Are you ready, here they come!
 

California DMV finally adopts regulations for autonomous vehicles on public roads!

The rules were set for prototype testing, registration, insurance and self-reporting for any vehicle manufacturer. Testers must obtain a trial permit from the DMV and comply with permit requirements when testing autonomous vehicles on California roads and highways, made effective on Sept. 16, 2014!

California DMV requirements:

- Must register the test vehicle/s with DMV.

- Must maintain $5 million insurance/surety bond.

- Complete previous successful autonomous vehicle operation and under controlled conditions.

- Use qualified test drivers who completed the system's training program and must follow all provisions of the CA Vehicle Code.

- Test driver must sit in the driver seat and capable of taking complete control of the autonomous vehicle.

- Must report to DMV any incident involving test vehicle/s or any situation where the autonomous system disengages during operation.

The DMV is also creating initial rules governing the PUBLIC operating approved-autonomous vehicles, expected to be adopted by Jan. 1, 2015!

DMV Adopts Autonomous Vehicle Testing Rules

Ten years ago;
http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Rele...014/03/13.aspx

I remember the first open-source autonomous design challenge, DARPA Grand Challenge in 2004. They had their qualifying tests at the Irwindale Speedway, CA and the off-road course, Barstow,CA to Primm,NV. No robot finished the course. The next year, 2005 Grand Challenge, five robots completed the course. The 2 million dollar-winning Stanford University team had 'Stanley', a VW Touareg. 'He' finished the 7.3 mile course in the time of 6:54! The 2007 Urban Challenge took place in a closed Victorville air force base. The 60 mile course was completed by a Carnegie Mellon University Chevy Tahoe in about 4 hours.

Grand Challenge;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9e9YSdzDas

Urban Challenge;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iktz3_37Uiw

Can't be much worse than most of the drivers out there! (seriously, think of the liability issues) :D

I wonder why people are excited by this and want this. Just seems wrong to me. :/

I think the $5 million bond requirement just about sums it up, as well as the requirement of a driver capable of instantly disconnecting the sytem with manual override.

Since it is probably not bondable by any sane agent just plop down your 5 mil and have at it.

Pop, at 91 asked about life insurance, the premium for one year, payable in advance, was the same amount as the policy payout. I wonder why?

regards
Mech

I am glad I live where I do.:eek:

What? The cutting-edge technologies of Autocorrect and Siri do not inspire you with confidence when your life is on the line?

I'm looking forward to the autonomous cars (& trucks) becoming reality soon... not because I want one, but because I get the sense a good number of drivers treat their current vehicles as if they were autonomous already!

The technology is being proven already; the laws are just catching up: Google's Self-Driving Cars Have Never Gotten a Ticket - Alexis C. Madrigal - The Atlantic. It's not a million miles yet, but they're getting there. When these become reality, there should be benefits: better FE, fewer accidents, better traffic flow. Higher costs too, of course, but just like the current set of fancy features, this will be available on the high end vehicles and will therefore be paid for by those with $$ to spare.

My GPS repeatedly tells me to drive off a bridge...

I feel like within the next 10-15 years, we will be seeing "autonomous vehicle only" lanes in busy cities, just like you see carpool lanes now. As more autonomous-capable vehicles enter the roadways, there will be busy sections of freeway that are predominantly autonomous-only, and soon there will only be single lanes for human-driven vehicles. I'll bet you anything the stop-and-go bull**** would be reduced.

Parking can be impossible to find in Portland, and if you are lucky enough to find a spot, it might cost $10 to park.

1. I look forward to having my car drop me off, go home and recharge, and then pick me up at a location I specify using a phone app. No more looking for parking spots, no more parking fees.

2. Traffic lights are annoying and inefficient. One day cars will calculate the most efficient speed to travel, be aware of other vehicles and mesh through intersections without stopping. No more stopping until you arrive at your destination.

3. Traffic accidents will be almost eliminated. Every vehicle will communicate their driving intentions to nearby cars, and the nearby cars will accommodate the vehicle.

4. The many days of my life spent driving can be replaced with something productive.

5. Travel on long road trips can be sustained over night while the occupants sleep.

6. No more surprises as to what rush hour traffic is going to look like in the morning. With accidents nearly eliminated, unexpected lane and road closures will be a very uncommon occurrence. Traffic reports will be redundant.

