Why We'll Never Have Driverless Cars

"Satish Kondapavulur" (becauseCAR) 09/21/2013 at 10:14 • Filed to: MY STUPID LISTS

9

100

"Human beings are idiots." That’s what we think whenever we see a story with the “LOLCARS” tag. It's also what we think when anything happens in Florida. (God forbid I ever have to move there.) It’s probably what Greg Tracy was thinking as I was telling him about the time I tried to express my inner Bob Wollek. And that’s what all of Jalopnik was thinking when I wrote !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

With these thoughts, companies such as !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! have been building and testing driverless cars, expecting that eventually humans will buy autonomous cars. And DARPA has races every year involving autonomous cars. But I’m not so sure it’ll happen. And it's not because of the crashes and car enthusiasts loudly complaining.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

It will happen because humans are idiots. As a result, like I usually do, I wrote a list of reasons why we’ll never have autonomous cars.

Author’s Note: Special thanks to Greg Tracy for inspiring this list after his experience doing the Hot Wheels loop. (I’ll get to why it’s so relevant in the list. Though if you saw the JFF /DRIVE panel videos, you’ll already know why.) And even more special thanks to Mr. Tracy for putting up with my stories. Even I realize it was tedious.

1. Trust Issues

First off, no one will trust autonomous cars. Automakers will try to convince customers that their safety systems will work. Unfortunately, product demonstrations of safety systems have failed spectacularly. Who can forget the time that the S60 crashed into the back of the truck during a City Safety system demonstration. (The radiator breaking was the icing on the cake.) And the time these two guys decided to run in front of their Volvos to see if the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . (Once again, human beings are idiots.)

And who can forget the time when three Mercedes-Benz S-Classes were !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! during a demonstration of the PRE-SAFE automatic braking system. In fact, Mercedes didn’t have enough confidence in its own product, that the system was switched off and the driver (a journalist) was told to stop the car at a certain point. Unfortunately, the braking point was missed and Mercedes had a PR disaster on its hands. (On a side note, that journalist got fired over the incident.)

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

In the end, if we have a difficult time trusting even radar-based cruise controls and relatively autonomous braking systems that only sometimes work, people are not ready for driverless cars, since they’ve seen computer-operated systems get more than a few things wrong.

2. Hacking Fears

This makes me afraid. Especially when a company like Tesla can remotely update the software on their cars. I would fear the day I got into a driverless BMW 5-Series and someone at BMW decided to eliminate me for the vitriol I’ve given it. Or basically any manufacturer on !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , for that matter.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

And a cyberattack targeting cars would take down various forms of transport if able to insert a string of code that would make a Tesla Model S an expensive brick. Mainly because the Model S would end up blocking the carpool lane in California, something which results in flashing high beams and motorcyclists hitting your car so they can lane split. Not to mention numerous calls to Elon Musk to start focusing on the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and SpaceX instead.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

3. Infrastructure and Regulation

Let me remind you that driverless cars will have to abide by certain regulations so that the Kardashians can stop driving their fleet of G-Wagens all over Hollywood. So Lindsay Lohan can't order her car to crash into a Prada boutique on Rodeo Drive. And Justin Bieber can have that chrome-wrapped Fisker taken away from him.

But determining regulation will be impossible. Mainly because there will be automotive industry lobbyists who will say things like “We don’t need pedestrian safety regulations. It’s their fault for not working hard enough to get a self-driving car.” Not to mention car dealers associations who will proclaim that a customer must pay them hundreds of dollars simply for a software update and will attempt to get the regulations in their favor.

And we have a Congress that would rather shut down a government to get its way instead of passing bills. Congressional hearings would be a nightmare, with the audience having to hear long-winded stories from congresspeople about that one time they rode in a driverless car and they felt safe only to have a Senator follow up with “I preferred my 1956 Buick Super over these confounded driverless doohickeys.” Meanwhile, we’ll be exasperated that people with no enthusiasm about cars will determine whether or not we’ll have autonomous cars. Maybe it's time to start a Jalopnik PAC. So we can at least make sure speed limits are reasonable. (Reasonable being 150 mph, hopefully.)

