Computers taking over driving in some cars

[Blackmarch]

Ever hear of Dynamic Radar Cruise Control (abbreviated DRCC)? This technology maintains a pre-set distance between the Dynamic Radar Cruise Control (DRCC) equipped car and the car driving ahead of that car. If the system detects that the vehicle ahead is getting a little too close, the speed is automatically lowered and the vehicle’s brakes are applied. If the distance between the cars is increased (or if the road ahead is clear) the vehicle will return to its pre-set speed.

I never want a car with this technology in it. I don't need a computer taking over my driving. I was reading about one situation of someone who was driving 65 miles per hour in a vehicle with this technology in the car. They said the car suddenly braked for no reason at all dropping the speed to about 5 miles per hour while they were on the highway. That is real safe on a high speed road.

If you are foolish to follow close on the highway you will have to deal with the consequences of that. I don't want a computer taking over the controls of my car because some people do not know how to drive.

too late.

of more concern to me is remote accessing and hacking potential.

[bytebear]

Did you know that when Automobiles were invented, the theory was that if it ever got to be as fast as 40 mph you would not be able to breathe because of the wind speed?

Did you know there are tractors that plow fields through GPS and are accurate within an inch of position?

Every new technology has issues at first, but think about the electricity and water flow in your house, and are you particularly worried about your plumbing or being electrocuted? Also, you have microwaves in your kitchen, but you don't worry about being fried.

Believe me, even if accidents due to technology do occur, the lives saved will far outweigh the risk. Not to mention the labor savings in the trucking and taxi industries alone.

Edited August 27, 2013 by bytebear

[NightSG]

\Did you know there are tractors that plow fields through GPS and are accurate within an inch of position?

Have you looked at the safety advisories for those tractors?

Every new technology has issues at first, but think about the electricity and water flow in your house, and are you particularly worried about your plumbing or being electrocuted?

Plenty of people are oblivious to issues like smoking at the gas pump, but that doesn't make it safe. I've been badly shocked at home, and my aunt spent several weeks in a motel after a pipe broke upstairs in her fairly new house and did around $20k worth of damage.

[bytebear]

Have you looked at the safety advisories for those tractors?

Plenty of people are oblivious to issues like smoking at the gas pump, but that doesn't make it safe. I've been badly shocked at home, and my aunt spent several weeks in a motel after a pipe broke upstairs in her fairly new house and did around $20k worth of damage.

Statistically it's inconsequential, and even still, are you saying you pulled all the pipes out of your house and went to a well on the back side of the house? No you still believe in indoor plumbing, despite the potential risks.

The safety record of self driving cars will be far better than human drivers. Think of this:

MADD - Drunk Driving Statistics

Edited August 27, 2013 by bytebear

[Mahone]

Anyone remember Air France flight 447? It crashed into the Atlantic in 2009, killing all ~230 people on board. This was an Airbus A330-203 - a modern, largely computerised and automated plane.

The root cause of the incident was established to be frozen pitot tubes on the underside of the plane. These tiny devices measure the speed of the plane, and even though there are several of them for redundancy, they all failed simultaneously on this plane due to weather conditions.

As all the automated systems on the plane rely entirely upon the readings given by the pitot tubes, when they stopped working, everything failed over to manual mode, along with throwing up dozens of errors and alarms. The three pilots on board panicked, they hadn't been given the appropriate training or had any experience in dealing with such a situation, and their manual actions after this occurred were the mirror opposite of what should have been done, ultimately causing their demise.

I'm not averse to computers largely taking over the manual actions of drivers, just as long as we are always able to regain manual control when we need to, within the time that we need to, without having to have software based authorisation to do so, and we remember how to manually drive when it comes to it!

Edited August 27, 2013 by Mahone

[bytebear]

Boeing 747 safety record | World news | theguardian.com

t has become the most popular of Boeing's 747 class. More than 500 of them are flying passengers around the world.

With a top speed of 941km/h and a range of 13,400km they are the ideal planes to fly the vast distances between Europe, Australia, Asia and North America. British Airways flies 57 of the £115m planes in its fleet, Japan Air Lines has 38 and Lufthansa and Qantas have 30 each.

Boeing has remodelled them as freight carriers, governmental aircraft for heads of state and for military use. The US air force bought seven of the 747-400s to act as "airborne lasers".

Only three of them have been written off in the 19 years since they came into service.

[Mahone]

Boeing 747 safety record | World news | theguardian.com

It was an airbus, not boeing.

[bytebear]

It was an airbus, not boeing.

I realize that, but you are taking one anecdotal incident, and I am showing you overall statistics. Airplanes are incredibly safe. And the same point applies. Do we ground all aircraft because of one accident? Or does the benefit of air travel outweigh the risk? I think the answer is obvious.

[jerome1232]

I thought Mahones post was illustrating just how great the automation is.

What I took away is the pilots need some simulator time for what to do when sensors fail and the plane goes into manual mode.

[Dravin]

I thought Mahones post was illustrating just how great the automation is.

I took it as automation is great but flesh and blood needs to be in a position, and be capable, to handle things if the automation goes pear shaped. So to put it in the context of the technology mentioned in this thread, the system needs to be designed such that if the radar fails or gets readings that make no sense, to it, the technology will alert the driver and say, "You drive." And people need to not forget how to use the brakes or maintain distances manually.

