California puzzles over safety of driverless cars

California puzzles over safety of driverless cars
This file photo taken Tuesday, May 13, 2014 shows a row of Google self-driving cars outside the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, Calif. California's Department of Motor Vehicles will miss a year-end deadline to adopt new rules for cars of the future because regulators first have to figure out how they'll know whether "driverless" vehicles are safe. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg,File)

California's Department of Motor Vehicles will miss a year-end deadline to adopt new rules for cars of the future because regulators first have to figure out how they'll know whether "driverless" vehicles are safe.

It's a rare case of the law getting ahead of an emerging technology and reflects regulators' struggle to balance consumer protection with innovation.

Safety is a chief selling point, since self-driving cars—thanks to an array of sensors—promise to have much greater road awareness and quicker reaction time than people. Plus, they won't text, drink or doze off.

Though the cars are at least a few years away from showrooms, seven companies are testing prototypes on California's roads, and regulators have questions: Do they obey all traffic laws? What if their computers freeze? Can they smoothly hand control back to human drivers?

DMV officials say they won't let the public get self-driving cars until someone can certify that they don't pose an undue risk. The problem is that the technology remains so new there are no accepted standards to verify its safety. Absent standards, certifying safety would be like grading a test without an answer key.

Broadly, the department has three options: It could follow the current U.S. system, in which manufacturers self-certify their vehicles; it could opt for a European system, in which independent companies verify safety; or the state could (implausibly) get into the testing business.

"It's a huge undertaking," said Bernard Soriano, who oversees the DMV's regulatory process. "There are all of these issues that need to be adequately answered."

Manufacturers generally would prefer self-certification. That may be where California ends up, but for now the DMV is exploring independent certification—something that doesn't exist for driverless cars.

California puzzles over safety of driverless cars
In this May 13 2014, file photo, a Google self-driving car goes on a test drive near the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, Calif. California's Department of Motor Vehicles will miss a year-end deadline to adopt new rules for cars of the future because regulators first have to figure out how they'll know whether "driverless" vehicles are safe. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg, File)

In July, the DMV asked third-party testers whether they'd be interested in getting into the game. The department doesn't have the expertise to create a safety standard and testing framework, so "the department wanted to get a very good sense of what is out there in the market," according to Russia Chavis, a deputy secretary at the California State Transportation Agency, which oversees the DMV and requested a deeper exploration of third-party alternatives to self-certification.

Two large European testers and two businesses in Ohio responded to the DMV's request. None was ready to implement a program immediately.

So the department is asking industry, consumer groups and other interested parties to gather in January for a public workshop on safety standards.

Whatever course California officials take could influence how other states—and perhaps even the federal government—approach the issue. California is such a large consumer market that in many cases its rules become de facto national standards.

Federal transportation officials have said they don't plan to write driverless car safety standards any time soon, and they don't want states writing their own. SAE International, an association of engineers, has been developing a set of safety guidelines—but those are for vehicle testing and don't get into specific performance levels that would be needed for commercially available cars.

California's Jan. 1 deadline was set by a 2012 state law that regulated testing on public roads and required the DMV to publish rules guiding what carmakers need to do before they can bring the vehicles to market. The law also says the DMV should encourage the development of driverless cars.

California puzzles over safety of driverless cars
In this Tuesday, May 13, 2014 file photo, a screen shows what a Google self-driving car sees through the window of one of the cars on exhibit at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, Calif. California's Department of Motor Vehicles will miss a year-end deadline to adopt new rules for cars of the future because regulators first have to figure out how they'll know whether "driverless" vehicles are safe. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg,File)

Regulations often lag cutting-edge technology, but California's driverless car policy has developed sooner because of lobbying from one of the state's signature companies: Google.

Self-driving vehicles are a departure from the Silicon Valley giant's Internet search and advertising core, but a priority for co-founder Sergey Brin.

