? Or will the idea that lives are placed in the hands of a machine be unacceptable?
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: culzean on November 21, 2017, 11:01:59 AM
I was reading a write-up about digital 3D mapping and how the autonomous cars kept swerving at a certain point on the road every time,  turned out there was one pixel on the map that was wrong and the vehicle saw it as an obstacle several feet high.  Now that is frightening that one solitary pixel out of the billions required on the map could cause that. Driver error will be replaced by programing / software errors,  this stuff will be much more complicated and resource hungry that MS Windows,  and we all know the problems and continuous patching that needs.

To be good enough for auto cars digital maps have to be enormously detailed,  and would need updating daily or better to account for changes in the area.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on November 21, 2017, 01:46:08 PM
I was reading a write-up about digital 3D mapping and how the autonomous cars kept swerving at a certain point on the road every time,  turned out there was one pixel on the map that was wrong and the vehicle saw it as an obstacle several feet high.
Would you care to link to that article?
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on November 21, 2017, 02:00:42 PM
I see Brake has called for Anti Speeding systems to be fitted to all new cars.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-42051612 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-42051612)
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: culzean on November 21, 2017, 03:23:33 PM
I was reading a write-up about digital 3D mapping and how the autonomous cars kept swerving at a certain point on the road every time,  turned out there was one pixel on the map that was wrong and the vehicle saw it as an obstacle several feet high.
Would you care to link to that article?

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/07/technology/business/maps-wars-self-driving-cars/index.html
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: culzean on November 21, 2017, 03:46:54 PM
I see Brake has called for Anti Speeding systems to be fitted to all new cars.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-42051612 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-42051612)

I am more than happy with their proposal,  people even speed on crowded supermarket carparks,  it makes me angry when people roar down the narrow aisle between parked cars at 40mph. Even on narrow roads on our housing estate (which is a 30 limit but should be 20) with dogs and children around people still sit on my bumper when i drive at 20,  and guess what they are mainly parents who would jump up and down and want a 'speeding' driver given a life sentence if one of their kids was hit by a car.

I would also be happy for a device to be fitted to cars that blocked anything but 999 calls when the vehicle was moving.  People will say 'but what if it is a passenger making the call',  its tough but until drivers can be trusted not to distract themselves from driving with phone calls and texts and continue to kill and maim innocent people well so be it.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on November 21, 2017, 04:38:37 PM
I see Brake has called for Anti Speeding systems to be fitted to all new cars.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-42051612 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-42051612)

I am more than happy with their proposal,  people even speed on crowded supermarket carparks,  it makes me angry when people roar down the narrow aisle between parked cars at 40mph. Even on narrow roads on our housing estate (which is a 30 limit but should be 20) with dogs and children around people still sit on my bumper when i drive at 20,  and guess what they are mainly parents who would jump up and down and want a 'speeding' driver given a life sentence if one of their kids was hit by a car.

I would also be happy for a device to be fitted to cars that blocked anything but 999 calls when the vehicle was moving.  People will say 'but what if it is a passenger making the call',  its tough but until drivers can be trusted not to distract themselves from driving with phone calls and texts and continue to kill and maim innocent people well so be it.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. We have huge areas around here with 20 mph speed limits (the centre of Edinburgh is all 20 now, and being extended month on month). My nephew booked a driver doing 23 in a 20. He stopped him to point out the error of his ways. The guy, a resident of the road, started getting lippy, even when it was explained to him that the residents had petitioned to have a 20 mph limit put in place. As the mouthiness continued my nephew decided to book him and let the court decide. The guy paid his fixed penalty fine!
I would block all phone calls from cars. Unless the ignition is off. They block mobile phones in some hotels.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: madasafish on November 21, 2017, 05:06:04 PM
In 2016 there were 191 road deaths in Scotland  (10.6% of Total)
http://www.gov.scot/About/Performance/scotPerforms/indicator/roaddeaths
In 2016 there were  1792 road deaths in Total in the  UK..  https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/648081/rrcgb2016-01.pdf

In 2016 The UK population was 63,785,900.
The population of Scotland was 5,404,700  (8.47% of Total.)
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates


And teh concluision is: Scots are worse drivers on average.. :-)
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on November 21, 2017, 05:53:08 PM
Motorways are the safest roads in the country. Of the 2173 miles in the UK, Scotland has just under 160 miles. The worst roads for road deaths are single carriageway. Most of Scotland's main trunk routes are single carriageway. The Highlands have the worst winter weather, miles between settlements and no other way to get about except by road. Summer sees these same roads choked with foreign coaches and tourists. I don't think Scotland's drivers are any better or worse than the rest of the UK. It is just that we have such a poor road system. Some roads in Scotland are terrible for accidents, especially involving tourists, and a road closure to deal with it can mean a 150 mile detour.
It is not all shortbread and Bonnie Prince Charlie.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on November 23, 2017, 07:02:11 AM
Singapore has announced it will introduce driverless buses by 2022, albeit in three new neighbourhoods which will have less-crowded roads designed to accommodate the buses. From what I remember of Singapore this will be like "Croydon" instead of "Central London". I think they will need Mad Max to do the programming.
It was 50+ years ago I was working out there, but the traffic was total mayhem, with Raffles Square like the Daytona 500. The only time the cars go slow are when the F1 GP is in town!
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: culzean on February 25, 2018, 03:38:48 PM
I have been watching a series on National Geographic channel covering air crash investigations and a frightening trend is emerging, once the autopilot disables itself when a sensor fails or other control system incident the modern pilots seem incapable of flying the plane manually - strangely they were not taught to do it in training WTF.    I would call them plane minders rather than pilots - one standout case was Air France flight 447 from Argentina to Paris in an AirBus A330 airliner - they flew through a storm and the pitot heads sensors got coated with ice and the planes computer lost its airspeed inputs so the autopilot disengaged itself.  The two man crew (senior officer was asleep  having a mandatory rest period after about 5 hours of flying into an 11 hour flight).  The one pilot immediately put the plane onto full engine power and into a climb,  which in thin air at 35,000 feet and a full fuel load was not a good idea, the stall alarm sounded and both controls sticks began to shake which is done by control system when stall alarm goes off to warn pilots physically what is happening - the co-pilot tried to push stick forward to gain airspeed and stop the stall but the aircraft was confused by conflicting control inputs,  the crew were not watching altimeter which would have shown them plane was pointing upwards but falling towards the ocean at about 2,500 feet per minute,  by the time the senior captain had been woken up and assessed the situation the plane was only a few thousand feet above ocean and too far gone to recover,  the plane pancaked into the ocean at about 200mph in the middle of Atlantic killing everyone.   I think once humans lose the skills for driving they will be in bad shape if things go wrong with computers, and we will all be at the mercy of technology controlled by a few huge global tech companies.  Hacking of systems will be a daily occurrence , the only saving grace with road vehicles they wont fall out of the sky.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Beaver on February 25, 2018, 06:57:49 PM
With passenger airliners, the perfect crew is a pilot and a dog.

