Automation: Pros and cons.

[tar]

Several years ago I heard a woman with a Jaquar complain that sometimes when she went over a significant bump, the car would die (crash safety protection automatically cutting fuel supply) and she would have to pull over, with no power steering, come to a stop with no power brakes, and wait 5 minutes for the system to reset.

 

I often find my car locked when I go to open the back door to put my computer behind the seat. And since it is parked in my garage, I have no need to have it locked, but even if I leave the window open, when I reach in to hit the unlock button it does not function. I have to either put my computer down and get out my keys, or reach in through the window and pull the inside door handle to open the door, reengaging the lock/unlock buttons, so I can unlock the back door to put my computer behind the seat.

 

About once a week (in the winter) I find I have driven all the way home from the convienience store without my lights on. The headlights turn on automatically and I see them in the reflection of the store, so I fail to actually turn the switch on, so I travel home in the dark with no tail lights.

 

There were several incidents in the New York Metropolitan area where cars were struck by trains at crossings where road and rail were on the same level. Individual judgement, and adherence to gates and lights should prevent collisions at these junctions. However there is talk of outfitting trains with automated systems to slow and stop the train should anything be on the tracks ahead. I am thinking, and I started this thread to suggest that such automation could be a bad idea. Kids might put stuff on the tracks, just to see the train stop. Criminals, as in the old West train robberies, could stop a train in a remote area, just by standing on the tracks, board it and take everybody's jewelry and wallets and cell phones. During rutting season a Buck could stand on the track and prevent a train from proceeding.

 

There are some places where cutting human judgement out of the equation is potentially more of a problem than a solution.

 

Back to my car. For a while my daughter's new car had my garage spot and I parked next to the garage, and when I pulled into my driveway and straightened out my lights would shine past the house, over the fence, through my back yard, over a privacy fence and directly into the bedroom windows of a house situated behind ours.

I used to be able to turn my lights off once I turned into my driveway and saw it was clear. Now the lights do not go off, until I turn the car off.

 

Automation. Good when it helps. Bad when it takes away individual judgement and control.

 

 

What do you think?

Edited March 12, 2015 by tar

[Phi for All]

I think we should try some basic physics education for car owners before we move to automating cars. I find that the people trying to work a traffic jam to their best advantage are the ones causing most of it. If people could chill out and allow zipper merging to avoid everyone hitting their brakes, much of the heavy traffic could move more efficiently.

 

It's the guys who race to be the first in line at the next stop light that cause everyone to have to stop. Automation might take care of that, but I'd like to see an education program first. Much less expensive, and I believe it's worked in some European countries.

[swansont]

One of the underlying issues this raises is the cost of false positives; a lot of focus is being placed on not having triggering failures but not on what happens when the system triggers when it shouldn't (in whichever direction that happens to be — failing to turn off or failing to turn on)

 

I am thinking, and I started this thread to suggest that such automation could be a bad idea. Kids might put stuff on the tracks, just to see the train stop. Criminals, as in the old West train robberies, could stop a train in a remote area, just by standing on the tracks, board it and take everybody's jewelry and wallets and cell phones. During rutting season a Buck could stand on the track and prevent a train from proceeding.

 

A similar scenario was described in a sc-fi/fantasy book I read a few decades ago. (Coils by Saberhagen and Zelazny) The hero stows away on an automated truck and wakes up because it keeps slowing and speeding, as thrill-seeking teens jump out in front, playing "chicken" (and relying on the automation to keep them from being hit)

[Greg H.]

Automation, in and of itself, it neither good nor bad. It's a tool, designed to make our lives, easier, better, or safer (or all three) in some fashion.

 

Take the thermostat in your home - that's a form of very simple automation. When the house gets too cold, it turns the heat on. When it warms up, it turns the furnace off. Which means you don't have to worry about doing it yourself all day every day.