Even before Google pushed the 2012 law that officially legalized driverless technology, the Silicon Valley giant had dispatched its cars hundreds of thousands of miles. Google says its Toyota Priuses and Lexus SUVs, souped up with radar, cameras and laser sensors, have an excellent safety record. They have been involved in just a "few" accidents, though not at fault in any of them, spokeswoman Courtney Hohne said.

Google has its own idea for how to determine whether vehicles are safe.

At a March hearing on DMV regulations, Ron Medford, the company's driverless car safety director and a former federal transportation official, suggested the department do road testing.

"I would be cautious," he said, "not to make some of these things more complicated than they are."


Explore further

Self-driving cars now need a permit in California

© 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Citation: California puzzles over safety of driverless cars (2014, December 21) retrieved 15 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-12-california-puzzles-safety-driverless-cars.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

BSD
Dec 21, 2014
Put it this way, driverless cars can't be any worse than cars with drivers.

Dec 21, 2014
If these driver less cars are all programmed to go the speed limit and keep a 2 second interval between vehicles, as is recommended, I can see where they could create a hazard due to people passing them. On most highways they would tend to bunch up and become moving road blocks.

Dec 21, 2014
Lack of car diversity will be serious security issue. Botnets will freely migrate onto automobiles, sending SPAM and generally failing or being steered into oncoming obstructions. Already US corporate fleets suffer from stranded truckers with their tractors immobilized by computer crashing or cracking

Open source will be critical for fast patch updates. Security alerts must be taken as seriously as the weather, demanding the driver park while car reboots

LRo
Dec 21, 2014
@MR166 your comment could be translated as follows: folks solving a very, very hard problem (involving computer vision, high level planing, control, etc) can forget about simpler things (adding heuristics about safe driving in the presence of other traffic). Yes, that could indeed be the case, however fixing that simple problem, is much, much easier than the harder problem and would be solved before, or shortly after the introduction of the technology. It is always puzzling to see how people don't understand the difference of hard vs easy problems... @kochevnik, you do understand that currently most of the functions in a car are driven by SW (including e.g. antilock brakes, steering, engine functions such as control of gas and air and timing, etc). Why not be as concerned with those?.. The professional developers doing those aspects are not your typical web dev kiddie...

Dec 21, 2014
Driverless cars is the technology where nothing can go wrong, go wrong, goowong, gwong. ...

Dec 21, 2014
Driverless cars is the technology where nothing can go wrong, go wrong, goowong, gwong. ...

Safety is directly correlated with cost. Driver controlled or driverless are both reliant on the features installed by the manufacture for safety. Profit margins will determine if lives are lost.

Dec 21, 2014
@kochevnik, you do understand that currently most of the functions in a car are driven by SW (including e.g. antilock brakes, steering, engine functions such as control of gas and air and timing, etc). Why not be as concerned with those?.. The professional developers doing those aspects are not your typical web dev kiddie...
Those functions have a manual override. The new generation will take command of the vehicle, rendering the 'driver' as a spectator. The second derivative of position is acceleration and the third derivative has always been the driver. Now machines are to automate that third derivative but probably they will be stymied for a century by paradoxes and no-win conundrums, just as automobiles have been stymied for the past century by the sheer complexity of combustion models

Dec 22, 2014
LR0,
most of the functions in a car are driven by SW (including e.g. antilock brakes, steering, engine functions such as control of gas and air and timing, etc). Why not be as concerned with those?..


You should be concerned any time a machine prevents the driver from driving the vehicle. A driverless vehicle is simply the extreme example of a generally bad decision.

One large question which should be addressed is the liability issue. If an impaired or distracted driver, for example, runs over a child in a school zone and kills the child, the driver may be charged with several offenses from murder to negligent homicide. The driver may also be sued in civil court. When something like this happens with a driverless car, who gets charged with murder, manslaughter, etc. and who gets sued in civil court? Who goes to jail?


