Why Would Driverless Cars Need Rules For Crashing?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37418119
we are continually being told they are perfect.

[naomi24]

Not quite the same thing, Gromit.

[jim360]

If you set impossible standards for driverless cars, or any other technology, it's no surprise that they then miss these. But I don't see why anyone can possibly believe that the situation will be made worse by handing control of driving to a machine. At the very least, people seem to be blind to, or just unreasonably tolerant of, the current state of affairs, when road accidents and deaths are commonplace. So, so many of these come down to driver error, and can therefore be avoided.

The transition phase could be awkward, and there will, no doubt, still be some accidents. But it betrays the irrationality of this debate where after one accident the technology is written off by people who are happy to ignore the hundreds of others that day caused by humans who were tired, distracted, asleep, or just overreacted.

As to Naomi's question about trusting a computer to land on a river: depends on the programming. I don't know enough about the computing technology behind planes to know if it is possible currently or in the future to manage such a landing. On the other hand, if a computer could be programmed to fly the plane in such circumstances, it would do a rather better job of things.

[EDDIE51]

^ as I just said, ( don't see how the double post got in) computer systems are still relatively new. We will see huge advances over the next few years.
I am not suggesting that current technology can totally replace a driver or a pilot , I know it can't, but it will come. Remember the 'drones ' flying bombing missions over Syria are either computer controlled or have a pilot thousands of miles away in the USA. A similar system could be developed for all aircraft.

[Gromit]

naomi24 And others,

Autonomous cars must have a passenger who has a valid driving license who sits in the drivers seat. If that is you, you over-ride the system in an emergency if you want to, like the pilot did in the Hudson Bay crash.

[EDDIE51]

You also have to consider that a 100% computer controlled aircraft would never get into a dangerous situation in the first place. In aircraft accidents the % of them caused by pilot error is even higher than the 85% for car accidents. I have seen estimates that it is over 98% .

[EDDIE51]

^ For a start a computer is not going to decide to commit suicide by flying into the ground with a plane full of passengers!

[TWR]

Jim, do know if you saw that landing on the Hudson but the pilot had to land the plane with the Nose up otherwise the engines would have been ripped off. a perfect landing by a pilot, not a computer.

[jim360]

It's possible that the landing would have required creativity that modern computers are incapable of. If so, fair enough. But we aren't talking about removing the human element entirely (and, anyway, the technology has not yet reached its peak, so who knows for the future?) But still, it's bad logic to suggest that being incapable of coping with incredibly extreme scenarios implies that computers can't be trusted with the relatively mundane and commonplace. Everyday driving, particularly on city roads, would be almost perfect for a computer.

[ToraToraTora]

eddie: "TTT I used to know a guy who had a horse. He would go to the pub and get rat ***sed then climb on the horse's back and it would plod home without him needing to tell it what to do. So driverless cars are just a step 'back to the future' as far as he is concerned. " - I work in IT and believe me I'd prefer the horse to sofware.

[naomi24]

I’m not convinced a computer would recognise reality. Just as an example of what unthinking ‘machinery’ can do, I was reversing my car – nothing at all behind me – when the rear sensors suddenly started bleeping manically. Confused, I stopped and got out to investigate and there behind my car was a foot high dandelion ‘blocking’ my path. In other situations I suspect something like that could prove quite dangerous.

[Gromit]

A sensor on your car is not a computerised system. It is not Smart.

[ToraToraTora]

gromit: "Autonomous cars must have a passenger who has a valid driving license who sits in the drivers seat. If that is you, you over-ride the system in an emergency if you want to, like the pilot did in the Hudson Bay crash. " - then what's the point? may as well drive it anyway.

[jim360]

I can tell from personal experience that this can happen, but I'm confused why you think it demonstrates the flaws in machinery. In the first place it's hardly the most advanced computer system in Christendom. In the second, whether it was a flower, a wall, or a small child, the car having sensed some obstacle would have then stopped to avoid hitting it, thus avoiding accident or even the potential for one. And in the third place, doesn't this expose the flaws of human drivers too? You weren't aware of something behind your car. It being just a flower, no harm was done of course, but still the principle ought to be that you should have noticed it.

[naomi24]

Gromit, I know a sensor on my car is not a computerised system, but would such a system recognise that the obstruction in that instance was just a harmless dandelion - or would it deem it a valid obstruction - as my sensors did? I suspect the latter.

[Gromit]

The technology is already here, so autonomous vehicles will happen soon. If you don't want one then that is fine, they won't be compulsary (yet*).
Early adoptors will be logistics companies, moving stuff about. The economic benefits will be enorous, so the push from industry and commerse on Governments will be unstoppable.

* At some point in the future, autonomous cars will be proven to be safer. At that point, insurance will drop for those, and rise for human driven cars. If humans continue to crash (and autonomous cars don't) then human driving on public highways may be outlawed.

[naomi24]

Jim, //you should have noticed it.//

I would have noticed it - had it been taller.

[Gromit]

// would such a system recognise that the obstruction in that instance was just a harmless dandelion - or would it deem it a valid obstruction - as my sensors did? I suspect the latter. //

Autonomous cars have all around video (as well as proximity sensors and other 'radar'). The computer can recognise objects, and faces and moving targets. In short, it would be able to tell the difference between a wall and a dandelion.

[jim360]

I'm not meaning to criticise your driving really, Naomi. The main point was that it seems odd to criticise the computer for being aware of something you were not. In the worst case, it seems to me that the car would have slowed down to avoid a potential threat, when it was already going slowly. On the other hand, the worst case for you driving would have been to hit something, you knew not what, that was out of your sight. If we're going to go along the lines of constructing extreme scenarios, what if the flower had been a small child, lain on the floor? When reversing to park I expect the child would have been only bruised at worst, but still it seems to me that your case exposes the flaws of human drivers far more than those of computers.

The technology is getting more viable by the day. As someone who has never shown any doubt about the potential for almost limitless human development in the future, I find it surprising that you'd consider cars driven automatically to be somewhat scary. Maybe, right now, it is. But I'm confident that within my lifetime I'll see the transition start, at least. In maybe as little as 50 years, people will probably wonder what the fuss was about.

[naomi24]

Jim, My driving ability is just fine. I knew there was nothing behind my car. I was in a large open space. Had there been a foot high iron bar sticking up from the ground, I'd have spotted it before I got into the car. However, a foot high dandelion wouldn’t have caught my attention as a potential hazard.

[Gromit]

// In maybe as little as 50 years, people will probably wonder what the fuss was about. //

It will be a far shorter time frame than that. People who have been in driverless cars report the feeling is wierd at first, but they get used to it in minutes/hours. Regular users/owners say it feels very normal, very quickly, in a matter of days. Within 5 years autonomous cars will be about, and within 10 years they will be ubiquitous.