Teslas can be programmed to break the law.
-
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Teslas can be programmed to break the law.
I had in mind the sort of serious charge which is inevitably dealt with in the Crown Court. It may well be that legislation is enacted to deal with this, but at the moment - and assuming the defendant was not driving in the conventional sense - then some form of manslaughter might be appropriate.
Re: Teslas can be programmed to break the law.
I'm broadly in agreement with you but in fact I don't think it will be a sleep impediment for most people. I'm pretty sure it's not as loud as an ICE. And I believe it can be turned off. As for another method of alerting the blind, what do you suggest that is neither auditory, visual nor tactile? Maybe an aroma?!mjr wrote: ↑14 Jan 2022, 5:12pmIt seems a tragedy that some other method to benefit them is not being implemented, so everyone, visually-impaired or not, must not get the benefit of quieter cars and better sleep.Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑14 Jan 2022, 4:36pmThe idea is to replace engine noise for the benefit of blind and/or visually impaired persons, so no it doesn't.mjr wrote: ↑14 Jan 2022, 4:09pm
Because we want the most noise to be inflicted in places with dense housing and residents must not get a noise pollution reduction from the switch to EVs?
Does it at least deactivate 11.30pm-7am (the hours when sounding a car horn is mostly illegal) so people in such areas can sleep more easily?
It has been suggested by some that what is really needed is a sound to indicate "this vehicle is stationary and waiting for you to proceed across the crossing". This sound would of course also greatly benefit interactions between blind pedestrians and cyclists.
However, this sound business applies to EVs with drivers. I don't know what, if any, provision there is for auditory warnings on AVs, whether EV or ICE.
Re: Teslas can be programmed to break the law.
There are a couple of things here...
One is that having overall quieter vehicles is a boon for all road users. You never know people might even notice the quiet bicycle coming along the road.
The other is that a large vehicle makes noise, there is no way around that. The amount of noise at the moment is plenty, it's just that there are various very loud vehicles, and people are more used to those. I am slightly surprised that the legislation isn't looking to the future and toning down the noise required over a couple of decades.
And finally - as someone who drives an EV, and does so without excessive use of the torque pedal... kids step off the pavement in front of me in an entirely predictable way - and it's exactly the same exactly predictable way they used to step off the pavement in front of me when I was driving a diesel ICE vehicle along that section of road.
This morning I had a car pull out of the last parking spot in a line and very nearly run into the side of me. I was going slowly and my emergency stop was fairly sharp - It was accompanied by a bip on the horn (as opposed to a blast) since I suspect that there would have been a collision anyway (he also stopped after the bip, so there wasn't).
One is that having overall quieter vehicles is a boon for all road users. You never know people might even notice the quiet bicycle coming along the road.
The other is that a large vehicle makes noise, there is no way around that. The amount of noise at the moment is plenty, it's just that there are various very loud vehicles, and people are more used to those. I am slightly surprised that the legislation isn't looking to the future and toning down the noise required over a couple of decades.
And finally - as someone who drives an EV, and does so without excessive use of the torque pedal... kids step off the pavement in front of me in an entirely predictable way - and it's exactly the same exactly predictable way they used to step off the pavement in front of me when I was driving a diesel ICE vehicle along that section of road.
This morning I had a car pull out of the last parking spot in a line and very nearly run into the side of me. I was going slowly and my emergency stop was fairly sharp - It was accompanied by a bip on the horn (as opposed to a blast) since I suspect that there would have been a collision anyway (he also stopped after the bip, so there wasn't).
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Re: Teslas can be programmed to break the law.
Probably the first charge for vehicular manslaughter of a driver using Autopilot:
https://electrek.co/2022/01/18/tesla-dr ... autopilot/
Jonathan
https://electrek.co/2022/01/18/tesla-dr ... autopilot/
Jonathan
-
- Posts: 3436
- Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
- Location: Norfolk
Re: Teslas can be programmed to break the law.