Dec 22, 2014
Driverless cars is the technology where nothing can go wrong, go wrong, goowong, gwong. ...
Silly human. You're far more likely to go wrong than any computer.

"Do they obey all traffic laws? What if their computers freeze? Can they smoothly hand control back to human drivers?"

-If they can't or don't they will be upgraded until they will. And insurance companies, not legislators, have the experience and expertise to determine their relative safety. Legislators pretending to know something about tech does not help the public perception.

At a certain point, insurance companies will begin mandating this tech. We will have little choice. Anyone with any infraction whatsoever will be uninsurable unless their car drives itself. Others will pay exorbitant rates for the privilege of driving their vintage corvette themselves.

Few besides jay Leno will be able to afford it. And they will be restricted as to which highway and what time of day they can drive.

Dec 22, 2014
You should be concerned any time a machine prevents the driver from driving the vehicle. A driverless vehicle is simply the extreme example of a generally bad decision
Typical paranoid response by an avowed superstitionist. Your little dashboard bobblehead jesus will be meaningless in a car that drives itself. That's the real problem isn't it?

Believers want to control their vehicles the same way as they control the nature and function of their personal god. The same way they control their children, their spouses, their friends, their co-workers, etcetc.

Time to let go and let god... go.

Dec 22, 2014
Ghost your much hated individual "Control" is at the very heart of personal freedom. Your godless utopia will just substitute state control for self control. I can see this happening on a daily basis and the results are not pretty.

Dec 22, 2014
USA already very excited about destroying constitution due to NK crackers. Imagine when they make a casus belli false flag event with a hundred automated cars driving into some federal building or sacred stone obelisk penis they enjoy erecting. Scorched tyre markings around the stone vagina penetrated by the stone penis. The sacred double cross covered in plastic shards. Burned pink plastic flamingos on lawns. Burned baby carriages. Incubator babies being crushed under tyres of rabid cracker cars

Dec 22, 2014
Kochevnik I fear that almost a majority of US citizens have been dumbed down enough that they have no idea of the protections granted to them by the constitution. They willingly trade freedom for perceived safety. Those who want to take their freedoms away create false emergencies that can only be solved by confiscation of personal freedoms. Our schools and media are complicit in this enslavement.

Dec 22, 2014
Ghost your much hated individual "Control" is at the very heart of personal freedom. Your godless utopia will just substitute state control for self control. I can see this happening on a daily basis and the results are not pretty.
Well according to your logic anyone who wants to should be able to get in the pilot seat of a 747 and take it for a spin. We already live in a society full of reasonable and prudent control.

Picture a driverless highway of the future. Cars driving full speed just feet apart, all stopping and starting in unison, each sharing with the others info on where they are going and when they need to turn, what road conditions are like beyond view, emergencies, etc.

Human drivers will no longer fit into this picture. This is not control this is progress. Your horse and buggy are no longer allowed on the interstate. Does this restriction bother you?

LRo
Dec 22, 2014
This is hilarious! ... equating technology advancement towards a driver assist and driver-less car with an attack to personal liberties... Of course in the future, _even when_ there are driver-less cars that can take you anywhere you want, there will be cars without the feature, or with the capability of turning off the feature. Why? because there will be a market for them. Will the roads and laws change so that it will be costlier? probably (only if the technology advances to a point that it a driver-less car is safer). Will the citizens allow the government to disallow drivers? No. Without question... So, equating the two is ludicrous. There is no "new car order" conspiracy. Get a grip! ... The reality of how things _will_ evolve during our lifetimes and those of our kids and grandkids in our country, is that there will continue to be a plethora of choices. It _will not_ evolve to a single choice, simply because there is money to be made, by having multiple choices.. rest assured!

Dec 22, 2014
Ghost my comment was not so much about cars as it was about this............

"Believers want to control their vehicles the same way as they control the nature and function of their personal god. The same way they control their children, their spouses, their friends, their co-workers, etcetc.

Time to let go and let god... go."


