Do you feel safer with self-driving cars on the road?

[Stavros Kiri]

My head swivels a bit as well! Right, left, right, left,...

Look left last and live is my motto, well kind of. A driver side impact by another car will put your body at most risk. Now if you have a passenger you have to recalculate but I still think it makes sense to look left last. When my wife is in the car I always ask for help, While I make my last look left she is updating me if I can go, "good?, ...go, go". There are caveats to "Look left last and live" rule, if for example you can see very far to the left but to the right the road curves out of view and so may hide oncoming traffic then you would want to look right last.

& @jack action (both well said!)
But in any case, minimizing and totally eliminating the risks for an accident is not an easy thing, if not impossible, even for an A.I. ! ...

I drive by one golden rule:
"Adjust speed, decisions and all actions (while driving) according to visibility and configuration of the driving relevant environment ... ". [+ Be alert, think and decide on your feet (counting all possibilities) and let your mind and body control your vehicle (and not vice-versa) ...]
(Only malfunction and/or other people's faults can get you in an accident then ...)

I was taught the first part of that rule (highlighted part) by an experienced driver, long time ago. Fortunately or unfortunately that veteran driver retired recently from driving (with no serious major accidents so far) because (his words)
"not that I am not good or careful driver anymore, but ... because the other drivers aren't! ..."
and "after some point, one doesn't want to push their luck any further! ..."

Because driving "alive" in real life driving conditions is, more or less, a matter of luck! ...
May be A.I. cars will improve that ...

 

[OCR]

...you might froze...

I think I might freeze, first, Jack... . .

You should logically look left last all the time before engaging as it is the first lane you will engage in.

.

 

[Spinnor]

Because driving "alive" in real life driving conditions is, more or less, a matter of luck! ...

Some things you can't control but you can improve your odds. You sound careful, when you are at a stoplight and it turns green do you look left and then right to look for red light runners?

 

[Spinnor]

should take a last look at the right lane before engaging in that lane.

I think I normally do that as well, once moving a quick glance to the right.

 

[Stavros Kiri]

when you are at a stoplight and it turns green do you look left and then right to look for red light runners?

Always. Sometimes they are more than the green ones ...

 

[Stavros Kiri]

Always. Sometimes they are more than the green ones ...

It also depends on the country, of course. In some countries driving is as crazy as it can get! ... (One could mention Italy, Greece, France, Spain, India etc. , I think, more or less ...)

Moving violations however, are very common in the "driving world of the human species", statistically, in most (if not all) countries around the globe. [I had posted a nice video from YouTube in 'Lame Jokes' (a while ago) about statistics in crossing stop signs, but one can find many such videos about red lights too and other moving violations, showing that sometimes they are more than the non-violations ... . So, what I said was not totally exaggeration neither just a figure of speech.]

I think that's one of the biggest problems with human live driving, that puts our lives at risk everyday, which machines wouldn't even consider (i.e. to make moving violations). However, that doesn't mean that the statistics of accidents are similar. A relatively low percentage of the overall moving violations lead to an actual accident, because of the abilities of the human species (reflexes, intuition etc.), and I agree with @jack action etc. here. Things are getting better too! ... for more and more humans.
But can we count on that?

I am too a fan of the human species, very much so! And you can quote me on the following:
"We, humans, are a very important and promising species, with a great potential of evolving. And, since humans made the machines (limited by the human potential etc.), and not vice versa, we have to acknowledge that now humans and machines evolve together for an even greater and promising potential! ..."

So I still vote yes to the poll.

 

[yungman]

I absolutely do not feel safe with autonomous cars. 40 years after PC becomes popular, you still have blue screen, freezing and all. When I PC froze, you swear, you kick and you restart it. When you are in on the road and the car goes crazy, you can get killed.

Also more importantly, anything that connect wireless to anything, people can hack, hijack. It happened already. There is no way out of this. If they can totally prevent hacking, we won't have virus problem.

Actually this is my biggest frustration. I am buying a car, It is hard to find one without those. I don't want parking assist, I don't want accident avoidance. I don't want anything other than stability control and antilock break that does not control the steering wheel. If you buy a nicer car, you'll quickly find it's not as easy as you think to get a strip model.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

When I PC froze, you swear, you kick and you restart it. When you are in on the road and the car goes crazy, you can get killed.

That is not a fair comparison. PC operating systems are many times more diverse than a specific and closed system as automated cars and less regulated. Also many PC crashes are due to poor user care. Car riders will not be able to install malware ridden software. I think a better comparison is airplane auto-pilot mode. How many planes go crazy when auto pilot is turned on? Can you think of a single instance?

