|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jul 1, 2016 7:07:51 GMT
I agree Jerry.
What worries me about the case in the news this morning is that it seems we only know about it because the driver was killed.
A direct quote from the news article:
The company said in a statement: "The high ride height of the trailer combined with its positioning across the road and the extremely rare circumstances of the impact caused the Model S to pass under the trailer, with the bottom of the trailer impacting the windshield of the Model S."
"Had the Model S impacted the front or rear of the trailer, even at high speed, its advanced crash safety system would likely have prevented serious injury as it has in numerous other similar incidents."
It seems that it's OK to crash as long as it doesn't kill you.
What about the car you hit?
"ah f**k 'em, they should have bought a Tesla"
|
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Jul 1, 2016 7:13:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jul 1, 2016 7:18:10 GMT
"Congratulations on the purchase of your new car - the payment has gone through, thank you very much. Now, just before I give you the keys, I need you to sign the contract. Sign here, here and also here just below the part that says you will allow the car to take deliberate action to kill you in order to save others"
|
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Jul 1, 2016 7:27:35 GMT
It's difficult, isn't it.
The car needs to be programmed to do something - often enough there won't be time for the 'driver' to take over.
Surely it can't be programmed to save the passengers regardless of consequences - or can it?
I really don't know.
But it needs to be defined!
Maybe have it as a user defined option - with the driver legally responsible for consequences.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jul 1, 2016 7:56:19 GMT
If you watched The Tunnel series 2, the implications of being able to bring down a plane remotely were certainly sobering. Drama mirroring reality?
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jul 1, 2016 7:58:29 GMT
The car needs to be programmed to do something - often enough there won't be time for the 'driver' to take over. According to Asimov, a robot can't kill a human. Maybe the programmers haven't been told? |
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Jul 1, 2016 8:01:20 GMT
The car needs to be programmed to do something - often enough there won't be time for the 'driver' to take over. According to Asimov, a robot can't kill a human. Maybe the programmers haven't been told? But the situation is that some humans are likely to die anyway, by action or inaction on the vehicle's part - the question is, which ones? This really does need to be sorted! |
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Jul 1, 2016 8:12:53 GMT
Asimov's 1st law of robotics ... A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm It's the inaction thing - you can't wriggle out of it!  |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jul 1, 2016 8:18:11 GMT
Agreed!
|
|
|
|
Post by mikeyb on Jul 1, 2016 14:04:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by speedysteve on Jul 1, 2016 17:00:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mikeyb on Jul 1, 2016 22:13:41 GMT
This was the guys second crash in the tesla and allegedly watching a movie at the time of this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Jul 2, 2016 5:34:17 GMT
I admire his confidence in the technology but not his judgement
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jul 2, 2016 9:03:39 GMT
This was the guys second crash in the tesla and allegedly watching a movie at the time of this one. If that's provable, he should be banned from driving for life. EDIT: of course, he already is  |
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Jul 2, 2016 11:38:36 GMT
I heard he was beta testing and this was autopilot for highways not for all and any road condition
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Aug 25, 2016 7:54:33 GMT
Reading Richard's post here reminds me of something I was reading a couple of weeks ago and meant to mention in this thread. Vehicle Platooning This is something that's being worked on by all major lorry manufacturers at the moment. A few months ago there was a demonstration of semi-autonomous trucking called the 'European Truck Platooning Challenge'. It was organized by the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment and involved truck DAF, Daimler, IVECO, MAN, Scania, and Volvo. Several trucks from each company left their home bases and drove in 'platoons' to Rotterdam. The wagons in each platoon were connected via Wi-Fi, which enabled them to be synchronized and therefore driven much closer to each other than would normally be possible or safe - minimum 6 metres. This is being promoted as a safety advantage but there are also fuel efficiency gains to be had - up to 10%. They're also carrying out trials in the US with a company called Peleton, who make the control systems. Acceleration, braking and distance between vehicles are controlled by the lead vehicle, so a line of trucks all braking at the same time as one unit, for example should also have a small but positive effect on congestion. They are proposing that this could be used with mixed vehicle types, not just truck convoys, so they see potential for small clusters or platoons of, say six vehicles - maybe a truck in front and some cars and vans behind. I guess the idea is that the haulage companies will invest in the pricier control gear, while the owners of the following vehicles will just have a cheaper receiving version? Here's a little video from Volvo, but there's loads about it on the web. |
|
|
|
Post by pre65 on Aug 25, 2016 9:17:27 GMT
Interesting.
How do they synchronise gear changing ?
Might get over my pet hate of one lorry blocking the fast lane for 3 miles whilst overtaking another lorry. 
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Aug 25, 2016 10:47:29 GMT
Alternatively it might be worse if you get stuck behind six lorries overtaking six other lorries!
|
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Aug 25, 2016 11:06:34 GMT
There's a long way to go yet - but progress has been rapid. The Tesla problems are people treating a system which is little more than advanced cruise control as if it is full driverless
The google cars have clocked up hundreds of thousands of miles in all conditions safely. The recent "at fault" accident was really due to an aggressive bus driver
They have issues, like being "too law abiding" and they are looking at fuzzy logic to make them safer by bending the rules a bit. The 3 big issues currently challenging them are how to recognise a legitimate traffic cop, and understand signals from him, distinguish a paper bag in the road from a boulder (don't swerve to avoid a carrier bag), and driving in snow. But the rate of progress is very rapid, and its hard to imagine them not getting there.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Aug 25, 2016 11:32:38 GMT
Alternatively it might be worse if you get stuck behind six lorries overtaking six other lorries! LOL! |
|
