×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Idiot Leaves Driver's Seat In Self-Driving Infiniti, On the Highway

samzenpus posted about 4 months ago | from the bad-idea dept.

Transportation 406

cartechboy writes Self-driving cars are coming, that's nothing new. People are somewhat nervous about this technology, and that's also not news. But it appears self-driving cars are already here, and one idiot was dumb enough to climb out of the driver's seat while his car cruised down the highway. The car in question is a new Infiniti Q50, which has Active Lane Control and adaptive cruise control. Both of which essentially turn the Q50 into an autonomous vehicle while at highway speeds. While impressive, taking yourself out of a position where you can quickly and safely regain control of the car if needed is simply dumb. After watching the video, it's abundantly clear why people should be nervous about autonomous vehicles. It's not the cars and tech we need to worry about, it's idiots like this guy.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

hear hear! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618523)

already "hear" huh? wow...

Re:hear hear! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618531)

What? Speak up, I can barely here you.

Re:hear hear! (5, Funny)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 4 months ago | (#47618571)

Yup. And they wrote that while calling someone else an idiot.

Re:hear hear! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618617)

Your an idiot!

Re: hear hear! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618795)

It's you're, not your, you hear?

Re:hear hear! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47619025)

You're doing it wrong, it's supposed to be "Your and idiot."

Trolling is a art.

Re:hear hear! (0)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 4 months ago | (#47618727)

Making a spelling error is not even remotely equivalent to doing something idiotic.

Re: hear hear! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618747)

Get a brain, Morans

Re:hear hear! (0)

slayerking (678134) | about 4 months ago | (#47618999)

Laughed so hard when I read it.

Re:hear hear! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618679)

I hear your words but I FEEL your retardation.

Already hear? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618533)

For some reason I expected them to be at most already see or feel.

Re: Already hear? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618633)

or you mean "sea" and feel.

Calling someone an idiot... (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618535)

...immediately after using "hear" instead of "here" is kind of ironic

Re:Calling someone an idiot... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618701)

Your sew dum

Re:Calling someone an idiot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618751)

There, their, they're now. Don't get all worked up over such little things.

Idiot Hear (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618537)

An idiot should know the difference between "hear" and "here"...

Down to 'idiot like this guy' articles?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618543)

Fuck BETA and your content in or out of BETA.

Re:Down to 'idiot like this guy' articles?? (0)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 4 months ago | (#47619073)

once I bailed out of a moving car just to see if I could do it. success!

Re:Down to 'idiot like this guy' articles?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47619147)

slashdot has become Fark.com

here (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618545)

hear. You should feel bad.

Apparently they're getting more senses (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618549)

I didn't realize they had ears too.

"self-driving cars are already hear," (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618551)

"Here.

Submission with a spelling error, say it isn't so. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618555)

"self-driving cars are already hear,"
Uh, do people not know to read back their posts before they submit them, or did they let their smartphone autocorrect?

Self-driving cars will never succeed. WE DON'T HAVE VERY MANY AUTOMATIC TRAINS IN THE WORLD, the reason is because they have to contend with stupid drivers and jaywalkers. What makes anyone think automatic cars will work with human drivers still on the road?

Re:Submission with a spelling error, say it isn't (5, Insightful)

NEDHead (1651195) | about 4 months ago | (#47618825)

I would guess that the number of stupid jaywalkers will diminish quickly

Huh? (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 4 months ago | (#47618561)

After watching the video, it's abundantly clear why people should be nervous about autonomous vehicles.

No, it's clear why we should be worried about almost-but-not-really autonomous vehicles, in the real deal this would be fine. If we could get this guy as far away from a steering wheel as possible, it'd be perfect.

Re:Huh? (5, Insightful)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#47618619)

Absolutely. Anything that *almost* removes the need for you to be behind the wheel is an accident waiting to happen. Even if you remain in your seat, what are the odds that you'll remain alert and aware of the surrounding traffic after the 100th commute where it proved completely unnecessary to do so?

Either give me a car that will let me take a nap while it drives, or leave me in control. I've got better things to do than babysit a computer

Re:Huh? (5, Informative)

Ichijo (607641) | about 4 months ago | (#47618743)

Anything that *almost* removes the need for you to be behind the wheel is an accident waiting to happen.

Like Asiana 214, where the pilots didn't know how to fly the plane manually.

