# Autonomous Vehicles



## Road Guy (Jan 13, 2017)

So maybe I am not seeing the point, but what is driving the need for "self driving" cars?   Other than the ability to maybe put some delivery drivers out of work?


----------



## MA_PE (Jan 13, 2017)

if you don't have to drive it, then you're free to drink, text, do your hair and make-up, watch movies, etc. while your traveling.  I know people do all this stuff now while driving but it should be easier if you don't actually have to pay attention to the road.


----------



## matt267 PE (Jan 13, 2017)

I have no interest in a self driving car. But I think people like shiny new things.

This will be humans in a few generations:


----------



## FLBuff PE (Jan 13, 2017)

So we can watch porn while on the way to/from work, of course.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Jan 13, 2017)

Same thing that's driving automating of ordering at fast food restaurants: Payroll reduction.


----------



## Dleg (Jan 13, 2017)

It's all about further thwarting Darwinism.  Some engineer will be able to claim he saved 35,000 lives a year by removing the human factor from our highways.

Leading Causes of Death in the U.S. (according to the CDC):


Heart disease: 614,348
• Cancer: 591,699
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 147,101
*• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 136,053*
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 133,103
• Alzheimer's disease: 93,541
• Diabetes: 76,488
• Influenza and pneumonia: 55,227
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,146
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 42,773

And of the accidental deaths:


All unintentional injury deaths



Number of deaths: 136,053

Deaths per 100,000 population: 42.7

Cause of death rank: 4


Unintentional fall deaths



Number of deaths: 31,959

Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.0


Motor vehicle traffic deaths



Number of deaths: 35,398

Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.1


Unintentional poisoning deaths



Number of deaths: 38,851

Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.3


----------



## Ble_PE (Jan 13, 2017)

FLBuff PE said:


> So we can watch porn while on the way to/from work, of course.


You don't watch porn on the way to work? Amateur.


----------



## leggo PE (Jan 13, 2017)

Yep, I agree with @Dleg. I think the main idea behind it is to make the roads safer.


----------



## mudpuppy (Jan 13, 2017)

Heck, I'd love to not have to drive.  Hop in the car, watch a movie porn, take a nap and few hours later I could wake up refreshed in a different city.  Visiting my wife's family 12 hours away would become a lot more convenient (whether that's good or bad...)

However, I don't see that actually becoming feasible in my lifetime.


----------



## kevo_55 (Jan 13, 2017)

Pfft, self driving cars have been around since the '60's. Everyone knows that.


----------



## Dleg (Jan 13, 2017)

I can totally see it happening in my lifetime.  The technology is there, it just has to be perfected.  Shit, if you can now buy a virtually self-flying quad copter as a "toy" for less than $50, I am pretty sure a self-driving car is not very far behind.

I would enjoy that, too, especially if the alcohol laws are relaxed.


----------



## Road Guy (Jan 13, 2017)

I cant really see it to be honest, from regulatory signs, to merging, turning, stopping, interstates, roundabouts, lane markings, HOV lanes, HOT lanes, etc,  All I can see it for is maybe vehicles on private property, shuttling Disney passengers from park to park via bus, etc,. but there are too many unforeseen conditions which a PC cant make the decision (like adjusting speed for rain, snow)


----------



## Dleg (Jan 13, 2017)

I think it will come with certain automation features built into the roads and highways - transmitters at intersections and the like, signalling the smart cars with that sort of information.  I'll go out on a limb and say the interstates and then the inner urban areas of certain well-to-do cities will be the first.  On other roads the driver wills till be on their own.


----------



## Road Guy (Jan 13, 2017)

The US has nearly 50,000 miles of interstate so the cost is going to be very prohibitive, unless google is going to pay for it....

At a time when people rarely want to fund the replacement of the important stuff (like the bridges and pavement) I would hope we wouldn't divert funds so people can jerk off to porn while "driving"


----------



## Road Guy (Jan 13, 2017)




----------



## Flyer_PE (Jan 13, 2017)

It has the potential to give a whole new meaning to the Blue-Screen-of-Death.  Also, I'm late for work because the software company forced an automatic update to the operating system for my car.


----------



## Audi Driver P.E. (Jan 13, 2017)

I think I'll pass on self driving cars until I can get a good answer to this:

What will the car do when presented with running over a young pedestrian in a cross walk, or hitting a crowd of people.


----------



## mudpuppy (Jan 13, 2017)

I'm with RG, there's just way too much infrastructure required to make this work on a country-wide basis.  And if you don't go with an infrastructure based system (where the road basically tells the car where to go) there's still way too many unknowns to make a self-driving car work.  The first fatal crash with Tesla was where the car drove into the side of a semi-trailer because it looked like the sky to the car's camera.  How is the car going to deal with stuff like this, or snow-covered roads, or roads without stripes or potholes or deer or . . .


