Self-driving cars more dangerous

BikingBud

kabayiri wrote: »

We already have the same risks with driverless trains though.

And Cat IIIC Instrument Landing Systems on aircraft, they don't crash. But people trying to fly manually do.

BikingBud

There's more scaremongering on here than in the Brexit threads!

BobQ

BikingBud wrote: »

There's more scaremongering on here than in the Brexit threads!

Then post some reassuring evidence?

BikingBud

Teslas are not autonomous cars:

Try reading "Taxonomy And Definitions For Terms Related To Driving Automation Systems For On-Road Motor Vehicles"

A driver who fails to monitor the roadway during engagement of a level 1 adaptive cruise control (ACC) system still has the role of driver, even while s/he is neglecting it. Active safety systems, such as electronic stability control and automated emergency braking, and certain types of driver assistance systems, such as lane keeping assistance, are excluded from the scope of this driving automation taxonomy because they do not perform part or all of the Dynamic Driving Task on a sustained basis.

At best the are Level 4 on highways/motorways probably dropping to 3 on local roads but you cannot really asses retrospectively. You need to assess the driving task and then design the system to meet that task to the level you wish the system to meet.

Until all vehicles can co-operate and negotiate for space across all task levels, Volvo have trailed road trains then the human will always be in the loop and the human factors that currently precipitate the nearly 1800 road deaths per year on UK roads will continue.

So there you have it Bob it is humans that cause the road deaths not the machines.

Reassuring enough for you?

BobQ

BikingBud wrote: »

Teslas are not autonomous cars:

SNIP

So there you have it Bob it is humans that cause the road deaths not the machines.

Reassuring enough for you?

Well I have never mentioned Teslas.

But I agree autonomous vehicles still require the presence of a human who will retain the legal responsibility for safety. Automatic vehicles that some speculate about (ie truly driverless) are a different beast. Question is will be ever get to the stage where the passenger has no responsibility for the safety of the vehicle.

oscarward

BikingBud wrote: »

And Cat IIIC Instrument Landing Systems on aircraft, they don't crash. But people trying to fly manually do.

Not the same thing, it is an aid to pilots not a replacement. Yes the aircraft will land itself but there is no contention with other traffic and has 2 (at the moment) pilots on board who monitor very carefully. See the vid on BBC about the BA aircraft trying to land at heathrow in gusty wind conditions. Do you think the go around was initiated by a system or a human? What would have happened if it was fully automated with no pilots?


Also look at the BA Boeing 777 crash at heathrow a few years ago, no one was killed because humans took control when the auto throttle system failed and would have parked the aircraft on the M25 and they stretched a glide sufficent to make the airfield , but not the runway.


Basically the aircraft is planned and preprogrammed to fly to a destination in carefully monitored air lanes and the only human intervention is if something does not go to plan, but then it doesn't have potentially hundreds of random hazard interactions which a car would have.


Yes automation has largely taken the human out of the loop but has created a new raft of problems. e,g, Lion Air Boeing 737 indonesia, Boeing 787 engines shut down on runway 'cos computer decided it was parked, Air France Airbus.

BikingBud

oscarward wrote: »

Not the same thing, it is an aid to pilots not a replacement. Yes the aircraft will land itself but there is no contention with other traffic and has 2 (at the moment) pilots on board who monitor very carefully. See the vid on BBC about the BA aircraft trying to land at heathrow in gusty wind conditions. Do you think the go around was initiated by a system or a human? What would have happened if it was fully automated with no pilots?

Some commercial aircraft are equipped with automatic landing systems that allow the aircraft to land without transitioning from instruments to visual conditions for a normal landing.

Use of stabilised approach criteria will intervene if the aircraft is buffeting. "Specific types of approach are stabilised if they also fulfil the following:

Instrument Landing System (ILS) approaches must be flown within one dot of the glide-slope and localised, a Category II or III approach must be flown within the expanded localised band during a circling approach wings should be level on final when the aircraft reaches 300 feet above airport elevation;"

So if unstable at 300' go-around will be initiated, automatically. The pilot may wish to intervene but the system is automated until he does and bear in mind he is not legal to land in Cat IIIc minima. The events are LHR are not in that degraded visual environment but you may find that the pilot has elected to land outside stabilised approach criteria and may be he is risking the aircraft and all on board.

oscarward wrote: »

Also look at the BA Boeing 777 crash at heathrow a few years ago, no one was killed because humans took control when the auto throttle system failed and would have parked the aircraft on the M25 and they stretched a glide sufficent to make the airfield , but not the runway.

