08-17-2016, 07:33 AM | #133 |
Brigadier General
1577
Rep 3,888
Posts |
BMW will - must - have a fleet of them - electric and semi autonomous - in 5 years. Which is shortsightedly behind the curve by a few years, but sometimes the latecomers wind up owning new markets. Electric range should be near 400mi/650km by then.
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2016, 06:03 AM | #134 | |
General
17165
Rep 18,677
Posts |
Quote:
Tesla has a nice little “autopilot” system in the vehicle, which prevents it from hitting stuff in its intended path. It works well in some situations, but doesn’t when the traffic situation gets complicated, such as we’ve seen when a tractor trailer pulls across a roadway and Tesla’s autopilot determines the truck is a billboard and someone gets decapitated. This is “semiautonomous” control of the vehicle. The more semiautonomous vehicles on the road, controlled only by what each vehicle’s sensor suite “sees” and processes in the software, there will be more accidents, not less. Google’s cars have hit stuff and have a probable top speed of 35 MPH. Five year’s time is not going to make Tesla’s nor Google’s semiautonomous any safer. Until such time the control of ground automobile traffic is controlled by a third-party (i.e. not drivers in their cars) control system will autonomous driving be safer than human-driving. And then I even doubt that. The traffic automation control systems now used for the safest form of travel (lowest deaths per millions of miles traveled) - commercial airline travel, can’t even begin to cope with automotive traffic and it’s millions of daily “flights”. One Tesla owner here loves his autopilot function and believes Musk's proposition that it is actually safer than human-controlled driving. It is a complete misrepresentation of Tesla's capability of safety. Take a Tesla X or S and put it in autopilot mode in New York City and see what happens. Automated automobile traffic is many decades away. A five-year advancement of what’s currently on the table is getting nowhere. A cell phone app is not going to solve this problem.
__________________
A manual transmission can be set to "comfort", "sport", and "track" modes simply by the technique and speed at which you shift it; it doesn't need "modes", modes are for manumatics that try to behave like a real 3-pedal manual transmission. If you can money-shift it, it's a manual transmission. "Yeah, but NO ONE puts an automatic trans shift knob on a manual transmission."
|
|
Appreciate
1
Dog Face Pony Soldier9719.50 |
08-18-2016, 08:45 PM | #135 | |||||||
Brigadier General
1577
Rep 3,888
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Fully autonomous driving is probably decades away where it would be able to replace driver in all possible situations, but the tech's utility incrementally improves each year. Quote:
Straw man. |
|||||||
Appreciate
0
|
08-20-2016, 06:28 AM | #136 | |
General
17165
Rep 18,677
Posts |
Quote:
Getting cars to drive themselves based off of sensor data is just the first step, and the cars are not very good at it. There is no redundancy built into the system for errors and the traffic situation is far too dynamic to allow for errors and even if redundancy is available it is probably not quick enough to counteract. The event of the Tesla running into the tractor trailer is the perfect example. Per Mr. Musk, the Tesla sensor suite is programmed to not see billboards as traffic, so the car didn't slow down and stop. The driver of the truck either (a) didn't see the Tesla, or (b) saw the Tesla and thought "I'm a big ass truck and I'm turning left in plenty of time for the Tesla to recognize I'm cutting him off so he'll slow down and avoid hitting me." What the truck driver didn't realize was the Tesla was in autopilot mode and was programmed to not recognize billboards (or semi-tractor trailers perpendicular to traffic). The Tesla pilot was trusting Musk's autopilot to steer clear of traffic hazards. The result... dead Tesla Pilot. The redundancy in that situation would have been the placement of the truck and the Tesla would have been controlled by a Vehicular Traffic Control System, which would prevented the truck from crossing paths with the Tesla; when the DOT report comes out with its findings, I guarantee you that will be one of the findings. Controlling traffic by means of car-to-car communication is not going to work because the data processing to do so is not economically available, and may never be; especially with the need to have double or triple redundancy. When the day comes humans write software code without bugs, will be the day the sun burns the planet to a crisp. Software bugs and car-to-car controlled traffic traveling at 60 MPH does not mix. Controlling cars with GPS-based timing is completely insane because GPS is highly vulnerable to local spoofing and jamming. Some butthead with a $80 GPS jammer can wreak havoc. Finally, Musk is the one who is ignorant. It was his statement that his Autopilot app has operated in Beta-mode to the point thus far that the accidents per million miles for his cars in autopilot mode is less than human-driven vehicles. What is ignorant and false about his statement is the level of traffic complexity his cars have operated in Autopilot mode vs. the overall accounting of human-driven traffic, which accounts for all miles driven regardless of traffic complexity. So that means that humans drive in far more complex traffic situations and have about the same level of accidents per million miles than Tesla's Autopilot used on a narrow section of a low complexity traffic environment. So his comments are apples to oranges.
