Self Driving Cars: How well do they work in areas with haphazard driving rules?

[tszaboo]

We already have an example of this:  In California, early adopters of the Prius were allowed to drive in the HOV lane with no passengers.  Now that privilege is restricted to just a certain number of hybrids and will soon disappear entirely.  And it should!  One of the latest Prius cars has a 1.3 kWh battery that lasts just a couple of miles.  The gasoline engine is running all the time.  Even calling it a hybrid is a joke.  The battery is just there to absorb the regenerative braking.

It has a more efficient engine, Atkinson cycle, that wouldn't work without the hibrid system, 0.25 drag ratio, more efficient air conditioning etc. On pure electric, city use, mine goes 2km. Sure that is not a lot. You cannot even charge it, but it is not only break regen, it will switch on and off the petrol engine if the speed is so. I got 56 MGP while not driving like a moving roadblock. That car is about getting the most energy from fuel, and making the smallest pollution possible while doing. Which is a lot more than the average car company does. Take for example Ford, who dares to call a 3.5L turbocharged engine "eco".

[Johnny10]

What type of algorithm could account for a reckless driver in another car?
Or 70 other drivers during rush hour with everyone wanting to do 80MPH.
Something I see every few minutes on I4 Orlando, FL during rush periods.

I would like a look at that predictive AI.






 

[james_s]

You dont need to get rid of the human drivers. Although, you should, it would speed up the road network. You cannot get rid of the cyclists or pedestrians from the road. I know, these things are unknown in the USA. But a level 5 car for sure needs to be prepared to it. Even some level 2 handles them. Why would you need a separate network?
Volvo claims that nobody would die or get injured in their self driving car. They claim that as soon as 2020 they can do this.

Cyclists and pedestrians are all over the place in the US, at least out in my area when the weather is pleasant.

As much as I love Volvo's older products, they're smoking something if they think they'll have practical fully autonomous cars by 2020. Maybe by 2040 if the idea really catches on and isn't a passing fad that gets killed by disappointment or spectacular failures.

[rstofer]

What type of algorithm could account for a reckless driver in another car?
Or 70 other drivers during rush hour with everyone wanting to do 80MPH.
Something I see every few minutes on I4 Orlando, FL during rush periods.

I would like a look at that predictive AI.

In every case, the reaction time of the AI will be superior to humans.  The algorithms have no ego, they'll just let the other car slide in.  Addle brained drivers don't always respond well to reckless drivers either.  Oh, and algorithms never drift when a favorite song comes up on the radio.  Nor do they reach down to pick up a tape and wipe out 5 bicyclists riding on the edge of the pavement.

Nearly 40 years ago, a VP of a major semiconductor company told me "Never bet against technology!".  So far, he's been right.  The discussion at the time concerned the power requirements of mainframe computers and whether megaflops vesus kW could be radically diminished.  Obviously it can, look at what we're using today!

[rstofer]

Cyclists and pedestrians are all over the place in the US, at least out in my area when the weather is pleasant.

Darwin had a theory that basically says that cyclists and pedestrians will evolve to avoid cars rather than the other way around.

Many areas are creating dedicated bike lanes.  It's a good bet the AI will be able to distinguish these at some point.  That won't help the "Critical Mass" folks in San Francisco because it is their intent to create traffic problems.  Here, Darwin will be the solution.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Critical-Mass-is-dying-of-self-inflicted-wounds-6481511.php

I haven't followed the chaos since I retired in 2003 but it used to be a rolling riot (not the fun kind).  I didn't work in SF but I sure sympathized with the poor schmucks just trying to get home from work.

[tszaboo]

Cyclists and pedestrians are all over the place in the US, at least out in my area when the weather is pleasant.

As much as I love Volvo's older products, they're smoking something if they think they'll have practical fully autonomous cars by 2020. Maybe by 2040 if the idea really catches on and isn't a passing fad that gets killed by disappointment or spectacular failures.