So the car didn't stop at a red light or when it 'saw' the car in front. That doesn't seem very safe to me. A driver relying on such technology has killed people. It's all very well saying "this will be better than humans", but how many humans will lose their lives or be seriously injured during the 'learning period'. It looks like a driver of a 'regular' car (not relying on any auto features provided by the car) would be aware that he was the one in control and needed to be alert at all times, and more likely to avoid this tragedy. The AI needs to be much more mature before we can rely on it.Jdsk wrote: ↑18 Jan 2022, 10:01pm Probably the first charge for vehicular manslaughter of a driver using Autopilot:
https://electrek.co/2022/01/18/tesla-dr ... autopilot/
Jonathan
Re: Teslas can be programmed to break the law.
This case might affect the regulatory or legislative approach but I doubt it.fastpedaller wrote: ↑19 Jan 2022, 3:17pmSo the car didn't stop at a red light or when it 'saw' the car in front. That doesn't seem very safe to me. A driver relying on such technology has killed people. It's all very well saying "this will be better than humans", but how many humans will lose their lives or be seriously injured during the 'learning period'. It looks like a driver of a 'regular' car (not relying on any auto features provided by the car) would be aware that he was the one in control and needed to be alert at all times, and more likely to avoid this tragedy. The AI needs to be much more mature before we can rely on it.Jdsk wrote: ↑18 Jan 2022, 10:01pm Probably the first charge for vehicular manslaughter of a driver using Autopilot:
https://electrek.co/2022/01/18/tesla-dr ... autopilot/
But the appropriate comparator is the overall safety, not a particular incident selected with the benefit of hindsight.
Jonathan
Re: Teslas can be programmed to break the law.
I think the appropriate comparator is 'vision zero' (other names are available). That Tesla's software may or may not be able to outperform a human for safety (and I'm not sure it actually can from the videos I've seen) doesn't balance that having one's fans, who have no training in the matter, beta testing the self driving mode is a deeply irresponsible attitude to public safety. It's not like Tesla don't have previous in this area, whether it's trivialising and gamifying driving modes with things like plaid speed or pioneering large screens drivers are able to watch films or play games on while the car is moving.
I think automated vehicles have a huge amount to offer but I'm not keen on Tesla's cowboy attitude to it.
I think automated vehicles have a huge amount to offer but I'm not keen on Tesla's cowboy attitude to it.
It's not a loud sound, at 30km/h constant speed running tyre noise is already becoming the dominant noise source. Less cars altogether is how you get quieter streets.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Re: Teslas can be programmed to break the law.
My thoughts too on vehicle noise. The other day I was up on the Downs, a flat, open area bordered by a 30mph A road. Tyre noise dominated the whole area. Unfortunately, the modern fashions for wide but very shallow tyres, and for off-road style treads on road cars (SUVs), both make this worse. As speeds increase, wind noise becomes dominant. It's only at low speeds that engine noise is dominant on most ICE vehicles. And yes, we really need to reduce the total number of cars, regardless of power source.
-
- Posts: 2199
- Joined: 20 May 2011, 11:23am
- Location: South Birmingham
Re: Teslas can be programmed to break the law.
Lots of opinions here I can see.
BUT - I might have an insight into the practicalties of self-driving cars, 'cos my recent purchase has in it some of the technology, and you can put it in smart mode. The car also gather information and snds it to Ford so they can see how the systems are performing in different parts of the country (except I've switche that bi off)
So some observations for proponents of self-driving cars to ponder.
1) Speed limits - the car picks up speed limit signs via its camera, including temporary ones and those on overhead gantries in variable-limit areas. BUT If there's a speed limit in a side road or property entrance it will pick that up. As an example on my 2 mile trip down to the motorway from Becketts Island, it picks up the 50mph from the roadworks-type signs limit, then the derestricted limit, then immediately afterwards the 30 limit on a side road, then immediately the 50 limit approaching the trafic island, and there it remains until a few miles down the motorway. Similarly on the 50mph road to Ahbourne from Sudbury, where it picks up the derestriction signs on side roads! Imagine if I had the "Intelligent" speed control turned on or the car was adjusting its speed automatically!