__________________
A manual transmission can be set to "comfort", "sport", and "track" modes simply by the technique and speed at which you shift it; it doesn't need "modes", modes are for manumatics that try to behave like a real 3-pedal manual transmission. If you can money-shift it, it's a manual transmission. "Yeah, but NO ONE puts an automatic trans shift knob on a manual transmission."
Last edited by Efthreeoh; 08-20-2016 at 09:59 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
1
Dog Face Pony Soldier9719.50 |
08-20-2016, 09:20 AM | #137 |
Major General
2031
Rep 8,339
Posts |
Cafe standards. Part of EPA. One ore reason to completely dismantle EPA. Caused death of the station wagon. Was crated because of fuel shortages. Entire purpose was to lower gasoline consumption because we were dependent of foreign oil. We aren't any more. Now its used as a weapon of the left to fight large corporations and force the bogus carbon emissions crap. It's resulted in many people buying much smaller cars. Less safe. Deaths. Less resale value. Lost wealth. Also resulted in people buying large SUVs instead of station wagons. More fuel consumption and easier to kill prius drivers.
Fuel economy should be driven by fuel prices, not a stupid law that kills and makes you loose your shirt financially. People should have the choice to buy what they want. Not be forced by the 9th circuit court of liberal bs. |
Appreciate
1
Dog Face Pony Soldier9719.50 |
08-20-2016, 09:52 AM | #138 | |
General
17165
Rep 18,677
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
A manual transmission can be set to "comfort", "sport", and "track" modes simply by the technique and speed at which you shift it; it doesn't need "modes", modes are for manumatics that try to behave like a real 3-pedal manual transmission. If you can money-shift it, it's a manual transmission. "Yeah, but NO ONE puts an automatic trans shift knob on a manual transmission."
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-20-2016, 11:17 AM | #139 | |||||||
Brigadier General
1577
Rep 3,888
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The current level of tech has always required a non-distracted driver, just like non-assisted driving does. There is no difference in driver responsibilities. This is where you seem to be confused. The only potential problem with assisted driving tech is if it somehow could take control away from the driver in such a manner as to contribute to an accident or otherwise impede the flow of traffic. But there has been no evidence of such a problem. Last edited by zenmaster; 08-20-2016 at 11:47 AM.. |
|||||||
Appreciate
0
|
08-20-2016, 02:30 PM | #140 | |
General
17165
Rep 18,677
Posts |
Quote:
Nope, it's an exact cause and effect and the point of the argument. The Tesla Pilot assumed the "tech" was going to trace the Model S across the roadscape and avoid obstacles (i.e. drive itself regardless of what the language is in the Tesla owners manual). The Tesla Autopilot lead to the driver's distraction rather than improving (assisting) his poor driving skills. If the Tesla Autopilot system requires full driver attention, then what is the point of it. If the car is going to semi-autonomously drive itself, then by human nature the human is going to become disinterested in the activity of driving. In all actuality all the Tesla can do is in limited fashion keep the car on the road in a well defined lane (environment); one could train a chimpanzee to do the very same thing. However, when the cognitive part of driving comes into play, such as when a tractor trailer driver decides to place his vehicle perpendicular to traffic and block it, the car and the chimp fail to execute what humans do extremely well (when motivated). I'll have to watch the videos in the morning as I'm bandwidth limited during the day, but I did look at the first 15 minutes of the first video and didn't hear any new paradigm information; I heard sensors and 3D mapping, all current stuff. So anyone interested in the topic and who is pretty well read in it, and has a background in transportation and traffic control may get a bit bored in the beginning of the talk. But I'll give it a view tomorrow. What I do know is it might be better to spend all the hundreds of billions of research money that will take to possibly implement an autonomous system, on simply teaching humans how to drive better. Maybe an educational course a few steps beyond a high school football coach teaching driver's ed during summer break. And perhaps the audacity to have real requirements for students/drivers to pass and keep passing to maintain their license and knock off the idea the driving is a "privilege". Perhaps developing systems that provide drivers of more information to make better choices. Perhaps use the money to design and build better roads that don't lead to accidents. But back to the tech... the whole idea of taking the human out of the act of driving is to condense traffic so it can flow better on the limited amount of lane space available (exactly what the FAA is currently doing with its NextGen Air traffic Control System). The concept behind NextGen is to get more precise aircraft position data and give pilots more situational awareness. The DOT is not going to think any different about ground vehicular traffic. Google's idea is to allow people to text and surf the internet while driving (err... travelling).