Furthermore, roads and other forms of infrastructure would have to be improved to accommodate autonomous cars. And that won’t happen, for reasons that involve schools, police officers, fire fighters, prisons, and what amounts to political suicide these days: raising taxes. Not to mention the meetings about the issue that’ll culminate in the one person yelling “Impeach Obama! He's from Kenya!”

4. Liability Issues

Murphy's Law will apply to anything and everything. Meaning accidents. And now I shall spell out a scenario:

A Porsche 999 GT6 RS E-Hybrid Autonomen Ferdinand Piëch Edition crashes into a Bugatti Pacific Grand Sport Autonome Legend Ferdinand Piëch. Both cars exchange information over an immediate Bluetooth connection, which will promptly fail after three seconds. And then an error report will be sent to the manufacturer and safety bureaus.

Both drivers will blame the algorithms in their cars. The owners will say the cars crashed because one car’s processors had the reaction times of Pastor Maldonado. And the other will blame lines of code as redundant as poor Mark Webber once Sebastian Vettel decided to ignore “Multi 21.” But the safety bureau will have to determine which car had inferior machinery and coding and place blame on the owner of that vehicle. Leading to many a Kafkaesque situation.

Insurance companies will only be able to blame the machinery. Meaning manufacturers will be on the hook for everything. For instance, remember that tremendous Toyota recall? And how they said cars were accelerating for no reason? Well that’ll be even worse when an autonomous car gets something very wrong. Especially when getting the most mundane of things wrong. Like picking up a Venti Starbucks Latte instead of a grande. Playing Miley Cyrus instead of Taylor Swift because it was rated higher on Spotify. Taking you to McDonald’s instead of In-N-Out because Zagat thought it was better.

5. We as humans, will always think we're better than the machine...and we are.

This last one is especially true of car enthusiasts. Especially Miata owners compelled to change every part on their car in order to place tenth on the autocross course. And E30 and E36 guys who strip out the interior of their cars only so they can say: "because race car." And Dodge Viper drivers who gladly give John Hennessey thousands of dollars for more power, only to promptly crash them into a tree. I'll stop now.

But back to Greg Tracy. Before he did the Hot Wheels Double Loop Dare, a drone car was used to test whether a car would actually make the loop. That testing attempt was unsuccessful, with the drone car having dropped down directly from the top of the loop. Which did not bode well for a human attempt.

Yet two human drivers were able to drive a loop, in front of a crowd without a horrible accident. And Greg Tracy was able to talk about the incident and how he could outdrive a drone, showing that driverless cars are not the best idea.

It spells good riddance for the best of software algorithms. Meaning no driverless cars. At least until one can perform a Triple Loop Dare, set the record for the largest car jump in the world, be able to win the Formula One championship, and get me a reservation for two at Per Se. Then I'll be all for driverless cars.

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! runs !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , named because "Clunker.com" was $82 at auction and would've taken 30% out of the balance of his Eagle Vision for LeMons fund. In between contemplating cross-country runs, he spends much of his time attempting to convince others that his MkV Jetta 2.0T Wolfsburg is indeed a sports sedan.

Image credits: Wikimedia Commons, YouTube, and Hot Wheels Media.

shinsen > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 10:23

12

Great story!

BlackLab > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 14:28

1

No. If you live long enough - its going to go the other way. We will only have driverless cars - except they will look like vans because you won't care about performance if you are not driving..

Insurance companies might not be pleased but tough luck. The car companies will love the huge amount of driverless cars that will be sold. The construction guys will love all the roads that will be built. And the gas companies will love all the additional miles driven, and the tech companies will love all the extra money they will get making the tech for it to happen.

Doug DeMuro > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 14:32

7

The Volvo video is really among the best of the modern era.

tobythesandwich > Doug DeMuro 09/21/2013 at 14:41

4

My problem is everybody brings that up as the "anti-driverless car" argument. But it was a pre-production car using what (at the time) was still relatively untested. it was mostly a tech demo. Yet the Microsoft Surface crashed at it's debut and nobody really cares.

The system in the Volvo actually works though. It's impressive.

TiredAndSleepy > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 14:50

1

The regulation one is the only one I agree with, but it certainly is enough to kill the whole thing. Still, technology will advance and eventually cars will be driverless, at least as an option, likely in our lifetime.

tobythesandwich > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 14:56

2

I don't think this is the case at all. We're living in a time of ever increasing technology.