The pilot is there to feed the dog.
The dog is there to bite the pilot if he touches anything.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on March 19, 2018, 06:05:53 PM
Uber have suspended test of self driving cars in the US after a pedestrian was killed in an accident in Arizona. The only saving grace is they will have more data than an airliner's black box.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: culzean on March 19, 2018, 06:46:06 PM
Uber have suspended test of self driving cars in the US after a pedestrian was killed in an accident in Arizona. The only saving grace is they will have more data than an airliner's black box.

Apparently there was a tech in the car, watching a Harry Potter video on his laptop......
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: sparky Paul on March 19, 2018, 07:04:10 PM
Uber have suspended test of self driving cars in the US after a pedestrian was killed in an accident in Arizona. The only saving grace is they will have more data than an airliner's black box.

I wonder how many pedestrians were killed today by cars with drivers?  :-X
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: culzean on March 19, 2018, 07:08:06 PM
Uber have suspended test of self driving cars in the US after a pedestrian was killed in an accident in Arizona. The only saving grace is they will have more data than an airliner's black box.

I wonder how many pedestrians were killed today by cars with drivers?  :-X

You mean by one of the 99.9% of human drivers in the world,  the reason it makes the news when a robot car goes wrong is that there are not many of them.  One fatality per 100 million miles for cars driven by humans in USA.

Not even safe if you are on a crossing controlled by a red light  maybe Uber did not want to install a colour camera.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on March 19, 2018, 07:25:07 PM
when a robot car goes wrong
That's an assumption that's not yours to make. I had a pedestrian run into my front wing at 30 mph. 0.1 of a second quicker and he would have been in front of the car and probably dead. There are also reports of people running in front of driverless test cars then starting litigation. Perhaps the pedestrian miscalculated.
Quote
Apparently there was a tech in the car, watching a Harry Potter video on his laptop......
That is just a libellous statement. Unless you can prove otherwise? Google certainly doesn't report that anywhere I can find. Seemingly it was a Tesla driver who crashed while watching Harry Potter on his laptop. Well reported on the internet.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: sparky Paul on March 19, 2018, 07:38:38 PM
I wonder how many pedestrians were killed today by cars with drivers?  :-X

You mean by one of the 99.9% of human drivers in the world,  the reason it makes the news when a robot car goes wrong is that there are not many of them.  One fatality per 100 million miles for cars driven by humans in USA.

Not even safe if you are on a crossing controlled by a red light

maybe Uber did not want to install a colour camera.

I couldn't find a tongue-in-cheek emoji.  ;)

I'm not sure what the total number of miles racked up by autonomous vehicles is so far, but imho it's unreasonable to expect them to never be involved in a fatal accident. As unfortunate it is for the pedestrian, and undoubtedly embarrassing for the designer and operator of the car, it is essential to establish the cause before jumping to any conclusions. If the cause is a vehicle or system defect, this will have to be addressed and proven safe.

It's funny you should mention the red light video, I watched a Transit tipper go straight through a red light as I was negotiating a junction yesterday. Human driver, well he looked almost human.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on March 19, 2018, 09:32:33 PM
I'm not sure what the total number of miles racked up by autonomous vehicles is so far
Waymo had racked up 4 million miles about 6 months ago, and Uber had covered 2 million to December.
My comment about aircraft black box was appropriate. The NTSB, who investigate air crashes of US carriers or US manufactured aircraft, are investigating the crash
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on March 20, 2018, 06:59:23 AM
http://fortune.com/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-crash/ (http://fortune.com/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-crash/)
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: ColinB on March 20, 2018, 07:44:03 AM
http://fortune.com/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-crash/ (http://fortune.com/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-crash/)
At the risk of speculating on a preliminary report without the full facts, that report shows all the hallmarks of “spin” on someone’s part. So the pedestrian came out of the shadows and couldn’t be avoided ? But isn’t the hype about AVs supposed to be all about them being safer than human drivers ? I could believe a human would have had difficulty seeing someone in poor light, but surely the car’s lidar sensors aren’t affected by shadows, and aren’t they supposed to be constantly scanning for hazards ? Notice also it passes lightly over the fact that the car was speeding. If it had been within the speed limit perhaps the outcome would have been different. And what difference does it make if the victim is homeless, this is totally irrelevant to the incident so why mention it ? If the report of the facts is accurate then this still looks like something the car ought to have been able to avoid even if the human couldn’t, it all looks like a sad and shameless attempt to gloss over the shortcomings of the AV by discrediting and blaming the victim.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: ColinS on March 20, 2018, 08:09:13 AM
I agree with Colin's comments.  Whats more, the statement "“The driver said it was like a flash, the person walked out in front of them,” Moir said. “His first alert to the collision was the sound of the collision.”" is contradictory.  How did the driver know that the victim walked out if their first alert was the collision itself? 
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on March 20, 2018, 08:42:39 AM
The full facts will come out eventually. In fairness, if you read the report, the driver didn't say "first alert was the collision itself". The driver said "it was like a flash, the person walked out in front of them". It was the police chief who said "first alert was the collision itself". Regarding the homeless bit, that is the paper adding its comment. Not having a home doesn't make you invisible. Until the NTSB makes its report, all the rest is speculation.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: ColinS on March 20, 2018, 09:41:17 AM
The full facts will come out eventually. In fairness, if you read the report, the driver didn't say "first alert was the collision itself". The driver said "it was like a flash, the person walked out in front of them". It was the police chief who said "first alert was the collision itself". Regarding the homeless bit, that is the paper adding its comment. Not having a home doesn't make you invisible. Until the NTSB makes its report, all the rest is speculation.
Actually if you read it grammatically, there are commas in the sentence which indicates that on both parts it was the Police Chief reporting what the driver had said.  So it is all hearsay. 
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on March 20, 2018, 10:01:01 AM
Yes, I know it was the police chief giving the interview, so it was all things she said. I just feel we should not be jumping to conclusions until the facts are in the public domain. Statements like "Apparently there was a tech in the car, watching a Harry Potter video on his laptop" are not helpful. There is a huge amount of bias on this forum against autonomous and electric cars. I feel I try to see both sides of the argument.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: sparky Paul on March 20, 2018, 10:03:56 AM
I just feel we should not be jumping to conclusions

Which is what I was saying earlier. At the moment, everything is pure speculation.

