Would you trust a computerised driver

[waynne]

Here is an interesting story with some shocking statistics, would you trust a car that was completely driven by a computer?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15820069

Theoretically it would be safer and help eliminate driver error but personally I still like to be in control despite the potential for human error to creep in! Does that make any sense? On paper I'm crazy but in reality I just can't trust driving to a computerised algorithm.

[stamford]

Interesting topic of conversation. I would say 'yes' as long as it was foolproof, but that is the underlying statement here, foolproof, can it ever be? It'll be like iRobot's 3 laws. 'Ghosts in the Machine' may say otherwise The actual proof will be in reality, so 'trust' is something that has to be earned.

[Yugguy]

No.


The end.

[bigbadjoe]

For a second there, I thought David Coulthard was going to start driving every one around everywhere!

Doesn't matter how much fuel he used, or how old his tyres were, he would always go around the track the same speed! lol

Anyway. Back to the subject.

No. And we won't need to. Sooner or later, they will launch something that will have a tital ''un-crashable car'', and sure enough someone will crash it and someone will die and someone ells will sue.

End of robot type cars. They only work in theory. Just like communisum works in theory. They would have to replace every car on the road for one before they could garantee they work, and that will never happen. Just like communisum will never work, as you will always get people oppose it.

[T9 man]

It's a no for me I'm afraid! I can see the novelty value though, drive to the pub decide on having a drink with the lads, climb in the car and press the "Home" button.
One day it will happen, whether it is in my lifetime remains to be seen.

[HDi fun]

With the amount of active safety equipment loaded into cars these days we're halfway there anyway. I am all in favour of driver aids which aren't needlessly invasive.

My car has a very sweet dynamic stability control which will intervene even in steady speed (ie no acceleration or braking) if it determines the car's not going where it thinks you're pointing it. But you really do have to provoke it very hard indeed, say by hurling the car savagely left to right repeatedly across the road in greasy conditions - It's not a nanny car. I did this just to see how it behaved.

I've never seen it involve itself in normal spirited driving.

You can, if you choose, switch it off. I can't see the point and just leave it turned on by default.

[turbonutter69]

Originally Posted by Yugguy

No.


The end.

So you'd never get on a plane then?

[Yugguy]

There's a real live pilot sitting in the seat even when on autopilot. Not the same analogy, an airplane pilot is your chauffeur, I would get in a car with a chauffeur, but not a completely robotic car.

[turbonutter69]

But the point is the plane is actually flown by a computer. The pilot is only there as a precaution.
My point being is that planes have been computerised for years. So why not a car?

[HDi fun]

Originally Posted by turbonutter69

But the point is the plane is actually flown by a computer. The pilot is only there as a precaution.
My point being is that planes have been computerised for years. So why not a car?

I agree totally and it's an interesting analogy.

High performance military aircraft would be impossible to fly without computer intervention. The centre of mass is 'placed' very far forward in the aircraft to enhance manoeuverability. (Traditionally it would be placed far far back to enhance stability, at the direct expense of manoeuverability).

The result of such placement in modern planes makes the aircraft unstable. A human pilot alone could not keep the plane in stable flight without computer intervention.

Does this mean the pilot is redundant? No. Anymore than ABS, DSC, ASC+T etc etc and all the other safety systems makes the car's driver redundant.

Computers don't think. Humans do. Therefore the human driver is still required, even though we take more and more of a role of controlling (and thinking) passenger than actual 'driver'.

(Though you do wonder when you see some of the poor driving on UK roads ).

Good post TN69

[Olley]

this isn't a new concept by any means. and i'll say now as i said then...

how many times have you seen your computer crash? walked upto an ATM that isn't working due to some form of system error.
TV channels not on air for some sort of technical issue?


not being funny, but computers crash... just as humans do. might make it less common, but will not eliminate it completely. i'm happy as i am.

[HDi fun]

Originally Posted by Olley

this isn't a new concept by any means. and i'll say now as i said then...

how many times have you seen your computer crash? walked upto an ATM that isn't working due to some form of system error.
TV channels not on air for some sort of technical issue?


not being funny, but computers crash... just as humans do. might make it less common, but will not eliminate it completely. i'm happy as i am.

