California Green-Lights Self-Driving Cars

[gary]

Mark Harris, in an article at the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) web site, reports that the state of
California has proposed new rules to permit autonomous vehicles on
their roads without a licensed driver on board.

A 45-day public comment period has begun and if everything goes
smoothly, the rules could come into effect as early as this November.

Rather than the putting forward of a requirement that the cars be
tested by state authorities, California has decided that the American
propensity for suing the pants off each other will give manufacturers
sufficient self-motivation to ensure their self-driving cars are safe
enough before putting them on the roads.

Part of the goal is to help make California the new world-leader in
what seems destined to become a global trillion-dollar industry.

Originally Posted by Mark Harris, IEEE 10 March 2017

In a bold attempt to regain its place as a self-driving pioneer, California today proposed regulations that would make it one of the first places in the world where autonomous vehicles could carry paying passengers without a licensed driver on board.

The new regulations, which could come into force as soon as November, depart from the cautious approach California has taken in the past. They would allow manufacturers to certify their own fully driverless vehicles as safe and effective without a detailed inspection, or even having to test in the state beforehand.

“You can apply for a permit to deploy when…you as a manufacturer believe the vehicles are ready to go,” says Bernard Soriano, Deputy Director of the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). “The traditional system of not wanting to be sued crazy controls when manufacturers will do this.”

The latest regulations for the deployment of autonomous vehicles are noticeably looser than draft versions circulated over the past 15 months. Initially, the DMV suggested a certification process that required a demonstration of the technology to a third-party testing organization, a licensed driver in the vehicle at all times, and a time-limited permit granted on the condition that the manufacturer file monthly progress reports. The California rules also demanded that manufacturers maintain ownership of the vehicles.

Article here :-
http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-t...lfdriving-cars

[leon]

Actually I cannot see the point of a self driving car.

I know there are lots of arguments for and against, however but how dose this work if i wanted to go for a casual Sunday morning drive around the country. do i have to inform this car of every twist and turn i wish to make.

Last year i traveled to Darwin and i did some long days, and 800 ks at a time, is it going to pull up because it thinks i need a rest.

I changed my mind some times on free camping and stopped when i pleased and drove when i pleased, is this car going to say you cant do that.

And if the computer misses a .(dot) it will probably stop.

I would rather be in control of the driving, i reckon and in 10-15 years up the track we will have a bunch of people who will not be able to drive at all and make important decisions behind the wheel.

My two cents worth.

Leon

[xelasnave]

I would be happy to have a driverless car.
My legs get sore on a trip so I think it would be great to sit back feet up and looking at the sites rather than tbe road in front.
In stop start traffic read a book.
Pull up at the shops get out and let the car drive around and find somewhere to park whilst I shop.
Service time it can go get a service whilst I have a nap.
Alex

[AndrewJ]

Gday Alex

Ref
"The California rules also demanded that manufacturers maintain ownership of the vehicles."

As surmised earlier, the only way this technology will really work is if us plebs are not allowed to own the cars, they will be an all pervading fleet just buzzing around between jobs, ( and also taking the details of your every movement to be passed on to big mother for later use ).
Once it drops you off, it goes to its next job.
Considering how most people become lazy pigs when they dont own the space they are in, it will be interesting to see how long these cars stay clean enough to get into, Maccas and pizza wrapping anyone????

Andrew

[GrahamL]

I can't sees anything but a whole lot of trouble for this plan in that without removing the drunks , kids who think they can drive but can't, the old folks who shouldn't be driving, the fleeing criminals , the completely random and unexpected things that crop up when driving it will often fail , can you program technology to see what can't be foreseen ?, those little bits of intuitive thoughts that pop up at times when you think better of whats in front of you and go with what might be .

[gary]

Originally Posted by GrahamL

... can you program technology to see what can't be foreseen ?, those little bits of intuitive thoughts that pop up at times when you think better of whats in front of you and go with what might be .

If this Dec 20th 2016 dashcam video is anything to go by, perhaps
there are cases when the computer can react even faster
than most humans, in this instance braking safely before the fact that
an accident is about to occur becomes self-evident.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8AUbbX-VhE

This car, a Tesla S, has what Tesla refer to as an "autopilot" feature.
Though an upgrade was recently announced, currently the Tesla "autopilot"
is still really only an advanced driver-assist feature rather than being full Level 5 autonomous.

Ford announced last month that they are skipping Level 3 autonomy
and going straight to Level 4. The reason? Ford's own engineers
were falling asleep during Level 3 test drives even when every attempt
was made to keep them alert.

See http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-t...ineers-wake-up

[Camelopardalis (Dunk)]

Bring on the days when we can go out to a dark site for an evening and have the car drive us home while we sleep

[Wavytone]

Originally Posted by Camelopardalis

Bring on the days when we can go out to a dark site for an evening and have the car drive us home while we sleep

Oooh yes thanks !

The day will come when we don't need to own a vehicle, merely book one like a taxi to turn up when needed. The best part is it implies we will be able to choose the vehicle to suit the task, on the day. No need for space to store it, either.

GoGet is just the start.

[leon]

Gees, there will be a heap of scrap metal.

Leon

[csb (Craig)]

Driverless will become the norm. Everyone will become used to sitting in the car and letting it drive.

Road accidents and thus road deaths/injuries will be near zero.

Police resources can be better utilised to chase crime.

I think the benefits of driverless vehicles outway the cons.

[AndrewJ]

Everyone will become used to sitting in the car and letting it drive.

And once that happens, i can imagine the day the cars start saying, "Im sorry sir, the state wont let me take you there", if they dont want you to go somewhere.
If you want to reduce crime, legislate taking full dna samples of everybody at birth and implanting micro gps trackers into their bodies. Nowhere to hide.
Where will it stop?????
Metadata collection simply expanded a bit in the name of security.
Thank but no thanks, i like my manual car, and am prepared to take the risk of driving it where i want.

Andrew ( very cynical pre coffee )

[wavelandscott (Scott)]

I suspect the most dangerous time in the future will be in transition with some driverless and some human driver cars on the road. Can you imagine, one set of vehicles following the rules of the road and others not?

A couple of other things to imagine...no longer will space be taken up with car parks. The need for multilane highways will be reduced. Will we need safety systems in the vehicles when they are all autonomous and programmed not to crash? This technology has the potential to radically alter civilization as we know it.

A related question...how many vehicles does the world really need? What do we do with the factories and people that used to make all of this cars and then drive them around?

[AndrewJ]

Will we need safety systems in the vehicles when they are all autonomous and programmed not to crash?

And nothing goes wrong with computers does it.
People dropping rocks ( or themselves ) off bridges.
Oil or black ice on a roadway.
Hackers deciding it will be "fun" to cause mayhem.
Recent events would indicate we cant protect any systems these days, so i dont put full faith that software will be the total answer.
As i keep thinking, why ( after trillions of dollars have been spent on automation ) do we still have pilots in passenger planes.
I can easily see auto cars working in a large metro CBD type area
but outside that, there wont be enough sensors to cope with every eventuality.
Andrew

[leon]

Speaking of hackers, they can already control some computers in cars and literally cause them to die where they stand.

It is so stupid and making a lazy generation even lazier, what happened to making choices.

Most of the up coming adults cant even boil water.

Leon

[AndrewJ]

Most of the up coming adults cant even boil water.

Why would you need boil something that comes pre pasteurised in a plastic bottle and costs more than petrol?????

Andrew

[csb (Craig)]

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

If you want to reduce crime, legislate taking full dna samples of everybody at birth and implanting micro gps trackers into their bodies. Nowhere to hide.

With driverless cars, no-one will be breaking road rules, eg speeding, running red lights, so police won't have to monitor driver behaviour nor spend time giving traffic tickets = more time for police to work on crime.

As Scott said, dangerous time during the transition phase. I think a speed restriction on human drive vehicles (max 60 km/h) may be introduced. Also human drivers may be barred from certain roads. This will happen over a period of time, of course.

[AndrewJ]

With driverless cars, no-one will be breaking road rules, eg speeding, running red lights, so police won't have to monitor driver behaviour nor spend time giving traffic tickets = more time for police to work on crime.

Most of that is automated now anyway ( cameras )
I have driven to Adelaide about a dozen times in the last 12 months
and i saw very few police cars. They are all already behind desks looking at computers, vs handing out tickets ( unless there is a specified blitz on ).

And again, if the desired advantage is "control" of the population and where/when it can go, then microchipped people is the next step.

As i mentioned, Auto drive in the CBD areas may work well, but for 100% coverage it has to work everywhere, and private ownership/use has to be banned. I cant see that happening as big business wont provide a service in regions that have little return on their investment ( read that as 95% of Australia.

Andrew

[JA]

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

And again, if the desired advantage is "control" of the population and where/when it can go, then microchipped people is the next step.

"That's the plan" and implemented via something we all need to use..... money !

In terms of integration/acceptance in to use and excluding early barter (can't tax it easily):

First .....Cash,
then,.....Credit Cards (using Physical impression on paper using stamper roller in store)
then, ....Debit/Credit Cards (with Magnetic Strip EFTPOS machines in store and ATMs)
then, ....Debit/Credit Cards (with Microchip Reader, Magnetic Strip in store & ATMs)
then, ....Debit/Credit Cards (with Wireless Microchip, Microchip Reader, Magnetic Strip in store & ATMs)
then, ....there will be wearable devices (these already exist to an extent- gym membership bracelets, that sort of thing)
then, ....Implanatables for Debit and Credit Cards (the tech already exists and is used to track some people, children - hyped as protection against kidnapping.

They can be as small as a grain of rice and easily implanted (injected) below the skin.
Who wouldn't want one?

Best
JA

[AndrewJ]

Who wouldn't want one?

A lot of people, esp if it also has a gps that tells the ??? govt/corporation everything you do, everywhere you go, everything you buy.....
Just look at the new biologics push ( as an analogy to the evolution of credit cards etc )
First no jab no pay
Now now jab no play
Next, no govt implant, no pay or "public" hospital treatment
I can see the technology for implants advancing to a point where it will be cost effective for everyone to be forced to have a device that measures heartrate, alcohol/drug/fat/sugar consumption, exercise levels etc etc
such that those deemed a threat to themselves ( ie "the economy" ) can be "retrained" or ostracised.
There would be so much money to be made/saved in something like that ( as there will be in self driving cars ), that someone wont be able to resist trying to implement it.

Andrew ( even more cynical after 2 coffees :-) )



.

[csb (Craig)]

I don't think implants will happen because we are already tracked with our devices, notably mobile phones. These are becoming ever more a necessity to have with us at all times AND we take them with us voluntarily.

It seems facebook profiles are already used by some employers to vet prospective employees and I'm sure other organisations, including government, access peoples social media profiles.

So why would the government bother with implanting when so much data collection is easily available AND the means is already acceptable to the general population.