2) Seeing the roads (following white lines etc) at night - on most of the A roads, let alone B roads, that I use the lines in the middle of the road, and the cats eyes, and the edges of the road are all worn/non-existent so the camera can't pick them up any better than my mk1 eyeball - the latter can at least spot a ped or cyclist with dark clothing/very faint lights etc. As things are, sometimes you sometimes simply can't see where the road is when approaching vehicle lights are around (the latter including the current fashion to have searchlights on bike handlebars angled toward approching drivers rather than the road surface).
3) It has a collision alert sytem that detects peds or cyclists ahead (supposedley, and flashes a big orange panel on the dash (very distracting). It has picked-up vans parked on the grass verge on a bend ahead, random tufts of grass etc. but has NEVER yet picked up any cyclists or peds - again, MK1 eyeball rules.
4) The car manual has a warning that it can't "see" properly if its foggy, snowing, raining or there's a spot of bird muck on the wrong part of the windscreen!
So don't put your faith in automatic self-driving cars just yet, it is misplaced. Until of course the complete road infrastructure is relaid, white lines, cats eyes and all. In which case a human driver can see so who needs the car to do it itself (until I'm too decrepit to be allowed on the roads of course!). And you'll still need peds, cyclists, horses etc. to be made more visible as well as the road lines and furniture.
It simply don't work, and can't work, reliably unless the car can "see" the things around itself properly which means that everything around it is capable of being seen properly, especially at night.
BUT - I might have an insight into the practicalties of self-driving cars, 'cos my recent purchase has in it some of the technology, and you can put it in smart mode. The car also gather information and snds it to Ford so they can see how the systems are performing in different parts of the country (except I've switche that bi off)
So some observations for proponents of self-driving cars to ponder.
1) Speed limits - the car picks up speed limit signs via its camera, including temporary ones and those on overhead gantries in variable-limit areas. BUT If there's a speed limit in a side road or property entrance it will pick that up. As an example on my 2 mile trip down to the motorway from Becketts Island, it picks up the 50mph from the roadworks-type signs limit, then the derestricted limit, then immediately afterwards the 30 limit on a side road, then immediately the 50 limit approaching the trafic island, and there it remains until a few miles down the motorway. Similarly on the 50mph road to Ahbourne from Sudbury, where it picks up the derestriction signs on side roads! Imagine if I had the "Intelligent" speed control turned on or the car was adjusting its speed automatically!
2) Seeing the roads (following white lines etc) at night - on most of the A roads, let alone B roads, that I use the lines in the middle of the road, and the cats eyes, and the edges of the road are all worn/non-existent so the camera can't pick them up any better than my mk1 eyeball - the latter can at least spot a ped or cyclist with dark clothing/very faint lights etc. As things are, sometimes you sometimes simply can't see where the road is when approaching vehicle lights are around (the latter including the current fashion to have searchlights on bike handlebars angled toward approching drivers rather than the road surface).
3) It has a collision alert sytem that detects peds or cyclists ahead (supposedley, and flashes a big orange panel on the dash (very distracting). It has picked-up vans parked on the grass verge on a bend ahead, random tufts of grass etc. but has NEVER yet picked up any cyclists or peds - again, MK1 eyeball rules.
4) The car manual has a warning that it can't "see" properly if its foggy, snowing, raining or there's a spot of bird muck on the wrong part of the windscreen!
So don't put your faith in automatic self-driving cars just yet, it is misplaced. Until of course the complete road infrastructure is relaid, white lines, cats eyes and all. In which case a human driver can see so who needs the car to do it itself (until I'm too decrepit to be allowed on the roads of course!). And you'll still need peds, cyclists, horses etc. to be made more visible as well as the road lines and furniture.
