Thought on Autonomous Vehicle Driving in Australia

[N1 (Mirko)]

Originally Posted by AstroViking

Nope. No. Nyet. Nein.

I don't trust them at all.

There is (allegedly) a legal case going on at the moment where a car hit a pedestrian. The driver is claiming they are not at fault because the car was in autonomous mode at the time, and it should have responded in time.

So who is at fault? The driver? The car dealer for selling the car? The car manufacturer? The company that made the radar/lidar/sonar system? The programmer who wrote the object detection code for the "radar"?

I'd much, much rather see more resources spent on better driver training.

It would have to be the person operating equipment in public space that then harms others. Seems pretty clear to me.

[Hans Tucker (Hans)]

Originally Posted by N1

It would have to be the person operating equipment in public space that then harms others. Seems pretty clear to me.

Some savvy Lawyer will present a case that will blame the manufacturer rather than the driver.

Reports revealed the US Department of Justice had launched a criminal investigation into Tesla in 2021, following more than a dozen motor vehicle accidents involving the US auto giant’s cars.

The investigation alleges drivers have placed too much reliance on Tesla's driver assistance technology because the names of the systems exaggerate their true capabilities and ignore their limitations.

Humans are idiots.

[sharkbite]

Originally Posted by glend

Y I have endured a pretty stressful trip on the M1, at night, in a high end BMW M5, in which much if the trip was under autonomous control of the vehicles systems.

All that money on an M5 just so it can drive itself?
On a presumably empty M1?
(where's the fun in that! )

....once you hit pennant hills road and Sydney traffic however....

sign me up and wake me when we get there!

[ChrisD (Chris)]

Researchers trick Tesla Autopilot into steering into oncoming traffic
By "researchers" I think they mean Hackers

24 Self-Driving Car Statistics & Facts
There are 9.1 driverless car crashes per million miles driven. (The National Law Review)
The self-driving car accident rate is higher than the one of human-driven vehicles. That is to say, regular vehicles have a rate of 4.1 crashes per million miles driven. Even though these cars’ goal is to prevent as many accidents as possible, they still have a long way to go to have a lower rate of accidents than regular cars. However, when comparing the severity of injuries, fewer severe injuries are caused by self-driving cars.


I think that governments will eventually need to develop a Star Rating system for autonomous driving systems. Something like the ANCAP ratings, so you know what level of safety you're purchasing.

Chris

[astro744]

How would an autonomous vehicle handle a flood situation with countless potholes and water up to the edge of the road for hundreds of metres or even kms on both sides and on a road with no breakdown lane either side with a 110km/h speed limit.

Would it slow down approaching a pothole? Any pothole or just the large ones? Would it swerve left into flood water or right into oncoming traffic? Would it know what the oncoming traffic is likely to do and react early enough! Would it break hard and stop at each pothole (perhaps cause a rear collision)?

If there is water over the road would it know by reading the warning signs prior or once it senses the water? Would it know the depth and go through because a car in front went through safely and the water reached half way up the wheel? Would it know the velocity and depth of the flood water?

Would the autonomous vehicle make the same decisions whether it is daytime or nighttime and be aware that food waters over the road are more difficult to judge the depth of a night. (Watching what a vehicle in front does is very useful in one’s decision making even though there is still risk). In fact is it riskier to wait and let flood waters rise or go through at a safe speed taking into consideration vehicle weight and payload, velocity and depth of flood water. Would such a vehicle simply stop half way through if it senses danger perhaps leaving the vehicle in more danger?

Would the monitoring driver react and override if sensing the car had made a dangerous decision or now that he/she has two hands free to use their mobile device would they even know what is happening?

The dynamics of a situation I describe have infinitesimal variations that need a supercomputer to manage and I don’t think AI cars are at supercomputer levels yet.

You say such a situation is unlikely. It was exactly like this Lightning Ridge to Gilgandra particularly the stretch from Walgett to Coonamble recently on the Castlereagh Highway during the flood period late October. That part of the highway has a black spot too for mobile service from any provider so no phone calls or information advisory app monitoring are possible.

If relying on real-time data to make decisions I think not. Flood over water information was at least 2 hours behind and that was around the major towns. This country is too big and does not have enough people and infrastructure to provide real time data in every situation.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by astro744

How would an autonomous vehicle handle a flood situation with countless potholes and water up to the edge of the road for hundreds of metres or even kms on both sides and on a road with no breakdown lane either side with a 110km/h speed limit.

Would it slow down approaching a pothole? Any pothole or just the large ones? Would it swerve left into flood water or right into oncoming traffic? Would it know what the oncoming traffic is likely to do and react early enough! Would it break hard and stop at each pothole (perhaps cause a rear collision)?