I just mock you Americans a little bit  , dont take it too hard.

Volvo does not claim a fully autonomous level 5 car. They claim that driver assist will be so advanced that major accidents can be totally avoided. Like pre-crash breaking and such.

Coming to think of it, right now, I pay more for insurance than pertol. If they would significantly reduce insurance on a level 3-4 self driving cars, the extra systems would pay their price in a few years. Plus, you know, the not dieing in the car is a big plus. They made seatbelts, airbags, ABS and ESP mandatory. Its not sci-fi to make other systems, mandatory too.

[Johnny10]

I still think there is a simplification of the problems.
Sensors don't exist that can laterally see through four metallic cars in parallel lanes on say a five lane thruway.
How is the car sensor going to know where a car is going to be that is blocked by other cars?
How is an algorithm going to avoid a car being pushed into my car by an accident two lanes over?
Braking is of no use from side collision.

I am not saying it is not going to happen sometime in the future. I just don't see it soon.
I live and breath technology.
I guess my curiosity is in the knowledge of the details.

[rstofer]

I still think there is a simplification of the problems.
Sensors don't exist that can laterally see through four metallic cars in parallel lanes on say a five lane thruway.

Neither can a human driver if they're paying attention to their child in the rear seat.  One thing about AI and cameras, they aren't distracted.  But if the scene is blocked, whether camera or Mk I eyeballs, it won't be seen.

How is the car sensor going to know where a car is going to be that is blocked by other cars?
How is an algorithm going to avoid a car being pushed into my car by an accident two lanes over?
Braking is of no use from side collision.

Can a distracted human do any better?  It wouldn't seem so.

We can already see a reduction in parking lot accidents (I'm just guessing) due to backup alarms and cameras.  We should be seeing a reduction in lane change accidents due to lane change cameras and proximity warnings.  For certain, there should be a reduction in rear-end collisions at stop lights/signs.  My Bolt will even apply the brakes if I fail to do so.  This will also work where right lane traffic stops when a slow driver tries to turn into a mall parking lot.

We're making great strides in reducing the most common accidents.  We are not ever going to anticipate a tractor/trailer crashing over the side of a bridge onto a multi-lane freeway.  There will still be accidents.  Just the fact that a small percentage of cars have collision avoidance features will be a great help.  After all, it takes at least 2 cars to have a collision.

What is going to happen is that the slight injury accidents will decline to near zero.  The fatalities will remain unchanged.  Head-on collisions from drunk drivers driving the wrong way on a freeway will be difficult to overcome.  All the AI can do is try to change lanes and reduce speed.  But at least it won't be distracted or confused.

[sokoloff]

It will take a while to get rid of the non-automated cars but we'll do it through legislation just like we got rid of the gross polluters and we'll use the same logic.  The older cars prevent efficient use of the roadway and lead to increased pollution so we'll just make the pollution laws increasingly difficult to pass until only electric cars with a barn full of electronics can pass.

I admit to not being familiar with the rules in California, but I have two classic Mustangs and know a lot of classic Mustang owners in California. My understanding is that those cars are not subject to tailpipe emissions testing anymore, and even when they had been, they were only required to meet the emissions standards present at the time of vehicle manufacture (which for 1965 and 1966 were quite loose, no catalytic converters, spec'd to run on leaded fuel of the time, etc.)

I'm very familiar with the laws of my home state (Massachusetts) and my prior home state (New Hampshire). Neither state requires emissions testing (both permit but do not practically require a visual inspection); MA now requires ODB2-equipped (1996 and later, generally) cars/light trucks to be in the "ready" and "no emissions faults" state.

Or we will restrict non-automated vehicles to off-peak hours.

Seems simple to me!

Seizing (or substantially economically impairing) the property of others often does.

Telling poor people that they are no longer allowed to commute in their cars during commuting hours without purchasing a new car is unlikely to carry the vote when the payoff is letting rich people drive level 5 cars without hindrance.