I wonder why people are worried by this and want to resist the inevitable?

I think that the one aspect of driving that can be predicted the least is human drivers, so for autonomous driving to be safest, it would need to be 100%. What would they do, mandate that new cars come with this standard and that existing cars be upgraded? How many cars would they allow to receive this? Probably only ones meeting new and stricter emission and safety standards.

Look out for Google cars!
 

It's already been tested on our highways, remember the 1997 NAHSC autonomous Buicks platooning on the I-5 HOV lanes in California.

Darn Google, already had a head start and its wonderful, Luddites!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdgQpa1pUUE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csvt6JBAwBk

Not exactly news: Nevada has had similar regulations for years.

The current generation of autonomous vehicles does not require that all vehicles are autonomous. Other vehicles are obstacles to be avoided. Yes, to be "safest", all should be autonomous, but I can already foresee the firestorm if there is a hint that ALL vehicles must be autonomous...

However, even in the case of a non-autonomous driver trying to do something incredibly stupid (like run a red light or cross over into oncoming traffic), I would expect an autonomous vehicle react "more correctly" than the vast majority of human drivers... that is, the autonomous vehicle won't panic or freeze up.

Perhaps we should just eliminate humans and have everything be autonomous.

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps4b8ada98.jpg

Call it the "Herbie Law"

Autonomous vehicles would have reactive systems deploy in the event of unavoidable catastrophic events; relatively safer collision avoidance (non-autonomous vehicles, vehicle failures or 'sudden' obstacles) maneuvers, seat adjustments/belt tensioners, pre-collision slower airbag deployments, first-responder calls and location tracking (water submersion, cliff falls, MH 370...)

Don't be too sure:
Physics Buzz: Jerks actually reduce the risk of traffic jams

Where does the passenger push CTL-ALT-DEL when the blue-screen of death suddenly appears on the NAV screen?

That will double your fuel use and increase traffic congestion. :D


How would automated car fix that? Where I live now, all the traffic lights are triggered off sensors in the street. This often leads to randomness in the timing of the lights.

This drives me batty since I used to drive live near a city that used timed lights and I could drive from one side to the other without stopping! Without an automated car.

I actually enjoy driving and a car is more to me than an appliance to get from point A to point B.

I've also worked in IT and often saw failures in automation when unexpected events happened...

However, I'm not really against them, I just don't want one for myself.

The threat of a SAG strike would eliminate that possibility...

If you look at major polls and surveys on the issue, about half of drivers are skeptical about an autonomous system. In one poll I found, 75% of respondents said they do not trust an autonomous system to take their kids to school. 60% said that a computer system doesn't have better decision making ability than humans. In another major poll 42% of respondents said autonomous cars were a bad idea, with 33% saying it was a good idea. Furthermore, people see a clear privacy risk, with over 70% believing private companies and the government could collect and abuse driving data with an autonomous system.

There are large implications not yet realized. An autonomous system would collect location data and would be stored on a network, vulnerable to abuse by the government, private companies, and hackers. Just like Google collects your search data to deliver advertisements to you on the internet, there is a real possibility marketers and even automakers would take advantage of the data being collected by the car. And a large autonomous system would be a good target for hackers.

Another issue is the cost of such a system. Cities, counties, and states are barely able to build and maintain the road system, now they have to reinvent the wheel and implement/maintain a complex autonomous driving network.

I can see the benefits, but it's not all blue skies and sunshine. There are many disadvantages and problems that will be created by a system, and that is why a majority of people are at least skeptical or concerned about losing the freedom to drive to the government.

I like driving. I would not want to lose the ability to drive older cars. And there are a lot of people who feel this way. I think everyone should have a say, it's not a one-size-fits-all approach that should be used.

How do you program intuition and situational awareness? Can a computer see the big rig with the disintegrating tire 200 yards ahead of you and know that a disaster is about to happen, or a falling tree that is about to hit your roof. How about a tire&wheel flying towards you that is 40 feet in the air.

regards
Mech

To be fair, 98% of drivers on the road don't see these either....

*sigh*

A computer will do a better job at projectile avoidance than a human. Given that the vast majority of drivers do not seem to have any situational awareness at all, I'd lay my bet on a computer for that too...

