[John Absmeier, director of Delphi's Silicon Valley lab and global business director for the company's automated driving program] was a passenger in a prototype Audi Q5 crossover vehicle equipped with lasers, radar, cameras and special computer software designed to enable the vehicle to drive itself, with a person at the wheel as a backup.So the car that was continuing in its own lane is said to "cut off" a car that was trying to change lanes? The Delphi exec is seeking publicity for avoiding a crash, but why did the car create a close call in the first place? Was it testing its crash-avoidance technology? Why call attention to this? Are we supposed to find it interesting that 2 self-driving cars got a little close to each other on some Silicon Valley street?
As the Delphi vehicle prepared to change lanes, a Google self-driving prototype — a Lexus RX400h crossover fitted with similar hardware and software — cut off the Audi, forcing it to abort the lane change, Absmeier said. The Delphi car "took appropriate action," according to Absmeier.
Maybe Absmeier was excited about the performance of the car at the point when the performance got exciting, but wouldn't most people find fault in the car that tried to change lanes when there wasn't enough room? Perhaps, in real-life driving, we do attempt to change lanes in situations where the idea is to get the other car to slow down and let us in and, when it doesn't, we think the driver of that other car is "cutting us off." It may be that a self-driving car that just owns its lane and proceeds at a consistent speed is insufficiently adapted to the human culture of driving.
पोस्ट्स
२८ टिप्पण्या:
Let's all re-read Stephen King's short story "Trucks"
I have a dim memory from my youth of seeing a vintage picture of a two car crash - supposedly the only two cars in the town that managed to crash at an intersection.
MadisonMan - I have that "Trucks" movie on my DISH DVR right now - might have to watch it again, now that you mentioned it.
I don't see where it says the Google car was just continuing in its lane. I need video.
Self-driving vehicles can be programed to follow the rules of the road. I don't think they can be taught courtesy. Slowing down or speeding up or moving over to allow a merge is a pretty complex decision that humans learn with experience. Even more complex is taking action to allow another vehicle to move to allow a third car to merge.
I think that self-driving cars will become rolling road blocks. I'll learn how to trick their sensors and programs to f-up their driving. Cut them off, stop short on them, pass them extremely closely ... it will be entertaining to watch them lock their brakes in response.
Btw - who is programming these vehicles. Most likely Asians. Hilarity will be inevitable.
So self-driving cars will cut each other off. Fit right in with Austin traffic.
As the Delphi vehicle prepared to change lanes, a Google self-driving prototype — a Lexus RX400h crossover fitted with similar hardware and software — cut off the Audi, forcing it to abort the lane change, Absmeier said. The Delphi car "took appropriate action," according to Absmeier.
Yeah, it took out a Glock and started firing at the Lexus.
Or Sturgeon's 1944 story "Killdozer!" made into a poor "made for TV" movie in the 1970's.
...a prototype Audi Q5 crossover vehicle equipped with lasers...
Are we supposed to find it interesting that 2 self-driving cars got a little close to each other on some Silicon Valley street>
No, were's supposed to find it interesting that they created cars with frickin' laser beams attached to them!
I read an article recently which said that the Google self-driving car has an abnormally high number of rear-end collisions (i.e. humans rear-ending it). Google claims this shows how safe the car is ("we didn't hit other cars, other cars hit us"), but of course there has to be something in the Google-car "behavior" that is causing it. Or the Google car is unlucky.
It would be relatively simple to program them to react to turn signals, and to cars that "have to" change lanes (i.e. a car on an on-ramp)
So, an Audi wanting to change lanes assumed other cars would yield to it and a Lexus assumed it didn't have to yield to anyone. How stereotypical.
" I don't think they can be taught courtesy."
The real question is, what would have happened if the Audi had been nearing the end of a lane that forced it to merge when the lane ended?
I suppose driverless vehicles could have a wireless link to negotiate such things, but without binding arbitration that might lead to an "I'm always right" algorithmic war, with car buyers seeking ever more assertive vehicles?
Absmeier's prototype self-pissing pants also took appropriate action during the incident.
The real real question is, will there come a day when "Justice" Roberts forces everybody to ride driver-less cars.
