Automotive

Forget Uber, driverless cars are going to change automotive industry

  • Last Updated:
  • May 19th, 2017 2:10 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Addict
Jan 7, 2014
1862 posts
275 upvotes
bhrm wrote:
Apr 26th, 2017 10:33 am
It's happening and will happen. Researchers are solving the variables, it will take time but it can be done! What's really challenging is getting it to work in Canada, with our wide range of weather conditions.
Thats what I meant by variables...
One guy gets killed in an accident caused by these driverless cars and the manufacturers will be on hook for a something big.
And how will you control the enthusiasts who wants to drive irrespective of whether the driverless cars exist or not.
A mix of drivers and driverless cars means inviting trouble.
If everything gets changed to Driverless, yes I am in but then thats not democracy....
Deal Addict
Mar 15, 2005
4811 posts
383 upvotes
Asker123 wrote:
Apr 25th, 2017 9:22 pm
This is one thing that's not happening. Too many variables.
It's already happening, what you are you living in?
hidlss wrote:
Apr 25th, 2017 10:56 pm
Expect a very jarring ride downtown as pedestrians ignore all traffic devices, knowing that autonomous cars will stop for them.

Can't wait for the day a driverless car kills its 5-year-old occupant in order to save two jaywalkers who happen to be sex offenders, or kills a dozen women and children to save one occupant... Who also happens to be a sex offender.

Look at how powerful the NRA is, then try to imagine how many more car enthusiasts and transportation workers there are compared to gun owners, not to mention the almighty 'TERK ER JERBS' angle that the transpo workers will bring to the table.
People already walk in front of real drivers now, what's the difference?
Newbie
Jan 25, 2017
19 posts
4 upvotes
Ziggy007 wrote:
Apr 26th, 2017 2:10 pm
People already walk in front of real drivers now, what's the difference?
The difference is that they'll start doing it en masse, and won't bother waiting for a gap in traffic.
Deal Addict
Jul 13, 2009
2333 posts
343 upvotes
Asker123 wrote:
Apr 26th, 2017 11:36 am
Thats what I meant by variables...
One guy gets killed in an accident caused by these driverless cars and the manufacturers will be on hook for a something big.
And how will you control the enthusiasts who wants to drive irrespective of whether the driverless cars exist or not.
A mix of drivers and driverless cars means inviting trouble.
If everything gets changed to Driverless, yes I am in but then thats not democracy....
If you look through all the driving data from self driving car tests, all the million miles the cars have put down, there have been zero deaths. There have been hundreds of accidents, 99% never at fault.

There are hundreds of self driving cars on the roads around the world right now, testing night and day, rain and shine...
Deal Addict
Jul 23, 2002
3431 posts
372 upvotes
bhrm wrote:
Apr 26th, 2017 2:35 pm
If you look through all the driving data from self driving car tests, all the million miles the cars have put down, there have been zero deaths. There have been hundreds of accidents, 99% never at fault.
Only because human drivers have intervened and saved them almost every time, at a rate that exceeds the accident rate of the American population, even though self-driving tests have concentrated in small areas of generally good weather.
Deal Addict
Jul 13, 2009
2333 posts
343 upvotes
SLee wrote:
Apr 26th, 2017 2:38 pm
Only because human drivers have intervened and saved them almost every time, at a rate that exceeds the accident rate of the American population, even though self-driving tests have concentrated in small areas of generally good weather.
https://www.wired.com/2017/02/californi ... ngagement/
https://static.googleusercontent.com/me ... t-0916.pdf

I could copy/paste more data, but nothing suggests the same death/accident rates as human drivers.

Today I almost hit a car because the driver decided it was a good idea to do a U-Turn on a ONE WAY street, without looking. Would a self driving car do that? Nope! Why? It would know it's a one way street, the LIDAR and radar would see me coming up from behind, and it can think faster.
Deal Addict
Jul 23, 2002
3431 posts
372 upvotes
bhrm wrote:
Apr 26th, 2017 4:57 pm
https://www.wired.com/2017/02/californi ... ngagement/
https://static.googleusercontent.com/me ... t-0916.pdf

I could copy/paste more data, but nothing suggests the same death/accident rates as human drivers.
How's that, in those disengagement reports even Google needed human intervention every 5000 miles, many of which were related to unsafe operation.

The human accident rate is about 4.2/million miles from this Google sponsored study:

http://www.vtti.vt.edu/featured/?p=422
Deal Addict
Jul 13, 2009
2333 posts
343 upvotes
SLee wrote:
Apr 26th, 2017 5:12 pm
How's that, in those disengagement reports even Google needed human intervention every 5000 miles.