Chill out and watch another interesting pro-AV video. Interesting bit about AVs opening up the world of car use to those with disabilities.


Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: auntyneddy on March 20, 2018, 11:55:11 AM
The clip I saw on TV this am showed a bent cycle lying on the pavement. It had the trimmings of a homeless person, i e the inevitable black plastic bags. Everyone speaks of a pedestrian being killed, what was the part of the bicycle?
Sorry about my anecdotes  but I actually witnessed this. Being a village Bobby, I tried to walk my place. I was standing talking to a resident on the junction with a very busy A road. Another resident walked along the opposite side of the road I was standing on and just walked off the pavement into the path of an oncoming car. He had not acknowledged me and did not look at me so I can only surmise he was aware of the main road. Horrified I saw him fly into the air and come to rest in the road, the car  was not speeding. He got up and started to walk away. I went to him and suggested we call an ambulance. NO I am OK and walked off. I then had to deal with a hysterical young Lady driver. She had only recently passed her test. Eventually I got her to accept there was NOTHING she could have done and as policeman witnessed it all, apart from submitting an accident report She was to think nothing more of it. Eventually, She went on her way.  I then had to go to the Mans home and check. His Wife said to me the silly old fool has told me what has happened. I again asked that he went to hospital for checking. Again he refused. So everyday, I used to check, if he had dropped dead a few days later  questions would have been asked. I still cannot believe he escaped unhurt. My main concern? He was in his late 90's. So my point, it is possible for a pedestrian to walk out into the path of car and for the driver to be completely unable to avoid the collision. As to autonomous cars, what can be done to avoid such a situation I know not. I should have thought the 'minder' should have been more alert and available to deal with a crisis. After all us humans will condemn out of hand no matter what the facts are.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: culzean on March 20, 2018, 12:07:57 PM
Yes, I know it was the police chief giving the interview, so it was all things she said. I just feel we should not be jumping to conclusions until the facts are in the public domain. Statements like "Apparently there was a tech in the car, watching a Harry Potter video on his laptop" are not helpful. There is a huge amount of bias on this forum against autonomous and electric cars. I feel I try to see both sides of the argument.

The bias is not so much about AV but all the Hype surrounding them,  claims from silicon valley firms like Google / Waymo and Uber seem to get more upbeat and hyped by the day.  Nissan and Detroit are much more measured in their approach and it would seem more pragmatic.   The sheer folly of expecting a bloke with a laptop to take over in a 'real emergency' that happens fast is obvious,  they are there to stop car driving the wrong way down one way streets, straying into cycle lanes, (including not stopping them jumping red lights) and other 'slow emergencies' (happen on average about once every 1.2 miles in one report I read).  No one wants to admit it at the moment but the roads are going to have to be specially adapted in certain areas where AV will run,  maybe sensors and guide wires in the roads,  another investment to me made.

Autopilots on aircraft which have less of a job to do than an AV control system (only have to control speed, and altitude and bearing,  not much to bump into at 35,000 feet), many accidents have been caused by autopilots disengaging (which they do if severe turbulence, sensor failure or other anomalies detected) and the crew not being ready to do the right thing and crashed a perfectly serviceable aircraft.

The final 1 or 2 % of AV functionality is going to be harder than the preceding 98%, is horrendously complicated and  probably harder than getting a man on the Moon or to Mars but it seems that about every 18 months it is announced that they are 2 years away.  Tesla will be going bust in 2018 so that is one 'silicon valley' company out of the game so a bit less hype to handle..

I have 'saved' more than one person from being run over (by my car) by noticing what was happening on the pavement,  twice I have had young teen girls step into the road while busy with their phones, a ball bouncing into the road followed by a small boy etc.  This is where an attentive human helps, they can 'predict ' things,  I would not have minded braking hard for someone who did not step off the kerb,  rather a false positive than a very messy negative.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: VicW on March 20, 2018, 02:58:30 PM
An AV is still going to need a programmer, someone has got to put in details of where you want the car to go and these details have got to be a lot more accurate than currently available using sat-nav and post codes.
Let's take a typical example. Nearly every Friday morning we go shopping. Let's say I don't know where Tesco is so I put the postcode into my sat-nav. That gets me to Tesco but doesn't get me into a parking space, I, the driver do that.
In my AV I get in and say 'Tesco' or press a pre programmed button loaded with the whereabouts of Tesco. The car starts up, switches on any lights required, backs out of my drive, takes me to Tesco and finds me a parking space which may not be one of my choosing. Coming home I select 'home'.
To do this the sat-nav equivalent is going to be considerably more accurate than post codes and somebody, the 'driver' has got to pre programme destinations into the AV system.
I think AV's are lot further away than most people think.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: culzean on March 21, 2018, 10:17:30 AM
Here is a quote from an article today on Uber pedestrian fatality...

“It’s possible that Uber’s automated driving system did not detect the pedestrian, did not classify her as a pedestrian, or did not predict her departure from the median,” Smith said in an email. “I don’t know whether these steps occurred too late to prevent or lessen the collision or whether they never occurred at all, but the lack of braking or swerving whatsoever is alarming and suggests that the system never anticipated the collision.”
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: peteo48 on March 21, 2018, 10:55:52 AM
This point about having to suddenly take over is a good one. If you are chilled out are you in the right state of mind to suddenly leap into action? I presume that's why the auto-pilot feature on Teslas requires you to touch the steering wheel from time to time.

This halfway house scenario is what concerns me in terms of reaction times when intervention is needed. The ability of humans to cope with this "emergency back stop" role is an area worthy of as much research as the technology itself. One likes to think this is being tested.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: auntyneddy on March 21, 2018, 11:19:01 AM
[reference to deleted post removed by Admin]

Now, Culzean speaks of Girls using their phones and not paying attention. We have Facebook acting like big brother. People wandering the streets with a piece of plastic glued to their ears and feel dispossessed if they are stopped from using it. In Japan at pedestrian crossings special measures are in place to attract the phone users attention to stop their aimless wandering. Emails while supposedly working. Now we have autonomous vehicles looming large. Whilst they might be viable in the USA our road infrastructure is completely inadequate. Too many junctions and local authorities unable or incapable of keeping information up to date. e.g the A30 was shut due to snow. I wanted to make a trip so I logged on and the news was still from the previous evening. Road works that have been completed days ago. still posted as active. Nissan boss stated that at the end of the day, the human brain was still required to sort out that which artificial intelligence couldn't do. Progress can't be stopped BUT lets get Homo Sapien to engage their brain before engaging in the unknown.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: sparky Paul on March 21, 2018, 11:21:42 AM
This point about having to suddenly take over is a good one. If you are chilled out are you in the right state of mind to suddenly leap into action? I presume that's why the auto-pilot feature on Teslas requires you to touch the steering wheel from time to time.

