# Police control of autonomous cars?



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

Sometimes, after an accident or during an event, the police have to redirect traffic. Occasionally, that takes people through parking lots, or even across / through places that normally cars never drive.

1. How will a self driving car understand what the officer wants the car to do?
2. Will the car be able to drive in unmapped / abnormal areas and situations?
3. How will the car know it is really a cop and not just someone waving their arms?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

WeirdBob said:


> 1. How will a self driving car understand what the officer wants the car to do?


Hand signals for now. The Google car can read hand signals.



WeirdBob said:


> 2. Will the car be able to drive in unmapped / abnormal areas and situations?


Yes, they already do.



WeirdBob said:


> 3. How will the car know it is really a cop and not just someone waving their arms?


Right now, as I understand it, they detect the cop car lights.

These scenarios are certainly interesting and challenging. I wouldn't say they are ready for them, but they're working on it.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Everything RamzFanz has said is a lie. Googles SDC's can't do anything he saying they can do. In fact, it was so impractical that Google themselves admitted it and gave up.

https://uberpeople.net/threads/goog...d-developing-its-own-self-driving-car.124644/


----------



## Beritknight (Feb 18, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> In fact, it was so impractical that Google themselves admitted it and gave up.
> 
> https://uberpeople.net/threads/goog...d-developing-its-own-self-driving-car.124644/


They didn't give up, they spun their self-driving team off into it's own company.

"Alphabet's decision to spin out Waymo is a signal that the company thinks its *self-driving technology has advanced beyond research project status and is ready for commercialization."*

So kinda the opposite of what you were saying 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/t...ss.html&eventName=Watching-article-click&_r=1


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Everything RamzFanz has said is a lie. Googles SDC's can't do anything he saying they can do. In fact, it was so impractical that Google themselves admitted it and gave up.
> 
> https://uberpeople.net/threads/goog...d-developing-its-own-self-driving-car.124644/


Which is why they just launched their self-driving car company Waymo?

And yes, it can do everything I stated. You have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Beritknight said:


> They didn't give up, they spun their self-driving team off into it's own company.
> 
> "Alphabet's decision to spin out Waymo is a signal that the company thinks its *self-driving technology has advanced beyond research project status and is ready for commercialization."*
> 
> ...


If you would have read the ENTIRE article you would see it is saying EXACTLY what I was saying.



> For Google, the goal was to design a vehicle that is responsible for 100 percent of the driving. The company said this approach was more difficult and would take more time. However, Google said it was ultimately safer than semiautonomous vehicles, which may require a driver to take back control of the car without awareness of the surroundings.
> 
> Waymo said its ultimate goal *was* to equip its driverless system on cars without steering wheels or pedals because it didn't want humans to feel as if they needed to monitor the vehicle. However, government regulations currently require a vehicle to have steering wheels and pedals.


Google will no longer attempt to have true self driving cars, the kind with no steering wheel, pedal, or driver. The goal NOW is to work in conjunction with a driver. These are no longer true self driving cars.

It was also stated in the article I posted....



> *Google has reportedly shelved its long-standing plan to develop its own autonomous vehicle in favor of pursuing partnerships with existing car makers.*
> 
> The Information reports that Google's self-driving car unit - known internally as Chauffeur - is working with established automotive names to develop cars that will include some self-driving features, but won't ditch the steering wheel and pedal controls. The firm is already working with Fiat Chrysler, per a partnership announced in May, and that could be the start of others to come.
> 
> Google *first set out* to do away with the steering wheel and pedals approach, *but this backtrack* is from Alphabet CEO Larry Page and CFO Ruth Porat, who found the original approach to be "*impractical*," according to the report. That's despite Google's autonomous vehicles clocking over two million miles of tests on public roads.


Thanks for playing and have a nice day.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Which is why they just launched their self-driving car company Waymo?
> 
> And yes, it can do everything I stated. You have no idea what you're talking about.


If you would have read the ENTIRE article you would see it is saying EXACTLY what I was saying.



> For Google, the goal was to design a vehicle that is responsible for 100 percent of the driving. The company said this approach was more difficult and would take more time. However, Google said it was ultimately safer than semiautonomous vehicles, which may require a driver to take back control of the car without awareness of the surroundings.
> 
> Waymo said its ultimate goal *was* to equip its driverless system on cars without steering wheels or pedals because it didn't want humans to feel as if they needed to monitor the vehicle. However, government regulations currently require a vehicle to have steering wheels and pedals.


Google will no longer attempt to have true self driving cars, the kind with no steering wheel, pedal, or driver. The goal NOW is to work in conjunction with a driver. These are no longer true self driving cars.

It was also stated in the article I posted....



> *Google has reportedly shelved its long-standing plan to develop its own autonomous vehicle in favor of pursuing partnerships with existing car makers.*
> 
> The Information reports that Google's self-driving car unit - known internally as Chauffeur - is working with established automotive names to develop cars that will include some self-driving features, but won't ditch the steering wheel and pedal controls. The firm is already working with Fiat Chrysler, per a partnership announced in May, and that could be the start of others to come.
> 
> Google *first set out* to do away with the steering wheel and pedals approach, *but this backtrack* is from Alphabet CEO Larry Page and CFO Ruth Porat, who found the original approach to be "*impractical*," according to the report. That's despite Google's autonomous vehicles clocking over two million miles of tests on public roads.


Thanks for playing and have a nice day.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> These are no longer true self driving cars.


Nope. The presence of human controls has no meaning in the definition of self driving.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Nope. The presence of human controls has no meaning in the definition of self driving.


lol It's like talking to a wall. You are physically incapable of ever admitting you are wrong.

Putting you back on ignore. Seeing your ridiculous posts gives me a headache.


----------



## Tedgey (Jan 29, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol It's like talking to a wall. You are physically incapable of ever admitting you are wrong.
> 
> Putting you back on ignore. Seeing your ridiculous posts gives me a headache.


Don't frustrate yourself. The guy is a believer. 50 years from now he'll still be telling you it's right around the corner.

He's a rams fan for godssake!


----------



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

Tedgey said:


> He's a rams fan for godssake!


I would laugh, but I am a Lions fan! I am appreciating the wins this year, but we are stuck with 59 years of frustrating history.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol It's like talking to a wall. You are physically incapable of ever admitting you are wrong.
> 
> Putting you back on ignore. Seeing your ridiculous posts gives me a headache.


Please show me any definition of a self driving car that insists it couldn't also be human driven. Thanks.

See ya!


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Tedgey said:


> Don't frustrate yourself. The guy is a believer. 50 years from now he'll still be telling you it's right around the corner.
> 
> He's a rams fan for godssake!


5 years from now you're going to be thinking, damn, why didn't I listen and pay attention.


----------



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Please show me any definition of a self driving car that insists it couldn't also be human driven. Thanks.


Google is yout frenemy.










http://www.nhtsa.gov/About-NHTSA/Pr...eases-Policy-on-Automated-Vehicle-Development

*Full Self-Driving Automation (Level 4):* The vehicle is designed to perform all safety-critical driving functions and monitor roadway conditions for an entire trip. Such a design anticipates that the driver will provide destination or navigation input, but is not expected to be available for control at any time during the trip. This includes both occupied and unoccupied vehicles.​


----------



## Tedgey (Jan 29, 2016)

WeirdBob said:


> I would laugh, but I am a Lions fan! I am appreciating the wins this year, but we are stuck with 59 years of frustrating history.


I'm so sorry. I'm just so sorry.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

WeirdBob said:


> Google is yout frenemy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, like I said, there's nothing about not having human controls.

Having human controls or not having them is meaningless in the definition of self-driving.


----------



## Tedgey (Jan 29, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Having human controls or not having them is meaningless in the definition of self-driving.


What are you talking about? Self driving, in reference to cars, is entirely about the degree of control the human has over the vehicle.

Having human controls or not having them is meaningless the only thing that matters in the definition of self-driving


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

T


WeirdBob said:


> Sometimes, after an accident or during an event, the police have to redirect traffic. Occasionally, that takes people through parking lots, or even across / through places that normally cars never drive.
> 
> 1. How will a self driving car understand what the officer wants the car to do?
> 2. Will the car be able to drive in unmapped / abnormal areas and situations?
> 3. How will the car know it is really a cop and not just someone waving their arms?


The Death Traps will NEVER be intuitive.NEVER !
If this pie in the sky Terminator Robo Car stuff worked,the Military would not have Drone Pilots !
But Uber wants to put their death mongors in the streets with your children !


