Self-Driving Car Progress-Free 2019
 

This article claims that there won't be any progress in autonomous vehicles in 2019. It seems the reason all the big car companies jumped into the autonomous car game was to slow its progress.

[sarcasm]What a surprise[/quote]

If this article is correct and 2019 will just be a year of milking along the status quo of driving dependency in transportation, can we expect to see any other progress in LCF in 2019?

If so, what areas of LCF do you expect to see growth/progress in in the coming year?
- ride-sharing?
- public transit (local and/or long distance)?
- infrastructure?
- electric bikes and scooters and/or other small vehicles?
- innovations in work management that facilitate more telecommuting and reduce commuting
- more local retail and delivery options?
- more people choosing transportation biking?

Or will 2019 be a year of automotive cultural perseverance and growth, with LCF further marginalized?

https://jalopnik.com/2019-will-not-b...ion-1831398495

That's a stupid article. A handful of anecdotes in support of a straw man. 2019 won't be a "revolution" in self driving cars, just steady progress in both technology and marketing.

Yes, I think the big automotive players got into the game to create the perception of slow, gradual progress in the new technologies. They do this for economic reasons: 1) because it allows them to milk innovations longer in investment markets and 2) it allows them to maintain the status quo of regular car sales and other consumer spending associated with consistent driving behaviors.

They do this 'gradual incremental progress' thing with everything from fuel efficiency to safety improvements to electric motors. It's not limited to the auto industry. It's an obvious business tactic not to progress any faster than the market makes you. If you form a convoy and all slow down together, you can charge everyone waiting on you more over a longer period for incremental speed increases.

So if self-driving innovations are going to go slow and gradual, the question is how else LCF can find a way around the traffic jam of business dragging its feet.

Or maybe we should just be patient and go back to driving cars until the industry can get around to offering us alternatives. I'm sure that is what they would love us to do.

But the big, old companies get pushed by young upstarts. The Japanese auto industry pushed Detroit in the 70s, Tesla pushed them towards electric cars faster than they'd planned, and Silicon valley is pushing them towards self-driving cars.

"Slowing down the convoy" is a much less feasible strategy, these days.

I didn't read the linked article.

But slowing down a tech by the existing players doing a slow, incremental approach doesn't sound like it will work.

There's too much investment money that will finance just about any unlikely idea, even if there's no obvious way it will ever pay off.

Self driving cars probably still can't drive in snow or even in heavy rain, and mostly are in areas that have been mapped and scanned in great detail. But google is ramping up Waymo car access to the general public in Arizona.

It will never pay off relative to keeping everyone driving their own human-operated machine. Why would the companies allow developments that could liberate people from personal car ownership? They will block it in every way that can, including creating the narrative of 'slow progress,' which is absolutely the best way to pacify change-seekers.

I've said in past threads that they should focus on getting certain routes established as fixed transit lines, where the vehicles have been programmed to function like rail vehicles except without rails. They could even put sensors in the lane markings so the vehicles can follow them in rain, snow, or any other conditions. They won't do this because they don't want the public to see progress. They want to keep all the progress in the laboratory, so to speak, so that the public will not hesitate to buy new cars in hopes of being able to use autonomous ride-sharing any time soon.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle

Let others burn cash on the front end, then take over.

Some folks seem not to realize that a lot of companies which are not car companies are doing the cutting-edge work on AVs.

Exactly. Google has a strategic interest in people not driving so they can spend more time on their phone.

They're going to map everything they possibly can. The cost for this is relatively low, and reward for reducing restrictions on driverless transpo is high.

Pretty much this.

That's a made up story based on no factual evidence. For your assumptions to hold water you have to demonstrate that driverless technology is more viable than the car companies make it out to be. I don't think you can do that. I am personally an expert in the development of firmware for embedded smart devices (since 1978) and I can tell you the problems are daunting and outstrip current AI technology and sensor technology to name a couple things. For example there are no affordable sensors that can tell the difference between a dog, an infant, or a small toy during a rainstorm. And that doesn't even start on the social/legal/liability issues (such as who is responsible for accidents etc). The only thing that makes it a relatively strong engineering focus is the rich rewards to be gained from capturing the market and patents as an early manufacturer (another point that disputes your claim because if the big companies try to slow progress then another "elon musk" will come steal the market from them).