 

[Stavros Kiri]

+ We put our trust on technology all the time ...

When you are in on the road and the car goes crazy, you can get killed.

What about regular general mechanical failure? That never happens? Then we should avoid all transportation etc.
With similar thinking and fears we would still be moving with horses ...
(Which is not that bad, I could even agree on that, but still I voted yes to the poll ...)

The security and hacking issue has been addressed earlier too.

(Edit) + even horses can fail and go crazy too! ...

 

[yungman]

Yeh, I know, a lot of people just amazed by new technology, I am just not one of those. All I know is people died already because of the self driving car failed, I think it's a Tesla. It was on the news. There were ransom on like Mercedes and other brands from hackers. You like to take the chance, by all means.

I have been a design engineer and manager of EE for 30 years, I designed processor control circuits ( many of them throughout the years), say they never fail is very idealistic. They fail.BTW, it is not a fair comparison between auto pilot in planes and cars. There are so so fewer planes than cars. Planes has a wide open space and FAA has regulation planes cannot get within a certain distant ( big distance) between planes. Try having plane traffic jam like cars. This is like if you have auto drive cars in a desert or in Alaska, you are the only one on the road, then it is safe. Try bumper to bumper, with lousy drivers.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Yeh, I know, a lot of people just amazed by new technology, I am just not one of those.

Do you not fly on airplanes that use auto pilot?

All I know is people died already because of the self driving car failed, I think it's a Tesla. It was on the news.

Maybe you missed this? NTSB says Tesla not at fault.
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/probing-teslas-deadly-crash-feds-say-yay-self-driving/

say they never fail is very idealistic. They fail.

What is important is the probability of a human failing vs computer. My bet is humans will fail far more often.

 

[Stavros Kiri]

BTW, it is not a fair comparison between auto pilot in planes and cars. There are so so fewer planes than cars.

More cars, more accidents. Less planes but a lot less accidents. Statistically planes are safer, especially auto pilots.
(All these as far as I know so far)

Planes has a wide open space and FAA has regulation planes cannot get within a certain distant ( big distance) between planes. Try having plane traffic jam like cars. This is like if you have auto drive cars in a desert or in Alaska, you are the only one on the road, then it is safe. Try bumper to bumper, with lousy drivers.

There may be a point here, I am not sure, but 1) we have to compare something with something 2) failure is failure ...

Yeh, I know, a lot of people just amazed by new technology, I am just not one of those.

I am not naively amazed either. I know what you mean. I am a simple person, as well as complicated, and I like simple life almost as well as (or a bit more than) modern technology, but in any case I think the latter is necessary, because now humans and technology/machines evolve together, otherwise there would be a major set-back.

You like to take the chance, by all means.

No chances ... no progress! ...

 

[yungman]

Number of planes vs accident is not linear. You can have malfunction, but if you have more time to react, you can avoid accident. In heavy traffic, you have split second to react, any malfunction is deadly.

One more important difference, airline pilots are well trained, two people one check the other. Car drivers are morons, you have drunk drivers, you can't compare.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Car drivers are morons, you have drunk drivers, you can't compare.

Isn't that an argument to put control of cars into computer's hands?

 

[yungman]

Isn't that an argument to put control of cars into computer's hands?

No, I mean can the auto pilot react to it.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

No, I mean can the auto pilot react to it.

React to the drunk driver? Shouldn't the drunk be asleep in the back seat of their car while the car safely drives him/her home? Are you saying you can react to a drunk faster than a computer?

 

[yungman]

Don't forget about the hacking. Before you know it, they will have Netflix for passenger, you have apps to find things, to do things, all sort of fancy things that go right back to a full blown computer communicating with the rest of the world, there you go hacking.

 

[yungman]

React to the drunk driver? Shouldn't the drunk be asleep in the back seat of their car while the car safely drives him/her home?

No, moron want to drive wild. I was young once, I did went out intentionally driving drunk! Yes, I was stupid, but I am sure I am not the only one.

 

[Stavros Kiri]

React to the drunk driver? Shouldn't the drunk be asleep in the back seat of their car while the car safely drives him/her home? Are you saying you can react to a drunk faster than a computer?

I think he means one sdc versus drunks

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

No, moron want to drive wild. I was young once, I did went out intentionally driving drunk! Yes, I was stupid, but I am sure I am not the only one.

Right, are you saying you as a human will be able to react faster/safer to a drunk than your car computer?

 

[yungman]

Guys, I don't want to get into debate. Ha ha, I am 64, I doubt I will see the day cars all driving on their own. To each their own, this is a never ending debate. I designed so much electronics, I become pessimistic. My engineer can't even write the AHDL right and I had to go in and deglitch the FPGA!

