Your concerns about technology are pure BS. Leave those poor corporations alone

[FrodosPet]

I surrender.

I stand educated.

Self driving cars are coming. And not soon enough, so get out of the way!

If you try asking "Are we ready yet? Should there be standards and transparency requirements?", then you are a Luddite, a technophobe interfering with a great and necessary project.

Sure, there may be challenges in the public beta phase. People will die because of the technology, as well as in spite of it. Keep in mind that "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.". Every death, every injury is a learning experience, not a sad tragedy. Just keep a warm thought that the people killed and injured are not victims, they are noble martyrs of this great leap forward.

So remember, "The future has potential to be wonderful, and guess what? It's coming. You can't stop it. Might as well turn your face to the sun and welcome it."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1577874

[Odin2005]

1. Nice passive-aggressive post.

[FrodosPet]

4. Thank you!

It takes a rough cold for me to do my best P-A work.

Going back to the core issue of the OP: do you think the Federal government has any place in the specific regulation of self-driving technology? Or has DU become Ayn Rand Land?

[lame54]

2. And the benefits are?

[VulgarPoet]

3. Yeah... That kind of does make you a technophobic Luddite. eom

[WestCoastLib]

5. huh?

If you try asking "Are we ready yet? Should there be standards and transparency requirements?", then you are a Luddite, a technophobe interfering with a great and necessary project.

Really? I would say if you ask that, you aren't a Luddite, you are just not paying attention. There are standards and transparency requirements.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/technology/the-15-point-federal-checklist-for-self-driving-cars.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FTransportation%20Department&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection

[FrodosPet]

6. And there are people upset by that very fact

They consider regulation as an impediment to the rapid and widespread development and distribution of the technology. They believe the consumer image motive alone is enough incentive to develop safe cars, no busy body government types needed.

One comment I have seen repeatedly in various forums is "it only needs to be a little bit better than humans" or "if it saves even one life, it is worth it".

I'm sorry. I have higher standards.

[WestCoastLib]

9. Not seeing it, sorry.

I've not seen anyone say there shouldn't be standards.

[whatthehey]

10. No, you really don't.

I'm sorry. I have higher standards.

Why don't you apply them equally to humans then?

Where is your hundreds of posts campaign calling for the lifetime ban of any human driver who gets into a < 10mph fender bender, the worst thing autonomous cars have done, exactly once, in well over a million miles (Teslas are not even close to autonomous, have never been claimed to be, and every one of the trivial number of autopilot crashes has been demonstrated to be human negligence and refusal to follow instructions)? Hell to have the same standards you'd have to say humans in general can never be trusted to drive because one of them had a minor flaw.

Where is your consiustency? Either hold humans to the same standard or admit what everyone already knows - that this is some petty personal FUD hobbyhorse.

[FrodosPet]

18. Getting old really sucks

You get tired, you get cranky, you begin to miss the good old days. You are presented with this wonderful innovation, this amazing advancement, and instead of properly appreciating and celebrating it, you begin to nit pick. "What about puddles and potholes and snow and faded lines and unexpected pedestrian behavior?"

I wish I had the strength to overcome my FUD. I promise I will try to me more accepting that brilliant people are working on this, and that a better, safer world is coming.

[Codeine]

33. All of those things are existing road hazards

and humans have all sorts of issues dealing with them. I don't imagine autonomous vehicles, once perfected, are likely to deal with them any worse than the Mark I Meatbag.

Of course there should, and are, and will be standards; nobody outside of your imaginary strawposters is saying otherwise.

[FrodosPet]

40. You are correct. No more strawmen posts. Not sure if I will even leave uncommented news stories

Even those seem to upset people.

As has been pointed out many times before, the technology is inevitable. And I have the skills to participate at a high level. So I should be more confident, positive and encouraging towards the technology.

Time to go "connect the dots."