Or like the way that, in the name of safety, we've removed trees from the sides of roads because drivers kept hitting them. Now drivers go even faster on those same roads and hit pedestrians who are no longer protected by the trees. How's that for progress?

Re:Huh? (1, Troll)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 4 months ago | (#47618819)

Or like the way that, in the name of safety, we've removed trees from the sides of roads because drivers kept hitting them. Now drivers go even faster on those same roads and hit pedestrians who are no longer protected by the trees. How's that for progress?

Or how better tire tech, anti-lock brakes and just better braking systems have caused people to stop later, drive closer to the car ahead of them, and be less cautious in bad weather?

I liked the days of chrome spears in the drivers compartment. At least then you knew the person driving like crazy was serious as they knew that one mistake could skewer their skull on the chrome dashboard accents.

Re:Huh? (5, Informative)

Bonobo_Unknown (925651) | about 4 months ago | (#47619021)

In the olden days everyone was too drunk while driving to be scared of the steel spear waiting to impale them for their driving mistakes.

Re:Huh? (4, Informative)

fractoid (1076465) | about 4 months ago | (#47618855)

what are the odds that you'll remain alert and aware of the surrounding traffic after the 100th commute where it proved completely unnecessary to do so?

Spot on. It doesn't improve safety in any way shape or form. It's just a liability dodge. So far, vehicle manufacturers have been able to offload responsibility for crashes onto the drivers involved unless it's provable that the car was engineered wrongly.

Fully autonomous vehicles are scary for manufacturers because they potentially shift all liability to the manufacturer. This is made worse by the fact that, while people are willing to accept "human error" from a human driver, they become outraged if a machine makes a mistake, even if the machine is 100x more reliable than a human. This is a mindset that will have to change as machines become more aware of their surroundings and start making higher level decisions.

Re:Huh? (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#47619041)

Good point with liability, and I'd have to say liability for autonomous driving systems *should* be 100% on the manufacturer. I'm looking forward to following the first case where one of these semi-autonomous systems kills someone because the driver-seat passenger was completely predictably distracted.

>Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Slow down, will you? It took at least 50,000 years to sequester all that stuff, and the sun has heated up a bit in the intervening Megayears. Dump it all back today and we'll be in a world of hurt.

Re:Huh? (3, Insightful)

mjwx (966435) | about 4 months ago | (#47618925)

Absolutely. Anything that *almost* removes the need for you to be behind the wheel is an accident waiting to happen. Even if you remain in your seat, what are the odds that you'll remain alert and aware of the surrounding traffic after the 100th commute where it proved completely unnecessary to do so?

This is why autonomous cars are a long while away, sure we'll be 99% of the way there by 2018, it's that last 1% that's the bitch.

We cant remove the human from the link until we are 100% certain that the computer can make decisions better than a very good driver.

A few weeks ago a friend of mine was in a rear end collision with one of those new Ford Kuga SUV's which advertise automatic emergency brakes... They dont work, even if they did engage they wouldn't have stopped in time because their based on a dry stopping distance, not a wet one (it's winter here in Oz). We cant even get simple systems to work reliably.

Re:Huh? (4, Insightful)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#47619143)

Nonsense. The computer only needs to be markedly better than an *average* driver to be a huge safety win. It doesn't even need to *always* be better than the average driver - if it can reliably avoid 90% of the most common accidents, then even it it fails spectacularly in the last 10% of edge cases, and even if humans would have avoided 100% of those, the autonomous systems will still have reduced the number of accidents by a factor of 9.

That said, I wouldn't trust the current auto manufacturers to do the job properly, they mostly can't even install a media system without also potentially letting anyone with a bluetooth rifle take complete control of the critical electronics. But there are folks doing some really impressive driving systems - I've even seen one that can drive professional road-racing courses flawlessly, with near-professional lap times. And yes, it can even do so in the rain.

Re:Huh? (3, Interesting)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 4 months ago | (#47618657)

No, it's clear why we should be worried about almost-but-not-really autonomous vehicles, in the real deal this would be fine

That was my first thought. Idiots like this guy are the problem. Fully autonomous vehicles are the solution.

Re:Huh? (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 4 months ago | (#47618709)

Semi-autonomous hackable vehicles:

Didn't the green stripe site run a story a couple of minutes ago about Black Hat's presumption that the Jeep Cherokee and the Q50 were rife with cyber vulnerabilities?