I better get out of this.

 

[Stavros Kiri]

It's a discussion. No one is attacking anyone. Both sides said good points. But as you wish.

 

[jack action]

I absolutely do not feel safe with autonomous cars. 40 years after PC becomes popular, you still have blue screen, freezing and all. When I PC froze, you swear, you kick and you restart it. When you are in on the road and the car goes crazy, you can get killed.

@yungman , I thought of you today. While watching a show, my TV went mute out of the blue. Start zapping, it's on all channels. Long story short, I unplug the cable terminal for a few minutes, re-plug it and wait for the reset. The sound is back on.

I'm wondering if a self-driven vehicle will need a reset like that from time to time? You know, after you loose the steering or the brakes.

 

[Stavros Kiri]

@yungman , I thought of you today. While watching a show, my TV went mute out of the blue. Start zapping, it's on all channels. Long story short, I unplug the cable terminal for a few minutes, re-plug it and wait for the reset. The sound is back on.

I'm wondering if a self-driven vehicle will need a reset like that from time to time? You know, after you loose the steering or the brakes.

Emergency back-up system. As in planes, auto pilots etc. ... (?)

 

[FactChecker]

Do self driving cars know how to drive on snow and ice? If so, are they better than a typical human? Or are they safer than a mixture of typical and bad human drivers?

 

[jack action]

Do self driving cars know how to drive on snow and ice? If so, are they better than a typical human? Or are they safer than a mixture of typical and bad human drivers?

The only difference between being on ice or asphalt is the level of traction reached before the vehicle starts slipping or sliding. Once the limit is reached, sliding on asphalt or sliding on ice is pretty much the same and the same reactions should be expected from the driver. It only happens at lower speeds and accelerations.

If there are any differences, roll over is more probable on asphalt, something you don't really have too worry when on ice.

 

[FactChecker]

The only difference between being on ice or asphalt is the level of traction reached before the vehicle starts slipping or sliding. Once the limit is reached, sliding on asphalt or sliding on ice is pretty much the same and the same reactions should be expected from the driver. It only happens at lower speeds and accelerations.

If there are any differences, roll over is more probable on asphalt, something you don't really have too worry when on ice.

I agree. What I wonder about is if it would detect it and know what to do. Can it see a patch of ice coming up and know to just coast across? The more people talk about removing the steering wheel, the more significant these automated capabilities are.

 

[Windadct]

The bigger issue according to what I have read is the impact on the sensors in snow and rain. Vehicles already have road condition sensing(Wet and ice), and wheel speed based traction control that monitors for slipping. Humans are awful at driving in bad conditions, tunnel vision, stress, too high speed, following too closely - etc...

 

[FactChecker]

The bigger issue according to what I have read is the impact on the sensors in snow and rain. Vehicles already have road condition sensing(Wet and ice), and wheel speed based traction control that monitors for slipping. Humans are awful at driving in bad conditions, tunnel vision, stress, too high speed, following too closely - etc...

It's true that traction control is good and that a typical mixture of drivers is bad on ice and snow. That being said, I'm not sure that I would want a car without a steering wheel if I was on a road with patches of ice or snow. I know that I can see the bad patch ahead and prepare to just coast across it. I haven't seen any mention of those situations when people talk about self driving cars. I would like to know what the current state of the art is.

PS. I just saw a warning to not use cruise control while driving today (snow and ice hit last night). Apparently traction control and cruise control are typically not coordinated.

 

[jack action]

The difference between a road covered in ice or not is easy: comparing wheel rpm with velocity and keeping track of the yaw velocity will give you good indications.

I guess identifying a patch of ice is more difficult. But you can still monitor wheel rpm and compare it with the vehicle velocity in a rather instantaneous way. As for looking ahead (like slowing down for a patch of ice in the curve ahead), I guess some probability of the road conditions to come can be calculated based on the road already traveled and adjust the speed accordingly, just like a human does. And, although I'm no expert in the field, if a human can see a patch of ice ahead, I can't imagine there are no vision systems that already exist that cannot detect it either and make an appropriate guess of what it is, keeping the decision process on the safe side (i.e. slow down). They are people working on such vision systems for sure.

Another way with AI, is sharing information. If one car slips on a patch of ice, the info can be sent to a central database and be available to all other vehicles passing afterward.

 

[Windadct]

sharing information

- car to car networking is a HUGE advantage - but I have never seen any info on work in this. Since the different manufacturers would need to agree on the format it needs to be agreed upon and/or set federally.

