Self driving cars in the present, good idea or bad idea?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

They should have been extensively tested in a lab and on a track before they were turned loose on city streets. I have a strong feeling they have not.

Wait, what? What do you base this fairly outrageous claim upon?

If ANYTHING would be tested the SHIT out of in the lab and on a track before being put out into the general public, it would be self-driving cars with the ability to cause a pretty fair amount of liability for the company responsible, should things go awry.

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Wait, what? What do you base this fairly outrageous claim upon?

If ANYTHING would be tested the SHIT out of in the lab and on a track before being put out into the general public, it would be self-driving cars with the ability to cause a pretty fair amount of liability for the company responsible, should things go awry.

Go ahead and show me the test data where the components of these cars have been extensively subjected to everything they will encounter on our system of road ways. I have a feeling they have not, go ahead and prove me wrong. Due note these are not normal cars, they have components on them that are a lot more sensitive and fragile than those found on a typical automobile. The test procedures a normal car would be put through are not adequate to insure safety.To try to put it in easy to understand terms I would call an autonomous vehicle a cross between a car and a PC as far as terms of durability.

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by JerryBoyle

Inner Dirt, just to summarize our on going argument so others don't feel the need to go back and catch up, and so you can see how ridiculous you're being:

Me: autonomous cars will lead to a safer future on the roads. We should encourage this field

You: The sensors are sensitive and will fail in bad conditions. This must be tested thoroughly

Me: Agreed. Continue testing.

You: I know more than you, liberal. The sensors will fail. Test in all environments. And btw, here, take this test.

Me. You don't know my political affiliations or my knowledge on the subject of autonomous vehicles. But agreed, the sensors should be tested. Though perhaps, we can continue testing in friendlier conditions, as it's becoming clear these vehicles are already safer than human drives? Also, no, I'm not taking your test

You: Listen, ass. You know nothing about this subject. I'm telling you the sensors will fail, yet you're oblivious to it. TAKE THE TEST

Me: *sigh*. yes, we should test the sensors. No, I won't take your test

You keep talking about sensors, why? They are one component of 100's that could cause problems. Strangely enough as a whole sensors themselves are pretty reliable as long as they are properly adjusted, kept clean, undamaged, and connected into a circuit that has not been corrupted. The hazards the sensor encounters and the accumulated effects are the problem.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

Go ahead and show me the test data where the components of these cars have been extensively subjected to everything they will encounter on our system of road ways. I have a feeling they have not, go ahead and prove me wrong. Due note these are not normal cars, they have components on them that are a lot more sensitive and fragile than those found on a typical automobile. The test procedures a normal car would be put through are not adequate to insure safety.To try to put it in easy to understand terms I would call an autonomous vehicle a cross between a car and a PC as far as terms of durability.

You're probably right. They just threw together one of these in Steve Jobs' old garage and flung it out on the street. How silly of me to think of businesses being concerned about a little thing called liability and manslaughter and all that jazz. Why test?

And as for all your sensitive components and PC analogies so that this feeble minded, uneducated fellow can grasp all the high fallootin stuff you're jabbering on about...ALL cars these days have a LOT of the stuff you're talking about inside of them...sensors...PCs...GPS...anti-braking...lane detection...you name it...

Surprised there aren't a string of broken down vehicles on the highway every time it rains or snows these days, what with all the high tech involved in building a conventional vehicle in 2018.

[davew]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

You're probably right. They just threw together one of these in Steve Jobs' old garage and flung it out on the street. How silly of me to think of businesses being concerned about a little thing called liability and manslaughter and all that jazz. Why test?

And as for all your sensitive components and PC analogies so that this feeble minded, uneducated fellow can grasp all the high fallootin stuff you're jabbering on about...ALL cars these days have a LOT of the stuff you're talking about inside of them...sensors...PCs...GPS...anti-braking...lane detection...you name it...

Surprised there aren't a string of broken down vehicles on the highway every time it rains or snows these days, what with all the high tech involved in building a conventional vehicle in 2018.

There are, and it will only get worse as vehicles age. What percentage of these things will still be functional after 20 years in a northern, heavy salt on roads environment?

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

You're probably right. They just threw together one of these in Steve Jobs' old garage and flung it out on the street. How silly of me to think of businesses being concerned about a little thing called liability and manslaughter and all that jazz. Why test?

And as for all your sensitive components and PC analogies so that this feeble minded, uneducated fellow can grasp all the high fallootin stuff you're jabbering on about...ALL cars these days have a LOT of the stuff you're talking about inside of them...sensors...PCs...GPS...anti-braking...lane detection...you name it...

Surprised there aren't a string of broken down vehicles on the highway every time it rains or snows these days, what with all the high tech involved in building a conventional vehicle in 2018.

Conventional vehicles have very little technology that a self driving car has, keep talking out your ass.

[davew]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

Conventional vehicles have very little technology that a self driving car has, keep talking out your ass.

