# Driving 1,000 Miles Across India Proves Self-Driving Cars Can’t Replace Human Drivers



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

http://www.thedrive.com/video/20458...f-driving-cars-cant-replace-human-drivers-yet






You don't need to go there to know that driving in India is crazy. Actually, you do. My old friend Jason Torchinsky wrote a wonderful story about his visit I thought would prepare me for my journey.

I was wrong.

When people in Los Angeles, or New York, or London, or Atlanta, or any major city in the western world complain about traffic, they are joking. Unless they were on I-95 trying to escape Hurricane Irma, they know nothing. They've never seen traffic.

I would have taken better pictures if my life hadn't been in danger from the moment we pulled out of the hotel in Chennai. Also in danger? The jobs of the courageous and highly optimistic Renault-Nissan executives who greenlit our journey, which included airfare and the Kwid press car. What were they hoping to accomplish? It certainly wasn't a driving record, for within minutes of departure we encountered a mass of un-helmeted people on bikes and mopeds in the middle of traffic, ignoring lane discipline, helmet laws and common sense. And yes, that's a toddler on the front of that motorcycle.

It's not that there aren't laws in India. There are. They just aren't enforced with the regularity common to first world countries. The near total absence of police is surreal. The ubiquity of signs _about_ traffic law and road safety is comic, especially the popularity of signs which appear to be police recruiting posters.

It clearly indicates all the things one shouldn't be doing. Based on the locals' behavior, it would make more sense to triple its size and state "_YOU WILL OBSERVE THIS BEHAVIOR-STAY CLEAR OF OTHER MOTORISTS_," which might work if there weren't so many of them.

Let's be serious. Population density is so high that no current automatic emergency braking system could possibly work in traffic, because no car equipped with it would ever move. What about blind spot monitoring systems? They'd be lighting up and chiming so much, you'd have to disable them.

In two days and 1,000+ miles of driving, I didn't observe a single driver who wouldn't have been pulled over-if not arrested on the spot-in the United States.

Is there a term for the gap between law and culture? One can't call a place where laws are ignored _lawless_. If a behavioral equilibrium renders everyone a criminal, then no one is, and there's a fundamental disconnect which law alone hasn't solved, and never will. Enforcement can never match culture to law; it can only tug by threat and whip by penalty. Culture is made up of people, a vast ocean of choices made moment to moment, evolving over many decades.

That Indian roads are more dangerous than America's is obvious, and beside the point. No government ever eases traffic safety laws. Indian traffic fatalities in 2013 approached 240,000, in a country of 1.3 billion. That's 16.6 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants per year. For those numbers to go down, people have to have choices that lead to them to safety. In a country where the majority have never owned a car, where two wheelers dominate and road conditions are terrible, getting people into _any_ car will improve overall safety.

Self-driving cars in India? Relative to their population, Indians are just getting started _driving_ cars. Decent human-driven cars like the Renault Kwid have only just become available in recent years, which is why India will soon be the third largest car market in the world. Feeding that growth is a sea of cars whose prices are kept low by a lack of safety hardware common in the west. Airbags? Not mandatory in India. Ultrasonic sensors? The cameras, radar and Lidar necessary for self-driving? Not an option in the fastest growing segment of the market. You can't put those on a car selling for $20,000, let alone $5,000.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> http://www.thedrive.com/video/20458...f-driving-cars-cant-replace-human-drivers-yet
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The real estate cabal that's trying to force feed society robot taxis in an effort to destroy car ownership and ultimately try to line their pockets with more cash- they don't give a rip about India!


----------



## transporter007 (Feb 19, 2018)

iheartuber said:


> The real estate cabal that's trying to force feed society robot taxis in an effort to destroy car ownership and ultimately try to line their pockets with more cash- they don't give a rip about India!


Right, cause history shows that the poor always win over the government supported wealthy.

U guys and ur neonatal views of life, liberty & technology forever banging ur heads into walls while swinging at windmills . Get a job!


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

transporter007 said:


> Right, cause history shows that the poor always win over the government supported wealthy.
> 
> U guys and ur neonatal views of life, liberty & technology forever banging ur heads into walls while swinging at windmills . Get a job!


Actually, no amount of wealth thrown at the government stopped an outsider from getting elected president.

The "wealthy mafia" didn't want Trump as president because they want someone who will not upset the Apple cart. But then actual poor voters came together and here we are.


----------



## transporter007 (Feb 19, 2018)

iheartuber said:


> Actually, no amount of wealth thrown at the government stopped an outsider from getting elected president.
> 
> The "wealthy mafia" didn't want Trump as president because they want someone who will not upset the Apple cart. But then actual poor voters came together and here we are.


You're whistling Dixie champ.
The wealthy wanted a disruptor POTUS. They were sick & tired of a do nothing congress, mainstream media agendas and regulations. Trump is the wealthy's "Molotov cocktail" tossed into the middle of DC.
They got it and still support the president's efforts.
Do u imagine Mr Trump was elected by toothless Trailer Park illiterates?
Child

Go chase a windmill


----------



## Blatherskite (Nov 30, 2016)

That was a rapid compression: from Indian traffic chaos to Trump, champion of the downtrodden. 

Also, I like that: trailer-park literati. Can we coin "Trailer-park Illuminati"? --it could sell t-shirts.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> The real estate cabal that's trying to force feed society robot taxis in an effort to destroy car ownership and ultimately try to line their pockets with more cash- they don't give a rip about India!


Agree, but ultimately, that is the reality they are dealing with on the road. Essentially, they hope the American public, because the society is more organized and people don't pay to much attention to details, will be easily fooled in comparison to the Indian public.

Well, the problem they have is that, when it comes to dealing with traffic randomness and problems, India is a reach environment (so a better place to test and develop) than the US.


----------



## transporter007 (Feb 19, 2018)

The uber driver mantra


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

transporter007 said:


> You're whistling Dixie champ.
> The wealthy wanted a disruptor POTUS. They were sick & tired of a do nothing congress, mainstream media agendas and regulations. Trump is the wealthy's "Molotov cocktail" tossed into the middle of DC.
> They got it and still support the president's efforts.
> Do u imagine Mr Trump was elected by toothless Trailer Park illiterates?
> ...


The wealthy can make any situation work but all in all they'd much rather have boring and stable.



jocker12 said:


> Agree, but ultimately, that is the reality they are dealing with on the road. Essentially, they hope the American public, because the society is more organized and people don't pay to much attention to details, will be easily fooled in comparison to the Indian public.
> 
> Well, the problem they have is that, when it comes to dealing with traffic randomness and problems, India is a reach environment (so a better place to test and develop) than the US.


The real problem is they don't understand that expecting people to give up car ownership is an impossible ask.


----------



## transporter007 (Feb 19, 2018)

iheartuber said:


> The wealthy can make any situation work but all in all they'd much rather have boring and stable.
> 
> The real problem is they don't understand that expecting people to give up car ownership is an impossible ask.


Written like a True Outsider point of view.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> The real problem is they don't understand that expecting people to give up car ownership is an impossible ask.


That too, but imo, the robotics scientists developing their projects for Carnegie Mellon (let's say) don't care about the social aspect of it. They just do their jobs the best they can with the limited resources that are given to them.

The social aspect it matters for the corporations involved, that chose to create their own self driving cars divisions, instead of financing academia (which would have done it better but during a lot longer period of time).

At this point both fail. Scientists (representing academia or corporations alike) do not have a reliable product (which is impossible to build - and we extensively discussed this here on this thread), and corporations have no clue about consumers behavior, reason to keep pushing their false narrative about saving lives, cheaper services and more convenient traveling.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> That too, but imo, the robotics scientists developing their projects for Carnegie Mellon (let's say) don't care about the social aspect of it. They just do their jobs the best they can with the limited resources that are given to them.
> 
> The social aspect it matters for the corporations involved, that chose to create their own self driving cars divisions, instead of financing academia (which would have done it better but during a lot longer period of time).
> 
> At this point both fail. Scientists (representing academia or corporations alike) do not have a reliable product (which is impossible to build - and we extensively discussed this here on this thread), and corporations have no clue about consumers behavior, reason to keep pushing their false narrative about saving lives, cheaper services and more convenient traveling.


That's the thing. You have scientists in the lab creating the tech who are doing this from pure intentions... and then you have the greedy camp who thinks this tech can radically change society to the benefit of their wallet.

And they say I'm delusional?


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Personally, I think they're preparing us for the flying cars (maybe they have gotten further than they are letting on hehe).. I don't trust the people driving next to me, let alone having us all flying around together.. automated systems are the future (even if we don't like it) and the self driving cars are a mandatory step on the way to flying cars. Because human controlled flying cars is a nightmare waiting to happen.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> automated systems


Now, I am sure you understand (and carefully chose your words here) AUTOMATION and AUTONOMY are two very, very, very different things....


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> Now, I am sure you understand (and carefully chose your words here) AUTOMATION and AUTONOMY are two very, very, very different things....


I would agree with that, but, while they are different things, they are also connected. For example, Tesla has a self driving mode (if you pay for the upgrade). They make it quite clear it's an automated system (not an autonomous) system. For those who don't know what Jocker12 and I mean, the difference is the human component. The Tesla car expects me to be there, monitoring it, correcting it, if needed, and so on (an Autonomous car, wouldn't care if I was even in the driver seat, I could sit in the back and it would be happy). Commercial aircraft are another example. 95% of flying (including most landings) are done on an autopilot (automated system), but they expect the pilots to be there, paying attention correcting when needed, monitoring. It's not intended to be "autonomous". Tesla even puts a sensor in the steering wheel and if you don't touch it every so often (I beleive it's 2 minutes), the car actually (autonomously) pulls over to the side of the road and puts the hazards on.

