Order of Kilopi
And if that were the case, it would be possible to have companies that basically have a membership fees that allow you to use one of the cars. You would just call, and the nearest car would come to your home. I imagine that pure personal vehicles would become much rarer than they are today.Originally Posted by caveman1917
As above, so below
Order of Kilopi
I've always wanted a car that would come when it was called. I don't mind walking, empty-handed, to the store, but carting multiple bags to the farthest corners of a parking lot is another thing.
Order of Kilopi
Ok, then thank you for using up my battery charge to shuffle it around.
Complexity.
Signs: there's no real issues except that the person alert level drops somewhat, there are still plenty of visual clues. And what are the failure modes of a sign? Not much.
Traffic lights: they do fail. When they do, traffic can be controlled by someone controlling the traffic immediately. If an electronic controller fails, then you have to wait for the repairman, and the time it takes to repair. In the meantime what's controlling the traffic through that intersection?
Roads: I drive on plenty of deteriorated roads. It does not, in any way, inhibit my navigation.
Besides, you did not address my issue about budgets. Most current road conditions ARE NOT taken care of until the budget allows them to be. Only those vital items are addressed in a timely manner. In the automated system ALL repairs are vital and need to be addressed immediately.
But; if the vehicle requires roads to be easily recognized and maintained so they are usable by automated cars, then we still have the problem.
I consider that an invalid comparison. We have an added system called "judgement".
Returning to human control can work provided the computer knows there is a failure and is able to relinquish control.
The other issue is in today's system, there are multiple mechanical systems still useable as something fails. I don't see that in computerized systems.
Something as simple as finding a safe place to stop is not something that I see a computer doing. In the past few years I had two problems where I needed to make that judgement. One was when I had a fuel line break and the engine was completely dead which caused the power steering and brakes not to operate. The other was a flat tire.
In both cases, I was able to judge how far I would be able to stumble or coast and was able to limp easily into a gas station. I don't see a computer being able to do any more than pull off to the side. This would be fine where there is an ample shoulder, but most roads don't have that.
I'm not saying that any of this can't work SOMEDAY. I just think that this sudden "ooh cool, do it now" mentality is way too premature. Let it evolve, let's see where the problems are first. People can be dealt with individually. An unforseen issue that senses something as a "turn right now" can affect millions at one time.
Order of Kilopi
Yes. If you don't like it, don't park on a parallel parking zone that requires shuffling. It's not like there won't be other options. Remember, driving is a privilege, parking even more so.
You'll have to talk to CJamesHuff about that, I'm suggesting cars that can read human-readable signs. A road reading computer system for a car would be able to drive the same roads you do, only better. As for failure modes, signs can be stolen, be defaced by paint or bullet holes or unfolded in the case of temporary signs that are deployed when a traffic light is out. But a computer with GPS might have an internal map that tells it where the traffic signs are supposed to be, while you might only do the same thing if you are familiar with the area.Complexity.
Signs: there's no real issues except that the person alert level drops somewhat, there are still plenty of visual clues. And what are the failure modes of a sign? Not much.
Traffic lights: they do fail. When they do, traffic can be controlled by someone controlling the traffic immediately. If an electronic controller fails, then you have to wait for the repairman, and the time it takes to repair. In the meantime what's controlling the traffic through that intersection?
Roads: I drive on plenty of deteriorated roads. It does not, in any way, inhibit my navigation.
In an automated traffic system, perhaps, but not in a system that uses automated cars that can guide themselves.Besides, you did not address my issue about budgets. Most current road conditions ARE NOT taken care of until the budget allows them to be. Only those vital items are addressed in a timely manner. In the automated system ALL repairs are vital and need to be addressed immediately.
Not in my proposal. Cars with a computer and sensors would be able to see the road better than a human in all conditions. So, if a road is so poorly recognized/maintained that a computer can't drive it, then a human shouldn't be driving it either.But; if the vehicle requires roads to be easily recognized and maintained so they are usable by automated cars, then we still have the problem.
This comment does not make sense. Can you clarify?I consider that an invalid comparison. We have an added system called "judgement".
The ability to relinquish control would be a sine qua non. There should be a dedicated "Disengage Autopilot" switch as well.Returning to human control can work provided the computer knows there is a failure and is able to relinquish control.
