Repairing a car could soon become "copyright violation"

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Repairing a car could soon become "copyright violation"

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Hmm, what to write...
1417 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1289928 23-Apr-2015 08:30

jpoc:
oxnsox: Like much of the TPPA I suspect that this move is more about IP copywrite than anything else.

We'll soon be seeing Autonomous vehicles in regular use on roads and this is, I believe, pre-emptry to their introduction. How far away is that day do you think? I heard today that there are currently about 50,000 Tesla vehicles on the road in the States that are capable of being upgraded remotely to Autonomous operation. It's expected this upgrade could be pushed out later this year.

Wow, you mean that they have found a way to download cameras and and all of the servo gear required to steer and operate the brakes? Plus all of the processing power to run the self driving software?

I really doubt that.

You are right, but at the same time quite a few cars have "active steering" and "auto braking" etc. Obviously the lane guidance cameras and all the important stuff is missing but with a total software change even my 2006 car could at least be converted to remote control (no servos required)

Matthew

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

Sidestep

1013 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1289936 23-Apr-2015 08:40

jpoc:
oxnsox: Like much of the TPPA I suspect that this move is more about IP copywrite than anything else.

We'll soon be seeing Autonomous vehicles in regular use on roads and this is, I believe, pre-emptry to their introduction. How far away is that day do you think? I heard today that there are currently about 50,000 Tesla vehicles on the road in the States that are capable of being upgraded remotely to Autonomous operation. It's expected this upgrade could be pushed out later this year.

Wow, you mean that they have found a way to download cameras and and all of the servo gear required to steer and operate the brakes? Plus all of the processing power to run the self driving software?

I really doubt that.

They're not talking about fully autonomous operation... They're saying in a modified "autopilot" mode the cars could do limited self driving on freeways only.

I think they've partnered with Mobileye among others for camera technology.

Regulatory issues will likely be a show stopper - or at least a delayer - with this one.
Including, on the fringes, the possibility of people modifying the software to disable the safety features those regulation will require.

Although I admire Elon Musk's gumption,goals and successes, over-promising seems to be a thing in some of his efforts. Driverless cars by 2016?

tdgeek

29585 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1289940 23-Apr-2015 08:51

I feel a driverless car is a very easy option. We have GPS to take you from A to B, sensors to avoid hitting anything/anybody, computers to drive the car, its really very easy to do.

BUT, the extensive testing, ensuring redundancies/failsafe should an item fail, the expected negative/scared reaction from Joe Public, the fear that this is tep 1 of robots running the show, and the loooooong red tape from the Govt would IMHO make this a 10 year plan.

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1417 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1289943 23-Apr-2015 09:00

tdgeek: I feel a driverless car is a very easy option. We have GPS to take you from A to B, sensors to avoid hitting anything/anybody, computers to drive the car, its really very easy to do.

BUT, the extensive testing, ensuring redundancies/failsafe should an item fail, the expected negative/scared reaction from Joe Public, the fear that this is tep 1 of robots running the show, and the loooooong red tape from the Govt would IMHO make this a 10 year plan.

The BIG problem is that the police always want to charge someone when there is a crash (they aren't even allowed to call them accidents).. so who is in charge of an autonomous car? You?, Google? the CPU?

Matthew

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1417 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1289945 23-Apr-2015 09:03

Quite frankly I'd trust an autonomous car driven by Windows 3.1 over some of the morons I was on the road with this morning

Matthew

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1289948 23-Apr-2015 09:07

The last thing one would want to see in an Autonomous Vehicle

dclegg

2806 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1289951 23-Apr-2015 09:10

mdooher:

The BIG problem is that the police always want to charge someone when there is a crash (they aren't even allowed to call them accidents).. so who is in charge of an autonomous car? You?, Google? the CPU?

It's also interesting to ponder the ethics of autonomous cars, especially in scenarios where there will be a crash where fatalities are guaranteed, and the software has to determine who should live or die.

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1417 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1289954 23-Apr-2015 09:18

dclegg:
mdooher:

The BIG problem is that the police always want to charge someone when there is a crash (they aren't even allowed to call them accidents).. so who is in charge of an autonomous car? You?, Google? the CPU?

It's also interesting to ponder the ethics of autonomous cars, especially in scenarios where there will be a crash where fatalities are guaranteed, and the software has to determine who should live or die.

Without thinking too deeply Ill go with this:

Assuming the two cars aren't having a conversation about who is going to "take the hit" I would say each car should work for its owner.. I guess the people who can afford the better car/software get better protection: A bit like now really.

Matthew

tdgeek

29585 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1289970 23-Apr-2015 09:30

mdooher:
tdgeek: I feel a driverless car is a very easy option. We have GPS to take you from A to B, sensors to avoid hitting anything/anybody, computers to drive the car, its really very easy to do.

BUT, the extensive testing, ensuring redundancies/failsafe should an item fail, the expected negative/scared reaction from Joe Public, the fear that this is tep 1 of robots running the show, and the loooooong red tape from the Govt would IMHO make this a 10 year plan.

The BIG problem is that the police always want to charge someone when there is a crash (they aren't even allowed to call them accidents).. so who is in charge of an autonomous car? You?, Google? the CPU?

Theoretically there won't be any crashes. some would happen due to unavoidable (manned vehicle T boned the autonomous car, or an unforeseen third party something hits car, blown tyre, etc) Like an Air Crash, there needs to be a reason found, and fixed. The level of accidents, injuries, fatalities would drop severely IMO. And issues foumd to be at fault of the guidance system would be fixed and become more of an investment in safety, even if it was avoidabele as due to a design flaw. This is why flying is so safe

dclegg

2806 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1289971 23-Apr-2015 09:32

mdooher:
dclegg:
mdooher:

The BIG problem is that the police always want to charge someone when there is a crash (they aren't even allowed to call them accidents).. so who is in charge of an autonomous car? You?, Google? the CPU?

It's also interesting to ponder the ethics of autonomous cars, especially in scenarios where there will be a crash where fatalities are guaranteed, and the software has to determine who should live or die.

Without thinking too deeply Ill go with this:

Assuming the two cars aren't having a conversation about who is going to "take the hit" I would say each car should work for its owner.. I guess the people who can afford the better car/software get better protection: A bit like now really.

What if the scenario is different? An imminent collision that will kill the driver (and nobody else). The car can swerve, but it will then kill 3 children by the side of the road.

tdgeek

29585 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1289972 23-Apr-2015 09:33

mdooher: Quite frankly I'd trust an autonomous car driven by Windows 3.1 over some of the morons I was on the road with this morning

Same, remove human error

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1417 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1289975 23-Apr-2015 09:34

tdgeek:
mdooher:
tdgeek: I feel a driverless car is a very easy option. We have GPS to take you from A to B, sensors to avoid hitting anything/anybody, computers to drive the car, its really very easy to do.

BUT, the extensive testing, ensuring redundancies/failsafe should an item fail, the expected negative/scared reaction from Joe Public, the fear that this is tep 1 of robots running the show, and the loooooong red tape from the Govt would IMHO make this a 10 year plan.

The BIG problem is that the police always want to charge someone when there is a crash (they aren't even allowed to call them accidents).. so who is in charge of an autonomous car? You?, Google? the CPU?

Theoretically there won't be any crashes. some would happen due to unavoidable (manned vehicle T boned the autonomous car, or an unforeseen third party something hits car, blown tyre, etc) Like an Air Crash, there needs to be a reason found, and fixed. The level of accidents, injuries, fatalities would drop severely IMO. And issues foumd to be at fault of the guidance system would be fixed and become more of an investment in safety, even if it was avoidabele as due to a design flaw. This is why flying is so safe

Well yes, but when CAA investigates an accident they are looking for the real cause and then make recommendations on how to avoid such an event happening again.
When the police investigate a crash they don't care what the real cause was... they want to blame someone.

so the law would need to change so autonomous car crashes are investigated in a similar way to airline crashes

Matthew

tdgeek

29585 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1289980 23-Apr-2015 09:38

dclegg:
mdooher:
dclegg:
mdooher:

The BIG problem is that the police always want to charge someone when there is a crash (they aren't even allowed to call them accidents).. so who is in charge of an autonomous car? You?, Google? the CPU?

It's also interesting to ponder the ethics of autonomous cars, especially in scenarios where there will be a crash where fatalities are guaranteed, and the software has to determine who should live or die.

Without thinking too deeply Ill go with this:

Assuming the two cars aren't having a conversation about who is going to "take the hit" I would say each car should work for its owner.. I guess the people who can afford the better car/software get better protection: A bit like now really.

What if the scenario is different? An imminent collision that will kill the driver (and nobody else). The car can swerve, but it will then kill 3 children by the side of the road.

Thats a good point, smaller sensor reading equals preferred crash site? But, sensors will mitigate many many accidents, allow airbags to deploy before the accident, perhaps the software can target a non human site, say a tree, and target the collison wioth the tree instead of another car, in a crash that will help insulate the passengers, i.e. say a head on was imminent with another vehicle, aim at tree, aim to huit the left gurad at ideal angle to allow crumpling of bodywork to help reduce injury

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1417 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1289999 23-Apr-2015 10:03

dclegg:
mdooher:
dclegg:
mdooher:

The BIG problem is that the police always want to charge someone when there is a crash (they aren't even allowed to call them accidents).. so who is in charge of an autonomous car? You?, Google? the CPU?

It's also interesting to ponder the ethics of autonomous cars, especially in scenarios where there will be a crash where fatalities are guaranteed, and the software has to determine who should live or die.

Without thinking too deeply Ill go with this:

Assuming the two cars aren't having a conversation about who is going to "take the hit" I would say each car should work for its owner.. I guess the people who can afford the better car/software get better protection: A bit like now really.

What if the scenario is different? An imminent collision that will kill the driver (and nobody else). The car can swerve, but it will then kill 3 children by the side of the road.

Same, protect the driver. The software is working for the owner. Callus? possibly, but that's the way I see it. The computer sees all external objects as just that, objects.

Matthew

tdgeek

29585 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1290005 23-Apr-2015 10:21

mdooher:
dclegg:
mdooher:
dclegg:
mdooher:

The BIG problem is that the police always want to charge someone when there is a crash (they aren't even allowed to call them accidents).. so who is in charge of an autonomous car? You?, Google? the CPU?

It's also interesting to ponder the ethics of autonomous cars, especially in scenarios where there will be a crash where fatalities are guaranteed, and the software has to determine who should live or die.

Without thinking too deeply Ill go with this:

Assuming the two cars aren't having a conversation about who is going to "take the hit" I would say each car should work for its owner.. I guess the people who can afford the better car/software get better protection: A bit like now really.

What if the scenario is different? An imminent collision that will kill the driver (and nobody else). The car can swerve, but it will then kill 3 children by the side of the road.

Same, protect the driver. The software is working for the owner. Callus? possibly, but that's the way I see it. The computer sees all external objects as just that, objects.

Maybe:

Avoid solid target - if possible aim for softer target - if this is human, avoid - if cannot avoid, hit human target, using front or side of car, not corner, if possible

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5