Re:Huh? (2)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 4 months ago | (#47618775)

You'd think these cars would have a sensor in the seat to detect if there's a driver or not.
I mean, newish cars already have them in the passenger seat to enable/disable the passenger side air bags.

Re:Huh? (1)

un1nsp1red (2503532) | about 4 months ago | (#47618883)

If it's the same guy/car that was featured last week, there is a sensor built into the steering wheel. The dude circumvented the system (by attaching a beverage can to the steering wheel) so it would think a driver was present and actively engaged. I'm guessing he did the same again.

Re:Huh? (1)

Bodhammer (559311) | about 4 months ago | (#47618981)

Let's all be honest here (hear?) - it was a beer can, not a "beverage" can. Do we always have to be so politically correct?

Re:Huh? (1)

rasmusbr (2186518) | about 4 months ago | (#47618959)

You'd think these cars would have a sensor in the seat to detect if there's a driver or not.
I mean, newish cars already have them in the passenger seat to enable/disable the passenger side air bags.

They would need something better than that, like a camera that monitors the eyes of the driver and correlates the eye movements with the road and the traffic to determine if the driver is actively aware of the situation.

One solution might be to have cars that are always in one of two modes:

Mode 1: Fully autonomous.
Mode 2: Fully manual. A warning signal will sound if the driver does something that the computer wouldn't do, or fails to do something that the computer would do. The computer may decide to switch to mode 1 if it determines that the driver is asleep or drunk.

Right. This is the "deadly valley" (4, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | about 4 months ago | (#47618997)

No, it's clear why we should be worried about almost-but-not-really autonomous vehicles, in the real deal this would be fine.

That's right. Automatic lane keeping plus radar-based cruise control is right in the middle of the "deadly valley" - good enough to allow hands-off driving 98% of the time, not good enough to handle trouble. This is why that Cruise startup building a budget self-driving system [slashdot.org] worries me. Thos guys are from "social" apps. They're thinking they can ship something that sort of works, and that's good enough. It isn't.

Auto manufacturers are held to a much higher standard than the computer industry is used to. GM is being sued because their ignition switches could turn off if people hung too much crap on their keychain. (Something unlikely to be caught in testing, because, at the test track, each key hangs on a separate key tag.) "Speeding, cellphone texting, intoxication... irrelevant. We are not looking at the driver, or the circumstances of the driver's negligence. We are looking at the automobile, and only the automobile." - terms of the GM settlement. [gmauthority.com]

The minimum safe level of performance for a self-driving car is that the vehicle must be able to bring itself to a safe stop, preferably at the side of the road, in any emerging bad situation. Even after any single-point failure.

Few computer based consumer products meet that standard, but a some do. The Segway is a good example. There's enough redundancy in a Segway to keep single failures from face-planting the user. Five rate gyros instead of three, two batteries, two processors, and a safety shutdown mode that brings the vehicle to a stop and sounds alarms to tell you to get off before it fails.

Really? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618565)

self-driving cars are already hear

idiot

I'm surprised you took the time off from breathing through your mouth to type something. Really now... here vs hear?

Re:Really? (1)

NEDHead (1651195) | about 4 months ago | (#47618835)

'har' is the universal substitute

Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618575)

Can you say driving time out until he grows some more IQ points?

self-driving cars aren't what we need to be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618577)

worried about its not-quite-self-driving cars like this. This isn't the kind of thing we should be half-assing.

It's not autonomous (4, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | about 4 months ago | (#47618579)

It's partially autonomous. And that's why it is so dangerous.

After watching the video, it's abundantly clear why people should be nervous about autonomous vehicles. It's not the cars and tech we need to worry about, it's idiots like this guy.

Once we actually have autonomous vehicles --- this won't be an issue as a human operator won't even be required for safe operation; only to provide instructions about where to go.

Re:It's not autonomous (1)

slew (2918) | about 4 months ago | (#47618697)

a human operator won't even be required for safe operation; only to provide instructions about where to go.

I dunno, but letting humans decide where an autonomous vehicle should go, might still be a recipe for unsafe operation...

* Teenagers
* Elderly people with dementia
* Naïve people unfamiliar with local gang activity patterns
* Suicidal depressives
* etc...

We should always be concerned when you have human decision in the loop of a potentially dangerous machine (car, airplane, nuclear power plant, etc). It doesn't mean autonomous operation isn't valuable assistance (ABS, ATC, etc), it just means it isn't a total panacea for the safe operation...