Dec 22, 2014
Will the citizens allow the government to disallow drivers? No.
Yes. They already restrict your god-given right to drive drunk. They (the real authority - insurance companies) already begin to restrict what you can drive after age 65.

They will soon test elderly people and keep those who pose a danger off the road completely. And when tech advances to the point where human drivers cannot safely interact with it, as I described above, then you will be restricted once again.

You are not allowed to rollerskate on the freeway. Does this bother you?

Dec 22, 2014
Put it this way, driverless cars can't be any worse than cars with drivers.


But driverless will be held to a higher standard. People will be up in arms if they hear about a death caused one.

Dec 22, 2014
Ghost my comment was not so much about cars as it was about this............

"Believers want to control their vehicles the same way as they control the nature and function of their personal god. The same way they control their children, their spouses, their friends, their co-workers, etcetc.

Time to let go and let god... go."

-Well you're off-topic then aren't you? You can fiddle with you're personal god all you want. But you still can't ride your Amish buggy on the interstate, no matter what you imagine your god says.

You know whats annoying? I can't type 'god' without spellcheck capitalizing it. Spellcheck stores other custom spellings but not 'god'. What ortho asshole programmed reverence into my iPhone?

Dec 22, 2014
Put it this way, driverless cars can't be any worse than cars with drivers.


But driverless will be held to a higher standard. People will be up in arms if they hear about a death caused one.
Indeed, politicians and news people will jump on every accident while showing clips from 'I Robot' because that's their job. But they will fail to point out the great reduction in the number and severity of accidents. And you will believe everything they tell you.

LRo
Dec 22, 2014
@Troll, er I meant @Ghost: in real life, none of the extremes ever take place. Life is more nuanced. In particular in a country like USA, where there is power in the electorate (I should say in the leaders of that electorate). So, laws go back and forth for decades. Laws and Regulations are enacted, and then eliminated. Eventually the laws with more staying power are those accepted by the majority, and the laws that make sense (in some cases, the laws may stay in the books, but are simply not applied). Market forces also play a very big role, and companies have undue influence in creating the laws, but companies are only successful if there is a Market. So, those aspects mean that the most likely scenario (by far!) is one where there is simply more choice. Not as you mention that only the ultra rich can afford, but one that is commensurate with the market's buying power and size. Conspiracy theories, one way or the other, are only for the feeble of mind.

Dec 22, 2014
Lame-o er Lro

-You're not from this country? As I say your buggy is no longer welcome on the freeway. Insurance companies here are the ultimate determiners of your so-called choice. They restrict what you can build, what you can borrow, what you can own, where you can use it. They restrict your right to sue, to travel, to earn as a professional, and ultimately to live or die depending upon your previous life 'choices'.

Doesn't matter what laws are passed. The only one that would have any effect would be the one which says you don't need insurance to do this or that. And the requirements for being insured have only increased over time. Always.

This is no conspiracy theory. What's your credit score? It will prevent you from getting a job. And without a job you can't choose to drive anything but your feet.

I saw 2 old people wreck within a week because they mistook the gas for the brake. While laws are pending to get them off the street, insurance says they already are.

Dec 23, 2014
"I saw 2 old people wreck within a week because they mistook the gas for the brake. While laws are pending to get them off the street, insurance says they already are."

What a coincidence,,,,,,,,I saw two 20 somethings drive off the road while texting today.

Dec 23, 2014
I once heard a joke from an airline pilot.

He said "You know what will be in an airplane cockpit in twenty years? There'll be a pilot, a computer, and a dog. The computer will be there to fly the plane, and the dog will be there to bite the pilot's hand if he tries to touch the controls...."

I think he might not be too far from the truth once a generation is raised on extremely few (if any) accidents with computers and vehicles of all types.

Dec 23, 2014
There is no doubt in my mind that computerized driving controls in each automobile will happen and will speed travel on the Interstates. That is the easy part. Local streets and State roads are an other problem.

