Driverless cars in New Zealand

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Driverless cars in New Zealand - thoughts?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1795099 6-Jun-2017 07:27

I'm confused. First you remonstrate at netspanner and say it's today's tech.

tdgeek:

netspanner:

Driverless cars outside of highly controlled roads, such as modern motorways, will be a long time in coming to NZ. At the moment its just a futurists wet dream.

There are so many drawbacks, such as not being able to work in the rain, see black cars or cyclists. On our roads its going to be a long time before they can operate because of minimal road markings.

The existing fleet is not going away any time soon, there will still be decades of ordinary cars out there, its like the other pipe dream of us all in electric cars.

Imagine driverless trucks on the existing picton to chch run. not a chance. If they do run soon, it will be on things like waikato expressway, controlled motorways easily monitored with regulated and defined road markings.

I think we are suckered in by the promise and not aware of the reality of them at present.

You should watch the Youtube video posted in this thread. Self Drive is not The Jetsons or what you see in a 2300AD sci fi movie. Its todays tech. it sees cars, infrastructure, bicycles, roads, signs, GPS. If you looked at it from a tech POV, its meh, boring. Its not new.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1795100 6-Jun-2017 07:27

After the long weekend it's suddenly not and you call out gzt. Have you changed your mind after a weekend away?

tdgeek:

gzt:
tdgeek:

gzt: That's the problem, the better driver does not exist yet. All the work on sensor technology and platform tuning is worthwhile, but the platform ready or not is still awaiting an AI capable of the task we do every day.

Why does it need to be AI?

To me, it needs to know how to go from A to B, how to avoid obstacles, how to navigate around obstacles such as a stalled vehicle, it needs to see and obey road rules and lights, and signs, and it needs to know where the road is, the centreline, the edge, how many lanes it has at its disposal. It doesnt need to think, it needs to obey.

However, there are probably more challenges it needs to cope with, I'll try to look for them as I drive today. Id probably prefer a dumb machine that drives and deals with situations as coded, rather than thinks about what to do. At least if it works within coded instructions, that also include a "cant deal with this unknown, ill pull over"

Why does it need to be AI? The reason that Tesla driver on autopilot was decapitated when his car drove under a semi truck at high speed. It needs to deal with novel situations.

Which brings up another danger apparent from the leaf video and reactions to it. Human overconfidence in the technology.

AI. I can't see how that relates to driverless. Driverless needs the ability to see, and avoid obstacles. Go A to B. Be aware off the correct actions to take in an impending accident. There is a very finite need there. It doesn't need to reason and learn, it needs to understand physics of the vehicles and avoidance.

The Tesla autopilot isn't the Leaf. the Leaf will have stopped. For any driverless to drive under a vehicle is severely lacking testing.

The Leaf did well. Its not prime time, it did not know how to deal with a bis stopped in the driving lane, thats pretty easy. There will no doubt be many other situations it isn't programmed to manage.

The overconfidence I don't follow. Its clearly not ready for prime time, but its well on the way there. It needs to be coded with physics and decision making for accident avoidance, and off course getting around a stalled bus. I feel there is am under confidence theme. Maybe as many like to drive? But a swag of self drives will be far safer than a swag of humans. We drive bad, doing watch the road, get distracted, over confident, don't obey the rules, and we cause accidents and death on daily basis. Reaction time is low, decision making capability is low.

I get the feeling that some feel the self drives will be all over the place causing mayhem. We already have that!

PhantomNVD

2619 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1795101 6-Jun-2017 07:42

To be fair I think his position is the same.

It is today's tech, but has some more work to be done before being "truely driverless".

It does not need AI, it needs further coding work.

It DOES already work, it just needs refinement.

And...
Watch the clip.

tdgeek

29751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1795104 6-Jun-2017 07:45

joker97:

I'm confused. First you remonstrate at netspanner and say it's today's tech.

tdgeek:

netspanner:

Driverless cars outside of highly controlled roads, such as modern motorways, will be a long time in coming to NZ. At the moment its just a futurists wet dream.

There are so many drawbacks, such as not being able to work in the rain, see black cars or cyclists. On our roads its going to be a long time before they can operate because of minimal road markings.