[rstofer]

It will take a while to get rid of the non-automated cars but we'll do it through legislation just like we got rid of the gross polluters and we'll use the same logic.  The older cars prevent efficient use of the roadway and lead to increased pollution so we'll just make the pollution laws increasingly difficult to pass until only electric cars with a barn full of electronics can pass.

I admit to not being familiar with the rules in California, but I have two classic Mustangs and know a lot of classic Mustang owners in California. My understanding is that those cars are not subject to tailpipe emissions testing anymore, and even when they had been, they were only required to meet the emissions standards present at the time of vehicle manufacture (which for 1965 and 1966 were quite loose, no catalytic converters, spec'd to run on leaded fuel of the time, etc.)

All of the above is true but I'm not sure about the dates.  As you say, different vehicles years have different requirements, usually based on the year of the engine.  A '32 Ford with a modern V8 will need to meet the 'modern' requirements.

Or we will restrict non-automated vehicles to off-peak hours.

Seems simple to me!

Seizing (or substantially economically impairing) the property of others often does.

Telling poor people that they are no longer allowed to commute in their cars during commuting hours without purchasing a new car is unlikely to carry the vote when the payoff is letting rich people drive level 5 cars without hindrance.

It certainly won't carry a vote in California but those old vehicles will die off sooner or later.  Getting even 10 years out of a vehicle is pretty tough!  Sure, there are some very old cars around but they are rare and unlikely to be much of a problem compared to the 10s of thousands of newer cars commuting to work.

We did have a federally funded "Cash For Clunkers" program but, unless renewed, it will expire in August:
http://www.bankrate.com/auto/6-steps-to-cash-for-clunkers/

California has a separate program funded by the Bureau of Automotive Repair that has several options and the truly needy get a higher cap ($1500) versus the standard $1000.  But, essentially, the car has to run long enough to get to the collection point.

Sooner or later, the clunkers will be off the road.  It might take 10 years or so but eventually the 2017 cars will be considered 'old'.

There is an example in Germany where the .gov is telling owners of certain diesel cars that they can't drive them into the cities during certain times of the year.

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/02/23/stuttgart-germany-begin-selective-banning-diesel-cars-high-pollution-periods-2018/

Basically, if you live in Germany and buy a German made diesel car, you can't drive it in certain towns in Germany because the EU is Brussels thinks it's a bad idea.  It probably is but still...  What about the poor schmucks who put a lot of money into buying the German made diesel car?

[nfmax]

An autonomous vehicle would have been unlikely to bring about the Great Heck rail crash https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heck_rail_crash, in which 10 people died when a driver fell asleep. No other (road) vehicles were involved. The resulting insurance claims are used as a textbook example of why reinsurance is essential.

[tszaboo]

Basically, if you live in Germany and buy a German made diesel car, you can't drive it in certain towns in Germany because the EU is Brussels thinks it's a bad idea.  It probably is but still...  What about the poor schmucks who put a lot of money into buying the German made diesel car?

It has nothing to do with the EU, it is a local decision. To ban cars, that emit 50 times the NOx of regular, nice EURO 6 cars. I wish they would do it here also.
And you probably dont realise, but poor smucks in their shitty cars have no money to have a shitty car. Mandatory yearly inspection + tax + insurance sets you back about 1500 USD per year, and fuel costs twice than the US. And if you break your shitty car, just a little bit, it usually sold to east europe or goes into the junkyard, because repair will cost more than the value of the car. And you need repairs otherwise you dont pass mandatory yearly inspection.
So yeah, not a lot of rusty big smoking ugly diesel trucks driving around in west europe. And thats OK, we like it that way.

[nctnico]

I still think there is a simplification of the problems.
Sensors don't exist that can laterally see through four metallic cars in parallel lanes on say a five lane thruway.
How is the car sensor going to know where a car is going to be that is blocked by other cars?

I guess my curiosity is in the knowledge of the details.

