I presume the engineers in charge of such things as automatic braking take into account false sensor readings.

I'd hate to be killed because a sensor decided I was about to hit something when I'm going down the interstate at 70 MPH and it was a false reading...

My computer is so laden with anti-virus programs now that i can barely surf this interweb thing, and still a new attack form gets through now and again. How many cars will slow down to 3 mph or deliberately ignore red lights while the dashboard explains what a great deal on viagra is now available or when some hacker decides your flaming death in a pile of wreckage is good for a few laughs.

Governments will not find this robot car idea attractive because it brings order and safety, but because it will bring control over those pesky citizens who have the freedom to move without permission.

I remember thinking up the idea of automated driving when I was about 9 or so. I decided it was a bad idea because people will stop paying attention and not notice if the computer makes a mistake or malfunctions. I wasn't comfortable at that age with putting my life into a computer's hand with so many moving pieces.

However, I did decide that if you could make cars more like individual pods and arrange tracks instead of roads, you could program a route into a pod and have a mechanical system to deal with intersection (sort of like the way a coin-sorter works). I never fully developed the idea because I decided I would never persuade people to change the roads, which is what would have to happen. I did, however, devise a way to hook the pods up so families could travel together.

The big advantages of the pod-cars were size and speed. You could go faster because you are on a track and can ONLY have a collision at intersections (imagine how fast highways would be!), and the roads wouldn't need to be so wide, so there'd be advantages in lots of things including storm-water management. Also, police would be free to deal with crime and safety instead of dealing with auto accidents and escorting funeral processions (I see a lot of that here on the big roads and there's usually about 10 officers involved at once).

Clearly, fourth grade was not interesting enough to hold my attention. :)

Love the way people casually throw around the phrase "moral imperative" after any tragedy ... and then propose yet another government regulation.

However, I did decide that if you could make cars more like individual pods and arrange tracks instead of roads, you could program a route into a pod.... ~ Posted by: Shannon M. Howell at June 11, 2014 8:24 AM

I started coming up with something similar around junior high after watching one of the vacuum tube mail delivery systems.

You would call for a car (about the size of a sedan) to come to your house and it would use some kind of tube to get about. On long journeys, several cars could be linked together for higher speeds.

Every once in a while I revisit the idea and try to work out the kinks - miles of tubing, number of cars, reaching non-tubed destinations, multiple car calls to the same address, multiple destinations, intersections, cars leaving and entering various transit jurisdictions, power supply, staging areas for unused cars, switching and route controls, and the mechanics of reaching one's destination.

I'm skeptical. Those automatic flush toilets always go off while I'm still seated and spray my butt. Then when I leave then don't go off and I have to push the button. Then the water in the automatic sinks won't come on. I feel like most of the times with automatic doodads, I have to override the system manually.

NicoleK, you don't love doing jazz hands to try and get a paper towel out of the dispenser?

Or having to wave your arms in the conference room when working in there because the sensor only detects drastic movement?

Or finally getting that flimsy tissue toilet seat cover laid out flat on the seat only to have the toilet flush it away because you turned around?

http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/20000/0000/800/20898/20898.strip.zoom.gif

Several years ago, a Washington Metrorail train was operating under computer control, as is standard practice. Weather conditions were icy, and the driver asked for permission to switch the train to manual operation. He was denied.

The interaction between the Metro central computer system which was sending commands to the train, and the system on the train itself, was such that the speed selection did not properly compensate for longer stopping conditions with icy rails. The train slid into one that was stopped at the next station, killing the driver.

Automatic control of trains, a single-degree-of-freedom transportation mode operating in a tightly-controlled environment, is far simpler than automatic control of cars and trucks. Even automatic control of aircraft is in some ways simpler than that of road vehicles: airplanes don't normally have other traffic a few feet away, or kids and bicycles running out in front.

Unionized truck drivers have been dragging America into the toilet for far too long. This will solve that problem and many others.

I for one hail our new robot overlords and offer to help round up the naysayers to toil in their lithium mines.

NO!

A backup warning, maybe - at least a noise added to back-up lights.

But auto0braking? And just how is that "lane drifting" thing supposed to work?

I have been objecting to a number of "automatic" systems with no manual override for years. Last week one of my peeves made the national news - the electrical system shorted out, and occupants could not open the doors! Or, of course, open the windows as they do not even have handles for opening - but doors do, yet they do not operate manually???

> I'd hate to be killed because a sensor decided I was about to hit something when I'm going down the interstate at 70 MPH and it was a false reading

I R A, there are one of two possibilities:

(1) The more expensive autonomous cars will have extra redundant sensors and control systems (like airplanes), while cheaper cars will not, and you'll be able to get higher levels of safety if you can afford it (like now - more expensive cars have more safety features).

(2) People will be all 'ooh, government, please make them super-duper safe because I am scared of everything', and there will be regulations forcing all manufacturers to include redundant sensors, in which case they will all be expensive.

EITHER way, the odds of a sensor failing (while it can happen - all machinery can fail) are FAR, FAR lower - by multiple orders of magnitude - than the odds of another human driver failing and killing you because they were drunk or texting.

> Automatic control of trains, a single-degree-of-freedom transportation mode operating in a tightly-controlled environment, is far simpler than automatic control of cars and trucks

Autonomous cars don't have to be perfect (they can't be, it's impossible) - they only have to be better than human drivers. And that's a VERY low bar to meet, I assure you. I've actually done programming work on autonomous vehicle control systems; I think we are quite near to the point when autonomous cars will surpass human drivers (I'd guess 5 years to 20 years at most). In some respects they already have.

> Love the way people casually throw around the phrase "moral imperative" after any tragedy

The notion that there exists a 'moral imperative' for autonomous cars is utterly barbaric. The typical fascist mentality we have today that everybody everywhere should be forced to do things all the time, whether they like it or not. There is a moral imperative to put anyone in jail who tries to force you to drive an autonomous car if you prefer not to.

[Shannon] decided it was a bad idea because people will stop paying attention and not notice if the computer makes a mistake or malfunctions.

That is very perceptive. One of the biggest causes of modern airliner mishaps is "pilot out of the loop". Overall, air travel is safer with modern autopilots; however, the nut that still needs cracking is the consequent lack of vigilance by the human what's supposed to be in charge.

[Lobster:] I've actually done programming work on autonomous vehicle control systems; I think we are quite near to the point when autonomous cars will surpass human drivers (I'd guess 5 years to 20 years at most).

As much as I like to drive, and think I'm most perfectly excellent at it, there is no doubting that most people view it as a chore, and would be happily shot of it.

Autonomous vehicles will make completely useless the already ridiculous notion of high speed rail. In LA, set your San Francisco into your semi-autonomous vehicle. You might have to drive it to I5, but once there it could join a pack of other cars, do the NASCAR drafting thing, and go 100 mph for the same fuel consumption as 65.

Which would make CA's high speed rail line every bit as sensible as Concorde.

I've seen a rather impressive demonstration of the technology that exists for self-driving cars. I find myself wondering what kind of problems we'll have if every car has that.

And aren't cars supposed to be flying some time soon?

The big problem with automated driving is that most traffic fatalities don't occur on the interstate at high speed. Most traffic fatalities occur on secondary roads at moderate speeds. In order for an automated system to be worthwhile from a safety standpoint, it has to be able to work pretty much everywhere. That's a harder problem than just making it work on high-speed, limited-access highways.

That said, the technology is pretty much there, and has been for a while. (I worked on an automated-driving project in grad school in the early '90s.) What's not there is the legal regime that will make the business risk manageable. That hasn't changed (except in a negative way) and I don't expect it to in my lifetime.