Saturn Sky Forum banner

21 - 40 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,058 Posts
I saw the details of this story on a blog which listed Tesla's instructions from the owner's manual. The 2 requirements that I found to be strange were:
(Paraphrasing here)
1) Driver must keep 2 hands on the steering wheel, and
2) Driver must pay attention to the road ahead in case Autopilot misses something and driver must then take appropriate action.

So what good is this Autopilot if you have to follow those 2 instructions? This is no better than a regular cruise control system.
@robo: These systems have a long way to go before Seniors will be able to rely on them to make their driving "safer."

Yogi
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,085 Posts
It is in Beta test. The idea is to get customers to provide the "labor" so that the road testing gets done with human backup while Tesla collects data on what works and what doesn't.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
623 Posts
Interesting conversation, will be interesting to here about what happened from Tesla and the NHTSA. Going to bet the large area between the wheels is a blind zone. Driver should have been paying attention to the road and what was going on. The autopilot is a lot like a backseat or side seat driver.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
297 Posts
It is difficult--more for some than others--to stay engaged when not participating. Lindbergh stayed awake (survived) flying over the Atlantic by making his airplane slightly unstable so that it would require constant correction (attention). I wonder how many lived would have been saved if cars' steering did not auto-center, and the driver would not have fallen asleep. Really, there can only be one driver, it's just a matter of who it will (or should) be.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,085 Posts
Discussion Starter #26
It is difficult--more for some than others--to stay engaged when not participating. Lindbergh stayed awake (survived) flying over the Atlantic by making his airplane slightly unstable so that it would require constant correction (attention). I wonder how many lived would have been saved if cars' steering did not auto-center, and the driver would not have fallen asleep. Really, there can only be one driver, it's just a matter of who it will (or should) be.
Technically, we are constantly correcting our cars even to go straight though not by much. A slight bump in the road is enough to put us in the other lane. Setting your suspension to 0 front castor (which wouldn't be possible in every car) would negate the auto-centering of the steering wheel. If you've never driven a car with 0 castor though, I can tell you it isn't safe. Breath too heavy on the steering wheel and you're making a turn...not a lane change...a turn. It is incredibly unstable. Our castor is about 6* stock and we're pretty agile. At 4* you'd be twitchy.

But here is an interesting scenario. I know Mercedes Benz has (or once had) technology in their cars that would detect when a driver fell asleep and would try and wake the driver up by doing something like vigorously shaking the steering wheel and driver's seat coupled with some sort of klaxon going off. I haven't heard much about it since but that may be due to the progression of other driver assists like lane deviation, adaptive cruise, and auto-braking.

So now, what if "self-driving" cars got away from the idea of being an "auto-pilot" and started marketing more of the automated driving functions as safety features like they have with the automated braking? What if the technology Mercedes used to determine the driver was falling asleep turned on an automatic pilot style driving mode to get the vehicle to a safe parking area while it tried or instead of waking the driver?

I still see the incorporation of automated vehicles as including areas of road designated for automated vehicles only similar to HOV lanes here in CA. I also believe that the reality of automated cars will not continue to evolve along the lines of solo vehicles filled with sensors as being the only means of automation. If this technology continues to progress, highways and roads will need to become smarter too. Large transportation networks with "smart" signals, "smart" traffic signs, and two way communication capability between the cars and roadway will need to be developed in conjunction with a vehicle's onboard sensors to get a clearer picture of the current conditions.

Even something as simple as a traffic cone...put a small solar panel on it and have an onboard beacon that broadcasts it's location so autonomous cars can "see" where these cones are and avoid them without having to visually identify them via camera and photo recognition logic. Road Construction signs that have a similar device and tell the automated car that whatever speed limit it has stored for this particular road is now reduced to whatever speed limit is programmed into the Road Construction sign.

Right now self driving cars are in their infancy. Think of them like you'd think about the very first cars. When the car was released, paved roads were mostly paved in cobblestones and they were the exception...most roads were dirt. There were no rules, no laws, no traffic signs and the speed limit was generally how fast you could go without the car being shaken apart by the road you were on. As cars became more mainstream, these things changed and developed along with the cars themselves.

