The sooner they create fully automatic self-driving cars and ban people from driving at all, the better for everyone.

This is great. If he had to drive himself an accident would be a lot more likely.

From what i have read the driver have "by passed" the Tesla security system to drive, and the police succeed to stop the car slowing down in front of the car with the anti crash system from Tesla... Human is still the weak point 🙁

cryohellinc:

The sooner they create fully automatic self-driving cars and ban people from driving at all, the better for everyone.

Yes but there will be a mix with driven vehicule, even more on hard condition country... Exemple: to go to work in winter the road passage can change within an hour with ice on the road, moutain on one side and ravine on other side (also in summer due to the flying custom check point 😉 ). But i agree that it would be a solution for big cities: "i don't remember who was driven my car from the bar last night,Siri, Alexa, Cortana, Mercedes... I was too drunk" .

cryohellinc:

The sooner they create fully automatic self-driving cars and ban people from driving at all, the better for everyone.

@cryohellinc no, just no. Let's not take what little fun there's left in the world and give it all up to a bunch of ones and zeros.

RzrTrek:

@cryohellinc no, just no. Let's not take what little fun there's left in the world and give it all up to a bunch of ones and zeros.

You wanna me carry these TCP packets to @cryohellinc?

@rl66 That's my hope for down the road in near future. The amount of MORONS I meet while driving on a daily basis is beyond belief. Most people don't know road laws, and worst of all each one tries to interpret the law in his own head. People can't drive when they are sober, not even talking when some morons attempt when drunk. Add on top of it, road rage, l33t driv3rs that will try to cut in front of you, or shout something through the window while driving on a bus lane and e.t.c. Laws have to change, 24+ should be the bare minimum age for license + slap on top of it at least 5 years if your IQ is below 80. All in all, this technology is in its infancy as of right now, but in near future I sincerely hope we will have a Ban for people to self drive their cars in cities, or specific type of roads suited for it. Cross country will most likely always be a "unique" sector, up until the point where we create a proper AI which can analyze various conditions on the go, type of road, vehicle characteristics, and actually be able to See and analyze the road ahead.

RzrTrek:

@cryohellinc no, just no. Let's not take what little fun there's left in the world and give it all up to a bunch of ones and zeros.

Don't care. It will happen sooner or later, and when it does I will be the first in line to vote for it and rise a glass in cheer. The vast majority of people should Not be allowed to drive by themselves. At the very least what they can do today is make the process of getting a license much harder + require to re-take exams and tests every 2-3 years.

cryohellinc:

The sooner they create fully automatic self-driving cars and ban people from driving at all, the better for everyone.

This isn't cool at all. I know they say accidents will still happen but at a far lesser rate but I think they are just guessing at this point due to the immaturity of the technology. Even if it is true, today when you drive your risk of an accident is 100% controllable. There will never be zero risk but the way you drive has so much to do with it. If you drive drunk every weekend your risk is much greater, if you drive distracted your risk is greater or if you drive too aggressively then your risk is much greater. Most of know people who have been in multiple accidents and we aren't surprised because they're bad drivers. When it's the computer driving now my risk is not in my control and the system takes 100% responsibility. It might evenly distribute risk but it also makes it arbitrary on who lives and dies. It also gives control of your vehicle which is your property to a third party which may or may not have your best interest in mind. Part of being free is choosing where and how you travel. When the UN announces plans to move everyone into mega cities and leave most land area unavailable to the general public I cringe to see statements like banning manual driving.

Frances:

This isn't cool at all. I know they say accidents will still happen but at a far lesser rate but I think they are just guessing at this point due to the immaturity of the technology. Even if it is true, today when you drive your risk of an accident is 100% controllable. There will never be zero risk but the way you drive has so much to do with it. If you drive drunk every weekend your risk is much greater, if you drive distracted your risk is greater or if you drive too aggressively then your risk is much greater. Most of know people who have been in multiple accidents and we aren't surprised because they're bad drivers. When it's the computer driving now my risk is not in my control and the system takes 100% responsibility. It might evenly distribute risk but it also makes it arbitrary on who lives and dies. It also gives control of your vehicle which is your property to a third party which may or may not have your best interest in mind. Part of being free is choosing where and how you travel. When the UN announces plans to move everyone into mega cities and leave most land area unavailable to the general public I cringe to see statements like banning manual driving.

I agree with you that there will always be a risk, however, as of today the biggest risk on the road (to yourself and people surrounding you) is you (the driver) and other drivers around you. We can take various elements into account such as - a condition of the road, weather conditions, condition of your vehicle, electronics, temperature e.t.c BUT the one BIGGEST factor to accidents and deaths is the human factor. As long as there are human at the wheel, we will have accidents. I doubt we will ever see a 100% risk-free ability to travel, as there will always be a certain % of an accident. Point is to minimize it, and by removing human out of the equation, we can lower it by at least 50% if not more. Personally, I don't care how people drive and in what condition outside of the city somewhere in the wild with nobody around them. For fun or whatever other reason. But god damn it, when you are in a city with people around you and you cause problems - you should not be allowed to drive.