The technology currently in development will allow cars to communicate which eachother, determine their position way more accurately and also communicate with the infrastructure itself. In the end this will allow cars to use eachothers sensors to get a far more accurate picture of the road than human drivers can and spread traffic flows more evenly across cities. The self driving car as we currently know it is just an intermediate stage.

[james_s]

I still think there is a simplification of the problems.
Sensors don't exist that can laterally see through four metallic cars in parallel lanes on say a five lane thruway.
How is the car sensor going to know where a car is going to be that is blocked by other cars?

I guess my curiosity is in the knowledge of the details.

The technology currently in development will allow cars to communicate which eachother, determine their position way more accurately and also communicate with the infrastructure itself. In the end this will allow cars to use eachothers sensors to get a far more accurate picture of the road than human drivers can and spread traffic flows more evenly across cities. The self driving car as we currently know it is just an intermediate stage.

It will be hacked almost immediately. There are going to be countless incidents of people messing with the system for fun & profit, just look at how many data breaches we're having involving large companies that are supposed to know better. Now watch what happens when it's a bunch of cars rushed out by arrogant and idealistic tech dweebs. I guarantee there will be loads of people with devices to make other cars slow, shut down or otherwise misbehave. Any system *will* be abused.

[james_s]

Cyclists and pedestrians are all over the place in the US, at least out in my area when the weather is pleasant.

Darwin had a theory that basically says that cyclists and pedestrians will evolve to avoid cars rather than the other way around.

Many areas are creating dedicated bike lanes.  It's a good bet the AI will be able to distinguish these at some point.  That won't help the "Critical Mass" folks in San Francisco because it is their intent to create traffic problems.  Here, Darwin will be the solution.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Critical-Mass-is-dying-of-self-inflicted-wounds-6481511.php

I haven't followed the chaos since I retired in 2003 but it used to be a rolling riot (not the fun kind).  I didn't work in SF but I sure sympathized with the poor schmucks just trying to get home from work.

We have a lot of bike lanes out here, but the damn cyclists almost never use them. Pretty much every day I see bicycles riding right on the white line between the car lane and the bike lane, too close for me to pass them safely. That or they're riding in the car lane next to a perfectly good and unoccupied bike lane. They go on about sharing the road but then blast through stop signs, dart in and out of traffic as they please, ride on the sidewalk, ride on the line, frankly I hate cyclists and I say that as a cyclist myself. I'm not one of the spandex wearing fanatics but I do bike around frequently in the summer.

Ah yes, Critical Mass, we call those idiots "Critical Massholes", they're just idiotic hooligans who ride around with a chip on their shoulder looking for an excuse to get in a fight. Bunch of morons, sometimes I wish it was legal to run them over.

[Cerebus]

We have a lot of bike lanes out here, but the damn cyclists almost never use them.

The problem with bike lanes is that they tend to accumulate all the crap, rubber dust, small stones etc. etc. When you've got four tyres all at least 4 inches wide you don't notice this kind of cruft; if you have two tyres that have a contact patch 1/2" wide you do notice it and it's uncomfortable at least, highly dangerous at worst. Cycle lanes are fundamentally a poor idea unless they are routinely swept. The main carriageway gets cleared of all this junk, thrown aside by the tyres of passing vehicles, so it makes a much more inviting surface.

[james_s]

I've heard that argument, I don't know how true it is, but if cyclists are not going to use the bike lanes then we should stop wasting money putting them in and use that space for cars, or to provide a shoulder in case one needs to pull over, etc. The bike fanatics are always demanding more bike lanes and then when countless millions are spent installing them nobody uses them. It's a complete waste.

[JoeN]

We have a lot of bike lanes out here, but the damn cyclists almost never use them.