 

To be fair to the railroad industry. The cost of a train sitting for a few minutes because of a false stop is a heck of a lot lower than the cost of the train smacking into something and derailing because the system didn't stop it. Also, most railroads already have automatic detection built in. It just doesn't stop the trains. The dispatcher has to that by calling the impacted locomotives directly - that takes time, and when you're moving something that takes a mile to stop, every second counts.

[Phi for All]

Several years ago I heard a woman with a Jaquar complain that sometimes when she went over a significant bump, the car would die (crash safety protection automatically cutting fuel supply) and she would have to pull over, with no power steering, come to a stop with no power brakes, and wait 5 minutes for the system to reset.

The inertia switches that trigger the fuel cut off need a pretty robust jolt. A bump isn't going to do anything unless she was going pretty fast. I've heard those switches also pop open the door locks. It's not a bad system, and I'm sure there would be times it could save your life, and that's certainly worth the occasional five minute reset.

 

That said, I've had experience with a car that lost it's power for the power steering and power brakes, and it sucks. I don't like the idea of hitting another car/getting hit and then suddenly having limited maneuverability. Often in that situation, you need as much help as you can bringing the vehicle back under control.

 

I often find my car locked when I go to open the back door to put my computer behind the seat. And since it is parked in my garage, I have no need to have it locked, but even if I leave the window open, when I reach in to hit the unlock button it does not function. I have to either put my computer down and get out my keys, or reach in through the window and pull the inside door handle to open the door, reengaging the lock/unlock buttons, so I can unlock the back door to put my computer behind the seat.

I don't understand this one. It just sounds like the unlock button doesn't work. Or are you saying that the car won't recognize the lock being un-engaged from the inside unless you're seated?

 

I have a car where the locks engage the first time you turn a corner or accelerate quickly. It's only a problem if I'm picking someone up. I expect them to hop in easily because I didn't lock the car...

 

About once a week (in the winter) I find I have driven all the way home from the convienience store without my lights on. The headlights turn on automatically and I see them in the reflection of the store, so I fail to actually turn the switch on, so I travel home in the dark with no tail lights.

I don't get this one either. Are you saying that the lights come on automatically when you leave the store, but shut off somehow along the way? That's just not right...

 

There are some places where cutting human judgement out of the equation is potentially more of a problem than a solution.

I agree. We can't let the "nifty" factor override a thorough assessment of the issue.

 

 

 

I can't help but think that if we need to automate automobiles, we should have just invested in more light rail or maglev trains. You take away the driving experience when you take away the control. Now I'm left with only the convenience of being able to hop in my individual car. At some point I'm going to realize I'm riding in a one-person train being driven by something else.

[tar]

Phi for all,

 

When I turn the car on, and it is dark out, the headlights come on, automatically. This however does not cause the tail lights to light. The tail lights only come on if you manually turn the headlights on. So I wind up thinking my lights are on, because I can see my headlights lighting the way. But when I pull in the garage, and go to turn off my lights, the switch is already off.

 

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

Automation. Good when it helps. Bad when it takes away individual judgement and control.

In my experience, human error is a very real issue with often hugely negative effects and it's one that should be mitigated/eliminated with smart automation whenever and wherever possible, but YMMV.

[tar]

iNow,

 

Human error, you mean in terms of reflexes, running red lights, miscalculating the closing speed and such?

 

Humans also have the ability to drive hundreds of thousands of miles without hitting anybody or anything, and with the ability to take the needs and desires of the passengers into consideration, as well as taking into consideration the other people on the road.

 

There are any number of intersections where eye contact and turn signals, and waves and nods rule the day.

 

My concern is that automated systems cannot make judgement calls, be polite, slow down around the house that has the old blind cat that wanders out on the road, and automated systems have instant reaction time, which might not be the case for the unautomated vehicals around the automated one, or be safe for the gal inside putting in her contact lenses.

 

Bottom line, an automated system has to be programmed by a human anyway. The human judgement is already built into the automated system. And human error is still a factor, because the human that wrote the program may have forgotten to take something into consideration...like the fact that I don't need or want my car to lock automatically when it is inside my garage, and I would like to be able to open the door even when I don't have my keys.

