Self driving car project

[Lihu]

22 hours ago, saevel25 said:

If I had my choice, I would say that it should cap the speed at 5 over the speed limit or 70 mph which ever is lesser for any street. 

Sure, that would be nice. Unfortunate that technology does not allow that yet. No matter what "experts" claim, the sensors are not "clean" enough.

If the common person knew the type of algorithms used to resolve sensor data (look up Extended Kalman filtering for a brief introductory overview as there are many other more modern methods including particle filters etc.), they would be pretty surprised that any of this crap actually works.

[iacas]

9 hours ago, Lihu said:

Sure, that would be nice. Unfortunate that technology does not allow that yet. No matter what "experts" claim, the sensors are not "clean" enough.

Huh? Waze knows the speed limit of every street I drive on. Why couldn't a car?

9 hours ago, Lihu said:

If the common person knew the type of algorithms used to resolve sensor data (look up Extended Kalman filtering for a brief introductory overview as there are many other more modern methods including particle filters etc.), they would be pretty surprised that any of this crap actually works.

Sensor data not required. Again, Waze.

Also, my car's navigation system knows the speed limit.

[Ernest Jones]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Huh? Waze knows the speed limit of every street I drive on. Why couldn't a car?

Sensor data not required. Again, Waze.

Also, my car's navigation system knows the speed limit.

I just drove back and forth between Montreal and the maritimes, 14 hours each way. My GPS got weird multiple times - showing me as driving well off of the road as depicted on the screen - and while the GPS generally knew the speed limit, I went through stretches where it wasn't displayed which I assume means it didn't know. It also was mostly unaware of when I was moving through temporary construction zones with greatly reduced limits. I don't think the tech is ready to be used outside of a very controlled environment.

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

I just drove back and forth between Montreal and the maritimes, 14 hours each way. My GPS got weird multiple times - showing me as driving well off of the road as depicted on the screen - and while the GPS generally knew the speed limit, I went through stretches where it wasn't displayed which I assume means it didn't know. It also was mostly unaware of when I was moving through temporary construction zones with greatly reduced limits. I don't think the tech is ready to be used outside of a very controlled environment.

That's a GPS with maps who knows how old, not Waze. And if the speed limit isn't known, don't enable the feature.

[Hardspoon]

11 hours ago, Lihu said:

Sure, that would be nice. Unfortunate that technology does not allow that yet. No matter what "experts" claim, the sensors are not "clean" enough.

Volvo's "read" speed-limit signs and post the speed limit on the speedometer.  In my experience, it's very accurate and dependable...if speed limits are posted, of course.

Sensor technology may have limitations, but the ability to read signs that are "standardized" like speed limits (and process the data) exists and works.

[nevets88]

The singularity is coming folks. Self driving cars monitored by humans to be used by Uber in Pittsburgh.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-08-18/uber-s-first-self-driving-fleet-arrives-in-pittsburgh-this-month-is06r7on

[Lihu]

On 8/11/2016 at 6:38 PM, Hardspoon said:

Volvo's "read" speed-limit signs and post the speed limit on the speedometer.  In my experience, it's very accurate and dependable...if speed limits are posted, of course.

Sensor technology may have limitations, but the ability to read signs that are "standardized" like speed limits (and process the data) exists and works.

I'm referring to the obstacle avoidance sensors and other things used to prevent the car from crashing. Also, I work with pretty much the latest image sensor technology, and have found them to be pretty noisy unless the lighting conditions and FOV are within certain limits.

A properly functioning human eye is just so much better than any current sensor technology. . .

 

On 8/18/2016 at 8:25 AM, nevets88 said:

The singularity is coming folks. Self driving cars monitored by humans to be used by Uber in Pittsburgh.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-08-18/uber-s-first-self-driving-fleet-arrives-in-pittsburgh-this-month-is06r7on

This makes much more sense. I hope it will speed things up so I can have a self driving car when I'm too old to drive myself.

[nevets88]

This is off-topic, but it is a Tesla. I'd be hesitant to drive a natural gas powered car, but in a Tesla, those batteries are not exactly safe either. 

Quote

A Tesla Model S has burst into flames during a test drive in the southwest of France. Four people were in the car, including a Tesla employee; they all escaped safely before the car was "totally destroyed" within five minutes of the fire starting.

...

Presumably, in this case in France, the car must have hit some kind of obstacle that broke through both the shielding and the battery pack—or alternatively, there was some kind of catastrophic failure in the car's power system.

http://arstechnica.co.uk/cars/2016/08/tesla-model-s-france-battery-fire/

[Lihu]

2 hours ago, nevets88 said:

This is off-topic, but it is a Tesla. I'd be hesitant to drive a natural gas powered car, but in a Tesla, those batteries are not exactly safe either. 

http://arstechnica.co.uk/cars/2016/08/tesla-model-s-france-battery-fire/

Yeah, Lithium batteries are not the safest. They are even restricted on airlines because of their potential to burst into flames. You are only allowed to carry so may cells. Not sure that's going to get much better in the future with ultra thin film with 5x capacity lithium formulations?

