GM needs help from Congress to spin up production of smooth-dashed driverless cars.
Read the whole story
Read the whole story
Congress debates allowing tens of thousands of cars with no steering wheel
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Not intentionally, but nobody does stupid like humans driving.
https://meincmagazine.com/cars/2018/03/ub ... ittsburgh/
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
It sort of makes intuitive sense that rear facing seats would be safer. Suddenly deceleration would press the seated body into the back of the seat instead of flying out of it.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
I don't know, but I can't seem to find any NHTSA or IIHS data on the subject for adults.
Admittedly I don't remember where I heard about rear-facing seats so it may have been something from an earlier era or a particular vehicle that did them poorly.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
A much better analogy is aircraft autopilot systems, which have been in use for decades, and are generally far more reliable than typical computer or phone software in terms of hangups or crashes. The NTSB already performs a detailed investigation of every fatal plane crash, and I'd love to see a comparison of the number of deaths caused by "software hangup" vs pilot error. I'm not aware of any actual deaths caused by a software hangup, while I know of several examples of human error causing a crash.
Upvote
6
(8
/
-2)
Upvote
10
(15
/
-5)
That's great from a safety standpoint, but facing backwards tends to *really* freak some people out. I know people who will refuse to sit on any of the rear facing seats of a train for instance.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
I think you're foreseeing everyone owning a self-driving car. I would -love- an Uber competitor that is self-driving in my city. I could get rid of my vehicle and could save money using the self-driving system (assuming self-driving decreases costs).
I don't need it to work in -most- locations because 95% of my car time is spent driving from home to work and back again. It only has to navigate the city streets in between and I don't need it when I get home. That's the plus.
Anyone living in a rural area will still need a personal vehicle because of lag time to call a ride, but imagine a city of 1 million that instead of every human owning a car that we could drop to 50% because most of our driving time could be taken care of via the car fleet or removing 20% of parking. That would improve our cities by a large margin.
The hardest thing that self-driving vehicles will have to fight is the US mentality of owning a vehicle. It's going to be as much of a cultural fight as a technological one.
Upvote
3
(8
/
-5)
As to the latter, they'll have full access to all the data needed to dismiss any attempted lawsuit with proof of manual override. And the former, well, passengers now are often non-licensed drivers that include the blind (really? you think a blind person is going to move a steering wheel?), elderly, kids, etc. And while they may bitch at you, I've never had one attempt to actually override control of the vehicle. Most of the use cases of these vehicles are taxi like purposes too, so you're likely going to have the passengers in rear seats where they can't interfere.
Now as to what the companies get out of it - long term, nothing. But autodriving systems are most definitely not completed yet. So I don't see why having manual options available is such a bad thing in the intervening time. It's not like having normal driving equipment is stopping all the companies from developing autodriving technology to date. All it really does is cut the costs for the manufacturer by some amount.
I feel like a false dichotomy is being presented here of "give us free reign from these regulations that are cutting our profits, or we won't be able to develop driverless vehicles". Long term I don't doubt that vehicles will get rid of manual controls in most cases, but I'm not sure that time is now. Loathe as I am to agree with Feinstein about something.
It's an interesting discussion though.
Upvote
1
(4
/
-3)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
An even more direct factor is that all modern jets have some level of flybywire. If you fly in a passenger jet you are "gamble with my kid's life or anyone else's life that the software is 100% safe".
A catastrophic failure of the very hardened and redundant flight computer in a modern passenger jet and you die. It is that simple however millions of people fly everyday because the computer don't have catastrophic failures anymore than they have simultaneous catastrophic failures of both engines simultaneously.
Upvote
11
(13
/
-2)
Yeah, but what about loose items from the rear that go flying forward?
I'd much rather those strike the back of my seat than my face.
The obvious answer would be to secure everything, but that's just not going to happen.
I'd hate to have a soft drink can, tablet, groceries, etc. embedded in my forehead.
Upvote
-13
(1
/
-14)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
Like you said these are taxis. The passenger is not allowed to use the controls so why leave them in? Waymo uses modified chrysler minivans but rather than being able to seat 7 it can only seat 5. One seat is lost due to the additional AV equipment and a second seat is unusable because it is the driver's seat. They don't let anyone sit in the 'driver's seat' for a number of factors including legal issues.
Removing the controls and making the driver's seat just another seat allows it to carry an additional passenger.
Upvote
4
(6
/
-2)
Government needs to first define what a self-driving and autonomous car is along with which tests it must pass to operate on the road.
Should it be able to drive a person to a cabin in the woods where it must go off road?
Should it be able to handle heavy rain and or snow storm?
Should it be able to handle new construction areas that are not on a map?
