Re: New Cars With So-called Safety Features.
HV Enthusiast, Mon Apr 21 2014, 05:50PM

Honestly, with all the idiots on the road today, the amount of times these things may work incorrectly probably GREATLY outweights the number of people that would forget to brake altogether because they distracted.

I don't think its a solution that is suppose to work 100% of the time. Its just supposed to reduce x% of accidents overall.

I'm all for automatic lane correcting and braking. I've been driving long enough to see many people get rear ended or side swiped because of distracted, or tired drivers.

However, that said, as a Libertarian, i firmly believe it should be up to the driver to decide if those features should be activated or not, and not just mandated by the government.

Re: New Cars With So-called Safety Features.
Patrick, Mon Apr 21 2014, 06:06PM

EVR, fair point. but does the user have the ability to turn these features off? And are there minimum legal standards and a formal certification process?

And my two test cases, (1) the incompetent dependent driver, and (2) the competent overruled driver. I think is the legal test as to whether these corporations have outsmarted themselves.

There's a guy who is consulted by TV shows, mythBusters, military, science and history channels, but I can't remember his name... I'd like to email him as a humble college student who builds and operates autonomous systems for flying robots.

EVR remember saving 99 people by killing 1 child to gain 6 cents on a stock ticker is a master case for a cowardly ambulance chasing lawyer.

Re: New Cars With So-called Safety Features.
Steve Conner, Mon Apr 21 2014, 06:32PM

Google's self-driving cars are allowed on the highway in California provided they have a human in the driving seat to "supervise" them. I think that is the extreme test case and all other driving aids are just subsets of it.

Re: New Cars With So-called Safety Features.
Patrick, Mon Apr 21 2014, 06:37PM

It will be a long time before many Google cars are out there, the cars I mention are in full rate production..

Re: New Cars With So-called Safety Features.
Steve Conner, Mon Apr 21 2014, 06:43PM

I agree. My point is, that if I were a lawyer I would argue that the existing cars are just Google cars with less features.

If the Google car isn't allowed on the road without a human driver, it follows that the human must be responsible for the car's actions, otherwise what would be the point of having him there?

Therefore I think the same argument holds for the existing cars, if your collision avoidance computer goes berserk and crashes you into another car, you are responsible for the crash and would have to go to court to plead otherwise.

Re: New Cars With So-called Safety Features.
Dr. Slack, Mon Apr 21 2014, 08:02PM

I think the UK had the right approach to this at the turn of the last century, have the autonomous car optically follow the red flag carried by a pedestrian in front.

It's very difficult to see how guidance automation that's not all or nothing would work. A car with no features will be driver controlled, and as safe as the driver. A car with 100% features already exists, it's called a train, or a bus. You get on it, get the kindle out, and ignore the scenery for the extent of the ride. The driving system is fully qualified, responsible for accidents (they happen on trains and buses, and the law copes with them, 'the train now arriving on platforms 3, 4 5 and 6 is coming in sideways' - it happened at Potters Bar, several dead). A car that behaved like that, we could live with

I sometimes get surprised by my cruise control, and that is really, really simple (you've heard the story about the RV'er who set the cruise and went in the back to make a sandwich). Now if I had some damned software driving instructor nudging my wheel to centre the lane, or easing in on the brake 99 days out of 100, boy am I going to miss it on the day the situation is too complex for the sensors to make sense of.

I learned to fly sailplanes some decades ago, and there was a very clear protocol to go through on dual control teaching aircraft, a 'you have control' 'I have control' exchange so that we knew the hell who was driving. My ears pricked up when helping out at launch point on a very windy and low-level turbulent day to overhear the instructor saying to a very competent but physically small female pupil, 'if you feel me coming in on the controls on takeoff, it's not because I don't trust your ability, I'm concerned about your strength'. I thought sheesh, I am happy that I'm not in that plane. Statement of interest, I have roughly N=100 takeoffs, and N-1 landings.

I suspect that we will not be able to cope with systems grabbing control from us from random time to time until the 'fully autonomous PA' has been developed, and is in the loop. Many people say 'you need a human in the loop', for all sorts of automatic systems from authorizing debit cards to machine-gunning terrorists. However, I'm a bit more optimistic, you need intelligence in the loop. This means that the system will have to be more rational than, for instance, my wife when driving. That is either very easy (have you driven with my wife?), or very very hard indeed (my wife is human, and given the amount of shouting I do when testing any form of AI, it nowhere remotely close to human performance in understanding communication side-channels, invective, rhetoric, abuse, satire, yes, I know I don't know exactly where I am, but we must intersect a major road within the next few miles!)

Re: New Cars With So-called Safety Features.
Carbon_Rod, Mon Apr 21 2014, 10:23PM

I've had some understanding of the systems since the beginning of the Darpa Grand challenge.
They may gamble with their own lives to go fully autonomous, but there are literally countless edge cases that can occur in field robotics. Indeed, Google's cars have almost killed people on a number of occasions. “Almost” is the part everyone likes to overlook... A tractor-trailer truck blocked the guidance systems edge detector projection, and fooled the LIDAR into thinking it was a canyon wall. Therefore, the vehicle started to head for “Open road” when the truck changed lanes triggering the obstacle avoidance routine.... trouble was... it was a real canyon wall the truck was obscuring, and GPS does not work properly in such a situation. The driver literally had to wrestle the wheel back, as there was not enough time to hit the kill switch.

Insurance? Yes, fully autonomous platforms have a registered driver for insurance purposes, but they may not be directly liable... So typically people recommend the maximum Third Party Liability coverage available.

Yes, the law will still consider you accountable if you're behind the wheel and someone gets hit.

Re: New Cars With So-called Safety Features.
stop4stuff, Tue Apr 22 2014, 07:00PM

I'm all for 'safety features' that make driving safer;

ABS is awesome in slippery conditions, however so is letting off the brake pedal a touch and steering the vehicle (in a safe manner) to avoid trouble - but then that is only useful if the really unexpected happens, like a kid running out between parked cars... every other situation when ABS cuts in can be attributed to poor driving skills.

TCS, again only really needed due to poor driving skills.

Just about every 'safety system' applied to vehicles can be attributed to poor driving skills.

I don't want to come across as antagonistic, however the way I see a motor vehicle is as a killing machine when in the wrong hands, and I'm all for safe driving and safety on the roads.

So yep, whatever the situation, the onus is on the operator of the machine not to harm anyone.

As already pointed out with the Google car & canyon example, a 'system' cannot replace a real driver's intuition - by that, I mean, a system cannot judge what another vehicle is going to to by the attitude or placement of the other vehicle, an alert human in control of a vehicle can and always will have the extra edge due to intuition.

Re: New Cars With So-called Safety Features.
Sulaiman, Wed Apr 23 2014, 08:09AM

I expect that there will come a time when additional insurance will be required
if a motor vehicle owner wants to operate the vehicle manually
overriding the much safer automatic systems.

During the transitional period there will be casualties caused by fully automatic systems
and the press will condemn fatalities and injuries 'caused' by the autonomous systems
even though statistically erratic humans perform less reliably.

The main 'problem' will be that even though autonomous vehicles will be
designed, built and maintained by the manufacturer,
manufacturers will not accept legal liability.

Re: New Cars With So-called Safety Features.
Daedronus, Wed Apr 23 2014, 08:13AM

No, IMHO you can't do the ABS's job. Not humanly possible. Not with the same degree of efficiency.

Re: New Cars With So-called Safety Features.
Patrick, Wed Apr 23 2014, 11:07AM

But stop4stuffs' point is that TCS and ABS only cut in when the human driver starts to demand too much of the machine ( due to incompetence, mostly), then the safety features start to step in to keep the driver from losing it all together.

Re: New Cars With So-called Safety Features.
Steve Conner, Wed Apr 23 2014, 11:34AM

F1 drivers are the best drivers in the world, but driver aids like traction control still made them go faster until they were banned. Computers and electronic sensors can always beat human reaction times.

I'm not so sure about driver aids in ordinary road cars. My own car has an "ESP" program for traction and stability control that can be turned off, but even when turned on, it has only kicked in when I deliberately tried to provoke it by doing things that you shouldn't really try on a public road anyway. Racing is all about pushing everything to the limit, but highways and traffic laws are designed around ordinary human levels of attention and reaction times.

Like most of these systems, the stability control works by using the ABS pump to apply braking to individual wheels. The manual warns that if you lean too hard on the system, it will eventually shut down to avoid burning out the brakes. According to Murphy's law this would happen while hurtling too fast into a tricky corner on the Nurburgring.

Re: New Cars With So-called Safety Features.
Ash Small, Wed Apr 23 2014, 12:12PM

ABS actually increases the time it takes to stop. The whole point of ABS is that the vehicle can still be 'steered'. ABS is primarily designed for circumstances where grip is reduced, for example, driving on ice or snow, and not for the scenario where a kid runs out in front of you requiring you to execute an 'emergency stop', in this situation it actually increases braking time and distance.

When ABS first came out 20 odd years ago I used to argue against it, due to the fact that drivers could become too dependant on it, and in a situation where it failed to work, or the driver was used to it, but was driving a vehicle without it, that driver would not have the 'skill' required to be able to cope without it, although I now rely on it myself in many situations and much prefer vehicles fitted with ABS. (there are a lot of muddy lanes with blind corners around here, although the situation was the same where I lived when I first learned to drive/ride motorcycles).

I'm of the opinion that, as drivers rely more and more on 'lane correction' and 'automatic braking', etc. more and more drivers will tend to 'fall asleep' at the wheel (I'm also not sure how these systems would function on narrow lanes without lane markings and 'blind corners' which the AI would presumably interpret as 'obstacles blocking the road', etc.).

Re: New Cars With So-called Safety Features.
Daedronus, Wed Apr 23 2014, 01:02PM

ABS keeping the car going in the direction I want it to go is a good thing, even on dry roads, and even in unexpected events, because if you realize you will stop 1/2 meters after the obstacle you needs to start steering to avoid.

This is first hand experience for me, cars parked on high speed roads in blind corners, people stopping unexpectedly, incoming traffic in my lane overtaking in blind corners, cars not giving way and jumping in intersection in front of me.

All unexpected and in all cases I had to brake as hard as I could, while also steering.

I would not drive a car without ABS.

Re: New Cars With So-called Safety Features.
stop4stuff, Wed Apr 23 2014, 06:05PM

Yes, ABS is a good thing, the only car I've ever owned with ABS (imo) saved a girls life, or saved her from injury - basically it was like I mentioned before, wet greasy road, kid ran out, I emergency braked, ABS cut in, she stopped, I steered around her... no harm done.

On the other hand, the best car I ever owned, from a driver's point of view, was a Mk1 VW Polo, 145 tyres, no ABS and not even a servo on the brakes. It was a 'real' driver's car, as hard as I hit the brakes, that's how hard the car stopped. I only ever had one time when the wheels locked under braking and that was because the car was aquaplaning... on 145 tyres! Wasn't an issue though, just eased off the brakes & steered.

When I was learning to drive, in 1985, one of the things my driving instructor said has always stuck with me... 'Always expect the unexpected'... and then in 1997 I was fortunate enough to take a skid control course.

Expecting the unexpected, skid control and having a sixth sense like intuition has saved my skin form being involved in 'numpty' incidents.

Motoring safety aids are great, as long as people don't become dependant on them.

Another thought... how would such systems be tested and verified as safe during something like a UK MOT test?

Paul

Re: New Cars With So-called Safety Features.
Ash Small, Wed Apr 23 2014, 07:29PM

"a new analysis of existing data indicates that, controlling for other factors, airbags are actually associated with slightly increased probability of death in accidents. "

"Airbag saves man, then kills him"

"Airbag Deployment Can Cause 'Hidden' Cardiac Injuries"

"Airbag fatality statistics

From 1990 to 2000, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration identified 175 fatalities caused by air bags. Most of these (104) have been children, while the rest are adults. About 3.3 million air bag deployments have occurred and the agency estimates more than 6,377 lives saved and countless injuries prevented.[66][68]

A rear-facing infant restraint put in the front seat of a vehicle places an infant's head close to the airbag, which can cause severe head injuries, or death if the airbag deploys. Some modern cars include a switch to disable the front passenger airbag (although not in Australia, where rear-facing child seats are prohibited in the front where an airbag is fitted), in case a child-supporting seat is used there.

In vehicles with side airbags, it is dangerous for occupants to lean against the windows, doors, and pillars, or to place objects between themselves and the side of the vehicle. Articles hung from a vehicle's clothes hanger hooks can be hazardous if the vehicle's side curtain airbags deploy.[69] A seat-mounted airbag may also cause internal injury if the occupant leans against the door.[70][71]"



And there are plenty more such reports on the internet.