If there is water over the road would it know by reading the warning signs prior or once it senses the water? Would it know the depth and go through because a car in front went through safely and the water reached half way up the wheel? Would it know the velocity and depth of the flood water?

Would the autonomous vehicle make the same decisions whether it is daytime or nighttime and be aware that food waters over the road are more difficult to judge the depth of a night. (Watching what a vehicle in front does is very useful in one’s decision making even though there is still risk). In fact is it riskier to wait and let flood waters rise or go through at a safe speed taking into consideration vehicle weight and payload, velocity and depth of flood water. Would such a vehicle simply stop half way through if it senses danger perhaps leaving the vehicle in more danger?

Would the monitoring driver react and override if sensing the car had made a dangerous decision or now that he/she has two hands free to use their mobile device would they even know what is happening?

The dynamics of a situation I describe have infinitesimal variations that need a supercomputer to manage and I don’t think AI cars are at supercomputer levels yet.

You say such a situation is unlikely. It was exactly like this Lightning Ridge to Gilgandra particularly the stretch from Walgett to Coonamble recently on the Castlereagh Highway during the flood period late October. That part of the highway has a black spot too for mobile service from any provider so no phone calls or information advisory app monitoring are possible.

If relying on real-time data to make decisions I think not. Flood over water information was at least 2 hours behind and that was around the major towns. This country is too big and does not have enough people and infrastructure to provide real time data in every situation.

In extreme situations there will be a robot travelling in front off the autonomous vehicle at walking pace carrying a red flag.

Alex

[astro744]

Please define extreme situation.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by astro744

Please define extreme situation.

The one you describe
Alex

[astro744]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

The one you describe
Alex

I thought you were joking. Please compile a list of other extreme situations. How will you know when your list is complete? The possibilities are endless since an infinitesimal variation in a dynamic situation can cause a vastly different outcome requiring a further assessment and action and the list goes on.

I personally am not ready to place my trust in an automated vehicle nor the programming behind it. Is it a legal requirement cars have steering wheels or is this because they just always have? If no legal requirement then why do automated vehicles have a steering wheel or is it because even the manufacturers don’t trust them and put one in just in case? Perhaps it is for the ‘extreme situation’ in which case the monitoring driver then needs to call for a robot escort to be ahead of the vehicle.

I wonder if it’s possible to enter an automated vehicle at the Bathurst race with no driver?

[oska (John)]

For a flooded road, the car would stop and error something like "unable to proceed: path blocked or unable to be determined", as would you in a normal car, obviously.

Autonomous racing: https://www.youtube.com/c/Roborace

[AndyG (Andy)]

Yamaha's Motobot appeals to my weakness of the machine wishing innocently to be more than it is...


https://global.yamaha-motor.com/desi...t_initiatives/

[astro744]

Originally Posted by oska

For a flooded road, the car would stop and error something like "unable to proceed: path blocked or unable to be determined", as would you in a normal car, obviously.

Autonomous racing: https://www.youtube.com/c/Roborace

“as would you in a normal car, obviously.”

No this is not as obvious as you may think. It will depend on many factors and this my point. You are assuming it is safer to stop and go no further than to proceed. You could be in more danger stopping and waiting for that water over the road to rise than crossing. Sure stop and evaluate the situation and by all means don’t cross if unsure but how is an automated vehicle going to evaluate the situation after stopping? I just hope those programming such automated vehicles don’t over simplify scenarios.

I think the priority should be 100% mobile coverage on any mobile network at least where there are roads before any automated vehicle technological advances. At least then you’ll be able to call someone when your vehicle stops because it came across water over the road or a pothole.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by astro744

I thought you were joking. Please compile a list of other extreme situations. How will you know when your list is complete? The possibilities are endless since an infinitesimal variation in a dynamic situation can cause a vastly different outcome requiring a further assessment and action and the list goes on.

I personally am not ready to place my trust in an automated vehicle nor the programming behind it. Is it a legal requirement cars have steering wheels or is this because they just always have? If no legal requirement then why do automated vehicles have a steering wheel or is it because even the manufacturers don’t trust them and put one in just in case? Perhaps it is for the ‘extreme situation’ in which case the monitoring driver then needs to call for a robot escort to be ahead of the vehicle.

I wonder if it’s possible to enter an automated vehicle at the Bathurst race with no driver?

I wasnt joking but neither was I being serious.

I can understand folk have concerns and guess what car manufacturers are very interested in their concerns and working hard at producing vehicles that are safer than vehicles driven by humans...that is the game.

There is a place where there is a fleet of autonomous taxis...goggle that.

Driving is a task that requires many calculations and many observations and I am entirely confident that at some point a computer can do a far better job than any human..can a human maintain a 360 degree view ..no...think of this a computer can beat a human at chess..now not so long ago you would bet your house that such was not possible..in fact one could have lost a lot of houses betting against new inventions.