----------



## Jermin8r89 (Mar 10, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> So, like I said, there's nothing about not having human controls.
> 
> Having human controls or not having them is meaningless in the definition of self-driving.


Haveing wheel and pedals is essential itd be stupid not to as always emergencies. Wich is y cars have emergency brakes, open truck latch in back. Evwn train cars have breaks u can pull to stop train.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Tedgey said:


> What are you talking about? Self driving, in reference to cars, is entirely about the degree of control the human has over the vehicle.
> 
> Having human controls or not having them is meaningless the only thing that matters in the definition of self-driving


Nope. He even posted the definitions. Did you not read them?

Whether human _controls_ exist in the car or not is meaningless. Self driving is self driving. Being a self-driving car doesn't mean a human couldn't drive it if they _chose_ to, it's just never required.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Jermin8r89 said:


> Haveing wheel and pedals is essential itd be stupid not to as always emergencies. Wich is y cars have emergency brakes, open truck latch in back. Evwn train cars have breaks u can pull to stop train.


Cars don't have emergency brakes, they have parking brakes.

You don't need pedals to stop a self driving car. You could push a button or just say stop.

The point was whether any human controls exist or not has nothing at all to do with whether it's self driving.


----------



## Tedgey (Jan 29, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Nope. He even posted the definitions. Did you not read them?
> 
> Whether human _controls_ exist in the car or not is meaningless. Self driving is self driving. Being a self-driving car doesn't mean a human couldn't drive it if they _chose_ to, it's just never required.


No I didn't. Let's do it together...

Level 0: Driver has control
Level 1: Driver has informed control
Level 2: Driver ready to take control
Level 3: Driver takes control in an emergency
Level 4(a): Occupants do not need to have ability to drive
Level 4(b): Passive driver experience

Indeed it looks as if the level of control a human has of the car is the sole factor in defining the term self driving


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Tedgey said:


> No I didn't. Let's do it together...
> 
> Level 0: Driver has control
> Level 1: Driver has informed control
> ...


Very good. Please show me where it says the car can not have human controls or be driven by a human if they so desire.

Occupants do not _need_ to have the ability to drive, but they _can_ have that ability. "Passive driver experience" would be in driverless mode. Nothing in that definition excludes the _option _for human drivers or human controls.



Tedgey said:


> Indeed it looks as if the level of control a human has of the car is the sole factor in defining the term self driving


Yes, while in self-driving mode the human would not control it. That doesn't mean they couldn't in human driven mode. We are discussing the functionality required to be defined as self-driving, not the other options available.


----------



## Tedgey (Jan 29, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Please show me where it says the car can not have human controls or be driven by a human if they so desire.





RamzFanz said:


> Having human controls or not having them is meaningless in the definition of self-driving.


Oh dear. It seems we've moved the goalposts


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Tedgey said:


> Oh dear. It seems we've moved the goalposts


Those two statements are exactly the same. What part don't you get? Where did I say anything that would make you believe I was saying the human _had_ to drive?


----------



## Tedgey (Jan 29, 2016)

You made the claim that:

Having human controls or not having them is meaningless in the definition of self-driving.

You then cited a credible source that showed several levels of self-driving, all of the levels being defined exclusively by the amount of control the human had over the vehicle. That is at odds with your assertion that it's meaningless


----------



## Tedgey (Jan 29, 2016)

Statement:
_The depth of the tumor is meaningless in assigning a stage level to the cancer._

Stage 1: tumor is on the surface
Stage 2: tumor is 0 - 2.5mm below the surface
Stage 3: tumor is 2.5 - 5.0mm below the surface
Stage 4: tumor is > 5.0mm below the surface

Again, the statement:
_The depth of the tumor is meaningless in assigning a stage level to the cancer._

is not supported here


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Tedgey said:


> You made the claim that:
> 
> Having human controls or not having them is meaningless in the definition of self-driving.
> 
> You then cited a credible source that showed several levels of self-driving, all of the levels being defined exclusively by the amount of control the human had over the vehicle. That is at odds with your assertion that it's meaningless


_Controls _is not in _control_.

Having human controls available in no way means a driver has to use them at any time ever.

Just because a car can be driverless, doesn't mean it always will be. Nowhere in the definition does it exclude human controls for _optional _human driving.

Having human controls or not having them is meaningless in the definition of self-driving. Neither are the size of the headlights, car color, interior material, or any other feature not required or excluded in the definition.

You're being intentionally obtuse. Please show me where it says the car can not have human controls or be driven by a human if they so desire.


----------



## Tedgey (Jan 29, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> _Controls _is not in _control_.
> 
> Having human controls available in no way means a driver has to use them at any time ever.
> 
> ...


I'm struggling to understand how a human controls the car without controls. Or do you mean without human controls in an experimental way, like you have a control group of all humans?


----------



## Jermin8r89 (Mar 10, 2016)

Tedgey said:


> I'm struggling to understand how a human controls the car without controls. Or do you mean without human controls in an experimental way, like you have a control group of all humans?


Its like hes trying to say someone would remotely control the car at base. How exactly would that work itd be like lets just have them on a track like train. A button to stop ok but what if u got other self driveing cars behind? Would they stop or keep going around smoothly? How about controling climate control? Or music?


----------



## Tedgey (Jan 29, 2016)

I have a suspicion what he meant when he said "human controls" was "steering wheel."


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Tedgey said:


> I'm struggling to understand how a human controls the car without controls. Or do you mean without human controls in an experimental way, like you have a control group of all humans?


Did you miss the entire discussion you jumped into?



Tedgey said:


> I have a suspicion what he meant when he said "human controls" was "steering wheel."


Yes, a steering wheel would be a human control.


----------



## Beritknight (Feb 18, 2016)

I think I'm with Ramz here.

There's no reason a car couldn't be built to be level 4a capable when required, while still having controls. Here's Volvo's take on how that would work:
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/volvo-semi-autonomous-concept-26/

Steering wheel is there and you can use it in manual mode when going for a nice Sunday drive. If on Monday morning you want to work thru the commute, the wheel retracts towards the dash and the set pulls back a little. Other Volvo concepts have had a kind of tray table arrangement that comes down between the driver and the wheel to give you somewhere for your laptop to sit.

Personally I like the idea of being able to drive my car to dinner, then have a few drinks with dinner and let the car drive me home. The wife won't be pregnant forever, so eventually she's going to get sick of being the designated driver ;-)


----------



## Tedgey (Jan 29, 2016)

First of all, don't buy the hype. Women can and indeed should drink throughout pregnancy and the delivery and nursing and all that. Sobriety is an overrated virtue and it must be really hard being pregnant.

Nevertheless, of all the stages of driverlessness, only the one final stage can be done without the steering wheel. Clearly then, the existence or lack thereof of a steering wheel is a vital aspect of the definition of self-driving.


----------



## Beritknight (Feb 18, 2016)

Tedgey said:


> First of all, don't buy the hype. Women can and indeed should drink throughout pregnancy and the delivery and nursing and all that. Sobriety is an overrated virtue and it must be really hard being pregnant.
> 
> Nevertheless, of all the stages of driverlessness, only the one final stage can be done without the steering wheel. Clearly then, the existence or lack thereof of a steering wheel is a vital aspect of the definition of self-driving.


Thanks, but we'll trust the doctor's advice over random people on the internet when it comes to the health of our firstborn ;-)

I think the confusion about steering wheels is the that language is not exclusive, but it can be read that way.

Levels 0-3 REQUIRE a steering wheel.
Level 4a and 4b do not require a steering wheel. Not requiring something is not the same as requiring it not to be there. It becomes optional.

You're reading it as level 4 MUST NOT have a steering wheel.
I'm reading it as level 4 MAY NOT have a steering wheel.

I think I'm right on this (obviously, everyone does), based on the diagram posted earlier.


----------



## Tedgey (Jan 29, 2016)

Beritknight said:


> Thanks, but we'll trust the doctor's advice over random people on the internet when it comes to the health of our firstborn ;-)
> 
> I think the confusion about steering wheels is the that language is not exclusive, but it can be read that way.
> 
> ...


Good idea. Trust someone that tells you it's easy being pregnant because they're a "doctor"


----------



## Beritknight (Feb 18, 2016)

Tedgey said:


> Good idea. Trust someone that tells you it's easy being pregnant because they're a "doctor"


I don't think you and I are likely to see eye to eye on this one...

If you're curious, the World Health Organization recommends against it, but they're also just a bunch of doctors.
http://www.who.int/features/2014/aboriginal-babies-alcohol-harm/en/


----------

