Why the push for Autonomous driving?

[PandaBear]

I've spent many years operating programed robots in the past, they are not flawless. In the old days "early 80's" when we had problems with them the service department was thinking sun spots could have caused some of the unexplainable failures.
I remember a machine crash one time that was caused by a small metal chip that some how was allowed to enter the electronics cabinet and bridged a switch. How and why and at the time I was the lucky one.
Just like occasionally when any computer can funk out for an unknown reason or a near by lightning strike, and then needs a complete shut down or reboot, this can happen to the most expensive new robotic industrial machines, been there done that.
I don't trust any electronic device.
Autonomous cars and trucks? There have been cases of normal over computerized cars becoming autonomous and running away,
and can be especially bad with ones where every system is run through a computer of some sort, and the driver controls are in essence just joy sticks for the game controller.

Same wonky things can happen to human drivers, and it happens all the time with DUI and fatigue. This is why roads have changed from the horse riding days (you can think of horses as a dumb self driving vehicles that can get a drunk rider home with lane departure), and we have traffic lanes marked on the roads, and curbs separating human and vehicles, and signals, and laws regulating right of way, etc.

Robots aren't perfect and that's why assembly lines for robots tend to be different than human assembly lines, to make the robots work better. I wouldn't be surprised some roads would be marked differently and self driving cars would take a different than regular human driving cars. The best way to avoid crashing in self driving cars is to just program it to follow a car in front of it and keep a safe distance. If human drivers do that it can probably avoid 99.99% of accidents.

 

[PandaBear]

So you drive a car with points and a carb? In theory any car with just abs could just randomly lock the drivers side front wheel and pull you into on coming traffic if you aren't paying attention... And ones with self steering could just turn the wheel... Probably has happened once or twice too!
The run away toyota camry issue years ago was traced to bad programming and therefore vulnerability to a single bit flip in the ECU to cause the car to go WO. I would hope now that bit flip vulnerability is checked as part of the software QC? I'm sure Toyota does at least!

I do agree that actual mechanically connected controls should be mandatory for the driver to take over if needed.

I think initially, autonomous highway driving is the easiest to implement due to a simpler environment, stuff like navigating my driveway in winter after 6" of snow has fallen, probably isn't going to work out everytime with a computer at the helm....

You cannot avoid all mistakes, that's just the nature of all large system, but Toyota should have make each individual component failsafe so the other components with obviously bad input can be rejected and stop the car gracefully instead of just WOT. Redundancy in fly by wire exist, just too expensive for automotive until it is mature (and we will get there eventually).

Just compare to horse drawn -> automobile days, we will have different roads eventually when self driving mature. It won't work for every road and eventually some old neighborhood will be abandoned by self driving miss, and new places flourish when new technology matures.

 

[Exhaustgases]

Same wonky things can happen to human drivers, and it happens all the time with DUI and fatigue. This is why roads have changed from the horse riding days (you can think of horses as a dumb self driving vehicles that can get a drunk rider home with lane departure), and we have traffic lanes marked on the roads, and curbs separating human and vehicles, and signals, and laws regulating right of way, etc.

Robots aren't perfect and that's why assembly lines for robots tend to be different than human assembly lines, to make the robots work better. I wouldn't be surprised some roads would be marked differently and self driving cars would take a different than regular human driving cars. The best way to avoid crashing in self driving cars is to just program it to follow a car in front of it and keep a safe distance. If human drivers do that it can probably avoid 99.99% of accidents.

Yeah but, I never get into a car with those types of people driving. I have to drive for them on the roads, by avoiding them.
I have none of the problems you mention about human drivers, nor do I have any of the electronic car problems either. Only thing electronic is the engine management system, nothing else, just manual transmission, normal non ABS power brakes, no power steering, hand operated windows, I guess the radio is the other electronic item in the car and the airbags.
I avoid elevators and won't step foot into an autonomous vehicle that goes faster than 2 mph, and has a fool proof emergency exit.

 

[PandaBear]

Yeah but, I never get into a car with those types of people driving. I have to drive for them on the roads, by avoiding them.
I have none of the problems you mention about human drivers, nor do I have any of the electronic car problems either. Only thing electronic is the engine management system, nothing else, just manual transmission, normal non ABS power brakes, no power steering, hand operated windows, I guess the radio is the other electronic item in the car and the airbags.
I avoid elevators and won't step foot into an autonomous vehicle that goes faster than 2 mph, and has a fool proof emergency exit.

By saying that you avoid elevators and don't use power steering, you probably are not the people who would be near self driving cars anyways.

Eventually, the world will evolve when money can be made and save. People will get used to it and move on like the days when automobiles replaced horses. Insurance will deal with the corner cases as long as most of the time cars become safer on approved road self driving.

 

[PandaBear]

Very plain and simple reason.

So one is required to pay monthly subscriptions to the automakers to use their cars, on top of the purchase of the car.