In case it's not clear, the navigation and driving computer would be just that, it would not be the locomotion systems operation computer. In other words, it would drive the car but it would not run the car. It provides oversight of the simpler systems. It replaces the driver, not the ECM.The other issue is in today's system, there are multiple mechanical systems still useable as something fails. I don't see that in computerized systems.
On the contrary, a computer that has a map that includes gas stations, road-shoulders and emergency pull-over areas would be much more capable of choosing a proper emergency stopping point than a human who is limited to line of sight.Something as simple as finding a safe place to stop is not something that I see a computer doing. In the past few years I had two problems where I needed to make that judgement. One was when I had a fuel line break and the engine was completely dead which caused the power steering and brakes not to operate. The other was a flat tire.
In both cases, I was able to judge how far I would be able to stumble or coast and was able to limp easily into a gas station. I don't see a computer being able to do any more than pull off to the side. This would be fine where there is an ample shoulder, but most roads don't have that.
The systems have evolved. The capability is current. This is illustrated by the fact that for every problem you conceive of, I have a workable answer that does not rely on future discoveries/inventions or on untested engineering concepts.I'm not saying that any of this can't work SOMEDAY. I just think that this sudden "ooh cool, do it now" mentality is way too premature. Let it evolve, let's see where the problems are first. People can be dealt with individually. An unforseen issue that senses something as a "turn right now" can affect millions at one time.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Order of Kilopi
That depends no what you mean by "taxi". A driving service/limo service that responds to calls might not need a human driver, but a taxi that roams the street looking for people to flag it down might still work best with a driver. Taxi systems are most common in large cities, and so traffic and ownership issues could be more affected by mass transit, but that's a different debate.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Order of Kilopi
Yes; it has evolved. Yes; the capability is there. But; it is not refined, it is not proven, it has not shown to work in many situations except limited areas or off road.
It introduces maintenance issues and added costs.
Order of Kilopi
I'm confused. Why would you expect a driving and navigation computer to act as a diagnostic computer? I get that it might be useful to the driver, but it's ultimately not necessary to the problem at hand. The critical issue for the driving computer is to be able to respond safely and appropriately to maneuver the car off the road so that you can evaluate the problem an attempt a repair or call for one. That's what human do currently. I'm not familiar with many cases of people popping the hood or crawling underneath to repair an engine problem while driving down the road at highway speeds.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Order of Kilopi
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Depends on what you're referring to. Some factories and warehouses use robotic forklifts and other mobile machinery that use optical systems to read painted lane markings. Other types of automatic driving systems have been demonstrated on-road. We don't need new tech, we just need to adapt existing tech to a different vehicle category with different performance requirements.But; it is not refined, it is not proven, it has not shown to work in many situations except limited areas or off road.
It might costs more, that doesn't mean it'll be prohibitive. What sort of maintenance issues are you thinking of, cleaning the optics? You have to do that now.It introduces maintenance issues and added costs.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Established Member
I'm sure the crew of Apollo 12 would love to hear that.
No one is a perfect driver, but at least when things go wrong, we're able to act. A computer won't give me CPR, put pressure to stop the bleeding, etc...
Established Member
That's exactly it, I feel like working on a hot, combusting, engine.
The problem I personally had was that the generic service light came on, but after restarting the engine, would go away. No error code saved. It was probably a 'fuel mixture too lean' error. Nonetheless, I thought it was hilarious that a computer would completely cut throttle to a car that's travelling at 70mph, then not retain an error code. The dealership shrugged it off, and I had the pleasure of having a car randomly die on the highway. That let me know that I cannot depend on a computer in the least bit when it comes to roadworthiness.
Star Trek TNG even did an episode where the simulation said they couldn't fly out. They made it out, without a navigation computer.
I'm also of the attitude "It's too expensive and too early".
Soon we'll have a computer to make love for you too.
Order of Kilopi
Considering something remarkably similar happened to many people I knew who drove cars that had no electronic engine controls, I've got to say "this ain't new..."
Order of Kilopi
Now if an engine stumbles while you are pulling out--and the coast is clear--it is of no matter. The point is that traffic streams passing through each other are timed very carefully. If a valve should give a problem, loss of power--that throws off the calculations enough that a car that was going to pass your car just behind it but just ahead of the car behind you---well, it no longer cleanly misses, but clips the back of your car. That slows it down where the lane next to you hits it.