----------



## MA_PE (Jan 13, 2017)

Truthfully the place for this technology is in crowded urban areas.  If vehicles could be programmed to run like "trains" there would be a lot less congestion and traffic jams.  Picture a line of vehicles with tight spaces between them all traveling at the exact same speed.  Vehicles could enter and exit the main roads at the same speed with minmal changes to allow vehicles to simply occupy an new sapce in the train.  Vehicles would then be free to be manually controlled or guided in open non-urban areas.  This technology is at its infancy but I think it's goignt o continue to progress.  Using a common alogorithm would put all drives on the same level and eliminate disaprities between rod hogs/sheepish drivers/speed demons and crawlers.  This would significantly reduce the resulting congestion when the group traveleing at 80mph hits a snag in the road where the speed is reduced to 50mph.

And of course it would be Blu-ray porn everyone will be watching.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 13, 2017)

As perhaps the only person here that owns a self-driving (ish) car, I can honestly say that it is awesome.  With the technology in its current state, it still isn't "idiot proof."  I always keep my eye on the road and I'm ready to take the wheel if there is a situation that I think the car can't handle.  But, I can tell you that for long trips, autopilot is a game-changer.  Think about cruise control.  On a long trip, when you turn on cruise control, your legs are less fatigued when you get where you are going.  Traffic aware cruise control is awesome because you don't have to keep tapping your brakes and controlling the throttle until traffic breaks.  Autopilot is another step above that.  All you have to do is make sure that the car has good lane markers and that there aren't any unusual/dangerous traffic, and you can sit back and relax for the most part.  It takes some getting used to, but having your car take you places without intervention is freaking awesome.


----------



## Audi Driver P.E. (Jan 16, 2017)

MA_PE said:


> Truthfully the place for this technology is in crowded urban areas.  If vehicles could be programmed to run like "trains" there would be a lot less congestion and traffic jams.  Picture a line of vehicles with tight spaces between them all traveling at the exact same speed.  Vehicles could enter and exit the main roads at the same speed with minmal changes to allow vehicles to simply occupy an new sapce in the train.  Vehicles would then be free to be manually controlled or guided in open non-urban areas.  This technology is at its infancy but I think it's goignt o continue to progress.  Using a common alogorithm would put all drives on the same level and eliminate disaprities between rod hogs/sheepish drivers/speed demons and crawlers.  This would significantly reduce the resulting congestion when the group traveleing at 80mph hits a snag in the road where the speed is reduced to 50mph.
> 
> And of course it would be Blu-ray porn everyone will be watching.


Crowded urban areas only exacerbate the moral dilemma problem I mentioned above.


----------



## jeb6294 (Jan 17, 2017)

matt267 PE said:


> I have no interest in a self driving car. But I think people like shiny new things.
> 
> This will be humans in a few generations:


False...the way things are going, everybody wants everything delivered right to their door so people aren't even going to be leaving their houses kind of like that Bruce Willis movie Surrogates.

I'd heard it predicted that kids today won't know how to drive a manual transmission and that soon they won't even know how to drive a car at all.  They'll all be getting chauffeured around ala Uber.


----------



## MA_PE (Jan 17, 2017)

Not predicted, I belive it's fact.  Many kids today have no idea how to drive a manual transmission.


----------



## snickerd3 (Jan 17, 2017)

MA_PE said:


> Not predicted, I belive it's fact.  Many kids today have no idea how to drive a manual transmission.


I know how, its been years since I have driven a manual car, but I could do it


----------



## Road Guy (Jan 17, 2017)

The newer Manual transmissions make it too easy, the brake will hold so if you are on a hill the car won't roll so you don't have to feel like you need three feet (when learning)

I'm slowly teaching all 3 of my kids to drive the jeep- it's painful but hopefully worth it...

Overseas is still predominantly Manual transmissions cars from what i hear


----------



## leggo PE (Jan 17, 2017)

I'm not a kid, but I (embarrassingly) never learned to drive manual.  :blush:

It's rather difficult to learn when you have never had access to a manual car.


----------



## Audi Driver P.E. (Jan 17, 2017)

MA_PE said:


> Not predicted, I belive it's fact.  Many kids today have no idea how to drive a manual transmission.


My first two both drive sticks, and my third will this year.


----------



## MA_PE (Jan 17, 2017)

My sons both do.  The car they used for college was a stick.  24k miles and I had to put in $1800 worth of clutch. 

hmmm, maybe they don't know how to drive one.


----------



## Dleg (Jan 17, 2017)

How are guys ever supposed to get girlfriends, if they don't make manual transmissions?  Seriously - I got at least 4 dates out of "I can teach you how to drive a stick" while in college.


----------



## snickerd3 (Jan 17, 2017)

Dleg said:


> How are guys ever supposed to get girlfriends, if they don't make manual transmissions?  Seriously - I got at least 4 dates out of "I can teach you how to drive a stick" while in college.


snickette is obsessed with cars...I'm thinking she might be one to try that line with guys when she is older


----------



## matt267 PE (Jan 17, 2017)

Dleg said:


> How are guys ever supposed to get girlfriends


jello shots?


----------



## envirotex (Jan 17, 2017)

I learned to drive a stick in Mr. Tex's mom's BMW.  The clutch was never the same after that.


----------



## willsee (Jan 17, 2017)

Dleg said:


> How are guys ever supposed to get girlfriends, if they don't make manual transmissions?  Seriously - I got at least 4 dates out of "I can teach you how to drive a stick" while in college.


Roof.... Charm and wit?


