The realities of automation

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**tneva82**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On the subject of roundabouts, interestingly enough they actually increase the number of accidents, but reduce the severity of said accidents. More fender-benders are to prefer (to an extent of course) if they reduce the ones with serious injuries, after all.

Interesting. Didn't know that but I agree. More material damage to cars is preferable over damage to living things. Even better when reducing injuries to innocent bystanders.

**Crispy78**

tneva82 wrote:
Overread wrote:
The other big bonus is that now you've had at least one safe experience of doing all those wrong things you get a feel for what happens. You can also pick up on lots of little tell-tale signs of when things are just about to go bad - lots of little warnings that can make you react earlier when it happens for real.

Yeah. That's the reason why we have to go through it! Beats getting first taste of it in live enviroment. Makes me think if it might be possible to retake it voluntarily? Depending on how pricey it is it might be worth it to go over it again. It's better to do that in safe controlled enviroment than amidst real traffic! And it's been like 17 years from that. Could do refreshment.

Absolutely agree. Here in the south of England we had some bad snow a few months back for the first time in years, and people really struggled with it on the roads. It was carnage.

On the bright side, it's probably the only time I'll get away with drifting my car on the motorway in front of a police Land Rover...

**Ouze**

'Driver' of autonomous Uber was watching Hulu during fatal Arizona crash

In March, a self-driving car undergoing testing for ride-hailing service Uber struck and killed a pedestrian on the public streets of Tempe, Arizona. Footage of the incident showed that the driver, Rafaela Vasquez, appeared to be distracted in the moments before impact. Now, according to a Tempe Police Department report, the cause for that distraction has been found: Hulu.

Reuters reported late Thursday that Tempe police worked with Hulu to obtain Vasquez's viewing history, finding that she was watching The Voice on her phone during a time that corresponds to the moment of impact. Further, the report indicates that Vasquez was "distracted or looking down" nearly one-third of the 22 minutes leading up to the crash.

Uber was testing its modified Volvo XC90 in Tempe, Arizona, a locality favored by many developing self-driving vehicles due to its relaxed regulations when it comes to the certification of those technologies. Indeed, Waymo plans to launch its own self-driving, ride-hailing service in Phoenix later this year.

The fatal accident in March raised many questions among those testing autonomous vehicles on public streets, and now it raises questions about the liability of the driver assigned to monitor the vehicle. According to the police report, Vasquez could face a charge of vehicular manslaughter.

Vehicular manslaughter is often assigned in DUI-related incidents, but those related to aggressive or distracted driving apply as well. Manslaughter in Arizona is a class 2 felony and carries a minimum sentence of four years and a maximum of 10 years.

**feeder**

I always knew "the Voice" was a cancer, but to actually be murderous? Wow.

**AllSeeingSkink**

I think you have to assume that any "driver" of a self driving car is going to be distracted. There's only so much you can focus on something you aren't actually doing and your attention will inevitably slip.

If you've ever driven with someone who genuinely does need babysitting (e.g. a new learner driver or an old driver who probably should have their license take away) it's more mentally draining than if you were just in control yourself.

Of course being on Hulu isn't ideal, lol, but still I think you have to expect drivers are going to be slower to react when they aren't actually driving.

**Ensis Ferrae**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Of course being on Hulu isn't ideal, lol, but still I think you have to expect drivers are going to be slower to react when they aren't actually driving.

I agree with what you're saying, which leads me to have a few thoughts for "down the road improvements". . . Essentially, my thought is that eventually, automated driving will have to reach a point where their detection systems reach far enough out to alert a driver in enough time to pull their attention away from whatever it is that has it at the moment (work documents, TV shows, music, books, porn, whatever) and onto the situation at hand. Would that take the form of fully networked roads wherein there's "zero" pedestrian access (as in that Will Smith version of I, Robot) or are there conceivable technologies in existence that could function in this way?

**Just Tony**

The I, Robot road scenario is the only way it COULD work. It'd have to be managed by an AI that could track all the vehicles' trajectories at once, and mitigate the merging and other items. However, our current AI isn't up to that task. They'd have to tighten it up before it'd be up to the task, and THEN have all the roads upgraded to that platform.

We ARE looking at something that is not only possible but probable, but we are also looking at something that is maybe a century off. If pushed to a release too fast, it'd be a mix of drivers and AI, and that is where I believe the accidents will happen. Well, that and issues like the avoidance software issue in the OP accident.

**Kilkrazy**

I don't think it needs an AI. It needs the cars to be communicating with the other cars near them.

Car 1 spots a pedestrian and slows. It messages Car 2 behind it, which also slows and messages Car 3, and so on. Once the pedestrian has crosses, the process is reversed and the convoy speeds up again.

Bear in mind that automatic cars will maintain a safe speed and separation, unlike human drivers, so these chains of slowing and accelerating will not be the abrupt events you see on roads today.