autonomous cars

AdrianC

bazster wrote: »

And how many of those are there? Presumably you would count yourself as one, and that's fine, no-one is saying autonomous cars will be compulsory. But given the lamentable standard of most peoples' driving I'm guessing that autonomous cars will result in a reduction in accident rates, even if there will be the occasional (and doubtless highly-publicised) c0ck-up by the technology.

Trouble is, will the clueless muppets be the ones to hang their keys up? And what happens, as that Beeb article, when malicious intent comes into play...? All it needs is one hacker on a m'way overpass...

My prediction? The first large-scale roll out of autonomous vehicles will be freight. There's reckoned to be a shortage of 60,000 HGV drivers in the UK right now, and a demographic time-bomb coming - before you figure cost savings and logistics benefits from not having to worry about driver's hours and nights on the road...

So there goes up to 375,000 skilled jobs, right there...

Tobster86

As much as a like an enjoyable drive, I'm all for them.

I trust the work of computer scientists (of which I am one) far more than most humans as far as driving ability is concerned, and the idea of just sitting there drinking several lagers and listening to music while the car does the long boring motorway drive by itself, economically, comfortably, and without any road rage and nonsense; is very appealing.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of drivers are vastly inferior in skills and judgement than what is already available is terms of artificial intelligence.

As for hacking the vehicles, it can (and most likely will) be impossible. There is no reason to expose interfaces to the primary autonomous systems in a way that would facilitate hacking.

AdrianC

Tobster86 wrote: »

As for hacking the vehicles, it can (and most likely will) be impossible. There is no reason to expose interfaces to the primary autonomous systems in a way that would facilitate hacking.

Apart from that already having been proven false, you can guarantee that there's no way to spoof the radar or the navigation...?

Here's a real-world scenario they won't cope with... A big temporary event. The weather's bad, and the event car parks are closed. Alternative parking is laid on, elsewhere...? A bloke in hi-vis and some directions won't cut it, will they?

bazster

AdrianC wrote: »

Trouble is, will the clueless muppets be the ones to hang their keys up?

Aye, there's the rub. We all think we're brilliant drivers and everyone else is a muppet!

AdrianC wrote: »

And what happens, as that Beeb article, when malicious intent comes into play...? All it needs is one hacker on a m'way overpass...

Not going to happen. Incredibly difficult to do and there's no money it. Malicious nutters on motorway bridges will continue to simply drop kerbstones onto the motorway.

colino

The biggest threat to the introduction of this massive leap in progress is, Us.
Technology is wonderful until, for example, you tell the freight industry that with technology current and available right now, unmanned LGVs could use the motorways at maximum speed in trains 30cm apart in safety. Downside? No need for drivers, road building industry becomes a patch operation, not a ridiculous, slow, expensive joke. HS2 not required as we already have the method of goods delivery throughout the nation. We would have new, clean jobs in software improvement and screwdriver jobs in the electronics sector again. Just one example as to why governments beat their breasts about being innovative and far reaching, but as they have too many friends with protected interests at stake, they have no interest in actually doing anything about it.

nidO

Tobster86 wrote: »

As for hacking the vehicles, it can (and most likely will) be impossible. There is no reason to expose interfaces to the primary autonomous systems in a way that would facilitate hacking.

bazster wrote: »

Not going to happen. Incredibly difficult to do and there's no money it. Malicious nutters on motorway bridges will continue to simply drop kerbstones onto the motorway.

Sadly the timing for both of you with these comments is pretty bad, given exactly this has been demonstrated this week affecting almost every current Chrysler, see:

http://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/

Sadly, car makers are still not taking the security of connected cars seriously, it's not like we even have to go back that far to find BMW's example:

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/02/06/bmw-hack-cyber-security-warning-feature-video/

Not long before that, it was Ford and Toyota:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/07/24/hackers-reveal-nasty-new-car-attacks-with-me-behind-the-wheel-video/

All cases allowed complete remote control over critical functions (drivetrain, brakes etc).
Yes, cars can be made unhackable by keeping critical and connected systems properly segregated, but car manufacturers are demonstrably failing to do so.

zaax

Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiwVMrTLUWg
driverless cars will save 1000's of lives everyday

bazster

nidO wrote: »

Sadly the timing for both of you with these comments is pretty bad, given exactly this has been demonstrated this week affecting almost every current Chrysler, see:

Where did I say it couldn't be done? I said it is incredibly difficult, which it is.

Tobster86

I acknowledge it's ludicrous what hacking can be done now; but think the lack of focus on security is largely down to perceived threat. Indeed, there are no actual incidents in the news of malicious hacking resulting in detriment to safety or property despite the many articles illustrating the possible threat.

The exposure of these interfaces is only for diagnostic purposes. Clearly, the perceived consequences of hacking an automated vehicle, you would hope, should cause manufacturers to take things more seriously.

And it's not complicated stuff; it's a combination of considering what interfaces are exposed and how, and having sufficient redundancy in sensory systems to be completely sure of where the vehicle is under all circumstances (which are absolutely necessary for even basic autonomous navigation).

Trident II makes for interesting reading as far as autonomous navigation is concerned. It has so much redundancy in it's ability to know where it is; even down to cameras that take the bearings of stars. Basically, once someone on HMS Vanguard presses the button; no amount of weather, closed car parks or people in hi-vis are going to stop the world ending. And this is 30 year old technology.

I'm all for a fresh start with the purpose this technology. Autonomous road vehicles will bring peace and prosperity.

bap98189

IanRi wrote: »

That is actually terrifying. It talks about opening up transport for elderly, disabled and those who can't get licences.

What about when something malfunctions on the car and you'd need to take over to avoid an accident.

This will not happen.

Research has been done into this and the results show that it takes the average person far too long to mentally get up to speed to be of any use. It takes the average person 10 seconds before they are able to do anything, and almost 60 seconds before they achieve the same levels of awareness that they would have had had they been driving.

Other research has shown that human error is the cause of over 90% of crashes. Self-driving cars are already far safer than human driven ones and the technology is improving all the time. Machines will never be 100% fault free, but compared to humans, they will be a lot safer.