or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › Self driving car project
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Self driving car project - Page 4

post #55 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

 

That will only happen with a human driver. The plan is for sensors to be placed all around the vehicles are designed to prevent this kind of accidental injury. Even our "dumb" model vacuums have sensors all around to prevent damage to furniture and other things.

Dumb model vacuums don't travel at speeds close to cars.  Plus the robots that I've seen slow down or stop as they near an object to figure out how to proceed, cars won't have that luxury.

post #56 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

 

That will only happen with a human driver. The plan is for sensors to be placed all around the vehicles are designed to prevent this kind of accidental injury. Even our "dumb" model vacuums have sensors all around to prevent damage to furniture and other things.

 

The only real way to "fool" the robot is to jump out in front of it while it is cruising along at a substantial speed. The pedestrian would need to be in a location he/she is not designated to walk. The main thing is that it needs to be programmed with the human occupant's safety first. It needs to weigh the two options. The person jumping out in front of the vehicle would be at fault, while the occupants of the vehicle are innocent of any wrongdoing. This type of behavior and similar ones would be hard programmed into the system.

 

I agree that a pedestrian would still have the right of way, and that crosswalks would be programmed as "slow zones". The vehicle would slow down at every crosswalk, as a human driver should.

 

Parking will probably still be an issue, but the vehicle may not allow itself to park in a non-designated spot. More than likely it could be programmed to drop off occupants and/or deliveries, then continue to drive around until it finds a space or if the occupant signals it for a pick up.

 

I don't see how a person walking out from behind a delivery truck would only happen with a human driver.  In your scenario, do ALL cars have sensors that communicate with each other?

 

I've seen pedestrians do so much stupid crap that I'm sure a driver-less car will hit one someday.

post #57 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

Dumb model vacuums don't travel at speeds close to cars.  Plus the robots that I've seen slow down or stop as they near an object to figure out how to proceed, cars won't have that luxury.

 

Sure, why not?

 

The cars behind will also slow down, accordingly.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by krupa View Post
 

 

I don't see how a person walking out from behind a delivery truck would only happen with a human driver.  In your scenario, do ALL cars have sensors that communicate with each other?

 

I've seen pedestrians do so much stupid crap that I'm sure a driver-less car will hit one someday.

 

Not my scenario, the auto industry is already working on this.

 

Just like with human drivers. The only thing is they might have a better chance with a slower moving vehicle with a much faster reaction time than a human.

post #58 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

 

The only real way to "fool" the robot is to jump out in front of it while it is cruising along at a substantial speed. The pedestrian would need to be in a location he/she is not designated to walk. The main thing is that it needs to be programmed with the human occupant's safety first. It needs to weigh the two options. The person jumping out in front of the vehicle would be at fault, while the occupants of the vehicle are innocent of any wrongdoing. This type of behavior and similar ones would be hard programmed into the system.

 

 

 

That doesn't happen now? 

 

Also your logic is so flawed on that. When a person is in a vehicle, they are protected. If you take away collisions between other motor vehicles, then the PRIMARY concern should be accidents with pedestrians and bicycles.  It doesn't matter who is at fault. That is a stupid way of looking at it. As an engineer, it should be looked at as a safety issue, not a legality issue. If you take away vehicle accidents then the primary concern is other forms of accidents.

 

This is why safe streets are now such a big thing in traffic engineering, because the  United States has a HUGE percentage of pedestrian fatalities. With this technology, and not getting too egotistical in thinking that programming can solve everything, it can really take that down to nearly zero. 

 

So here is my question, why does it matter if we put in traffic signals for pedestrians? What is the big thing about no traffic signals? I don't see any reason not to have them. 

post #59 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

What if you have a guy who walks out infront of a car going 35 mph. There is still physics that have to be accounted for.

Oh please!!  Like a guy even exists that could walk at 35 mph.  Heck, Usain Bolt only RUNS at 15 mph!  So, I agree .... physics should still be accounted for.

 

But dangling modifiers must also be considered. :beer:

 

I know I'm OT and kind of a moron, but hey, it's Friday!! :banana:

post #60 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Oh please!!  Like a guy even exists that could walk at 35 mph.  Heck, Usain Bolt only RUNS at 15 mph!  So, I agree .... physics should still be accounted for.

 

But dangling modifiers must also be considered. :beer:

 

I know I'm OT and kind of a moron, but hey, it's Friday!! :banana:

 

TGIF to that!:beer:

 

I'll just stick with elderly care products. . .

 

 

Thanks for the discussion, Saevel, but these are not things I am actively working on. However, we still need to be concerned about outside influences on products I am working on. I definitely to not envy the robotic car scientists and engineers.

 

In the end, I think what will bring it to market are rich people who can't quite afford chauffeurs.

post #61 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

 

Not my scenario, the auto industry is already working on this.

 

Just like with human drivers. The only thing is they might have a better chance with a slower moving vehicle with a much faster reaction time than a human.