The problem with bike lanes is that they tend to accumulate all the crap, rubber dust, small stones etc. etc. When you've got four tyres all at least 4 inches wide you don't notice this kind of cruft; if you have two tyres that have a contact patch 1/2" wide you do notice it and it's uncomfortable at least, highly dangerous at worst. Cycle lanes are fundamentally a poor idea unless they are routinely swept. The main carriageway gets cleared of all this junk, thrown aside by the tyres of passing vehicles, so it makes a much more inviting surface.

I have a theory that roadways with cars tend to be self-cleaning if the cars go over a certain speed, probably as little as 30 miles an hour.  When cars hit the crap on the roads, the crap tends to move.  It will either stay on the road or move off it.  If it moves off it, it no longer has cars hitting it so it tends to stay off the roadway.  If it stay on the roadway, it will probably lose the next time or soon, and be off the roadway anyway.  That's why when you see a roadway that is rarely used it tends to be dirty and busy roadways tend to be clean.  Also, those cars are almost certainly moving crap onto bike lanes which probably do not self-clean at a hundredth the rate of the roadway.  I had not thought of that before, too bad that is a problem.

[Someone]

I've heard that argument, I don't know how true it is, but if cyclists are not going to use the bike lanes then we should stop wasting money putting them in and use that space for cars, or to provide a shoulder in case one needs to pull over, etc. The bike fanatics are always demanding more bike lanes and then when countless millions are spent installing them nobody uses them. It's a complete waste.

You don't say which jurisdiction you are in, but universally around the world even where bicycle lanes are required to be used they still have exemptions:
http://animalnewyork.com/2013/fuck-what-you-heard-nyc-cyclists-are-not-bound-by-bike-lanes/
If you'd like to provide examples where cyclists are riding the way you say perhaps it would be illustrative rather than just a asserting that there were no reasons for the cyclists to be away from the kerb (try cycling toward a light post and see how close you would pass by it, amongst traffic).

It's a complete waste.

Yes, installing bicycle lanes that aren't suitable for purpose is a complete waste and only increases the tension between road users. But it keeps going on around the world from planners who have never ridden a bicycle on their own designs.

Some reading for you:
http://www.ohiobikelawyer.com/bike-law-101/2016/05/three-foot-bill-passes-ohio-house/
http://www.executivestyle.com.au/why-bike-riders-sometimes-eschew-their-lanes-gjxy30

[BrianHG]

Avoiding and braking is all I heard about.  What if flooring the gas, going above the speed limit which you may be already traveling at is the only way to avoid an accident, potentially a fatal one.  This has happened to me once at an intersection.  Someone really late running a red light hit the rear of my car as I floored it after being mid way through the intersection noticing him coming toward me above full speed.  If I kept my speed or braked, his car would have hit my door dead on killing me instead of hitting my rear bumper spinning my car around.

What would have an auto-driver done in this situation.
Brake, I'm dead or in the hospital.
Keep the same speed, most likely the same.
Would have the AI chosen to floor the gas here, can the processor and the mechanics of the gaz pedal (not brake pedal) instantly floor it if it needs to?  Will it even be programed to accelerate as fast as possible to save the driver, or will braking be the default?

[Someone]

Avoiding and braking is all I heard about.  What if flooring the gas, going above the speed limit which you may be already traveling at is the only way to avoid an accident, potentially a fatal one.  This has happened to me once at an intersection.  Someone really late running a red light hit the rear of my car as I floored it after being mid way through the intersection noticing him coming toward me above full speed.  If I kept my speed or braked, his car would have hit my door dead on killing me instead of hitting my rear bumper spinning my car around.

What would have an auto-driver done in this situation.
Brake, I'm dead or in the hospital.
Keep the same speed, most likely the same.
Would have the AI chosen to floor the gas here, can the processor and the mechanics of the gaz pedal (not brake pedal) instantly floor it if it needs to?  Will it even be programed to accelerate as fast as possible to save the driver, or will braking be the default?