The existing fleet is not going away any time soon, there will still be decades of ordinary cars out there, its like the other pipe dream of us all in electric cars.

Imagine driverless trucks on the existing picton to chch run. not a chance. If they do run soon, it will be on things like waikato expressway, controlled motorways easily monitored with regulated and defined road markings.

I think we are suckered in by the promise and not aware of the reality of them at present.

You should watch the Youtube video posted in this thread. Self Drive is not The Jetsons or what you see in a 2300AD sci fi movie. Its todays tech. it sees cars, infrastructure, bicycles, roads, signs, GPS. If you looked at it from a tech POV, its meh, boring. Its not new.

I didn't remonstrate I commented with my opposing view. His view was that its futuristic. It is todays tech, its here. Although its not legal on the roads (I assume) its here and testing very well.

tdgeek

29751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1795106 6-Jun-2017 07:54

joker97:

After the long weekend it's suddenly not and you call out gzt. Have you changed your mind after a weekend away?

tdgeek:

gzt:
tdgeek:

gzt: That's the problem, the better driver does not exist yet. All the work on sensor technology and platform tuning is worthwhile, but the platform ready or not is still awaiting an AI capable of the task we do every day.

Why does it need to be AI?

To me, it needs to know how to go from A to B, how to avoid obstacles, how to navigate around obstacles such as a stalled vehicle, it needs to see and obey road rules and lights, and signs, and it needs to know where the road is, the centreline, the edge, how many lanes it has at its disposal. It doesnt need to think, it needs to obey.

However, there are probably more challenges it needs to cope with, I'll try to look for them as I drive today. Id probably prefer a dumb machine that drives and deals with situations as coded, rather than thinks about what to do. At least if it works within coded instructions, that also include a "cant deal with this unknown, ill pull over"

Why does it need to be AI? The reason that Tesla driver on autopilot was decapitated when his car drove under a semi truck at high speed. It needs to deal with novel situations.

Which brings up another danger apparent from the leaf video and reactions to it. Human overconfidence in the technology.

AI. I can't see how that relates to driverless. Driverless needs the ability to see, and avoid obstacles. Go A to B. Be aware off the correct actions to take in an impending accident. There is a very finite need there. It doesn't need to reason and learn, it needs to understand physics of the vehicles and avoidance.

The Tesla autopilot isn't the Leaf. the Leaf will have stopped. For any driverless to drive under a vehicle is severely lacking testing.

The Leaf did well. Its not prime time, it did not know how to deal with a bis stopped in the driving lane, thats pretty easy. There will no doubt be many other situations it isn't programmed to manage.

The overconfidence I don't follow. Its clearly not ready for prime time, but its well on the way there. It needs to be coded with physics and decision making for accident avoidance, and off course getting around a stalled bus. I feel there is am under confidence theme. Maybe as many like to drive? But a swag of self drives will be far safer than a swag of humans. We drive bad, doing watch the road, get distracted, over confident, don't obey the rules, and we cause accidents and death on daily basis. Reaction time is low, decision making capability is low.

I get the feeling that some feel the self drives will be all over the place causing mayhem. We already have that!

Whats up?? First I comment to NS and you say I remonstrated, then I comment, also my opposing view to gzt and that's calling him out?

What Phantom said.

I don't care much for AI, that's massively more complex than giving the cars a set of instructions on what to do in various scenarios. certainly the larger the set of instructions available, the better. Thats up to the developers, motoring experts, police to add to. The ability to self drive is IMHO, very easy. Time will add much more ability to deal with all the variables on the roads from humans and the roads. The big downside is managing failure of the software/hardware. I imagine dual computers on seperate power feeds, one idle, waiting for a failure.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1795136 6-Jun-2017 09:53

Ah. So near yet so far?

Lastman

306 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1795153 6-Jun-2017 10:17

We are all just stating our opinions. Much as I'm a fan, I'd be on the conservative side in seeing widespread adoption.

There are just so many issues to work through even with the question of acceptance by the public. Are you going to mandate for phasing out self-drives etc. This is a big change for society.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

tdgeek

29751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1795154 6-Jun-2017 10:17

joker97: Ah. So near yet so far?

