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

Nope, that's not what I'm saying. I really don't understand why you're being so obtuse on this.

Autonomous driving doesn't exist until the machine can perform the minimum skills required for driving. Or now are we going to reduce driving to keeping a car between the lines on an interstate? Every freshman at UIUC has already implemented that basic function. Funny thing is that was actually completely autonomous....and there were plenty of entertaining crashes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Autonomous driving doesn't exist until the machine can perform the minimum skills required for driving. Or now are we going to reduce driving to keeping a car between the lines on an interstate?

 

Me obtuse?  If the Tesla only did just what you said, it is autonomous.  However, it can change lanes if required. 

 

Every freshman at UIUC has already implemented that basic function. Funny thing is that was actually completely autonomous....and there were plenty of entertaining crashes.

 

Not sure if you are referring to some contest or actual driving skills here.  If you mean driving skills please send them to Houston.  I'd guess that at best only 4 of 5 drivers have that skill. 

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've no intention of backing away from what I consider the commonly accepted and used definition of "autonomy" as applied to cars and other devices.  However, let's look at the extreme use as by Mike.

 

Would you want an "autonomous" car by that definition?  It would have a mind of its own and act on its own, like Commander Data.  Granted, he was a good scout...most of the time.  But when he malfunctioned he was VERY dangerous indeed. 

 

A robot actually completely constrained by Clarke's Laws would not be truly autonomous, and that is how I want my cars, and robots.  Not autonomous, but totally obedient. 

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So, one can buy a $75K vehicle with a 200 mile range, then spend another 3K on "autonomous" software that works only on the highway. That's a 100 mile round trip range, which makes the whole thing of limited use. Don't pop the corks on the Champagne yet, lots of work left to do on this.

Red herring.  Expected that, too.  The vehicles range is irrelevant.  And that it should show up on the top of the line first is the norm.  Happened with ABS and such.  Hardly a shock.  It will be on the lower priced models by next year. 

 

Dave

 

 

Red herring? I guess you can't see the irony of a manufacturer offering an option that will only work on the highway on a vehicle that is unsuitable for highway use. A rather expensive one, at that. Perhaps we can wait the 2 years or more until the 35K Tesla becomes available with this gadgeteer junk as standard equipment.

 

Meanwhile, look into getting yourself and family some lessons at something like the Bondurant School of High Performance Driving. You and yours will learn how to really drive a vehicle, so that accident avoidance will be a real possibility. Beats putting a death grip on the wheel and screaming in panic as the accident unfolds.

 

http://www.bondurant.com/

Edited by Don Richard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so that accident avoidance will be a real possibility.

 

I don't want avoiding an accident to be a "real possibility."  For my family I want it to be a very remote possibility.  I am concerned about their safety, as I am sure you are about yours.   Also, I do not WANT to drive.  I want to enjoy the trip.  My favorite mode of transport has always been by rail.  Sitting back with a single malt, pate, and totally enjoying the scenery.  This will be even better, except that when something intriguing shows up we can stop.   I am reasonably certain I have the potential to live long enough to have the best of both in renting an RV and having the comfort of a rail car as well as being able to keep going and sleep while the machine presses on.  "To the machine, the work of a machine, to the human, the joy of creation."

 

Actually, we had a rather famous NASCAR driver nearly killed in an accident in Houston a few years ago.  Of course, the paper had to ask why he couldn't avoid it.  He said "Only God can protect you on a Houston freeway.  Your driving skills don't mean shit." 

 

Yes, red herring.  The original prediction was hands off driving in 5 years at 5k.  The Tesla was not sold as self-driving and the upgrade was 2.5k.  Cost of the vehicle was not a factor.  And, yes, at that rate it will be on a Ford Fusion in 3 years or less.  The top of the Fusion line is pretty close already. 

 

Dave

Edited by Mallette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if you are referring to some contest or actual driving skills here.  If you mean driving skills please send them to Houston.  I'd guess that at best only 4 of 5 drivers have that skill. 

 

Building a truly autonomous vehicle that stays between the lines:

https://courses.engr.illinois.edu/ece110/content/labs/

Actually, I see they've modernized the lab by using an Arduino and it looks like they follow red walls now. We were limited to 7400 series logic and monitored white tape on a black surface when I took the course. These young whipper snappers don't realize how good they have it these days, haha.