 

[DaveC426913]

I wonder how the dynamics between driven cars and driverless cars will play out.

A driver knows that a driverless car will always demure, acting in favor of safety. So, what's to stop drivers from constantly cutting in on driverless vehicles?
Every day, I see situations in my city where driverless cars will be literally paralyzed, unmoving, as car after car takes advantage of their noncompetitive nature.

 

[Stavros Kiri]

The only difference between being on ice or asphalt is the level of traction reached before the vehicle starts slipping or sliding. Once the limit is reached, sliding on asphalt or sliding on ice is pretty much the same and the same reactions should be expected from the driver. It only happens at lower speeds and accelerations.

Unless (e.g. sometimes in roads with large slope & ice or snow) the limit is already reached and the driver or sdc is "caught on sleep" ... with no reaction possible!
Ice and snow can sometimes be very tricky!

The more people talk about removing the steering wheel, the more significant these automated capabilities are.

IMO the steering wheel and option for manual mode doesn't hurt, ... just in case. Why remove it? I am against that, although I voted 'yes' to the poll.
(I am sure there are always cases where a human driver must override and take control, unless a perfect override and/or back-up system can achieve the same emergency or simple convenience result ...)

 

[FactChecker]

I should have known that Canada would take the issue of self driving cars on snow and ice very seriously:

 

[Stavros Kiri]

I should have known that Canada would take the issue of self driving cars on snow and ice very seriously:

Cool detection stuff etc. ... and seems it's keeping the wheel - I like it!
(when are we getting one?)

 

[CWatters]

In England we have a lot of roads like the one in this video I wonder how driverless cars will deal with the situation that occurs at just after 7min30. The camera is in a large truck/HGV..



Will there be a suitable button labelled "Give way to other driver even though I should have right of way"?

The HGV is also scrapping the bushes on either side. Would a driverless HGV allow that? Would there be a setting that allowed the passenger to adjust how aggressively the HGV pushes through overhanging vegetation?

 

[jack action]

Will there be a suitable button labelled "Give way to other driver even though I should have right of way"?

If there are no steering wheels, this example shows that AI from each vehicle must be able to communicate with each other, just like human drivers do (sometimes just by making gestures or faces). Even if it is not the central database I was talking about earlier, there must be at least some 'local' communication.

Once vehicles communicate with each other, AI can find the best solution for both vehicles according to their needs and priorities. Stop signs and traffic lights wouldn't even be needed.

Would there be a setting that allowed the passenger to adjust how aggressively the HGV pushes through overhanging vegetation?

That is an interesting problem. I guess it would be possible, but is it desirable? Can we put a setting on driverless cars that commands: «Jump off the bridge. That's what the passenger wants.» How much damage to the car is allowable before the car says «I won't do that!» I never seen such setting on contemporary machines: It's either the 'automatic' (fail-safe) or 'manual' (do whatever you want) mode.

It can even be worse when considering snow. People here in Canada often don't shovel the snowbank in front of their driveway (lazyness) and just drove over (or through) it. There might be a hidden curb under that snowbank too. How big of a snowbank would a driverless vehicle find acceptable? That decision not only depends on the size of the snowbank, but also on the type of snow as well.

The more I hear about the challenges of steeringless vehicles, the more I think we are far from this reality.

 

[CWatters]

On some roads if an HGV didn't make contact with hedges then it would have to stop or take a different route. HGV and busses brushing hedges and trees also reduces the need for teams of people to be sent out to cut them back - or at least that's the impression I get.

 

[opus]

Where I live, Id feel safer with a raccoon behind the wheel. Every morning commute is a dance with death. My roommate was rear ended 3 times in his first two months here.

 

[Stavros Kiri]

In England we have a lot of roads like the one in this video I wonder how driverless cars will deal with the situation that occurs at just after 7min30. The camera is in a large truck/HGV..



Will there be a suitable button labelled "Give way to other driver even though I should have right of way"?

The HGV is also scrapping the bushes on either side. Would a driverless HGV allow that? Would there be a setting that allowed the passenger to adjust how aggressively the HGV pushes through overhanging vegetation?

I think in general everything (or almost) is programmable, or ... manual mode.
In the video's case: [Driver to sdc:] "At least let me do the talking! ... and please don't worry about the bushes."
(That should do it.)