[The2ndWheel]

12. Everyone likes and dislikes regulation

It just depends on what is being regulated, how it's being regulated, and who is doing the regulating. If you like something, you'll want fewer regulations. If you don't like something, there's can be almost no regulation good enough.

[LanternWaste]

15. And the advancement of science and technology has even higher standards than you

"I'm sorry. I have higher standards..."

And the advancement of science and technology has even higher standards than you, regardless of its lack of sorrow for it.

[whatthehey]

7. Another bullshit FUD strawman

Please point to anyone suggesting there should not be safety standards.

But expecting perfection before any prototyping is allowed is insane and counter to all history. The standard for human drivers or human-driven cars is not perfection. Nor should it or can it be for autonomous ones.


What exactly do you have against reducing deaths by reducing those caused by tired, distracted, incompetent, drunk, senile, overly aggressive humans thanks to electronics prone to none of the above? Is concern over the infinitesimally likely scenario of having to choose between crashing into an oncoming bus or going off the side of a cliff (and what are the perfect human solutions there incidentally?) worth not preventing the far more probable accident-causing scenarios of folks driving too close and too fast, solvable easily by current technology?

[FrodosPet]

25. I have NOTHING against deploying the tech when ready

The tech is on the way, and yes, people will need to learn to live with it.

Some people REALLY won't like it. A small subset of them may become vandalous towards it. I hope I am wrong, but I suspect we are going to have to clear out some prison space to make room for a few hundred to a few thousand radical Luddites in the coming years.

We will need to devote significant security measures to stop GPS spoofing and interference. Over the air update systems will need the best encryption and validation possible to avoid hacking. We may even want to consider strict controls on paintball guns and spray paint. Walk by a stationary auto auto, quick squirt of paint, and the car is down and facing thousands of dollars of repairs.

Laws will HAVE to be updated, with vicious penalties and widespread enforcement, to deal with the issues of system security.

That is ALL I am saying. It is coming, learn to accept it, but don't BLINDLY accept it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

8. Oh, look. Another luddite.

[FrodosPet]

19. Getting old should be illegal

You become a cranky burden on others. I am really beginning to think it is time to consider stepping out of the picture so I will no longer upset good, smart, optimistic people with my FUD about self driving cars (and all the other stuff that annoys others).

[Act_of_Reparation]

27. No, but it should impart humility.

Or at least the wisdom to know change is inevitable, and not necessarily bad.

[Hugin]

11. I for one, welcome our new robotic overlords.

May they reign amorally forever.

[Hugin]

17. With any luck at all they'll be equipped with Galaxy 7 style batteries.

All hail!

[Codeine]

34. Robots shouldn't have tweaker teeth.

Overclocking his CPU has taken a toll.

[Hugin]

37. Word on the street is this is the clocker with the apple jack.

[Egnever]

13. People die every day from human error

So far the accident rate of self driving cars isn't even close to humans. The idea that because someone might someday die from a self driving car accident we shouldn't be testing and working towards getting them on the road is pure luddite. They are already proving themselves much safer than humans.

How much safer than humans do they need to be for you to end this nonsense crusade?

[FrodosPet]

21. Apples and Oranges. Good for dessert, bad for comparisons

Yes, self driving cars, limited to 25 MPH, and operating under human supervision with frequent human intervention in a relatively small and carefully mapped areas had BETTER be safer than millions of people driving at a range of speeds in uncontrolled situations.

How many "in the wild without any human intervention" miles do they have?

You seem to think I don't want SDC technology. That is an incorrect assumption. I can see the benefits, the potential. All I want is public eyes on the development and deployment.

[yeoman6987]

26. You must hate the space program

We've lost more humans to that then self driving cars.

[FrodosPet]

28. And -I- am supposed to be the "strawman guy" in this thread?

Thank you. I coughed up a lung, but that was a good laugh!

We can talk again in 4 years about your awesome statistic.

So how many full speed freeway miles do they have on them? How many SDCs are operating without any human supervision or intervention?

