Vehicle Telemetry Recorders

[jtr1962]

Even Elon Musk thinks the same way.

A good analogy I've heard is to compare this to horses and buggies. At one time, you could ride a horse and/or carriage on any public street. As motor vehicles became more common eventually the places where this was allowed went down dramatically. However, there are still some places you can use horses. It may be that major highways and all urban streets are prohibited to human-driven vehicles but it might be allowed on desolate back-country highways where the potential for harm is relatively low.

 

[LunarMist]

It might be because large numbers of motor vehicles in cities, driven by mostly incompetent assholes, make my present reality a f*cked up dystopia. When I cross one of the local arterials with my mom, a number of times I had to wave my arms like an idiot to stop people from running her over. And then you have the ever present air pollution, which is way worse in warm weather. I'm not saying eliminate motor vehicles. Just take the biggest problems with them, namely the idiot behind the wheel and the internal combustion engine, and replace them with something better.

Minivans are commonly converted to help transport the disabled. You can buy a used one at a decent price and that could be a second vehicle that is not driven much.

 

[LunarMist]

As do most of his posts when he starts in about cars and city living and the like.

I try to avoid cities whenever possible, and I basically define that as anywhere there are not primarily 4-lane, 2-way streets and no open, free parking.
Even a few miles in a 25 MPH district and hordes of peds is quite annoying.
I'd rather drive 5 times as far where the speed limits are 65-80 MPH and there are no stop lights.

 

[LunarMist]

Nothing I wrote is going to impact your freedom to travel where and when you wish. In fact, you'll likely get where you're going a heck of a lot faster. The only difference is instead of driving, you'll just punch in the destination...

There are so many places where there is no destination to punch in. Everything is not in a city or has a valid street address. Even the Google and Garmins could not find my friend's house for months after it was built.
I doubt that the robots are yet up to par in technical driving on unpaved surfaces. What will it do when the Google/GPS says navigate off road, even if there is a road? Sometimes there is a request to turn on a road or track that does not exist. That happens to me every time (10 years+) in certain areas that nobody cares to update. A human needs to make some decisions about the gearing, 4WD modes, etc.

 

[jtr1962]

There are so many places where there is no destination to punch in. Everything is not in a city or has a valid street address. Even the Google and Garmins could not find my friend's house for months after it was built.
I doubt that the robots are yet up to par in technical driving on unpaved surfaces. What will it do when the Google/GPS says navigate off road, even if there is a road? Sometimes there is a request to turn on a road or track that does not exist. That happens to me every time (10 years+) in certain areas that nobody cares to update. A human needs to make some decisions about the gearing, 4WD modes, etc.

Yes, but those by definition aren't public roads. As I've said, we'll all be way safer if human driving on public roads is banned as soon as practical. What happens on private roads, off-road, etc. is another story. If someone wants to manually drive in those places it generally doesn't impact the safety of others. It'll probably be allowed even in your most dystopian vision.

Minivans are commonly converted to help transport the disabled. You can buy a used one at a decent price and that could be a second vehicle that is not driven much.

The point of getting my mom out is to have her walk and exercise. My brother already brings her to the places which are too far to walk, like the doctor.

I try to avoid cities whenever possible, and I basically define that as anywhere there are not primarily 4-lane, 2-way streets and no open, free parking.
Even a few miles in a 25 MPH district and hordes of peds is quite annoying.
I'd rather drive 5 times as far where the speed limits are 65-80 MPH and there are no stop lights.

The country is getting increasingly urban, so places where it might be enjoyable to drive are becoming sparser and sparser. I know anywhere within 75 or 100 miles of NYC, driving most definitely isn't fun, even for people who might like to drive. Driving in places like Manhattan probably is used as punishment in the lower levels of hell.

I discussed self-driving cars with my brother. He currently has a stressful, 15 mile commute which takes at best 45 minutes, often over an hour. I asked him if in some alternate universe he could punch in "work", and reliably be there in, say, 20 minutes, if he would be willing to give up driving altogether, even in the situations he finds enjoyable. He said he would. This is a person who likes cars and driving. The general public will be even more willing to make that tradeoff.

