Yeh. Having a blindspot in front is a good ideaUber self-driving death may have been due to lidar blind spot
* Lidar sensors cut due to 'cost' giving the car a blind spot.
* Disabled radar software.
Not good.
People are going on about how autonomous cars will mean freeing up streets and the end of car parks and all this nonsense. It won’t be like that at all. If anything there will be more cars on the road.
Instead of leaving at 730 and driving Freddie to prep school, then dropping Samantha off at high school, and then going on to the office, mummy will simply plonk each of them in a self driver at 8am, and then get another self-driver to work. The family get an extra half-hour together but three cars are needed during the rush hour instead of one. No one will want to use these cars during the day as they’ll all be at school/work, so they’ll have to be parked up somewhere, just as they will at night time.
So a self-driving Uber then. They might as well put a talking doll at the wheelBut you won’t own those cars. Uber or whoever will. They won’t be parked outside your house or work. You you want a car you’ll send for it from your phone. You’ll have options of picking up people on the way to be cheaper. Or a better class of car/on your own.
I doubt kids will be allowed to travel on their own under a certain age.
The story doesn't discuss what the legal status would have been if the man in question had been spotted in the driver's seat but with his hands visibly away from the steering wheel and seemly having surrendered control of the car to its computer.
I was under the impression that autonomous driving is still illegal in this country but can't help thinking there is a surprisingly lax attitude from the authorities about autonomous vehicles. I would have expected a statement from the authorities on them a long time ago, seeing as such vehicles are now operated on British roads. I couldn't blame their owners for genuinely thinking they are allowed to engage the autonomous driving feature.
For a country that legislates against the most ludicrous things (such as not being allowed to touch your smartphone's screen when being used as a sat nav and mounted on the dashboard, exactly as you would with a sat nav device), I really don't get the lack of concern about sel-driving cars.
The country didn't legislate against such things, it's simply that the law - against using any communication devices, introduced decades ago - hasn't kept pace with technological realities. You might think that pedantry but it's quite important.The story doesn't discuss what the legal status would have been if the man in question had been spotted in the driver's seat but with his hands visibly away from the steering wheel and seemly having surrendered control of the car to its computer.
I was under the impression that autonomous driving is still illegal in this country but can't help thinking there is a surprisingly lax attitude from the authorities about autonomous vehicles. I would have expected a statement from the authorities on them a long time ago, seeing as such vehicles are now operated on British roads. I couldn't blame their owners for genuinely thinking they are allowed to engage the autonomous driving feature.
For a country that legislates against the most ludicrous things (such as not being allowed to touch your smartphone's screen when being used as a sat nav and mounted on the dashboard, exactly as you would with a sat nav device), I really don't get the lack of concern about sel-driving cars.
Not technically true. I've seen level 4 vehicles out on public roads, mixed with conventional traffic (vehicles, pedestrians, etc). They are however not available to the public - they are R&D test beds being run by research groups which are being 'babysat' whilst they collect data.There are no level 4 or 5 autonomous vehicles ( level 5 being actually what we think about as a car which drives itself ), and even if there are there is nowhere in Europe it could be used on public roads.
I am not sure I agree. Innovation in automotive could be argued to be typically incremental, so for example we had ABS and ASR slowly creeping in across ranges, Airbags in top end cars first, cruise control, bit by bit. And these are arguably steps towards self driving cars, small steps. Sat nav.Semi-autonomous seems like a really stupid idea. Either it is or isn't, a grey area is stupid.
And yet some car makers are promoting cars with automatic parking, which would seem an incremental step towards autonomy.Driver aids are one thing, but encouraging hands-free driving is another.
Where we are at the moment is certainly a ridiculous place. We have cars that steer and cruise themselves ... sometimes ... maybe. They require oversight by a competent driver 100% of the time who has to notice when the system limits are reached and take over. Most reasonable drivers would likely find that properly and attentively monitoring a “self driving” car and constantly having to be ready to step in, is more stressful than driving the fucking thing. If a driver can’t confidently and legally go to sleep on a journey, how much use are these systems?Semi-autonomous seems like a really stupid idea. Either it is or isn't, a grey area is stupid.
This problem has a name: the paradox of automation. It applies in a wide variety of contexts, from the operators of nuclear power stations to the crew of cruise ships, from the simple fact that we can no longer remember phone numbers because we have them all stored in our mobile phones, to the way we now struggle with mental arithmetic because we are surrounded by electronic calculators. The better the automatic systems, the more out-of-practice human operators will be, and the more extreme the situations they will have to face. The psychologist James Reason, author of Human Error, wrote: “Manual control is a highly skilled activity, and skills need to be practised continuously in order to maintain them. Yet an automatic control system that fails only rarely denies operators the opportunity for practising these basic control skills … when manual takeover is necessary something has usually gone wrong; this means that operators need to be more rather than less skilled in order to cope with these atypical conditions.”
The paradox of automation, then, has three strands to it. First, automatic systems accommodate incompetence by being easy to operate and by automatically correcting mistakes. Because of this, an inexpert operator can function for a long time before his lack of skill becomes apparent – his incompetence is a hidden weakness that can persist almost indefinitely. Second, even if operators are expert, automatic systems erode their skills by removing the need for practice. Third, automatic systems tend to fail either in unusual situations or in ways that produce unusual situations, requiring a particularly skilful response. A more capable and reliable automatic system makes the situation worse.
If that handover can be done remotely, then just a handful of "drivers" could oversee thousands of cars.