Jalopnik asks if self-driving cars will actually happen.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

What bothers me the most is how an autonomous vehicle would decide what to do to escape an ambush or a robbery attempt.

[rmay635703]

Self driving cars need special infrastructure and need to be the only type of car on the road to be tolerable as a 4 season car.

They are incompatible with other human drivers on the road, I do not believe that will change.

They are less efficient in most circumstances than a human pilotted car

The original reason for autonomous to be spearheaded was due to government community planning intentions,

There is a desire to reduce speed, regulate engine size and traffic patterns centrally and it was the only reason these systems started consideration years ago,
Expect far future cars to be equipped with amotor just big enough to go 50mph

Inevitably the car will become appliance like, car ownership will become rather mundane with driving aspects removed meaning car ownership may become a moot point.

Why own something that is pretty much the same as every other one?

The real issue is autonomous cars don’t handle off paved road work like moving trailers or farm work, I don’t think it ever will be worthwhile to autonomize that aspect of driving.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

I think there are several huge hurdles to overcome, before it has a chance of becoming a reality:

Technical complexity-

I think it will take a massive leap in computing power (quantum computing?) in order to overcome the massive job if first gathering ALL the data, and then figuring out what it is - and then it has to logically "decide" what to do. And then have a redundant back up for all the technical systems.

You don't need "ALL" the data, and besides there is no such thing as all data. You merely need enough data, which will always be a work in progress, but is approaching the as-good-as-human level right now.

Legal liability-

Who / what is responsible for what happens? How do we decide who / what is responsible?

Lawyers, but of course, same way we figure out who is responsible now. Those deviating from the traffic codes will be responsible, and in cases where both parties, or neither party deviates from the code, then they share liability. Insurance will cover inevitable accidents, just as it does now.

Regulations-

We have not even gotten side video mirrors approved for use - how can we possibly approve fully autonomous cars?

Lobbyists. They aren't just slimy scumbags; they're sometimes useful. If corporate profits are at stake, laws will accommodate.

Originally Posted by Xist

Speaking of 640x480 cameras, one help drive an autonomous junk minivan across the country in 1995: https://jalopnik.com/they-drove-cros...tho-1696330141

How about laws telling humans how to behave around automatomobiles?

That's about the year my middle school purchased the camera. What once cost $20,000 would now cost $200, and the performance is much improved. That's a 100x improvement in cost reduction, and there is no reason to believe the technology has peaked in price or performance.

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

What bothers me the most is how an autonomous vehicle would decide what to do to escape an ambush or a robbery attempt.

As I posted in another thread, along the same line of thinking is an angry mob. This is more likely for me living in the Portland area. If I have the wrong bumper sticker when someone like Trump gets elected, safety is at risk. You need the ability to run people over if they get violent.

I experienced a need to move through a non-violent crowd in Las Vegas once. I needed to turn into a driveway that was constantly crossed by pedestrians, and was blocking the street while waiting. After a couple minutes of no end in site, I crept through at a snail's pace, splitting the sea of people. This was all while being observed by a parked police officer, so I must have had his blessing. An autonomous car would have blocked the street for hours.

Originally Posted by rmay635703

They are incompatible with other human drivers on the road, I do not believe that will change.

They are less efficient in most circumstances than a human pilotted car

Inevitably the car will become appliance like, car ownership will become rather mundane with driving aspects removed meaning car ownership may become a moot point.

Why own something that is pretty much the same as every other one?

The real issue is autonomous cars don’t handle off paved road work like moving trailers or farm work, I don’t think it ever will be worthwhile to autonomize that aspect of driving.

It begins with assisting the driver with some automation. Then dedicated lanes will be provided for autonomous vehicles, just as HOV lanes have been dedicated. Finally, most major roads will become nearly 100% automated places of travel.

The whole goal is to make driving like an appliance. That's what drives the price down. If people are having excitement while commuting, they are probably breaking laws. Excitement will still be available in designated areas, while commuting traffic will be regulated and efficient.

Automated driving is less efficient than you, but not compared to the average driver.

Off-road and rural routes will be among the last places where automated driving will occur, but there is no reason that a machine would be incapable of eventually performing better than a typical human operator.

[Xist]

Wouldn't the $30 smart phone also be more powerful than a 486DX2?