This halfway house scenario is what concerns me in terms of reaction times when intervention is needed. The ability of humans to cope with this "emergency back stop" role is an area worthy of as much research as the technology itself. One likes to think this is being tested.

I think this arrangement can only ever be regarded as an interim measure while development of the technology takes place. Drivers with this sort of technology in their cars permanently would inevitably become complacent. Until full autonomy become viable, and we are still a long way from that, some driver intervention has to be necessary.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: ColinB on March 21, 2018, 10:54:53 PM
Here’s a couple of interesting links about the fatal accident in the US, describing the kind of issues the car’s systems will have been dealing with. Of course there are no conclusions at this stage (one of the reports suggests the NTSB report may take up to a year), but the tone seems more thoughtful and considered than the initial “The pedestrian is to blame !” speculation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimmcpherson/2018/03/20/uber-autonomous-crash-death/#6388b2947fbe

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-21/for-self-driving-cars-seeing-everything-isn-t-always-enough

Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: culzean on March 22, 2018, 11:43:18 AM
Here’s a couple of interesting links about the fatal accident in the US, describing the kind of issues the car’s systems will have been dealing with. Of course there are no conclusions at this stage (one of the reports suggests the NTSB report may take up to a year), but the tone seems more thoughtful and considered than the initial “The pedestrian is to blame !” speculation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimmcpherson/2018/03/20/uber-autonomous-crash-death/#6388b2947fbe

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-21/for-self-driving-cars-seeing-everything-isn-t-always-enough

Yep,  confirms what I have always thought about letting free roaming vehicles on our roads,  computers have trouble understanding the world the way humans do and have special problems with interpreting 'visual clues' (which is why captcha 'I am not a robot' uses pictures that humans can understand easily but computers cannot, they will also use strangely shaped letters and numbers to fool computers, once again humans have no problem interpreting them).  The fact that the vehicle showed no sign of swerving or braking is frightening,  also the fact that they are testing these vehicles in the best conditions of dry weather in places like Arizona is telling. 

I have worked with robotics and automated systems for a great part of my life and although they seem marvellous at repetitive tasks with some clever bits thrown in they are still a long way behind a human in interpreting the world.  If only we could get humans to pay attention and obey the rules there would be no need for driverless vehicles,  but unfortunately there are just too many distractions and the punishments for bad driving are far too lenient IMHO.

I had a chuckle when one article I read stated 'the vehicles sensors can tell the difference between life forms'  (sounds like something straight out of  Star Trek) and will hit a dog rather than a small child - looks like it can't even see a large object like a woman pushing a bicycle sideways on,  or maybe did detect it but thought is was a shadow.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: ColinS on March 22, 2018, 01:38:52 PM
My view is that autonomy in vehicles should be limited to the lower of the published 1 to 5 levels.  We have all lived with automation, probably the simplest that we all except is self cancelling indicators.  But this in itself demonstrate the driver complacency issue.  Although infrequent, because the technology is good, we still see cars travelling on a straight road with their indicators going. Nothing is infallible.

Again most of us use cruise control, lane-keep assist etc. and I am comfortable with that.  But I still want to steer the car and slow down when I see a deer by the side of the road, or horses, cyclists etc.

IMHO we are still years of a computer being able to carry out the task of fully controlling a vehicle.  As was jus said:

If only we could get humans to pay attention and obey the rules there would be no need for driverless vehicles.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: richardfrost on March 22, 2018, 02:08:15 PM
Not having a home doesn't make you invisible.

Sadly, this is not really true in today's society. The homeless tend to be invisible to most of us. It is especially sad if they are now invisible to machine vision as well.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: richardfrost on March 22, 2018, 02:17:23 PM
So the pedestrian came out of the shadows and couldn’t be avoided ? But isn’t the hype about AVs supposed to be all about them being safer than human drivers ? I could believe a human would have had difficulty seeing someone in poor light, but surely the car’s lidar sensors aren’t affected by shadows, and aren’t they supposed to be constantly scanning for hazards ?
The shadows could well have been cast by the LIDAR, not necessarily light shadows from the sun or street lighting.

One thing humans do really well, and without conscious thought, is predict that if a moving object passes behind a stationary object and becomes invisible, it is highly likely to emerge on the other side of the object moving in more or less the same direction and at a similar speed.

This particular problem has to be trained in to an AI system using machine vision. Target tracking systems in missile technology have to solve the same problem.

Understanding the world around us - trajectory, occlusion, momentum, acceleration, direction in three dimensions, inertia, gravity, friction, wind resistance and direction, human impulse - comes naturally to most of us, but not yet to a robot.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: madasafish on March 22, 2018, 04:17:51 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43497364

Dashcam footage of the crash is damning  ... lots of time to brake..
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: ColinB on March 22, 2018, 04:27:48 PM
So the pedestrian came out of the shadows and couldn’t be avoided ? But isn’t the hype about AVs supposed to be all about them being safer than human drivers ? I could believe a human would have had difficulty seeing someone in poor light, but surely the car’s lidar sensors aren’t affected by shadows, and aren’t they supposed to be constantly scanning for hazards ?
The shadows could well have been cast by the LIDAR, not necessarily light shadows from the sun or street lighting.
The report that provoked my comment makes it clear that the Police Chief was commenting on video of the accident, so references to "shadows" must relate to shadows she could see on that video, rather than areas where the LIDAR was obstructed. Although I wouldn't disagree with your conclusions that the AV technology has a long way to go yet.

One thing that strikes me about this whole AV business is that we are told that the reason for developing them is road safety. That is, there is an intent that AVs will be safer and will therefore reduce road deaths. In order to do that the AV must not only match, but must out-perform, the human driver. If the technology had reached that level, we might reasonably expect the robot to have avoided the accident even if a human couldn't. Clearly Uber haven't reached that level of maturity yet.

Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: culzean on March 22, 2018, 05:20:22 PM
One thing that strikes me about this whole AV business is that we are told that the reason for developing them is road safety. That is, there is an intent that AVs will be safer and will therefore reduce road deaths. In order to do that the AV must not only match, but must out-perform, the human driver. If the technology had reached that level, we might reasonably expect the robot to have avoided the accident even if a human couldn't. Clearly Uber haven't reached that level of maturity yet.