I'm also a fan of increasing the minimum age of driving and also the maximum. The roads are full of stupid kids and old people with all their senses failing. Unfortunately the other side of that is that such a change would be life changing for these older and younger people. This is why i hope this tech is mainstream soon, the freedom it would give to those who are old, young, disabled, even the stupid who have had their licence removed. I'm not sure making it mandatory is something that would happen anytime soon though, but it would be interesting to see how the insurance companies would react to that.

Frances:

Even if it is true, today when you drive your risk of an accident is 100% controllable.

That's not even remotely true. Even if you're the only person on the road for 1000km you have exactly 0% control of the environment, or indeed any aspect of the experience that isn't tied to you personally. The weather could turn in an instant, there could be wildlife on the road, a giant sinkhole could open up or your vehicle could malfunction in some way. Heck, you could even have a seizure or other medical emergency that would take away control of yourself for the event in question. Add other traffic to the mix and your safety is essentially in the hands of a very large number of complete strangers in 2-ton metal boxes running past you at 100+ km/h. And you know that some number of those people are going to be distracted young men.

Frances:

When it's the computer driving now my risk is not in my control and the system takes 100% responsibility. It might evenly distribute risk but it also makes it arbitrary on who lives and dies.

Computers may be many things but one thing they are not is arbitrary. In the case of a catastrophic, unavoidable accident a driving computer would make the best informed decision possible under the parameters of the situation. There's been a lot of hemming and hawing from people over this ever since we first started discussing autonomous vehicles and it's certainly true that any situation like this will be nitpicked over endlessly, as it should, and no doubt there are groups of people who will disagree with whatever decision the computer has made. That's all besides the point though, as a human driver would never be able to make an informed decision in such a situation to begin with. We have neither the experience as drivers, as complete a picture of the surroundings or the reflexes to utilize those as a computer would. Autonomous vehicles won't just save lives though, it'll also hasten the demise of the privately owned car - which is pretty much a necessity to handle both environmental concerns and quality of life in dense urban areas. For the small number of people who are true driving enthusiasts there's no doubt still going to be tracks or the like for them to enjoy their hobby, much like how rowing competitions exist but no one is relying on that for actual transport. Or how we have gun ranges for those who enjoy that but don't allow people to use those in public settings.

Exodite:

That's not even remotely true. Even if you're the only person on the road for 1000km you have exactly 0% control of the environment, or indeed any aspect of the experience that isn't tied to you personally. The weather could turn in an instant, there could be wildlife on the road, a giant sinkhole could open up or your vehicle could malfunction in some way. Heck, you could even have a seizure or other medical emergency that would take away control of yourself for the event in question. Add other traffic to the mix and your safety is essentially in the hands of a very large number of complete strangers in 2-ton metal boxes running past you at 100+ km/h. And you know that some number of those people are going to be distracted young men. Computers may be many things but one thing they are not is arbitrary. In the case of a catastrophic, unavoidable accident a driving computer would make the best informed decision possible under the parameters of the situation. There's been a lot of hemming and hawing from people over this ever since we first started discussing autonomous vehicles and it's certainly true that any situation like this will be nitpicked over endlessly, as it should, and no doubt there are groups of people who will disagree with whatever decision the computer has made. That's all besides the point though, as a human driver would never be able to make an informed decision in such a situation to begin with. We have neither the experience as drivers, as complete a picture of the surroundings or the reflexes to utilize those as a computer would. Autonomous vehicles won't just save lives though, it'll also hasten the demise of the privately owned car - which is pretty much a necessity to handle both environmental concerns and quality of life in dense urban areas. For the small number of people who are true driving enthusiasts there's no doubt still going to be tracks or the like for them to enjoy their hobby, much like how rowing competitions exist but no one is relying on that for actual transport. Or how we have gun ranges for those who enjoy that but don't allow people to use those in public settings.

This. Metal box at 100km/h comparison to the gun is just perfect. Kudos.

this actually happened in my neighborhood. i went to do my morning starbucks visit and four CHP cruisers and two tv trucks were there. Tesla is headquartered here with the auto factory on the other side of the Bay. this commentary isn't just about Tesla drivers, but luxury car drivers. and then the 80-20 rule applies (80% of the problem comes from 20% of the people). the safety aids and autopilots give lazy drivers a false sense of security. there are more Teslas here than anywhere on earth, followed closely by all other electric marques. this problem exists with BMW, Benz, Audi, Lexus, Infiniti, Jaguar, et al... electric or combustion. and if you think distracted driving is bad with a phone, car info-tainment systems are worse. i see drivers scrolling down pages as i'm on the freeway. IMHO (caps lol) nfc controllers have gotten really good...my "fastrak" works at any speed. the requirement for all cars to have nfc transponders along with license will greatly and accurately aid in real world adoption of automation. it's not making older vehicles pay for new cars' toys, it will lead to an effective "ground traffic control" system that is past due in a state as heavily populated as California (and in Asia).