The way you put it one could assume you think humans are infalable and that simple skills such as driving a car can not be done by a machine...but we need bigger computers you say..now you are not in the business of producing autonomous cars but already you can focus on the problems..don't you think major car companies can employ people that with countless qualifications can not only work out the potential problems but solve them...you like so many who don't like the idea have formed that notion as a belief and as with all beliefs the evidence so often shows that your belief is wrong.

Now why would you say that having autonomous cars race at Bathurst to be impossible..I bet ( not my house but say $10) that within our lifetimes such a thing will happen.

What is to prevent it..make a list and I bet the car manufactures already have teams of clever people working on the problem.

You can stick with the past but the future is here and the for best ..the "against" with autonomous cars is your perogative and you can complain and build straw men as I don't care because I suspect ( know) what you are worried about will all be fixed...there is so much money and manpower invested it ain't going to stop.

Anyways I am going to have a look at the Hyundai as the assisted driving appeals to me..I welcome change and am ready to jump on any benefit it brings.

Alex

[Hans Tucker (Hans)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I wasnt joking but neither was I being serious.

I can understand folk have concerns and guess what car manufacturers are very interested in their concerns and working hard at producing vehicles that are safer than vehicles driven by humans...that is the game.

There is a place where there is a fleet of autonomous taxis...goggle that.

Driving is a task that requires many calculations and many observations and I am entirely confident that at some point a computer can do a far better job than any human..can a human maintain a 360 degree view ..no...think of this a computer can beat a human at chess..now not so long ago you would bet your house that such was not possible..in fact one could have lost a lot of houses betting against new inventions.

The way you put it one could assume you think humans are infalable and that simple skills such as driving a car can not be done by a machine...but we need bigger computers you say..now you are not in the business of producing autonomous cars but already you can focus on the problems..don't you think major car companies can employ people that with countless qualifications can not only work out the potential problems but solve them...you like so many who don't like the idea have formed that notion as a belief and as with all beliefs the evidence so often shows that your belief is wrong.

Now why would you say that having autonomous cars race at Bathurst to be impossible..I bet ( not my house but say $10) that within our lifetimes such a thing will happen.

What is to prevent it..make a list and I bet the car manufactures already have teams of clever people working on the problem.

You can stick with the past but the future is here and the for best ..the "against" with autonomous cars is your perogative and you can complain and build straw men as I don't care because I suspect ( know) what you are worried about will all be fixed...there is so much money and manpower invested it ain't going to stop.

Anyways I am going to have a look at the Hyundai as the assisted driving appeals to me..I welcome change and am ready to jump on any benefit it brings.

Alex

Yet again reading into people's response things that weren't said. He said I wonder if it’s possible to enter an automated vehicle at the Bathurst race with no driver?, he never said impossible.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Hans Tucker

Yet again reading into people's response things that weren't said. He said I wonder if it’s possible to enter an automated vehicle at the Bathurst race with no driver?, he never said impossible.

Well spotted Hans ...I hope that put some joy into your evening...I could back pedal and change it I suppose like you did with your wild generalisation about all humans being idiots...was that what you said...I can't find it now..did you think better of your bitter outburst?

It was rather clear what I was responding to and hardley called for your nit picking generated because I have annoyed you by showing you to be wrong... get over it.

Alex

[glend (Glen)]

Please don't get this thread killed.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by glend

Please don't get this thread killed.

You are right Glen.

To Hans..I am sorry for annoying you I recognise that I can be over the top at times.

And I will sincerely try to be more respectful of the opinions of others in the future.



Alex

[RB (Andrew)]

[xelasnave]

I hope posting this link is not seen as off topic but I do hope that it may help folk get a glimpse of what is being done these days which would have been unimaginable only fifty years ago.

https://youtu.be/Wu1kpnCylKQ

Alex

[ReidG]

Cars good. Self driving not up to much.


This article is about Tesla of course but I have friends with other brands and none get close to real safe self driving.


https://electrek.co/2023/01/13/tesla...ardware-leaks/


As an interested engineer I keep close tabs on the industry and no manufacturer is close to achieving genuine self driving. Australia is probably particularly difficult because of our generally poorly engineered and maintained roads.



What we do have is some, at times very brave, owners assuming the car is capable of more than it is. Several in the US have been killed as a result of over confidence in the car automation.



This is a pity because electric cars are easy and generally fun to drive. I recently had a young woman take her first ever drive of any car in my Tesla S. She did very well and did not scare either me or her parents who were in the back seat.



What happens is still the responsibility of the guy in the drivers seat, read the fine print on what the manufacturer says not the vastly optimistic PR nonsense.