Self-driving car discussion catch-all

Paleocon wrote:
cheeba wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Who said anything about drinking in automated cars?

Paleocon seems quite enthusiastic about the idea ;).

And if you aren't, you are probably one of those untrustworthy folks like teatotallers or vegetarians. ;)

I'm apparently double untrustworthy.

Paleocon wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

I hadn't even considered the drunk driving aspect of this. If you really care about the enjoyment/fun aspect of driving and you also happen to enjoy drinking, then this would still facilitate further enjoyment in your life. Assuming you're a currently a responsible human being and not a monster.

Try to keep up. I mentioned the possible future sublime pleasure of cracking open a beer in the company parking lot and drinking it on the way home in front of a NC State Trooper pages ago.

;)

See, you can't even trust me to read a thread.

cheeba wrote:
DanB wrote:

Coming back to this, you are wildly underestimating the current state of AI, computer vision and control systems engineering.

Already addressed this. Take a look at drive by wire. I believe I first saw it at the 92 or 93 NAIAS. It's still a long ways from being fully implemented.

Already addressed this even earlier. Take a look at the Google self-driving car safety record. It's from a more recent decade than the 90's.

Uh, my new Kia Forte is all electronic steering. Is that different than drive by wire?

Paleocon wrote:
cheeba wrote:
DanB wrote:

Well, no one in this thread said it was gonna happen tomorrow so why are you gainsaying folk?

There's also the question of whether it should happen.

I think we have already answered that one.

We average about 35000 automobile fatalities per year of which roughly 9000 of them are alcohol related. Of the others, an almost equal number are related to distracted driving from things like cell phones or texting. Excessive speed plays a role in over half of those fatalities.

Even if the computer driven cars suck so bad that they result in a 9-11 level tragedy every year, they would still save 32000 lives every year.

This one is a pretty easy "should".

Imagine if we were introducing human driving as a brand new concept right now, and applying the same level of skepticism to it.

"We're going to make these big machines, tons of metal, which travel in opposite directions at high rates of speed, separated by about 4 feet of space, and we're going to have them manually controlled by people."

"What people? Everyone. Oh, we'll have special training to use them, but it will be simple enough that any non-potato adult can complete it."

"How will people know where to go? Here's the brilliant part. We're going to paint lines on the ground. I know, right? Foolproof."

Demyx wrote:

No one thinks insurance companies will lower rates for self-driving cars out of the goodness of their hearts. But if they are safer than human driving, they will offer lower rates to encourage everyone to buy one so they have to pay out less in claims. The amount they lower premiums will be much less than the amount they think they can save in less claims. It's not far fetched.

Speaking as an insurance professional (in a different field): The more predictable the risk, the more attractive it is to insure, since you can pretty tightly control your margins. It'll get more formally folded into home/rental insurance, I bet.

As for drinking in the evening commute, this is the neatest part of Chicago's commuter rail. I don't take the train ("my feet is my only carriage"), but knowing that people crack a beer and hang out for that 30-90 minutes has always sounded pretty great to me.

cheeba wrote:
DanB wrote:

Coming back to this, you are wildly underestimating the current state of AI, computer vision and control systems engineering.

Already addressed this. Take a look at drive by wire. I believe I first saw it at the 92 or 93 NAIAS. It's still a long ways from being fully implemented

Drive by wire is a different technology stack and 92/93 may as well be the 19th Century when it comes to computing.

Edwin wrote:

Uh, my new Kia Forte is all electronic steering. Is that different than drive by wire?

Yeah, you still have mechanical linkage. A drive by wire system has no mechanical linkage between the steering wheel (or joystick, or whatever else) and the steering mechanism. That negates a need for a steering column. But that's just the steering part. Drive by wire is a system which eliminates all the mechanical linkage between driver and the parts that move the car - such as the gas/brake.

DanB wrote:

Drive by wire is a different technology stack and 92/93 may as well be the 19th Century when it comes to computing.