Again, my biggest problem, and the biggest obstacle to automation, is that some people LIKE to drive. Many people...especially the older generations (by older I mean 30+)...prefer being in control of their cars. While there are those who would love to read the latest news on their Kindle or watch Harry Potter on their way to work, most...I feel...would rather be in control. The one major automotive task though where I see MOST people using autopilot like features would be urban areas with high traffic congestion like L.A. or N.Y. Places where you're not really driving, you're just crawling along from point A to point B.

And maybe that's how we will start to incorporate automation. Areas known for heavy traffic will have a number of lanes switched for automated cars only. In these lanes, traffic will flow based on 1s and 0s. Entry and exit to these lanes will be dictated by the automation to keep traffic flowing. As more and more cars receive automation, more and more lanes will be used for automated traffic until such time when a majority of cars will have automated driving options and non-automated cars will be in the minority with their own lane.

Of course, the hitch to this whole idea is the one guy that decides to drive in the automated lanes because they move faster but will drive a non-automated car. That will be the problem. Of course, if it is a car that has automation in it, the automation could be automatically engaged when entering the section of roadway. Again though, you'd need smart highways for this.

Sorry for the long winded reply...just got me to thinking a lot about where this technology may, one day, lead.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,293 Posts
I am human. So I decide when it is happening. An autopilot can not do that. Many things play a role in a human decisions. I might react differently when my kid is sitting next to me, I might prefer driving into a wall over a ravine, but do not prefer a wall over water, I might prefer hitting a pony over an 18wheeler, but not when my son is riding that pony, I wonder if an autopilot can ever make decisions like that.
Of course it can't. It's about making decisions that will reduce the probability of harm.

There are lots of examples, of technology, or changes that may harm an individual but help more. Hell almost all perscription drugs can/will kill someone who is taking them legally, doesn't mean we stop giving out the drug.

Some of the arguments on this thread seem like if traffic fatalities fell from 1000 to 10 with autonomous driving, people would view it as a fail cause 10 people died driving autonomous vehicles.

If you take the attitude of some, we would not have natural gas plumbed into houses cause several people die a year from leaks. Forget the number that died using candles or other fuels before Lp was plumbed.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
459 Posts
My biggest concern (Other than giving up control of driving.) is not from the cars themselves, but from those people who think it would be "fun" to spoof them. Stretch a white sheet across the road in front of a traffic hazard. Line those cones you spoke of across the road. Remove the markers that give them direction off the road entirely. Hack into the systems to give them instructions to turn left instead of right when the GPS signals. Etc. It's not really the cars that worry me once the technology gets up to speed. It's all the people who would depend on them to work correctly not matter what. A person driving is much harder to spoof or hack than a computer that only knows to do what it's been told.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,085 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
Very true Specter and it has been shown that some of these newer technologies CAN be hacked if they are not properly secured. That's why it comes down to the slow development of this technology over time to figure out what doesn't work and what does work without overly compromising public safety.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,026 Posts
He said . . . . . IT said

A driver crashed and flipped his Tesla Model X on the Pennsylvania Turnpike last Thursday. Both occupants are OK. He says the autopilot malfunctioned but the carmaker claims that the autopilot mode was not involved.

Full story.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,267 Posts
Predicted two (2) years out, 2018!

Check out this video clip on self-driving cars and the expected/forcasted impact. This might add to the debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg03UUYKG1s&feature=youtu.be

Click here: Tony Seba on the driverless car disruption - 2016 DSA State of Downtown - YouTube

(one of these links should hopefully work)

Bob, you beat me to it .... I missed the last page of the posting. Sorry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,267 Posts
Current announcements in Phoenix this morning about the selfdriving car revolution was Mobileye is putting 100 selfdriving cars on the road. These cars join over 100 selfdriving cars that are already on the Phoenix East Valley streets by Uber and Google.

Other earlier development and announcements was a call was made to East Valley families to volunteer and be screened for acceptability to utilize an early offering of the service for an entire family's needs; ..... all kinds of normal family transportation. My understanding was that a driver would exist in the car, but be available on call for a majority of a normal day's activities. I've not heard anything since the initial announcement.

It has been said repeatedly that by 2020 we will begin seeing the driverless revolution begin. Note, there is a difference between a selfdriving car versus a driverless car. So Blue, it is coming faster that many believe. :cool: :surprise:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
720 Posts
Like the "Cruise Control" that RoBo mentioned, The name is not the problem, its function is not the problem. Its the lack of following the rules that IS the problem...i.e. Driver/Pilot error.

I am both a driver and a pilot and as a pilot, it is well known that you fly the plane from take off to landing (actually from starting the engine till shutting it down). Auto pilot is an instrument to make your flight easier, like ailerons were an instrument to make flying easier than wing warping. BUT it does not relieve you of your job. In two pilot aircraft like airliners,the pilot may getup, but NOT without the co pilot being belted in and in control ! !

I am looking into getting a Tesla next year, maybe. This does not discourage me.

What does discourage me is the lady that answered the phone at the Toyota Mirai website that tried to say that a fuel cell could never be used to power a Tesla because it was NOT a battery. It IS a battery in that it produces electricity from the process of oxygen and hydrogen combining. It can be used with ANY electrically powered device if properly designed and sized. But Toyota is so afraid that someone will steal their market share that they wont even admit to their technology being a battery. The lady said, "If that is what you want to believe". They would not even entertain the thought that a fuel cell of their manufacture might someday power a Tesla. But in talking to Tesla, they readily admitted that a fuel cell would be an upgrade to their EV if it became economical to do it. Toyota will fail and Tesla will succeed. Their attitude will make the difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,794 Posts
What does discourage me is the lady that answered the phone at the Toyota Mirai website that tried to say that a fuel cell could never be used to power a Tesla because it was NOT a battery. It IS a battery in that it produces electricity from the process of oxygen and hydrogen combining. It can be used with ANY electrically powered device if properly designed and sized. But Toyota is so afraid that someone will steal their market share that they wont even admit to their technology being a battery. The lady said, "If that is what you want to believe". They would not even entertain the thought that a fuel cell of their manufacture might someday power a Tesla. But in talking to Tesla, they readily admitted that a fuel cell would be an upgrade to their EV if it became economical to do it. Toyota will fail and Tesla will succeed. Their attitude will make the difference.
Seems to me that you are getting discouraged by semantics. When you say "battery", most people naturally assume you mean a "chemical battery" (since this is by far the most common type), rather than the more generic battery definition of "a device that stores energy for later use" (your gas tank can be considered a "battery" in this case).

It's a lot like asking someone "How many wheels does a motorcycle have?" and then when they answer "2", saying "No, you are wrong - because some people have 3-wheeled motorcycles."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
720 Posts
Seems to me that you are getting discouraged by semantics. When you say "battery", most people naturally assume you mean a "chemical battery" (since this is by far the most common type), rather than the more generic battery definition of "a device that stores energy for later use" (your gas tank can be considered a "battery" in this case).

It's a lot like asking someone "How many wheels does a motorcycle have?" and then when they answer "2", saying "No, you are wrong - because some people have 3-wheeled motorcycles."
No, a lead acid battery is a chemical reaction JUST LIKE a Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel cell is a chemical reaction battery. Hydrogen and Oxygen are chemicals as are Lithium and and other chemicals that are used to make a battery.

BUT what discouraged me,other than her understanding of batteries, was that Toyota was afraid to admit that a fuel cell could power a Tesla just as it does the electric Mirai. Both are electric cars that could run of a Hydrogen/Oxygen battery. She was rejecting the idea that a fuel cell could be used to power the Tesla. Pure ignorance of what electricity is. Fuel cell electricity is the same electron flow that windturbines generate:cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,794 Posts
No, a lead acid battery is a chemical reaction JUST LIKE a Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel cell is a chemical reaction battery. Hydrogen and Oxygen are chemicals as are Lithium and and other chemicals that are used to make a battery.
Well, if you want to really really get technical...