1.) Trust Issues will likely subside after a few years. When three-point seatbelts were introduced, people were hesitant as you could be trapped in the car by this strap of death. People will get over it. There will be enough people to adopt the technology that it'll slowly work it's way in until it's in every new car. YOU don't trust it. Doesn't mean everyone won't.
2.) Hacking Fears If you haven't feared this for the past 10 years, you shouldn't logically fear it in the future. Even your most basic cars have 8 computers communicating with each other at any time. And the number of computers only goes up the farther you go from economy cars. You have so many computer controlled systems in your car now. What's to say they can't hack the car you're already driving? Electronically assisted steering, brakes, throttle bodies, etc etc. Again. If you're not afraid of it now, you shouldn't be afraid in the future.

3.) Infrastructure and Regulation This likely won't change. As driverless cars will have to coexist with traditional cars for quite a period of time. Safety standards will still have to be in place. The fact they'd just throw that out the window is absurd. By that argument's logic we shouldn't have pedestrian safety now. People should know cars are dangerous. Or that Bleach is poisonous. Yet we have regulations in place to protect them. So likely nothing will change.

4.) Liability Issues How is this an issue? More than likely even if this supposed "bluetooth" swapping of insurance info fails, both cars will likely have some form of internal storage much like the black box of an airplane. Your cars have this now. Recording throttle position, brake information, etc etc. Again. Nothing new. There wouldn't be any issues involved here either.

5.) Ignorance pretty much sums this up. People probably said this when cars were introduced. "We're better than machines. Why should we give up our horses?" You cannot move forward if you are afraid to let go of the past. We are fine to let our phones make calls for us, or our computers to update themselves. Trains used to have to be operated by a conductor. Many are now controlled exclusively by computers. Why can't we let cars drive themselves?


Ultimately this is mostly silly fear mongering. Just people trying to delay the inevitable. I understand the enthusiast perspective of not wanting these cars. But many of these excuses are just pretty generic. No real substance to them.

Ad_absurdum_per_aspera > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 14:57

2

There are plenty of human "drivers" whose replacement by a decently thought out self-driving system right now would be an immediate and tangible improvement in public safety.

Only when a robot can steer with its knees in order to put on makeup, drive in a one-lane construction zone on a mountain road with the newspaper opened up across the steering wheel, go into the lake without even hanging up the cell phone call, or rear-end a cop car while drunk out of its artificial mind will we be able to say they're truly human.

Doug DeMuro > tobythesandwich 09/21/2013 at 15:02

5

Didn't they forget to turn on the system?

mrbaits > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 15:16

0

Clearly most if not all of these issues will have to be worked out before it can become a reality, but that doesn't mean it will never happen. Technology is moving pretty fast, I wouldn't be surprised to see it within the next 10 years.

Victorious Secret > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 15:18

6

Computers are flawed because humans are flawed. Have a computer AI make another computer, and it would be perfect.

Driverless cars are the future by virtue of me not feeling in the mood to drive 6 hours straight like I had to do this morning.

I'm sorry, but fuck that. In before "take a bus or plane", no, those aren't options and nor are they feasible for my specific drive.

I want R2D2 driving me around for those times I just don't give a damn. To school, the library, groceries, to get more fuel, the straight line down to Calgary and back; no need for me to be 'involved' in driving.

tobythesandwich > Doug DeMuro 09/21/2013 at 15:21

0

I can't remember off the top of my head. I think it was a recently added sensor that wasn't properly communicating. But I forget what the official word on it was.

Jack O'Brien > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 15:29

1

The rea; icing on the cake is when the announcer for the volvo video is like "uhh it seems like we've had a mishap in the testing here, sorry for that"

Your trying to sell me a car that drives itself, and the only consolation for it driving into a truck is "sorry for that"? No thanks, ill take my not-self driving car any day

Frankenbike666 > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 15:43

1

As collision avoidance systems are added to more and more vehicles, they'll slowly inch toward driverless cars. It will be incremental. Once people trust and depend on the CAS, and let their car automatically parallel park, driverless cars are only a minor step away.

Your trust issues will evaporate that day you're drunk, you have to drive home, and your robot car can legally be your designated driver.

DCCARGEEK > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 15:51

5

I really wished I had the time and energy to pick apart this post, but I don't.