That's silly. Multi purpose desktop computers do crash. Especially those running certain versions of Windows. But Windows is not used in embedded systems. Embedded systems such as ECUs are single purpose machines and the operating system is generally Linux derived thus rendering then stable. How many times has the ECVU in your car crashed?

[Yugguy]

I can't help thinking that the more of these driver 'aids' appear the worse the driving is getting as noone needs to think anymore as they sit in their isolated box.

And the old joke is still true, if a car was running on a microsoft os it would still be asking you if you are sure you want to apply the brakes as you plummeted down the cliff.

[T9 man]

Originally Posted by Yugguy

And the old joke is still true, if a car was running on a microsoft os it would still be asking you if you are sure you want to apply the brakes as you plummeted down the cliff.

Your probably right there

[HDi fun]

That's why embedded systems rarely use Microsoft operating systems.

I don't think that driver aids are responsible for poor driving.

[Olley]

Originally Posted by HDi fun

That's silly. Multi purpose desktop computers do crash. Especially those running certain versions of Windows. But Windows is not used in embedded systems. Embedded systems such as ECUs are single purpose machines and the operating system is generally Linux derived thus rendering then stable. How many times has the ECVU in your car crashed?

fair point. but i have seen approximately 5 cars with knackered ECU's. now i know that doesn't seem a lot. but if the car is "driving" itself and the "brain" fails... what happens? can we still stop it?

and LOL at the microsoft comments!

[LauraAutoflair]

Call me crazy but it reminds of that movie with Will Smith where the robots helped humans do everything....then turned evil!! no way would I trust that,ever. yes,it's technically safer and could save lives, but to me, it would be losing the freedom we have when we get behind the wheel!

Doesn't sound very tempting..

[Yugguy]

A lot of embedded systems still use msdos as it's pretty stable and simple. but now windows no.

I'm not a luddite, I don't mind new tech but it would need to be foolproof, or have some form of safety feature where if there are errors detected then full human control is restored, or the car stops or something.

Mate's wife worked on the coding for the eurofighter HUD and yes, it is inherently unstable, this makes it very agile but means a computer has to constantly adjust all the control surfaces. However, at least the pilot has an ejector seat.

How funny would that be, 100s of people flying out of cars after a pile-up on the m1, all slowly floating down to earth.

[HDi fun]

Originally Posted by Olley

fair point. but i have seen approximately 5 cars with knackered ECU's. now i know that doesn't seem a lot. but if the car is "driving" itself and the "brain" fails... what happens? can we still stop it?

and LOL at the microsoft comments!

IF the ECU is knackered as a result of water ingress or electrical damage than it's probably not fair to lay blame at the OS.

Braking by wire is getting adopted slowly. Most new cars drive by wire anyway, steer by wire is also turning up.

The reality is that electronic systems are far more reliable than mechanical ones.

[herb]

Originally Posted by turbonutter69

But the point is the plane is actually flown by a computer. The pilot is only there as a precaution.
My point being is that planes have been computerised for years. So why not a car?

No the pilot isn't a precaution!!! The computer is an aid to the pilot

Simple answer volume of traffic

[Yugguy]

We've already got a form of brake by wire in things like brake assist.

[HDi fun]

Brake assist is far less of a brake by wire system than is electronic brake force distribution. I'm all driver aids of this type.

[turbonutter69]

Originally Posted by herb

No the pilot isn't a precaution!!! The computer is an aid to the pilot

Simple answer volume of traffic

On a fighter jet maybe.
On an airliner they computers do nearly all the work.
The pilot takes off and that's about it.
Fair enough in rough weather the pilot may take over but other than that the plane fly's itself.

[HDi fun]

I know a couple of commercial pilots and they both land manually, albeit with the aid of ILS to determine the correct glide slope etc.

[turbonutter69]

Alot of the new Boeing aircraft have an auto pilot to land.
All i'm saying is if they can safely land a huge jumbo jet with computers then i'm sure they can make a car drive itself safely.