Does your car accelerate faster than it brakes? Almost certainly not, so you could have moved a bigger delta position at impact by braking than by accelerating, or added some steering input too and changed from a t-bone type collision to a side-to-side vectoring the energy away from the vehicles. There are occasions where a collision to the rear panel could be a better outcome but the usual anecdotes about speeding being necessary for safety are clearly outliers, if the other driver had some level of autonomous driving assistance they wouldn't have run the red light and there would never have been any issue.

[BrianHG]

Avoiding and braking is all I heard about.  What if flooring the gas, going above the speed limit which you may be already traveling at is the only way to avoid an accident, potentially a fatal one.  This has happened to me once at an intersection.  Someone really late running a red light hit the rear of my car as I floored it after being mid way through the intersection noticing him coming toward me above full speed.  If I kept my speed or braked, his car would have hit my door dead on killing me instead of hitting my rear bumper spinning my car around.

What would have an auto-driver done in this situation.
Brake, I'm dead or in the hospital.
Keep the same speed, most likely the same.
Would have the AI chosen to floor the gas here, can the processor and the mechanics of the gaz pedal (not brake pedal) instantly floor it if it needs to?  Will it even be programed to accelerate as fast as possible to save the driver, or will braking be the default?

Does your car accelerate faster than it brakes? Almost certainly not, so you could have moved a bigger delta position at impact by braking than by accelerating, or added some steering input too and changed from a t-bone type collision to a side-to-side vectoring the energy away from the vehicles. There are occasions where a collision to the rear panel could be a better outcome but the usual anecdotes about speeding being necessary for safety are clearly outliers, if the other driver had some level of autonomous driving assistance they wouldn't have run the red light and there would never have been any issue.

I was already in motion.  Here is a photo of the area where it happened...

Agreed that if the other drive didn't have driver assistance, but was forcefully always automatic driving, then he would have never run the light in the first place and there would have been no accident.  But since he chose to speed through the intersection, I got screwed.  Note that he was traveling around 70km/h also where the speed limit was only 50km/h.

[Cerebus]

Does your car accelerate faster than it brakes? Almost certainly not, ...

Yes, but what about the car/driver system? You have to add the time taken to remove the foot from the accelerator, move it across to the brake and depress it. Compare with the time required to merely further depress the accelerator.

When you consider the car/driver system rather than just the capabilities of the car, I suspect you might find that accelerating, when already travelling forward with the accelerator partially depressed, creates a higher |delta V|.

Now consider the question posed about what an autonomous system would do. In this case the hypothetical self-driving car is most probably electric and thanks to the torque characteristics of electric motors can have innate acceleration capacities that far exceed internal combustion engine vehicles. Although in this case there is no foot to be moved, the mechanical actuation time of the braking system will still come into play. Even here it's not impossible that acceleration might yield higher |deltaV|.

I'm not going to try and quantify either system as I don't do differential equations on less than 3 cups of coffee, and I'm only on my second.

[tszaboo]

I would say, it would
A) Notice the car faster, and avoid it completely
B) Based on numerous simulations and real world examples it would have known better than you what to do when you are T-boned.
This is what people dont realize. You are in a car accident hopefully never, but say only a few times in your life (I had two, one is my mistake). A self driving car system is trained by thousands of hours of real and simulated traffic every day. Maybe the software you have had already took into account a dozen T-boning accidents. That happened with the exact same model, same sensors and everything. And after each accident, the engineers can spend as much time as they please, to come up with a better response for a situation. How much time do you have? A split second.

[sokoloff]

In this case the hypothetical self-driving car is most probably electric and thanks to the torque characteristics of electric motors can have innate acceleration capacities that far exceed internal combustion engine vehicles. Although in this case there is no foot to be moved, the mechanical actuation time of the braking system will still come into play. Even here it's not impossible that acceleration might yield higher |deltaV|.

Electric motors have maximum torque from rest (0 RPM) which makes them much quicker off the line than an internal combustion engine. That advantage drops off quite rapidly at highway cruise RPM as the IC engine picks up torque vs idle and the electric motor torque drops off with RPM.