Right. So they had a concept over 20 years ago (no doubt the actual concept is far older) and they're still not able to implement it with 21st century computing. What makes you think automated cars will proceed faster than that? Keep in mind that technology is probably not even half the problem. As Apple knows, it's not so much the technology that sells ;).

cheeba wrote:
Edwin wrote:

Uh, my new Kia Forte is all electronic steering. Is that different than drive by wire?

Yeah, you still have mechanical linkage. A drive by wire system has no mechanical linkage between the steering wheel (or joystick, or whatever else) and the steering mechanism. That negates a need for a steering column. But that's just the steering part. Drive by wire is a system which eliminates all the mechanical linkage between driver and the parts that move the car - such as the gas/brake.

DanB wrote:

Drive by wire is a different technology stack and 92/93 may as well be the 19th Century when it comes to computing.

Right. So they had a concept over 20 years ago (no doubt the actual concept is far older) and they're still not able to implement it with 21st century computing. What makes you think automated cars will proceed faster than that? Keep in mind that technology is probably not even half the problem. As Apple knows, it's not so much the technology that sells ;).

Because they already exist and have been proven to work and be safer?

Edit: I guess what I'm saying is that it seems like you're using past failures to dismiss current progress. A reasonable amount of skepticism is always helpful but it feels a lot more like denial than skepticism. Though really it just feels like an unwillingness to back down more than anything else.

The components of drive by wire which showed the greatest benefit have already been implemented in many cars. Electronic steering has not, as it would increase the cost of a car due to the need to have a mechanical backup anyway. Out of all of the components it's the most impractical.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Edit: I guess what I'm saying is that it seems like you're using past failures to dismiss current progress. A reasonable amount of skepticism is always helpful but it feels a lot more like denial than skepticism. Though really it just feels like an unwillingness to back down more than anything else.

Back down to what? This is all just speculation. It's a long ways yet from concept/experimentation to mass market. But I tell ya what: if 75% of the cars on the road in 2040 are fully automated, I'll buy everyone in this thread their favorite game on their Steam Ocular Implant.

Edit - I should specify "on the road" to be "on the road in the United States". Sweden doesn't count, since people in Sweden are automated anyways ;).

LouZiffer wrote:

The components of drive by wire which showed the greatest benefit have already been implemented in many cars. Electronic steering has not, as it would increase the cost of a car due to the need to have a mechanical backup anyway. Out of all of the components it's the most impractical.

I was about to ask.

The real question is what is the value proposition for steer by wire that would be worth paying for? Does it provide tremendous cost savings? Does it make it significantly better to drive? Does it make the car any safer? Most folks, I would bet, wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a steer by wire car and a mechanical steering car let alone articulate any amount of money they would be willing to pay for it.

Self driving cars, otoh, are a concept folks can get their brains around instantly and just about everyone I know with the exception of the very poor or the deliberately obstinate are willing to pay an extra $5k to be chauffeured around so they can get their time back.

There are potential crash safety benefits in a pure electronically steered vehicle, and there's the cool factor of being able to use other input methods such as a joystick. With a human driver you must have a mechanical backup for steering though, which negates the first. It might seem odd, but I'd say that automated cars are electronic steering's best chance at eventual existence.

Paleocon wrote:

Most folks, I would bet, wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a steer by wire car and a mechanical steering car let alone articulate any amount of money they would be willing to pay for it..

Yes, you can absolutely tell the difference. There's no real need for a dashboard with steer/drive by wire. It could look something like this:
IMAGE(http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/hy-wire-11.jpg)
It also increases safety because you get rid of the steering column (and several other components), which can spear you pretty good in an accident.

cheeba wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Most folks, I would bet, wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a steer by wire car and a mechanical steering car let alone articulate any amount of money they would be willing to pay for it..