You are required to pay monthly to drive your car even if you already paid it off, it is called insurance, tax, regular emission or safety inspection, etc. It doesn't stop people from driving. People also had the option to buy out a car feature (unless it is some stupid Mercedes butt warmer feature for subscription), or finance it with a loan or lease, and there are people financing a car with a loan or lease.

Self driving if done right also reduce insurance premium, so you can say either pay the car company (one time to buy, or monthly via subscription or financing), or pay the insurance company.

Eventually people will develop aftermarket self driving kit with the KFC bucket (spinning camera and Lidar from above) mount on roof rack, and plug into the CAN bus of the car to drive it. So if you don't want to pay for it monthly or buy a new car, you can upgrade an old one with these KFC bucket kit.

 

[GON]

You are required to pay monthly to drive your car even if you already paid it off, it is called insurance, tax, regular emission or safety inspection, etc. It doesn't stop people from driving. People also had the option to buy out a car feature (unless it is some stupid Mercedes butt warmer feature for subscription), or finance it with a loan or lease, and there are people financing a car with a loan or lease.

Self driving if done right also reduce insurance premium, so you can say either pay the car company (one time to buy, or monthly via subscription or financing), or pay the insurance company.

Eventually people will develop aftermarket self driving kit with the KFC bucket (spinning camera and Lidar from above) mount on roof rack, and plug into the CAN bus of the car to drive it. So if you don't want to pay for it monthly or buy a new car, you can upgrade an old one with these KFC bucket kit.

Don't pevert the message.

The monthly subscriptions will go to Ford, HM, Tesla, Google, Microsoft etc. I am.not paying those players a monthly subscription for my vehicles today.

 

[PandaBear]

Don't pevert the message.

The monthly subscriptions will go to Ford, HM, Tesla, Google, Microsoft etc. I am.not paying those players a monthly subscription for my vehicles today.

I am not.

You don't have to subscribe it, you can probably pay $30k one time to buy out the self driving feature eventually, but risk not receiving update in the future just like buying a paper map risking that it is outdated 10 years later.

Similar to buying an iPhone instead of financing it. You can buy a 3G phone and it only works 5 years, then they shutoff the old network and you are forced to buy a new phone for LTE/5G.

 

[GON]

I am not.

You don't have to subscribe it, you can probably pay $30k one time to buy out the self driving feature eventually, but risk not receiving update in the future just like buying a paper map risking that it is outdated 10 years later.

You are baiting. Excuse me, but youknow better. Not taking the bait, I won't be replying to your posts.

 

[PandaBear]

You are baiting. Excuse me, but youknow better. Not taking the bait, I won't be replying to your posts.

I am not baiting, just explaining to you why it is a subscription.

1) It needs constant update depending on the development and progress, nobody will get it perfect initially, probably for 10 years
2) It needs to change based on the road condition, nobody will give that information for free, it is beyond just a basic google map
3) It cost too much for people to buy it out, or it has a lot of licensing / royalty / patent cost that is only affordable on a monthly payment
4) They may want to shut it down if they give up, and can only do it if subscription based legally instead of selling something to you have have to refund later. Just like GM only lease EV1 and in the end took the cars back to crush when they give up.


Maybe I can say it is too expensive for the initial non commercial user?

 

[Torrid]

You are baiting. Excuse me, but youknow better. Not taking the bait, I won't be replying to your posts.

I'm not sure what he's saying that is bothering you, but I've said the same in this thread. The monthly subscription is only if you don't pay in full for the feature. You can buy it out right or you can pay per month, or you can't not take the option at all. I chose the 3rd option.

 

[GON]

I'm not sure what he's saying that is bothering you, but I've said the same in this thread. The monthly subscription is only if you don't pay in full for the feature. You can buy it out right or you can pay per month, or you can't not take the option at all. I chose the 3rd option.

Torrid, some of your thoughts on EV don't align with mine. Zero issue from me. Your EV convictions, although I don't concur with, appear from all angles as genuine from an impartial person. You live in a state where using a EV year round for many of its residences comes at a much great costs than EV owners in the Bay Area or Southern California. I give kudos to you for your EV convictions, although I don't align with your convictions.

EV mandates are a subsidy not to promote EV, but to take money without representation from citizens in Wisconsin, Nebraska, Kentucky, Kansas, and nearly every other state and involuntarily pay monies to provide high salary tech jobs in California. Take away the subsidies and mandates, I am all for whatever private organization has the best product and services in any industry- to include automobiles.

Never forget that google, facebook, etc have immunity for liabilities in many of their business practices. Who is granting this immunity and why????? One thing for sure, all the organizations being granted immunity have their highest paying jobs in the state of California. When someone promotes legislation for EV mandates......follow the money.

I read a recent report that California will receive well over 90 percent of the financial rewards from the "new" AI industry. I suspect if Oklahoma was to receive 90 percent of the financial rewards in the USA from AI---- California and its huge congressional body would have regulations on AI that would make it a very different use. But since California wins the spoils of AI, and wins huge----AI will receive immunity in many of its business activities.