For me a autonomous car must be like an autonomous person and be capable of all of those.
Should it be able to drive a person to a cabin in the woods where it must go off road?
Should it be able to handle heavy rain and or snow storm?
Should it be able to handle new construction areas that are not on a map?
For me a autonomous car must be like an autonomous person and be capable of all of those.
Upvote
-2
(5
/
-7)
I don't have quite so much faith in vehicle autopilots as plane autopilots. My concern is that Boeing, Airbus, et al actually have a history of doing a good job vetting their hardware/software systems and ensuring that there is sufficient redundancy. There's also the NTSB and FAA that will make filet-o-fish out of anyone arrogant or dumb enough to allow an easily preventable crash to occur.
Compare to the auto industry where they ship out vehicles with defective accelerators and totally unsecured software and steering wheels that fall off and gas tanks that explode when hit and airbags that don't work with little if any consequences to face. It's not an insurmountable problem, but the regulatory structure needs to reflect the additional responsibility borne by these corporations for public safety now that they design both the driver and the vehicle.
Upvote
14
(16
/
-2)
I'm not familiar with her politics, so can't speak for the accuracy of the statement, but it's important to remember that insult=/=ad hominen, I can call someone a cunt without that implying their policies are bad because of it.
Also a wikipedia search does seem to suggest "corporatist, authoritarian psuedoliberal" is a fairly honest description, based on her support for PATRIOT, and FISA at least.
Upvote
1
(13
/
-12)
Upvote
0
(11
/
-11)
I think one of the big deals is they are removing the steering wheel and pedals, but still making it look like a normal car. Once you are taking human control away, why are they still bothering to do things like face all seats forward and have glass windows.
Imagine how much safer we could make cars if they weren't built around a human needing to be in control and see all around them. I would bet full metal / carbon fiber cars would be much safer. In addition, we do not need our safety systems to be entirely post-crash reactive. The car will know if it is going to crash even if it deems there is nothing that it can do to avoid it. This lets things like seatbelts that crank down or airbags that can deploy more slowly come into play if you have 2 seconds before a crash and not the 1/10th of a second that our systems have now to react after you hit that tree before you die. I am sure people smarter than me could come up with even better safety. Fill the whole cabin with gel or something idk.
I get that the concept of no windows probably scares people, but they could very easily have cameras and oled screens that let you see out just as well or probably better if they show you things like infrared at night.
Imagine how much safer we could make cars if they weren't built around a human needing to be in control and see all around them. I would bet full metal / carbon fiber cars would be much safer. In addition, we do not need our safety systems to be entirely post-crash reactive. The car will know if it is going to crash even if it deems there is nothing that it can do to avoid it. This lets things like seatbelts that crank down or airbags that can deploy more slowly come into play if you have 2 seconds before a crash and not the 1/10th of a second that our systems have now to react after you hit that tree before you die. I am sure people smarter than me could come up with even better safety. Fill the whole cabin with gel or something idk.
I get that the concept of no windows probably scares people, but they could very easily have cameras and oled screens that let you see out just as well or probably better if they show you things like infrared at night.
Upvote
4
(9
/
-5)
There is a direct correlation between how much government power is lost/gained and how much support Feinstein gives it. Banning all guns? Rabid support. Reducing burdens on testing a new, life-saving technology whose success would dwarf every gun murder? Fuck you.
I despise her and all the other limousine liberal shitheads that proclaim support for shit like minorities and freedom and what-have-you then turn around and support secret courts and mass surveillance that will be used expressly and exclusively to suppress those same things.
Upvote
4
(15
/
-11)
Forward looking municipalities and cities can form private/public partnerships to make roadways autonomous ready. The advantages of fully autonomous are numerous, from efficiency, security, reduction of congestion ect...
Upvote
-5
(0
/
-5)
Indeed, experiments with aircraft crash safety have shown it's far safer to travel facing backwards but many people just don't like the idea and commercial pressures have prevented it from being adopted ( plus some cost issues, seats need higher backs, as much as anything to prevent you from getting your overhead luggage in the face, and also the seat mountings need to be much stronger. RAF transport aircraft (the VC10 for one) used to have the seats mounted facing backwards for this reason- but their passengers don't get to chose airline!
Would you prefer crash loads spread over your entire back or just taken by a seatbelt and maybe an airbag?
On the issue of autonomous cars I must say I'm very much on the fence. Yes, they probably will save the lives of some people but will almost certainly kill others. You cannot apply statistics to individuals: While the computer systems will be better than average drivers, they will almost certainly not be good as the best humans- this is an general observation with most 'automatic' systems. When things get tough what does an aircraft autopilot do? It switches off and hands control to the human. In the air you usually have time to take over but on the road?