----------



## jeb6294 (Jan 18, 2017)

I learned how to drive a stick when I was about 12.  It was pretty easy though because I had already been riding my motorcycle for a couple years by then.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Jan 18, 2017)

If a tractor counts, I learned how to operate a manual transmission at age 6.  I wasn't driving the truck unattended until age 9.  I'm still trying to figure out how to teach my kid how to drive without a 15 acre hay field and several hundred acres of pasture to play in.


----------



## Audi Driver P.E. (Jan 20, 2017)

jeb6294 said:


> I learned how to drive a stick when I was about 12.  It was pretty easy though because I had already been riding my motorcycle for a couple years by then.


Same.


----------



## csb (Jan 20, 2017)

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/10/25/self-driving-beer-truck-colorado/

This is already happening. The first step is connected vehicles, which exist. Three transportation agencies have pilot projects for connected vehicles (http://www.its.dot.gov/pilots/). A car doesn't need to see a sign, but it will need pavement markings. Dow is already working on a marker that can go in paint, rather than an expensive transmitter under marking tape (like 3M will try to sell), that can be "seen" under snow. 

The old saying in traffic engineering is that the you can't make the road totally safe because of the nut behind the wheel. Autonomous and connected vehicles remove that nut.


----------



## csb (Jan 20, 2017)

Also, our household only has manual vehicles. My parents only drive manual vehicles. My kid is going to have to learn.


----------



## leggo PE (Jan 20, 2017)

csb said:


> http://www.denverpost.com/2016/10/25/self-driving-beer-truck-colorado/
> 
> This is already happening. The first step is connected vehicles, which exist. Three transportation agencies have pilot projects for connected vehicles (http://www.its.dot.gov/pilots/). A car doesn't need to see a sign, but it will need pavement markings. Dow is already working on a marker that can go in paint, rather than an expensive transmitter under marking tape (like 3M will try to sell), that can be "seen" under snow.
> 
> The old saying in traffic engineering is that the you can't make the road totally safe because of the nut behind the wheel. Autonomous and connected vehicles remove that nut.


I saw one of the founders of this company talk about this technology at a dinner back in October, less than a week after this happened. It was cool, I admit. But I was also kind of left thinking, is this really where we should be spending money for transportation-related things?

Then again, the safety card is a very strong one. So I go back and forth. I'm still not sure I'd ever want a self-driving car myself, though. And seeing a self-driving truck on the road would probably freak me the heck out.


----------



## Supe (Jan 23, 2017)

My father taught me to drive by making me drive entirely in reverse in an 85 Toyota pickup with a 5 speed with the worlds worst gearbox and stiffest clutch release imaginable.  He made me drive backwards laps around the nearby middle school, doing loops around islands, etc.  His justification was "if you can do this, then the rest of it will be easy."


----------



## mudpuppy (Jan 23, 2017)

csb said:


> http://www.denverpost.com/2016/10/25/self-driving-beer-truck-colorado/
> 
> This is already happening. The first step is connected vehicles, which exist. Three transportation agencies have pilot projects for connected vehicles (http://www.its.dot.gov/pilots/). A car doesn't need to see a sign, but it will need pavement markings. Dow is already working on a marker that can go in paint, rather than an expensive transmitter under marking tape (like 3M will try to sell), that can be "seen" under snow.
> 
> The old saying in traffic engineering is that the you can't make the road totally safe because of the nut behind the wheel. Autonomous and connected vehicles remove that nut.




Connected vehicles work great when they're all connected, but we have nearly 250 million cars that aren't connected, so what do we do with those?

Markers in paints sounds like a promising idea, but we still have lots and lots of streets and roads without lane markings. . .


----------



## jeb6294 (Jan 23, 2017)

Okay, I suppose all the "experts" say everything would be better because, in the event of an accident, a computer would be the one to determine the best course of action to take, i.e. do you hit the car with one person in it or the van with 10 people in it.  Now obviously a computer is going to hit the car because it is 1 person as opposed to 10, but what if the car only has one person in it because it is loaded with puppies being taken to visit a nursing home while the 10 people in the van are white supremasists on their way to a klan meeting?  How smart is your computer now?

Also, it's bad enough getting the blue screen of death when I'm sitting at my desk at work, what's going to happen when you get on going down the highway at 70mph?


----------



## snickerd3 (Jan 23, 2017)

relying on paint doesn't sound like a good plan either.  The maintance schedule/cost of repainting would be crazy.  How much can get worn away before it becomes an issue.  small towns don't have the budget to repaint lines on a routine basis.  who will pay for it?


----------



## csb (Jan 23, 2017)

This is why autonomous vehicles still have driving capabilities. There will be areas where connection is lost or paint is lost and the driver has to take over. 

The issue of connected vehicles is not an all or nothing. It's a bonus to vehicles that are connected, but older vehicles are not harmed. Also, there is definitely going to be the ability to add connectedness to existing vehicles. In fact, XM radio is partnering with the project, meaning as long as you have satellite radio, you can tune to those alerts. 

While engineering is a profession built on age old theories, it's also a profession that seeks to improve the world and think past what we know now. I'm really excited to be part of a project that is looking at the future. 