 

Regards, TAR

[Phi for All]

Phi for all,

 

When I turn the car on, and it is dark out, the headlights come on, automatically. This however does not cause the tail lights to light. The tail lights only come on if you manually turn the headlights on. So I wind up thinking my lights are on, because I can see my headlights lighting the way. But when I pull in the garage, and go to turn off my lights, the switch is already off.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Sorry, but that just sounds like a bad design. If it's dark enough to trigger the headlights, why would the car think you didn't need the tail lights? Most cars I've seen can't have just one or the other on.

 

Is this some sort of passive/aggressive option package? "Hey, I turned your headlights on for you! But it was too much trouble to turn the taillights on too!"

[EdEarl]

Vehicle automation is in its infancy, and its sophistication is low, like DOS applications. Windows applications are usually much better, have more options and settings. It will take years for vehicle automation to become sophisticated, in the mean time we will have to live with cars that assist us or that we assist, because development and deployment seem inevitable.

 

I believe we will see collision avoidance technology become common on all cars; although, we will continue to drive. This technology will improve and eventually take over driving. The trucking industry may want automation that drives between cities in low congestion to allow human drivers to nap, with a push to change laws that extend driving time for the human river. Taxis without drivers will be much more economic, and the occupants might give voice commands like, "Stop." in emergencies. There is a big need for farm equipment that drives itself, and I suspect the same is true for many off-road vehicles.

[iNow]

Bottom line, an automated system has to be programmed by a human anyway.

Not all of them. Self-learning AI gets better each day and is already in use doing amazing things in other fields.

 

And human error is still a factor, because the human that wrote the program may have forgotten to take something into consideration...like the fact that I don't need or want my car to lock automatically when it is inside my garage, and I would like to be able to open the door even when I don't have my keys.

Do you think these things get released without first going through QA and extensive testing? Also, on my car you just go into the vehicle settings menu and adjust when the doors lock and unlock. Literally, three or four clicks from the steering wheel and done. Simple.

[Greg H.]

I'm far less concerned by vehicle automation than I am by the drive by wire systems now being incorporated into new cars.

 

Three things I should always have direct, mechanical control of in a car:

Brake

Accelerator

Steering

[Phi for All]

I'm far less concerned by vehicle automation than I am by the drive by wire systems now being incorporated into new cars.

 

Three things I should always have direct, mechanical control of in a car:

Brake

Accelerator

Steering

 

That's my kneejerk reaction as well, but they're also what causes most of the traffic problems, especially the brake. I've rebelled against the drive by wire systems in principle, because I see them eventually becoming just like riding a bus or train, so why don't we just invest in buses and trains? I keep picturing eventually they'll sell us on the idea that you can drive your car away from the house, meet up with other cars going to the same destinations, and hook together to make the automatic commute.

 

But maybe that's the middle step between private and public transportation. The convenience of being able to hop in your own car with the benefits of mass transit.

[Greg H.]

 

...so why don't we just invest in buses and trains?

This is the question I keep asking myself over and over.

 

When I lived in Europe in the early 90s, I never noticed I didn't own a car. Admittedly, it was a bit of a walk to the train station, but I could call a cab if I needed one (if it was raining, or I needed to move my shopping), or wait for a bus. I never felt like I needed a car to get anywhere.

 

It was quite the culture shock when I got back to the US and realized the first thing I needed to buy was a car. I lived in an area where mass transit was more than one person walking along the side of the road in the same direction, and the nearest bus stop was 5 miles down the road (and that was only for Greyhound, and they only dropped off. They didn't pick up there).

 

My primary argument aginst the drive by wire systems is that, ultimately, they are computer controlled, and any computer can be hacked. When my safety, and the safety of others, is in question, nothing quite beats good old fashioned mecahnical linkages. Yes, they are less fancy, yes they are neither new nor modern, but they insure that I can, at all times, actually force the car to do something to try and avoid an accident.