The other very big issue is civil liberties. It's what every totalitarian state would dream about, knowing where all the pesky people are all of the time. You want to stop a demonstration or political rally? just make the transit system not go there and make the steering wheel less autonomous cars take you to the police station instead of the meeting place for the demo, or just not take you where you asked it to go.
Upvote
10
(11
/
-1)
Minor correction. Computers onboard aircraft do have catastrophic failures.
But they're triple, quadruple (or more!) redundant in commercial airliners, and operate such if one starts shooting off erroneous data or commands then the majority rules and the failed component is ignored.
As to the OP's point about software or computers vs pilot error, I can think of two instances, one saved after the autopilot was disengaged and another one that was fatal (both Airbus), where software/hardware went off the rails. But almost all aviation disasters are human error, be it the pilots or ground maintenance crews. Air travel is far safer thanks to automation, and I suspect could be automated much easier than cars could be -- and air cargo may very well be (just as tractor-trailers, cargo vessels and trains will be or already are).
My understanding is Tesla's telemetry shows their version of supercruise, or whatever, is much safer per mile than human driving. So to me, a level of autonomous driving is already settled science. I thereby stick by using the word Luddites.
Upvote
1
(5
/
-4)
I would feel fairly comfortable riding in a wheel- and pedal-less car on roads in places like Disney World. On the highway, not so much.
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
At least removing normal vehicle controls (over-ride buttons will always be necessary) will make it very clear that the manufacturer or fleet operator, not any of the passengers, is liable for all damages caused by the car's actions. This alone should restrain reckless optimism in pushing schedules beyond actual capabilities.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
It's a valid point, but unfortunately, in many instances of a largely two-party system, it is not really an option to vote against the person you disagree with and it is instead the choice of voting for who you least disagree with or whose policy encompasses your most important goals despite perhaps many other detractions. The "hold-your-nose" system.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
You have to look at the voting record in its entirety. If a Republican is for 3 things I support and against 97 that is worse than a Democrat who is for 60 things I support and against 40. Also not everything I support has equal weighting. I put a lower value on GMO labeling than I do marriage equality for example.
For the record if I live in Feinstein's district I would be supporting a primary challenge against her.
Upvote
20
(22
/
-2)
I am very much against this. There needs to be a fall back control system for these vehicles in case of the system freaking out.
Yes let's remove all feeling from the control surfaces and have "artificial weight" for steering, throttle and brake application. That way the first owner has to struggle with getting used to the car. The second owner does the same and gets tired of it after a few years so it the time the third owner who can't afford a new car buys it the wiring is 10 years old and something fails catastrophically WTH no prior warning that it was going to do so.
These aren't planes that have a small army of techs go over it for three hours for every hour of flight it has. These are vehicles that need the most primative and robust control system that gives us constant feedback so we know everything from the car dogging out when we apply the throttle to "I have a flat and it's probably on the steering side of things because the steering wheel shakes" instead of "well I feel it in my butt. Wonder which one it is?
Yes let's remove all feeling from the control surfaces and have "artificial weight" for steering, throttle and brake application. That way the first owner has to struggle with getting used to the car. The second owner does the same and gets tired of it after a few years so it the time the third owner who can't afford a new car buys it the wiring is 10 years old and something fails catastrophically WTH no prior warning that it was going to do so.
These aren't planes that have a small army of techs go over it for three hours for every hour of flight it has. These are vehicles that need the most primative and robust control system that gives us constant feedback so we know everything from the car dogging out when we apply the throttle to "I have a flat and it's probably on the steering side of things because the steering wheel shakes" instead of "well I feel it in my butt. Wonder which one it is?
Upvote
9
(12
/
-3)
It takes pushes like this from GM to begin that change though. If they didn't start talking about it seriously until everything was ready to go it would take even longer to gain wider public acceptance. By talking about it now and pushing for it sooner rather than later there will be a much better chance that by the time the technology is ready to go, the public will be ready to accept it and the legislation will be in place to regulate it.
Of course there will be hiccups. There'll be a lot of very quick changes in a short period of time as the driving hours quickly rack up and the edge poke their heads out of the bushes. The rate of change (and rate of acceptance of change) will follow the same curve as almost any other technology over the last 100 years.
Is current state-of-the-art technology ready? Maybe not for 100% permeation, but it's definitely ready for some of it. Tomorrow it'll be ready for some more and soon it'll be ready for a lot. It won't take long for it to just be the done thing.
Upvote
0
(6
/
-6)
Let's make like Ford and set aside the steering wheel for a moment. Everyone who drives a hybrid (like me) already has artificially weighted throttle and brake pedals. It works perfectly well, there was exactly zero adjustment period after driving gas cars for 20 years.