I think you have it backwards, self driving cars have ALL the technology conventional cars do, plus a whole bunch more.

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by davew

I think you have it backwards, self driving cars have ALL the technology conventional cars do, plus a whole bunch more.

That would have sounded better.

I am pretty sure most or all of the motion control systems are closed loop where everything executed is feedback through a servo drive or like device to a main CPU. An example would be when the wheels are turned 15 degrees for a duration of 2 seconds to make a lane change a set of rotary encoders or like devices will feedback exactly what happened. If the command was not executed correctly because the car ran through a pot hole the instant the wheels started to turn a second command will be sent to try to compensate.

Positive of this type system they are highly accurate when they function correctly. Drawback, if anything corrupts the feedback system as simple as a dirty or loose connection it will shutdown the whole system all the way back to turning off the main CPU. So what does the car do when a closed loop servo system decides to shut down operations? Does the car slam on the brakes even if it was going 70 MPH on the freeway? Does it roll to a stop with no steering like a rudderless ship? It isn't if these systems will have issues, it is when.

Open loop systems are way less complicated and have less components therefor not as prone to shut down type failures as closed loop. They basically work like this. A stepper motor is told to turn the wheels 15 degrees for two seconds. It is assumed that is what happened, there is nothing that checked that it was executed correctly. Even if the command was not executed correctly all systems are go, nothing is shut down unless of course the poorly executed command caused a mechanical crash and a limit switch or like device was energized.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

Conventional vehicles have very little technology that a self driving car has, keep talking out your ass.

I'm talking out of my ass?

Says the guy who claims driverless cars haven't been tested extensively in the lab and out on the track before hitting the open road...

[davew]

the new Volvo by itself had technology to detect and swerve/brake, but must have been disabled for the Uber stuff (some claim)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...h-avoided.html

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I'm talking out of my ass?

Says the guy who claims driverless cars haven't been tested extensively in the lab and out on the track before hitting the open road...

I cannot prove they haven't been tested enough, but you sure can prove they have. Send me a link, you should be laughing at yourself. You can prove your claim I cannot prove mine. So prove yours. I am making an assumption based on having extensive knowledge of the difference of a self driving car versus a conventional one. To me it is obvious to insure the safety of a self driving car compared to a conventional one the time and cost of testing would increase exponentially.

The bicycle pushing pedestrian death kind of proves my point of insufficient testing. It appeared to be a clear dry night and the car was only going 38 MPH and acted like the women wasn't there. Other than darkness which should have no effect over light if the vehicle is properly designed, the thing failed miserably in perfect conditions.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

I cannot prove they haven't been tested enough, but you sure can prove they have. Send me a link, you should be laughing at yourself. You can prove your claim I cannot prove mine. So prove yours. I am making an assumption based on having extensive knowledge of the difference of a self driving car versus a conventional one. To me it is obvious to insure the safety of a self driving car compared to a conventional one the time and cost of testing would increase exponentially.

The bicycle pushing pedestrian death kind of proves my point of insufficient testing. Worse yet it appeared to be a clear dry night and the car was only going 38 MPH and acted like the women wasn't there.

You are operating under the belief that they can NEVER be tested ENOUGH for your liking.

You will be impossible to satisfy...ever...so it's a useless discussion to have.

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

You are operating under the belief that they can NEVER be tested ENOUGH for your liking.

You will be impossible to satisfy...ever...so it's a useless discussion to have.

Not true. The useless part of the discussion is how people are unwilling to use even a bit of common sense to realize what a problem autonomous vehicles can become. It seems people accept them without question, treating them like any other piece of mechanized equipment. Unfortunately they aren't, they could be more troublesome as they become more common, not the usual other way around. I keep hearing "people had the same negative view of air planes" as an example of disrespect toward the people who don't want autonomous cars. Last I checked airplanes had pilots in them at all times and the sky is a lot less crowded than city streets.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

Not true. The useless part of the discussion is how people are unwilling to use even a bit of common sense to realize what a problem autonomous vehicles can become. It seems people accept them without question, treating them like any other piece of mechanized equipment. Unfortunately they aren't, they could be more troublesome as they become more common, not the usual other way around. I keep hearing "people had the same negative view of air planes" as an example of disrespect toward the people who don't want autonomous cars. Last I checked airplanes had pilots in them at all times and the sky is a lot less crowded than city streets.

Wrong again. There is MASSIVE apprehension about these vehicles.

Where are you getting this from?

First they aren't tested. Now it's "people accept these things without question."

I must question if you are operating from a position of reality here....

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Wrong again. There is MASSIVE apprehension about these vehicles.

Where are you getting this from?

First they aren't tested. Now it's "people accept these things without question."

I must question if you are operating from a position of reality here....

Now your changing my words or putting words in my mouth, good one. You should have been a Democrat.

Once again post some links on the testing these vehicles have been through.