However, a quick google search will reveal that people have already figured out how to bypass this with a simple orange ($100,000 worth of tech disabled by an .50 orange, there is something poetic about that), rendering the car autonomous (unintentionally, and against recommendations by Tesla). We all know that as these self drive systems become more common place, they will be treated as autonomous. Drivers will be doing just about anything except actually paying attention (heck they don't pay attention that much NOW). It won't be a very long period of time from where Automated systems are the norm and autonomous systems are the expectation (probably with a self/auto drive switching period in the middle). Automated is just a stepping stone to autonomous (and the flying cars will likely be autonomous). While I was joking that they were close to that, I do think this is a mandatory path to them (eventually).


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> I would agree with that, but, while they are different things, they are also connected. For example, Tesla has a self driving mode (if you pay for the upgrade). They make it quite clear it's an automated system (not an autonomous) system. For those who don't know what Jocker12 and I mean, the difference is the human component. The Tesla car expects me to be there, monitoring it, correcting it, if needed, and so on (an Autonomous car, wouldn't care if I was even in the driver seat, I could sit in the back and it would be happy). Commercial aircraft are another example. 95% of flying (including most landings) are done on an autopilot (automated system), but they expect the pilots to be there, paying attention correcting when needed, monitoring. It's not intended to be "autonomous". Tesla even puts a sensor in the steering wheel and if you don't touch it every so often (I beleive it's 2 minutes), the car actually (autonomously) pulls over to the side of the road and puts the hazards on.
> 
> However, a quick google search will reveal that people have already figured out how to bypass this with a simple orange ($100,000 worth of tech disabled by an .50 orange, there is something poetic about that), rendering the car autonomous (unintentionally, and against recommendations by Tesla). We all know that as these self drive systems become more common place, they will be treated as autonomous. Drivers will be doing just about anything except actually paying attention (heck they don't pay attention that much NOW). It won't be a very long period of time from where Automated systems are the norm and autonomous systems are the expectation (probably with a self/auto drive switching period in the middle). Automated is just a stepping stone to autonomous (and the flying cars will likely be autonomous). While I was joking that they were close to that, I do think this is a mandatory path to them (eventually).


This article gives more insight - https://uberpeople.net/threads/the-...ystem-will-eliminate-deadly-crashes-i.254763/


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

Pawtism said:


> Personally, I think they're preparing us for the flying cars (maybe they have gotten further than they are letting on hehe).. I don't trust the people driving next to me, let alone having us all flying around together.. automated systems are the future (even if we don't like it) and the self driving cars are a mandatory step on the way to flying cars. Because human controlled flying cars is a nightmare waiting to happen.


Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserves neither
-Ben Franklin


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> This article gives more insight - https://uberpeople.net/threads/the-...ystem-will-eliminate-deadly-crashes-i.254763/


That's a big longer than I have time to read atm (working on some other stuff), but I promise to go look over it when I can, as it does look interesting.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Pawtism said:


> Personally, I think they're preparing us for the flying cars (maybe they have gotten further than they are letting on hehe).. I don't trust the people driving next to me, let alone having us all flying around together.. automated systems are the future (even if we don't like it) and the self driving cars are a mandatory step on the way to flying cars. Because human controlled flying cars is a nightmare waiting to happen.


I was turning a corner in my subdivision yesterday and some idiot almost ran his drone into my windshield.

Can't wait for those flying cars. I guess they'll be self driving too.


----------



## Blatherskite (Nov 30, 2016)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I was turning a corner in my subdivision yesterday and some idiot almost ran his drone into my windshield...


Cool!
I would prepare myself with a big butterfly net for the next encounter.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Pawtism said:


> Personally, I think they're preparing us for the flying cars (maybe they have gotten further than they are letting on hehe).. I don't trust the people driving next to me, let alone having us all flying around together.. automated systems are the future (even if we don't like it) and the self driving cars are a mandatory step on the way to flying cars. Because human controlled flying cars is a nightmare waiting to happen.


remember when flying cars were the future in the 60's? still waiting.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> remember when flying cars were the future in the 60's? still waiting.


Uber teamed up with nasa to build them.... they'll be flying over the cuckoo's nest aka uber headquarters.... hahaha...


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> Uber teamed up with nasa to build them.... they'll be flying over the cuckoo's nest aka uber headquarters.... hahaha...


I drove one of the engineers working on that this week. Uber is having a Conf in LA for flying cars this week.

The guy seemed like a sharp engineer but a lousy businessman. I asked him how much they were looking to charge he said $100 one way to fly 30 miles. His idea was businessmen who wanted to slice 1 hr each way off their commute time. I said "ok. $100 each way is $1000/ week. You're telling me an executive is going to spend $52,000 a year on work commuting??" He was like... "uhhh well. Uhhh..."