Re: New Cars With So-called Safety Features.
Steve Conner, Thu Apr 24 2014, 12:13PM

You can find evidence on the internet to support any point of view you might subscribe to. So the real question is, what do you personally have against airbags?

Re: New Cars With So-called Safety Features.
Ash Small, Thu Apr 24 2014, 01:20PM


Well nothing, but the OP stated "what if the safety feature kills more people then it saves?".

The first link in my previous post claims that "airbags are actually associated with slightly increased probability of death in accidents."

I'm not arguing that it's true, but if it is then it's an example of just the point that Patrick was asking.

Do we, and the 'lawmakers' place too much credibility on the claims of manufacturers?

Re: New Cars With So-called Safety Features.
Daedronus, Thu Apr 24 2014, 01:52PM

3.3 milion deployments and 175 cases where something went wrong...Would you drop the feature or try to improve it?
Personally I'm all for dumb features like ABS or Airbags, properly implemented.

But, please, don't try to make the car smart, each of my 3 cats it's far smarter then all the AIs we have ever made, in particular at dealing with real life situations.

Re: New Cars With So-called Safety Features.
Ash Small, Thu Apr 24 2014, 02:02PM


I think that figure of 175 is just the number of people killed when faulty airbags 'go off' when they shouldn't. The article in question is suggesting that, even when they 'go off' as designed, they still kill more people than they save, it's just that these deaths are attributed to the accident, rather than the airbag.

"The new analysis directly contradicts earlier studies about the effectiveness of airbags, which have been required for drivers and front-seat passengers in all cars since the 1998 model year in the United States."

Re: New Cars With So-called Safety Features.
Steve Conner, Thu Apr 24 2014, 03:34PM

There may well be some low-speed accidents where the airbag ends up delivering a bigger blow to the driver than the crash itself would have done. And, there may well be some people small and frail enough that the impact of the airbag could be fatal.

I imagine the airbag deployment system is calibrated so it won't go off if it thinks the airbag impact would be worse than the un-airbagged crash, but there must be a bit of uncertainty in determining this, and with 3.3 million deployments, all of the edge cases are going to get tested.

Re: New Cars With So-called Safety Features.
Ash Small, Thu Apr 24 2014, 05:15PM

While the article doesn't include the full paper, I get the impression that it goes something like this: The 'original' studies were only based upon fatal accidents, whereas the 'new' study also includes non-fatal accidents, and by comparing 'like for like accidents', there were more fatalities in cars equipped with airbags than in those cars without airbags, all other factors being equal. (not just low speed crashes where the airbags went off when they shouldn't have)

Hope that makes sense.

EDIT: the authors have asked that this be independantly verified while there are still some cars on the road without airbags.

Re: New Cars With So-called Safety Features.
stop4stuff, Thu Apr 24 2014, 05:54PM

AFAIK, these days in the UK an airbag won't deploy in an impact under 30 mph. When airbags were first introduced the deployment impact speed was lower and there where a lot of additional 'injury claims' due to people gripping the steering wheel and getting friction burns on their arms from the airbag.

An example of the energy contained within the the airbag deployment system.

Anyhow, I don't know if it was a good thing or not, when the Vectra my father was driving bounced off of two trees, the side window burst and the airbag mashed the glass 'diamonds' into his face. He was ok asides from bruising (and a pepperpot looking face).

Re: New Cars With So-called Safety Features.
Patrick, Fri Apr 25 2014, 01:41AM

wow. i really stirred the pot !


EDIT:
leave it to the Russians to "test" a system using real people. LOL! (Putin was probly the trigger man, lets be honest.) i hope this poor idiot doesnt live the rest of his life in a wheel chair.

Re: New Cars With So-called Safety Features.
Patrick, Mon May 12 2014, 07:00PM

HEehehehehehe !!!! Hilarious !!!

->

There actually aiming for other cars based on criteria for survivability.
i like the motorcycle dilemma ... helmet or not?

The random number generator is interesting, but I bet congressmen and corporate officers' (rich people) vehicles will be programmed different. As you and I are filthy savage commoners, therefore expendable.