What has to be changed on the road system to support the autonomous driving network? I may have missed it...

I agree that security & privacy will need to be addressed...

Oh how true, but that still allows ME to avoid THEIR stupidity. Did that on my bike yesterday, gal pulls over into me but I was not quite beside her (intentionally) so she just got a horn to notify her of her mistake. I generally avoid being next to people, if possible. Will a computer do that? Only if it is programmed to do that.

There is no way any CPU can duplicate human intuition and anticipation in driving, at least not MY anticipation and intuition. A good example is observing the vehicles around you for potential issues that could be catastrophic, or something like adding separation when others are not, unless your automated car can see through steel.

Misaligned wheels, vehicle crabbing
Obvious defects potential falling parts
Last second swerves into your lane

Would it be an improvement over the clueless 98%? Sure. Would it be able to take compound issues like sitting at abusy intersection and seeing that you are about to be seriously rear ended and you blast out of the way in heavy traffic and do it safely.

And to even think that you will see the Interstate highway system in the US overhauled to accomodate an automated vehicle only lane would probably cost more than the current national debt.

Just let Fed EX deliver you by drone.

5 million per vehicle 100 million vehicles, 500 trillion in bond. That's about 6 times the total net worth of the whole USA.

Much cheaper to build vacuum tube transportation system.

regards
Mech

Will a computer pull over into you? No, because there will be no blind spots for it. Will it honk the horn if someone starts to pull over into your lane? Sure, no reason it couldn't. Will it avoid being next to people? Probably not, though it will more likely notice potential hazards sooner than most of us.

You are right; it would not have the same kind of intuition an aware driver like you would have. But for those other drivers that would prefer to text, call, eat, read, drink (alcohol), etc (often together) rather than be aware, their use of this kind of technology would make our lives safer... even if the aware drivers like you continue to drive "normal" cars.

Not sure where the idea that the highway system must be overhauled is coming from... the current generation of autonomous vehicles requires no modifications to the roadways...

The autonomous and non-autonomous vehicles can coexist. That's what's impressive about the latest self-driving cars. You don't want one? Fine, they'll work in a heterogeneous mix of autonomous & non-autonomous cars... there is no co-dependency. Don't want your taxes to go toward autonomous-specific upgrades? No problem, they need no special roads. Even if you are against owning one, once they become available to the public you will likely benefit.

I wouldn't be surprised to see this become available for long-haul trucks and local delivery/pickup vehicles fairly soon. Garbage trucks which pick up the dumpsters ought to be relatively easy to do, for example.

Autonomous intersection management. If most of the efficiency advantages of 100% autonomous cars are going to be realized, the current infrastructure needs to be replaced with equipment designed to work with computers, not humans. Rather than stop lights, intersections will be controlled by a server that communicates with the autonomous vehicles. Rather than wait on a signal light to proceed, the cars send requests to the server and then receives instructions. Think of it like a computerized air traffic control system. The server instructs all cars through the intersection and can allow more efficient traffic flow.

And then there is the issue of the consumer cost. Google's fleet vehicles have about $150,000 of technology that allows them to drive autonomously in the current infrastructure. The price of the technology will go down as it is better adapted and there is more demand, but we are a long way from an affordable autonomous car.

I don't get it
 

I am curious as to the Ultimate goal for these autonomous vehicles . once they are all up and running then what ? I don't get it , do they hope to take jobs from people with them ?

Sure, but when fuel is electricity, it will be cheap. The traffic congestion caused by people looping around the block looking for a non-existent parking spot will be eliminated.

I live 10 miles from downtown Portland, so unless fuel costs more than the parking fee, I'm sending the car home.

Meshing through traffic at intersections will eliminate traffic lights altogether. There will be no stopping. This will save tons of energy and reduce the cost of traffic infrastructure.

Me too. Fortunately, there will be plenty of opportunities to drive a car manually. Or, while the car is driving you somewhere, you could be playing the latest car driving simulation. ;) Driving is fun, but racing is more fun.

Can I get the source for your survey results? The thing is, the majority of people always oppose anything that is new. Once it's demonstrated to work for a while, people will change their minds. I can just imagine the distrust people had when automated traffic signals were first put in use. "What if the light turns green for everyone and causes an accident".

