Self driving cars- unavoidable accidents, Who to save algorithms.

[motocat12]

Do we lose because there's fewer bodies or win because we're more vulnerable? 

The only thing worse than getting hit by a car avoiding another dumbsass's car is getting hit by a car programmed to hit motorcycles instead of cars.

Loved this bit. People think cars should be programmed to save the most lives but would buy a car programmed to save their own lives.

I think which ever car driven or programmed is "in the wrong" should take the brunt.

http://wtop.com/national/2016/06/self-driving-cars-may-one-day-face-decision-of-who-to-save-kill/

[Casper]

Woah. Never even thought about that. 

[vf1000ride]

My car is old enough it doesn't have airbags, ABS or any safety feature other than seatbelts and the brain behind the wheel.  I will be the only thing making the decisions about my driving for a very long time thank you.

[Disclaimer]

We have to consider a lot of this stuff already.

Almost all of the functions we build into our controllers have driver overrides.  We're confident our algorithms are better than you in 99% of situations, but if you want to take control and do something stupid, that's on you.  Just like Tesla though, you better believe there's a data trace recorded of you doing what you did along with all the warnings and actions the system did to try to stop you.  In case you were thinking about suing.

Now, the other 1% of the situations, that's where 95% of the engineering effort is spent trying understand to make our system better than a human.  Total 80/20 rule, well 95/1 rule.

[Scruit]

Would you swerve into a ditch to avoid hitting a deer?   No?  Me neither.

What about if it was car backing out of a driveway instead of a deer?   Eh, how big is the car?

What about a toddler running out into the road?   Sure, you'd swerve?

Even if swerving means swerving into a bunch of trees where you know you could get injured or killed?

Now what if you had your whole family in the car...?

 

These decisions are made all the time, and you get about a half-second to make up your mind.  It's just sobering to be required to map out that decision-making process for other people, in advance.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Scruit

[TimTheAzn]

Imma be like Will Smith in IRobot........

[Bubba]

...and so it begins.

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/u-opens-investigation-fatal-crash-tesla-203615260--finance.html

[TimTheAzn]

[Disclaimer]

53 minutes ago, Bubba said:

...and so it begins.

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/u-opens-investigation-fatal-crash-tesla-203615260--finance.html

The system performed exactly as it was designed and capable.  People that don't work in this field give WAY too much credit to the capabilities of these systems since they work over the vast majority of use cases.  People start (inapporpriately) trusting the systems, and then you have people watching Harry Potter DVDs when they really need to be babysitting their SEMI-autonomous vehicle.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Disclaimer

[redkow97]

I predict that these type of accidents will continue to rise over the next 20 years or so, and then taper-off to almost zero in the decade that follows.

Right now we're in the infancy of self-driving cars.  They are the minority on the road by a vast margin.  At some point, that will no longer be the case, and there is lower potential for HUMAN error.  That, in combination with better technology, will reduce traffic accidents significantly.

 

It's really unfortunate that someone died, but assuming the Tesla was traveling at or below the speed limit (I didn't think it allowed you to speed on auto pilot), the truck failed to yield, and caused the collision.  A self-driving truck would have been able to calculate the distance and closing speed and known not to enter the intersection. 

We're headed toward a future where everyone's vehicle is talking to each other.  If the semi had cleared the Tesla's path by 1cm, it would have looked horrendously dangerous, but a miss is a miss...  Like when the Terminator veers off for gas right in front of another car - he knew he had "enough" room, not enough for the approaching driver to feel comfortable with it.  Machines don't care about your feelings.

 

[ScubaCinci]

Until ALL vehicles on the road are autonomous and there are external monitors to assist (i.e. receiving info from sensors in the road, nearby, etc) there will always be a significant risk when using autonomous vehicles. Maybe at some point, self-driving vehicles will be prohibited on the major interstates where there would be a very low risk of incidents. However, I think anything like that is even remotely likely in the next 25 years. There are people still driving around in cars without seatbelts or airbags. Hell, people drive around with parts and shit hanging off their shitbox cars. It'll be a long time before the vast majority of people have self-driving vehicles and even then, they need to maintain them properly. If sensors aren't working properly, software is out of date, etc. it will cause issues.

[ludwb675]

I'm still waiting to see how they will create autonomous driving in snow states. It's all fine and dandy down south and out west where the roads never get covered. They will have to start embedding stuff into the roads that don't require cameras. 