Re:It's not autonomous (1)

war4peace (1628283) | about 4 months ago | (#47618739)

* Naïve people unfamiliar with local gang activity patterns
* Suicidal depressives
* etc...

Those guys would go to the wrong places themselves anyway, autonomous cars notwithstanding.
On top of that, Autonomous cars could have a certain form of biometric identification implemented (FPR, iris recognition or both), therefore effectively blocking any unauthorized person from giving commands.

Re:It's not autonomous (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 4 months ago | (#47618703)

And that's why it is so dangerous.

Is it dangerous? This was ONE idiot. I have not heard of anyone else doing the same, so it seems silly to extrapolate one incident. And even in this case, the car apparently did not crash. The automatic cruise control and lane control probably prevent dozens of accidents for every one caused by driver inattention. Before labeling this car as "dangerous", I would like to see some evidence.

Lawn mowers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618585)

Just like riding lawn mowers, you should be able to get up and have it cut the power. Or in this case, it should detect no one is sitting in the driver's seat, and safely slow to a halt.

Re:Lawn mowers (2)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 4 months ago | (#47618725)

it should detect no one is sitting in the driver's seat, and safely slow to a halt.

I disagree. We should not interfere with Darwinian evolution.

Re:Lawn mowers (2)

riverat1 (1048260) | about 4 months ago | (#47618917)

My first take is to agree with you but like drunk driving the idiot may end up killing others who had nothing to do with his idiocy other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Re:Lawn mowers (2)

Swave An deBwoner (907414) | about 4 months ago | (#47618731)

Yes, safely slow to a halt. Then get fatally rear-ended by the vehicle behind you because its driver was (a) following too closely and/or (b) not paying attention and/or (c) didn't get his brakes repaired.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canadian-woman-who-stopped-to-save-ducks-on-highway-faces-jail-over-crash-9554721.html [independent.co.uk]

Re:Lawn mowers (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 4 months ago | (#47618737)

Just like riding lawn mowers, you should be able to get up and have it cut the power. Or in this case, it should detect no one is sitting in the driver's seat, and safely slow to a halt.

...thereby being a sitting target for the next car behind it, as these systems don't handle stationary vehicles on the road very well, and don't identify them.

Halting on a freeway is never a safe option. What the car needs to do is find the nearest exit, pull off, and then pull onto the shoulder. But to do that, it needs to be a lot more autonomous than these cars are.

Re:Lawn mowers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47619015)

Maybe the ethics is a lot more complicated than I thought.

Man leaves drivers seat.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618587)

The road becomes safer. All hail technology.

Speaking of dumb... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618591)

They're already "hear?" Editors need to start editoring!

Re:Speaking of dumb... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618733)

n3wb edit0rZ

distracted (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618595)

the already "hear" is killing me

Calling somebody an idiot (0, Redundant)

skogs (628589) | about 4 months ago | (#47618597)

Calling somebody an idiot, 3 words away from using the wrong here/hear. Way to up your own credibility compared to the idiot.

Unfortunate (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618599)

When calling someone an idiot, it's typically best to not confuse homonyms.

Typical crappy slashdot editors (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618601)

But it appears self-driving cars are already "hear"

Learn to fucking spell

the headline was almost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618615)

"idiot dies in a fiery wreck after climbing out of driver's seat, bumping steering wheel"

What a jackass (1, Interesting)

Chas (5144) | about 4 months ago | (#47618623)

While an impressive tech display, it simply highlights why I don't trust fully automated driver systems, ESPECIALLY as the only control system.

Re:What a jackass (1)

naasking (94116) | about 4 months ago | (#47619129)

Errr, this wasn't a fully automated driver system, that's why the guy's actions were unsafe. Your conclusion does not follow.

Humans err far more often than automated systems do. Skepticism is warranted absent data, but the data supporting this conclusion is there, you're just ignorant of it.

this is what happens (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#47618627)

This is what happens when some entity like google tries to idiot proof. We just end up with better idiots. In this case, that infiniti is a far cry from google's claims for its own AV, and already we have morons who think the machine is infallible.

It's a matter of expectations (4, Interesting)

roc97007 (608802) | about 4 months ago | (#47618629)

There's an old urban legend about a guy leaving the driver's seat of an RV (on cruise control) to use the bathroom. Personally I've never believed it, but it does serve to illustrate something about expectations.

