My idea of a driverless car is that you can sit back and read a book. In fact it may be more like this:
Germany is compiling what may be the first legal framework for autonomous vehicles. Transport minister, Alexander Dobrindt, is looking for three elements:
that a car always opts for property damage over personal injury; that it never distinguishes between humans based on categories such as age or race; and that if a human removes his or her hands from the steering wheel – to check email, say – the car’s manufacturer is liable if there is a collision.
However, the “driver” should be able to take full control within 10 seconds. In fact it has been found to take 40 seconds to regain focus.
Manufacturer Mercedes assumption is that you touch the wheel several times each minute.
In the US the guidelines for testing driverless cars require the human to keep their attention on the road at all times.
- This is also an assumption behind UK insurance for driverless cars, introduced earlier this year, which stipulates that a human “be alert and monitoring the road” at every moment.
We have had two fatal crashes involving Tesla cars this year – one in the US where Joshua Brown was allegedly watching a DVD when his vehicle crashed in autopilot mode, killing him, and one in China, where Gao Yaning died when his car hit a road-sweeping vehicle.
Ryan Calo at Stanford University, California says driverless cars may end up being a form of public transport, as is happening in the UK and Singapore, where government-provided driverless “pods” are being launched.
- That would go down poorly in the US, however. “The idea that the government would take over driverless cars and treat them as a public good would get absolutely nowhere here,” says Calo.
Toyota’s ‘Guardian Angel’ concept leaves the driver in control, but jumps in if the driver does something really stupid. In fact the software will run in the background, jumping in to prevent accidents that come from human error, like running into the back of the car in front.
Driverless cars require highly detailed maps. When that last article was written in May this year mapping firm TomTom had covered 28,000 kilometres of roads in Germany with sufficient resolution for driverless cars – a mere 4 per cent of all the roads in the country.
I’d suggest that provision would need to be made for temporary closures of roads or lanes for road works, which is where TomTom comes a bit unstuck. Our experience in Europe was that it also sometimes failed in deep tunnels.
Manufacturers will want to be satisfied with the legals before selling driverless cars to the public.
Brian: Human drivers have the attraction of being able to identify unexpected hazards and being able to work out what to do about these hazards. (For example, a human may realize that a bush fire rushing towards the road some distance away may be a hazard that requires urgent action – by contrast an autonomous system that has not been set up to to identify this hazard may simply keep driving along until it is too late.)
On the other hand, humans can get tired and distracted, are only able to monitor and control a few things at a time and cannot make rapid calculations of things like the safe distance that a car has to be behind the one in front.
Autonomous systems have the potential to not only monitor and control things in the immediate vicinity of the car but to also communicate with other cars. In the case of instrumented routes, they may also be able to monitor what is going on further down the road and what is happening on intersecting streets. Potential benefits are improved safety and better flow of traffic.
At my age what I am looking forward to are autonomous vehicles that can take me from any A to any B connected by roads with no need for me to be awake, competent or sober. Probably a long way off.
In the mean time I think autonomous vehicles will develop from a number of directions:
Driver in charge – control systems intervene to prevent accidents and help drivers: This approach has been actively helping drivers for some time. Automatic gearboxes, cruise control and braking control systems have been around for a long time and many cars already have crash avoidance systems that stop cars getting too close to the one in front, lane control and collision avoidance.
Special circumstance autonomy:
Vehicle is fully autonomous but only operates in special locations where this type of autonomy is safe. May allow a remote operator to take control if necessary. The would include the fully
Fully automated mine haulage trucks now being used in the in the Iron ore industry. (I don’t know all the details but I assume that an operator in Perth can over-ride the system if necessary and tell the truck which loader and crusher to go to.)
It also includes some of the autonomous passenger vehicles that are being trialed for moving people along a limited number of routes or working in a well understood area. The vehicles may have emergency stop buttons that passengers can reach.
Computer controls but vehicle needs a competent driver who is concentrating on what is going on: The computer will normally control the vehicle with the driver only taking control in unusual circumstances.
The interesting legal challenge comes when the stats are saying that autonomous is safer even though there are some autonomous accidents.
Thanks, John, for an informative and thoughtful comment. I think this one is going to take a while to resolve.
The latest New Scientist has an article saying that In the US Uber and Google, but also Ford and other companies, are busily mapping the place competitively using different and incompatible computer programs. The maps are not top-down satellite shots, but street-scapes that have to be mapped by driving along them in a vehicle set up with high resolution cameras.