The whole AV thing is about economics, it is about getting rid of the driver who is the most costly thing, but dressing it up as road safety to make it more palatable.  It will fool a lot of people and put vehicles into the hands of big tech companies,  and because less people will learn to drive their business model will be secure for the future.

It was the same with robots in industry,  having a few highly trained programmers and  replacing skilled operators with 'machine loaders' (paid much less and could who could easily be moved between robot cells) to run things makes a lot of economic sense, and made life harder for trade unions and easier for businesses because they could now just grab someone off the street or from an agency and train them in an hour to load a machine.   But as one operator said to me when we had installed robots in their car plant 'that robot will never buy a car' (or anything else really),  can't argue with their logic.

One in every eight jobs in USA may disappear due to AV.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: ColinB on March 23, 2018, 10:16:08 AM
The whole AV thing is about economics, it is about getting rid of the driver who is the most costly thing, but dressing it up as road safety to make it more palatable.

Actually, the UK government position is largely based around safety. Have a look at Section 1.2 of this:
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7965/CBP-7965.pdf
Other benefits are suggested, including increased mobility for people who currently can't drive, improved productivity (you can do something else whilst in the car), reduced congestion (by allowing vehicles to travel closer together ... the jury's out on that one). Doubtless individual companies (Uber, Stobart, etc) will exploit the possibilities and reduce their costs by getting rid of their drivers, but the need for the robots to be better than humans in order to be safer still holds.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: culzean on March 23, 2018, 10:44:33 AM
The whole AV thing is about economics, it is about getting rid of the driver who is the most costly thing, but dressing it up as road safety to make it more palatable.

Actually, the UK government position is largely based around safety. Have a look at Section 1.2 of this:
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7965/CBP-7965.pdf
Other benefits are suggested, including increased mobility for people who currently can't drive, improved productivity (you can do something else whilst in the car), reduced congestion (by allowing vehicles to travel closer together ... the jury's out on that one). Doubtless individual companies (Uber, Stobart, etc) will exploit the possibilities and reduce their costs by getting rid of their drivers, but the need for the robots to be better than humans in order to be safer still holds.

Yeah,  right   :-X   I am sure the saving of 35%+ of running costs by ditching the driver is right at the back of the queue when business looks at AV, they are obviously more interested in 'perceived' safety aspects.    People can work on trains, and business people polled said they prefer to work on the train as less distractions than at work,  but government still willing to pay £100 Billion + of our money to build HS2 vanity project and push out the London commuter belt even further. What they will not cough up is funding to lengthen platforms at existing stations to accept longer trains to increase capacity on existing routes.

British workers already work some of the longest hours in the EU and it may seem to business that here is an opportunity to cram even more (unpaid) hours into the working day.  AV may well increase congestion as they will be running about empty sometimes and people may well take the opportunity to make longer commutes if they don't have to drive,  there will also be peak times when many more vehicles will be needed than for the rest of the day.

section 4 of the document in your link notes that 'road infrastructure will have to be maintained to a much higher standard than at present' - but who will pay the bills if 1 in 8 people at least will be rendered unemployed by new tech.  It also talks about 'segregating CAV traffic from normal traffic' -  building roads especially for CAV,  even more expense - businesses will be saving money but the taxpayer (and less of them) will be footing the bills for extra special road maintenance and special roads. It has shades of low wage employers like Amazon being subsidised by taxpayer via tax credits and DHSS support for low earners.

Putting our transport option in the hands of a few large tech companies is a not a wise thing to do.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: richardfrost on March 23, 2018, 01:10:55 PM
British workers already work some of the longest hours in the world

No they don't. Far from it, according to the OECD.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/nationalities-that-work-the-longest-hours/
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: culzean on March 23, 2018, 02:00:46 PM
British workers already work some of the longest hours in the world

No they don't. Far from it, according to the OECD.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/nationalities-that-work-the-longest-hours/

maybe I should have specified 'in EU'
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: auntyneddy on March 24, 2018, 11:32:32 AM
I did ask a question re the bicycle when this was first posted and I see that it now does get a mention. Also a cynical remark which I endorse whole heartily about the poor, more so in the USA. On many US soaps when a 'bag' lady is on the scene they are dismissed. The victim was presumably wheeling the cycle, by the plastic bags on the bike, it would suggest She was an unfortunate in that She was possibly homeless. I mention this as it is unlikely her bike was carbon fibre. It beggars belief that a killing instrument ( car) is let loose on the road without a driver and it could not pick up the signal from a metal bike, let alone a human being, which this Lady was despite her circumstances. We are constantly told that a computer can respond in milliseconds, so why did the car not swerve/stop etc. At the moment on TV is an ad for some super dooper Audi, that can pick up signals from the front side up/down and all around. It even senses rough surfaces. I don't know if it senses a pedestrian breaking wind. YET an autonomous vehicle could not detect a human and a piece of metal.  Perhaps VAG and the makers of the autonomous car ought to get together.
Sorry for the rant but Mr Trump is trying to take away medicare from the poor, perhaps this is a dastardly plot to get rid of them all together. All these AIDS are there to help not control our lives. Digressing a quote from my Computer Active,' Students are finding it so hard to kick their phone addiction they are being rewarded for not using it'  These are our brains of tomorrow, perhaps that why the autonomous car didn't see the woman because nobody programmed such an event in. If they can't do without the plastic glued to their ear what hope is there in the world for the simple minded such as I.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: sparky Paul on March 24, 2018, 03:40:15 PM
If they can't do without the plastic glued to their ear what hope is there in the world for the simple minded such as I.

Have you seen them coming out of schools at turning out time? It's like the zombie apocalypse.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: auntyneddy on March 25, 2018, 03:22:17 PM
Getting off subject but applicable: Observed, children playing in a park. That is using their phones/tablets etc. It has been reported that it has been witnessed that children were unable to turn the pages in a book ( the printed variety) Will anybody rescue Homo Sapien from this plague?
It is an aid NOT a GOD.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: madasafish on March 25, 2018, 04:39:02 PM
All you are commenting on is Darwinsim in action.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: auntyneddy on March 26, 2018, 02:47:16 PM
I am sorry to disagree. The mobile phone was I presume merely something to improve on the phone in ones home. All that has happened is some very clever people have convinced the masses that they MUST have one and that one MUST be the latest.ie 5G. We even now have phones that check the contents of your fridge not only tells you the sell by date but so you know what to buy. My Wife looks in the fridge just before we go shopping and buys what she wants. As to sell by dates, why have we got eyes? Another gem is that councils will know when to empty your bins. So when you bin is full your council will come along and empty it. Cloud cuckoo land comes to mind.We have just been told we will be down to fortnightly collections.
Darwinism is progress by evolution. All these phones do and the rest of the stuff we are being told we need is making Homo Sapien even more lazy. A gem from the local government people: The roads are being pounded by the number of home delivery vehicles. Sorry, I thought online shopping was killing the high street shop. How did we get there? Bus /Car nobody thought of the number of passenger miles saved.
Unfortunately I would suggest that man having too much time on his hands makes man dangerous. Is it' Idle hands makes devils work?'
Yes perhaps extreme but a point of view!
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: culzean on March 27, 2018, 05:53:32 PM
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/266158-video-tempe-crash-public-looks-really-bad-uber-driver

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/video-suggests-huge-problems-with-ubers-driverless-car-program/

Here is a damning article on pedestrian death in Tempe, Arizona involving Uber system,  also says that the vehicle in question was only licensed to 30mph.

Wonder how many times Uber supervisors have had to intervene during the trails being carried out,  more information
may now be legally forced out of Uber. 
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: VicW on March 31, 2018, 01:41:26 PM
Here's another one.
What speed was the Tesla doing to cause that much damage, the whole of the front of the car is missing.
The emergency services would have cut the roof off if needed for rescue.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43604440

Vic.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: ColinB on April 17, 2018, 09:10:00 AM
Discussion on this seems to have gone dead, so here's a contribution.

There's been a project running in the Bristol area for some time called Venturer, which involves running some impressively chunky-looking AVs on both private and public roads, see this: http://www.venturer-cars.com/. As well as the usual academic & techie experts the consortium includes an insurance company (AXA) and lawyers (Burges Salmon), who are considering the legal and liability issues associated with AVs. They've just published a progress report with current thoughts about this, available here:
https://www.axa.co.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Newsroom_v2/Media_Resources/Reports_and_Publications/Downloads/Driverless_Cars/VENTURER_Insurance_and_Legal_Report_2018.pdf

For anyone who saw the item in yesterday's Times, this is the source data for that piece. It's 19 pages but readable and looks to be a thoughtful and well-balanced piece of work. It majors on the problems associated with "handover" between an AV and a driver when the computer gets into trouble (eg the look on the face of the driver just before impact in the recent Uber incident in Arizona). There's even a suggestion that some kind of driver's licence will still be needed, which could be a bit of an issue for those hoping that AVs will enable travel for people currently unable to drive (unaccompanied minors, visually handicapped, elderly, etc). There are no hard and fast conclusions about how to deal with the handover problem (like all good consultant's reports, more work is needed), but it does provide interesting food for thought.

Enjoy.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on April 17, 2018, 03:53:49 PM
Interesting series of reports (as is the government's "The Pathway To Driverless Cars"). Handover on HAVs (Highly Autonomous Vehicles) will always be an issue, and as the reports prove, having control handed back to you always takes a finite time to gather ones thoughts. And that is after a few minutes. Imagine having driven for 4 hours then suddenly getting control passed back!
A driving licence will always be required for these vehicles (as will a sober driver), since you will have the need to drive at some stage.
Once Fully Autonomous Vehicles come on the scene (Level 4 and 5), which will have no means of handing over to a driver, then licencing arrangements will change and minors and partially sighted will be catered for. This is the aim of all the concept cars being produced by the major manufacturers, with no driving controls and lounge style seating.
Still a long way from the government allowing them on the road though.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on April 17, 2018, 03:59:43 PM
Saw this today, purely by chance. Makes interesting reading.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43752226 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43752226)
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: ColinB on April 17, 2018, 06:11:33 PM
Once Fully Autonomous Vehicles come on the scene (Level 4 and 5), which will have no means of handing over to a driver, then licencing arrangements will change and minors and partially sighted will be catered for. This is the aim of all the concept cars being produced by the major manufacturers, with no driving controls and lounge style seating.

Hmmm, that wasn't my reading of the AXA report. From Page 23, Chapter 4, "Driver Competence":
"Drivers could become complacent and over-reliant on technology as they get used to driving in autonomous mode, creating the problem of ‘de-skilling’, particularly in terms of a reduction in ‘situational awareness’. Given that a driver may need to take back control of the vehicle, even with a fully autonomous vehicle [my emphasis], this could be problematic.".

That seems to suggest that the lawyers and insurers (noting that they are by nature both influential and conservative) think that some of the wilder flights of fancy from manufacturers are unlikely to actually appear on the roads in the foreseeable future if they have no means of a driver taking control.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on April 17, 2018, 07:27:20 PM
I agree entirely with your reading of the report. That is the current thinking. Fully autonomous vehicles may even be covered by a manufacturers insurance. After all, if there is no way to take over you are only a passenger, just as you are with Stagecoach and the like at present.
But as you so rightly say, not "in the foreseeable future".
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: richardfrost on April 18, 2018, 09:00:10 AM
How is a human driver supposed to be more able than a computer to drive a car in a tricky situation, if that human driver has not...

a) built up many years of driving skills themselves?
b) the immediate situational awareness of the computer, if they have not been required to be paying attention for the last x miles?

I think a fully autonomous AV needs to be exactly that. If it cannot be fully autonomous, then it will always be some form of driver assist, and therefore there needs to be a driver.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on April 18, 2018, 09:41:19 AM
How is a human driver supposed to be more able than a computer to drive a car in a tricky situation
I don't think they are envisioning a tricky situation. It is more a case of a situation the car is not designed to accommodate. After all, the Venturer trial found it took about 2-3 seconds for a driver to competently take charge of the vehicle. Not much use as you slide on black ice or plough towards a group of nuns on a zebra crossing!
The reports call systems that require a back up driver, Advanced Driver Assist and not Fully Autonomous, and the government's "The Pathway To Driverless Cars" differentiates between Highly Autonomous Vehicles (driver required) and Fully Autonomous Vehicles (where no driver is required).
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: auntyneddy on April 18, 2018, 12:28:11 PM
Being a fully paid up  Luddite, one matter that comes to mind that I can find no reference too, is reaction time.
How long before a computer/sensor malfunctions in one of these vehicles does it inform the 'caretaker'? Or when the 'caretaker' realises there is a problem.
Given the reaction times for braking it begs the question would the 'caretaker' have enough time in which to rectify the problem or take control?
Even at low speed reaction time is still a long time when something is malfunctioning.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: sparky Paul on April 18, 2018, 03:48:19 PM
Not much use as you slide on black ice or plough towards a group of nuns on a zebra crossing!