 

My secondary argument is - why do we need them? To save four feet of metal? I get fly by wire systems on jets, especially jumbo jets. Mechanical linkages 90 feet long are impractical, and hydraulic lines of that length could cause problems with multiple fittings adding possible leaks. My car is 15 feet long - mechanical and hydraulic systems are fine.

[Phi for All]

This is the question I keep asking myself over and over.

 

When I lived in Europe in the early 90s, I never noticed I didn't own a car. Admittedly, it was a bit of a walk to the train station, but I could call a cab if I needed one (if it was raining, or I needed to move my shopping), or wait for a bus. I never felt like I needed a car to get anywhere.

 

It was quite the culture shock when I got back to the US and realized the first thing I needed to buy was a car. I lived in an area where mass transit was more than one person walking along the side of the road in the same direction, and the nearest bus stop was 5 miles down the road (and that was only for Greyhound, and they only dropped off. They didn't pick up there).

I hear you. If I were to put the kind of mileage I do around the Denver metro area somewhere in Europe, I could be dealing with at least 2-3 different countries. In the western US, we built out instead of up because we could, there was lots of land. On the other hand, I usually have too much stuff to carry to make effective use of mass transit. Personal transportation makes sense for me.

 

My primary argument aginst the drive by wire systems is that, ultimately, they are computer controlled, and any computer can be hacked. When my safety, and the safety of others, is in question, nothing quite beats good old fashioned mecahnical linkages. Yes, they are less fancy, yes they are neither new nor modern, but they insure that I can, at all times, actually force the car to do something to try and avoid an accident.

 

My secondary argument is - why do we need them? To save four feet of metal? I get fly by wire systems on jets, especially jumbo jets. Mechanical linkages 90 feet long are impractical, and hydraulic lines of that length could cause problems with multiple fittings adding possible leaks. My car is 15 feet long - mechanical and hydraulic systems are fine.

I don't like objections that rely on "if you build it, they will hack". We can't stop innovation because someone may exploit it, we just need to protect the system better, or punish those who try to monkey with it as if they were endangering hundreds of lives instead of lifting passwords. I understand the safety concerns, and I agree with them.

 

I'm sure some kind of override will be available, but in most circumstances there wouldn't be enough time to deploy it. And I think it's those times when we could really use an automatic driving system.

 

I still say we should invest in a series of public service announcements pointing out the benefits of NOT tailgaiting, using your brakes less, and allowing others to merge. This just seems like a logical first step before adding so much more cost to our cars.

[Greg H.]

I don't like objections that rely on "if you build it, they will hack". We can't stop innovation because someone may exploit it, we just need to protect the system better, or punish those who try to monkey with it as if they were endangering hundreds of lives instead of lifting passwords. I understand the safety concerns, and I agree with them.

I fundamentally agree with you that we can't stifle innovation because of "could be" scenarios, but when we're talking about vehicles that I put my kids into, I'm a "plan for the worst" kind of guy. And human nature being what it is, I think it's silly to adopt the attitude of "If you make it hard to hack, no one will try". As my step father used to say - "Locks exist to help honest people stay honest."

 

Ultimately, I think my fundamental problem with drive by wire systems is that the computer is actually in control of the car, not me, and that goes against every instinct I possess. I admit, it's an emotional, visceral, reaction with only the most passing glance in the direction of logical, but there you have it. When I board a train, or a plane, or get into the passenger seat of another car, I have acknowledged a release of the determination of my own fate for the duration of this trip. But when I'm physically holding onto the steering wheel, the idea that I'm not really the one who decides which way the wheels point frankly scares the hell right out of me.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Greg H.

[EdEarl]

The advantages of drive by wire are automation enhancements, such as collision avoidance. I prefer the safest system, whether mechanical or wire, and both have failure modes. Thus, I say look at the statistics and drive safely.

[Hans de Vries]

The majority of car crashes are caused by human factors - either distraction, driving too fast or under the influence - so personally, I would have nothing against automated road transport. There are unmanned trains and pilots of airliners already spend most of their time onboard on an autopilot. So why not cars?

[Greg H.]