__________________
A manual transmission can be set to "comfort", "sport", and "track" modes simply by the technique and speed at which you shift it; it doesn't need "modes", modes are for manumatics that try to behave like a real 3-pedal manual transmission. If you can money-shift it, it's a manual transmission. "Yeah, but NO ONE puts an automatic trans shift knob on a manual transmission."
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-20-2016, 07:51 PM | #141 | |||||
Brigadier General
1577
Rep 3,888
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
Appreciate
0
|
08-21-2016, 07:35 AM | #142 | |
General
17165
Rep 18,677
Posts |
Quote:
This is why I make an analogy to the US (and the World's) air traffic control system, because the air traffic control system is designed to prevent aircraft collisions. The system uses many different technologies as redundancy to each other, so if one tech fails, another tech is sitting in the background to take over. The air traffic control system works extremely well. It works well because air traffic is managed within the boundaries the technology allows (i.e. 5-mile separation, route planning, altitude separation). The system is extremely robust and can handle unpredictable situations, which mainly is weather (there are others); the system can reroute and manage transitional flight changes excellently, but all because the traffic is limited, meaning each flight is controlled where it can be and when it can be. This is opposite to the purpose of personal mobility via personal automobile ownership, which is what most people enjoy about it, they can move about the country on their own free will. Even if the technology is developed to economically manage ground vehicular traffic through the combination of in-car autonomous control systems and a vehicular traffic control system, the public (well, Americans at least) may not accept that their travel is known to, and controlled by, the Government. This is what reduces freedom and dignity. You've made statements above that Tesla's Autopilot works perfectly if used correctly, but isn't that the root cause of why some people want to take the human out of the act of driving and create autonomous driving, because humans don't "work perfectly". If humans did work perfectly then there would be no need to create autonomous driving. We all agree that if humans worked perfectly, the current ground transportation system would be 100% safe; most sane people would agree at least... What I think is insane is advocating the driving responsibility from humans to a machine. A machine developed by humans who have no real first-person investment in the safety of the vehicle passengers. You think otherwise. Had the Tesla S not had Autopilot and Mr. Autopilot had been paying attention because he was actually and actively driving the car, I'm sure Mr. Autopilot would still be around to read this discussion. We do agree that Mr. Autopilot was not taking responsibility for his safe keeping, whether by not using Tesla's Autopilot application correctly, or just being a complete dumbass.
__________________
A manual transmission can be set to "comfort", "sport", and "track" modes simply by the technique and speed at which you shift it; it doesn't need "modes", modes are for manumatics that try to behave like a real 3-pedal manual transmission. If you can money-shift it, it's a manual transmission. "Yeah, but NO ONE puts an automatic trans shift knob on a manual transmission."
