# Are we going too fast on driverless cars?



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

*Are we going too fast on driverless cars?*

By Jeffrey Mervis | Dec. 14, 2017 , 9:00 AM

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/12/are-we-going-too-fast-driverless-cars

The automakers and high-tech companies spending billions of dollars on developing self-driving cars and trucks tout the idea that autonomous vehicles (AVs) will help create a safer, cleaner, and more mobile society. Politicians aren't far behind in their enthusiasm for the new technology.

"This is probably the biggest thing to hit the auto industry since the first car came off the assembly line," Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) told a cheering audience of researchers and executives at a recent computing conference in Washington, D.C. "It will not only completely revolutionize the way we get around, but [AVs] also have the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives each year."

Such predictions, however, turn out to be based on surprisingly little research. While developers amass data on the sensors and algorithms that allow cars to drive themselves, research on the social, economic, and environmental effects of AVs is sparse. Truly autonomous driving is still decades away, according to most transportation experts. And because it's hard to study something that doesn't yet exist, the void has been filled by speculation-and starkly contrasting visions of the future. "The current conversation &#8230; falls into what I call the utopian and dystopian views," says Susan Shaheen, co-director of the Transportation Sustainability Research Center at the University of California (UC), Berkeley.

In the utopian view, she says, fleets of cheap, accessible AVs offer rides at the tap of a screen. Their ubiquity expands transportation options for everyone. Once AVs are commonplace, traffic accidents become a thing of the past, and enlightened government regulatory policies result in fewer traffic jams and parking problems, and less urban sprawl. Fleets of electric-powered AVs shrink fossil fuel consumption and reduce air pollution. Commutes become stress-free and more productive, as former drivers can now work, read, or knit while being whisked to their destinations.

In the dystopian view, driverless cars add to many of the world's woes. Freed from driving, people rely more heavily on cars-increasing congestion, energy consumption, and pollution. A more productive commute induces people to move farther from their jobs, exacerbating urban sprawl. At the same time, unexpected software glitches lead to repeated recalls, triggering massive travel disruptions. Wealthier consumers buy their own AVs, eschewing fleet vehicles that come with annoying fellow commuters, dirty back seats, and logistical hassles. A new metric of inequality emerges as the world is divided into AV haves and have-nots.
. . .










Even a level-four car, however, will operate autonomously only under certain conditions, say in good weather during the day, or on a road with controlled access. The technology for that capability already exists and "is trivially easy," notes Gill Pratt, CEO of the Toyota Research Institute in Palo Alto, California. The real challenge, says Pratt, a former academic and government program manager in robotics and intelligent systems, is developing a vehicle that can drive in "very difficult domains," such as rainy weather or crowded roads. That's level five, and Shladover, for one, says he wouldn't be surprised if it's 2075 before we get there.
. . .​


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

" But automotive engineers say that answer is imprecise and leaves the public confused. Technically, *anything below level five is not an AV*. (Level-zero cars are what your parents drove, and most cars on the road today operate at level one.)"

"Any level of automated driving gets described by the media as driverless," says Steven Shladover, a transportation engineer at the California Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology program in Richmond. "Companies have gotten very good at crafting statements [about automation technologies] that will be presented in the* most positive light*," he says.

Companies have good reason for painting the rosiest scenario for their technology, Shladover says. "*Nobody wants to appear to be lagging behind the technology of a competitor* because it could hurt sales, their ability to recruit top talent, or even affect their stock price," he says. As a result, it's easy for the public to overestimate the capabilities of existing technology."

"Shladover believes AV companies need to be much clearer about the "operational design" of their vehicles-in other words, the specific set of conditions under which the cars can function without a driver's assistance. "But most of the time *they won't say*, or *they don't even know themselves*," he says."

"He has calculated that a fatal crash now occurs once *every 3.3 million hours of vehicle travel*; an automated system will need to be extremely reliable to beat that record." (*3.3 million hours is 137.500 days or 376, 712 years of continuous driving*)

"Waiting for the cars to perform flawlessly is a clear example of the perfect being the enemy of the good," says Nidhi Kalra, a senior information scientist at RAND Corporation in San Francisco, California (Kalra acknowledges a personal stake in AVs:* Her husband, Dave Ferguson, is cofounder of Nuro Inc.*, a machine-learning startup in San Francisco that would benefit from early AV deployment.)

"Sivak, founder of an industry-funded transportation research consortium, says his team wanted to examine whether the productivity benefits really exist. And soon, he says, they realized that, "by moving from being a driver to a passenger, you are increasing your susceptibility to motion sickness because *the visual and vestibular inputs do not match*."

Th answer to the question posted in the title is - They will run out of money allocated to this specific research. Too much spending for no significant results.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Lol!

All you two ever talk about, refer to, edit, and select is autonomous because you want to ignore the fact that most Uber drivers will not lose their jobs to autonomous, but to level 4 self driving.

That's the bottom line. Geo-fenced all weather vehicles are coming quickly and they're coming for the major markets first.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

RamzFanz said:


> Lol!
> 
> All you two ever talk about, refer to, edit, and select is autonomous because you want to ignore the fact that most Uber drivers will not lose their jobs to autonomous, but to level 4 self driving.
> 
> That's the bottom line. Geo-fenced all weather vehicles are coming quickly and they're coming for the major markets first.


And Jesus walked on water, right?


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

Anything short of perfection won't be good enough to replace a driver.


It's probably more likely that we will lose our jobs to semi autonomous vehicles making it safe enough to drive drunk, than to a 100% self driving car.

All it will take is enough safety features...


----------



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Lol!
> 
> All you two ever talk about, refer to, edit, and select is autonomous because you want to ignore the fact that most Uber drivers will not lose their jobs to autonomous, but to level 4 self driving.
> 
> That's the bottom line. Geo-fenced all weather vehicles are coming quickly and they're coming for the major markets first.


I suppose I got confused because this topic is called "Autonomous", not "Geofenced Level 4".


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> And Jesus walked on water, right?


Waymo launched well ahead of schedule. It's over. SDC point A to B rides are a reality. Move on.



Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> Anything short of perfection won't be good enough to replace a driver.


This is untrue. We do not demand perfection in any form of transportation.



WeirdBob said:


> I suppose I got confused because this topic is called "Autonomous", not "Geofenced Level 4".
> View attachment 186548


The terms are often interchanged by the public and press. My point remains, Many Uber drivers will be replaced by self driving cars, not autonomous. Autonomous may be decades away and is irrelevant to the point of this forum. Autonomous is simply not necessary to soak up most Uber rides.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

RamzFanz said:


> Waymo launched well ahead of schedule. It's over. SDC point A to B rides are a reality. Move on.


Go help your wife and daughter to learn how to drive because at this point, if something bad happens (GOD FORBID!) you are the one ignoring the reality and the one letting them down. Use your common sense at least when is about your loved ones.



WeirdBob said:


> I suppose I got confused because this topic is called "Autonomous", not "Geofenced Level 4".
> View attachment 186548


With no steering wheel, pedals or mirrors?


----------