 

What I'm getting at is staying between the lines is easy. In this lab, it is true autonomy because there is nothing beyond completing the course. That's not the case for your car on the interstate because the trip doesn't start and end on the interstate. Normal driving involves parking, navigating neighborhoods, school zones, construction zones, etc.....all before getting onto / off of the highway. And even then, real highway driving involves navigating through traffic, lane changes, construction, object avoidance (I just saw a big extension ladder on the interstate several weeks ago), etc... These are all things that get addressed before a human gets their license. You don't get a "driver's license" because you can control your speed and lane position on the highway.

 

Show me a car without a steering wheel, and without a human driver, and then you've got autonomy. The human in the car shouldn't take any more action than a passenger riding in a plane or a train. Google understands this, which is why their industrial design is exploring all sorts of new seating options in the vehicle. The fact that you keep referring to the human behind the steering wheel as the "driver" is testament to the fact that you fundamentally see the human as the driver.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've no intention of backing away from what I consider the commonly accepted and used definition of "autonomy" as applied to cars and other devices.  However, let's look at the extreme use as by Mike.

 

 

And what exactly is this "extreme use"?

 

And where do you gather your definition of "commonly accepted"? Maybe try reading the Darpa Grand Challenge Rules:

http://archive.darpa.mil/grandchallenge05/gc05RulesAug04.pdf (no human interaction of any kind is allowed)

or IGVC rules:

http://www.igvc.org/

 

Jerry Sanders Robotics Competition defined autonomous as no human intervention.

 

Several articles refer to autonomous as "driverless":

http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/57132/autonomous-vehicle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/driverless-car

https://www.techopedia.com/definition/30056/autonomous-car

 

Daimler's definition would put Tesla's implementation in the partially automatic category (not full autonomous):

https://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-1742887-1-1743260-1-0-0-1743248-0-0-135-7165-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html

 

 

And then here's Dave's definition:

"Cruise control and Lane Following is an example of autonomous driving even though it requires human involvement"

 

Let's put it this way Dave, the Tesla can't get onto the interstate to drive itself without a human in the car. Therefore it is not "driverless" or "unmanned"....it simply does not have the basic capabilities to get itself into it's semi-automatic mode (which btw is filled with bugs, but let's not reality bother us.....autonomy will always have these bugs, but we'll ignore them because we like the idea).

 

 

It's really quite simple - the car needs to get from A to B without a human in the car. That is my "extreme" case....which is really the fundamental requirement for the common interpretation of "unmanned" "driverless" vehicle....

 

 

You are so quick to call out the red herrings and straw men arguments, but you're doing it yourself. Blinded by idealism perhaps? Methinks so.

Edited by DrWho
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original prediction was hands off driving in 5 years at 5k.

 

I've been driving without hands for hours on end on the interstate.....and for free! Why bother with this expensive techno garbage? Your definition of autonomous is so loose that you could ghost ride a car down a hill and it'd be autonomous.

 

Hey, maybe I could get you to ride in one of my "autonomous" vehicles... :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, we had a rather famous NASCAR driver nearly killed in an accident in Houston a few years ago.  Of course, the paper had to ask why he couldn't avoid it.  He said "Only God can protect you on a Houston freeway.  Your driving skills don't mean shit." 

 

And your favorite Tesla vehicle "automatic mode" would have fared better than the Nascar driver? 

 

Let's not ignore reality here - the system is primitive and does not increase safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NHTSA has even spoken on the topic:

http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1084651_nhtsa-lays-out-groundrules-for-autonomous-vehicles

Level 4 = Autonomous.

 

Sparkfun competition:

https://avc.sparkfun.com/2015/rules

 

Try to show up to one of these competitions and explain to the judge that your vehicle is autonomous, but you need human intervention to get it onto the straight portions first before you switch it into the automatic mode....and then you gotta take over anytime it gets confused.