You should write it again, but this time do research.

Zaronius > tobythesandwich 09/21/2013 at 16:06

0

Have to agree. And "never" is a looooong time...

london-rhino > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 16:08

0

They'd never work in London because roads signs, direction, and roadworks would cause hell, let alone tourists not looking the right way to cross the road.

wagnerrp > tobythesandwich 09/21/2013 at 16:10

0

Hacking Fears If you haven't feared this for the past 10 years, you shouldn't logically fear it in the future.

You haven't had to fear it in the past because in order to hack a current car, you have to open up the hood and snake an interface cable somewhere inaccessible. As mentioned in the article, cars like the Tesla S can do this remotely, under the control of the manufacturer.

Anthony8605 > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 16:28

1

So...yeah. The thing is, humans are actually pretty bad at driving cars. Once the tech evolves enough, some small place like Dubai or Singapore will go purely autonomous and the number of accidents will plummet. It''ll catch on after that.

PardonMyFlemish16 > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 16:45

0

We already put our lives in the hands of computers, even in cars. You trust that your DBW throttle won't open/close randomly. You trust that your EBD system won't lock up your wheels randomly. Etc.

I would be fine with driverless cars if going autopilot were an OPTION rather than the only operating mode, or if there were more racetracks to do track days on. But yes, I trust a computer far more than I trust the drunks, texting teens, octogenarians and general road raging idiots that roam the streets daily.

dmanww > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 17:36

0

Unless there's been some new info. The "drone" care they used for the loop was remotely controlled from the side of the track. It was not autonomous and using is an example is disingenuous.

Also, there is a spectrum of car automation. Including pre-charged brakes (class 1), adaptive cruise control (class 2), Google car (class 3), JohnyCab (class 4). They're laid out by NHTSA here . http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/ru…

So, what do you mean when you talk about driverless cars?

I'm getting pretty frustrated with the absolutism I've seen on here. It feels like lazy thinking.

Kenpachi > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 18:03

0

Because we don't want them.

WZAnon > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 18:07

1

Calm down people. The point Satish is making is that we aren't ready. And the people trying to push this "driverless car" know its not ready but they want to keep it swirling around so it doesn't end up like the Honda FCX Clarity. But lets check some things:

There are hybrid/electric/hybrid gasoline/and that FCX Clarity types of cars available now. Now IF the change was so "imminent", these alternative fuel types would be selling out everywhere, giving an indication of a change from a fossil fuel car. But its not. So sorry everyone who wants a car like in the movie "Minority Report". Thats not happening for DECADES.

CatfishSoupFTW > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 18:07

0

I concur.

Puts ... a doctors uniform on? shades? .... nerdy glasses? :/

The Active Part Of Active Suspension > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 18:13

0

Raise your hand if you want to be on the System FMEA and Functional Hazard Analysis team for a driverless vehicle.

<...crickets...>

tobythesandwich > wagnerrp 09/21/2013 at 18:19

0

You seem to forget how people were "hacking" BMWs. No connections whatsoever.

And you don't have to open the hood at all. There is an OBDII port underneath the dash. Pretty simple to get into the car and hook into that. But that's not really needed.

Again. Ignorance is the issue here. The Model S is remotely connected to the manufacturer as it is a low volume electric car that they are still ironing out all the bugs for. As well as the need to get realtime data for future development. Model S drivers are still considered "beta" for Tesla.

tobythesandwich > Zaronius 09/21/2013 at 18:19

0

Never is like a week to Jalopnik.

TorkLugnutz > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 18:37

0

When I covered the DARPA Urban Challenge for Jalopnik, I was amazed at how confidently and humanlike the driving was in the top contender's vehicles. I've been waiting for my electric robot car ever since.

guga > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 18:38

0

Another fiasco:

ChineseVolvo > Victorious Secret 09/21/2013 at 18:54

0

Six hours to Calgary...You from Stoon?

Satish Kondapavulur > The Active Part Of Active Suspension 09/21/2013 at 19:08

0

No one will do it. No one. Except if they're being paid well by Google.

Satish Kondapavulur > WZAnon 09/21/2013 at 19:09

1

We are so not ready. I give it at least another 25 years. It's now that electric cars are actually selling at a reasonable volume after being on and off since the 1970s.

