Jump to content

Poll & Prediction: Autonomous Car Equipment at 5k by 2019


Mallette

Autonomous Vehicles: Good or Bad  

49 members have voted

  1. 1. Are autonomous vehicles a good witch, or a bad witch?

    • Good
      20
    • Bad
      28


Recommended Posts

Does anybody, including you Mike, figure you can make decisions in nanoseconds?
 

 

Nanoseconds? Seriously? If you read my post more closely, you'll notice that I pointed to the analog interfaces as being the bottleneck. How many sprockets would you need on a wheel speed sensor to maintain a minimum 500MHz sample rate? And what kind of processing power would you need to handle the information from 100 hundreds of sensors running at that speed? I suppose we could fill a bus with a super computer and maybe get close....but how are you going to interface all those processors? You would have too much delay just from the wires themselves - which quite literally gets back to my speed of light comments.

 

More importantly, you don't need to make decisions within nanoseconds....

 

The important metric is the total system latency between the occurrence of an event, and the resultant corrective action. You would have a very advanced autonomous system if you were able to run at 100Hz. Old literature talks about humans running at ~10Hz, but humans aren't slew rate limited in the same way, so the numbers aren't apples to apples. The research we did in college was showing human slew rates on the order of 400Hz when modulating brake pressure. Your 0.1 second reaction time is now 0.1025 seconds after accounting for slew rate. The ride frequency of a stiff suspension car is around 10Hz, and probably closer to 4 to 5 Hz for a normal passenger car. This means your classic feedback control system can't respond faster than ~2 to 3 Hz without oscillations. You can throw in intentional non-linearities and feed forward variables to speed this up, but those are still limited by observation rates. This is why assistive systems are so good....you get the slew rate of the human for large corrections with higher accuracy from the digital system for the smaller details.

 

Feed forward systems and lookup tables certainly aren't new ideas, but they work best inside closed systems where all the variables can be controlled. The reality is that compromises between safety and cost have to be made as these systems are being rolled out. That is why I have turned down job offers to work on these systems. If you force yourself to maximum safety, then the cars are slow and overreact to the tiniest of stimulation. Then you gotta factor malicious intent from other drivers on the road. If I knew this slow autonmous car next to me would drive off into the ditch to avoid an accident, then you better believe I'd find some serious entertainment swerving at the car to make it do it's ultra conservative response. Yes, I'm a prankster at heart and would love to annoy my friends. I'd be doing it all in good fun, but what about the road raging lunatic on the road that's pissed off because your super safe car is driving too slow? Also, you're going to be annoyed riding in the back seat with this car slamming on the brakes for every minutia thing that is out of line on the road. That's why I don't think autonomous is about safety.....which is also supported by how poorly we train people to drive on the road. Heck, half the guys at my autocross events don't even understand some of the basics about vehicle dynamics.

 

Anyways, I should probably get back to work...working from home can be distracting sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The important metric is the total system latency between the occurrence of an event, and the resultant corrective action.

 

Of course.  But you put the reaction time...which is where stuff goes wrong with humans...into nanoseconds.

 

That isn't my thought...it's what the designers say and it certainly makes sense.  I've seen obstructions under certain conditions that required time to sort out as real or illusion.  Sensors won't need to do that.

 

Beyond that, you can't train a human male to drive.  They are all experts already.  And how do you propose to train a drunk driver?

 

Dave

Edited by Mallette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are all experts already.

Just further evidence that driving education is so poor.

 

That kind of ego doesn't survive and propagate when standard knowledge shows otherwise. It's the mere fact that standard knowledge is so bad that allows people to think they're special.....because in reality they probably do know a ton more than what is being taught.

 

Btw, I don't understand your nanosecond comment at all. I think you're missing the point, or we're speaking two different languages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "nanosecond" comment had to do with the time required for sensors to identify an issue and take action.  Pure electricity.  The analog part still takes time, but at least it's started without a driver going "What do you think that is?"

 

More interested in what you meant by "closed system format."

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what is the latency of the sensors you've looked at? I think the crux of the issue is you've never used any of these sensors in a design....

 

Your human is reacting at ~10Hz (100 ms latency) with a 400Hz slew rate, so 103'ish ms.

 

The worst case observations of your digital system will be running at around 5 Hz, putting your digital system at a 200'ish ms reaction speed. Throw in control system stability limitations (which is a big deal), and the much lower slew rate of your digital system and now you're talking 300'ish to 400'ish ms reaction speed under worst case scenarios. Yes, it's really that bad. I could walk you through Milliken's book on vehicle dynamics to show you the scenarios for those numbers. It really comes down to knowing where the car is at in regards to its weight transfer and suspension loading, etc...trying to calculate that off past experience takes too much computing power to do without simplifying the equations.