 

I know, but in this thread you're a vocal proponent so it gets to be yours by default. 

 

I look forward to self-driving cars for when I'm older and someone wants to take my driver's license away.  But until then, I just don't know.  I agree that the safety issue is huge.  But until they are so affordable that everyone wants one, I'm not sure I want to risk not having control while other people have their human-driving cars.  

 

For example, I drive a 55mph two-lane road to work and I usually drive 60+ mph.  There's always some jackass up on my bumper trying to go faster and he/she will eventually pass me.  Sometimes, they don't always choose the safest place to do it (e.g., up a hill or approaching a blind turn) and so I slow down to let them by faster.  I'm sure your answer will be "they're working on it" or "it will slow  down" but those are simply assertions based on faith that they will get right.  Well, computers don't always work right and the people who build them are human.  Which leads me to my next point...


I'm also concerned with quality control once companies start racing towards making affordable self-driving cars.  Apparently, we still can't build ignition switches reliably.  But now we are going to build cars without a steering wheel or pedals?

post #62 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by krupa View Post
 

 

I know, but in this thread you're a vocal proponent so it gets to be yours by default. 

 

I look forward to self-driving cars for when I'm older and someone wants to take my driver's license away.  But until then, I just don't know.  I agree that the safety issue is huge.  But until they are so affordable that everyone wants one, I'm not sure I want to risk not having control while other people have their human-driving cars.  

 

For example, I drive a 55mph two-lane road to work and I usually drive 60+ mph.  There's always some jackass up on my bumper trying to go faster and he/she will eventually pass me.  Sometimes, they don't always choose the safest place to do it (e.g., up a hill or approaching a blind turn) and so I slow down to let them by faster.  I'm sure your answer will be "they're working on it" or "it will slow  down" but those are simply assertions based on faith that they will get right.  Well, computers don't always work right and the people who build them are human.  Which leads me to my next point...


I'm also concerned with quality control once companies start racing towards making affordable self-driving cars.  Apparently, we still can't build ignition switches reliably.  But now we are going to build cars without a steering wheel or pedals?

 

Yes, this is one of many emotional factors that drives some of the people I know into working on robotic cars. Robotic cars don't ride someone's ass because they want to go faster. :-$

 

Other than the fact that it is really fun and cool.

 

I get your statement about "ignition switches", and have a NAND flash failure on my smart phone. Yes, they are designed and assembled by machines programmed by humans.


Edited by Lihu - 6/6/14 at 2:04pm
post #63 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

 

Yes, this is one of many emotional factors that drives some of the people I know into working on robotic cars. Robotic cars don't ride someone's ass because they want to go faster. :-$

 

Other than the fact that it is really fun and cool.

 

I get your statement about "ignition switches", and have a NAND flash failure on my smart phone. Yes, they are designed and assembled by humans.

I think that emotional factor is what is going to keep that guy driving his old beater truck up my bumper and not getting a self-driving car.  "Always goes the speed limit" is not a selling point for a lot of people... like the whole of New Jersey. :)

post #64 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by krupa View Post
 

I think that emotional factor is what is going to keep that guy driving his old beater truck up my bumper and not getting a self-driving car.  "Always goes the speed limit" is not a selling point for a lot of people... like the whole of New Jersey. :)

 

I'm from So. Cal. I think I get your point! LOL :-$

 

and Sighhh. . .to human nature. . .

post #65 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post

If I can play devil's advocate for a second, I'd like to make a few points:
  • I like driving as much as (or more than) the next guy, but I'm not sure I actually "like driving." That is, I don't think the speed up/slow down, left turn/right turn, quick stop of it all is really what I'm enjoying. More likely it's the scenery, it's listening to my iPhone, it's the alone time. I don't taking the wheel and peddles away would curtail that much.
  • Also, I don't think this would negate the want for or availability of sports cars. Even if they drive themselves, some people are going to want smaller, more economical cars, some people are going to want SUVs/minivans/trucks, and some are going to want 2-seat convertible roadsters. That doesn't have to change.
  • People who owned horses and buggies probably had concerns too. a1_smile.gif

Then you don't like driving. You like riding in a car....

And sports cars aren't meant to be small and economical. They're meant to be fast, nimble, quick, and yes, fun to drive.
post #66 of 78

The scary part about the Google car and actually the car I just bought is the potential for self incriminating evidence stored on board the computer.

 

We are already seeing a huge proliferation of red light and now speed cameras in NY, so what's not to say that the government won't use your car against you and just ticket you for excessive speeding that was recorded by the on board computer.

post #67 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

The scary part about the Google car and actually the car I just bought is the potential for self incriminating evidence stored on board the computer.

 

We are already seeing a huge proliferation of red light and now speed cameras in NY, so what's not to say that the government won't use your car against you and just ticket you for excessive speeding that was recorded by the on board computer.

 

This is actually another reason why cars are becoming smarter. Drive safely, obey the traffic laws.

post #68 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

 

This is actually another reason why cars are becoming smarter. Drive safely, obey the traffic laws.