Even a human pair of eyeballs will struggle to see those!  ;D
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: ColinB on April 18, 2018, 04:03:27 PM
I think a fully autonomous AV needs to be exactly that. If it cannot be fully autonomous, then it will always be some form of driver assist, and therefore there needs to be a driver.
... the government's "The Pathway To Driverless Cars" differentiates between Highly Autonomous Vehicles (driver required) and Fully Autonomous Vehicles (where no driver is required).

I thought the definition of "Fully Autonomous" meant a driver is not required in normal operation. But does even a "Fully Autonomous" car need an alert driver capable of taking over in fault or unexpected conditions ? That does seem to be the suggestion in the Venturer report. If "Fully Autonomous" means the car must be capable of managing all unexpected or fault conditions (including system failures) without intervention, we are a very very long way from that and it may not be achievable. All systems built by man will have a failure rate, no matter how small they are, the best that can be expected is that the engineers can get the failure rate (aka fatality rate) for AVs below that for human drivers. But that's still going to involve people being killed by robot cars, which tends to make Joe Public sit up and pay attention.

On the subject of handover from computer to human when the computer decides it can't cope, there's an interesting example from the world of civil aviation. Flying commercial aeroplanes is highly regulated, highly automated, and the pilots have to pass all kinds of competency tests. But yet the pilots of Air France 447 made a mess of it when the computer handed control back to them because of unreliable data, and they managed to stall the thing all the way down into the Atlantic Ocean. If that kind of highly trained team can get it so horribly wrong, what chance does Mrs Bloggs texting in her AV whilst on the school run have when the computer says "No" ?
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on April 18, 2018, 04:25:34 PM
From what I have read a Fully Autonomous Vehicle will be required to come to a safe stop if it cannot cope. That may mean it must have a secondary system that takes over if the main system fails. FAVs are currently operating on closed sites at the moment. It is trusting them out in the real world that is the issue.

From the government's "The Pathway To Driverless Cars":

Fully automated vehicle
2.8 This means a vehicle in which a driver is not necessary. The vehicle is designed to be capable of safely completing journeys without the need for a driver in all traffic, road and weather conditions that can be managed by a competent human driver.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: culzean on May 14, 2018, 07:25:55 PM
A Tesla has rear ended a truck stopped at a red light in Salt Lake City USA. hit the truck at 60 mph without even attempting to brake.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on May 14, 2018, 09:26:36 PM
No evidence as yet it was on Autopilot. But even if it was on Autopilot, what was the driver doing?
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: madasafish on May 15, 2018, 06:48:12 AM
No evidence as yet it was on Autopilot. But even if it was on Autopilot, what was the driver doing?

Sleeping
drinking
on a mobile..

That's the problem of autonomous vehicles- "drivers" switch off...

Anyone thinking autonomous vehicles will not crash as the driver will intervene  obviously thinks "drivers" will pay attention. With nothing to do, they will not..  It is human nature..
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on May 15, 2018, 07:29:16 AM
Where Tesla differ from other manufacturers offering advanced driver assists is that Tesla allows a fair length of time without driver input. After a few seconds, the Nissan Leaf 2 warns a driver if their hands are off the wheel. Tesla gives the driver a lot longer. Mercedes Benz monitors the driver's eyes, and if they are not on the road it gives a warning then slows down.
Seemingly, all the Autopilot does, on highway driving, is steers between clearly defined lane markings and maintains the gap from the vehicle in front. It is not meant for city driving. Another thing, which should be no surprise when you think about it, is it disregards stationary items in front of the vehicle. This is common to all these driver assist systems. They have to, otherwise the car would slow down and stop every time it came to a flyover.
Tesla's Autopilot, Nissan's Propilot and Mercedes Benz Drive Pilot, among others, are in no way Autonomous, just Advanced Driver Assists. Until drivers realise that they will continue to kill themselves and others on the roads
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: culzean on May 15, 2018, 09:59:56 AM
Get rid of seatbelt and airbags for driver, put a big spike in the middle of the steering wheel and a notice that distracted driving can result in death and you will have the drivers full attention on the road. I would also advocate a shock collar every time speed limit exceeded.

Car designers are too soft on bad drivers.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on May 15, 2018, 10:13:16 AM
I am reminded of the woman in the States, about 50 years back, who bought a new Winnebago. It was the first vehicle with Cruise Control she had ever owned. She crashed it on the Freeway, and when the traffic cop asked her what happened she said, "I don't know. I switched the cruise control on, then went back to make a pot of coffee.".
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: richardfrost on May 16, 2018, 08:16:38 AM
The only autonomous vehicles I will ever ride in are taxis and buses.

My Rav4 has adaptive cruise control, lane departure warning and some form of brake assist. These are wonderful driver aids but that is all they are.

The other day the brake assist kicked in when the car in front used engine braking and slowed hard without his brake lights coming on, I was distracted momentarily and the system kicked in before I did. I believe I would have stopped the car in time but it would have been a close thing.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: ColinB on May 16, 2018, 10:52:17 AM
The other day the brake assist kicked in when the car in front used engine braking and slowed hard without his brake lights coming on ...
Was the car in front maybe a Mk 3 Jazz with the driver using the "Intelligent" Speed Limiter ? It happened to me:
https://clubjazz.org/forum/index.php?topic=8617.msg44161#msg44161
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: richardfrost on May 16, 2018, 11:02:53 AM
The other day the brake assist kicked in when the car in front used engine braking and slowed hard without his brake lights coming on ...
Was the car in front maybe a Mk 3 Jazz with the driver using the "Intelligent" Speed Limiter ? It happened to me:
https://clubjazz.org/forum/index.php?topic=8617.msg44161#msg44161
It was a van I think, or maybe an SUV. Was white anyway. Definitely not a Jazz.

Turned that feature off on my Toyota. There is a point in Halifax where my old HRV used to look at a 40 sign and read it as 120 ! Of course this is not a problem in my '05 Jazz, which I am whizzing about in today.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: culzean on May 28, 2018, 04:31:36 PM
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/report-ranks-tesla-last-for-automated-driving#gs.FifRius

Some more bad news for Tesla as their autopilot system gets slated.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on May 28, 2018, 07:12:07 PM
Honda comes in at 16th and Tesla at 19th! Surprised to see GM in the top spot.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: ColinB on June 12, 2018, 09:05:30 AM
Autopilot ? Not quite !