Satish Kondapavulur > TorkLugnutz 09/21/2013 at 19:11

0

They may be good driving for a competition. But it would be interesting to see how the cars would do over time. And we have to think back to 2004, when no car won the DARPA challenge and all of them crashed within 15 miles.

Texican > DCCARGEEK 09/21/2013 at 19:14

0

Word. This whole article reads like "old man yells at cloud." The driverless car is coming because the machines will keep improving and the humans will not.

Satish Kondapavulur > PardonMyFlemish16 09/21/2013 at 19:18

0

That's true, but even the manufacturers have to acknowledge the fact that things can go wrong. For instance, on the Infiniti Q50, Direct Adaptive Steering is supposed to be a complete drive-by-wire system. However, it's still connected to the drive wheels in case the system fails. When the system is properly working though, the steering wheel is not connected to the front wheels.

Satish Kondapavulur > Anthony8605 09/21/2013 at 19:19

1

It'll never catch on in a large country like America though. Mainly for infrastructure reasons, and politicians and the dealer lobbies would thoroughly oppose driverless cars. Mainly because they can't blame the drivers, meaning more liability on them and less speeding tickets for local municipalities.

Satish Kondapavulur > mrbaits 09/21/2013 at 19:24

0

I give it at least 25 years before everything is perfect, from government regulations to dealers to car manufacturers signing on and the government infrastructure being in place. Autonomous cars are difficult to go mainstream, especially when infrastructure has to support them. And most of America is not there yet.

Adamdoesthings > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 19:24

0

Summary: "This one time, like, a few years ago, there's an example of when this totally didn't work. Therefore, the entire idea is a failure."


If we all thought like this, we'd STILL be running around in caves in 2013, getting branded as "witches" for using sharpened sticks instead of bare hands to take down wooly mammoths, because that one time Ug did it and it didn't work... or still gathering berries, because a few of those seeds that Ununga planted didn't grow.

Headphoto > tobythesandwich 09/21/2013 at 19:26

0

No one gives a shit that the Surface crashed, because it didn't endanger any lives. A software malfunction in a car is significantly more of a problem.

Adamdoesthings > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 19:27

0

That wasn't even 10 years ago, and in that time we've already gotten commercially available active avoidance systems and speed control in cars. Give it another 10.

Adamdoesthings > The Active Part Of Active Suspension 09/21/2013 at 19:27

0

I'll do it. I'd trust a computer before I'd trust most of the jerks I already see driving on a daily basis.

hismiths > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 19:28

0

You can have your driverless car when you tear the wheel of my FLYING CAR from my feverish grounded hands!

Satish Kondapavulur > Ad_absurdum_per_aspera 09/21/2013 at 19:29

0

Ha! But trust me, they're the same type of people who'll think they're better than their car and take over if they think it's not going fast enough. Or if it's routing them to a Walmart Supercenter instead of Whole Foods.

Satish Kondapavulur > DCCARGEEK 09/21/2013 at 19:35

0

I'm a history major, so more research did need to be done. But the boring quotient would have gone up tremendously. But I definitely stand by the government and insurance liability issues. Working those out will be a nightmare.

Satish Kondapavulur > london-rhino 09/21/2013 at 19:35

1

Or any roundabout in GB for that matter.

Satish Kondapavulur > Frankenbike666 09/21/2013 at 19:38

0

My trust issues will probably evaporate because I'd be drunk , primarily. And stupid decisions occur when drunk.

But really, having an autonomous car wouldn't be a bad thing in those situations. I'd just probably end up at In-N-Out instead of home.

Satish Kondapavulur > Victorious Secret 09/21/2013 at 19:41

0

I don't think you'd want to have an autonomous car if you're running late for something though. For instance, imagine rush hour in driverless cars with drivers yelling at their cars to get to their destination faster.

Satish Kondapavulur > dmanww 09/21/2013 at 19:43

0

I'll admit that little actual research was involved. But making the government regulations, getting some laws past the legislature, and getting money for updating the infrastructure for driverless cars will be a difficult task.

wagnerrp > tobythesandwich 09/21/2013 at 19:43

0

You seem to forget how people were "hacking" BMWs. No connections whatsoever.