We're already ok with autopilot being used extensively in commercial flight. It's a very small increment in bravery to apply this to driving on the ground.

And yet, people still sign up in droves to forfeit their anonymity and privacy on Facebook. There are certainly concerns that need to be addressed, but I doubt many will protest if data collection were to take place.

Agreed.

We get it; your intuition is faster than a computer and better than other humans. :thumbup: :p

An automated system would still preserve the ability to intervene if you intuit a dangerous situation. In the mean time, it would monitor a much larger number of things and react in fractions of a second.

This has already been used successfully in aviation for decades.

Your argument is similar to saying that not wearing a seat belt is safer than wearing one, because there are some situations where being ejected from the vehicle is safer than being strapped inside it.

Obviously, cars will not become autonomous until the research shows that it is more safe than manual driving.

I sense that you are being facetious. Just in case you aren't, read through the previous comments to understand what the many advantages would be. In those comments, you will find no mention of "taking jobs from people".

As far as job elimination is concerned; it eventually happens with most jobs. We no longer have elevator operators, they had to get new jobs (and the elevators work autonomously without much issue).

Preserving jobs is not a goal of any rational person. However, adapting to an ever changing job market should be.

1 in 5 say they would never drive again if they had an autonomous car [w/poll] - Autoblog
The Big Worry About Driverless Cars? Losing Privacy, New Poll Finds. - Driver's Seat - WSJ

I think you are correct that public opinion will change as the technology becomes more common and understood. I am just saying there are real concerns and problems that will have to be solved, and the skeptics are often the best people to help shed light on those issues.

The biggest hurdle will be the data collection. Look at the uproar caused by the NSA scandal. And that is private cell phone usage from commercial carriers. Imagine the information accessible in city/state/fed servers dealing with autonomous traffic logs. Laws don't currently exist to handle privacy or access to this information. If you are driving an autonomous vehicle on public roads that sends data to various services (gps, traffic systems, automakers, etc.) it really isn't up to the individual as to who sees that data, unlike Facebook. We can certainly solve the problem with laws, but it is an issue and one of the many good reasons people could be skeptical about the future of autonomous cars.

I recently visited the in-laws in Colorado and got to drive an autonomous John Deere. It wasn't the most sophisticated tractor that's available, as I still had to do the turns at the end of a run, but once you make the turn and get within ~3 feet of the proper line and push a button, the steering goes under GPS control and is maintained within a 4" distance. The advanced systems can make the turns and keep under 1" of precision.

100 passes and 8hrs later, I was still marveling in the technology. Farming will one day be driverless, with a single technician monitoring a number of tractors.

Do passengers ever know when pilots use cruise control?

If computers are driving, hopefully they are better at route-planning than humans, which would mitigate congestion, and in theory, they would not need following distances that cater to human reflexes.

If you have a two-second following distance at 30 MPH and a computer could safely maintain a 0.9-second interval at all speeds, then couldn't you have the same cars on the same roads maintaining 60 MPH?

That kind of sounds like my old landlord purchasing a Roomba. Instead of vacuuming, he watched the robot vacuum. I guess that it was more entertaining, but did not save any time.

I have 2 Roombas (vacuum), a Scooba (floor mop), and a Neato (vacuum). I recently got married, so I haven't been using them much :eek:, but before that, the robots were the only thing keeping the house clean.

I enjoy driving, but don't like having to drive. Bicycling even more so as it's the other drivers on the road that freak me out. I saw a kid today holding his smart phone right above the wheel so he could see everything except what he was pointed at. In the 60s we knew enough to keep the doobie below the windows.

So there will be more traffic circles and less traffic lights. The jobs that will go away: truck driver, bus driver, taxi driver, ...

We will—for sure—have autonomous cars before we have flying cars.

Obviously, cars will not become autonomous until the research shows that it is more safe than manual driving.

You got that right, but you missed one point, it won't be research that puts them on the road, not even close.

5 million BOND.

Researchers don't pay lawsuits, and lawyers run everything. Next to lawyers are insurance companies, whose job is to assign a cost to risk factors, and courts who assign blame. Computers don't die in accidents or get disfigured for life or exist in permanent pain with suicide or drug induced semi comas as their only option.