[jamo]

3 hours ago, nevets88 said:

This is off-topic, but it is a Tesla. I'd be hesitant to drive a natural gas powered car, but in a Tesla, those batteries are not exactly safe either. 

http://arstechnica.co.uk/cars/2016/08/tesla-model-s-france-battery-fire/

 

7 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Yeah, Lithium batteries are not the safest. They are even restricted on airlines because of their potential to burst into flames. You are only allowed to carry so may cells. Not sure that's going to get much better in the future with ultra thin film with 5x capacity lithium formulations?

It should be noted, you're not allowed to bring gasoline on an airplane either, and yet we've all become pretty accustomed to duping it into our cars. 

[iacas]

4 hours ago, jamo said:

It should be noted, you're not allowed to bring gasoline on an airplane either, and yet we've all become pretty accustomed to duping it into our cars. 

Yup.

[Lihu]

18 hours ago, jamo said:

 

It should be noted, you're not allowed to bring gasoline on an airplane either, and yet we've all become pretty accustomed to duping it into our cars. 

You are allowed to bring limited amounts of lithium batteries on an airplane but not gasoline, and I know of no cell phones or laptops that run on gasoline.

A Tesla is just a really gigantic electronic device, and as such could potentially be a much bigger problem than a cell phone spontaneously catching fire.

Improved manufacturing techniques has reduced the potential for fires along with newer designs, but the risk is still there for all electronics that use high capacity batteries employing Lithium. Lithium simply likes to burn when exposed to air.

[Fourputt]

Resurrecting this thread, and I didn't read all the way through it, but all I can say is that I don't want a self driving car anywhere near me.  As often as simple things like cellphones and personal computers screw up, I damn sure don't want a 2 ton wrecking ball hurtling down the road at me with only an integrated circuit for a brain.  I think that there is a lot more development and technology refinement and foolproofing needed before they are let loose on an unsuspecting public.

I'm not remotely interested in owning one.  I actually enjoy driving, love road trips (just bought a new pickup and camping trailer - ready for next summer), and I don't plan on giving that up any time soon.

[nevets88]

A little late, but @iacasand @jamo, you're right, gas or batteries, they're both dangerous and we're so used to dealing with a highly flammable liquid we, at least, I, take for granted how I'm a cigarette flick from combusting at Wawa.

I.. HATE... DRIVING... Unless it's for short spurts, there's no traffic and the scenery is nice. While autonomous technology is still nascent, I have seen such sh***ty f****ing driving from humans, I prefer autonomous cars. The other day, saw a driver totally ignoring 2 stop signs in a row. Just plowed through them. Am stuck behind texters all... the... time... Computers fail, but people fall asleep, take the wheel after heavy drinking, drive angry. Do I get nervous in a self driving car when it's time to brake? Hell... yes... You get used to it. There are so many environmental benefits, fewer cars required, more efficient driving, less traffic with coordinated autonomous driving on highways.

A self driving truck recently made a beer delivery in Ohio.

https://www.wired.com/2016/10/ubers-self-driving-truck-makes-first-delivery-50000-beers/

 

[Hardspoon]

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

all I can say is that I don't want a self driving car anywhere near me.

What if it is delivering you beer? 

51 minutes ago, nevets88 said:

A self driving truck recently made a beer delivery in Ohio

 

Seriously, though, as @nevets88 said, self-driving cars only have to be better at driving than humans. They don't need to be perfect. I expect that it will be a trade-off: accidents resulting from poor reaction time (rear-ending someone) or lack of vision (blind-spot lane changes) will be eliminated entirely, while other types may increase slightly (swerving to not hit a deer and losing control of the car).

[newtogolf]

17 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

What if it is delivering you beer? 

 

Seriously, though, as @nevets88 said, self-driving cars only have to be better at driving than humans. They don't need to be perfect. I expect that it will be a trade-off: accidents resulting from poor reaction time (rear-ending someone) or lack of vision (blind-spot lane changes) will be eliminated entirely, while other types may increase slightly (swerving to not hit a deer and losing control of the car).

If a car is self driving then it would seem the liability insurance should be covered by the programmers not the owners.  Why should I have to pay the deductible for an accident that resulted with me being only a passenger in a self driving car?    

[saevel25]

9 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

If a car is self driving then it would seem the liability insurance should be covered by the programmers not the owners.  Why should I have to pay the deductible for an accident that resulted with me being only a passenger in a self driving car?    

Because you could still take control of the car, and probably will be able to. I doubt the government would outlaw human drivers. 

So you still could be negligent in driving the car. Insurance should be much cheaper. 

[Hardspoon]

47 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

If a car is self driving then it would seem the liability insurance should be covered by the programmers not the owners.  Why should I have to pay the deductible for an accident that resulted with me being only a passenger in a self driving car?    

Because the programmers simply wouldn't produce self-driving cars under that liability structure.