At this stage, these highly touted numbers are irrelevant. The TOTAL number of miles travelled since the beginning is only a fraction of what human drivers log in a single day.

[yeoman6987]

29. I admit it was strawman but it was the only thing at the time I could equate to it

[Major Nikon]

49. The benefits and potential are already being realized

Much of the technology developed is being mandated by DOT for all cars. Vehicle to vehicle communications for crash avoidance is coming very soon. Other crash avoidance technologies are just on the horizon like automatic braking. Before so called self driving cars ever go mainstream, serious car crashes will become an increasingly rare occurrence.

[LanternWaste]

14. No more and no less than the transformation to the combustion engine from the horse and buggy

"People will die because of the technology, as well as in spite of it... Every death, every injury is a learning experience, not a sad tragedy. Just keep a warm thought that the people killed and injured are not victims, they are noble martyrs of this great leap forward...."

No more and no less than the transformation to the combustion engine from the horse and buggy. Unless you're naive enough to believe that the early twentieth century conversion was without death, injury or incident. Ironically enough, what you yourself drive daily was itself indicted in the same manner and format you currently use by the early twentieth century rural population of America and western Europe.

[The2ndWheel]

16. What you have to do is accept that you don't matter

It's the same with jobs.

We are increasingly designing society for our technology. Have been for a long time. We want that technology to one day be able to design the society itself, otherwise we wouldn't be bothering with artificial intelligence. Humans are just along for the ride at this point.

[FrodosPet]

22. I am trying, but that is very difficult

Know any secrets?

[Glassunion]

20. Wow. No posts about teh impossible, can't drive in the snow

What about weather? What about Bob Finkle's one-lane road along a cliff that isn't on a GPS cause Bob is the only one who uses it?

What about Murder Face pass that passes over Devil's Flaming Sword mountains?

You know, the all or nothing arguments.

[FrodosPet]

23. I guess all that does not matter

Auto autos are safer and you are a Luddite obstructionist for bringing those issues up.

Remember, your opinions are meaningless. Accept the tech!!! Embrace the tech!!! Do not question, do not interfere, just get in the damn car because it is safe enough already.

[Glassunion]

24. You raise some excellent points

Go give them a good and hard push.

[longship]

30. And how about the fucking Grapevine in SoCal.

It's also called the Tejon pass, an eight lane interstate highway which is a scary assed drive over the mountains.

Rule number 1: don't drive in front of a semi.
Rule number 2: stay off the fucker when snow is forecast.
Rule number 3: rush hour can be hell on Earth.

And the most important rule: don't drive on it if there's an autonomous vehicle anywhere near you.

[Glassunion]

31. What about Grapevine?

Again, to my point. Is it all or nothing? Should progress be halted on this technology because of an 11 mile stretch of interstate in a nation of over 2 1/2 million miles of paved roads?

Which brings me to a larger point. Do the risks outweigh the reward? Currently, when compared mile for mile, autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles have caused fewer accidents and deaths then humans have. Most folks, like myself who are supportive of the technology are not saying that it is without flaws, nor are we saying that there should not be regulation and oversight. I personally feel it does not have to be perfect, only better. I'm a data driven individual, and for well over the past 100 years, humans have proved that they are nowhere even remotely close to perfect. 94% of all motor vehicle accidents are caused by humans. If autonomous capabilities of vehicles, not even full autonomy can reduce accidents by even 10% would that be worth it? Would the mobility and independence these technologies could provide to those who cannot drive be worth it?

[longship]

32. How many of those miles experience rain or snow?

I don't give a damn about possibilities. I care about what this technology can actually do.

Why do they only ever get tested in CA and NV where the weather is dry?

My metric is simple. The day that autonomous vehicles prove themselves in realistic tests in a variety of weather including winter conditions I will provisionally change my mind.

In the meantime, keep your damned autonomous vehicles away from me.

And about the Grapevine, it's a fucking scary drive, especially with heavy truck traffic.