From the Wikipedia entry for Fuel Cell...

A fuel cell is an electrochemical cell that converts the chemical energy from a fuel into electricity through an electrochemical reaction of hydrogen-containing fuel with oxygen or another oxidizing agent. Fuel cells are different from batteries in requiring a continuous source of fuel and oxygen (usually from air) to sustain the chemical reaction, whereas in a battery the chemical energy comes from chemicals already present in the battery. Fuel cells can produce electricity continuously for as long as fuel and oxygen are supplied.​

Since even Wikipedia thinks that "fuel cells are different from batteries", I don't see why you should be surprised that some girl answering the phone at Toyota thinks they are different too.

Could a Toyota fuel cell be rigged to power a Tesla? Probably.
Could Tesla's battery system be used to power a Toyota? Probably.

But neither one is very likely to come to market.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,293 Posts
No, a lead acid battery is a chemical reaction JUST LIKE a Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel cell is a chemical reaction battery. Hydrogen and Oxygen are chemicals as are Lithium and and other chemicals that are used to make a battery.

BUT what discouraged me,other than her understanding of batteries, was that Toyota was afraid to admit that a fuel cell could power a Tesla just as it does the electric Mirai. Both are electric cars that could run of a Hydrogen/Oxygen battery. She was rejecting the idea that a fuel cell could be used to power the Tesla. Pure ignorance of what electricity is. Fuel cell electricity is the same electron flow that windturbines generate:cheers:
Blue, your one of a very small group of people who would consider a Fuel Cell a battery.

GM and Honda are working on a next generation fuel cell http://www.fleetsandfuels.com/fuels/hydrogen/2017/01/gm-and-honda-form-fuel-cell-jv/

One last edit... I always thought a Fuel Cell Volt Convertible would be the ultimate car. Of course a fuel cell is actually kind of noise with the compressor and injector noises. But it would not need to run often only on longer trips.

Here is more about the 100 Chevy Equinox Fuel Cells GM made back in 2007 for Project Driveway mentioned in the above article http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/index.php/project-driveway/


You know GM just sold some to the army https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/07/10/chevrolet-colorado-zh-2-fuel-cell-electric-trucks/463896001/
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,569 Posts
Well, if you want to really really get technical...

From the Wikipedia entry for Fuel Cell...

A fuel cell is an electrochemical cell that converts the chemical energy from a fuel into electricity through an electrochemical reaction of hydrogen-containing fuel with oxygen or another oxidizing agent. Fuel cells are different from batteries in requiring a continuous source of fuel and oxygen (usually from air) to sustain the chemical reaction, whereas in a battery the chemical energy comes from chemicals already present in the battery. Fuel cells can produce electricity continuously for as long as fuel and oxygen are supplied.​

Since even Wikipedia thinks that "fuel cells are different from batteries", I don't see why you should be surprised that some girl answering the phone at Toyota thinks they are different too.

Could a Toyota fuel cell be rigged to power a Tesla? Probably.
Could Tesla's battery system be used to power a Toyota? Probably.

But neither one is very likely to come to market.
She was probably an employee at a contracted call center. They have a script with answers to all likely questions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,267 Posts
Samsung secures self-driving car permit (part article)

Samsung secures self-driving car permit in California

By Stephen Nellis, Reuters - 5:25 PM ET 8/31/2017 Technology

Aug 31 (Reuters) - Samsung Electronics Co Ltd ( SSNLF ) said on Thursday it has received a permit to test self-driving vehicles in California, marking the entry of the world's largest smart phone maker four months after iPhone maker and arch rival Apple Inc ( AAPL ) received a permit.

With the foray into the U.S. self-driving car landscape, Samsung will jostle with its friends and foes. Besides Apple ( AAPL ) , it will join Waymo, a division of Alphabet Inc ( GOOG ), which supplies the Android operating system that runs on Samsung's phones.


Bob, maybe we will be able to retrofit your FJ Cruiser and take-on the California Pass at Ouray!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
21 - 40 of 42 Posts
Top