# Nissan Negative On Fully Automomus Vehicles



## everythingsuber (Sep 29, 2015)

"A self-driving future is farther away than we think, according to Nissan technology boss, who suggested more of a human touch could be what's needed."

https://www.caradvice.com.au/735920/nissan-seamless-autonomous-mobility/
A closer to reality view but the idea of car traffic controllers overviewing vehicles seems not practical and very expensive?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

This basically translates into "we don't see self driving cars ever working but we don't want to criticize all the other suckers trying to make it work even though they also know it's impossible as well so we're just going to say it's farther away than we think instead".


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

GM's SDC at least are far from being ready for prime time. While recently dropping a pax off I was in front of one of their cars. I stopped to let the pax out and the GM car stopped behind me. It made no attempt to go around me. Out of curiosity I remained stationary and waited to see what the car would do. 5 seconds passed, then 10, then 15. I assumed that the safety driver would take over and pass me, but he did not. I got bored after 30 seconds and pulled away. I suppose that the safety drivers try to limit the number of interventions and only do so when really necessary.

SDC, as evidenced by GM, still have a long way to go.

Humans will always retain some advantage over SDC. With pax in car I was behind and one lane to the right of an old 90's Mercedes being driven slowly. Both lanes were turn right lanes and as I almost drew level with the car I looked at the driver I could see that a little old lady was driving it. This was obviously her retirement car. If I had continued at the speed I was going at I would have been level with her car as both cars made the turn. I predicted that the little old lady would cut the corner and drift into my lane, so I dropped back. Sure enough, she cut the corner and would have sideswiped my car if I had not slowed. "I'm glad you slowed down", said the pax. I replied that I fortunately had seen the driver and profiled her.

This is something that SDC will never be able to do. We all do this subconsciously - if you see an old person hunched over the wheel, or an old beater that's 5 different colours, or a BMW or an Audi then you immediately go on alert and expect poor driving skills, and take preventative action.


----------



## getawaycar (Jul 10, 2017)

The "human in the loop" idea might sound nice in theory but in practice probably won't work.

1) You can't expect a remote human operator to remain attentive for every second all the SDCs they are monitoring are in operation.
They will be bored out of their minds, and prone to dozing off. Even human backup drivers who are sitting right there in the self-driving car are prone to dozing off, and will be even more so as a remote monitor who is sitting in an office somewhere far away from the vehicle.

2) Allowing someone who is sitting in an office hundreds of miles away, to remotely, and suddenly take control of the vehicle sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.


----------



## here2der (Jul 2, 2018)

Air traffic controllers actually observe a small number of planes in a typically far less congested air space setting compared to that of the traffic/pedestrian congestion and potential eventualities of a vehicle in any bustling metropolis on a busy day. AND their success, in large part, is due to their two-way communication with other sentient, intelligent decision-makers.

Very unrealistic for someone of below average or even average mental abilities (they'll no doubt want to pay next to nothing -- to keep costs down) to consistently keep up with the potential eventualities of FIFTY vehicles in a bustling metropolis setting for an hour, let alone for 8 hours 5 days a week. Where is D.a.r.y.l., of 80's science fiction movie lore, when our greedy megalomaniacs need him most???


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

here2der said:


> Very unrealistic for someone of below average or even average mental abilities (they'll no doubt want to pay next to nothing -- to keep costs down) to consistently keep up with the potential eventualities of FIFTY vehicles in a bustling metropolis setting for an hour, let alone for 8 hours 5 days a week


Lol, yeah. And who's going to let Rohit patch in to their car's systems to take control of it in a live traffic situation. "Pleece vait vile I tek control of dees seetuation". Hell no


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Lol, yeah. And who's going to let Rohit patch in to their car's systems to take control of it in a live traffic situation. "Pleece vait vile I tek control of dees seetuation". Hell no


That would be worse than Hal!!


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Lol, yeah. And who's going to let Rohit patch in to their car's systems to take control of it in a live traffic situation. "Pleece vait vile I tek control of dees seetuation". Hell no


That would be impossible due to lag alone.


----------



## getawaycar (Jul 10, 2017)

It takes a person's full attention just to drive ONE regular car. So imagine trying to keep track of a DOZEN or more cars at the same time.
The idea is absurd.

It is considered dangerous, as well as illegal in most states, to drive a SINGLE car while texting on your cell phone. Because the phone is a distraction. So imagine trying to keep track of not just one or two things at once ( ie: driving and texting) but keeping track of a DOZEN or more different moving vehicles, all at the same time. Total nonsense to expect any human being to be able to do that.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

getawaycar said:


> It takes a person's full attention just to drive ONE regular car. So imagine trying to keep track of a DOZEN or more cars at the same time.
> The idea is absurd.
> 
> It is considered dangerous, as well as illegal in most states, to drive a SINGLE car while texting on your cell phone. Because the phone is a distraction. So imagine trying to keep track of not just one or two things at once ( ie: driving and texting) but keeping track of a DOZEN or more different moving vehicles, all at the same time. Total nonsense to expect any human being to be able to do that.


These are indeed serious problems. Here's an idea to solve them: what about if we put a driver in _each_ car. We could also put a steering wheel in them and all the other controls needed to drive them. Oh.............. wait.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

lol I can't believe some of you are even floating the idea of remote operators


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol I can't believe some of you are even floating the idea of remote operators


I see no evidence for your claim. None of the above posts are in support of remote operators. Which post(s) do you think endorse(s) this idea?


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

The Gift of Fish said:


> I see no evidence for your claim. None of the above posts are in support of remote operators. Which post(s) do you think endorse(s) this idea?


He's having a flashback to when the vaunted Tomato used to post.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

The Gift of Fish said:


> I see no evidence for your claim. None of the above posts are in support of remote operators. Which post(s) do you think endorse(s) this idea?


I'm not saying they are in support. I'm saying even giving credence to the possibility of the concept by even rebutting the possibility.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> I'm not saying they are in support. I'm saying even giving credence to the possibility of the concept by even rebutting the possibility.


Yeah... that makes no sense whatsoever. I see that your grip on English is quite loose.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Yeah... that makes no sense whatsoever. I see that your grip on English is quite loose.


Sounds like someone got mad 'cause they think they got reprimanded.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Sounds like someone got mad 'cause they think they got reprimanded.


No, I literally have no idea what you were trying to say.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

The Gift of Fish said:


> No, I literally have no idea what you were trying to say.


You do, but given your sole purpose for being at this message board which is to troll, of course you'd say that.

And you'll note I'm not even entertaining the possibility of a remote operator. The idea is so ridiculous it doesn't deserve any thought whatsoever.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> And you'll note I'm not even entertaining the possibility of a remote operator. The idea is so ridiculous it doesn't deserve any thought whatsoever.


Ah, so now you're criticising people for what they think about and specifying what should/should not be in their thoughts. Carry on, this is some of your best work! Is there more?

On second thought, I'm going to have to press the Ignore button on you. I tried to give you an opportunity to write sensical comment, but enough's enough.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Ah, so now you're criticising people for what they think about and what should/should not be in their thoughts. Carry on, this is some of your best work! Is there more?


I never criticized anyone. All I originally did was state that I couldn't believe people were even giving this thought, it was so ridiculous.

You act like I told you to **** off.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Remote operators is NOT a valid solution, there's too many places that you *still* can't get reliable cell signal.

Unless the system is 100% everywhere it's not good enough to start transitioning out.


----------