[Glassunion]

35. They don't only get tested in CA and NV when the weather is good.

Currently a LIDAR system is being tested that can recognize raindrops and snowflakes. Ford seems to be doing the best when testing this.

Do you think that this technology is an all or nothing advancement? It isn't. Autonomy is, and will continue to be a slow creep of individual components that will eventually lead to complete autonomy. Each technology advancement will supplement a human driver, by accommodating for their mistakes, until eventually the driver will no longer need to be a component. This will take years, and will not be an overnight event where we wake up and suddenly with SkyNet operating all of our cars.

You cannot keep autonomy away from you. Just as I cannot keep a crummy driver away from me. Like yourself I have concerns, however I feel that the current capabilities of the autonomous components in cars today make me safer to be around them.

I'm less likely to be rear-ended by a vehicle with adaptive cruise control engaged, or one with auto-brake features.
I'm less likely to be merged into by a vehicle with lane awareness, and blind-spot monitoring.
I'm less likely to be hit by a Tesla with the driver-assist autopilot engaged.

Now, what we should be discussing (IMO)is: how should these systems be regulated, should aspects of the technology be standardized, and what should the safety standards be?

[longship]

36. My safety standards are simple.

Keep them all off the roads and we'll all be a helluva lot safer, except under closely monitored tests with drivers ready to assume control.

And keep them the hell away from me.

Pretty simple to do, since they don't test them here.

Note that I have not yet mentioned the insurance issue. But even the strongest autonomous vehicle advocate knows that that's a game stopper, so I did not think it was necessary.

Autonomous vehicles remain dreamland at this point, and likely for a long time to come.

[Egnever]

39. How is insurance a game stopper?

If anything the insurance companies are in a panic because it is going to kill the car insurance industry.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-agenda-driverless-insurance-20160620-snap-story.html

The auto insurance industry faces upheaval in the next 25 years as the migration to autonomous safety features — and ultimately a self-driving car — shifts more of a car’s accident risk from the driver to the vehicle, analysts said.

The number of accidents is expected to drop sharply because currently more than 90% of accidents are caused by driver error. That could lower insurance bills for consumers. The U.S. market for personal auto insurance policies, which currently generates $200 billion in premiums a year, could shrink substantially, some experts predict.

But KPMG estimates that over the next 25 years, the number of accidents could plunge 80% from current levels, which “will go right to the core of the business” of providing car insurance, said Jerry Albright, a KPMG principal also on the task force.

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway Corp. owns Geico insurance, told an automotive forum last year that “we would not be throwing a party at our insurance business” when self-driving cars arrive, even though that day remained “a long ways off.”

[longship]

41. Right now, no insurance company is going to insure one for a reasonable price.

It's really quite simple.

And the bottom line is really quite easy. Autonomous vehicles are just not ready. When you have people dying in accidents, any claims to more safe are just poppycock. And anybody who does not understand that weather is a huge issue is deluding themselves. Plus, people are just not going to trust this technology until its proven trustworthy. By trust, that means in a sudden thunderstorm downpour, or traversing the Grapevine while driving in front of a big fucking, fully loaded tractor/trailer rig. How about the latter in a sudden downpour? I think both car and rig end up over a cliff if they are autonomous.

[Egnever]

42. You keep saying things as if they are fact but they aren't.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/06/09/this-company-just-solved-the-biggest-policy-problem-for-driverless-cars/

"a British insurance company has begun offering a special policy designed for autonomous and partly automated vehicles. In theory, you could use this on your Google driverless car or your Tesla that's equipped with autopilot."

You may not "trust it" but that has no bearing on reality. Google is up to almost two million miles driven including in washington where it rains all the time and has had one 2mph accident where the autonomous vehicle was at fault. Meanwhile those same vehicles have been hit multiple times by human drivers. The safety issue is clearly not the autonomous vehicle it is the humans.

90% of all accidents are caused by human error.

The insurance industry as a whole is looking askew at driverless cars because they realize they are going to be safer and already are safer.