 

[RDY4WAR]

I worry that one day, 40 years from now, I'll be in my self-driving car going to see the family and suddenly have a heart attack. Then, the car keeps driving to the destination with my dead body in it. It pulls up at their house, my grandkids see the car pull up... "Yay, grandpa is here!"

 

[Trav]

This is a good one. LOL

Driverless car gets stuck in wet concrete in San Francisco

Driverless cars have again run into trouble in San Francisco as city officials tout the dystopic vehicle that have a laundry list of issues as the way of the future.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[PimTac]

I am not.

You don't have to subscribe it, you can probably pay $30k one time to buy out the self driving feature eventually, but risk not receiving update in the future just like buying a paper map risking that it is outdated 10 years later.

Similar to buying an iPhone instead of financing it. You can buy a 3G phone and it only works 5 years, then they shutoff the old network and you are forced to buy a new phone for LTE/5G.

What? That’s not correct.

 

[Leo99]

Yeah, that's not gonna happen.

Older cars rule.

Kudos to those that see the push to take away "ownership" (you will own nothing, etc.. you will not own or be able to use the car unless you do it how "they" say..) combined with continued pushes to "change" how basic things work/are done.

Just no.

It's a funny thing. On one hand Insurance companies will raise the rates on non autonomous vehicles through the roof. I can see there being autonomous vehicles only highways. Autonomous vehicles don't need traffic lights or stop signs if all the other vehicles are autonomous. On the other hand if it all works well, Insurance companies are not necessary. Will they won't regulate insurance companies into obsolescence?

In 100 years the model you fear of no ownership will be very real. There will be clubs that own tracks or have access to old abandoned roads and highways that you can join and self-drive. It will be a hobby or something people do on date night.

 

[Torrid]

Torrid, some of your thoughts on EV don't align with mine. Zero issue from me. Your EV convictions, although I don't concur with, appear from all angles as genuine from an impartial person. You live in a state where using a EV year round for many of its residences comes at a much great costs than EV owners in the Bay Area or Southern California. I give kudos to you for your EV convictions, although I don't align with your convictions.

EV mandates are a subsidy not to promote EV, but to take money without representation from citizens in Wisconsin, Nebraska, Kentucky, Kansas, and nearly every other state and involuntarily pay monies to provide high salary tech jobs in California. Take away the subsidies and mandates, I am all for whatever private organization has the best product and services in any industry- to include automobiles.

Never forget that google, facebook, etc have immunity for liabilities in many of their business practices. Who is granting this immunity and why????? One thing for sure, all the organizations being granted immunity have their highest paying jobs in the state of California. When someone promotes legislation for EV mandates......follow the money.

I read a recent report that California will receive well over 90 percent of the financial rewards from the "new" AI industry. I suspect if Oklahoma was to receive 90 percent of the financial rewards in the USA from AI---- California and its huge congressional body would have regulations on AI that would make it a very different use. But since California wins the spoils of AI, and wins huge----AI will receive immunity in many of its business activities.

I was only commenting on the cost structure of the feature as Tesla does it. I do not support any form of autonomous driving in its current form. It lulls users into a false sense of security so when it goes wrong a passive reaction time when required to take over is much slower than actively driving. Tesla is most to blame here going as far as calling it Full Self Driving. That’s a huge problem.

 

[grampi]

I think instead of pushing autonomous and EV's, I think all new vehicles should come with a reader so the driver has to scan a valid driver's license, and a valid proof of insurance before the vehicle can be driven. That would get a lot of people off of the roads who shouldn't be driving...and it would lower everyone else's insurance rates...

 

[Torrid]

I think instead of pushing autonomous and EV's, I think all new vehicles should come with a reader so the driver has to scan a valid driver's license, and a valid proof of insurance before the vehicle can be driven. That would get a lot of people off of the roads who shouldn't be driving...and it would lower everyone else's insurance rates...

While it’s a great concept I wonder what the actual time to implement this would be? Even for autonomous there’s very few cars on the road capable of it and even less that people have paid to enable the feature. Adoption is very low. I think the scanner idea would be an absolute non starter if it was required to be retrofitted into existing vehicles and without that we’d see few cars with it.

 

[grampi]

While it’s a great concept I wonder what the actual time to implement this would be? Even for autonomous there’s very few cars on the road capable of it and even less that people have paid to enable the feature. Adoption is very low. I think the scanner idea would be an absolute non starter if it was required to be retrofitted into existing vehicles and without that we’d see few cars with it.

I also think cell phones should mandated to have some sort of device built into them that's prevents them from being used by a driver while driving. This would also reduce insurance rates, and make the roads much safer...

 

[Torrid]

I also think cell phones should mandated to have some sort of device built into them that's prevents them from being used by a driver while driving. This would also reduce insurance rates, and make the roads much safer...

If it’s not attached to a hands free way I agree. Hands free should be allowed though, there’s a number of safety reasons to be able to make a call while moving. Certain features in cars are already like this and do use GPS to limit them. Would be an easy update to accomplish, but then it would also be defeat-able for the reason that a passenger would be allowed to use them on the move.