As far as the Interstates go, we can only hope that we never return to 55 as the politically correct speed limit in the future.

The basic problem with dirverless cars is the difference between posted speed limits and the speeds that real drivers actually travel. Me personally, I slow down under the limit when curves, hills or weather limits my visibility and speed up over the limit, under better conditions. Posted speed limits which driverless cars will adhere to are meaningless in the real world.

LRo
Dec 23, 2014
@MR166 I think quite a bit of your concerns (which are very valid) are being taken into consideration by the folks working on this technology. There are a few free classes offered by Coursera and Stanford that would be beneficial for you to get a better idea of what is the problem the folks are trying to solve. The problem of creating a route in a well known map, and with predetermined speed, was solved back in the 60's and 70's (when I finished my MS thesis in the early 80's, which dealt w/ pattern recognition, those topics were already part of the established literature and deemed solved, in particular in the context of industrial robots, etc... for which the math, etc. is the same). The problem that people are trying to solve now, and for which they have made quite a bit of progress, is to drive in the real world (where a kid's ball bounces into the street, and the car has to break unexpectedly, or traffic in front swerves because of an object in the highway, etc.)

LRo
Dec 23, 2014
The key progress of the last couple of years is in the area of Deep Learning. The difference between the Neural Networks approach I used in the 80's and the new technology is that the more data one acquires, the better Deep Learning algorithms behave. Prior approaches reached a plateau after some amount of training and wouldn't get better. The new approach gets better. So, as more testing is done, and more cars are equipped with the technology and provide data, it will get better. Google Andrew Ng (Stanford professor and expert on Machine Learning) if you want to get a better idea of the field (Linton et al would be too hard to understand... very advanced math, etc). Hope this helps.

Dec 23, 2014
LRo the problem is that most drivers drive 5 to 10 MPH over the speed limit and people that drive at or under the speed limit are really a hazard. There is no way in hell that a company programming a driverless vehicle can allow their vehicle to drive faster than the limit. Thus, these vehicles will become a source of major blockages and potential accidents.

LRo
Dec 23, 2014
I hear you, but please consider the following 2 points: a) the part of technology dealing with changing the heuristics (behavior) associated w/ driving actions is simpler than the other parts. That is, they are easier to change than the other parts of the technology. As these cars become part of the roads and experience is gained, both the heuristics and the legal framework will by necessity adapt and change towards a reasonable compromise. No new R&D is required for this, just reaching an understanding of the proper behavior from both the legal and the car etiquette and actions point of view b) most of the blockages and traffic issues come from excessive braking/accelerating. Those 2 can (and most likely will) be programmed to be more optimal (from the point of view of having a better traffic flow). My friend is a post-doc at Berkeley U and has studied this extensively. It is very amazing to see how a person applying the brakes results in a traffic jam, a few hundred feet behind them

Dec 23, 2014
LRo the problem is that most drivers drive 5 to 10 MPH over the speed limit and people that drive at or under the speed limit are really a hazard. There is no way in hell that a company programming a driverless vehicle can allow their vehicle to drive faster than the limit
Research before you post. What makes you think programmers who spend man-years on design wouldnt have thought of everything that might ever occur to you?

"Google's self-driving cars are programmed to exceed speed limits by up to 10mph (16km/h), according to the project's lead software engineer.

"Dmitri Dolgov told Reuters that when surrounding vehicles were breaking the speed limit, going more slowly could actually present a danger, and the Google car would accelerate to keep up."

-And as smart cars are all talking to each other about what the vehicles around them are doing, naturally all-to-human speeders and tailgaters will be flagged and their insurance rates will instantly double.

Dec 23, 2014
"I saw 2 old people wreck within a week because they mistook the gas for the brake. While laws are pending to get them off the street, insurance says they already are."

What a coincidence,,,,,,,,I saw two 20 somethings drive off the road while texting today.
The two I saw werent distracted in the least. Their mental faculties had deteriorated to the point where they were no longer safe on the highway.