 

And then we can go a step further and if your car maintains a high speed, say 5 miles over the speed limit, for a prolonged period of time, the car can email the police with the VIN #, date, time, location and speed and a few days later you get a ticket in the mail... of course by then there won't be mail, so they'll just take it directly out of your bank account and if you don't have enough to cover the ticket, your car won't start, your smart house won't unlock the doors, the TV will only turn on for an hour every day, the thermostat won't go above 65, and your local grocery store delivery order will be changed to basic rations for 6 months.  

 

Hooray for technology!  :dance:

 

I kid.  While the technology exists today for all of that to happen, I don't think anyone will go that batshit crazy with it... well... I hope they won't.

post #69 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

The scary part about the Google car and actually the car I just bought is the potential for self incriminating evidence stored on board the computer.

 

We are already seeing a huge proliferation of red light and now speed cameras in NY, so what's not to say that the government won't use your car against you and just ticket you for excessive speeding that was recorded by the on board computer.

 

Red Light cameras are not self incriminating. surveillance has been used for years in prosecution cases. Red light cameras and speed cameras are no different. I actually like red light and speed cameras. 

 

That being said, I do agree there should be some sort of protection under the law, specifically the requirement for a warrant. Look at cell phones, police get warrants all the time to siege computers, phones, all having your own personal data stored and collected. Now I don't know how this all works when it comes to Google. If all this data is stored on the cloud, and if it isn't stored on the car, then I doubt the police would be able to get it. Especially if Google owns the data. So really they might not ever be able to get access to that data since it might never be yours. 

post #70 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by krupa View Post

And then we can go a step further and if your car maintains a high speed, say 5 miles over the speed limit, for a prolonged period of time, the car can email the police with the VIN #, date, time, location and speed and a few days later you get a ticket in the mail... of course by then there won't be mail, so they'll just take it directly out of your bank account and if you don't have enough to cover the ticket, your car won't start, your smart house won't unlock the doors, the TV will only turn on for an hour every day, the thermostat won't go above 65, and your local grocery store delivery order will be changed to basic rations for 6 months.  

Hooray for technology!  c3_clap.gif

I kid.  While the technology exists today for all of that to happen, I don't think anyone will go that batshit crazy with it... well... I hope they won't.

Sounds just like our grandparents. b2_tongue.gif

My kids are already used to conveniences of modern life, just like we got used to cell phones and smart phones.
I sometimes think about what the future will bring, too. Not sure how ready I'll be for it when I retire, either. It does come gradually, though.

Saevel's right about evidence from cameras, even the traffic light cameras are no longer enforceable in CA. The main thing is they cost too much for the revenue they obtain.
post #71 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

Red Light cameras are not self incriminating. surveillance has been used for years in prosecution cases. Red light cameras and speed cameras are no different. I actually like red light and speed cameras.

 

That being said, I do agree there should be some sort of protection under the law, specifically the requirement for a warrant. Look at cell phones, police get warrants all the time to siege computers, phones, all having your own personal data stored and collected. Now I don't know how this all works when it comes to Google. If all this data is stored on the cloud, and if it isn't stored on the car, then I doubt the police would be able to get it. Especially if Google owns the data. So really they might not ever be able to get access to that data since it might never be yours.

I never contended red light or peed cameras are self incriminating but they basically write tickets with minimal consideration or discretion that a police officer might use.   It's a revenue generator and I'm sure that in order for Google to place their cars on the road there will be concessions that provides law enforcement agencies access to some of the data.

post #72 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

I never contended red light or peed cameras are self incriminating but they basically write tickets with minimal consideration or discretion that a police officer might use.   It's a revenue generator and I'm sure that in order for Google to place their cars on the road there will be concessions that provides law enforcement agencies access to some of the data.

 

Well in Dayton there isn't much discretion because they are set for 12 mph over the speed limit in an urban setting. So, tell me why a cop shouldn't be pulling you over going +10 mph over the speed limit? I don't see that argument really. Oh well the cop wasn't there, so what? 

 

Honestly speed limit and red light cameras are more fair in terms of enforcing the traffic laws because it takes out human error and human bias. What is fair about a cop having a bad day and pulling people over for doing 2 over the speed limit, then the next day pulling people over if they only go 12 over the speed limit? Should we be penalized due to how a cop feels about giving out tickets that day.

 

Of course tickets are a revenue generator. I was driving around Ohio over Memorial Day weekend, I saw upwards of 20 State Highway patrol man driving to Canton and back down to Dayton. They knew that traffic was up and more people would speed. Does it bother you they generate revenue? You are breaking the law when you speed, own up to the ticket. The penalty is a monetary fee. Hence revenue generating. Revenue is kinda side effect of giving out tickets. I love how people say, "Oh its a cash grab". All I say is, "DUH!! YOUR SPEEDING!!!" Heck if I could make money off of people speeding I would. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Grill Room
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › Self driving car project