One such vehicle would take two weeks to map the 2000 km of the major roads in San Franscisco.
However, Tesla may have the jump on the rest, because many of their 140,000 existing cars on the road have sensors which are beaming information back to the company. And there may be other stuff the company can do with the information gathered.
Sounds like it is all go Brian. The mine systems depend on very up to date mine mapping. I was acting quality control supt at one stage at Newman. The job included driving through the pit about once a day. I was impressed at how rapidly the mine roads and faces changed in a pit that with a total movement of about 400,000 tonnes per day.
I think all trucks should at least be retrofitted with up to date crash avoidance technology
Our next car will probably have crash avoidance technology.
Governments need to get on with changing standards and sorting out the legalities.
John
I don’t know if your taking about ” Australian Standards “, but Government doesn’t develop them, this Mob does.
They become Law when Governments incorporate their wording into legislation.
Unfortunately, if you want to read the “Standards” in a particular area ( Autonomous Vehicles ? ) you have to pay ( or be a member of a paying entity ) this Mob for the right. Because somehow SA sold the commercial rights to SAI Global in 2003.
Anyway, they are not cheap to obtain.
The reason I know is because, on a work related issue, I eMailed my MP ( fat George ) to enquire as to why, if an AS is incorporated in Law that I must abide, then can I not access it freely?
And why can purchasers not freely access the AS to assess if a product is Lawful ?
The other George ( AG ) replied with a lawyer/politician email that explained how but not why.
Jumpy, it’s what happens when you privatise government fuctions that should be there for the good of all.
John, I think I saw somewhere that governments here were starting to think about the regulatory regime. I’m sure we’ll hear more soon!
BMW developments:
Would make driving easier without tempting divers to ignore what is going on.
That sounds really helpful, John, will save lives.
Brian, standards were never a ” government function “. They were, historically, developed by Traders, then governments stuck their nose in.
Governments always have to clean up, when necessary. It seems governments are trying to get ahead of the action to spell out legal liability in terms of insurance.
Jumpy: I always found the Aust standards system seemed to cover what is necessary.
Governments, the standards association and business have a joint responsibilities for the timely implementation of laws and standards to allow autonomous cars and trucks to operate on our roads.
Care to share an example or two?
The standard gauge railway in Australia springs to mind, but that doesn’t support your argument at all. The metric system? Nope, introduced by the first French Republic. Imperial units were a hodge podge of local values and didn’t become standardised until the 19th century British Weights and Measures Act (curse that government bringing order to chaos).
Come on Jumpy, display your superior historical knowledge. Please?
How about one of Brians favourites, traveling on a certain side of the road, how did that come about ?
There were weights and measures standards between countries well before Jesus.
First, before a Government can make a standard law, it must be developed in trade or custom. Not the other way around.
Zoot, your godlike worship and desire to be reliant on The State is troubling.
So, Jumpy, how about we all decide what time of the day it is, or how long is a metre?
Your comprehension skills are usually weak at best, but I think that deserves some sort of medal.
The time is not standardised across the world by a central authority, even if some wish it were, jurisdictions decide democratically based mainly on trade. Daylight savings anyone ?
The US don’t use metric and I don’t see that as holding them back in trade or prosperity.
And it’s never caused any problems.
But it might lead to difficulties in the future.
zoot,
Yes, its sad that scientists are unable to use a conversion table, but everything they say is still gospel to you right ?
Jumpy, you say that the time is not standardised across the world by a central authority. You’ve probaly heard of Greenwich Mean Time, which all the national systems hang off, democratic or not.
Imperial versus metric is interesting.
The ‘foot’ varied considerably across the world. I understood it to be the length of a male foot in a boot, because that’s how my Dad used to measure them.
The French, after the revolution, tried to bring order to the world applying reason, so the ‘metre’ was derived as one 10 millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole. Now it’s determined by the distance light travels in a vacuum in one 299,792,458th of a second, because that won’t change. And a ‘foot’ now hangs off the ‘metre’.
And it’s all negotiated and standardised now by the International System of Units, brought up to date by the periodic General Conferences on Weights and Measures.
In Australia you are probably best starting with the Government information site, and then to Standards Australia a “non-government standards organisation charged by the Australian Government to meet Australia’s need for contemporary, internationally aligned standards and related services.”
Yes it’s a pity it’s not free, but then we’d all need to pay a bit more tax, or re-arrange our priorities.
But my point is that governments clean up, bring order, make daily transactions more efficient and bring order to our lives. You should learn to love them for this function.