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44439523

In the video, presumably the Tesla's "Autopilot" can only keep the car in lane, so it can't follow the car ahead round the obstacle.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on June 12, 2018, 09:50:38 AM
The Tesla Autopilot, Nissan ProPilot and the like only keep the car in lane and depend on clearly defined lane markings to do do. The Tesla Model X that killed its driver on the Freeway, recently, did so because the lane markings were not there. The issue with not stopping for a stationary object is also understandable. The car will follow a moving object, slow when it slows and stop when it stops. However, it will ignore stationary objects that it has always "seen" as stationary. Otherwise, how would it ever drive under a flyover, or pass a lamp post? The reason why the Tesla crashed into the stationary police car, again reported recently.
The problem isn't with the cars, it is with the numpties who drive them. All the appropriate manuals tell the driver they must keep control, watch where they are going. But who reads the manual?
I think, as the insurers say, cars should only say "assistance", and should not be described as autonomous until they can drive unaided by a human driver. In fact, it should be illegal to use "autonomous" in a car advert or brochure until such time as they can drive themselves.
Manufacturers are not doing the cause of Fully Autonomous vehicles any good by their approach which is giving the public the impression that the technology doesn't work. The technology does work, for what it is designed to do. It is just that some drivers think (or more likely don't think) it can do better than what it is designed for.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: ColinB on June 12, 2018, 10:49:48 AM
No matter how you spin it or blame numpty users, a vehicle marketed with a system called “Autopilot” that cannot avoid a stationary object stopped in front of it is not fit for purpose.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on June 12, 2018, 11:20:42 AM
The name is not fit for purpose, not the vehicle!
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: ColinB on June 12, 2018, 01:17:17 PM
The name is not fit for purpose, not the vehicle!

No, I meant the vehicle.

You’re right that the name is misleading and that may be contributing to avoidable incidents. But irrespective of what the system is called and how much the owner understands about it, if a system that is supposed to aid the driver cannot avoid a stationary object then that system - and the car it is part of - is not fit for purpose. Seems to me that Autopilot actually increases driver workload because he has to monitor the system as well as the road, how can that be sensible ? If the driver has to constantly consider whether Autopilot is getting him into trouble, then why bother with it, why not just drive the car ?
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on June 12, 2018, 02:09:37 PM
Whatever. The driver, in my opinion, has no more to do than a driver without Autopilot. If it is too much for him, he doesn't have to switch it on!
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: culzean on June 12, 2018, 07:02:31 PM
However, it will ignore stationary objects that it has always "seen" as stationary. Otherwise, how would it ever drive under a flyover, or pass a lamp post? The reason why the Tesla crashed into the stationary police car, again reported recently.

Imagine a human driver ignoring 'stationary objects' - The fire truck was stationary, the Police car was stationary,  but they were vehicles and were on the carriageway so would not appear on a digital map as something that 'has always been stationary' ( I know Tesla does not use digital mapping so how the hell does it know if something is supposed to be stationary or not) - in fact in the article I read the Tesla 'sped' up as it approached the Fire truck (as it resumed its set speed). just like the Uber car did not slow down as it approached the woman pushing her bike across the road.  The hype of 'autonomous cars' has lost a bit of its shine recently as the cold facts of the limitations of technology have been exposed and it has dawned on people that replacing humans ain't gonna be as easy as silicon valley thinks, getting a piece of technology to do something in a nice controlled environment is one thing,  getting it to do the same out in the real world environment with its bad roads and unpredictability is quite another.

There are lies, damn lies, statistics and also what comes out of Musks mouth.

https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2016/1014/How-safe-is-Tesla-Autopilot-A-look-at-the-statistics

Article is a few years old,  but it just shows how things can get 'twisted to suit'.  Tesla would love to be able to claim the '1 fatality every 100 million miles' that humans achieve (and that figure includes pedestrians and all other road vehicles including bicycles, motorbikes. HGV, buses etc. etc.).
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on June 12, 2018, 09:33:11 PM
I know Tesla does not use digital mapping so how the hell does it know if something is supposed to be stationary or not
Quite simple. When it first "sights" the object it logs its position. If the car is travelling at 60 mph and the object is 88 ft closer after 1 second, it computes that it is stationary. If it is 44 ft closer, it computes that it is travelling at 30 mph. Obviously it is much more maths than my example, but the computer does that in milliseconds.
Compared with an autonomous vehicle the Tesla is as sophisticated as a Model T is to your current car.
This demonstration of Nissan's test vehicle shows how far true autonomous vehicles have progressed, and even that is a long way from being "driverless".

The Teslas involved in the accidents were doing what they were designed to do. They are just not designed for the driver not to maintain overriding control.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: culzean on June 12, 2018, 09:59:13 PM
Surely if something is stationary and positioned on the cars trajectory the bl00dy car should stop, you simply cannot have a system that ignores stationary objects,  let's face it computers just do not understand the world the way we do, and they will never be able to communicate properly because they do not have eyebrows........   
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on June 13, 2018, 06:41:36 AM
you simply cannot have a system that ignores stationary objects
That's what the driver's there for! Autopilot is only an assistance. Only a moron trusts it with their life (or the lives of others).
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: culzean on June 13, 2018, 09:27:39 AM
you simply cannot have a system that ignores stationary objects
That's what the driver's there for! Autopilot is only an assistance. Only a moron trusts it with their life (or the lives of others).

But other autonomous systems have to ignore stationary objects as well,  otherwise they could not operate - but most of them rely on digital 3D mapping to tell the controls system where street furniture is,  but as I posted a while ago only one wrong pixel in the millions (billions) required has to be wrong and the whole plan is up the kyber.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on June 13, 2018, 09:43:31 AM
But there are no autonomous systems out there, apart from research vehicles, which all have a driver.
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: culzean on June 13, 2018, 10:25:54 AM
But there are no autonomous systems out there, apart from research vehicles, which all have a driver.

And that is likely to be the case for a long, long, long, long............................................ time yet.

https://qz.com/1064004/self-driving-cars-still-cant-mimic-the-most-natural-human-behavior/

They are not called a driver,  they are called a technician or some such obfuscation, keep the hype going at all costs  :-X
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Ralph on June 13, 2018, 01:10:55 PM
Just seen this and thought it might interest apology’s if it’s already been posted

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-44460980/this-car-is-on-autopilot-what-happens-next
Title: Re: Autonomous vehicles.
Post by: Jocko on June 22, 2018, 04:53:45 PM
I see that the Uber driver, who killed the pedestrian while in charge of an autonomous test car, was watching TV at the time. They are considering charging her with vehicular manslaughter.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44574290 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44574290)