Chain-reaction city-johnson...
Established Member
Exactly. It's not new in the least bit.
Mechanically, cars will fail. Personally, people will lapse. Inevitably, any program is incomplete. With all the progress that has happened in the industry, why do some of us still prefer stick shift? I enjoy engine braking and double clutching. Manual is cheap and works. I don't want the fun taken our of my ride. And until we all go automated, enjoy paying top dollar for dedicated roads/lanes.
The liability alone would likely scare any car manufacturer away from making a fully automated car.
Established Member
I'm not really sure where to begin with this. I'll start with some facts, though. A check engine light cannot come on WITHOUT retaining failure data. You dealership is either lying to you or they don't know what they are doing. The fact that they light went out with a keystroke means nothing - the error went away after a key cycle so the code went inactive. The freeze frame data and historic code are still retained. Under no circumstances would a throttle by wire system cause a lean code (i.e. the accelerator pedal position sensor and the throttle body). There are many other things that would cause that code and that is why a human being must diagnose the cause of such a thing - NOT A COMPUTER.
The only thing I can picture causing the ECM to relinquish control of the throttle body would be a faulty APS or a faulty throttle body. Again if it tripped the light it would store that code and freeze frame data. And again the ECM would only indicate the fault code - it would not in and of itself be the diagnosis as to what is wrong. This is why so many people throw parts at a car and still do not fix the problem. The error in the case you have described is human. The computer did exactly as it is designed to do and is geared towards safely getting your car out of harms way (rather than, say, jamming the throttle wide open in a school zone). A snapped or stuck throttle cable (both of which I have seen) is in one case equally annoying and in the other insanely dangerous. I would much rather have an ECM in between the pedal and the throttle than a cable.
As for your last quoted sentence... there is not a military jet in the sky (that I can think of) that is NOT throttle by wire. They literally cannot fly without computers.
Established Member
I never gave a make and model. Are you telling me you know every detail of every computer for every car ever made? My brother in law owns the dealership. I had the mechanics drive the car three days in a row to reproduce the error. There was no error saved!!!! Yet the day before I'm on the shoulder with an engine bucking wildly. One suggestion I got was leave the car running until I could get a scanner on it. Would you leave an engine that's bucking, running? It amazed me how everyone thought that if we could get the code, the problem would be found. Easiest way to find a problem is to reproduce it, whenever possible.
We worked on the car. The problem is that the manufacturer says that if it starts without any error codes on it, it's fine. No matter what the driver(human) and mechanic(human) feel like. Are you going to throw parts at it? Not me. Who said computers should diagnose? People shouldn't diagnose over the internet either.
Established Member
If it is new enough to have throttle by wire - then it is at least an OBDII car. (Or at least I'm assuming it is NOT one of the fairly rare pre-OBDII throttle by wire cars).
Every OBDII (or EOBD depending on which country you are in) has a set standard that is literally universal for every single engine computer. Manufacturers MAY use their own specific codes for additional things but the OBDII standard runs across the board. These computers differ by manufacturer but their fault codes are standardized and their function related to those fault codes is also standardized. I do not have to know which car you own to tell you what P0401 means. It is the same code definition for every car.
That standard also applies to what happens when the CEL comes on. Every OBDII (or, again, EOBD) computer WILL store the fault code. If it goes inactive for any reason it will remain in that computer's history for review *by a qualified technician*. Again freeze frame data should also be available (basically to give you a snapshot of what was going on when that code was triggered... very valuable when doing a correct-process diagnosis).
If your computer is NOT OBDII (being throttle by wire I'd honestly be amazed if it wasn't) then you have a rare vehicle indeed.
Order of Kilopi
Very few large aircraft have had a direct connection between the control stick/pedals and aerodynamic control surfaces for decades, even before fly-by-wire. These aircraft had irreversible control systems, where the controls pulled cables which opened hydraulic valves; any "feel" was provided by springs, weights, cams, and other mechanisms. This included all supersonic aircraft, and the only two large aircraft of which I'm aware which did not have irreversible hydraulic controls were early models of the B-52 and the 707.
