... That smart car wasn't very smart.

the car is only as smart as the engineers who built and programmed it...

 

That smart car wasn't very smart.

BUT, there was no way, in this case, the car could of know that backing up was the right thing to do. Nor would it know that the truck needs more space. All it know is there was something in the way, and the right thing to do is stop. What would happen if the object was not a truck but a pallet that fell off the truck that was reversing. Would you still expect the car to back up?

If, like I have been saying, the whole system was autonomous, then the truck would have been able to say to the car "Hey, I have no options here, you back up so I can move out of the way", or the truck would of presented it path to the car before the car got in the way. But just like in the other thread, this would only work in a perfect world, not this one

I think what happened in Nevada is a perfect example of a system working perfectly. Car sensed a obstruction and stopped. Perfect. There is a scenario that a human needs to work out now. Truck, been controlled by a human, did not see the obstruction (or did not care like most Australian truck drivers) and drove into it...

Replace the car with little old lady with a walking frame.. Do you still think the truck driver had the right of way?

 

BUT, there was no way, in this case, the car could of know that backing up was the right thing to do. Nor would it know that the truck needs more space. All it know is there was something in the way, and the right thing to do is stop. What would happen if the object was not a truck but a pallet that fell off the truck that was reversing. Would you still expect the car to back up?

The smart thing (and right thing) would have been to prevent a likely totally preventable accident from happening by safely moving out of the way in both cases. Just stopping was not intelligent.

 

BUT, there was no way, in this case, the car could of know that backing up was the right thing to do.

Then I guess the representative of the company lied when he stated on the news it could, and yet it didn't.

Why didn't the programmer understand the option? Did they just get their drivers license?

The police owe the vehicle owner's a ticket.

 

Replace the car with little old lady with a walking frame.. Do you still think the truck driver had the right of way?

Do you think the little old lady would be attempting to cross when the truck was backing up? She would have seen the whole procedure when the truck started it's backup.

The autonomous vehicle had to pull up when the evolution was in progress and just stopped.

 

As usual The twilight Zone shows us the future.

 

The smart thing (and right thing) would have been to prevent a likely totally preventable accident from happening by safely moving out of the way in both cases. Just stopping was not intelligent.

In which direction? If it turned around the truck, who is to say there was not another car going past it (outside of the sensing distance).
I never said this was intelligent as we are talking about a computer driving a car.. I said it was the correct action to take in a event that was outside of the scope of the programming.

Then I guess the representative of the company lied when he stated on the news it could, and yet it didn't.

Why didn't the programmer understand the option? Did they just get their drivers license?
.

I admit I did not watch the video. I would be interested as to why someone would say the car would know that a backing truck during a turn needs to have swing space. This is such a corner case that I just cant see why if would be handled. The car would also need to know the angle the truck was in in respect to the driveway it was going into to workout safety margin.
What if there was another car (or any obstruction) behind the car? Would you still want it to back up?

Do you think the little old lady would be attempting to cross when the truck was backing up? She would have seen the whole procedure when the truck started it's backup.

The autonomous vehicle had to pull up when the evolution was in progress and just stopped.

That was not my point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that the truck driver still has a duty of care look around him to make sure he is not going to hit anything.

I have now been thinking about this stupid car and truck all day . I still cant think of a better move the car could of taken then the one it did. I think anything it did would have increased its risk of another collision.
It is so easy for us to work out the solution, but it is only because we have the experience to work out what is going on, what has been happening and what will happen (that's on hell of a PID calculation ). Once we can make the computer do that, then this kind of event will not happen.

 

In which direction? If it turned around the truck, who is to say there was not another car going past it (outside of the sensing distance).
I never said this was intelligent as we are talking about a computer driving a car.. I said it was the correct action to take in a event that was outside of the scope of the programming.

Machine ...Derp.

 

Are you suggesting the car has inadequate sensors to give the computer a complete picture?

 

Being a former train control tech for San Francisco's transit agency, I seriously question how automatic steering can be accomplished.

With rail vehicles running on a fixed guide way, separation between trains is the only problem and that's done through automatic speed control. Hence, vehicles on a track require only a "one dimensional" control system. However automobiles don't run on tracks and they require a "two dimensional" control system capable of providing accurate steering.

Furthermore, I don't believe an "autonomous" control system (one that mimics like the senses of a human driver) can provide the inputs for all the variables involved in steering a car. The only way automatic steering can be performed is by running a wire underneath the center of the pavement and having a transducer under the car that detects the deviation from center line of the lane. That will require a lot of infrastructure and world wide standards. Right now, automatic speed control (acceleration and braking based on the distance between the vehicles) is the only practical function for automated cars and self steering is a long way down the road.

I might also emphasize that the most experienced companies in automated transportation (such as Thales Aerospace that built the "moving block" train control system here in S.F.) are not jumping on the fad to develop a self driving car. Furthermore, why aren't companies like Google /Waymo using mass transit as an initial proving ground for self driving vehicles? A transit bus would be an excellent proving ground for automatic vehicle control such as anti-collision and an elementary version of computer assisted steering.

Some might say the market for automated transit buses is too narrow to justify the investment. However at this stage, we're talking about planning a solid path for developing and introducing proven technology -not trying to establish a mass market overnight.

Based on my expertise as senior technician at my transit agency, it seems the self driving car industry is "Trying to run before it's even learned to walk".

 

Furthermore, why aren't companies like Google /Waymo using mass transit as an initial proving ground for self driving vehicles? A transit bus would be an excellent proving ground for automatic vehicle control such as anti-collision and computer assisted steering.

It's Waymo cool to design a self driving car than a bus on a fixed tracking system.

 

Are you suggesting the car has inadequate sensors to give the computer a complete picture?

Oddly yes, that is what I am saying. The computer may know where "stuff" is in relation to itself, but we don't have sensors that can sense that a truck is currently turning. (I guess you could take multiple lidar images and compare but you still could not workout the end of the turn arc). This is where the network of cars talking to each other comes in.
We as humans just make these type of decisions without conscious thought. It will be a long time before a computer can do the same thing. So, without having the intelligence to come with a better plan, the best action here was to stop and wait for a human to help. Unfortunately the only one on hand was a truck driver....

I guess this is no different to any other machine like a CNC router or automatic pallet truck. These all just stop and wait too.

Machine ...Derp.

I had too look up "derp" but yes, I agree. It is stupid, therefor stopping and waiting for something smarter (a human in this case) to come along to help is a perfect action.
In fact, I wish some humans would stop and ask before proceeding sometimes. I am starting to wonder if in these cases the computer is smarter.

 

I view similar to an "insurance scam" type accident where the person/vehicle get into another's blind spot to stage an accident.

I also think the politicos will choose to write this off as happenstance, a freak accident or a "failure of the imagination."

 

It's Waymo cool to design a self driving car than a bus on a fixed tracking system.

As I said in my post, self driving vehicles must be a proven technology and it doesn't matter how cool and sexy the vehicle is. If I were an investor in Google/Waymo, I'd insist on showing me something that really works - not something that just gets OOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHs and AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHs.

 

We all know how programmers work. Especially the google generation. They simplify the problem to the point they can write the program. Then reality intrudes and special cases need to get handled. The program grows out of control as more and more features are added until it mostly works and we just deal with it. Then the original programmers go get better jobs and the "big ball of mud" is left to be maintained by staff from one of those H1B shops.

The reason humans can drive at all is because we are instinctively able to avoid collisions ( for the most part ). Observe a big city sidewalk to see how this works. We observe (and transmit) subtle clues via body language and pass each other safely.

The road environment is just too complicated for our programming skills to deal with. At least until roads are rebuilt with guide wires or similar as Glenn suggests.

See: http://laputan.org/mud/