|
|
Appreciate
1
Dog Face Pony Soldier9719.50 |
08-21-2016, 08:34 AM | #143 | |
Brigadier General
4050
Rep 3,191
Posts |
Quote:
So on point guys, these are the same points I bring up with friends/family when discussing cars and the environment. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-21-2016, 12:25 PM | #144 | ||||||||
Brigadier General
1577
Rep 3,888
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
if humans worked perfectly, there would be no need for cars in the first place." Because anything that a human could not do would mean they are not perfect. If the human did not anticipate the landslide, they are not perfect. If the human did not see through the fog, or swerve to avoid the tree, they are not perfect and so on. Quote:
Any assisted driving or full autonomy features have to be introduced with proof of safety. The primary safety concern should be "can we adequately determine safety criteria". This would seem to be difficult to do comprehensively, considering the variety of driving conditions possible. I bet auto manufacturers wind up sticking with the level 3 label even if full autonomy works well in 99% of driving, or the industry creates new sub levels between 3 and 4 which deal with more granular capabilities rather than overall safety. |
||||||||
Appreciate
0
|
08-21-2016, 01:43 PM | #145 | |
General
17165
Rep 18,677
Posts |
Quote:
I could write thousands of these scenarios, but never all of them; and that's the point, Mobileye will never create artificial vision and AI that will prevent all accidents. I don't see their redundancy. Stop throwing insults and explain it, I'm all ears (eyes). It's laughable that you insinuate I'm a Luddite when I've been working for the last 9 years on the NextGen program. And before that on the Navy's first automated machinery control system. I'm way fucking the opposite of a Luddite, so drop it. Sorry, but I'll trust a responsible driver's skills, experience, and intelligence over anyone's AI. The paradigm to change is the one that driving is a privilege. No, it's a Right. You get taxed to drive, therefore under the Constitution you have a right to drive. With Rights come Responsibilities. Threaten to take people's right to drive away because they are not responsible enough to do so, and see how much better they'll drive. Lowering accident rates is a behavior problem, not a tech problem. Mobileye et al. are making it a tech issue so it can solve an engineering problem and make a profit (all for profit making BTW). I'm all for technology that can enhance the driver's situational awareness. Not in all instances does technology solve behavioral problems.
__________________
A manual transmission can be set to "comfort", "sport", and "track" modes simply by the technique and speed at which you shift it; it doesn't need "modes", modes are for manumatics that try to behave like a real 3-pedal manual transmission. If you can money-shift it, it's a manual transmission. "Yeah, but NO ONE puts an automatic trans shift knob on a manual transmission."
Last edited by Efthreeoh; 08-21-2016 at 03:45 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-21-2016, 01:50 PM | #146 |
Major General
2031
Rep 8,339
Posts |
Hey, happy electronic guys. I do not see electric vehicles passing 1%of worldwide sales. Now or any time soon. I do not see any reason they will or should economically or mechanically. I also do not see the operators of cars being replaced by computers in a majoritive any time soon, nor do I feel they should ever totally be replaced. Until these things happen, both are a novelty, nothing more. And hopefully it stays that way for at least the next 50+ yrs.
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-07-2016, 07:15 AM | #147 |
Private
23
Rep 92
Posts
Drives: F31 320d Xdrive Msport Touring
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: West Yorkshire
|
As someone who's tried (two weeks) and ordered a 330e I realise they aren't to everyone requirement but for some they make a very compelling case.
My commute to work is around 6 miles each way, I have to have a company car as my job sometimes requires onsite work at client premises. I can therefore get to and from work on a single charge (I found the charge to be nearer 17-20 mile in range using Auto E) I also have ability to charge at work but don't require it although I did use it to test. I live in a hilly area of England (Yorkshire) and for me the range suits my needs, Would I love more range yes (I would also like faster charging) but like everything in life it requires some compromise. So what was the attraction of the car? (For Me..) Honestly.. the tax savings, The BIK (Benefit in Kind) rate with this vehicle due to the advertised emissions means its much cheaper even if the MPG is overall lower for private mileage (Which it definetly will be than a 320/330d) To put that into perspective; A 318d ED would calculate as the following BMW 320d Touring 163 Efficient Dynamics - 22% BIK Monthly Car Tax Liability £118 (Or £237 for 40% Tax Payer) BMW 330d Touring M Sport Auto - 27% BIK Monthly Car Tax Liability £176 (Or £352 for 40% Tax Payer) BMW 330e M Sport BIK 7% Monthly Car Tax Liability £42 (Or £85 for 40% Tax Payer) So in my case a fully loaded 3 Series but saving money each month, More than an ED edition but with more power. Yes the MPG will be lower on longer journey but over the year the savings on private mileage in £££s in. |
Appreciate
0
|
09-07-2016, 07:21 AM | #148 | |
Private First Class
34
Rep 130
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-07-2016, 08:49 AM | #149 |
Private
23
Rep 92
Posts
Drives: F31 320d Xdrive Msport Touring
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: West Yorkshire
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|