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
if they sell a lot of these cars i want to be on the team that designs the retrofit kit. it'll take a lot of work -- and i'll be more comfortable in my retirement -- but we can get these people going again.
Upvote
-7
(0
/
-7)
I'm pretty certain flying would be uneconomical if aircraft required 3 hours of maintenance for every hour of flying. You're not even close to the mark on that one. Fighters as a comparison is not a choice, they'd be better off to be compared against formula 1 cars where they are developed for a very specific purpose and have people checking on things constantly.
You realise that cars get serviced as well, yeah? And that *-by-wire controls have already been installed and used in production cars by the likes of Toyota, Ford, GM and Honda.
Upvote
1
(6
/
-5)
Agreed. It won't take a car 10+ years old for even a single one of these sensors to fail (and there will be multiple given the complexity). Even brand new cars have lots of failures. Just ask any mechanic. Constant maintenance on these will skyrocket costs. If not personally owned, you still pay for it if commercially owned. I would hate to be a mechanic who has to repair these things. It's bad enough with all the junk they are putting on these new vehicles.
And comparing these to self-flying jets is like apples to oranges. They are over-engineered to the hilt to ensure safety, and they still fail. They get constant maintenance and safety checks. These cars will not have any of this. Not to mention if there is a failure that pilots (usually) have plenty of time to regain control and their bearings to recover. Also, in the air there aren't any obstacles to interpret/avoid like the trillions of them experienced by vehicles every day.
I'm not sure why so many here can't grasp what seems like common sense. Although most here probably don't have much, if any, mechanical experience.
Upvote
4
(9
/
-5)
Safer, yes. But how many people do you think would be really comfortable sitting in a car which not only has no driver, but makes it difficult for them to see where they're going, too?
Rear-facing seats would be safer in aircraft and other vehicles too. Doesn't happen, except sometimes on trains.
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
"People are dying by the tens of thousands in car accidents, so we need autonomous vehicles!!"
While I agree with the sentiment, why isn't anyone pushing for more onerous driving tests, so that drivers have to have some level of skill in order to legally operate a vehicle?
While I agree with the sentiment, why isn't anyone pushing for more onerous driving tests, so that drivers have to have some level of skill in order to legally operate a vehicle?
Upvote
3
(9
/
-6)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
It is not really skill it is people not giving a shit. I doubt very few people are surprised to learn that drinking, texting, or speeding is dangerous. More than 70% of fatal traffic accidents involve one of the three.
Regardless of your relative skill if you don't text, drink, or speed you vastly reduce the probability that you will kill someone but people do it anyways. Some people really love to drive and remain engaged while doing it. Most don't and even if they aren't drinking or texting or speeding they are only marginally engaged. Driving is something to be tolerated not enjoyed and they put the absolute bare minimum effort into it. Those drivers could easily pass a test even a retest if you check them every five years but they won't be engaged on the road.
For the record I have no problem with having more stringent testing including periodic retesting, higher insurance requirements, and more severe punishment for bad drivers but that probably won't save as many lives as AV can.
Let people who want to drive, drive and let everyone else have the car drive for them. Win-win.
Upvote
19
(20
/
-1)
Upvote
-1
(1
/
-2)
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
You're not being downvoted for being wrong, you're being downvote for being an uncivil asshole asshole.
Lots of people, including many democrats, agree Feinstein is awful. They are just able to express their displeasure like an adults. I agree Feinstein is a bad politician, but I pretty happily downvoted you because I don't want people to think that you speak for people that dislike Feinstein.
I'm sick of people that can't disagree like an adult and have to resort to childish name calling, regardless if I agree with their position or not. Shutting down jerks like you that can't disagree with civility, even when I agree with the position, is just me doing my part to unfuck politics.
Everyone should join me, no matter what side of politics you are on. People like you are a large part of what's wrong with politics today.
Upvote
21
(25
/
-4)
I could see that being a challenge, but it's a silly one. Getting into a rear-facing seat on the left is geometrically equivalent to getting into a front-facing seat on the right. Might need to change the door shape a bit is all, or go with rear-hinged doors (yay, suicide doors!).
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
That's for small children-babies. For adults is better tout face forward in the case of an accident, the brain can get internal lessions easily In the rear collisions. The human body is not constructed to deal with speeds over 40km/h
Upvote
-6
(1
/
-7)
I've been using computers since I was about 12 years old, and professionally for 25 or so years. I also work on my own vehicles, and most of my family are mechanics professionally (many at dealerships). Several of us restore (muscle cars) and work/build/upgrade our own cars. I have also driven offroad for nearly all of my life. I have a lot of insight in both worlds.
Many here don't heed safety concerns in the name of technology.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
- Status