Yes, you can absolutely tell the difference. There's no real need for a dashboard with steer/drive by wire. It could look something like this:
IMAGE(http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/hy-wire-11.jpg)
It also increases safety because you get rid of the steering column (and several other components), which can spear you pretty good in an accident.

I can ask 1000 people what they would be willing to pay for that and my guess would be that the vast majority would say "not much".

Self-driving cars though? Sh1t, you may be the only person I know that would say anything less than $5000.

cheeba wrote:
DanB wrote:

Drive by wire is a different technology stack and 92/93 may as well be the 19th Century when it comes to computing.

Right. So they had a concept over 20 years ago (no doubt the actual concept is far older) and they're still not able to implement it with 21st century computing.

What are you talking about?

Drive by wire technologies are already present in a vast number production cars including but not limited to: adaptive cruise control, electronic stability control, lane assist, ABS, fuel injection metering, electronic throttle controls, etc... So clearly people had those ideas, implemented them and they are now at market. Electronic ABS systems have been available in consumer cars since the 70s. Toyota's automated parking system has been on the market since 2003

Steer by wire does also exist but isn't typically implemented in consumer vehicles because many legal jurisdictions require a mechanical connection between steering and axle. Which means that including steer by wire becomes a needless additional expense.

But this thread is nominally about self-driving vehicles and drive by wire is only passingly relevant there

cheeba wrote:

What makes you think automated cars will proceed faster than that?.

I think self driving cars will proceed to market about as fast as most other consumer desirable driving aids have. That is, they'll get to market about 5 to 10 years after viable functioning proof of concept cars are unveiled (which has already happened). I'd guess the first consumer systems will automate only highway driving and it will be refined from there.

Widespread adoption usually follows about 15 years after it is available on an S Class merc.

cheeba wrote:
DanB wrote:

Drive by wire is a different technology stack and 92/93 may as well be the 19th Century when it comes to computing.

Right. So they had a concept over 20 years ago (no doubt the actual concept is far older) and they're still not able to implement it with 21st century computing.

Farscry wrote:
cheeba wrote:
DanB wrote:

Coming back to this, you are wildly underestimating the current state of AI, computer vision and control systems engineering.

Already addressed this. Take a look at drive by wire. I believe I first saw it at the 92 or 93 NAIAS. It's still a long ways from being fully implemented.

Already addressed this even earlier. Take a look at the Google self-driving car safety record. It's from a more recent decade than the 90's.

LouZiffer wrote:

You're not helping, Farscry.

I took the snark out of my post. Sorry, his consistent behavior in every discussion is obnoxious.

You're not helping, Farscry.

Edit: Thanks, man. Self-driving cars are cool. Probably everyone here can identify with that, whatever their concerns might be. This thread has a lot of life left in it!

Farscry wrote:

I took the snark out of my post. Sorry, his consistent behavior in every discussion is obnoxious.

Cute, took out snark and went straight to insulting me. If you can't hang without insults, maybe you shouldn't post? I've not insulted you, so what is it about you that you can't return the same kindness you've been shown?

As for the Google car, Google currently has no plans whatsoever for mass marketing the car or technology - at least that they're willing to share, anyways. I would imagine they would license the technology and work with car manufacturers, but who knows when that will start. And one or two prototypes does not a finished product make.

Paleocon wrote:

I can ask 1000 people what they would be willing to pay for that and my guess would be that the vast majority would say "not much".

It's a prototype. It's supposed to give you an idea of what it could look like. There aren't many good pictures that I'm finding. It's a striking difference if you see one of the prototypes in person, though.

Self-driving cars though? Sh1t, you may be the only person I know that would say anything less than $5000.

Go to your local antique auto show and you'll find a whole lot more people that say not much. Wait, you're in NC! You should easily be able to find a buncha car guys there who don't want no automated system substituting for their NASCAR-wannabe behinds ;).

cheeba wrote:
Farscry wrote:

I took the snark out of my post. Sorry, his consistent behavior in every discussion is obnoxious.