Smart cars that monitor performance might be the best and only reliable way of identifying such individuals.

I just switched insurance companies and they said I could reduce my rates by using a USB chip which would monitor my driving, checking for hard stops and other things. I suppose once these things are standard they would be capable of raising your rates as well.

Dec 23, 2014
"I just switched insurance companies and they said I could reduce my rates by using a USB chip which would monitor my driving, checking for hard stops and other things."

Well at least you are consistent. Obviously personal privacy is of little use to you. At what point would you object to governmental/corporate intrusion into your life? Perhaps they should offer you 10% off your Obamacare premium if you have a camera in your kitchen monitoring the meals that you cook.

Dec 23, 2014
Well at least you are consistent. Obviously personal privacy is of little use to you. At what point would you object to governmental/corporate intrusion into your life?
Or perhaps we dont need cops and radar and you can drive as fast as you want. Sounds like you want the freedom to break the law and get away with it... because its fun to be clever I suppose.

Perhaps you want to defend this ladys right to drive and kill pregnant women?

"After the day was done — and a crash had killed an expectant mother and left her baby in critical condition — the questions began.

"Why did 88-year-old Allen Massie drive into Jodie Guthrie, 30, as she leaned against a wall Wednesday outside a Rite Aid pharmacy on the North Side? Did he have Alzheimer's disease, as one family member told reporters, and if so, why was he driving?"

Dec 23, 2014
LRo the problem is that most drivers drive 5 to 10 MPH over the speed limit and people that drive at or under the speed limit are really a hazard. There is no way in hell that a company programming a driverless vehicle can allow their vehicle to drive faster than the limit. Thus, these vehicles will become a source of major blockages and potential accidents.
This is a problem with the fleet vehicles right now. Even trailers have their own GPS so transport companies can see their products are at the wrong location but can do nothing because of speed limits vs. delivery date for xmas

Also truckers can be harassed for even making a wrong turn. Worse their supervisor may be a robot

Dec 23, 2014
This is hilarious! ... equating technology advancement towards a driver assist and driver-less car with an attack to personal liberties...

Indeed. More so that we live in 4D. And ironic—a mind imprisoned by its ignorance insisting on freedom to remain thus.

When Ghost said 'picture highways of the future,' the ones I pictured are full of blue skies and beyond. Hopefully no one needs links to flying cars and such... because I will post them

Dec 24, 2014
"My friend is a post-doc at Berkeley U and has studied this extensively. It is very amazing to see how a person applying the brakes results in a traffic jam, a few hundred feet behind them"

LRo He is 100% correct. I commuted on a heavily used interstate for years. During peak hours it was bumper to bumper 70-75 MPH traffic. On the days that the police would try to enforce 55MPH that choke point would create a dangerous stop and go mess for the 10 miles preceding it. It was similar to sand in an hourglass.

Dec 24, 2014
"My friend is a post-doc at Berkeley U and has studied this extensively. It is very amazing to see how a person applying the brakes results in a traffic jam, a few hundred feet behind them"

LRo He is 100% correct. I commuted on a heavily used interstate for years. During peak hours it was bumper to bumper 70-75 MPH traffic. On the days that the police would try to enforce 55MPH that choke point would create a dangerous stop and go mess for the 10 miles preceding it. It was similar to sand in an hourglass.
Imagine that these are all self-driving cars, all sharing info on conditions ahead of them, all slowing and speeding up simultaneously, all able to seek alternate routes to avoid congestion. Traffic jams become rare and short.

Dec 24, 2014
Ghost I have no problems with that sort of automation, in fact it can be really helpful if the speed limits are raised. My point was that only a small percentage of driverless vehicles going slower than say average morning rush hour traffic speeds will cause huge jams.

Dec 25, 2014
My guess is that AI won't be reliable enough to safely navigate any random US road for 20 to 50 years. I would say that every foot of road that a driverless vehicle will be allowed on will have to be specially modified, some sort of beacon at set distances and certain points, before they would be safe.

Current AI is limited by our processors. All we are doing is making them faster, brute force improvements. I think we need some actual advances in processing before we get real good AI. We still have no idea how a brain works and I think that real AI advances won't occur until we understand how a brain works and we can emulate it in hardware. And when that happens maybe the dire AI warnings we've heard lately might actually be a danger.

LRo
Dec 25, 2014
General AI is _not_ required for autonomous driving (that is very safe to say, in particular after over 1 million miles of _real life_ autonomous driving by cars from several companies, not just Google. Perhaps you just haven't dug into the news in detail. But, I have seen the cars driving next to me in US 101 in CA... and this was no mirage, and no beacons required. GPS is good enough).
But, I agree that it would take 20 to 30 years before they are prevalent in the roads. This will be incremental. Initial approach will include self driving cars in specific areas, and at fairly low speeds. Also, some driver assist modes to avoid collisions, etc. After those become commonplace and the laws and regulations advance, some models will be offered, and then in the 2030's and 40's they may become prevalent.
Some folks think that making SW to be very reliable is impossible. That's not the case. It is hard, but doable. Lot of functions in cars are driven by SW with 7 to 8 9's reliability.

LRo
Dec 25, 2014
5 9's availability (99.999% is common place in non-mission critical, but important systems, such as telephone networks). Much higher availability/reliability (7 or 8 9's and higher) is required in mission critical systems (such as those within a car). Research CAN networks (internal network within a car). And you will be surprised how much today's car rely on SW for their normal operation (from engine operation, to brakes, etc). And, the _measured_ reliability is higher than their purely mechanical counterparts (measured over time in real life conditions of actual cars, etc). There are always problems with systems regardless of being mechanical or not. Eng is about understanding those problems and fixing them methodically, over time.

Dec 25, 2014
i guess some people like driving and some don't, personally i don't want to be a vegetable inside a robot.


LRo
Dec 25, 2014

That is correct. There is a market for both choices, and that will continue to be the case even after the technology is introduced. I think both laws, companies, insurance, etc will maintain that choice. It is a market-driven requirement (not ideology driven).

I like to drive, but only when I do it for leisure. When I am commuting to/from work on a daily basis, I rather have computer assisted driving or a fully self driving car. It would be less stressful and I can do other things. It is just not fun to be driving on bumper to bumper traffic during rush hour. I also rather have my own car and not go via public transportation or a shared car. So, I am in the part of the market that would adopt the technology when it becomes available, but will also use regular driving from time to time.

Dec 25, 2014
Current AI is limited by our processors. All we are doing is making them faster, brute force improvements. I think we need some actual advances in processing before we get real good AI.
Driving is a mass-parallel problem. It is not limited by processor speed, but simply the number of processors and memory. An AI equivalent to that of a bee would solve everyday driving decisions. Parallel processor power should increase hundred times in twenty years it will be trivial, like sorting colored marbles today. Emphasis will change to driving styles and performance/safety preferences

Dec 26, 2014
will cause huge jams
-And as percentages increase, and dedicated lanes and highways are assigned, jams will become shorter and more infrequent.
won't be reliable enough to safely navigate any random US road for 20 to 50 years
-So this is how little you know about what is actually going on.

"Google's self-driving cars, of which there are usually a dozen on the roads of California and Nevada at any given time, have now logged 700,000 miles of awesome accident-free autonomous driving. To celebrate, Google has released a new video that demonstrates some impressive software improvements that have been made over the last two years: Most notably, its self-driving cars can now track hundreds of objects simultaneously, including pedestrians, an indicating cyclist, a stop sign held by a crossing guard, or traffic cones."
http://www.extrem...r-trains

Dec 26, 2014
otto's right on this.

Dec 28, 2014
This is hilarious!

otto voted down my assertion he was correct!!

His pathetic emotions have taken over.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more