Do you think Tesla made their auto-pilot less capable than they could have so they could get sued when it causes accidents?

There are thousands of articles that directly contradict what I say and paint a rosy picture. Problem is they're ALL written by journalists trying to get readership by hyping the technology. You see nothing but flowery abstract language when discussing specific technical issues or a discussion of only those things we've solved as though we're there now.

Not likely are "they" going to "map" variables, like the locations of every other parked or moving vehicle on the road, every wandering animal, jaywalker, child chasing a ball, icy spots, pothole, construction or anything else that isn't permanently attached to the street or road.

Research should be spent on eliminating cars in my opinion, not self driving. Man we depend on technology too much....

Stories, theories and speculation based on imaginative critical thinking exercises have no need for factual evidence or even any relationship to the real world. They only need to fit the proponent's agenda.

I think a more practical approach would be to certain highways being self driving for long driving trips. But even that has a hole in the theory, when the self driving car puts you at your exit and the driver accidentally fell asleep!!!.. why not have a super advanced transit system?? Probabky because car companies rule the world, thru jobs and oil and economy!!

Automated vehicles need to have a safe stop/pull-over function for whenever a driver is non-responsive. This should be installed as a safety feature on on all cars regardless of any other self-driving regulations, as it could save lives in the event of heart attacks, etc.

Certain highways and non-highway routes could simply be designated as fixed transit routes for self-driving vehicles and people would know to be careful there and keep their kids and pets safe, etc, the same way they do around a train track, truck area, or other higher risk area. Designating such routes would make it easier to make custom transit routes that fit your schedule and connections. The problem is that the people who work in driving jobs are scared to lose them, so even though no one really wants to drive a bus long distance in the middle of the night, they'd rather do it and get the pay than to lose job opportunities to self-driving technology.

Correct. The mapping will focus on things that are relatively static. That's normally how mapping works.

You are in the wrong thread, as well as the wrong BF sub-forum to post a so-called "more practical approach." This is the place to post cockamamy conspiracy theories.

Unfortunately for the developers/promoters/marketeers of self driving car schemes, driving safely on the road requires quickly and safely reacting at least as well as humans to those pesky unpredictable objects that are not static.

All the Radar and LIDAR and smart guys in Silicon Valley in existence may not be good enough to reliably and consistently drive a car without human control/oversight in the midst of such variables, except in tightly controlled locations and favorable weather environments.

The economics of such restricted use doesn't look favorable except for dreamers who don't care about reality, or speculators willing to lose billions of other people's dollars and have access to apparently bottomless purses of venture capital.

:lol:

On the contrary, it looks favorable to people with very successful track records in high tech investment. You won't find anyone knowledgeable in technology businesses betting against self driving cars.

Can you own a self-driving car and still call yourself car-free ??

And where do you get that from? The most respected group of engineers in the world is the IEEE. A quote from them recently says "Even as self-driving research cars make record-setting road trips, fully autonomous vehicles that can legally drive on public roads remain a distant dream." (my emphasis)

What you'll see soon is more and more increments towards self driving such as self parking, adaptive cruise control, lane keeping, etc. and you'll think self driving cars are right around the corner and you'll be dead wrong because of the need for better sensors, AI, legal hurdles, and more.

IMO as we get closer to self driving cars, driving will become more dangerous. The problem is the way people react to emergencies. If you're at the wheel of the car not depending on any automation such as adaptive cruise control and lane keeping then your senses are sharp and your responses are quick as you're ready for anything. Then you drive more and more autonomous vehicles and while the owner's manual will be full of boldface disclaimers (absolving the manufacturer of liability) you will find it irresistible to rely on automation more and more especially as it continues to perform well. Once you stop paying close attention to the road and keep getting good feedback you'll spend longer and longer periods of time (like seconds) not looking at the road. Even if your car senses a situation that it can't handle and wants you to take over, you're not ready to suddenly respond to an emergency situation whose development you didn't even witness. People don't function well like that.

Note that the reason manufacturers are doing this automation has NOTHING to do with safety. They just want a revenue stream that funds more and more self driving development without biting off the whole enchilada.