It could be near. The base function is definitely there. It works. It needs more coverage for real life scenarios, it needs redundancy.

I expect many will see fear, a car driving itself, with no human at the wheel. Ironically that is the main benefit.

Read an article that felt that driverless will congest the roads, so humanless cars will need to be taxed out of that. Sending a car to grab a parcel, etc

Its a pity, it's like solar, its all there, yet it will lack traction. Too new, too wow, must be a catch, too expensive. Solar isnt expensive now and thats still a niche for most. Driverless EV would be a boon in many many ways

tdgeek

29751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1795160 6-Jun-2017 10:20

Lastman: We are all just stating our opinions. Much as I'm a fan, I'd be on the conservative side in seeing widespread adoption.

There are just so many issues to work through even with the question of acceptance by the public. Are you going to mandate for phasing out self-drives etc. This is a big change for society.

I agree. The issues aren't so many, the main is covering its ability to react to all scenarios it encounters. Once its been seen to be far safer that humans that would help the scared, insurance, and legal issues. Adoption can only happen when its ready. I wouldn't mandate out regular cars. Let that evolve, or not.

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#1795795 7-Jun-2017 10:31

The Nissan mostly self driving car was impressive. One thing I didn't like the look of was the way it steered - a series of short rapid wheel adjustments rather than one smooth one - which is what a competent driver would do.

That's probably OK at 50kmh and below but cornering in that way at higher speeds could make for an uncomfortable ride.

Mike

gzt

17149 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1806192 24-Jun-2017 20:06

Linuxluver:
tdgeek:

Linuxluver:

dclegg:

It'll make driving in Auckland a helluva lot safer, I'm sure. Auckland drivers are the worst! Far too aggressive and impatient.

It's not just Auckland, believe me. There is a certain kind of driver to be found everywhere. Immature. Ego-driven. Careless. Thoughtless.

Plus nice people who are easily distracted, poor drivers, look ahead and not around, in a rush, crying kids in the back, the list goes on. The human brain is wonderful but I prefer a brain that does one thing, has eyes in the back of its head, and roof, and sides, etc. And it follows the Road Code 100%

Yep. I agree.

That's not a bad minimum standard. Essentially pass a driving test to the same standard as a human driver.

gzt

17149 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1806208 24-Jun-2017 20:53

The official govt NTSB report on the Tesla autopilot decapitation crash is complete:

USA Today: The driver used the vehicle's self-driving system for 37.5 minutes of the 41 minutes of his trip, according to the NTSB. During the time the self-driving system was activated, he had his hands on the wheel for a total of only about half a minute, investigators concluded.[...] NTSB said the driver received seven visual warnings on the instrument panel, which blared "Hold Steering Wheel," followed by six audible warnings.

It's unclear to me if the system told him to take over prior to the crash. It does imply that driver overconfidence in the ability of the system was a big factor leading up.

Ultimately the car is not smart enough to understand user inaction and not smart enough to act appropriately in that scenario.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1806242 24-Jun-2017 23:07

gzt: The official govt NTSB report on the Tesla autopilot decapitation crash is complete:

USA Today: The driver used the vehicle's self-driving system for 37.5 minutes of the 41 minutes of his trip, according to the NTSB. During the time the self-driving system was activated, he had his hands on the wheel for a total of only about half a minute, investigators concluded.[...] NTSB said the driver received seven visual warnings on the instrument panel, which blared "Hold Steering Wheel," followed by six audible warnings.

It's unclear to me if the system told him to take over prior to the crash. It does imply that driver overconfidence in the ability of the system was a big factor leading up.

Ultimately the car is not smart enough to understand user inaction and not smart enough to act appropriately in that scenario.

Demanding hands on steering wheel is one thing.

Not knowing it's about to kill the driver is another.

nevilb

14 posts

Geek

#1866966 15-Sep-2017 15:26

To be honest, the AI seems really basic and pretty bad.

The whole "self learning AI" thing is just a big lie.

UncleArk

110 posts

Master Geek

#1867029 15-Sep-2017 17:33

https://ohmio.co.nz

The public launch was held on Tues the 12th here in Christchurch...

Might be of interest to folks following this thread...

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7