 

[LunarMist]

Yes, but those by definition aren't public roads. As I've said, we'll all be way safer if human driving on public roads is banned as soon as practical. What happens on private roads, off-road, etc. is another story. If someone wants to manually drive in those places it generally doesn't impact the safety of others.

They are public roads. You should spend some time in rural NM/CO/UT/AZ/NV.

 

[Chewy509]

Which would give heavy incentives to either convert those cars, or ban them from public roads if conversion is unfeasible.

My motorbike, goes, vrmm, vrmm, vrmm to this...

 

[jtr1962]

They are public roads. You should spend some time in rural NM/CO/UT/AZ/NV.

What on Earth would I do there except tip cows? When I visit my sister in Long Island I run out of things to do in 30 minutes. Even she hates it but it was the only place she could afford a house. If it doesn't have streetlights and sidewalks, I'm generally not interested.

 

[jtr1962]

My motorbike, goes, vrmm, vrmm, vrmm to this...

It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out with motorbikes. Some legislators already want to ban the things even now on account of their rather high fatality rate.

 

[Chewy509]

What on Earth would I do there except tip cows?

Ummm, the beautiful scenery, the clean air, the quality homebrew/spirits at the local markets, the friendly people?

Anyway, cows are cute, friendly animals... (and tasty, especially with a good BBQ sauce on a wood fired flame grill).

 

[jtr1962]

Ummm, the beautiful scenery, the clean air, the quality homebrew/spirits at the local markets, the friendly people?

Anyway, cows are cute, friendly animals... (and tasty, especially with a good BBQ sauce on a wood fired flame grill).

Unfortunately, it would be really hard for me to make the adjustment. I spent my first three semesters in Princeton on campus. It was all I could take of living in that type of environment. It literally drained my soul and energy. I commuted the next 5 semesters. And this was a small town. A completely rural place, I'd really be like a fish out of water. Ditto for vacations in tropical resorts and such. Just so out of my element I'd be lost. Some people just can't adjust to a radically different environment. I'm one of them.

I think NYC is great except for the heavy car traffic. Get rid of that, along with the air pollution, and it's paradise as far as I'm concerned. European cities are actually doing exactly that. Hamburg for example wants to eliminate cars from the city by 2034: https://www.autoblog.com/2014/01/16/hamburg-germany-car-ban/

BTW, if you watch Dr. Pol on TV, cows aren't always so cute or friendly. They sure can kick pretty hard.

 

[Stereodude]

It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out with motorbikes. Some legislators already want to ban the things even now on account of their rather high fatality rate.

Thankfully we don't like in a nanny state just yet. You sure don't seem to value your personal liberty very much.

 

[jtr1962]

Thankfully we don't like in a nanny state just yet. You sure don't seem to value your personal liberty very much.

Someone else's personal liberty ends when it interferes with others in a negative way. For example, I'll defend the right of people to smoke in places where they're the only ones breathing in the smoke. The minute I have to breathe in that smoke, their rights end. That's not a nanny state. It's protecting people from harmful effects of the activities of others. I believe 100% that anyone has a right to do something which can harm only themselves (hence I'm against a true nanny state). That's why some of the idiotic things proposed in my city, like soda taxes, rub me the wrong way.

There is long history of governments having laws to protect citizens from other citizens who might do things harmful to others. That's not a nanny state. Sure, some of the things government bans as a result of this concept may result in citizens not being able to do things they want to do, but that's the price of civilization. For example, suppose I see an attractive girl. It would certainly be beneficial to me to pull her clothes off and start doing the old in and out right then and there. But it's obviously harmful to her, and hence I'll end up in jail for a long time if I try it.