My wife and I are facing the problems of parents and older relatives who are losing mobility and independence. I don't think this part of the potential market for self-driving vehicles gets mentioned enough. There are a lot of old people out there who will spend a lot of money to stay on the road. As the article indicates, we aren't there yet. But I'm now convinced we will see it well within my lifetime.
I want a self-driving Supreme Court.
With software that instructs, "state ≠ Federal government"; "penalty" ≠ "tax"; "equal protection" ↛ "SSM is required"; "non-mention of liberty, privacy, abortion" ↛ "there is a constitutional right to abortion"; "non-mention of disparate impact" ↛ "disparate impact analysis is required."
"a prototype Audi Q5 crossover vehicle equipped with lasers, radar, cameras and special computer software designed to enable the vehicle to drive itself, with a person at the wheel as a backup."
I hold what is probably a minority opinion; self-driving cars will never be more than a niche product. Think about the oft-stated need for a person to be prepared to take over in case of a pending accident. Do designers really think people will maintain the constant state of readiness necessary for a split second intervention? And doesn't that obviate the purpose of the self-driving car?
Campy's right. You acknowledge that it would make no sense to say that a car which was remaining in its own lane "cut off" another car, and yet you assume that the car which did the "cutting off" was staying in its own lane.
Do these self-driving cars have the ability to detect other cars' turn signals, which would let them know that the other vehicle was planning a lane change?
The invention will be particularly welcome in the Middle East where so many suicide car bombers needlessly lose their lives.
"2 self-driving cars make the news by not having an accident."
Obvious joke: Where I live it's news when two human-driven cars do that. :-S
"Maybe Absmeier was excited about the performance of the car at the point when the performance got exciting, but wouldn't most people find fault in the car that tried to change lanes when there wasn't enough room?"
That's true. But to me, Absmeier comes off as sounding like a programmer/developer. He's pretty much looking at it completely from the Audi/Delphi's point of view and is essentially saying "Look, our project was confronted by this exception being outside the normal parameters of behavior (from a human point of view) and correctly handled it to prevent a bad result." To him, that's probably excellent exception handling, nevermind that to humans the entire point would be about the Lexus's behavior, not the Audi's. And programmatically, it probably is a pretty good piece of work. But it shows how the devil has to be in the details when developing automated vehicles, and how these guys have to really narrow their focus in order to get these things to just work at all, let alone work well in specific circumstances.
The technology and base of knowledge is growing, but it's still at the point where it takes a lot of effort to replicate something that seems basic to humans. That's not a bad thing at all; it just shows there's still so much left to learn and build.
Self-driving cars would very likely be in significantly fewer accidents, but there would be a small fraction of cases that they would not handle as well as a small fraction of humans would.
"The invention will be particularly welcome in the Middle East where so many suicide car bombers needlessly lose their lives."
Oh, great.
So does that mean that suicide bombers will be able to collect unemployment?
Rule from Drivers Ed: Never trust a turn signal.
I do not need a turn signal to reason that a merging car will cause the truck in lane 1 to move to lane 2. So I move from lane 2 to lane 3, or speed the hell up to get out of the way.
" Do designers really think people will maintain the constant state of readiness necessary for a split second intervention? And doesn't that obviate the purpose of the self-driving car?"
If the purpose of requiring a "just in case" driver is to place liability on the driver and not the manufacturer, then the purpose is not obviated.
Although I doubt there will be much demand for driverless cars so long as that requirement stands. Logically, driverless cars don't have to be perfect to be adequately safe, they just have to be safer than most drivers.
Not that logic has to matter when it comes legal liability.
Peter - I'm assuming the purpose of the self-driving car is to free the human from the demands of driving. For example, I've read that the self-driving will permit me to read the newspaper on my way into work. But that clearly won't be the case if I have to be ready to jump in at a moments notice.
The human as backup is not meant to take over in the case of a dangerous situation or accident (car crash), but in case the system fails or doesn't come up properly (software crash).
A much safer distinction. Imagine if the self-driving car couldn't be driven at all. If the SW crashed it would be stuck at the side of the road (or in the middle of the road) until someone came to reboot it.
Fun!
Headless,
"I think that self-driving cars will become rolling road blocks. "
Time to break out the tactical nukes, then.
"Btw - who is programming these vehicles. Most likely Asians. Hilarity will be inevitable. "
Racist h8ter!
Sebastion @ 8:55am,
Me too!
See you in the gulag, bro!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा