• Hey Guest!
    British Car Forum has been supporting enthusiasts for over 25 years by providing a great place to share our love for British cars. You can support our efforts by upgrading your membership for less than the dues of most car clubs. There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Upgraded members don't see this banner, nor will you see the Google ads that appear on the site.)
Tips
Tips

Not quite ready for prime time?

Share this page

NutmegCT

NutmegCT

Great Pumpkin
Bronze
Offline
One of our senators, Richard Blumenthal, was invited to take a ride in a self-driving vehicle, at Consumer Reports test facility here in Connecticut.

https://www.wfsb.com/story/37871829/senator-blumenthal-gets-firsthand-look-at-self-driving-cars

Looks like it wasn't the success they were hoping for.

As the car headed down the track at 65 mph, it approached a "test car" parked in the driving lane.

Self driving car didn't slow down. Backup human had to grab the wheel and swerve to avoid a crash.

Yikes.
 
I say BACK TO INFALLIBLE HUMAN drivers. :wink-new:

Actually, I was in a friend's Tesla "S" and we were in an automatic mode, following the car in front of us, when that car suddenly turned into a left-turn lane and the Tesla tried to follow it (and my friend had to yank the car back).
 
I have less than zero interests in driverless cars. Mainly because, well, I like to drive!
 
Ya know ... self driving cars and trucks are actually pretty reliable, as long as there's a human sitting in the driver seat, hands at the wheel, ready take control at any moment.

But then - why have a self driving car ? ? ?
 
Boy, this can't be good for Tesla after they've failed to meet their production projections for the Model 3. Tesla usually tends to attribute accidents with auto-pilot to driver error or something wrong with the roadway. That may be a little tougher where you have a professional driver on a closed course and a US senator in the car. Jalopnik is usually all over these kinds of stories so it will be interesting to see what they come up with. I like the performance aspects of electric cars, although not so sold on whether they are the environmental cure they are supposed to be. But I'm totally unsold on auto-pilot. Seems to me like the public-at-large are being used as the beta testers and if a few pedestrians or drivers lose their lives in the process, no biggie.

"Hey Tesla, don't hit that pedestrian!"
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."
 
Rick - your comment reminds me of a line in Woody Allen's "Bananas". He tells the dictator of a small country that people are being killed just to increase the dictator's political advantage. Dictator shrugs his shoulders and replies "If innocent people are killed, well, that is the price we have to pay".

Actually a pretty funny movie.

The Blumenthal near-accident just occurred this afternoon, so it'll be interesting to watch the story develop.

Tom M.
 
It seems to me that there is absolutely no doubt that "driverless" is not yet ready for prime time. I do hope it will be someday, but that day isn't here yet.

Also seems to me that people are way over-reacting : No one has said that these cars are ready to go completely driverless, only that they can handle some limited functions. It's a lot like classic cruise control; it simply doesn't handle some conditions even though you don't have to keep a foot (or hand) on the throttle constantly. To use it effectively, you must stay alert for conditions where it won't do what you want, and override it.

Also worth considering:
A computerized system is never going to be perfect; any more than humans are perfect. And even if the system were perfect (meaning it always takes the best possible action in any given set of circumstances), there will still be traffic fatalities.

So the standard we should be comparing with is how well humans do. Official figures for last year aren't out yet, but 37,461 people were killed in 2016; mostly by human error of some sort.
 
TR3driver said:
: No one has said that these cars are ready to go completely driverless, only that they can handle some limited functions.
Click to expand...

No one but Tesla. You can't call your system "Autopilot" and then put this on yourwebsite:
[h=1]Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars[/h]
[FONT=&quot]"All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver."[/FONT]​
and not expect people to think they can sit back in their car like George Jetson and read the paper while they are being whisked to work.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Cars and trucks driven by computers are a bad idea who time has apparently come. Just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we SHOULD. See: SST Concorde. As a lawyer, fixing liability for a crash will be a nightmare unless strict liability of some sort is legislated. And just wait until some wisea**defense lawyer comes up with a "teenage hacker" defense. Hackers are out there. If they can hack the Pentagon, a car should be child's play.
 
Tesla's website also states "“self-driving functionality is dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval.”

Now myself, as a software engineer (retired), saying "has all the hardware" would be a red flag saying the software is still at least partially vaporware. But I guess not everyone sees it that way.

Good point about hacking; I've read several articles about hacking various cars today. One of them claimed they found a way to disable the brakes only on one wheel, that would persist even though disconnecting the battery!
 
Too many ethical decisions for today's technology to handle. If there are multiple objects in the way with a tractor trailer tailgating, does it hit the oncoming truck in the other lane, the child, the puppy, or swerve into the tree at the edge of the road, killing the occupant of the self-driving car? I'm not ready for this, that is for certain.
 
There is an old saying in the software industry: "You can't make software foolproof because fools are too ingenious." I have found that to be quite true after many years trying.
 
My favorite from my years in the field is "Good, Fast, Cheap, pick two." So true.

And Bayless is right also.
 
Not sure why the term "driverless" is even used. It's driver-assisted at best/worst.
Because an idiot was killed in an "S" last year (reading a book or something while a white semi- pulled across his field), the software was updated such that if you take your hands off the steering wheel for more than a few seconds, it tells you to put them back on! I don't have one, but I would love one. It's a beautifully made car.
That written, I also love the full manual driving experience of our classics... and one just can't compare the two.​
 
At least at this point the self driving may be best suited to closed courses where minimal unexpected decisions should need to be made. Perhaps long haul on restricted access highways or talked about underground delivery loops in city areas rather than around bunches of pedestrians, lights and large numbers of manual drivers not making logical decisions. Although GM would seem to disagree.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/12/technology/general-motors-cruise-self-driving-car/index.html
 
No steering wheel, eh? Daring. :p
 
Not interested. I like control.
 
Ever wonder how farmers can make perfect crop rows that extend for a half mile or more and are bullet straight? GPS! Farm tractors used in highly productive farms have been using driver less technology for years! All the driver has to do is take the tractor to the field, switch on the computerized GPS controlled equipment, which is programmable for field variations and the tractor will take over and plow, harrow, ridge and seed what ever your planting all by it's self! The operator has to change the type of equipment for the specific operation of course and replenish the seed hopper or whatever, but the tractor will do the rest. And yes, when at the end of a row, it will automatically turn right or left as programmed, count the rows to move over to, turn and proceed with the task over and over. (So called) Driver less vehicles aren't new. :encouragement: PJ

A driver less tractor of sorts.

View attachment 53126
Here's another conventional, View attachment 53127
 
Those driver-less tractors are amazing! And they never get involved in accidents!

(But how many people, cars, and other tractors are in the field at the same time ...?)

:angel:
 
That's my thought, a field would qualify as a "limited" access type situation where the need to deal with unexpected situations like someone on foot or in another tractor running across in front, or sudden accidents, or even bad weather. Full or semi robot operation is great in those situations.
 
Back
Top