Back to the subject at hand, manual driving kills about 200 pedestrians and cyclists in NYC alone each year. This number is actually down from earlier years but it's still more than the number killed by guns. Now if someone chooses to drive or ride in a car, then implicitly buy into any risk associated with that. However, pedestrians and cyclists choose not to ride in cars, and therefore don't buy into that risk. Any yet hundreds are killed despite that. On top of that you have some thousands in NYC who die annually from cancers and asthma associated with air pollution. This is a public health issue, plain and simple. Anyone who starts framing measures to reduce this carnage as an infringement on a nonexistent "right" to drive is being disingenuous. We obviously don't yet have the technology to eliminate manual driving but for public health reasons it should be banned as soon as practical once we do, especially in or near major population centers.

 

[DrunkenBastard]

It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out with motorbikes. Some legislators already want to ban the things even now on account of their rather high fatality rate.

I think one of the big pluses once we do have more automated driving is that it should in theory save the lives of motorcyclists who are geting killed and injured when someone makes a left turn (right in the Commonwealth and other locations) in front of them. Presumably the car will not allow the wheels to turn left and will either apply the brakes or continue to go straight if theres not enough space to come to a complete stop.

I dont see automated driving for motorcycles themselves given their dynamic needs from the operator. I certainly wouldn't want the ecu to cut power/apply brakes when I'm leaned over in a corner. If we can just stop vehicles from encroaching on the motorcyclists right of way I think that would a be a huge win for 2 wheel operators. Presumably in the future you could equip a bicycle with a transponder to get the same effect.

 

[jtr1962]

I think one of the big pluses once we do have more automated driving is that it should in theory save the lives of motorcyclists who are geting killed and injured when someone makes a left turn (right in the Commonwealth and other locations) in front of them. Presumably the car will not allow the wheels to turn left and will either apply the brakes or continue to go straight if theres not enough space to come to a complete stop.

I dont see automated driving for motorcycles themselves given their dynamic needs from the operator. I certainly wouldn't want the ecu to cut power/apply brakes when I'm leaned over in a corner. If we can just stop vehicles from encroaching on the motorcyclists right of way I think that would a be a huge win for 2 wheel operators. Presumably in the future you could equip a bicycle with a transponder to get the same effect.

That's pretty much my thoughts on it. And it's why as a cyclist I look forward to autonomous vehicles. I think they'll be much better behaved around both bicycles and motorbikes.

I don't see any possibility of automated driving for motorcycles, either. However, as a small part of traffic, letting people continue to ride motorbikes shouldn't pose a major problem in terms of fatalities. In fact, usually only the motorcyclists themselves die in incidents, not others. Ditto for cyclists. Transponders would help keep AVs aware of where motorcyclists and bicyclists are.

Another big boon with AVs is getting rid of traffic signals. This should make things much better for cyclists, motorcyclists, and pedestrians in large cities. Presumably AVs will give automatic right-of-way at intersections to all three, and negotiate right-of-way with other AVs. In practice this should mean pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists will never need to wait at an intersection. AVs will probably rarely need to stop also. You can often effectively yield right-of-way by just slowing or changing direction.

 

[Stereodude]

Someone else's personal liberty ends when it interferes with others in a negative way.

Funny, that's not what the Constitution and Bill of Rights says. Maybe you want to brush up on those.

 

[jtr1962]

Funny, that's not what the Constitution and Bill of Rights says. Maybe you want to brush up on those.

Show me the specific clauses. If it worked as you claim, then we couldn't even have laws against rape or murder because those laws would interfere with someone else's "right" to kill or rape someone. Now I suppose anarchy (which is really what you propose here) is as valid a form of government as any other. The only problem is whenever it's been tried it hasn't really produced stable societies. I'm actually a libertarian in many ways. I want as little government interfere as possible, consistent with protecting people from harm caused by others. I'm a big proponent of allowing people to do things which might harm themselves. Want to ride a motorbike without a helmet? Fine with me. Want to smoke ten packs a day? Fine with me so long as I don't breathe the second-hand smoke. Want to drive a fast car on the bleeding edge? Again, fine with me so long as you do it in a place where you can only harm yourself.