Either way, I don't see myself ever getting one. I prefer to drive and hate being a passenger. But i will admit, i can't wait until everyone else starts using them just so they are out of the left lane. It should make motorcycle riding much safer as well. 

[motocat12]

Harry potter.. At least he won't be famous as the first guy to die watching porn while his computer was driving.

[swingset]

Liability is going to be the biggest hurdle, if not the grinding halt of self-driving cars (at least for mass traffic situations, I still think point-to-point trucks will be viable).

Right now when you fuck up and run over a pedestrian, it's on you the driver.

When your Tesla or NissanAutoTurd4000 does because it chose between a single guy in the road or a crowd on the sidewalk, who gets sued? Tesla or Nissan.

During the teething years, which will be made worse by infrastructure not designed for this technology and growing pains at the software level (make no mention of hacking), there are going to be deaths and serious fuckups. EVERY one of them is going to come back on the makers.

How many lawsuits can the companies weather before it becomes not worth it? Like the Amazon drones, the limitation isn't the tech, it's the "what happens when shit goes wrong?" black cloud that grinds this to a halt.

Edited July 4, 2016 by swingset

[swingset]

16 hours ago, ludwb675 said:

I'm still waiting to see how they will create autonomous driving in snow states. It's all fine and dandy down south and out west where the roads never get covered. They will have to start embedding stuff into the roads that don't require cameras. 

Either way, I don't see myself ever getting one. I prefer to drive and hate being a passenger. But i will admit, i can't wait until everyone else starts using them just so they are out of the left lane. It should make motorcycle riding much safer as well. 

 

That's a good question too...white out conditions? Snow and grime covering cameras or sensors? over 50% of this nation is in snow regions by population. I've not yet seen a good answer except "computer defaults to driver control".

On your second point, if they're widespread enough that cars are all autonomous, which I think is a long, long way off, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a conscious effort to eliminate non-auto-vehicles like motorcycles which only complicate traffic for the safer autonomous vehicles. Hey, greater good and all that jazz. Driving's not a right, insert whatever populist bullshit here.

But then, as I mentioned above, I think it's all academic.

Edited July 4, 2016 by swingset

[ScubaCinci]

On the current generation of cars, if the snow obscures the lane marking and/or makes it difficult for the cameras to see due to the amount falling, they won't be able to navigate properly and warning should sound. Per my earlier comment, if there are external data providers to supplement the on board systems that mark the lane, etc, this can be overcome.

[zx3vfr]

6 minutes ago, ScubaCinci said:

On the current generation of cars, if the snow obscures the lane marking and/or makes it difficult for the cameras to see due to the amount falling, they won't be able to navigate properly and warning should sound. Per my earlier comment, if there are external data providers to supplement the on board systems that mark the lane, etc, this can be overcome.

And how are we going to pay for road sensors that can communicate where the lanes are?

 

[ScubaCinci]

That's another question entirely and one of the reasons I think this won't happen for a long time. They can't even maintain the roads today, much less electronic sensors and relays.

[Wolfman1]

No one has mentioned what a virus will do to these cars?  What happens when a hacker figures out he can break in and control someone's car remotely?  You know it will happen.  You can already purchase a vehicle with built in Wifi which means it's connected through some ISP, so it can be connected to wirelessly anywhere.  I am sure there are protocols put in place like firewalls and making the car computer isolated from the Wifi, but look at some of the security systems already in place like Onstar that allows you to speak to a person remotely who can open your locks or turn off your car.  Makes one wonder about the possibilities!

[ScubaCinci]

Don't give away my evil plans!!! 

[motocat12]

Not much different than if they hacked stoplights or railroad crossings that we trust. Or programmed their own diverless car to hit yours.

[ricer1]

The information I have read in automotive magazines have the usage of automated driver systems related to over the road truck use first. FedEx and UPS may be the first to utilize this technology, eliminating cost, versus you and I driving places doesn't save much cost, since most of us are not professional drivers. Professional drivers are paid to drive and are limited on the number of hours per day they can drive. If there is a desolate area on a cross country truck haul, the system could be utilized, the driver rests and is alerted only in an emergency situation. His hours behind the wheel are extended and the company profits from this automated driver system. The liability would rest with the system provider, the trucking company and of course the insurance companies of both.  

These systems use GPS, on board computers, software systems, external independent surrounding vehicle information, etc. Like I stated I have read only a few articles on the subject and these are complicated system deriving navigational information from multiple sources.