Then again, what kind of processing power put men on the moon?

[freebeard]

"I don’t want an autonomous car. I want a robot butler who can drive a regular car."

Why not an autonomous car and a sexbot? Here's why:

A viable transition to self-driving cars would be to drive the technology forward until the sensor chips do substantial preprocessing (like the human eye) and processing is contained to the vehicle and relies on Near Field Communication to assert a presence in the world. Anarchism in the streets.

What we are getting is a push to get your car onto Facespook. To enhance user safety.

boot_stomping_on_face.jpg

I can see some valid use cases

• shuttle buses and minibuses
• flocking long-haul trucks (provided they break ranks for 1 mile prior to an off-ramp for anyone with their [right] turn signal on)
• pedestrian-friendly sidewalk deliveries
• augmented driving, where the autonomous part shadows you and only steps in when you are obviously in over your head

What I get from the Jalopnik article is that they were doing lane-keeping, not navigation. Which you can get off the showroom floor today.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Xist

Wouldn't the $30 smart phone also be more powerful than a 486DX2?

Then again, what kind of processing power put men on the moon?

Something less powerful than an Intel 4004

The Astronauts were afraid they were going to crash because the cpu kept going red because it couldn’t do the trust calculations fast enough during their descent.

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Why would it mean people stop owning cars? Urbanites, probably: the same sort of people who find it convenient to call a taxi to get around in the city. But if you live outside the cities, calling a taxi/autonomous car might involve an hour or more response time, and double the amount of driving (and hence fuel consumption & traffic) for the autonomous car. And really, if I drive to a remote trailhead, I really don't want to depend on summoning someone's autonomous car to pick me up.

I'm sure the end of car ownership won't be universal. My guess is that it will be more like boat or ATV ownership - a toy for use on the weekends, or for specific environments. The vast majority of people will have no need to own a complex, expensive, depreciating, deteriorating lump of steel which takes up significant space on their property.

Consider your typical suburban home owner who doesn't do their own maintenance and needs a two car garage plus driveway space. Imagine reclaiming 700 sq feet of living space.

Consider an urban apartment owner. No more paid parking, or crowded garages. No more worrying about the most expensive thing you own sitting on a dangerous street. Imagine all of the street-side parked cars going away. Imagine costs coming down for those who already don't own a car, because no driver needs to be paid.

No more trips to the DMV, no insurance or registration or driver's licenses, no oil changes, charging stations, having to deal with stealerships telling them they need new tires again, or haggling with crooks on Craigslist or used car lots.

Sure, some people will still want to spend $30,000 on a car for some things, but my guess is that they'll largely be relegated to expensive toys.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

As I posted in another thread, along the same line of thinking is an angry mob. This is more likely for me living in the Portland area. If I have the wrong bumper sticker when someone like Trump gets elected, safety is at risk. You need the ability to run people over if they get violent.

I experienced a need to move through a non-violent crowd in Las Vegas once. I needed to turn into a driveway that was constantly crossed by pedestrians, and was blocking the street while waiting. After a couple minutes of no end in site, I crept through at a snail's pace, splitting the sea of people. This was all while being observed by a parked police officer, so I must have had his blessing. An autonomous car would have blocked the street for hours.

Those are good reasons why I still believe some sort of semi-autonomous helicopter is more likely to succeed than a car fitted with the same feature, as it sounds easier to escape from a mob. Well, just put some electric-driven landing gear on it for maneuvers in parking lots and it's OK.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Then dedicated lanes will be provided for autonomous vehicles, just as HOV lanes have been dedicated. Finally, most major roads will become nearly 100% automated places of travel.

Fat chance of that where I live. It's hard enough to get them to widen the shoulders a bit for bikes. Urban areas, maybe, but quite frankly, I don't care what they do in urban areas.

Automated driving is less efficient than you, but not compared to the average driver.

It's not the driving on any particular trip that makes autonomous non-owned cars (ones that you summon when you need them) inherently inefficient, it's the extra mileage the empty car racks up getting to where you are.

[freebeard]

Those are good reasons why I still believe some sort of semi-autonomous helicopter is more likely to succeed than a car fitted with the same feature, as it sounds easier to escape from a mob.

The zombie apocalypse is a cautionary fable, not an ironclad prediction.