 

[Stereodude]

Show me the specific clauses. If it worked as you claim, then we couldn't even have laws against rape or murder because those laws would interfere with someone else's "right" to kill or rape someone. Now I suppose anarchy (which is really what you propose here) is as valid a form of government as any other. The only problem is whenever it's been tried it hasn't really produced stable societies. I'm actually a libertarian in many ways. I want as little government interfere as possible, consistent with protecting people from harm caused by others. I'm a big proponent of allowing people to do things which might harm themselves. Want to ride a motorbike without a helmet? Fine with me. Want to smoke ten packs a day? Fine with me so long as I don't breathe the second-hand smoke. Want to drive a fast car on the bleeding edge? Again, fine with me so long as you do it in a place where you can only harm yourself.

This is a pointless discussion. You're not using any logic. Murder is morally wrong. The Constitution / Bill of Rights doesn't declare anyone's right to murder.

Lets look at the 1st Amendment. Does it have any exceptions? Does it allow the gov't to control speech if speech is offensive, harmful, or hurtful to other people? No, it doesn't.

You assume some risks by participating in society. If you don't like it, either don't participate in society or try to change the society. Don't try to use the gov't as an enforcer for your personal preferences and beliefs. By your logic the gov't should ban peanuts because some people are deathly allergic to peanuts and their presence in society puts those people at risk. You're about half a step from the old, "Think of the children" or, "If it saves even one life then it's worth it." tropes with your logic.

You can't make everything foolproof, idiot proof, and entirely benign. People can get hit by a bus crossing the street. Do the rights of the people to move freely in society by riding the bus supersede the rights of the person to not risk getting hit by a bus while crossing the street? How do we reconcile them? Make it physically impossible to step off the curb in front of a bus with a fence? Outlaw buses? Outlaw pedestrians? Make it illegal to step in front of a bus?

 

[jtr1962]

This is a pointless discussion. You're not using any logic. Murder is morally wrong. The Constitution / Bill of Rights doesn't declare anyone's right to murder.

Lets look at the 1st Amendment. Does it have any exceptions? Does it allow the gov't to control speech if speech is offensive, harmful, or hurtful to other people? No, it doesn't.

You assume some risks by participating in society. If you don't like it, either don't participate in society or try to change the society. Don't try to use the gov't as an enforcer for your personal preferences and beliefs. By your logic the gov't should ban peanuts because some people are deathly allergic to peanuts and their presence in society puts those people at risk. You're about half a step from the old, "Think of the children" or, "If it saves even one life then it's worth it." tropes with your logic.

You can't make everything foolproof, idiot proof, and entirely benign. People can get hit by a bus crossing the street. Do the rights of the people to move freely in society by riding the bus supersede the rights of the person to not risk getting hit by a bus while crossing the street? How do we reconcile them? Make it physically impossible to step off the curb in front of a bus with a fence? Outlaw buses? Outlaw pedestrians? Make it illegal to step in front of a bus?

You're totally misunderstanding me. I'm not looking for risk-free society. That's the province of some liberals who will just as soon wrap kids in bubble wrap to keep them from getting hurt. Mandatory bike helmet laws for children are a perfect example of the type of nanny-statism that I hate. I recognize some risk is inherent. I'm just espousing using technology which minimizes risk as soon as such technology becomes feasible. In general, that's what happens anyway, with or without government interference. The lawyers and actuaries see to it. I'm hearing lots of brave noises like "prying the steering wheel out of my cold dead hands" but good luck with any of that. Instead, consider these scenarios:

Scenario one:

Rich E. Rich driving his manually-driven Veyron hits an autonomous minivan at high speed and instantly kills a family of five, plus their two dogs. I'm not seeing much sympathy in this scenario for the "right" of Mr. Rich to pilot his own vehicle, either from politicians, or the general public. The insurance companies will probably be all over this to raise rates for those who manually drive. The state licensing agencies will probably tighten licensing standards after the public outcry, and perhaps permanently revoke driving privileges after the first or second collision, even if there's no loss of life. End result, even if government doesn't outright ban manual driving, it will become cost prohibitive for all but the very rich. Eventually, the general public will resent the fact only the very wealthy can drive, and they'll likely be prohibited from doing so altogether.

Scenario two:

There is heavy penetration of autonomous vehicles but because a minority still insist on driving manually you continue to have traffic jams. You also are stuck with present very low highway speed limits because of these manual drivers. Every time someone in an AV is delayed because of manual drivers, there's going to be more and more pressure to get them off the roads. People will rightly say why should someone's supposed right to drive make my commute take twice as long?

BTW, the first amendment doesn't allow you to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You can offend people all you want, but anything which might actually cause public harm isn't allowed. After what happened in Charlotte, I expect cities will either deny far left or far right groups the right to assemble on public safety grounds, or they'll allow it, but with the caveat that they won't provide them with any police protection from counter-demonstrators.

 

[Stereodude]

BTW, the first amendment doesn't allow you to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You can offend people all you want, but anything which might actually cause public harm isn't allowed. After what happened in Charlotte, I expect cities will either deny far left or far right groups the right to assemble on public safety grounds, or they'll allow it, but with the caveat that they won't provide them with any police protection from counter-demonstrators.

Here you go again... First, you seem to misunderstand the verdict of the Schenck decision. The court decided that false dangerous speech was not protected. Second, I'd argue that the decision is dubious. Who gets to decide what's false and dangerous? People in power thought the ideas of many science revolutionaries were false and dangerous. Does that mean they would be rightly punished for their speech? What about people who don't believe in man made global warming is their speech not protected because some view it as false and dangerous?

Peaceful assembly is also guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. The idea that the right can be denied on some sort of "public safety" grounds is nonsense. That's just an excuse to give into the heckler's veto because the people in power don't like the group trying to assemble. Charlottesville (not Charlotte) is what happens when the people in power facilitate events hoping a tragedy they can exploit will happen. It seems the new militant wing of the democrat part doesn't like the old militant wing of the democrat party. Who knew...

 

[LunarMist]

What about the scenario where the Chinese or Russian hackers make all the cars crash into each other?
I'm more concerned about that than the rare high speed Volkswagen. :lol:

 

[jtr1962]

What about the scenario where the Chinese or Russian hackers make all the cars crash into each other?
I'm more concerned about that than the rare high speed Volkswagen. :lol:

Read the article I linked to about Musk. He's aiming to make AVs hack proof. In principal it's not all that difficult. You could have a physical switch which has to be on before the microcontroller will allow new firmware to be written. Remember software is controlling things like nuclear power plants and that hasn't been hacked yet. In general, there is a tradeoff between flexibility and security. If you're OK with having your software updated only in controlled conditions, you have greater security. Of course, you lose the flexibility of daily updates. For a car operating system however, I'm not seeing much need for that. It's not like the things the car needs to do are going to change radically even over a period of many years.

Anyway, sure, hacking is a concern here, but I'd probably put it at number 99 on a list of 100. I've little doubt the cars should (and will) have secondary fail safe systems which keep them from doing something totally stupid like crashing into each other. We're already seeing those on existing cars and we've had them on airplanes for years. The system will override nonsensical driver or pilot inputs. It might be something like a hard-wired radar or lidar system which automatically applies the brakes if you approach the vehicle in front too quickly. This system would operate completely independently of everything else. A good analogy might be the automatic brakes on an elevator. Even if someone decides to cut the cable, the brakes are a separate system which will prevent catastrophe.

 

[jtr1962]

Here you go again... First, you seem to misunderstand the verdict of the Schenck decision. The court decided that false dangerous speech was not protected. Second, I'd argue that the decision is dubious. Who gets to decide what's false and dangerous? People in power thought the ideas of many science revolutionaries were false and dangerous. Does that mean they would be rightly punished for their speech? What about people who don't believe in man made global warming is their speech not protected because some view it as false and dangerous?