The human accident rate is about 4.2/million miles from this Google sponsored study:

http://www.vtti.vt.edu/featured/?p=422
"As self-driving cars continue to be tested and increase their exposure, the uncertainty in their event rates will decrease. Current data suggest that self-driving cars may have low rates of more-severe crashes (Level 1 and Level 2 crashes) when compared to national rates or to rates from naturalistic data sets, but there is currently too much uncertainty in self-driving rates to draw this conclusion with strong confidence. However, the data also suggest that less-severe events (i.e., Level 3 crashes) may happen at a significantly lower rate for self-driving cars than in naturalistic settings. Additionally, when the Self-Driving Car events were analyzed using methods developed for SHRP 2, none of the vehicles operating in autonomous mode were deemed at fault. This fact, together with the reduced crash rate for less-severe events (Level 3 crashes), represents a powerful finding. This is particularly appropriate to vehicles intended for lower-speed use where less-severe events are the most likely to be encountered by the newer generation of the Self-Driving Car fleet."

I'm not arguing it's perfect right now, however I am defending the progress of the technology and the eventual benefits, reducing deaths and severe injuries from car accidents. Car safety technology is moving towards that step by step, with lane assist, emergency braking, adaptive cruise control. There are so many types of accidents that could be prevented by self driving cars, #1 being drunk drivers, and also #2 sleepy truckers. If we can eliminate all the bad drivers, imagine how much better the world would be!
Deal Addict
Jul 23, 2002
3431 posts
372 upvotes
I used the Virginia Tech study as a conservative estimate of human accident rates, it was released before Google started reporting disengagements, which includes reports of collisions that would have occurred if the human driver did not intervene.

In the 2015 year report, Google reported 13 (including 10 where it would be at fault) incidents where it believes their car would have hit somebody else or an obstacle if the human driver didn't intervene.

http://static.googleusercontent.com/med ... ual-15.pdf

In 2016, Google didn't report it directly but this article reported it was 9:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-thin ... iving-cars

It's significantly improved but still well below the 4.2/million miles of American drivers.

My main point is that the publicized stats are misleading to the true abilities of self-driving cars, and while I agree with you it would be great if they could replace bad/tired/impaired drivers even matching that standard will be a challenge, let alone beating the average driver in the extremely varied driving environment of the US or Canada.
Deal Addict
Mar 15, 2005
4811 posts
383 upvotes
hidlss wrote:
Apr 26th, 2017 2:34 pm
The difference is that they'll start doing it en masse, and won't bother waiting for a gap in traffic.
They do that already, do you never walk or drive downtown?
Newbie
Jan 25, 2017
19 posts
4 upvotes
Ziggy007 wrote:
Apr 27th, 2017 11:18 am
They do that already, do you never walk or drive downtown?
lmao no they don't, do you?

unless you're talking about new delhi or something...
Deal Addict
Mar 15, 2005
4811 posts
383 upvotes
hidlss wrote:
Apr 27th, 2017 6:11 pm
lmao no they don't, do you?

unless you're talking about new delhi or something...
I work downtown, I see it every day.

People just cross streets and intersections whenever they want. I see people almost get hit crossing most intersections because they don't wait for the advance green and cars almost turn into them.

Toronto, try visiting it some time though...
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 6, 2002
6909 posts
326 upvotes
Toronto
Ziggy007 wrote:
Apr 27th, 2017 9:03 pm
I work downtown, I see it every day.

People just cross streets and intersections whenever they want. I see people almost get hit crossing most intersections because they don't wait for the advance green and cars almost turn into them.

Toronto, try visiting it some time though...
I get what the other poster is trying to say. It is the elevator effect. Everyone has seen someone rushing for the elevator because they know if they put their foot in the door the door will open. There are no elevators in Toronto that will give you a good solid injury if you choose to ignore the dinging.

Jay walking is popular in Toronto, but it isn't quite the elevator effect. If we had 100% automated drivers, I can see where he is going with his point about blatant total disrespect for jay walking.
Did I post something that interests you? Feel free to PM further questions.
Deal Addict
Feb 18, 2016
1050 posts
227 upvotes
Along similar lines, I'm thinking robbers/thieves will block cars knowing that will make them stop. As long as somebody is in front of the car it will stay put and the accomplice goes up to the door to demand wallet/phone etc. They might not even have to suddenly jump in front of the car, one of the accomplices could just hold up a handheld stop sign, and the car will stop, then they can block it.
Newbie
Apr 6, 2013
30 posts
9 upvotes
AV-Fishing wrote:
Feb 12th, 2017 9:18 pm
What's the point in learning how to drive??

Heck ... no point in picking up the knife and fork for dinner. Sit there ... and you will be fed.

Stupid technology makes people even lazier.

So true. GPS is a great example:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/ ... story.html

I know someone who cannot get to the university she attended for 4 years without GPS assistance. Driverless cars will further dumb us down.
× < >
Rotate image Save Cancel

Top