Cute, took out snark and went straight to insulting me. If you can't hang without insults, maybe you shouldn't post? I've not insulted you, so what is it about you that you can't return the same kindness you've been shown?

That is a disingenuous response. You insult people frequently using very subtle rhetorical jabs; and yes, I've been a target of them. You don't like being treated in kind, unsurprisingly. There are a few people who do this on the boards and it really gets under my skin even though I shouldn't let it. Congrats on pissing me off, I guess? *shrug*

Yes, I will drop it; only replying to your suppositions. Sorry for the derail, Louziffer.

I assure you, if I wanted to insult you or anyone else I would straight up do so and there would be no subtlety about it whatsoever.

Yes we know, you're still here.

And you still haven't apologized to sometimesdee for attacking her for something she didn't say.

You know, taking responsibility.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

And you still haven't apologized to sometimesdee for attacking her for something she didn't say.

IMAGE(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbxlp9fbd11qcwyxho1_400.gif)

Anyway, back to automatic cars in Gothenburg. I'll be more impressed when they test it in a country that doesn't have such strict laws on human driver's licenses. Seriously, you have to pay close to $1000US to the Swedish version of the DMV in order to get a license. That doesn't even include the $1500US or so you pay for driving lessons. There are also a crapload of tests. It's really a big deal to get a driver's license in Sweden.

If these cars know how to react to every Tom, Dick, and Harry, however...

cheeba wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I can ask 1000 people what they would be willing to pay for that and my guess would be that the vast majority would say "not much".

It's a prototype. It's supposed to give you an idea of what it could look like. There aren't many good pictures that I'm finding. It's a striking difference if you see one of the prototypes in person, though.

Self-driving cars though? Sh1t, you may be the only person I know that would say anything less than $5000.

Go to your local antique auto show and you'll find a whole lot more people that say not much. Wait, you're in NC! You should easily be able to find a buncha car guys there who don't want no automated system substituting for their NASCAR-wannabe behinds ;).

All of those folks together in 15 years time might be enough to start a classic car hobby group that meets in the parking lot of the local Lincoln Technical Institute every other Saturday. And half of them will grouse about having a self driving car because of their wives.

My mother still would raise Cain if I got a motorcycle, even if it were self-driving. (A self-driving motorcycle. Now that would be terror-inducing fun. Honda and BMW are apparently working on those, from what I'm reading.)

Driving has never been safer on a deaths/mile basis. In my lifetime the road toll for my state has dropped to less than a third what it was while population has nearly tripled. But it seems we have now reached a point of diminishing returns. At least from a raw numbers point of view. The road toll (as it is called here) is about 350pa and will change +/- 20 each year but has been in that range for a while now. Everyone seems to ignore the increasing population and increased driving when assessing this number.

So with the big levers pulled like intolerance of drink driving, greater levels of speed and red light cameras and amazing survivability of modern vehicles - 'they' are looking for what else to try to get this number lower. And it isn't pretty. Lowering speed limits even further. Greater penalties etc.

This looks like the next big lever to me and it is possibly a massive one. Every road incident has someone at fault and it is overwhelmingly the driver. Commutes are longer and traffic flows are bad mostly because of the failings of drivers. Those mysterious points where traffic comes to a standstill for no apparent reason an then fires up again? Caused by someone's bad driving.

I am less inclined to speed with the GPS on as it gives me a good ETA and I can live with that. I will more than happily hand over the rest of the process to the car. Tell me when we are going to get there and let me occupy my brain elsewhere. I choose the train into work so I can not spend mental energy on driving a car.

I can't wait.

I approve of Gilmore Girls in this thread.

IMAGE(http://media.giphy.com/media/6qmtHY1SgTdgA/giphy.gif)

Semi-related derail to Bruce's post. http://www.treehugger.com/cars/why-c...