Peaceful assembly is also guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. The idea that the right can be denied on some sort of "public safety" grounds is nonsense. That's just an excuse to give into the heckler's veto because the people in power don't like the group trying to assemble. Charlottesville (not Charlotte) is what happens when the people in power facilitate events hoping a tragedy they can exploit will happen. It seems the new militant wing of the democrat part doesn't like the old militant wing of the democrat party. Who knew...

Of course any decision as to what constitutes "dangerous" is subjective. And that's exactly why we have courts. If someone is a bit overzealous denying free speech, that person can be taken to court. I tend to think the courts will in general only consider "dangerous" as highly likely to cause immediate bodily harm. That means the circumstances under which you can deny free speech will in practice be very narrow indeed.

I had a brain fart about the name of the city. I literally had a shitty day (mom made in her pants) so forgive me.

While on the subject of free speech, I tend to think our current President represents the biggest long term danger. He seems to be happy to shut down any speech he disagrees with. Not that Hillary would have been much better. We're entering an era where the truth is what the people in power want it to be.

 

[Stereodude]

Of course any decision as to what constitutes "dangerous" is subjective. And that's exactly why we have courts. If someone is a bit overzealous denying free speech, that person can be taken to court. I tend to think the courts will in general only consider "dangerous" as highly likely to cause immediate bodily harm. That means the circumstances under which you can deny free speech will in practice be very narrow indeed.

You don't think that's a really bad model? Someone can deny you your rights now, when you need them, by abusing their power and the system and your only recourse is that you can spend your own money and try to take them to court later and try to get a court ruling vindicating you? Where do you go to get your reputation back after the damage has already been done?

Ask the law abiding people who had their legally owned guns, something guaranteed by the 2nd ammendment, illegally confiscated from right after Hurricane Katrina how they feel about your model. They fought for 3 years to get their guns back.

Further, considering the judicial branch is full of ideologues who impose their opinions rather than follow the law putting them in charge is a very bad idea.

 

[LunarMist]

This thread has to be contaminated with politics?

 

[jtr1962]

You don't think that's a really bad model? Someone can deny you your rights now, when you need them, by abusing their power and the system and your only recourse is that you can spend your own money and try to take them to court later and try to get a court ruling vindicating you? Where do you go to get your reputation back after the damage has already been done?

Ask the law abiding people who had their legally owned guns, something guaranteed by the 2nd ammendment, illegally confiscated from right after Hurricane Katrina how they feel about your model. They fought for 3 years to get their guns back.

Further, considering the judicial branch is full of ideologues who impose their opinions rather than follow the law putting them in charge is a very bad idea.

I didn't say it's a good model but it's what we have. Also, how come the right to keep and bear arms seems to only be a right in certain places? Maybe in theory these rights are absolute. In practice they can be selectively violated at certain times and places. If I had even a bullet, I'd probably be looking at life imprisonment without parole thanks to NYC's strict gun laws which I've little doubt are totally unconstitutional. I'm just curious why the NRA and other groups never bothered to put some resources into fighting them.

Anyway, I'm really curious how you would fight any of this short of a revolution. If the government has been overstepping its authority it's only because people have been indifferent for a long time. 9/11 was really the beginning of the end for personal freedom as we know it. Now the government can justify virtually anything under the guise of fighting terrorism. About the only thing a sane person can do is move to another country which has more freedoms.

 

[Stereodude]

This thread has to be contaminated with politics?

Almost everything in life is contaminated with politics. Somehow only the people who recognize that, point it out, and want to discuss the implications of the contamination are accused of injecting politics into everything.

 

[jtr1962]

Almost everything in life is contaminated with politics. Somehow only the people who recognize that, point it out, and want to discuss the implications of the contamination are accused of injecting politics into everything.

And here's something we actually completely agree on!