 

[256bits]

I should have known that Canada would take the issue of self driving cars on snow and ice very seriously:

Not much there to consider if the self driving cars can function in winter.
I think they have a goodly lot more testing to do for a confidence level to be impressive.
A 3d map? - complete updates minute to minute, hour to hour, day to day, month to month - the landscape can change.
The landscape maps most likely do not have mountains of pushed and dumped snow 15 feet high either.
Or the 2 to 4 foot high plowed bank by the side of the road.
Does, or will, a self driving car know how to rock itself out of a parking spot after sitting there overnight - the steering wheel and pedal less ones may have a problem. Just yesterday
Will it have to clean the snow of the hood, headlights, tail lights, or will that have to be the passengers responsibility.
Windshield washer fluid check.
Wiper blade freeze up - may not need these two, but passengers do like to gawk at all the other drivers.
I am sure? that the shoveling and pushing will be a thing of the past after a foot snowfall with a self driving.

 

[BWV]

Will your self-driving car decide to kill you if its algorithms are forced to chose between, say, driving off a cliff or into a crowd of people?

 

[Stavros Kiri]

Will your self-driving car decide to kill you if its algorithms are forced to chose between, say, driving off a cliff or into a crowd of people?

Depends on the program

 

[FactChecker]

Depends on the program

The program called "Thelma & Louise" is especially bad that way.

 

[jack action]

Will your self-driving car decide to kill you if its algorithms are forced to chose between, say, driving off a cliff or into a crowd of people?

The best way to answer this question is answering this one:

While driving a car, would you decide to kill yourself if you are forced to chose between, say, driving off a cliff or into a crowd of people?

 

[BWV]

The best way to answer this question is answering this one:

While driving a car, would you decide to kill yourself if you are forced to chose between, say, driving off a cliff or into a crowd of people?

The law does not expect you to sacrifice yourself to save others, but it might require your car to

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6293/1573

 

[Stavros Kiri]

The program called "Thelma & Louise" is especially bad that way.

Here is another question that might question the option for manual override, that I spoke in favour earlier:
Will a human be allowed to manual override an autonomous vehicle to "their death"?

[As a first response, I can't see why not. (Suicide generally may be immoral but not illegal ...)
But what about ... to other people's death?]

 

[jack action]

The law does not expect you to sacrifice yourself to save others, but it might require your car to

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6293/1573

I don't think it will ever happen. The machine is there to make the decision for the driver (now only a passenger), thus if a human driver's reaction is deemed acceptable, the same decision made by AI 'working' for the passenger should be acceptable too.

It would be terrible if human lives were just reduced to probabilities and statistics, because then humans just become livestock. And that is why (from the abstract of your link) no ones want to be in a driverless vehicle that has not its passengers as a number one priority.

Imagine putting your child in a school bus. Could you accept the bus driver sacrificing your child because he might save other (more valuable) people? Now replace the school bus and its driver by a driverless bus. The moral dilemma faints quickly.

 

[256bits]

For the lighter side of winter and self driving cars.

would a self driving car been as "fooled" as much as the police in Montreal, by a snow-car
https://www.autoblog.com/2018/01/18/car-snow-sculpture-montreal-viral-police/#slide-7217631

 

[256bits]

I don't think it will ever happen. The machine is there to make the decision for the driver (now only a passenger), thus if a human driver's reaction is deemed acceptable, the same decision made by AI 'working' for the passenger should be acceptable too.

It would be terrible if human lives were just reduced to probabilities and statistics, because then humans just become livestock. And that is why (from the abstract of your link) no ones want to be in a driverless vehicle that has not its passengers as a number one priority.

Imagine putting your child in a school bus. Could you accept the bus driver sacrificing your child because he might save other (more valuable) people? Now replace the school bus and its driver by a driverless bus. The moral dilemma faints quickly.

The decision would be the choice of the driver, and how a decision made in seconds can play out.

No driver can, and neither could a self driving car, do the necessary calculations in the short time allocated.
Otherwise, there should be enough time to avoid and/or stop harming no one.

Then again, how often do these scenarios ever play out anyways.
But owing to the chance that it could, most drivers would probably try to avoid bus shelters, babies in carriages, bicycles, driving off a cliff, wedding parties, ramming into a building, or whatever. Accidents happen so split second that there is just not enough time to second guess maneuvers. In the end, the casualties may be the occupants of the car, or bystanders, some of both, or neither.

At one time I used to think, ah, that's a moral dilemma to sort out, on how to make the program make a moral decision, or the cost of a life, but not so much any more. If it could be done, ie give the program the responsibility of making moral decisions, question then becomes "Whose morals?" It quickly becomes a quagmire.

Best way to sort is out, as is done now with human drivers, is through the legal system, and payouts, if anyone is ever found negligent and/or responsible for the cause of the accident. Light 'black boxes' could become the norm for cars equipped as self driving as a means to provide evidence.