 

300'ish ms is longer than 100'ish ms last time I checked.

 

One of the problems with trying to discuss this so abstractly is that each specific scenario has its own minutia which moves the worst case limiting factors around. Yes, sensors way faster than humans exist, but vehicle decisions involve a multitude of variables. Those binary decisions of the computer ultimately don't happen until all the variables are locked in. You can try to do narrowing algorithms to start a partial reaction sooner, but that won't always be the case. That's why I keep coming back to the racetrack as the ultimate proving grounds. I'll buy into autonomous vehicles on a public road once you can put down competitive lap times during a wheel-to-wheel race without crashing.

 

 

As far as closed systems are concerned, I would point to the automation Amazon uses in their warehouses. These systems have no human elements to them, and are contained within a finite controlled environment. In other words, the number of variables affecting behavior are minimized in a closed system, and all of the variables are straightforward to detect. A random car on a public road has hundreds if not thousands of variables that are all constantly changing. Even within the closed systems we still see unhandled scenarios arise - the goal then of those designs is to fail in a way that doesn't damage humans, which is real easy in the automated warehouses where there are no humans present. Handling unknown variables in an engineering environment is impossible...you're at the mercy of whatever the system thinks is happening. An inherently safe autonomous vehicle is going to drive slow and is going to freak out about everything....that will always be the case until it becomes a closed system. Quite frankly I'm willing to give up safety to gain back more time - that's why I drive "too fast" on the road in the first place. I think most people around Chicago are the same way....busy busy busy.

Edited by DrWho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your human is reacting at ~10Hz (100 ms latency) with a 400Hz slew rate, so 103'ish ms

 

Can't argue that, though it seems insane.  I presume the rest of you are that fast, and unerring in your decisions.  I so often look a the idiots I am pretty sure are about to do something stupid but do not react as I really can't believe it.  In my case, even when it's brake lights immediately in front I don't react in a 100ms.  Maybe if my foot were over the brakes at all times, but it takes at least a tenth of a second to get to them AFTER the decision is made. 

 

Doesn't really add up.  You explanation of latency appears scientific, but has a lot of "ifs" and a statement that sensors way faster than humans exist.  Certainly the reports of automatic parallel parking from my FinL suggest the main thing about it is that it happens REALLY fast, way faster than the most skilled human, and without error. 

 

As to your statement at the end that humans are willing to do dumb things, like exceed the speed limits, change lanes, and generally disrupt traffic I see that every day.  Makes life awful for those who manage their time well and have adequate drive time.  We are "busy, busy, busy" and nobody else counts.

 

The safety of my family is paramount, and my safety is important to them.  More important than getting to work on time by a long shot.  I am not willing to give up safety for ANYTHING, and that extends to the safety of others as well.  In that area, unlike many, I don't dictate to others.  I do not use the inside lane for anything but passing.  When I pass, I never impede another behind me no matter how fast they are coming up.  I will hit the gas and clear the passing lane, then pull right at the earliest opportunity.  It's defensive. 

 

The closed system isn't going to happen.  They are already out there, as the video shows.  They are premature and I would never do what those guys did...but others will.  There is going to be some spectacular news and major pushback because our government(s) have not prepared for what is happening.  What a surprise...

 

I've never said this was going to be pretty.  In fact, with AVs and a number of other emerging technologies it's going to be ugly and some of the others downright violent.  We are entering a period of disruptive change that isn't going to stop. 

 

No big leap of a great mind here, as I am no great mind.  But to see what has happened over my life time at ever increasing speed and not realize what's happened in the past 50 years isn't squat compared to the next 10 would be downright ignorant.  There are times when I think many have just shut it out...even the ones who get a new phone, twice as powerful, every six months.

 

Over the 40 years my mother lived in our old homeplace we had three phones.   A bakelite dial phone, then a plastic, newer looking dial phone, then a princess tone dial.  They all did nothing but make phone calls.  No phones did. 

 

If you think major change is decades away you (not you personally, Mike) seriously have your head in the sand.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I just want people to pay insurance or not drive and I want states to realize their minimum requirements are a joke. We have some states where 15/30/5 is the state minimum. Florida is worse at 10/20/10. I wonder who this is accommodating? The majority of domestic vehicles today cost twice the limits or more .

That is technically possible right now, an interlock device that would require an access code, just like a cable box, that would allow the car to be started for the length of time insurance is purchased for.

15/30/5 is incredibly low, but they keep low limits to try and keep more people insured, you bump the minimums less people can afford to pay for it, more become uninsured, which requires the rest of us to make sure we have maximum limits on UM/UIM, med pay and/or PIP if your state/insurer offers it.

It is also possible today to have devices instaled in vehicles, for less than $100, that will not allow you to start a car with alcohol in your system. The threshold could be selected by whomever, DOT, legislature, etc. It could be .04, .07, .08, etc. It requires a breath sample before you start the vehicle. For more money it can be done by skin sensor.

We could very easily automate insurance compliance and DUI/DWI prevention.

Why don't we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good drivers anticipate.

 

Don't know about Twinsburg, but not in Houston.  I want something that reacts to idiots and doesn't have as much of an issue as I do realizing how homicidal the other guy is.  In fact, doesn't think about it.  Just reacts. 

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I just want people to pay insurance or not drive and I want states to realize their minimum requirements are a joke. We have some states where 15/30/5 is the state minimum. Florida is worse at 10/20/10. I wonder who this is accommodating? The majority of domestic vehicles today cost twice the limits or more .

That is technically possible right now, an interlock device that would require an access code, just like a cable box, that would allow the car to be started for the length of time insurance is purchased for.

15/30/5 is incredibly low, but they keep low limits to try and keep more people insured, you bump the minimums less people can afford to pay for it, more become uninsured, which requires the rest of us to make sure we have maximum limits on UM/UIM, med pay and/or PIP if your state/insurer offers it.

It is also possible today to have devices instaled in vehicles, for less than $100, that will not allow you to start a car with alcohol in your system. The threshold could be selected by whomever, DOT, legislature, etc. It could be .04, .07, .08, etc. It requires a breath sample before you start the vehicle. For more money it can be done by skin sensor.

We could very easily automate insurance compliance and DUI/DWI prevention.

Why don't we?

 

 

Those tiny limits are worthless. It usually comes down to the party that is not at fault to have adequate coverage to make up with Under insured Motorist  coverage which in the long run will just raise their premiums of the party have to cover the slack. Actually higher limits are not much more than the state minimums. In most cases its less than a 10% bump in premiums to jump up to higher limits, at least in my area. The big kicker is people with bad insurance scores which is directly related to credit, past claims and of course, age.  It seems many, many young and older people suffer in this area these days.   Canada seems to have an effective Auto INS setup that monitors who is up to date and who doesn't get that monthly "pass" or registration.  The US could certainly spend money organizing something similar to help the honest working man and protect him and his family against the rogues drivers out there.  I also think a family with young drivers should have to keep an umbrella under their Auto coverage as well and they are very affordable.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to National Geographic only 6% of Americans 16 and older went hunting in 2011.  Talk about a powerful lobby.

 

 

I never hunt but frequent the gun range.  I'm sure I'm not alone in that regard.  I've also talked to those that shoot sporting clays and don't hunt.  One tech that used to work for me shot competitively along with a salesman at the same dealership.  They loaded all their own shells and neither hunted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

According to National Geographic only 6% of Americans 16 and older went hunting in 2011.  Talk about a powerful lobby.

 

 

I never hunt but frequent the gun range.  I'm sure I'm not alone in that regard.  I've also talked to those that shoot sporting clays and don't hunt.  One tech that used to work for me shot competitively along with a salesman at the same dealership.  They loaded all their own shells and neither hunted.

 

And remember that almost all Americans own guns.

JJK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

According to National Geographic only 6% of Americans 16 and older went hunting in 2011.  Talk about a powerful lobby.

 

 

I never hunt but frequent the gun range.  I'm sure I'm not alone in that regard.  I've also talked to those that shoot sporting clays and don't hunt.  One tech that used to work for me shot competitively along with a salesman at the same dealership.  They loaded all their own shells and neither hunted.

 

And remember that almost all Americans own guns.

JJK

 

 

 You are correct. The people of the USA own 90 guns per 100 residents, the highest of all the countries on the planet. Now, how do you think we stand on murder rate? Near the top? No, not even close. In fact, of the 218 countries on the planet, we are not even in the top half. We are 111th out of 218.

 

Hunting? I've never gone hunting. I target shoot and I exercise my right to open carry my sidearm, which is legal in my home state. A nearby restaurant even gives a discount if you wear your sidearm when you come in to eat. They have never been robbed, nor have they had any incidents as a result of nearly every patron being strapped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I'm just wondering why, if we are on the relative verge of ubiquitous Level 3 or 4 automation, why we don't, in the meantime, mandate interlocks that prevent someone from starting a vehicle that has a certain level of alcohol, and the same thing for insurance, no paid insurance, it will not start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...