I'm drawing a blank on this one. The only thing I can seem to find is that some dumbass decided to put the crypto codes for the keyfob on the OBD port, meaning all you had to do is plug in and ask the car how to steal it. It seems no matter how many times people get burned by this, they never understand that passwords must be irreversibly hashed. Any other scenario is just asking for trouble.

And you don't have to open the hood at all. There is an OBDII port underneath the dash. Pretty simple to get into the car and hook into that. But that's not really needed.

The OBD port is a diagnostic port, as per it's name, On-Board Diagnostics. It's read only. You can query runtime values from the car (assuming the car doesn't make stupid things like access codes available), but you cannot make changes. At worst, a poorly designed comms interface could be overloaded with queries, causing real time operations to be delayed. Properly designed, the most you can do over an OBD port is continually reset error codes, preventing the "check engine" indicator from ever lighting up.

Anthony8605 > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 19:47

2

"Never" is a pretty bold word. The kind of driverless tech being developed now doesn't require any kind of extra infrastructure development.

And as dysfunctional as our government can be, they can't stop inevitability. Don't you think municipalities would have put the clamp down on this whole e-commerce thing to protect their sales tax revenue if they had that much power? The companies designing driverless cars will have their own lobbiests.

Satish Kondapavulur > Doug DeMuro 09/21/2013 at 19:47

0

It really was. But I love the Mercedes story even more, because of how wrong things got for everyone involved. I even had to exclude some hilarious third-hand information to avoid a lawsuit from Mercedes.

Satish Kondapavulur > BlackLab 09/21/2013 at 19:48

0

Meanwhile, the economy is in the dumps, tax revenue is down, and Congress isn't getting anything done...

Satish Kondapavulur > tobythesandwich 09/21/2013 at 20:01

0

Here's my rebuttal:

1. People won't get over it. To this day, there is a subset of the population that doesn't wear seatbelts or even wear motorcycle helmets even though they should.

2. If Tesla can remotely update a Model S, I see no reason why someone can hack into Tesla's system and start messing about with the cars. Especially by inserting a bug into a future update.

3. Regulations will be made to autonomous cars. Especially regarding speed, the types of sensors they should use, and whether they can recognize if a car will cut them off. And infrastructure does need to support them, especially so the cars know how to get from Mobile to Juneau.

4. The black box will be there, but the operator can't be blamed. Only the manufacturer for the most part. And no driver will want to take responsibility for the actions of a driverless car, mainly because they weren't operating the vehicle and the time of the accident. And do you really think a manufacturer wants the risk if something goes very, very wrong? Look at Toyota.

5. Autonomous cars are terrible choices especially if you're running late. And the automated trains usually run in straight lines. They don't have to deal with roundabout, merging across lanes to get to an exit, parking lots, and other moving vehicles a few feet around them.

Jack O'Brien > Doug DeMuro 09/21/2013 at 20:02

1

all this automated car stuff can only work if everyone's on the same page with infrastructure, which often people are not.

Side Note: reading your book as we speak Doug, I dont think I ever laughed so hard.

YEA YOU CROSS THAT STREET TURTLE!

PardonMyFlemish16 > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 20:03

0

Well I look at it like this. Computers might get it wrong, and we can put in contingencies to protect from these events. Humans take pride in getting it wrong, and then get angry or reject contingencies or actions to protect us from ourselves, out of pride I guess. In the long run, unless we get over that, self-driving cars are the only real way forward. We are getting worse as drivers and are taking driving less and less seriously.

Satish Kondapavulur > Anthony8605 09/21/2013 at 20:05

0

Local governments might not like the lack of speeding ticket revenue. And something as big as a car will spark outrage than a book from Amazon (which I have to pay sales tax on now by the way). Some might actually outlaw them. And when some states allow for helmets not to be worn on motorcycles, common sense will not surround the rollout of driverless cars.

Anthony8605 > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 20:08

0

I think you're absolutely right about the "some states" bit. There will certainly be some states that refuse to get with the times.