“There will be crashes. There will be people injured and killed in these vehicles,” he said. “We’re going to have to hang in there and be ready for these kinds of things.”

But few would quibble with a 90 percent reduction in accidents. For every American killed in an accident, another eight are hospitalized, accordion to the McKinsey report, and another 100 are treated and released from emergency rooms:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2016/02/19/autonomous-vehicles-could-drive-car-insurance-companies-out-of-business/3/#5c9fc6df29bf

You think they will end up over a cliff but that is nothing more than your perception. The insurance companies themselves foresee a 90% reduction in accident rates despite you trying to come up with wild scenarios where they will be the most dangerous thing on the road.

A study last year found driverless cars are more likely than human-operated vehicles to be in accidents, but the accidents documented in the study were all the fault of the human drivers of other cars. None of the driverless cars caused an accident. Often, the driverless cars were struck because they were adhering to traffic laws, Burns said, like making sure an intersection is clear before proceeding when a light turns green, only to get rear-ended.

Those human-error accidents should also disappear as the system goes driverless.

No one has died in an autonomous vehicle. Teslas are not autonomous it is driver assist and tesla states in very clear terms that it is not meant to be autonomous.

Tesla has never claimed Autopilot is a driverless system. In fact, the firm has provided warnings each time owners activate the system. A Tesla spokesperson replied, as quoted by Electrek. “Since the release of Autopilot, we’ve continuously educated customers on the use of the features, reminding them that they’re responsible to keep their hands on the wheel and remain alert and present when using Autopilot. Drivers must be prepared to take control at all times.”

Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/tesla-mobileye-autopilot-component-conflict/#ixzz4L7uIltQ9
Follow us: @digitaltrends on Twitter | digitaltrendsftw on Facebook

[longship]

43. No true Scotsman!

They call it fucking "autopilot"!!!!!

What in Sam Hell did Tesla expect when they name it that?

Why claim that it is not meant to be autonomous when it's called Autopilot?

[Egnever]

44. At this point I think it is pretty clear you are not interested in facts

It is all about your own confirmation bias.

No one will insure them... except there is already a company insuring them ....they can't drive in rain... except they already are driving in rain..They kill people... except they haven't killed anyone.. it's an autonomous vehicle... despite every time you activate it, it specifically states it is not..

No true Scotsman indeed.

[longship]

45. No! You are wrong. I am interested in safety

And these vehicles are clearly not ready.

I DO support continuing to test them, and their development. But I think, like every other putative emerging technology, its supporters are a bit more zealous than the reality of the tech. Compare fusion, and that idiot Kurzweil.

And don't get me started about the software. How big is the code base to fully automate a vehicle?

Just keep your autonomous vehicles away from me on the road. They aren't ready. Not even close.

[Egnever]

46. And yet in every accident they have been in except one 2mph fender bender.

It was a human driving that caused it.

But yea the humans are much safer drivers.

[longship]

48. But, I thought that they were autonomous!!

You cannot simultaneous argue for autonomous vehicles and then blame accidents on humans driving!!!

Autonomous vehicles are not close to being ready.

Keep them the fuck off my roads.

[Egnever]

38. A lot more now

They are driving in washington state now as well, specifically to test rain conditions.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/04/google-expands-self-driving-car-testing-to-washington-state.html

Google said in a statement that one reason for the new site in the northwest United States is to gain experience in "different driving environments, traffic patterns, and road conditions."

Kirkland has significant seasonal rain that allows for wet weather testing, along with hills that will allow testing of sensors at different angles and elevations.

[longship]

47. A good start.

Now take it to Kansas during thunderstorm season. And then Buffalo, NY in winter.

And how well does that RADAR or, horrors, LIDAR work during heavy precipitation? We already know the likely answer to that for camera lane detection. When the image is obscured, things will likely get a bit dodgy. One hopes one isn't traversing a mountain pass.

Autonomous vehicles. Not even close to being ready.