The majority of car crashes are caused by human factors - either distraction, driving too fast or under the influence - so personally, I would have nothing against automated road transport. There are unmanned trains and pilots of airliners already spend most of their time onboard on an autopilot. So why not cars?

Aircraft and trains are routed and overseen by a central authority for a given geographic area (Air Traffic Controllers for aircraft, dispatchers for trains). There are also so few of them (relatively speaking) that this makes sense. There are literally hundreds of millions of road based vehicles in the United States alone - and historically speaking, these types of systems do not scale well.

[Phi for All]

I fundamentally agree with you that we can't stifle innovation because of "could be" scenarios, but when we're talking about vehicles that I put my kids into, I'm a "plan for the worst" kind of guy. And human nature being what it is, I think it's silly to adopt the attitude of "If you make it hard to hack, no one will try". As my step father used to say - "Locks exist to help honest people stay honest."

 

And this is why I think it won't be as much of a problem. These are vehicles we put our kids into, and I can only imagine the ton of bricks that would fall on anyone who hacked a system that put children in immediate danger like that.

 

IIRC, I think there's already a lot of pressure to ensure safe systems in cars, since they're increasingly being hooked up to cellular networks. Technically, I think someone could probably plant a virus right now in your car from the music you downloaded to your phone.

 

Ultimately, I think my fundamental problem with drive by wire systems is that the computer is actually in control of the car, not me, and that goes against every instinct I possess. I admit, it's an emotional, visceral, reaction with only the most passing glance in the direction of logical, but there you have it. When I board a train, or a plane, or get into the passenger seat of another car, I have acknowledged a release of the determination of my own fate for the duration of this trip. But when I'm physically holding onto the steering wheel, the idea that I'm not really the one who decides which way the wheels point frankly scares the hell right out of me.

That's part of my problem as well. If they're going to make this work, maybe the steering wheel has to retract out of the way. And now we're back to personal train cars.

[Greg H.]

That's part of my problem as well. If they're going to make this work, maybe the steering wheel has to retract out of the way. And now we're back to personal train cars.

I am reminded of the futuristic Audi from the movie I, Robot that has a steering wheel that folded away when in Auto mode, but extended when in manual mode.

[Phi for All]

I am reminded of the futuristic Audi from the movie I, Robot that has a steering wheel that folded away when in Auto mode, but extended when in manual mode.

 

A hybrid idea, combining the best of manual driving and automated. Even then, I can see the need to control when you can take control. I don't want to be in perfectly automated highway traffic but get stalled by someone who wants to keep it on manual for the joy of driving.

 

I think the part we'd notice most is inertia. Driving becomes a lot about the feel of the car, the accelerations and decelerations, and if you don't know exactly when the car is going to speed up or hit the brakes, it would probably feel very weird. I learned to drive in a simulator they put in the back of a semi-trailer, hauling it around to all the high schools in the area. You had all the controls of a normal car, but you never felt the push and pull the way you do in a real car. It was unnerving.

[imatfaal]

As I ended up on the tarmac twice yesterday - both time courtesy of drivers who seemed to be paying less attention than needed for a manual drive - then I would quite welcome the introduction of expert systems into motor vehicles.

 

I cannot really comment upon the efficacy of introduction of automation/expert systems/driver aids - no one can as we haven't seriously tested them - but we introduced many of these systems on ships many years ago. They were vigorously objected to by the Owners, Mariners, and Crews - the examples of situations where human intellect would be wrongly over-ruled by mindless computer rules were almost convincing. The implementation was annoying, expensive, and time-consuming - but they do work; we have had a marked decrease in incidents since and the two major negative events have both been when safety systems have been wrongly switched off/countermanded.

 

We all like to think we are expert drivers keeping ourselves, families, and friends safe from outside terrors and dangers and quite often we do, but we cannot drive like the guy or gal from Ronin or ride like this guy.

[Greg H.]

We all like to think we are expert drivers keeping ourselves, families, and friends safe from outside terrors and dangers and quite often we do, but we cannot drive like the guy or gal from Ronin or ride like this guy.