Doug DeMuro > Jack O'Brien 09/21/2013 at 21:43

0

Hahaha - glad to hear you like it!! I still think about that poor turtle from time to time.

mk4wagon > Victorious Secret 09/21/2013 at 21:54

0

Couldn't agree more. I love to drive certain places, even groceries or work. But driving 8-10 hours back to NY would be much better if I could kick back and relax. And im in the same boat, plane/bus/train is too expensive/takes too much time. Autopilot should just be an option.

tobythesandwich > Headphoto 09/21/2013 at 22:10

0

Think about how much your life depends on software. Ever flown in a plane? Ever driven a modern car? Ever been in a hospital? So on and so forth.

The Volvo ordeal was not a matter of a software malfunction but came down ultimately to human error on a pre-production prototype. The incident was mostly a "this is what we've gotten so far" show. And was far from what would be featured on production cars.

tobythesandwich > wagnerrp 09/21/2013 at 22:15

0

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/132526…
Surprisingly enough, they got the codes through the OBD port. It wasn't some dumbass. That "dumbass" was BMW. The codes are ultimately stored inside the vehicle and that is used to program the keys.

Again. Not just for reading. You can upload information into the car itself as well. The OBD port can grant you access to modify anything controlled by the car's various computers. From your BCM, to your ECU.
Properly designed is not the issue. The OBD port has to be able to upload new software for service bulletins and recalls. It has to be able to be modified for personal gains (performance tunes ring any bells?). Most of what you're talking about is ignorance on what the OBD system actually does.

tobythesandwich > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 22:28

0

1.) Those people are generally regarded as idiots though. You know why a percentage of people don't wear seatbelts? It has little to do with the misconception that they are unsafe. Many times it is out of laziness or they can sometimes just bug you. You have a strap constantly rubbing against you. Which sometimes can get annoying.

2.) Tesla most likely has a hell of a staff to prevent incidents like this. Ultimately the main reason people steal cars is for parts. While you're driving down the road in your self-driving Toyota Whatchamacallit, car thieves and hackers likely won't be interested. The reason BMW hacking was a big scandal is because BMW parts are worth a good bit of money. Ultimately the main reason is there is no personal gain for the hacker. Outside of data mining (which some trojan viruses do), there's no real purpose behind hacking a vehicle. Unless you want to kill someone, but this isn't a movie.

3.) You give our government way too much credit. If anything regulations will be less severe in many ways. Think about it. Why are speed limits so low? To account for driver error. Ever increasing safety standards? Driver error. It's kind of a trend. The weakest link in a car is the person behind the wheel. This always has been the case, And it always will be. The government now does not regulate sensors. So there's no expectation they would regulate them in autonomous cars. As far as infrastructure and your idea of "from Mobile to Juneau." Cars already do this. GPS. It's this fancy new technology from 1994. Well, technically 1973 when it was developed. But that's another story.

4.) The point is there will be no blame. You act as if people are willing to take blame for collisions now. They will ultimately look up the car's data log, see what went wrong, and send a memo to the manufacturer if it is enough to warrant a software update. I should remind you that in the entire time Google has been running their Autonomous car project, only once has there been a collision. When a human was controlling the car at that

As far as the Toyota jab went. It was proven to be driver error in all cases. Toyota had done everything to essentially idiot-proof their cars. That was driver error. By eliminating the driver, you don't have to worry about idiots who can't hit the brakes or put the car into neutral.

6.) The beauty of that, is don't be late. You know what I do when I'm running late? Just fucking get there. I don't drive like an idiot to get somewhere "on time" as it's quite a big misconception that driving that way will make more than 3-4 minutes difference. You should take a look at how Japan operates their railways. Anything more than 5 minutes (which is a common grace period even in America's workforce) and the train depot will give you a note. If you're late more than 5 minutes, your employer will not believe whatever silly excuse you come up with. Don't enable the idiots or the lazy is my theory.
And you know the biggest cause of traffic? Take a guess. Autonomous cars constantly pinging each other and sending their location and intended movements to the other cars will only make things easier. Rather than John Q Asshole bombarding across all 4 lanes to get that sweet spot in traffic that's going 2mph faster than the rest of everyone. Then swerving over a tenth of a mile later because he is about to miss his exit.

stevestamop > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 22:44

1

Driving an Autonomous car would be like watching your Bob try and race in Gran Turismo 5 in the B Spec thing... every 5 seconds you will wonder why the car just did something really stupidly.

Kazikian > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 22:44

0

Congratulations, you're an idiot.