 

I actually keep up on these autonomous competitions. Half the fun is watching a system get confused and go careening into precarious situations. It's probably why I'm wasting (emphasis on wasting) so much time trying to educate you on the "common definition". These competitions have existed for years, and they have all centered around unmanned operation. Your overpriced Tesla toy is such a far cry from the goal it's not even funny. Google is way closer, but they're very actively limiting themselves to scenarios they can control easily (all super low speed).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So, one can buy a $75K vehicle with a 200 mile range, then spend another 3K on "autonomous" software that works only on the highway. That's a 100 mile round trip range, which makes the whole thing of limited use. Don't pop the corks on the Champagne yet, lots of work left to do on this.

Red herring.  Expected that, too.  The vehicles range is irrelevant.  And that it should show up on the top of the line first is the norm.  Happened with ABS and such.  Hardly a shock.  It will be on the lower priced models by next year. 

 

Dave

 

 

Red herring? I guess you can't see the irony of a manufacturer offering an option that will only work on the highway on a vehicle that is unsuitable for highway use. A rather expensive one, at that. Perhaps we can wait the 2 years or more until the 35K Tesla becomes available with this gadgeteer junk as standard equipment.

 

Meanwhile, look into getting yourself and family some lessons at something like the Bondurant School of High Performance Driving. You and yours will learn how to really drive a vehicle, so that accident avoidance will be a real possibility. Beats putting a death grip on the wheel and screaming in panic as the accident unfolds.

 

http://www.bondurant.com/

 

 

I wonder how any future autonomous vehicle would perform at Bondurant....

 

One of these days I'll get myself out there. I've spent a lot of time doing other driver training and I couldn't even fathom where to begin automating some of these finer nuances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really quite simple - the car needs to get from A to B without a human in the car.

 

And right now that is Google. They already do this, although not yet at freeway speed. Google's idea seems right on the money. I believe they see the market as a "taxi cab" more than a personal vehicle in the beginning. It looks like they want to partner with Uber and others who are redefining the taxi market. This implies I would have a regular car, but use these convenient driverless taxis on an occasional basis. I doubt you could make a business plan out of selling these peddle-less and steering wheel-less cars to the general public in say, 2018.

 

Looks like the next one into this space will be Apple.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the point would be a complete change from the personal ownership model.  It is a great idea for the crowded cities with terrible parking hassles.  People who live farther away from these centers would still benefit from personal ownership due to the logistics of the concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And right now that is Google. They already do this, although not yet at freeway speed. Google's idea seems right on the money. I believe they see the market as a "taxi cab"

 

Geeeee, let me think about this........ I'm a bit boozed up at my favorite sushi bar, and I've got 2 choices...... Google Car Taxi or Uber Taxi..... hmmmmm, let me think on it a bit more...... hmmmmm..... IIIiii'am going to have to go with Uber.  I'm still a bit gun shy of Google.

Edited by Gilbert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And right now that is Google. They already do this, although not yet at freeway speed. Google's idea seems right on the money. I believe they see the market as a "taxi cab"

Geeeee, let me think about this........ I'm a bit boozed up at my favorite sushi bar, and I've got 2 choices...... Google Car Taxi or Uber Taxi..... hmmmmm, let me think on it a bit more...... hmmmmm..... IIIiii'am going to have to go with Uber. I'm still a bit gun shy of Google.

Uber plans to convert to driverless cars for the most obvious reason.

Drivers have been a big problem for Uber.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And your favorite Tesla vehicle "automatic mode" would have fared better than the Nascar driver?

 

Pretty silly question.   I know I'd prefer the Tesla under that situation than ANY human.  Pure matter of opinion, though, so pointless to debate.

 

As to your red herring about the how you prefer to define autonomy according to these competitions you are on about, I presume re release that by that definition it means the vehicle must be able to say "I'm sorry, I can't do that Dave."  I don't want a vehicle by that definition.  I prefer the commonly accepted definition of hands off. 

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty silly question.   I know I'd prefer the Tesla under that situation than ANY human.  Pure matter of opinion, though, so pointless to debate.

Actually, it's not a matter of opinion - and it was a rhetorical question. Come on dude, try to keep up.

 

I prefer the commonly accepted definition of hands off. 
 

For something to be common, it needs to be held by more  than just yourself.

 

It seems pretty clear to me that everyone in this thread is sharing a common definition separate from your's.

 

It absolutely is not a red herring to use multiple standards bodies to demonstrate the "common definition". I have a feeling that you didn't actually read any of those documents or articles - or else you probably would have noticed they weren't all competition based. I included governmental definitions because those are supposed to represent the interests of the general public.

 

I emphasize the competitions because they have the oldest / most original definitions. The Darpa Grand challenge is fascinating because there were real fully autonomous vehicles navigating some pretty intense off-road terrain. And that was 10 years ago! All sorts of great things were learned through that competition. For someone pimping autonomous, I would think you would be holding Darpa as a pedestal of performance - not some stupid gimmick from Tesla - or have you drank the Tesla kool-aid too?

 

 

I absolutely hate semantic arguments and at the end of the day we're speaking different languages. It's pretty clear to me that in this thread you are on your own island in terms of merely "hands off" as constituting a true autonomous vehicle. If anyone agrees with Dave, then please speak up. Quite honestly, if you are really this giddy about some stupid auto-steering feature, then I'd suggest that you have had your head in the sand. And if you really really think that the Nascar driver would have fared better with this steering aid (as built today), then you clearly have no business engaging in any discussion as to the viability of automatic systems. That is exactly the kind of idealistic thinking that gets people killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty clear to me that in this thread you are on your own island in terms of merely "hands off" as constituting a true autonomous vehicle.

 

This thread is pretty hostile to the idea of AVs so I wouldn't be surprised for a second time.  Mike, I am REALLY naïve.  I had no idea there would be anything like the pushback when I made the OP, and while I am conditioned to it still don't get it.  Also, I did NOT get your rhetorical question and I do not think my definition is outside the commonly accepted.  There'd have been no debate about the Florida citation issued to the "driver" of the Tesla who was just sitting there doing nothing if it were not an issue. 

 

I am quite good, and feel good, at admitting my weaknesses and errors.  However, I seen neither need nor logic for retreating from "AV" for practical purposes as being in a vehicle with no hands or any interaction with it.   As mentioned earlier, the pure definition of "autonomy" applies only to things that have a will of their own.  Don't want a car with an attitude, just one that can keep itself safe and headed towards my destination without intervention.  At the present, that means well marked roads.  Fine, there are plenty of them. 

 

Dave

Edited by Mallette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It's pretty clear to me that in this thread you are on your own island in terms of merely "hands off" as constituting a true autonomous vehicle.

This thread is pretty hostile to the idea of AVs so I wouldn't be surprised for a second time. Mike, I am REALLY naïve. I had no idea there would be anything like the pushback when I made the OP

I am quite good, and feel good, at admitting my weaknesses and errors. However, I seen neither need nor logic for retreating from "AV" for practical purposes as being in a vehicle with no hands or any interaction with it. As mentioned earlier, the pure definition of "autonomy" applies only to things that have a will of their own. Don't want a car with an attitude, just one that can keep itself safe and headed towards my destination without intervention. At the present, that means well marked roads. Fine, there are plenty of them.

Dave

We're all naive or ignorant to one degree or another about something. And I have seen you admitt as much on various threads, as others and I have. It's a tough pill to swallow for some, especially when it's something they feel passionately about. It's that passion that sometimes blocks ones ability to see clearly.

I think it might help you to understand the massive reluctance of people willing to accept your idea of the perfect car by going to a book store and checking out the Automotive Magazine section. Study the available selections well, there is not one magazine targeted to the group that's clamoring for a shytbox on wheels to take them to the grocery store or anywhere else.

And though there obviously exist such a group, they are too small and not representative of the main stream who are looking to either purchase, or just simply read about the automobile.

The history of the automobile revolves around an idea that is completely opposite to what you want, but as traffic congestion and technology increase, there is obviously a push to make a convergence.

The idea of vehicle safety has and always will be a hot topic when it comes to what's available for shoppers (thank Tucker for that), but the legal hurdles and "what if" scenarios have barely begun to be addressed.

I still don't think it will happen in our lifetime. And if it does, we'll too old and to cripple to care.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

Edited by Gilbert
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...