It simply don't work, and can't work, reliably unless the car can "see" the things around itself properly which means that everything around it is capable of being seen properly, especially at night.
Brompton, Condor Heritage, creaky joints and thinning white (formerly grey) hair
""You know you're getting old when it's easier to ride a bike than to get on and off it" - quote from observant jogger !
""You know you're getting old when it's easier to ride a bike than to get on and off it" - quote from observant jogger !
-
- Posts: 2447
- Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am
Re: Teslas can be programmed to break the law.
The key word in that sentence is "some". My car has some of the technology that you would see in an aeroplane (namely wheels). Just because it cannot fly does not mean that powered flight is impossible.rmurphy195 wrote: ↑21 Jan 2022, 9:11pm
BUT - I might have an insight into the practicalties of self-driving cars, 'cos my recent purchase has in it some of the technology, and you can put it in smart mode.
And you can't imagine that the the software cannot be developed to better filter out these things. It will take more processing power than would be justified for your non-self-driving vehicle, but that doesn't mean it cannot be done.1) Speed limits - the car picks up speed limit signs via its camera, including temporary ones and those on overhead gantries in variable-limit areas. BUT If there's a speed limit in a side road or property entrance it will pick that up. As an example on my 2 mile trip down to the motorway from Becketts Island, it picks up the 50mph from the roadworks-type signs limit, then the derestricted limit, then immediately afterwards the 30 limit on a side road, then immediately the 50 limit approaching the trafic island, and there it remains until a few miles down the motorway. Similarly on the 50mph road to Ahbourne from Sudbury, where it picks up the derestriction signs on side roads! Imagine if I had the "Intelligent" speed control turned on or the car was adjusting its speed automatically!
Well in the circumstance where a self driving vehicle could not see where it was going then it would stop. You cannot rely on human control systems to do the same - Did you stop? And the thing is that more and better sensing systems can be deployed than could be justified on your car - whereas your Mk 1 eyes are only going to deteriorate over time. So once self driving cars become common the question will be increasingly should humans be allowed to drive?2) Seeing the roads (following white lines etc) at night - on most of the A roads, let alone B roads, that I use the lines in the middle of the road, and the cats eyes, and the edges of the road are all worn/non-existent so the camera can't pick them up any better than my mk1 eyeball
Again you are talking about the limitations of human vision rather than the wealth of already available sensing technology that could be deployed. My cheap Aldi security light can see a black cat in my unlit garden for example - an ability human eyes are not going to acquire ever.- the latter can at least spot a ped or cyclist with dark clothing/very faint lights etc. As things are, sometimes you sometimes simply can't see where the road is when approaching vehicle lights are around (the latter including the current fashion to have searchlights on bike handlebars angled toward approching drivers rather than the road surface).
And how many pedestrians and cyclists have you collided with? (ie how many times have you actually tested the collision avoidance system?)3) It has a collision alert sytem that detects peds or cyclists ahead (supposedley, and flashes a big orange panel on the dash (very distracting). It has picked-up vans parked on the grass verge on a bend ahead, random tufts of grass etc. but has NEVER yet picked up any cyclists or peds - again, MK1 eyeball rules.
If only humans were smart enough to realise when they couldn't see enough to drive.4) The car manual has a warning that it can't "see" properly if its foggy, snowing, raining or there's a spot of bird muck on the wrong part of the windscreen!
The basic mechanics of sensing and avoiding obstructions is something that machines are much much better at than humans - especially in the sort of conditions where human vision is restricted. They will be able to deploy multiple redundant sensing systems and throw far more processing power at the job than humans are capable off. Self driving cars are already doing all the things you claim cannot be done on public roads.
Things that self driving cars will struggle with are unusual situations - for example parking at an event where a marshal is directing you off the road into a field towards another marshal waving a big foam pointy finger wanting you to park in a particular place. Or driving onto a particular ramp at a garage, or getting onto a ferry, or where the police have closed a motorway and are directing vehicles back to the previous exit.