It was not a huge leap to fly-by-wire. As an aside, have you ever been on a modern naval vessel? I got a tour of a Perry-class frigate. The ship's wheel was about the size of a telephone dial (remember those?), and the only connection between it and the hydraulics moving the rudder were electrical wires.
Established Member
That's all fine and dandy, for a computer to accept human inputs. Even as far back as the 70's you have the F-117 with some serious avionics. Without the computer, no human can fly it. But that doesn't mean we should fly them without pilots either. Just for the sake of not losing it to the enemy you would want a pilot.
Look at surgical mechanical hands. It's fly-by-wire surgery with a medical robot. Now tell me, how many operations are done without a surgeon? If there's a place where spending that kind of money would have returns, surgery would be it.
Even military applications can give more lessons. Look at laser guided bombs. Why do we even need a human to paint the target with a laser when computers can do all of that while we sip margueritas.
Who else thinks that the Matrix and Terminator did not have happy endings?
Order of Kilopi
You brought up Star Trek and now two other movies apparently as evidence, but I can't really see what relevance fictional stories have to this. Can I use ET as evidence that bicycles can fly?
As above, so below
Order of Kilopi
The US military has a very active program to develop pilotless combat aircraft: I don't mean RPVs, like the Predator drones, I mean truly pilotless. They're more worried about losing a pilot than they are about losing an aircraft (for one thing, the families of lost pilots can vote, write anti-war letters to Congress, and otherwise complain). As for aircraft with digital FBW systems, the pilot does not really give the computer orders: they give it requests, which are mediated by the computer to prevent pilots from flying outside the envelope (aircraft have envelopes for good reasons, mostly involved with not dying). Similarly, teleoperated systems are going to have some mediation so the system will ignore small amplitude vibrations (tremors) or rapid large-amplitude excursions (oops! I sneezed!) or even be disabled at the operator's command (so the hands at other end don't move).
Order of Kilopi
Really? How often do you use a navigation system? The coordinates may be accurate, but the information tied to them is not. I have had the system miss the destination by hundreds of feet. I have had the system tell me to turn left (not exit, not bear...turn) on a highway 15 miles from any exit. Not even near any bridge.
That's an acknowledgement of factors into the issue, not an agreement.
There's a huge difference between a beeping, flashing, walking speed, machine in an isolated, controlled environment than an autonomous high speed vehicle in an ever changing environment.
"Demonstrated" is the key word. Until they are "demonstrated" in all kinds of conditions repeatedly, then it's not a matter of just adapting.
We don't know that yet.
No I don't. Although I like to keep my car clean, I don't have to do that to keep my headlights turning on at the right time. I don't care if they come on a bit too early or too late because the light sensor is not reading exact light conditions.
And what happens when your optics get dirty while driving? Have you ever seen a car after driving about a mile on a road in snowy conditions that has been cleared with salt? I have a hard time even seeing out of my windshield without using a lot of "blue juice".
ETA: By the way...
The company I work for has automated forklifts. You should see all the dents in the safety rails.
Established Member
Jens: since when does a question make for evidence?
It's simply food for thought.
Order of Kilopi
Over here we don't really have the taxis roaming the streets for people to flag it down. They either line up at railway stations and airports, or you have to call them to pick you up somewhere, so that was the system i was referring to, the driving service that responds to calls. I didn't mean so much for intra-city transport, but just consider for what reasons you now own your own car. For me it's commuting to work, doing shopping and general social use such as visiting friends and so. My point was that if the costs of the driver are taken out of the equation, the cost for a taxi company to operate is the ownership of the car itself and the gasoline for it to drive around, which are the same costs you have for owning your own car. However because the base cost of the car is spread out over several people for a taxi company, it might become cheaper for people to rely on those companies for personal transport rather than everyone owning their own car, and still leaving a margin for profit for the company.
Order of Kilopi
The wasted fuel and miles involved with transiting to the fare diminish any efficiency. Perhaps in an urban environment
that would improve. Sending a car 12 miles to run someone 5 miles? Hmmm..
Order of Kilopi
On the other hand, sending the nearest car that's free is likely more efficient as (shock! horror! disruption of cultural values! and other calamities!) more people forgo owning a private car which means there are more cars likely to be freed at any time.