BTW, I believe that according to the Constitution the federal government has the power to introduce daylight saving in Queensland. It’s just that they would be game enough to do it!
Jumpy, you can do better than that!
Getting back to the trigger for this particular thread:
From his previous contributions over the years it would appear that Jumpy is all in favour of “user pays”.
Just not when the user is Jumpy.
Brian
When Im being goaded I consider returning serve to be fair play, but yes I can.
Wow! I’m saddened people have been reduced to thinking this way
zoot,
Again with the twisted comprehension. I’m saying if I’m a producer and I’ve payed the Government to put a requirement on me, I shouldn’t have to pay again to know what it is. And if I’m a consumer, Ive payed them to make the law, bear the cost of compliance, so I shouldn’t have to pay again to know for myself what I’m paying for.
I wonder if Venezuela, with strict price and regulatory systems, will see driverless cars before Australia.
They just have to mandate it and abra cadabra, reality.
So providing examples where a US body (in this case NASA) has problems because they have not standardised their measurements with the rest of the world is “goading” you?
Please accept my deepest apologies; I had no idea you were such a delicate flower. I’ll try to be more gentle in future.
Watch out zoot, The Jump might take you to the HRC!
I quite enjoy it actually. Gives me opportunity to reply in kind.
Im confident of how I would fair in any resilience competition held here.
And NASA has many faults but measurement units are not one.
Jumpy, let’s face it, you’d be stuffed without a tape measure that meant the same everywhere. Yet you can’t bring yourself to thank the government for it!
I have many measuring devices and while I prefer metric I can use imperial. And I’m not even a public servant scientist.
I have nothing to thank Government for in that regard. Trade inspires standards not the State.
( oh, to put a matter to bed, could you please explain to zoot and Ambiguluos that ” goad ” doesn’t mean insult or offend ? They won’t believe me. )
We know what “goad” means Jumpy, do you?
Why do you think that providing supporting evidence for an argument is “goading” you?
You don’t need to provide evidence to prove scientists make mistakes zoot, Ive got plenty.
International standards supported by consenting States: units of measurement (mass, length, time), navigation, air space, time zones, cooperation over postal services, naming of chemicals, driving licences, money transfers, international telephony, international radio and television broadcasts, infection testing and quarantine, law of the sea, exclusive fishing zones, seabed demarcation treaties, immigration and customs, measures against: money laundering, human trafficking, sex tourism, forgery, corruption, poaching of threatened species, trafficking of wildlife, theft of archaeological treasures; measures reducing land mines, chemical weapons, biological weapons; measures reducing nuclear armaments; conservation and wildlife treaties,….
Yes, what have the Romans ever done for us???
Bastards, oppressors, scum……
I wasn’t providing evidence that “scientists make mistakes”.
I was providing evidence that adhering to imperial measures had caused problems for engineers in the USA.
You characterised my statements as “goading”.
How was I “goading” you by supporting my argument?
Jumpy, I’d agree that trade is one of the chief motivations for establishing standards. I doubt it’s the whole story. But governments have a role.
No doubt the Imperial system spread with British colonial power. And probably the metric system spread through Europe through Napoleon. I recall that after Napoleon, Prussia had five supreme courts with different systems of law. Napoleonic law in the Rhineland was said to suit business best. I’m sure that Bismarck would have sorted all that out.
What goes in the end is what is sanctioned by government, so that, by and large, it is uncontesed and we can go about our lives with certain certainties.
Jumpy: A lot of Australian and international standards are driven by safety concerns these days.
Totally unnecessary I’m sure, since the Traders would never allow unsafe practices like, oh, using asbestos in imported building materials, for example.
Educate yourself and choose yourself, Government has dumbed down the prols into stupid dependency.
zoot, I love your constant passive aggressive style, never change Mate. I smile every time.
John
Shouldn’t the consumer be allowed to voluntarily choose the level of safety they pay for ? Honestly ?
Sarcasm is not passive aggressive. Are you goading me?
The consumer can’t be expected to assess safety before every purchase. Do you think businesses should be allowed to sell dangerous goods and services?
And it’s also the worker we have to be concerned about.
The consumer is not an isolated individual.
Suppose the consumer chose a relatively unsafe car. It may cause injury or death for others who become randomly affected when the car malfunctions.
Suppose the consumer buys a smart phone that turns out to be faulty and starts a fire on a passenger plane.