Fanboy fantasies one and all!


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> I drove one of the engineers working on that this week. Uber is having a Conf in LA for flying cars this week.
> 
> The guy seemed like a sharp engineer but a lousy businessman. I asked him how much they were looking to charge he said $100 one way to fly 30 miles. His idea was businessmen who wanted to slice 1 hr each way off their commute time. I said "ok. $100 each way is $1000/ week. You're telling me an executive is going to spend $52,000 a year on work commuting??" He was like... "uhhh well. Uhhh..."
> 
> Fanboy fantasies one and all!


In their limited understanding (their fans call "vision"), these kids don't comprehend basic life economics.... and FAA insanely strict regulations.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> In their limited understanding (their fans call "vision"), these kids don't comprehend basic life economics.... and FAA insanely strict regulations.


Right? kudos to uber for getting around taxi regulations but good luck with the FAA!! haha


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> Right? kudos to uber for getting around taxi regulations but good luck with the FAA!! haha


I was reading the thread about this - https://uberpeople.net/threads/death-from-above.259133/.... funny comments.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> Right? kudos to uber for getting around taxi regulations but good luck with the FAA!! haha


Check this out - https://www.recode.net/2018/5/8/17333742/uber-flying-cars-vtol-dan-elwell

Hahahaha...


----------



## uberboy48 (Aug 9, 2015)

iheartuber said:


> I drove one of the engineers working on that this week. Uber is having a Conf in LA for flying cars this week.
> 
> The guy seemed like a sharp engineer but a lousy businessman. I asked him how much they were looking to charge he said $100 one way to fly 30 miles. His idea was businessmen who wanted to slice 1 hr each way off their commute time. I said "ok. $100 each way is $1000/ week. You're telling me an executive is going to spend $52,000 a year on work commuting??" He was like... "uhhh well. Uhhh..."
> 
> Fanboy fantasies one and all!


Not the best example but I am not pro autonomous, executive people have a large range of income, the higher end will pay if its convenient. think about how back then these people use to pay private chauffeurs and limo services, which were more expensive than they are today, also the individual exec sometimes does not have to pay because the employer or company pays for the transportation and hotel if it's a business trip


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

uberboy48 said:


> Not the best example but I am not pro autonomous, executive people have a large range of income, the higher end will pay if its convenient. think about how back then these people use to pay private chauffeurs and limo services, which were more expensive than they are today, also the individual exec sometimes does not have to pay because the employer or company pays for the transportation and hotel if it's a business trip


As I told the guy: there's always gonna be some rich people who will gladly buy all kinds of expensive "toys" (jet skis, rocket packs, whatever) and anyone with money to burn could absolutely be able to afford a $100 one way trip on one of these things. But the number of people in this category is soo tiny there is no way you can make a sustainable business out of it.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> As I told the guy: there's always gonna be some rich people who will gladly buy all kinds of expensive "toys" (jet skis, rocket packs, whatever) and anyone with money to burn could absolutely be able to afford a $100 one way trip on one of these things. But the number of people in this category is soo tiny there is no way you can make a sustainable business out of it.


And subsequently is no way to recover the initial investment to develop the software, the hardware and the vehicle itself to provide and maintain such insane service.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> And subsequently is no way to recover the initial investment to develop the software, the hardware and the vehicle itself to provide and maintain such insane service.


I'm sure they can find a way to break even but the next iPhone this is not


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> I'm sure they can find a way to break even but the next iPhone this is not


I am under the strong impression that these big corporations, like governments for this matter, need to create a crazy topic of general discussion in order to deflect the media and the general pubic from asking the questions about the day by day BS they are doing to their drivers and riders alike. That is real, not this mambo jumbo about flying oompa loompas diarrhea.


----------



## freeFromUber (Mar 1, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> human controlled flying cars is a nightmare waiting to happen.


And it never will. Never.


----------



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

Yeah a self driving car could never handle going 1/4 MPH through a crowded street. surrounded by people moving in front of the car.

There's a trick in third world countries, it's called going slow enough that if you run into someone they don't notice, you have to ride the breaks like your coming to a stop while still moving forward.

It's hell on your brakes but the only way you will get ANYWHERE


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Yeah a self driving car could never handle going 1/4 MPH through a crowded street. surrounded by people moving in front of the car.
> 
> There's a trick in third world countries, it's called going slow enough that if you run into someone they don't notice, you have to ride the breaks like your coming to a stop while still moving forward.
> 
> It's hell on your brakes but the only way you will get ANYWHERE


It's probably good that I don't live in a third world country. My thoughts would be step on the gas and after a few go flying the rest will learn to get out of your way. 

I'm joking... mostly..


----------