Re: Teslas can be programmed to break the law.
Underrepresentation in the training set is a different problem from importing bias from human behaviour. (And of course there's a risk of the latter, see next post.)Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑13 Jan 2022, 5:30pmIsn't that what Mike was saying? And it's the same with the cars. The cars aren't being taught, "do this", they're learning from observing the habits of existing human drivers. (One effect of this will be to spread American driving habits to other countries.)Jdsk wrote: ↑13 Jan 2022, 12:44pmThey might. But a lot of the AI biasses that have been analysed come from underrepresentation of minorities in the training group rather than prejudice inherited from the designers.Mike Sales wrote: ↑13 Jan 2022, 12:37pm In the same way, algorithms developed to choose employees reproduced the prejudices of humans.
And we know that underrepresentation can occur. It's been observed in AI with facial recognition and with forensic use of DNA analysis. (And it also commonly occurs in clinical trials for both the majority sex and ethnic minorities.)
Jonathan
Re: Teslas can be programmed to break the law.
AI systems don't have to be limited to copying human behaviour. It's possible and common practice to include goals. And that allows higher performance than that of the humans.Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑13 Jan 2022, 5:30pmIsn't that what Mike was saying? And it's the same with the cars. The cars aren't being taught, "do this", they're learning from observing the habits of existing human drivers. (One effect of this will be to spread American driving habits to other countries.)Jdsk wrote: ↑13 Jan 2022, 12:44pmThey might. But a lot of the AI biasses that have been analysed come from underrepresentation of minorities in the training group rather than prejudice inherited from the designers.Mike Sales wrote: ↑13 Jan 2022, 12:37pm In the same way, algorithms developed to choose employees reproduced the prejudices of humans.
There's a well-known example in computer-assisted braking. Daimler AG discovered that humans systematically underbraked at high speed. The goal is not to hit the vehicle in front and similar. Production cars now include an algorithm that increases the braking effect of the human input in order to have better performance against that goal.
There's very little published about Tesla's systems but its data gathering is on a totally unprecedented scale. The purpose of this will not be limited to observing how humans behave and mimicking that. It will include testing against goals in simulation and probably in the real world.
Jonathan
-
- Posts: 11043
- Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
- Location: Near Bicester Oxon
Re: Teslas can be programmed to break the law.
I've only ever activated such a system once. It was alarmingly effective, remarkably, eyeballs-on-stalks so, and it avoided a collision with a last second 'oh not I don't want to get on the M40 any more' individual who turned across my path.Jdsk wrote: ↑22 Jan 2022, 10:00am
AI systems don't have to be limited to copying human behaviour. It's possible and common practice to include goals. And that allows higher performance than that of the humans.
There's a well-known example in computer-assisted braking. Daimler AG discovered that humans systematically underbraked at high speed. The goal is not to hit the vehicle in front and similar. Production cars now include an algorithm that increases the braking effect of the human input in order to have better performance against that goal.
Jonathan
Re: Teslas can be programmed to break the law.
"Robot vacuum cleaner escapes for an entire day from Travelodge in Cambridge":
https://www.indy100.com/news/robot-vacu ... -cambridge
Jonathan
https://www.indy100.com/news/robot-vacu ... -cambridge
Jonathan
-
- Posts: 11043
- Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
- Location: Near Bicester Oxon
Re: Teslas can be programmed to break the law.
I reckon it was cornered when its AI failed to correctly identify the A14 Jcn 33 turning it intended to take to board a ferry to the continent and it simply circulated the flyover roundabout until it ran out of power.Jdsk wrote: ↑22 Jan 2022, 12:14pm "Robot vacuum cleaner escapes for an entire day from Travelodge in Cambridge":
https://www.indy100.com/news/robot-vacu ... -cambridge
Jonathan
Told you AI was hopeless