Ford commits to fully autonomous vehicles within five years

[jpd80]

WOW you are so upset about this.

 

WOW! You actually think you are smarter than hundreds of thousands of skilled engineers, scientists, and programmers.

Or maybe he's simply underscoring a huge problem with autonomous vehicles.

 

We all want to belive that adding more and more layers of technology and redundant systems will overcome every eventuality

but are we missing inherent flaws in that logic, are ther things, important elements and inputs that a computer does not

receive that we human drivers take for granted on every trip we make, things that drunk or tired drivers are still

more competent to do that machines simply cannot perceive..

 

Would we be game to taken out in a vehicle with no steering wheel and no human controls of any kind and be drivern

around on heavily trafficked roads with all kinds of vehicles wanting to get to their own destinations as fast as possible?

[akirby]

WOW! You actually think you are smarter than hundreds of thousands of skilled engineers, scientists, and programmers.

 

Explain why planes - which already have all the software they need to fly 100% autonomously and which operate is an environment that is orders of magnitude simpler - still requires pilots to take off and land and be present in the cockpit at all times.

[lfeg]

There are roads I drive on all the time that would cause an autonomous vehicle to just stop and shut down. One is a dirt/stone road about 1.5 lanes wide with no edge marking other than the irregular vegetation growing there. Occasional bridges 1 lane wide. With mixed traffic (farm equipment and horse drawn buggies). Now, cover that road with several inches of snow so you cannot see the road/vegetation boundry and have to judge by the trees and snowmobile tracks off the side of the road and on the road. Another one is I 90 near me when it is snow covered with ruts and tracks in the snow that go every which way, no lane markings to be seen, and cars and trucks making 2 lanes where there are 3 and 3 or 4 lanes (using shoulders) where there are 2.

 

Sure, they will work very well in certain environments with the proper infrastructure and V to I communication when weather conditions are good. So what they will be are typically city cars and cars for specific intercity routes. In those markets they will probably sell. But the cost will likely be too high for a significant portion of the market.

[4d4evr-1]

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/donald-trumps-spiritual-advisor-sells-eternal-life-for-1144-by-stealing-from-harry-potter/

[4d4evr-1]

 

Explain why planes - which already have all the software they need to fly 100% autonomously and which operate is an environment that is orders of magnitude simpler - still requires pilots to take off and land and be present in the cockpit at all times.

uh, drones...

[akirby]

uh, drones...

 

uh, no passengers.....

[fordmantpw]

uh, drones...

 

Ummm, I pilot needs to be in a plane because of drones, but yet cars can be fully autonomous? Surely that was not a truly serious response...

 

EDIT: OK, I took that wrong...thinking drones were the reasons planes had pilots, not drones as an example of a plane with no pilots.

Edited August 31, 2016 by fordmantpw

[akirby]

Wait - drones still have pilots, they're just not co-located. Although they do have auto-pilot capabilities.

[jpd80]

now imagine a plane trying to land with no traffic controllers while other planes overtake and cut in front, other planes decide to cut across in front and a slow moving blimp gets in front......

 

Just imagine that was the norm for every take off and landing.

Edited August 31, 2016 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

 

 

WOW! You actually think you are smarter than hundreds of thousands of skilled engineers, scientists, and programmers

 

Who is smarter? An engineer or a surgeon?

 

If an engineer told you that he could build a device that could perform open heart surgery without a surgeon, would you believe his arguments for it, or a surgeon's arguments against it?

 

The question is not comparative intelligence. The question is whether engineers understand the scope of the problem.

 

I can assure you that, by and large, they do not. Why?

 

Because I understand the scope of the problem.

 

Of course, feel free to assume that I don't understand the problem. People far smarter than you openly ridiculed Hubert Dreyfus and wasted decades on failed AI experiments that eventually vindicated his (and, by extension, my) understanding of intelligence.

[Biker16]

 

Who is smarter? An engineer or a surgeon?

 

If an engineer told you that he could build a device that could perform open heart surgery without a surgeon, would you believe his arguments for it, or a surgeon's arguments against it?

 

The question is not comparative intelligence. The question is whether engineers understand the scope of the problem.

 

I can assure you that, by and large, they do not. Why?

 

Because I understand the scope of the problem.

 

Of course, feel free to assume that I don't understand the problem. People far smarter than you openly ridiculed Hubert Dreyfus and wasted decades on failed AI experiments that eventually vindicated his (and, by extension, my) understanding of intelligence.

 

I think you give yourself too much credit.

 

"Because I understand the scope of the problem."

 

I think you have twist the Solution into being one in which the solution must be perfect.

 

A 25% reduction in deaths would save more lives than mandatory Airbags have.

 

Saving up to 8,700 lives isn't a joke.

 

People are dying even with the improvements in safety, People just drive more Recklessly.

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/traffic-deaths-surged-in-2015-federal-data-shows/

 

 

Traffic deaths surged in 2015, federal data shows

?

EMAIL

BY JOAN LOWY, ASSOCIATED PRESS July 1, 2016 at 11:55 AM EDT | Updated: Jul 1, 2016 at 12:47 PM

WASHINGTON — Traffic deaths surged last year as drivers racked up more miles behind the wheel than ever before, a result of an improved economy and lower gas prices, according to preliminary government data released Friday.

Fatalities rose 7.7 percent to 35,200 in 2015, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said. That overall rate was significantly outpaced by non-motorist traffic deaths: Bicycle fatalities were up 13 percent; pedestrian deaths rose 10 percent, and motorcyclist deaths rose by 9 percent.

Last year was the deadliest driving year since 2008, when 37,423 people were killed. It was also the year in which American drove 3.1 trillion miles, more than ever before.

The fatality rate for 2015 increased to 1.12 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT), up from 1.08 deaths in 2014.

The information comes as tens of millions of Americans were hitting the road for the Fourth of July holiday, one of the busiest and deadliest days on the year on the nation’s roadways.

Historical data show that, after peaking in the 1970s, traffic deaths have fluctuated quite a bit while generally trending downward, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Large dips in deaths have corresponded to shocks to the economy: the oil embargo of the mid-1970s, the recessions of the early 1980s and early 1990s and the more recent downturn that began with the subprime mortgage crisis.

“It’s not just that Americans drive more miles when the economy improves; it’s the kind of miles they drive,” said Russ Rader, a spokesman for the insurance institute. “What comes back after a recession is the optional driving that’s riskier, like going out on the weekends or taking long trips — different driving than the daily commute.”

The national average price of gas in 2015 was $2.40 per gallon, which was the second-cheapest annual average of the past decade, according to AAA. It was about 94 cents per gallon less than the annual average in 2014, which also saw the lowest number of traffic deaths — 32,675 — since Harry Truman was president.

“The upticks (in deaths) we’re seeing correlate to lower fuel prices, but we don’t want to give ourselves that excuse so we are digging into different areas where we can have an impact on this,” Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx told journalists earlier this week. The department, which includes NHTSA, is looking at how advances in automotive technology can reduce the death toll, he said. NHTSA’s revamping last year of its safety rating system for new cars to include automated emergency braking technologies may help, he said.

 

Nevermind this Richard knows best. and as usual offers no alternative solution to solve the problem, just like to fill posts pointing out the how one solution will never work.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Biker16

[RichardJensen]

Sure, they will work very well in certain environments with the proper infrastructure and V to I communication

 

It should also be pointed out that doing this is not 'solving' the problem of self-driving cars in this environment. It is altering the environment in order to make self-driving cars feasible.

 

This is changing the problem not solving it.

[RichardJensen]

 

A 25% reduction in deaths would save more lives than mandatory Airbags have.

 

Saving up to 8,700 lives isn't a joke.

 

Context:

 

99.99999892%

 

See that number?

 

That's how effective human drivers are at preventing fatalities (do the math).

 

You think that self-driving cars can improve that number to 99.99999919%?

 

Please.

 

They have to be at least as reliable as human drivers before they can be more reliable than human drivers.

[fordmantpw]

Siri can't even determine my question 99.99999892% of the time, let alone 99.99999919% of the time! And that's much much simpler than driving a car...

[RichardJensen]

Hey, feel free to just grab a number and insist that it's obtainable. And then post an irrelevant article in its entirety.

 

Saving up to 8,700 lives isn't a joke.

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

If those 8.700 deaths are mostly due to wreckless drivers, how is an autonomous vehicle going to solve the problem?

Deliberate violation of rules and common sense by imperfect humans is not the same thing as machine incompetence

to perceive the intent and actions of vehicles and drivers around it and respond to dangerous situations.

 

Implying that autonomous vehicles will save those 8,700 lives a year is absolute nonsense.

Edited August 31, 2016 by jpd80

[fuzzymoomoo]

If those 8.700 deaths are mostly due to wreckless drivers, how is an autonomous vehicle going to solve the problem?

Deliberate violation of rules and common sense by imperfect humans is not the same thing as machine incompetence

to perceive the intent and actions of vehicles and drivers around it and respond to dangerous situations.

 

Implying that autonomous vehicles will save those 8,700 lives a year is absolute nonsense.

Wreckless? How'd they die then?

[4d4evr-1]

 

uh, no passengers.....

but they get to blow stuff up, so there is that

[4d4evr-1]

Wait - drones still have pilots, they're just not co-located. Although they do have auto-pilot capabilities.

if you review the post I quoted he said pilots in cockpits at all times on planes so you do not qualify to fly my drone since you did not read...

Edited September 1, 2016 by 4d4evr

[4d4evr-1]

no one knows today when fully autonomous cars will arrive. I'm sure it will be a slow process taking maybe decades but to just say never is not very bright IMH uneducated Opinion...

[RichardJensen]

no one knows today when fully autonomous cars will arrive. I'm sure it will be a slow process taking maybe decades but to just say never is not very bright IMH uneducated Opinion...

 

If there are ever autonomous cars in wide use, it will be due to simplifying the parameters of driving, not advances in AI.

[4d4evr-1]

 

If there are ever autonomous cars in wide use, it will be due to simplifying the parameters of driving, not advances in AI.

I would not disagree with that statement. All of process improvement is around process simplification and standardization...

[Biker16]

 

It should also be pointed out that doing this is not 'solving' the problem of self-driving cars in this environment. It is altering the environment in order to make self-driving cars feasible.

 

This is changing the problem not solving it.

 

Moving the goal posts?

I guess removing traffic signals would be changing the problem too.

 

wouldn't roundabouts, or over and under passes designed to replace intersections be the same as "changing the problem not solving it."

 

Edited September 1, 2016 by Biker16

[RichardJensen]

 

Moving the goal posts?

 

Nope.

 

A radically simplified transportation network that is immaculately maintained would be a candidate for 100% autonomous cars (not a mix of autonomous and human piloted).

 

If you think that the US is going to upgrade hundreds of thousands of miles of highways, roads, streets, alleys, parkways and parking lots to make autonomous cars possible and simultaneously retire all human-piloted cars (and pedestrians, cyclists, etc.) in order to make autonomous cars as reliable or even more reliable than humans are in this much messier system...............................................

 

And that doesn't even touch the reduction in fatalities likely to accompany increased assistive technologies, which makes the bar for fully autonomous vehicles that much harder to reach.

 

---

 

Also, 'moving the goal posts' refers to the practice of altering the terms of a discussion when one's original premise is no longer valid.

 

In this instance, rather than adjusting my claims in the face of new evidence, I outlined a scenario in which autonomous cars would be conceivable through a radical simplification of the current driving environment.

 

And in fact, this is only common sense, as there are already autonomous cars operating in exactly that type of a restricted and carefully controlled environment.

 

It has never been my contention that autonomous cars are categorically impossible. It is that they cannot be developed to operate in this driving environment with the level of reliability obtained by human drivers.

Edited September 1, 2016 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

If you actually read my posts, you would understand all this.