[Bini]

If it were mandated that all vehicles become self driving, would conservatives be opposed and liberals be for?

[Traveler]

I thought this thread to be interesting. I work as a consultant for industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence. The thread is not hashing any new ideas and what is being discussed is the classic discussion concerning manual operations verses automated operations. I am not sure I can through much light on this subject without opening the doors to more questions than answers but I will offer some thoughts.

We are learning that the deeper we get into automation and artificial intelligence the more we replicate ourselves. It is rather interesting that human intelligence is wired both for automated responses as well as intelligence responses. Let me clarify. An automated response is much like reflex – but there is more to understand so do not go by that alone. An automated response could also be understood as a subconscious response. The point is that these responses are wired into us such that they are made without analytics. Often these are situations that we have faced so often that we respond without analyzing or thinking about it. You might be surprised how much of your actual behavior has become responsive. Even things like hugging your children after family prayer or kissing your spouse after prayers together or leaving to work.

Intelligence responses are the things that require analytics. What is so interesting is that intelligence responses are seldom needed or necessary. The truth here is that intelligent analytics will more often work against efficiency than it will complement it. This is likely why we tend to automate our responses as a human being. In the industrial world we tend to gather data and analyze offline from operations because analytics tend to be so disruptive to “operations”.

Thus we are always faced with a paradox in our responses – but even in the light of the gospel we are counseled to do our analytics offline. For example we will teach our daughters that it is best to have a response prepared and already analyzed when their date becomes overwhelmed with hormones and is becoming “physical”. However, try as we may life has a way of presenting choices that we have not previously analyzed. Sometimes under such circumstances there is not time for analytics and this is the circumstance that breaks down and errors are made. It is in this circumstance that we learn the most and through which the manner of our intelligence is critical. This is the point most want to discuss (analyze) the failures of others and put behind (forget) our own failures. But this is actually the time we need to do both but with the emphasis on our failures.

Sometimes it amazes me how the science of a subject conforms to the gospel – and this seems to be no exception. The point is that it is best to automate whatever we can. But there is a caveat. There is a very real danger in automating a critical task while analyzing another – remember when I mentioned that analytics can interfere with the efficiency of automation? A possible example is texting while driving.

The Traveler

[Still_Small_Voice]

Some of these cars implementing the automatic braking systems have a switch that can turn the system off. But some models of cars do not have a kill switch.

There is an automatic braking system that can be switched off on some Volvo car models. The Nissan Leaf has no switch to turn off the automatic braking. Do your homework before buying.

Advanced Emergency Braking Systems in commercial vehicles will be implemented on 1 November 2013 for new vehicle types and on 1 November 2015 for all new vehicles in the European Union.

[NightSG]

I took it as automation is great but flesh and blood needs to be in a position, and be capable, to handle things if the automation goes pear shaped.

More importantly, the human needs to be able to take control completely and instantly at any time if the computer doesn't realize it's screwing up. The lack of an override, or complexity of using it is often the major technological failing point in these systems.

The major overall failing point is human laziness; how many people still know about threshold braking and/or stab-and-steer? How many practice either enough to be able to do it in a panic stop situation? Before ABS became common, every driver was taught what to do when the wheels lock. Now, when the antilockers act up, people tend to just skid right into things they could have avoided. There's no reason other than laziness (and/or fear of liability) that driving instructors couldn't pull the ABS fuse and have a day's lesson in skid control and braking technique.

[Traveler]

Just a note about automated vehicles. Having spent 30 years with automated controls of AGV in the industrial work place (AGV stands for Automated Guided Vehicle). There are far less accidents and mishaps and much more efficient operation with AGV than man-a-board vehicles. It is also interesting that there have been more problem with human intervention in automated systems than any other problem or even all other problem combined.

Another advantage - AGV will work overtime without complaining, joining unions or even thinking about going on strike or ever taking a break. There is no cost of living expenses, no health care (although there is standard maintenance but the point is no cost of operation increases). Surprisingly AGV cost less than purchasing man-a-boards and hiring operators. Sadly the USA - once the leader in automation the USA is now the least automated (both in terms of infrastructure, trained engineers and operators) of all other 1st world industrialized economies.

In general, to this day, many workers in the USA ignorantly fear automation will put them out of work or that they can do a better job without it.

The Traveler

[Mahone]

More importantly, the human needs to be able to take control completely and instantly at any time if the computer doesn't realize it's screwing up. The lack of an override, or complexity of using it is often the major technological failing point in these systems.

Hence where I mentioned manual take over without needing software based authentication to do so.

I work in IT, and have seen my fair share of instances where software won't allow me to take a specific action because it thinks it knows better than I do. The vast majority of the time it's actually a bug in the application - I wouldn't be particularly happy if this happened in a potentially life threatening situation.

[bytebear]

The security on wireless devices (including cars) is an issue.

I don't know what's more disturbing.

this:

Hacking Insulin Pumps And Other Medical Devices From Black Hat - Forbes

or this:

Hacker dies days before he was to reveal how to remotely kill pacemaker patients — RT USA