Judgement (and self-preservation) isn't a step function, it's more like a bell curve. And you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be a hopefully small but nevertheless significant portion of the population, down on the left end of the curve, who will think it's ok to have nobody in the driver's seat, or (more likely) someone asleep in the driver's seat, while the car is driving itself. It's statistically inevitable.

...because the expectation, among the unwashed public, is that a self-driving car will, you know, drive itself. It's even in the name. That there still has to be an operator in the driver's seat with hands near controls and looking outside is counter-intuitive to the concept of "a self-driving car".

I mean geeze, google "autopilot related accidents". And pilots get a lot more training than mere automobile drivers.

Re:It's a matter of expectations (2)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 4 months ago | (#47618745)

This video is nothing more than an ad.

There's an old urban legend about a guy leaving the driver's seat of an RV (on cruise control) to use the bathroom. Personally I've never believed it, but it does serve to illustrate something about expectations.

My story was setting the cruise control on the RV on a straight section of road to fix themselves a drink, which of course the van crashed.

Re:It's a matter of expectations (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 4 months ago | (#47618753)

> This video is nothing more than an ad.

I've watched it and I agree. That's even more insidious because it serves to reinforce the expectation that the car doesn't need someone reasonably alert in the driver's seat.

Idiorts or no idiorts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618635)

Shouldn't we be happy that "idiots" AREN'T the ones in charge of the vehicle?

Hey Bubba, Watch this (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 4 months ago | (#47618639)

I'm not leaving the seat like this fellow did, but wow!

That's why we have the internet isn't it?

Cat videos and the derring-do of strangers.

not suprising... (-1, Troll)

Lumpy (12016) | about 4 months ago | (#47618649)

Rich people generally are pretty stupid.

Re:not suprising... (1)

treeves (963993) | about 4 months ago | (#47618989)

...and poor people are generally smarter? what's your logic? or did you just mean "people generally are pretty stupid", but you don't like rich people, so you threw that in?

Re:not suprising... (1)

mjwx (966435) | about 4 months ago | (#47619013)

Rich people generally are pretty stupid.

People who buy an Infiniti aren't particularly rich.

Infiniti's are just Nissan's with a body kit and a jacked up price tag. Almost all Infiniti's are based on the Nissan FM platform and can be bought as Nissan Skylines (V36) for much less. All the Infiniti range have a Nissan equivalent (Skyline, Altima, Terano). So buying an Infiniti on it's own is an indication of stupidity.

Beyond that, even though they're pricier than a Nissan they aren't that expensive. An Q50 starts at US$37,000. A rich person would be driving an Maserati or an S-Class or more accurately, they'd be being driven in it.

I here you... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618655)

He must have told his car "stay hear"

Hyundai did something similar (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618659)

Hyundai did a similar stunt (though using professionals on closed road):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbjdmw8D9-Y

No, this is proof we need autonomous vehicles (3, Insightful)

dottrap (1897528) | about 4 months ago | (#47618661)

No, this is proof we need autonomous vehicles. Consider the current alternative that these "idiots" are driving.

Hear?? (0)

cepler (21753) | about 4 months ago | (#47618665)

So self driving cars can hear now too?

Car makers need to learn from tractors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618675)

This is why John Deere's auto steer automatically turns off and stops when the driver leaves the seat.

Picture in my head was better (3, Funny)

gman003 (1693318) | about 4 months ago | (#47618721)

The image I had in my head, for some reason, was the driver leaving the car itself, which drove off without him. Apparently he wasn't stupid enough to do that, which is unfortunate because that would have been absolutely hilarious.

Re:Picture in my head was better (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 4 months ago | (#47618805)

Well, I remember the story of Hans Reiser who was reasonably famous for creating a new file system, who left the passenger seat of his car somewhere, the police thought it was because it was full of the blood of his murdered wife, and he had no better explanation.

Re:Picture in my head was better (2)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about 4 months ago | (#47619151)

That's actually kind of a funny idea...

Step 1: Set Cruise Control to 90 MPH.
Step 2: Activate Lane Control.
Step 3: Exit the vehicle. Yes, I know this is the hard part.
Step 4: Find a local bar and watch the police chase your car.

You might need to place a mannequin or something in the drivers seat...

Darwin Award Contestant? (4, Informative)

Calibax (151875) | about 4 months ago | (#47618729)

It's pretty clear that this is merely a failed attempt to win a Darwin Award. Perhaps he needs to try the same thing on a windy road.