__________________________________________________
Reductionist and proud of it.
Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain
Order of Kilopi
Sounds like you need a better computer, natch.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Order of Kilopi
And your point is that we need more detailed maps with increased accuracy and precision? I could have told you that. That does not mean the technology is not mature. Perhaps it could query Google Map's street level images for verification of data-points. Or, maybe it just means that the car needs to be able to see the road lane markings and signs to decide for itself if something is at variance from expectations like I've been saying all along. Road and roadside construction happens. This is normal.
An acknowledgement that the capability is there is all I wanted.That's an acknowledgement of factors into the issue, not an agreement.
Yes, hence adaptation.There's a huge difference between a beeping, flashing, walking speed, machine in an isolated, controlled environment than an autonomous high speed vehicle in an ever changing environment.
Perhaps we use words differently. I'm not saying we can put full-fledged cars on the road today with this capability. I'm saying we can start putting the components together today and can rapidly have something that will demonstrate this capability without waiting for advances in new technology. Getting it to market would take a while, bu we're looking more at development than research."Demonstrated" is the key word. Until they are "demonstrated" in all kinds of conditions repeatedly, then it's not a matter of just adapting.
That's kinda the point.We don't know that yet.
Why would the cameras be outside the windshield? A lane marking sensor might do better outside the cabin, closer to the wheel wells, but it can be more robust and take more abuse, and it is a backup to assist the main camera, or maybe it can be built into the headlight lens assembly and look forward instead of straight down. So, again, it may not be a big difference from what you normally do. If it's not good enough for the computer to see, then the car computer will tell you to take control or to clean the optics, which you should do anyways. How can one be a good primary driver if they can't be a good backup-driver/co-pilot.No I don't. Although I like to keep my car clean, I don't have to do that to keep my headlights turning on at the right time. I don't care if they come on a bit too early or too late because the light sensor is not reading exact light conditions.
And what happens when your optics get dirty while driving? Have you ever seen a car after driving about a mile on a road in snowy conditions that has been cleared with salt? I have a hard time even seeing out of my windshield without using a lot of "blue juice".
Another Appeal to Authority? Am I expected to assume that those dents were caused by those automated forklifts and to further assume that they were caused by machine failures instead of human failure? I know a few people who were hit by human operated forklifts, one of which lost a leg, so you need to convince me that it's less safe than human operation.ETA: By the way...
The company I work for has automated forklifts. You should see all the dents in the safety rails.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Order of Kilopi
Mandatory youtube link. Warning, German humor.
__________________________________________________
Reductionist and proud of it.
Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain
Order of Kilopi
That might be the problem. We perhaps use the word "mature" differently.
Yes; the technology is there, and possibly for a prototype, but nowhere near any kind of marketability or public use.
I was using "windshield" as an example of how bad optics can be affected anywhere outside of the car in those kind of conditions.
I don't care where you place it, it's going to get grime covered, especially around the front of the car and wheel wells.
Yes; big difference. In those conditions, which happen very often around here, virtually nobody would have thier car controlled automatically and were back to square one.
About the only thing to do is to have cleaning equipment around each sensor.
Here's a picture of the type of crap we get.
Oh; for goodness sake. NO... I'm giving you an observation and a little background for why I give the opinion I'm giving.
Yes; the humans are not in control in the aisles where this shows.
Plus; I am not trying to save that human operation is ultimately safer. Only that computer operation for the application of computer driving is not ready for prime time.
Order of Kilopi
The wipers and the driver are the cleaning equipment. If conditions happen to become too poor for a computer to drive, they are probably too poor for a human to drive. At this point the computer says "blank you, I'm not driving in this, if you want to then I'm not taking responsibility for what happens."
But you still haven't said what caused the collisions between the computer controlled vehicles and the obstacles they collided with. Even if a human is not in direct, real-time control of the vehicles, they often program the machines and the routes and the packing of the material on the pallets, etc.Oh; for goodness sake. NO... I'm giving you an observation and a little background for why I give the opinion I'm giving.
Yes; the humans are not in control in the aisles where this shows.
Plus; I am not trying to save that human operation is ultimately safer. Only that computer operation for the application of computer driving is not ready for prime time.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote