Uber Self Driving Cars!

jarlmaster

In Runtime
Messages
473
Location
USA
Didn't know where to put this. Sorry.

Uber self driving cars are now out and about in Pittsburgh. They do have a human there to monitor things and take over if/when necessary but the car drives itself for the most part. I think this is great and its exciting to see this tech advancing so quickly. Especially with regards to things like driving, computers can do a much better job than humans. That's why planes have had autopilot for years and years. A lot of money, time, fuel, and lives are lost each year due to human error. The future of totally autonomous vehicles is a safer, better future. What do you guys think?
 
I seen about this morning. Its pretty exciting tech. Speaking of Uber, in my state our government has approved Uber to start operating.
 
I seen about this morning. Its pretty exciting tech. Speaking of Uber, in my state our government has approved Uber to start operating.

Yay for oz! About time. Taxis suck. Uber is a comprehensively better service. But yeah the tech is super cool. Hopefully the US government continues to expand on autonomous tech laws, making self-driving cars for the average consumer totally legal. A few states, including my hometown of Washington DC, have approved this which is a good start. We have driverless electric shuttles at the National Harbor back home which is cool.
 
The technical advances made in recent years around this are fantastic, but I can't help but think the barrier is going to be more of a human one ("I don't like the feeling of this, what if it goes wrong") rather than a statistical one - and sadly, as soon as there are a couple of accidents involving self driving cars, they'll be plastered all over the media as proof to why they should have never been allowed in the first place.

I hope the above doesn't happen of course, but I'm not holding high hopes...!
 
The technical advances made in recent years around this are fantastic, but I can't help but think the barrier is going to be more of a human one ("I don't like the feeling of this, what if it goes wrong") rather than a statistical one - and sadly, as soon as there are a couple of accidents involving self driving cars, they'll be plastered all over the media as proof to why they should have never been allowed in the first place.

I hope the above doesn't happen of course, but I'm not holding high hopes...!

^^Bingo. That is the biggest barrier. However, the tesla automated crash was in the media but it didn't seem to deter or negatively impact further automated development (though it may be used as evidence with regards to law change).

The issue is pragmatism vs. subjective worries. Driving is one of the most dangerous activities humans participate in on a daily basis. Accidents claim tens of thousands of lives every year, disrupt traffic, etc. Humans are unpredictable and prone to mistakes. Computers are not. Computers don't get drunk or run from the law or speed and on and on. Arguments against self driving cars are illogical and emotion driven. "it doesn't make me feel comfortable. I trust myself more than a computer" Self driving cars could/can alleviate or eliminate traffic and accidents. They can also reduce fuel consumption. Those are indisputable facts. I will go on to say that, given sufficient advancements in tech, robots can do just about any job a human can do, and do it better. I firmly believe that. And the faster people admit/realize that, the sooner laws change and the sooner self driving cars become commonplace.
 
As long as there is a means to take over when (not if) the system fails, I am all for it.

---------- Post added at 05:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:40 PM ----------

The technical advances made in recent years around this are fantastic, but I can't help but think the barrier is going to be more of a human one ("I don't like the feeling of this, what if it goes wrong") rather than a statistical one - and sadly, as soon as there are a couple of accidents involving self driving cars, they'll be plastered all over the media as proof to why they should have never been allowed in the first place.

I hope the above doesn't happen of course, but I'm not holding high hopes...!

Like this?
Can self-driving cars cope with illogical humans? Google car crashed because bus driver didn't do what it expected
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is collecting information
Said it wants to get a 'more detailed exploration of what exactly happened'
Google vehicle struck side of a public bus in Mountain View
Footage shows a Lexus SUV edging into the path of the bus at 15mph
By MARK PRIGG FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 13:57 EST, 14 March 2016 | UPDATED: 15:08 EST, 14 March 2016
Google has revealed that its self driving car hit a bus because it made an incorrect assumption about where it would go.
The firm admitted the crash would not be its last - while humans were allowed on the roads.
'Our car was making an assumption about what the other car was going to do,' said Chris Urmson, head of Google's self-driving project, speaking at the SXSW festival in Austin.
'This what driving is about.'
Scroll down for video of the crash
Google has revealed that its self driving car hit a bus because it made an incorrect assumption about where it would go. +12
Google has revealed that its self driving car hit a bus because it made an incorrect assumption about where it would go.
WHAT HAPPENED?
Neither the Google employee in the driver's seat — who must be there under California law to take the wheel in an emergency — nor the 16 people on the bus were injured.
The transit agency has concluded based on the footage that the bus driver was not responsible, spokeswoman Stacey Hendler Ross said.
Though it was a low-speed collision, the impact crumpled the Lexus' front left side, flattened the tire and tore off the radar Google installed to help the SUV perceive its surroundings.
A Google self-driving car struck a municipal bus in Mountain View in a minor crash on Feb. 14, and the search engine firm said it bears 'some responsibility' for the incident in what may be the first crash that was the fault of the self-driving vehicle.
Urmson revealed the company had taught its cars to move next to the curb when planning a right turn, sidling by traffic stopped at a traffic light, much as human drivers do, according to CNET.
As the drove, it spotted sandbags on the road ahead, so decided to stop and wait for the lane next to it to clear.
After the light turned green, the traffic began moving.
The car detected a city bus coming up the lane, and made the assumption the bus driver would slow down.
 
I agree that the "human" barrier will be what holds them back.

After all, we still have people that believe they can stop a car quicker without ABS than with it...
 
I agree that the "human" barrier will be what holds them back.

After all, we still have people that believe they can stop a car quicker without ABS than with it...

They sure do under some conditions. In fact one of those people is NHTSA. This is from http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/problems/equipment/absbrakes/page1-doom-04-26-2013.html:
On very soft surfaces, such as gravel or unpacked snow, ABS may actually lengthen stopping distances.
Their purpose is to allow directional control during a stop, not to shorten stopping distances, although they may on some surfaces.
 
Unless you're a professional racing driver and know your car inside out, I highly doubt your threshold braking skills will be at a good enough level to out-brake ABS.
 
Back
Top Bottom