I took an aggressive/stunt driving course once. That clip kind of reminded me of that.

 

Edit: Though to be honest, that car chase was too long for my taste.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Greg H.

[tar]

Imatfaal,

 

In the car chase, many pedestrians had to see the car coming down the sidewalk, and jump out of the way, and several workers had to do the same. Not likely to work out so nicely in a non scripted and correographed sequence. Car chases are of course never actually that long in a crowded city, because somebody is going to be in the way.

 

I am wondering what protective actions automated vehicals would have in reference to the car chase. Would the crash prevention system on the automated car disable the vehical from moving at the start? This would foil both the chased and the chaser. You could not run from trouble, nor catch a trouble maker. Which would mean that the system should be made to be overridden by human judgement when a human's judgement requires manual control. Which in turn creates a situation where some vehicals are in manual and some are in auto, both during the buildup to auto stage, and in the completely auto stage, where humans have the ability to go to manual. And the question would be then, who is allowed to go into manual, in what situations, which would again take the decision out of the hands of the human on the scene, and put it in the hands of the humans making the algorithms and the laws. I would forsee a certain group of people that would prefer to leave the darn thing in manual all the time, so they could do what they wanted, and not be dragged along as a cog in the machine, forced to wait out stupid situations, that will take time to solve by the automated system, that could be solved instantly by just carefully driving through, around, over or backing up with the judgement assistance of the people around you.

 

For instance, how will an automated system warn of its approach? Electric cars are very quiet. A human driver can see the scene in front of her and can tell who is paying attention and is not, who is liable to step out into the street and who is not, who has a pile of packages obstructing their view of the approaching vehical and who does not. A human can issue a warning beep when she sees an accident about to happen. A system would have to beep all the time, any time two objects could potentially occupy the same space. Thus there would be continual beeping which would be ignored as car alarms are ignored. And the wolf crying would negate the avoidance measures required when there IS a wolf after the flock.

 

Also, there is a elite vs. worker element that should be considered. Automated systems take money to develope and implement, and repair. Automated systems require infrastructure as in painted magnetic lines or tracks or courses for the automated vehical to follow. Rich people can buy one, and set up the streets for its use, more easily than the average Joe. Which means there would be unequal access to transportation. Manual cars would not be allowed on certain byways, thus depriving average to poor people of access to those byways.

 

Also, there is a city vs. suburbs vs. rural element that should be considered. Automated systems work better where the course is exactly controlled, which might work in densely populated areas but fail to make sense in a suburban driveway or a farmers field, or a mountain road. What sense does it make to put in a multimillion dollar automated system of tracks and sensors and controls and power strips and and lights and such on a quarter mile dirt driveway, that goes through a creek? Wouldn't it be better to have a vehical you could drive through the creek AND to the store in the mall, and to the show in the city?

 

Regards, TAR

Thread,

 

My suggestion is to scrap the automated car idea and build up the infrastructure in highly congested areas, where it makes sense to have automated transport, like airports and heavily traveled arteries into cities. Perhaps elevated tracks, as in the monorail type setups in airports could be constructed on single pole towers down the median strip of existing highways. Personal (pods) could be introduced to the system at stations that could be picked up by frequent "engines" that traveled the track, or the pods could be propelled along by magnetic fields as in a particle accelerator. The pods could be designed to "fit" onto different tracks, or into various chassis that could run on regular roads or off road, or across swamp or water, or latch onto suspended cables or whatever. Pods could be made to carry a person or several people or frieght or both people and frieght. The automation would be in metering the traffic onto the track, rail, cable, or course and keeping it moving at optimum safe speed, and switching each pod onto the desired course. The system would be monitored by humans, who would have facilities to address breakdowns of the system and get people quickly off and onto surface transport, if required.

 

Or something like that. Use automation and technology in carefully controlled and monitored situations, and let me turn my headlights off while the car is running, and let me leave my car unlocked in the garage.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited March 25, 2015 by tar