Suppose the hapless consumer buys a cheap angle grinder, motor mower or petrol driven chainsaw that causes a fire that burns down his shed. Only a problem for the consumer? Not if the shed is next to dry bush land and a bushfire spreads from that point. (Don’t scoff, it happened one summer.)
Suppose the consumer installs a poorly designed washing machine which gushes water while consumer is away at work, wetting several other apartments and causing electrical damage to relatively unsafe appliance that other thrifty consumers installed?
I’m suspicious of this idea of the rugged individual consumer, autonomous and happy. Hermit? No kids? Anarcho-recklessism is a creed the rest of us should be wary of.
“No man is an island unto himself.”
Put it another way, Jumpy: we care about your safety and your family’s safety. What would the blog be without your chirpy missives?
We don’t want you comatose or prematurely silent.
Please put the guard back on your circular saw.
BTW, one thing “the prols” are NOT, is “dumb”!
I heard on the radio today that the government, no less, will determine the standards for the qualifications of financial advisers/planners. Out is the industry standard of a two-week course. They’ll all have to have a degree now. Over time all the 22,000 existing people will have to comply.
A board is to be set up (by the government) to supervise the standards and the transition – a board of nine, with three industry representatives and an ethicist.
Must say, the injection of a bit of informed rationality by the government is most welcome!
What, so a financial advisers/planners with a 30 years of unblemished record of great advice gets is kicked out for not doing the course but a 22 year old, straight out of Uni is solid ?
It’s a crazy time we live in.
Ooh, the ABC just got on topic.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-17/driverless-car-technology-unsafe-road-safety-experts-warn/7939868
No, that is not the case. The transition will not be that crude.
I gather there will be a formal examination which everyone will eventually have to sit for and pass. It will all be staged over a period of time, and I’m sure the intention is that the board with industry representatives and an ethicist will see that things happen reasonably.
You can argue about the rights and wrongs of ‘credentialism’ (Google it) but that’s how the modern world works.
That last comment of mine referred to:
Yes, the ABC did have a useful segment on driverless cars. Hasten slowly, I think. But finally they will look to governments to get it sorted and ready to go.
Back in the 18th century in Prussia, Fred the Great brought in a law that required all judges to have a law degree. Was that a silly thing to do?
In my lifetime we’ve professionalised teaching, nursing and child care, probably others too.
When I came out of university you could get a job teaching in a private school without a teaching qualification. Not now,
“Ensure” is a useful word when talking about responsibilities. In the case of autonomous cars governments should be expected to ensure that standards, road rules etc. are in place before autonomous cars start being used on Australian roads. Ensuring does not mean that governments have to do it all but it does mean that governments need to be satisfied that what needs to be done has been done properly.
So now, thanks to Government, we have magnificent Judicial decisions and sentences, better educayshun outcomes than South Korean Private Schools that need only an online course to apply and children under 5 raised to a far better level of social grounding and respectfullness than their inexperienced and non-certified Mothers and Grandmothers could ever achieve.
Aleluya!
( nursing outcomes have improved but because everything improves with Government enforced gender equity, we should do that. )
You can mock, Jumpy. Perfection is not available to us. Are you seriously saying that judges do not need to have a law degree?
I’ll let the rest go through to the keeper, but you should have a talk with my wife about the standard of modern parenting, having worked a lifetime in early childhood for a lifetime. But wait, as a qualified preschool teacher she wouldn’t know anything!
John, yes “ensure” is a good word
I wish I could have a chat with your ( loverly I’m sure, honestly ) Wife on this and ask if Mothers and Family or the Government are better at raising children.
And extrapolate both scenarios out to an all encompassing policy.
But while I have your attention, what is your view as a Father and Husband ?
There’s your mistake, Jumpy. Extrapolating scenarios into an all encompassing policy. It’s not about governments raising children.
As a husband and father it was smart to marry an early childhood expert for parenting knowhow. Now she’s moved to home care for the aged, and did a TAFE diploma for the change, so that will be handy too!
Nuclear families are not the ideal way of raising kids and passing along parenting skills. However, I’m actually not at all keen on all-day institutional child care. When the Qld Gov’t introduced preschools in 1971 or so, kids attended 2.5 hours per day on average. From about age four, from memory. Lots of participation and cooperation between teachers and parents.
There has been more gone wrong than right with policy since then, but it’s a long story.
Preschool has been pushed into longer hours as a means of providing childcare for working parents.
And kindergarten hours were extended by Federal fiat, I think. Some in Victoria had to extend beyond Mon-Fri, and add Saturday morning sessions.