Victorious Secret > tobythesandwich 09/21/2013 at 22:54

1

The plane one is a nice one people skip over.

Modern planes are fully capable of landing, flying and taking off on their own. Whether or not people would trust a pilot-less plane is another thing because they THINK machines are more failure prone.

Carwood > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 22:54

1

Frankly, the infrastructure is the greatest issue. We can barely maintain roads as it is. In order for next gen driver tech to succeed well need straight roads with sensors and so forth

Sam Payne > Satish Kondapavulur 09/21/2013 at 23:42

0

Hilarious, great writing! You make me so confident that there will never be driver-less cars!

tobythesandwich > Victorious Secret 09/21/2013 at 23:54

0

Precisely. People really do take machines for granted. And forget how machines are responsible for basically everything we have now.

But you hit the nail on the head for sure.

Satish Kondapavulur > stevestamop 09/22/2013 at 00:02

0

Honestly, I've never done B-Spec for that exact reason.

Satish Kondapavulur > Sam Payne 09/22/2013 at 00:09

0

Thanks! Glad you liked this piece!

Gino King > Satish Kondapavulur 09/22/2013 at 00:30

0

Great points. Regarding point #3, I think I have a possible solution: My father is blind, but hasn't been his entire life and is an extremely capable human being with a doctorate (he has RP, which is very progressive. He was able to legally drive when I was born 35 years ago and owned/maintained terrific cars up until he could no longer drive). As such, it would be equally politically suicidal to refuse a handicapped person the same rights as the average American. This is the loophole that must be exploited, especially during elections. Imagine a presidential debate in which one candidate asks the other, "So you don't think handicapped people should have the same access as everyone else?". Such hypothetical conversations would be glorious to witness and may be helpful to the cause of autonomous vehicles.

dreygata > Victorious Secret 09/22/2013 at 00:31

2

Except that computer AI would have been programmed by a human, so it'd still be flawed. It's impossible to make something that is 100% perfect.

fiubar1 > Satish Kondapavulur 09/22/2013 at 00:37

0

5. No. We as humans will always think we're better than the machine, and we never are. NEVER. Your example is simply that of a badly programmed drone. A drone that was sent through the course to find the minimum sufficient speed and perhaps test safety mechanisms. That task could have been properly completed with something as simple as a Lego Mindstorms brick.

Most of us humans are absolutely not ever, ever, ever, ever, better than a machine. Top Gear did that demo with BMW where, after one lap at the hands of a race driver, the car was able to autonomously drive itself just as fast. And I'll bet if you gave that computer some leeway, it could do better.

During the Apollo program, computers were programmed to complete the lunar landing in its entirety. Each and every astronaut took manual control for "unforeseen circumstances." And you know what? In every single case, it was later shown that there were no unforeseen circumstances, and the human did a worse (in some cases MUCH worse) job of landing the vehicle than the computer would have. And those were computers less capable than your toaster-oven - 43 KHz - yes, kilo.

The only difference is that landing on a satellite 239000 miles from earth moving at 2287mph is actually way simpler than dealing with the multitude of traffic dilemmas that occur in the average commute. The cost of retrofitting infrastructure to a sufficient standard is what makes autonomous cars a fairly far-off reality, albeit one I am certain will come to pass someday.

andersonwal > Satish Kondapavulur 09/22/2013 at 01:05

1

Hey now. If you live in the panhandle, Florida isn't that bad. Pensacola is probably one of the best cities in the US to own a car for many reasons:

1. No emissions testing
2. Lowest legal tint levels
3.fairly low population density
4. Rush hour usually adds AT MOST 10 minutes to you drive home but that;s only if youre on Palafox or Davis Hwy. Any other time your travel time is about the same with or without traffic even though it is also a college town.

We also have a short oval that they also hold drifting competitions at. 10 dollars gets you an entire day of track time. There are also autocross events held every once in awhile. Plus if you go out where i live, Cantonment which is right outside of Pensacola, there are lots of driving roads. Also to police here tend to be more lenient on speeding as long as you arent being retarded.

ninjamike > Victorious Secret 09/22/2013 at 02:04

0

It'd be cool to have the ability to just set the auto pilot and catch some z's when the mood strikes, but be able to turn it off for those instances when you want to enjoy the driving experience or are in a rush.