Get a Brain! Morans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618763)

your heard it hear on slashdot!

So is it self driving or not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618765)

If the car still needs a human at the controls it is not a self driving car and should not be called such.

Hear comes the morans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618767)

Morans like shouldn't even use the internet! To bad their already hear.

Wait you want me to drive? (1)

Dorianny (1847922) | about 4 months ago | (#47618771)

Most people receive no training and have no knowledge or skills on what to do in a emergency situation. Autonomous driving itself is being developed from technologies that were first developed to take over for the human in emergencies. I really don't understand the need of having the human ready to take over in a emergency.

Re:Wait you want me to drive? (2)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 4 months ago | (#47618909)

I really don't understand the need of having the human ready to take over in a emergency.

Because the "emergencies" that an autonomous vehicle will have will mostly be created by the autonomous vehicle system itself. Like not correctly detecting a small human darting into the street ahead of it, coming to a halt in the middle of traffic because it lost communication with a critical sensor, etc. And because the computer, no matter how well programmed by the smartest people in the room, will not have covered every contingency that could pop up in real life. Humans are just more adaptable than fixed-programmed computers.

Yeah, humans fail. We understand. Computers fail, too, which is something that the autonomous vehicle proponents tend to forget. And hyping the perfection of a system that is not yet in existence and hasn't been tested at full scale is how the material in Risks Digest gets created.

Don't blame the user (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618789)

I don't like it when people blame the user. The car should have sensed this and taken appropriate action and/or given abundant warning. Safety fail-safes like that should be built in. And you can "hear" the instant karma of calling them an idiot for being human.

Make everything illegal! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618791)

Idiots might misuse it.

No deadman switch? (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 4 months ago | (#47618829)

I'm more shocked that Infinity doesn't have some sort of sensor in the drivers seat to make sure there is actually somebody behind the wheel.

Re:No deadman switch? (1)

Mspangler (770054) | about 4 months ago | (#47618931)

"I'm more shocked that Infinity doesn't have some sort of sensor in the drivers seat to make sure there is actually somebody behind the wheel."

Especially since my riding lawnmower has one.

Re:No deadman switch? (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 4 months ago | (#47619153)

just put a twenty pound disc weight on the seat, wedge a snowbrush between the seat and accelerator, point the thing to where grass needs cutting, and go relax in the hammock

Nothing new (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 4 months ago | (#47618859)

At least he had a self-driving engine, it is an improvement over the usual idiot that go to drive drunk and kill several in the way. And in some cases keep driving [time.com] after doing that.

Not so stupid, just not ready yet. (1)

Mercury (13121) | about 4 months ago | (#47618861)

The real value of a self-driving car is just that, fully self-driving.

It's having something that can drive while you're asleep, reading, or maybe even working on your laptop.

It's something that can drive your 10 year old to school, drop them off, and then drive back to the house so that other people in the household can use the car.

And just as importantly, it's something that someone who is not fit to drive-maybe for medical reasons, maybe because they have not slept in 24 hours, maybe because they are drunk-can use to safely get where they need to go.

So no, the danger of salf-driving cars isn't that people will decide not to be in the driver's seat, the danger is that both automakers and regulators will try and give us supposedly self-driving cars that can't handle those cases, and then be surprised when things go horribly wrong, or when people just don't see the value in buying one.

Personally, I plan on ownning a true self-driving car very soon after I can buy one that can do the driving when I can't, and I bet that the vast majority of legally blind adults with enouh money will be right along there with me. But that won't happen anytime soon when people are acting like you need a driver for it to be safe.

"hear" is your instant karma for blaming the user (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618863)

It's bad design, humans designed it and they are the idiots. Automated machines need to be designed around the possibility of possibly absurd but all too common human error. To err is human...so is to "hear"

I feel like an idiot for watching that whole thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47618897)

Nothing but a ploy to get people to watch the new car.

Shhh (2)

dmomo (256005) | about 4 months ago | (#47618901)

Autonomous cars already hear.

Wait you people expect to stay awake (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about 4 months ago | (#47619137)

Wait you people expect to stay awake and watch the car run??HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHA this is not the end of what stupidity people will do I expect videos of people having sex in the backseat and women flashing there asses out of the driver side window or maybe if its got a sun roof they will stand up hair or tits flapping in the wind. Blowjobs videos you name it People are not ready for autonomous ANYTHING. I hate to see what the insurance is for that stupidity
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?