We get it; your intuition is faster than a computer and better than other humans.

I doubt you get it at all, my driving skills are no secret, the same knowledge is available to you or anyone else who is willing to put forth the effort. Maybe you do, maybe you dont. Your level of expertise seems to be secondary to your attempt to ridicule mine.

My driving skills are at a level where everyone I know wants me to drive when they travel with me. Porgram that into your autonomous vehicle and add your own experience.

Then try to get insurance, after posting your bond.

regards
Mech

I didn't miss that. It is the research that develops the technology, which eventually gets incorporated into consumer products. The researchers must be in a position to take manual control when the automation fails, and they are required to report such failures.

This all sounds reasonable to me.

I'm not grasping your point here. I "ridiculed" you partially in jest, and partially to take a moment to self-reflect.

I always think I'm the best at everything too, and I'm often correct, but to assume this is always so, and that nothing can be made better, is an error in thinking.

My example is when it snowed last winter. I assumed that my superior snow driving skills would allow me to efficiently drive up a hill. No matter how carefully I feathered the throttle, I couldn't climb the grade. I decided to turn the VSS (traction control) on and see how it would do. Putting the throttle on the floor, the car allowed only the amount of power that the available traction could take. The car climbed the grade, recalculating and adjusting the throttle many times per second; a feat humans are incapable of achieving.

I anticipate that there are many hurdles to overcome in sensing the environment and assessing the threats. The human mind is very efficient at solving these problems, and computers are not, yet. One time, a ladder fell off a truck and I narrowly avoided it by checking my blind spot and swerving sharply into an adjacent lane. Perhaps a computer could have made the same calculation, but if it was a plastic grocery bag blowing across the road, you wouldn't want emergency maneuvering to kick in. Difficult problems for sure.

So, I'm not entirely sure what you are arguing. The technology will eventually be more safe than even the most seasoned and attentive human, and until then, manual control will remain an option (or the only option). Toyota already has Lane Keep Assist and Radar Cruise Control. The driver could conceivably pass out and the car would not leave the road or collide with approaching objects. This is the beginning of automated driving, meant to supplement the task of safely operating a vehicle.

I'm very curmudgeony for a young guy, and I would not recommend anyone try to out curmudgeon me.

It's not an argument. It's sharing different opinions,with the hope from both parties that there might be some new information made avaialble.

Average car on the road today is close to 12 years old (USA). I think technology that avoids accidents is exceptional.

I also understand the limitations (to some degree) of computers, having been raised by a father who was working with them since the 1950s.

It does not make me any authority, but it does give me 5 decades of experience. I tell people the last mistake made in my life will be the hearse going to the wrong cemetary.

Driving is a evolutionary process, a constant state of revision of techniques. After 48 years I am still learning and riding a motorcycle is a real test of defensive driving.

At some point in the future automated cars might exist, but if it reaches that point, my belief is that cars as we know them will not exist in that environment. Automated vehcle operation requires a much higher level of preventative maintenance that most people are willing to tolerate, just as those who advocate electric powered cars rarely consider the consequences of a vehicle population that is 12years old, much less 20 years old. Planned obsolescence will eliminate any car beyond a certain age and even if they magically became fully automated, every one sold new instantly. I'll be 83 years old and there will still be non automated cars on the road.

Why even bother with vehicles carrying their fuel supplies, regardless of their constitution when there are better options available.

Another problem with automated cars will be the lethargy of drivers whose skills are allowed to atrophy to the point where they will not be capable of operating a vehicle.

They even cling to the piloted combat aircraft, when the human being is the limiting factor in combat performance.

I drive a new car and I love the technology that has allowed it to function more efficiently. I love the idea of override systems to prevent catastrophe.

There is nothing wrong with the highest levels of self confidence. The problem arises when that self confidence evolves into conciet and the belief that others are not capable of the same skills or techniques.

My grandfather was illiterate, but when it came to his skills at commercial fishing he was a genius. With a brother killed in a schoolyard incident, his parents took him out of school in his first year and he started working with his father at the age of 6. Always try to understand that others who you do not know well, may appear to you to be of lower intelligence, but I have learned from functionally illiterate people, and I try to understand the circumstances and have found, like grandpa, that we are not well equipped to pass judgement on others.

regards
Mech