U.S. vehicle safety regulators tell Google that computers can qualify as drivers

[gary]

In an article in the Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers (IEEE)
magazine, Philip E. Ross reports that the U.S National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration have ruled in a letter to Google that computer
systems can qualify as the legal driver of a car in the United States.

That letter here -
http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/Googl...16%20final.htm

Originally Posted by Philip E. Ross, IEEE Spectrum

Accepting an AI as a legal driver eases the government’s rule-writing process and takes a clear step toward Google’s stated goal of bypassing the human role in driving altogether. Among other things, the ruling means that Google—and any other company—may design the various parts of an automatic driving system to deal directly with the artificial pilot without first clearing things with the primate who may be sitting in the front seat.

IEEE Spectrum article here -
http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-t...-a-cars-driver

[bojan]

Oh oh... We are doomed

[AndrewJ]

They have spent hundreds of man years and trillions of dollars trying to fully automate planes, but they still need pilots ( esp if carrying those pesky human cargoes that sue on any fault ).
Cant see em getting "fully autonomous cars without controls"
Just the insurance bill will kill that off.

Andrew

[bojan]

I imagine this system will be very OK for army vehicles... without biological material to be transposrted. And even with it..
If machine is given the order.. it will execute it.
Who will sue whom?

[Wavytone]

Doomed ? No...

I'd much rather be driven home by a googlebot than a very tired or drunk driver. And no annoying chitchat with stupid taxi drivers.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

yes, a googlebot will be generally safer but consider this.
5 kids barge across a road without looking and your car is 2m away, googlebot has 2 choices, sacrifice 5 kids or avoid and possibly sacrifice you.

Everyone understands a human driver has to make a fast difficult choice and **** happens and whatever ensuses is just bad luck. But this scenario MUST be pre programed in a googlebot. So, do you buy a car that has optional (stated, would have to be) software that will 1/ preserve the driver always 2/ make a valued decision based on amount of human destruction and act accordingly. What would you buy?.

Who sues who?. Insurance companys will go nuts. Sue the driver, no, software made the choice. The coder?, or the car co?, or maybe you anyway because you picked the algorithim (I bet cars owners want the choice on purchase).
What if you had a prang with another human driven car which confused your googlebot and it made a wrong choice because it was not predicted?.

At a minimum, googlebot cars arnt possible unless ALL cars are googlebots and accident response is universally regulated by government.

[AndrewJ]

I always think of Hazel O'Connors song "The Eighth day" at times like this

"On the eighth day machine just got upset,
A problem man had never seen as yet"

Wonder how long before simple bugs ( or more likely hackers ) would upset the Googlebots

Andrew

[RickS (Rick)]

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

Wonder how long before simple bugs ( or more likely hackers ) would upset the Googlebots

Don't need bugs or hackers. Just obeying the road rules, unlike human drivers, puts the automated drivers at a disadvantage.

[OICURMT]

For the amount of miles the GoogleCar has already driven, there has (arguably) been no accidents that was its fault... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google...ffic_accidents

January 2016 report - https://www.google.com/selfdrivingca...eport-0116.pdf

One of my Fav TedTalks... https://www.ted.com/talks/chris_urms..._sees_the_road

[Wavytone]

Originally Posted by RickS

Don't need bugs or hackers. Just obeying the road rules, unlike human drivers, puts the automated drivers at a disadvantage.

And you'd be wrong about that - in the US the trials showed the only prangs were stupid humans driving into the Googlebots cars... Probably more out of surprise to see no driver.

The trials have run long enough to prove quite clearly the bots are much safer drivers statistically; the numbers are against the doubters.

But some things do worry me, like apps deciding to plot a route to Tasmania that involves driving under Bass strait, or a route in the blue mountains that takes the car over a cliff...

[RickS (Rick)]

Originally Posted by Wavytone

And you'd be wrong about that - in the US the trials showed the only prangs were stupid humans driving into the Googlebots cars... Probably more out of surprise to see no driver.

I was actually paraphrasing a comment I read in an article about the Google research. I wasn't claiming that the cars were unsafe.

I guess if human drivers drive as politely as they debate on the Internet the sooner we're out of the driver's seat the better.

Cheers,
Rick.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Originally Posted by Wavytone

And you'd be wrong about that - in the US the trials showed the only prangs were stupid humans driving into the Googlebots cars... Probably more out of surprise to see no driver.

The trials have run long enough to prove quite clearly the bots are much safer drivers statistically; the numbers are against the doubters.

And Rick would be exactly right. Stupid humans driving into googlebots?. And what did the googlebot do to avoid this?, Insurance chaos. Anyway, humans driving on the same road as googlebots is fraught with trouble and unmanageable. Yes googlebot is MUCH safer, but its the exceptions that get nasty, just one....

[thunderchildobs]

I am curious about what happens in unusual situations.
Traffic lights are stuck on green, with police giving directions.
Road works where there are traffic control officers with stop / go flags or temporay road / lane markings.
A few years ago on the way to Astrofest, a bridge was out, and the traffic had to go cross country on a dirt track.
There is debris on the road, how does it go around it?

[AndrewJ]

I am curious about what happens in unusual situations.

Me too.
After watching many episodes of aircrash investigations, it is apparent that even at that level of sophistication, and in such a highly regulated system, if the computer ( autopilot ) gets confused, it can just hand control back to the pilot.
Even highly skilled and trained pilots can then be disorientated by whats happening, as they werent always following what was going on before, and have to trust that sensors arent faulty etc etc.

Whats going to happen when yr average mug punter ( with their thumb up their bum and their brain in neutral because they have applied all of their remaining braincells to texting or updating their farcebook pages ) is the one left to make a decision in a hurry???
It might work in a fully regulated city environment, with well known sensor positions and gps maps, but i cant see it working ( at 100% safety levels ) anywhere else.

If you dont want to drive, just use Uber.

Andrew

[michaellxv (Michael)]

IFF googlebots/computer controlled cars or whatever you want to call them are as good as they say then insurance premiums will quickly dictate the they are more popular than a traditional car and they will take over.

IF the insurance companies realise this then they will see their makret disappearing and the reverse will happen and we can keep on driving

So AI cars take over. No more taxis/buses/trains or any other public transport. I sit in my car and go to work, instruct it to go to the warehouse to pick up the shopping I ordered last night and take it home. The "house" will unload it and store it as requried. At 3pm it will do the school run. At the end of the day it will come to pick me up from work. Oh, no more car parks required either. No more shops. Hmmm, no more job. Aint Utopia great

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

yeap blue screen of death at 110 kms.

[OICURMT]

Originally Posted by thunderchildobs

I am curious about what happens in unusual situations.
Traffic lights are stuck on green, with police giving directions.
Road works where there are traffic control officers with stop / go flags or temporay road / lane markings.
A few years ago on the way to Astrofest, a bridge was out, and the traffic had to go cross country on a dirt track.
There is debris on the road, how does it go around it?

See the TED Video for an explanation, including how to avoid women in wheelchairs chasing ducks on streets...

BTW: I find it interesting how many people trust "fly by wire" and yet feel the need to distrust an AI car...

[AndrewJ]

I find it interesting how many people trust "fly by wire"

Do they "trust it", or just have no options anymore???
I prefer to at least have my brakes and steering as a mechanical option.
Sure there can be mechanical failures there too, but i suspect there are more dollars being spent these days "fixing" breakdowns in the complex fly by wire systems, ( which still end up driving mechanical systems ), than was ever spent on a "completely" failed brake or steering system.
Time and big business will decide what we get.

Wont be long before the little red light comes on and tells you it has already ordered you a towtruck as it cant let you drive anymore.
Be fun if that happens outside a city.

Andrew

[scagman (John)]

I assume it would have to use a GPS to get from a to b. Out my way there are a few places the road and the maps don't match. eg. I'm on the road and the GPS maps are saying the road is 50m's to my right, in the the bush.
When I updated my maps a couple of years later, the maps still didn't match the roads.

Cheers

[OICURMT]

Originally Posted by scagman

I assume it would have to use a GPS to get from a to b. Out my way there are a few places the road and the maps don't match. eg. I'm on the road and the GPS maps are saying the road is 50m's to my right, in the the bush.
When I updated my maps a couple of years later, the maps still didn't match the roads.

Cheers

Yes, the car uses GPS for knowing where it is in a "general" sense. It's laser tomography, radar and cameras to sense the road itself and can adjust for changing conditions.

https://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/

No, it's not ready for the Outback... but is gaining momentum as an urban transport system... probably where its market will be, as most people live in urban/suburban environments. Just look at Australia.

Altogether, nearly 90% of Australians live in urban areas (cities or towns of more than 1,000 people), and another 3% live in smaller towns or localites. However, in 2011, 1.8 million people lived in rural areas outside any defined towns or localities - more people than live in Perth.

I'm a proponent of the self-driving car for various reasons. Let's face it, the abililty to save more than 1 million lives per year makes sense, not to mention the countless number of people who are disabled due to accidents, resulting in a burdening of the social system.

My better-half is Chariman of the board for a company that deals with the physically and intellectually disabled and I can tell you it's not cheap to take care of these people.