So.... nobody sees a problem that it took seven minutes for the police to figure out how to stop an auto-pilot car? The primary intention of the auto-pilot is to stop to avoid accidents; being able to self-drive is just an added bonus. That's a lot wasted time and added risk to the public as far as I'm concerned. It's not like they had to slam on the brakes, they just had to gradually slow down. If they felt the car wasn't slowing down, it's not hard to take your foot off the brake...

Redemption80:

I'm also a fan of increasing the minimum age of driving and also the maximum. The roads are full of stupid kids and old people with all their senses failing.

There are plenty of responsible kids and there are plenty of irresponsible adults in their 30s to late 60s. The problem is people are licensed too easily. The test to get a license needs to be a lot more strict, and part of the testing really needs to teach road etiquette. Many accidents happen because people put themselves before others, or do things out of spite. There also needs to be a separate license to drive high-power sportscars (not a more expensive one, just simply a different one). It might also be a good idea for texting apps to deliberately cripple themselves whenever they detect being in high speeds, to prevent texting+driving. I guess the tricky part is those who are passengers in a vehicle, who aren't a threat. However, I do think it's worth it for people over the age of 70 to take vision and reflex tests to ensure they aren't a hazard. I have an uncle who just turned 100 this October and he's a more trustworthy driver than some people I know in their 20s. As long as he would pass those tests, I don't see the problem in him continuing to drive.

Telsa takes too many shortcuts. the fact the car doesn't monitor that you are aware is bad. what if I was having a heart attack? I like what GM is doing with their supercruise tech over tesla's autopilot. its just as important to monitor the driver as well as the surroundings...

holler:

Telsa takes too many shortcuts. the fact the car doesn't monitor that you are aware is bad. what if I was having a heart attack? I like what GM is doing with their supercruise tech over tesla's autopilot. its just as important to monitor the driver as well as the surroundings...

Actually it does encourage users to be aware. The car will warn you that it will disable autopilot if you don't give it some input response to show that you're paying attention. As rl66 pointed out, this behavior was bypassed. Also, I don't understand your logic about a heart attack. In such a situation, you would WANT the autopilot to take control, because at that point you are no longer suitable to be driving yourself.

1) Tesla's with their regenerative braking and electric motors accelerate until you brake. the "gas pedal" (lol) controls how much faster you're going, but you still will go until you brake. 2) that takes drivers getting used to. 3) lazy drivers are bad in any car

tunejunky:

the safety aids and autopilots give lazy drivers a false sense of security. there are more Teslas here than anywhere on earth, followed closely by all other electric marques. this problem exists with BMW, Benz, Audi, Lexus, Infiniti, Jaguar, et al... electric or combustion.

It's probably worth making the distinction between automation and full automation in this case. There have been arguments for outright banning SAE level 3/4 automation since partial automation is the most dangerous. Human drivers can't be expected to take control at a moments notice once they've surrendered control to the vehicle in the first place, which is really where we're seeing the issues cropping up with current vehicles and automation systems. No matter of rules or laws is going to fix this, it's just something we're naturally bad at.

I would hate to see what would have happened had the police not stopped the car--crash, bam, boom! I rather think it was the human police who saved the day here, not the dinky autopilot. Apparently, the autopilot was so stupid it didn't know the guy was drunk or that his hands were no longer on the wheel. Think of driving at night in inclement weather, or on winding, narrow two-lane roads, etc. You'd not want to be anywhere near an "autopilot" in those situations. People have already died in Teslas from just sleeping while the autopilot was on in fair weather on four-lane highways. Any technology in a moving vehicle which encourages lax attention from the human driver is very bad news, imo. People forget that these dime-store computers don't think, they have no judgment, etc. It's all the same to them if they stay on the road or leave the road, provided their programming rules are complied with.

RzrTrek:

@cryohellinc no, just no. Let's not take what little fun there's left in the world and give it all up to a bunch of ones and zeros.

Yes and no, as having a track car and use it also in hillclimb, i just love when there is no help at all... But being in a car stucked (or stoped lol ) and having an average speed of 10 to 20 Km/H in inner big cities or being in a straight line highway at 130 Km/H for hours is not driving pleasure at all. And in here you might enjoy an autonomous car.