And, on the ethics front, Mercedes has programed it's car to protect the driver (http://blog.caranddriver.com/self-driving-mercedes-will-prioritize-occupant-safety-over-pedestrians/). Bold move? Yes. However I'd argue this is how most people are driving today. You don't take the moment to judge if you should kill yourself or kill the pedestrian. You naturally preserve your own life.


----------



## Road Guy (Jan 23, 2017)

that's the way I see it, as an added bonus to people that can afford a $80,000 Tesla.

But they way people talk, its like there wont be any more wrecks because all cars will lock in place digitally to drive to grandmas on the interstate (not going to happen any time in our lifetime).

My company is also "partnering" with the Feds to research some of these things, as I sat through an overview of our "work" all I could think of was "These people have never been through a 7 hour deposition over a fatality before"....


----------



## knight1fox3 (Jan 23, 2017)

Supe said:


> My father taught me to drive by making me drive entirely in reverse in an 85 Toyota pickup with a 5 speed with the worlds worst gearbox and stiffest clutch release imaginable.  He made me drive backwards laps around the nearby middle school, doing loops around islands, etc.  His justification was "if you can do this, then the rest of it will be easy."


I was taught on a 1970 Pontiac GTO. Arguably equal in difficulty with the gearbox and clutch stiffness.


----------



## mudpuppy (Jan 23, 2017)

csb said:


> This is why autonomous vehicles still have driving capabilities. There will be areas where connection is lost or paint is lost and the driver has to take over.
> 
> The issue of connected vehicles is not an all or nothing. It's a bonus to vehicles that are connected, but older vehicles are not harmed. Also, there is definitely going to be the ability to add connectedness to existing vehicles. In fact, XM radio is partnering with the project, meaning as long as you have satellite radio, you can tune to those alerts.
> 
> ...




I've never said it's not a good thing to work on, but I don't see it being quite as revolutionary as some are trying to make it out to be, either.  At least not in the next 40 years or so.  There's a huge numbers of bridges we need to cross (pun intended) before we get to the grand vision of the car doing all the driving for us.  And it is a technology that IS going to kill people, so there's a lot of thought and consideration that needs to go into that.

And no surprise on the Mercedes program.  If you're driving a Mercedes of course you think the world revolves around you!  I can already hear the lawsuits about how this discriminates against lower-income demographics. &lt;this is somewhat tongue-in-cheek&gt;

Curious if you feel comfortable riding your bicycle on the road with self-driving cars?


----------



## MA_PE (Jan 23, 2017)

knight1fox3 said:


> I was taught on a 1970 Pontiac GTO. Arguably equal in difficulty with the gearbox and clutch stiffness.


nice.  That car is worth some coin if you had it now.


----------



## leggo PE (Jan 23, 2017)

mudpuppy said:


> Curious if you feel comfortable riding your bicycle on the road with self-driving cars?


I have no clue. Maybe! The drivers in SF are in general not the smartest, and drive very stupidly and unpredictably. A computer might do better.


----------



## csb (Jan 23, 2017)

Yes, I think I would. 

Here's the kicker- an autonomous vehicle doesn't "feel" anything, as opposed to drivers that are angry I'm on my bicycle. Riding home on Saturday night I had a car speed up and swerve towards me before turning at the last minute. They were obviously trying to scare me and it worked. An autonomous vehicle has no reason to taunt me and it will work to avoid me. An autonomous vehicle removes a lot of the variables.


----------



## mudpuppy (Jan 23, 2017)

That goes both ways, though.  The autonomous car will have no feelings as it runs you over because it didn't "see" you, or was not programmed correctly to avoid you.  Whereas I believe fundamentally very few drivers would deliberately try to run you over, even if they don't like you or are angry (and yes I've experienced some of these incidents as well).  Or someone who really doesn't like bicycles could hack a car and make it deliberately target you, or introduce a virus that does the same.  Given my own exposure to AI and programming (granted I'm no expert by any means), I wouldn't trust my life to this technology.  I'm just a crotchety old engineer though.  Get off my lawn.


----------



## knight1fox3 (Jan 23, 2017)

I had an introductory course that touched briefly on AI. It's both fascinating and terrifying at the same time.


----------



## roadwreck (Jan 23, 2017)

Road Guy said:


> but there are too many unforeseen conditions which a PC cant make the decision (like adjusting speed for rain, snow)


I would argue there are plenty of people who aren't up to that task either.


----------



## csb (Jan 23, 2017)

With the amount of distracted drivers out there nowadays, I'm wondering what the failure rate of a driver not seeing you is in comparison to a vehicle not seeing you. 

In either case, it will still be the cyclist's fault.


----------



## Road Guy (Jan 23, 2017)

that's because you live in the West's version of Mississippi..


----------



## csb (Jan 23, 2017)

Road Guy said:


> that's because you live in the West's version of Mississippi..


At least it keeps out the Georgia transplants.


----------



## Road Guy (Jan 23, 2017)

Burn???

[SIZE= 9px]#weak[/SIZE]


----------



## Audi Driver P.E. (Jan 23, 2017)

I'll tell you what.  We just bought a vehicle with lane keeping assist.  Now, I don't know about you, but I move toward far line when some vehicle is crowding the line next to me.  But of course, the LKA system doesn't think that's an appropriate move.  Lane centered at all times!!

I will agree that a certain percentage of drivers' driving would be vastly improved by a car that drives for them.  But there is a host of drivers that wouldn't see any benefit (save for perhaps NOT having to be attentive the entire trip) over their driving skill.  I'm not sure it quite balances out.


----------



## jeb6294 (Jan 24, 2017)

My old Ford Explorer had that automatic cruise control.  It was awful.  In theory it's a nice idea, set your cruise control and if someone in front of you is going a little slower, the Explorer would slow down without having to tap the brakes and cancel the cruise control.  In reality, apparently Ford decide that about 1/4 mile was the correct distance between cars.  Sure you didn't have to adjust your speed because of the slower car, but in the meantime, cars would keep cutting in front of you because of the giant gap.  Guess what...every time a car got in front of you, the Explorer would slow down even more to maintain that ridiculous gap.  Even if there was nobody getting in front of you, you were so far back that most of the time the car in front of you would never move cause they figured you must be going the same speed and you'd find yourself cruising along 5mph slower than what you set the cruise at.


----------



## roadwreck (Jan 24, 2017)

^^ I know some vehicles allow you to have some flexibility with how "aggressively" the auto cruise control follows the car in front.  Allowing the driver to select how closely the car follows would cut down on that

I don't know how soon, or whether cars are ever going to be totally autonomous but I am impressed with how quickly a lot of these driver aids are being implemented.  Automatic braking, blind spot alerts, auto cruise control, lane departure warnings, etc. are all becoming more and more common on cars today.   And given how many people I see texting while driving i am all for more and more automatic safety equipment on cars.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 24, 2017)

The follow distance in the Tesla is adjustable between 1 and 6 car lengths.


----------



## Supe (Jan 24, 2017)

That sounds interesting at 70 mph!


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 24, 2017)

Supe said:


> That sounds interesting at 70 mph!


I'm pretty sure that a "car length" is a speed dependent distance.  I usually keep it set to "2," and at highway speed, there is way more than 2 car lengths between me and the car in front of me, but it would be uncomfortably close for somebody to merge in front of me like Jeb was saying.


----------



## jeb6294 (Jan 25, 2017)

roadwreck said:


> ^^ I know some vehicles allow you to have some flexibility with how "aggressively" the auto cruise control follows the car in front.  Allowing the driver to select how closely the car follows would cut down on that


You could adjust it, but there were only three levels.  I'm not sure what those levels correlated to car-lengths-wise, but even on the closest setting it would leave *a lot* of space between you and the car in front of you.  It was a nice idea, but it was so annoying that I ended up not using it much.


----------



## jeb6294 (Jan 25, 2017)

roadwreck said:


> And given how many people I see texting while driving i am all for more and more automatic safety equipment on cars.


Instead of putting all these gadgets on cars, cell phone manufacturers should just be required to make phone inoperable above a certain speed without some sort of super annoying override process that couldn't be performed by the person driving.  Between the truck and the motorcycle, I am able to get a pretty good look inside the cars around me.  I see people weaving all over the road or with their speed going all over the place and almost 100% of the time, I can see it's because they're too busy playing on their phone.


----------



## roadwreck (Jan 25, 2017)

jeb6294 said:


> Instead of putting all these gadgets on cars, cell phone manufacturers should just be required to make phone inoperable above a certain speed without some sort of super annoying override process that couldn't be performed by the person driving.  Between the truck and the motorcycle, I am able to get a pretty good look inside the cars around me.  I see people weaving all over the road or with their speed going all over the place and almost 100% of the time, I can see it's because they're too busy playing on their phone.


It's a daily occurrence to see at least one person fiddling with their cell phone and not paying attention to the road during my commute.  I think the worst I've seen was the woman who had attached her iPad to her steering wheel (over the airbag) and was watching a movie while driving.  Maybe we'll read about her one day in the Darwin awards as it's only a matter of time before she rear ends someone and is impaled by her iPad.


----------



## Dleg (Jan 25, 2017)

She'll probably get a different kind of award for having the iPad save her from the Takata air bag shrapnel.


----------



## jeb6294 (Jan 26, 2017)

This summer I was behind some stupid lady who was on her phone...could see her pecking away clear as day through her back window.  I was still behind her as she drove right off the side of the road after making a turn at an intersection.  It's kind of a goofy curve there so there's a 4-6" curb along the road before you get to the guardrail.  She drove her car right up on to the curb, and it's so close, I would think she hit the guardrail too.  If it was my truck a 6" curb wouldn't be a big deal, but she was in a Toyota Camry.  While she pulled up to get off the side of the road I could see all kinds of stuff hanging off the bottom of her car.  If I had the time, I should have made sure the police were on their way and stuck around to make sure the fact that she was glued to her phone made it into the police report, but I had stuff to do.  She was already pissed off enough because we both had our windows down so she could hear me laughing as I drove by.


----------



## Road Guy (Mar 24, 2017)

so I never would have thought to have looked at the people driving tesla's before this thread, but twice I have been next to this guy in a tesla, yesterday he was eating either a bowl of cereal while his car drove for him, and today he was holding an ipad and it looked like he was watching a movie.. lol..


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Mar 24, 2017)

Road Guy said:


> so I never would have thought to have looked at the people driving tesla's before this thread, but twice I have been next to this guy in a tesla, yesterday he was eating either a bowl of cereal while his car drove for him, and today he was holding an ipad and it looked like he was watching a movie.. lol..


I still keep an eye on the road so I'm ready to take over if I feel there is a situation Autopilot can't handle...but it really is a game-changer for eating on the road.


----------



## Road Guy (Mar 24, 2017)

If I still have this commute in 4 years its defin going to be on my list!


----------



## willsee (Mar 24, 2017)

I can't wait for auto driving cars to become mainstream.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Mar 24, 2017)

Road Guy said:


> so I never would have thought to have looked at the people driving tesla's before this thread, but twice I have been next to this guy in a tesla, yesterday he was eating either a bowl of cereal while his car drove for him, and today he was holding an ipad and it looked like he was watching a moviePORN.. lol..


Fixt. I told you what the real advantage to these cars is. KEEP UP!


----------



## Dleg (Mar 24, 2017)

willsee said:


> I can't wait for auto driving cars to become mainstream.


Me too. Maybe then we can count our commute as work time, and shorten our day?


----------



## snickerd3 (Mar 24, 2017)

Dleg said:


> Me too. Maybe then we can count our commute as work time, and shorten our day?


That would be AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Supe (Mar 27, 2017)

You don't already?


----------



## Audi Driver P.E. (Mar 27, 2017)

jeb6294 said:


> You could adjust it, but there were only three levels.  I'm not sure what those levels correlated to car-lengths-wise, but even on the closest setting it would leave *a lot* of space between you and the car in front of you.  It was a nice idea, but it was so annoying that I ended up not using it much.


So, I've had much more experience with my car now, and I have to say that for the most part the ACC is pretty nice.  But one thing it does NOT do well is use a slip stream to your advantage.  Normally, if I want to go around someone on a 4 or more lane hi-way, I come up within one car following distance and accelerate some amount around the vehicle.  With ACC, you do the exact opposite.  It comes up to one car length and as I would normally then use that momentum to go around, it BRAKES and slows down.  That kills the mileage if nothing else.


----------



## MA_PE (Mar 27, 2017)

Audi driver said:


> So, I've had much more experience with my car now, and I have to say that for the most part the ACC is pretty nice.  But one thing it does NOT do well is use a slip stream to your advantage.  Normally, if I want to go around someone on a 4 or more lane hi-way, I come up within one car following distance and accelerate some amount around the vehicle.  With ACC, you do the exact opposite.  It comes up to one car length and as I would normally then use that momentum to go around, it BRAKES and slows down.  That kills the mileage if nothing else.


Do you drive NASCAR and are you trying to slingshot? 

You've got 4 or more lanes and you come within one car length before you move out to pass?  Sounds rather aggressive.

Do you draft semis to save gas too?


----------



## Audi Driver P.E. (Mar 27, 2017)

MA_PE said:


> Do you drive NASCAR and are you trying to slingshot?
> 
> You've got 4 or more lanes and you come within one car length before you move out to pass?  Sounds rather aggressive.
> 
> Do you draft semis to save gas too?


You can keep a car length or more and still get some minimal effect that is TOTALLY negated if the brake is applied.  It's not at all aggressive to MAINTAIN speed and not brake. But it is QUITE counterproductive to brake while, or just before you pass.


----------



## MA_PE (Mar 27, 2017)

My ;point on being aggressive is the idea of coming within a car length of the rear of another car at highway speeds.  I believe the safe rule of thumb is 10 ft for every 10 mph.  Not too many 20 ft cars around that I know of and certainly not 70 ft cars.


----------



## leggo PE (Mar 28, 2017)

Hmm...

https://www.wired.com/2017/03/uber-redeploys-self-driving-cars-wreck-arizona/


----------



## Road Guy (Mar 28, 2017)

also heard a tesla _autocar _hit a police motorcycle the other day (on the radio)


----------



## deathmobile (Mar 28, 2017)

Audi driver said:


> So, I've had much more experience with my car now, and I have to say that for the most part the ACC is pretty nice.  But one thing it does NOT do well is use a slip stream to your advantage.  Normally, if I want to go around someone on a 4 or more lane hi-way, I come up within one car following distance and accelerate some amount around the vehicle.  With ACC, you do the exact opposite.  It comes up to one car length and as I would normally then use that momentum to go around, it BRAKES and slows down.  That kills the mileage if nothing else.


Anyone who pulls that crap on me is gonna regret it!


----------



## Audi Driver P.E. (Mar 28, 2017)

deathmobile said:


> Anyone who pulls that crap on me is gonna regret it!


LOL.  After some thousands of miles on the highway, never more than a polite wave from a vehicle.  Maybe I'm underestimating the amount of distance before I move around?  Might be closer to two car lengths.  :huh:


----------



## Supe (Mar 29, 2017)

Maybe they're throwing you the Shake and Bake sign?


----------



## engineergurl (Mar 29, 2017)

Audi driver said:


> LOL.  After some thousands of miles on the highway, never more than a polite wave from a vehicle.  Maybe I'm underestimating the amount of distance before I move around?  Might be closer to two car lengths.  :huh:


how many "dash lines" behind are you?


----------



## MA_PE (Mar 29, 2017)

engineergurl said:


> how many "dash lines" behind are you?


Dash lines?  I'm going so fast it's a single stripe!


----------



## canadagoose (Mar 30, 2017)

I think it's a good feature for when you're sleepy.


----------



## Road Guy (Mar 19, 2018)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/uber-driverless-fatality.html

about time for this fad to end.. along with the phrase "smart corridors".....


----------



## MA_PE (Mar 19, 2018)

Road Guy said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/uber-driverless-fatality.html
> 
> about time for this fad to end.. along with the phrase "smart corridors".....


I'm convinced that this is no fad, it is the future.  No new technology was ever developed without incident.  I'm not trying to trivialize this woman's death but I don't think it will stop development of this technology.


----------



## Road Guy (Mar 19, 2018)

they shouldn't ever be allowed on the public right of way IMO, fine if goggle, ebay, amazon, insert sexy tech company name here, wants to use them on their own property or something, but these things shouldn't be let on the actual public streets until there has been 10+ years of documented success - or some other metric


----------



## MA_PE (Mar 19, 2018)

Road Guy said:


> they shouldn't ever be allowed on the public right of way IMO, fine if goggle, ebay, amazon, insert sexy tech company name here, wants to use them on their own property or something, but these things shouldn't be let on the actual public streets until there has been 10+ years of documented success - or some other metric


People will want it sooner than that and will come to accept that accidents happen.  What's really scary is the idiots that will purposely try to f%&amp;k with these vehicles and then cry "lawsuit" if they get hurt.


----------



## Road Guy (Mar 19, 2018)

I honestly don't know anyone who wants it?

Except maybe companies like uber and others who don't want to pay drivers anymore...

Cant wait to see how this goes over with the NYC Cabbies union (not that I really care about unions) but I am sure that's going to go over like a loud fart in church 

We have enough fatalities on the roads without a driverless 18-wheeler plowing into a group of kids walking home from school


----------



## MA_PE (Mar 19, 2018)

most busy urban environments would want it...you don't have to jump into a car with a stranger and robots don't rape and pillage much.

Cabbies hate anyone that takes their fares away (they already hate Uber and Lyft and any other ride share idea).  No change.

I can see driverless 18-wheelers doing the long haul routes (for a local example:  the full length of the Mass Pike).  Flat, straight, and they can send them at night or off-hours.


----------



## Road Guy (Mar 19, 2018)

so maybe Jimmy Hoffa was leading the self driving car movement back in the day..

but I'll wager you a $100 steak from anyplace in America that even in 10 years this wont be a thing.


----------



## MA_PE (Mar 19, 2018)

Road Guy said:


> so maybe Jimmy Hoffa was leading the self driving car movement back in the day..
> 
> but I'll wager you a $100 steak from anyplace in America that even in 10 years this wont be a thing.


I might take that bet.   I like steak.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Mar 20, 2018)

I wonder how many pedestrians are struck and killed by non-autonomous vehicles on a daily basis.  And after several years of testing autonomous vehicles on public roads, this is the first pedestrian fatality.  The autonomous vehicle safety record cannot and will not ever be 0% as long as there are non-autonomous vehicles or pedestrians nearby.  Just like when I am driving my car (in full control of it, not in Autopilot)...I'm not worried about me doing something stupid and causing a wreck.  I'm worried about other people doing something stupid that causes me to hit them.

In the linked story, there was a human driver behind the wheel that was supposed to take control of the vehicle in an emergency situation.  I'm sure all the details aren't released yet, but it seems the human driver did not take control, at least not in time to prevent the accident, when indicates to me that the pedestrian probably stepped in front of the vehicle giving it and the driver very little time to react.  In such a situation, I would expect the autonomous vehicle to have much better ability to identify the problem and start emergency braking faster than a human.  But even if the vehicle is being controlled by computers, it is bound to physical limitations such as braking distance.


----------



## Audi Driver P.E. (Mar 21, 2018)

It's not going away any time soon. Consider this, the worst self driving car is still better than the worst human driver, and given that they attempt to at least be as good as an average driver, roughly half of the driving population's driving is improved by having the vehicle drive itself.


----------



## Supe (Mar 22, 2018)

Unless the laws and regulations are shaped in such a way that protects the manufacturer from liability, autonomy is at risk.  If a few high profile court cases determine that the manufacturer's software is culpable in a manslaughter case and set a precedent, the incentive to manufacture autonomous vehicles goes away.


----------



## csb (Mar 22, 2018)

Supe said:


> Unless the laws and regulations are shaped in such a way that protects the manufacturer from liability, autonomy is at risk.  If a few high profile court cases determine that the manufacturer's software is culpable in a manslaughter case and set a precedent, the incentive to manufacture autonomous vehicles goes away.


BUT

The auto manufacturing community has taken the lead by accepting full liability. They realize that the perceived risk is so high that they need to provide that. We are in full-on CV/AV mode around the nation as DOTs and we've been through a number of legal presentations. 

What's interesting is, when a manufacturer takes on full liability, they then have a vested interest in an occupant being buckled up and other safety features that humans can routinely choose not to do. The legal side of it is fascinating. 

But, for now, they view it as part of the investment in selling the technology.


----------



## jeb6294 (Mar 22, 2018)

Did anyone else see the video of the accident?  I've got to assume that the vehicle uses something besides visual cues so the car still missed something, but damn, if I was driving I probably would have hit her too.  First time I saw it was watching the news on the iPad.  Second time was on the 55" TV in the living room.  Even when I knew what I was watching for, I didn't see the lady until the car was on top of her.  They've got the dash cam going, interior and exterior, so it still doesn't let Uber off the hook completely because it looked like the safety driver was probably on their phone, but even if they weren't, I'm thinking the lady still would have been hit.


----------



## Road Guy (Mar 22, 2018)

I didn't see the video but would like to if you have it handy?

I wonder how these will do in a downtown urban environment where you have people and bikes who have no regard for crosswalks signals, or bikes that ignore traffic signals? I am downtown Denver 3 days a week and the pedestrians and bikes swarm the roads like zombies with no care to what the crosswalk signal says and apparently bike commuters don't have to stop for red lights in this town - going to rig up my dashboard cam this weekend if I can remember to.


----------



## Supe (Mar 22, 2018)

csb said:


> The auto manufacturing community has taken the lead by accepting full liability


I haven't seen this happen yet, because I'm unaware of a make or model being sold presently that doesn't have at least some failsafe where the driver is required to take the wheel.  I will agree that they've taken full liability when a model is sold either with no steering wheel/pedals, or with a retractable setup that the driver can't immediately grab/use at the sound of an alarm/HUD warning.


----------



## csb (Mar 22, 2018)

Level 5 is coming. 

(Read that like "Winter is coming.")


----------



## jeb6294 (Mar 23, 2018)

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/22/video-released-of-uber-self-driving-crash-that-killed-woman-in-arizona

And now all the conspiracy theorists are coming out of the woodwork to claim that the road isn't as dark as it is in the original video.  If it isn't, from what I can see in some of the other videos, then we still have a lady coming out from behind a big tree/bush to cross a 5-lane road at night.  So even though Uber still isn't out of the woods, she wasn't some innocent victim.


----------



## Road Guy (Mar 23, 2018)

yeah Ill agree that one may not be on the vehicle / maybe if the driver was paying attention..

I had a homeless guy nearly step off in front my vehicle from the median yesterday afternoon. I ended up having to swerve to next lane not to hit him.. I don't know how a computer would adjust for that though


----------



## MA_PE (Mar 23, 2018)

Interesting that the pedestrian was pushing the bike and didn't look down the road to see if any traffic was coming.    Based on the spped and image, I'm not sure I would've seen that woman until it was too late.  Maybe the car need to be programmed to put on high beams for better video processing.  Definitely not a typical scenario


----------



## Road Guy (Mar 23, 2018)

maybe that's what planners mean by complete streets!


----------



## Audi Driver P.E. (Mar 23, 2018)

Not a single reflector on the bike. Wearing a black jacket at night. Crossing a busy street slowly. NOT in any sort of cross walk. Didn't even LOOK for traffic. Was this some sort of setup?  Did that person have a death wish?


----------



## Dleg (Mar 23, 2018)

The real story is is why didn't the vehicle sense her - it uses radar and lidar to sense objects in order to apply brakes, in addition to visual monitoring.  In theory, the car should have easily sensed the pedestrian and come to a stop much, much faster than any human, but it seems like it completely missed this one. 

This has got me thinking, though, maybe this is how the world of Pixar's "Cars" movies gets started?


----------



## csb (Mar 23, 2018)

Dleg said:


> This has got me thinking, though, maybe this is how the world of Pixar's "Cars" movies gets started?


Thanks for haunting my dreams, Dleg.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Mar 23, 2018)

Supe said:


> Unless the laws and regulations are shaped in such a way that protects the manufacturer from liability, autonomy is at risk.  If a few high profile court cases determine that the manufacturer's software is culpable in a manslaughter case and set a precedent, the incentive to manufacture autonomous vehicles goes away.


I think the manufacturer will only bear liability for malfunctions, which are exceptionally easily provable.  The sensor package necessary to execute full autonomy provides an asinine amount of data, and I'm positive that a "black box" style data recorder will be required for any licensed fully autonomous vehicles.  If/when an accident occurs, all you have to do is review the visible camera, IR, radar, lidar, and controls data and determine whether the fault lies with the person/vehicle that got hit or a malfunction of the sensors/software.  It's no longer a he said/she said situation where the pedestrian (or their lawyer) says the car/driver was at fault and the driver/manufacturer says "they jumped out in front of me."  There will be video footage and data to back up the manufacturer to say exactly what happens.  If that data points to a malfunction, then the victim has an airtight case (after they subpoena the information).

The only legislation/regulation I support on autonomous vehicles is the mandatory collection of data in a black box style recorder, and the obligation to turn that information over to authorities and victims/representatives in the event of an accident.  It *should* make the process of assigning guilt trivial, but when lawyers are involved, they will argue over whether snow is actually white.


----------

