[torpfactory]

There is a different perspective that you could use (and I’m not necessarily advocating for it; hear me out):

Human driven cars are dangerous to the tune of ~36,000 deaths per year. Every year without the implementation of full self driving we pay some large percentage of that number in lives. Self driving cars won’t make it out of the lab without real driving on real roads in real scenarios. Taking appropriate precautions (a human safety driver, maybe two) and testing in the real world might save more lives overall than keeping the vehicles in a more lab-like setting for longer, and missing some of the complexity of the real thing.

[carapace]

What about the nerf-golf-cart idea?

[pj_mukh]

Most of these companies run closed-circuit tests (aka nerf-golf-carts) and 1000's of hours of simulation. In the end, the only test that matters is the real-test. Real speed (sensor/computation latency et al.), real sensor feeds (lighting et al.) and real car size (momentum et al.). Source: Am Controls engineer.

There WILL be bugs and un-modellable sources of error. The real hedging in these situations is the safety driver. The death of Elaine Herzberg is very regrettable, but the fault ultimately lies with the safety driver and the training that was offered to her. She was on her phone, like 1000's of drivers are now.

[carapace]

> Most of these companies run closed-circuit tests (aka nerf-golf-carts) and 1000's of hours of simulation.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

I mean build a machine that, in the real world, can't hurt people.

Make it light.

Make it soft.

Program it to limit its speed such that it can always stop before colliding with whatever (whoever) might leap out in front of it.

If the top speed is five miles per hour, so be it.

The safety driver is wrong too. But she was there because Uber wanted to put car-shaped robots onto public streets.

Really the insane thing is that we mix car and pedestrian traffic at all in the first place. Oddly enough, it's the result of a deliberate campaign of propaganda: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AFn7MiJz_s "Adam Ruins Everything - Why Jaywalking Is a Crime"

> Adam reveals the derogatory origins of jaywalking and explains how the auto industry made it illegal.

[pj_mukh]

"If the top speed is five miles per hour, so be it."

You are not really testing though. The whole point is to build a machine that can go the speed limit. You can test all you want at 5mph, but let me assure you, most of the real issues will show up when you go 45 in the real world.

[carapace]

> The whole point is to build a machine that can go the speed limit.

Sure, eventually, when the machines and sensors and algorithms and so on are good enough. When the infrastructure can be rebuilt to accommodate them (e.g. Boring company tunnels for auto-trucking, sensors and comms in the roads and signage, &c.)

The rush to market is the whole problem. Not the ultimate concept.

I want a machine that can take my mother to her doctors appointment now that the dementia has gotten to the point where she shouldn't take the bus on her own anymore.

Let the experiences with the toy cars guide the incremental graceful adoption of faster machines.

> most of the real issues will show up when you go 45 in the real world.

Right! So don't go 45.

[pj_mukh]

Sorry you’re asking for a completely different concept. Asking for the infrastructure to change to adopt AV’s is a pipe dream. Never going to happen.

“ I want a machine that can take my mother to her doctors appointment now that the dementia has gotten to the point where she shouldn't take the bus on her own anymore.“

This meanwhile is already happening[1]. We’ve been testing on toy cars for 15 years. We’re not ready to remove the safety driver but we are ready for the road.

[1]https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/10/16874410/voyage-self-driv...

[tom-_-]

I imagine reducing the weight of the vehicle would effect it's stopping distance, traction, turning radius, a bunch of other car physics that would in turn produce unreliable data to train on.

I assume much of the training is done in simulation or within a controlled environment but unfortunately the only way to train for city driving is to gather as much real world data as possible and that means "testing in production" with a hopefully alert humans (one for backup) behind the wheel.

[torpfactory]

Speed is an important parameter: you can’t do freeway driving in a golf cart. IMO regular vehicles can be safe enough with appropriate supervision. It’s really once you get to the first runs without safety drivers where your backup goes away. Hopefully that will be only after your intervention rate is zero.

[carapace]

We can work our way to that point (freeway driving) without killing people.

Really, the problem is the rush to market not the idea itself.

[torpfactory]

That’s the heart of the original argument I posed on this thread: we really should rush to market because the status quo is quite unsafe.

[carapace]

The status quo is insane, IMO. I call our mixed ped/car transportation networks the "mayhem lottery" (As in, every time you go out there you're taking a chance that you won't come back with all your limbs, or your life.) It was years ago, but a neighbors son was crossing the street in a crosswalk when someone ran a stop sign and knocked him fifty feet. I've twice seen little old ladies lying dead in the street from hit and run drivers.

Making bad imitations of KITT from Knight Rider is not the solution here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming is cheaper and easier, for example.

Look I want robot cars, okay? I even want them ASAP.

As soon as possible without testing robots on public ways.

Build a fake city, populate it with people who have signed waivers, test there.

Sure it's expensive but at least you don't risk killing more innocent people with your experimental car-shaped robots.

I mean, what if I built a television with H.E.M? (Human Eradication Mode) If it escapes and kills someone, isn't that my fault?

Maybe if I put a human in there, give her a phone to distract her, and call her "Safety Driver", I can deflect any blame for my robot's killing spree onto her and get away with murder scott free! It's the perfect crime!

Okay, sorry, I got a little carried away there. But I hope my point is clear: Safety: Yes. Robot Cars: also yes, but obeying the First Law of Robotics. Testing robots cars on innocent people: hard no.