Mate you need to understand the accident: https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/1-2010-boeing-777-236er-g-ymmm-17-january-2008

"The investigation identified the following probable causal factors that led to the fuel flow restrictions:

Accreted ice from within the fuel system released, causing a restriction to the engine fuel flow at the face of the FOHE, on both of the engines.
Ice had formed within the fuel system, from water that occurred naturally in the fuel, whilst the aircraft operated with low fuel flows over a long period and the localised fuel temperatures were in an area described as the ‘sticky range’."

So the auto throttle didn't fail but the required glide slope did not require an increase in fuel and the low flow lead to icing and filter blockage.

oscarward wrote: »

Basically the aircraft is planned and preprogrammed to fly to a destination in carefully monitored air lanes and the only human intervention is if something does not go to plan, but then it doesn't have potentially hundreds of random hazard interactions which a car would have.

The sky is full of non-cooperating traffic, general aviation, gliders, hang gliders, see the impact of the drones upon LGW. However as I said once all the elements with the system communicate and negotiate for space then full autonomy will work.

oscarward wrote: »

Yes automation has largely taken the human out of the loop but has created a new raft of problems. e,g, Lion Air Boeing 737 indonesia, Boeing 787 engines shut down on runway 'cos computer decided it was parked, Air France Airbus.

Lion Air incident is still under investigation. So not willing to say anymore at this stage.

Let's not forget that most logical systems follow the "garbage in-garbage out" principles. A tale of people leaving Manchester to go and see Chelsea play football were amazed when they pitched up a Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire:( As this was due to loading the destination to sat nav and blindly following the directions it supports that principle. Automated vehicles are no different!

AKRev01

I think auto learning will take its course and it will be significantly safer in a few years

MisterMotivated

As a petrolhead and a keen 'biker, I'm firmly against truly self-driving cars, which seem to be aimed at people who have no interest in cars whatsoever.

There are so many decisions to be made on every single driving journey, I don't think I'll see them in my lifetime, unless tech/healthcare advances mean I live to be 200. Driving autonomously around the grid-pattern streets of New York City is one thing, but roads in Britain are quite another, especially with tight country gravel lanes full of massive potholes, people on horses (can the car tell an agitated horse from a calm one), or urban rat runs with cars parked either side and limited space to pull in and let other cars past (will you be stuck there indefinitely if no oncoming cars let you through?). There's a narrow bridge over a railway near me where you can only pass another car by mounting the (similarly narrow) pavement - will autonomous cars do this, or will they just sit there forever/try to reverse back off the bridge? Not to mention, the road leading to the bridge is littered with hundreds of potholes on one side of the road so you pretty much have to drive on the wrong side (assuming it's clear obviously). What if I'm driving and see a friend walking in the rain - can I just pull up and offer them a lift? They get in and tell me they're going to a relative's house, but don't actually know the address, just how to get there - where do I tell the car to go? What happens if a regular car hits your car then drives off? You can't exactly enter "follow that Honda" as a destination. Likewise if I want to, say, go to the beach. What if I don't like the section of the beach the car chooses to take me to? What if I just want to go for a drive, to enjoy the open road and clear my head?

As was mentioned previously, kids will have great fun 'testing' reactions of autonomous cars by stepping out in front of them.

AJGuy

I think the only time I would want an autonomous car is on long motorway journeys but even then I would have serious trust issues.

I was given a car for a few weeks which was equipped with advanced lane assist and a radar, it was excellent at first but the traffic on the motorway came to a standstill as I was pulling off onto an empty slip road, switched the cruise control off and a few seconds later the “advanced” lane assist yanked the steering hard enough for my hands to slip on the wheel in the direction of a lorry still on the motorway. Fortunately I was going slow enough to slam the brakes on before hitting it but if I was going a higher speed I would have been screwed.

During them two weeks the radar got upset with snow blocking the sensor which caused the car to go into an alert of an imminent collision and pulling up to a set of lights and the car wanted to be more over to the left and nearly hitting a cyclist. Them few weeks was like me trying to stop the car from crashing itself rather than it trying to keep me from crashing it.

My current car has a few safety aids, automatic breaking at low speeds, blind spot protection and some sort of pedestrian warning which beeps at me if someone is walking in front of the car (useless, I can see them!) but I’ve never had an issue with them (yet). I would never trust a car to take over steering again!