Autonomous vehicles OK'ed in California.

I hope that police forces will have a "shutdown" remote control device. Imagine that they detect something wrong on the car and want to stop it. Or even better, imagine they suspect it from carrying illegal stuff. Drugs dealers would be happy with such toy bots to make their deliveries. No more problems with the driver giving them off when arrested.

GM's OnStar has such a feature for the case of theft.
But criminals have always been able to and will always be able to modify tools to suit their needs, if they have a dedicated vehicle for their criminal acts.
Not saying it will be common, or uncombatted. Cars today have speed limiters and such, and not every criminal changes that, but they could.
 
Last edited:
Now, WHY would anyone sane design a car control system with network access?

So those nifty maps that tell it where the stoplights are can be updated so it doesn't run a red light that was constructed since the car was built?

Because a government agency tells them that all automated cars must be able to receive signals from law enforcement?

---------- Post added at 11:35 ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 ----------

I hope that police forces will have a "shutdown" remote control device. Imagine that they detect something wrong on the car and want to stop it. Or even better, imagine they suspect it from carrying illegal stuff.

No! No-no-no-no-no-no-no-*NO*!

Imagine taking part in a protest against Hollande or Sarkozy, and, when you leave for work the next day, having your car lock you in and deliver you to Gendarmerie Nationale headquarters instead.

If a government wants to disappear somebody, an automated car with any kind of remote access for law enforcement is the best thing imaginable.
 
Cars today have speed limiters
Huh? That sounds lethal (unless it's a manufacturer's limit at like 200 km/h or something).

I've seen 90km/h limiter notices on the imported small buses here (and it's something that is "fixed" in the first order), but never heard of a regular car with such a thing.

If a government wants to disappear somebody, an automated car with any kind of remote access for law enforcement is the best thing imaginable.
Government!?
Please, if such a feature is installed, then it would be hacked (or it's control terminals stolen) on the first day.
And not only pranksters would be able to make you drive in circles, but any kind of Mafia can make you inconspicuously drive into a pole, or terrorists can make blame-free suicide bombers.

Government is the least of the worry if there is a remote control in every car.
 
Imagine taking part in a protest against Hollande or Sarkozy, and, when you leave for work the next day, having your car lock you in and deliver you to Gendarmerie Nationale headquarters instead.

If a government wants to disappear somebody, an automated car with any kind of remote access for law enforcement is the best thing imaginable.

I agree with Artlav. A very extravagant way to make people disappear IMHO. Secret services are there for that. But we're not in russia either, here you can protest without other troubles that getting bullied by the "extremists" which often are puppets of those secret services (if demonstrations went too well, people could get the taste for it - very dangerous for any governement - ).

Cutting brakes or putting a bomb wired to the contacter under the seat are much easier way to make people disappear. :lol: But those method are more common in Corsica (independantists), or Southern Italia (Mafia).
 
I hope that police forces will have a "shutdown" remote control device. Imagine that they detect something wrong on the car and want to stop it.

Imagine someone finds the codes and stops car at random on the highways, causing pile-ups, crashes and a couple hectodead. Trials! Panic! Mass hysteria! HAPPY LAWYERS!
 
Imagine someone finds the codes and stops car at random on the highways, causing pile-ups, crashes and a couple hectodead. Trials! Panic! Mass hysteria! HAPPY LAWYERS!
Stopping cars at random is boring.
How about turning off the pothole detection and avoidance subsystem?
1374489646_d0bad0b0d0bcd0b0d0b71.jpg


Cutting brakes or putting a bomb wired to the contacter under the seat are much easier way to make people disappear. :lol:
No no no.
A perfect crime is when the death is ruled out to natural causes, or in this case a factory defect in the car.
It's no coincidence that the phrase is "or else an accident might happen to you".
A bomb under the seat is VERY conspicuous, and cut brakes would be visible as well.
 
We can get alsorts hacking the system to get access to these vehicals. An extremist tree hugger who fights the tech. The going bust garage owners who need your money. The manufacturer, just a few days past the warrenty or because your behind on your payments. Accident investgators useing you like a crash test dummie as they prove theories and there's the nerd or social reject kids, playing with your family in the car like it's GTA. This is risky technology. But as I recall, if a car has the brains to take you to hospital when it reads that your bio signs are failing, you'd sleep in it wouldn't you.
 
A hack doesn't have to be wireless. Right now, about all you could do to a vehicle is increase the accelerator, or turn it off. They could both be pretty bad, but it's still a far cry from having every part of a vehicle, computer controlled. All it takes is physical access for a long enough time to attach either a preprogrammed device, or a wireless receiver (or transceiver).
 
I agree with Artlav. A very extravagant way to make people disappear IMHO. Secret services are there for that.

It's much more discreet than sending secret police to pick someone up, and especially more discreet than a bomb.

Someone leaves their point of departure on schedule. They never arrive at their destination. The car shows up in the parking lot of an adult entertainment store in a high-crime district of town and the body is never found.
 
It's much more discreet than sending secret police to pick someone up, and especially more discreet than a bomb.

I wasn't aware that France, or any other Western European/North American country had secret police that made political dissidents "disappear".:rolleyes:
 
I wasn't aware that France, or any other Western European/North American country had secret police that made political dissidents "disappear".:rolleyes:

Currently they do not. But things change. I made reference specifically to France and the Gendarmerie Nationale not because I believe France has such a secret police force but because N_Molson is French. Had I been responding to an American I would have used the FBI as an example, with a Russian I would have spoken of the FSB.

Anyways, any ability for remote commands to be sent to a vehicle would be a really nifty tool for either an already existing secret police force (for the obvious reasons) or, more importantly in North America and Europe, if used carefully, for a government wanting to establish one without being too obvious about it (by making it easy to bring someone in without witnesses).
 
I would imagine that the initial complexity of the autonomous cars would be rather low. Something like an "enhanced cruise control" made for freeway driving. even speeds, predictable roads, plenty of "targets" to bounce range finding sensors off of, no pedestrians. It could probably even be done by sensing the flow of traffic around you paired rudimentary lane imaging/recognition and gps. perhaps in a traffic jam you could just read a book while your vehicle crawls along, starting and stopping itself.

of course the manufacturer would have some kind of interface stating that the driver is still responsible for the vehicle, all liability rests on the driver, watch the road attentively while the car drives itself ready to take control manually etc etc, much like cruise control, it would probably disengage at the slightest bump of the controls (foot on gas or brake, touch the steering wheel)

It could even have minimum parameters for engaging, such as lanes not marked brightly enough, not enough cars around to flow with, etc. its not insane to think that construction sites could put up radio beacons that warn autopilots to sound an alarm requiring the driver to take over as the site is approached. Heavy fines (like the traffic fines double) could be in place when someone is observed approaching the construction site under autopilot.

Personally i don't think we'll see automated cars in busy intersection traffic for quite some time.

If no law permits it, though, there isn't any market, and thus no R&D or products (usually), so making these laws is the first step towards innovation.

We've all heard the idea that we won't have flying cars until cars drive themselves. I think this is a huge step and really awesome!
 
SEPTEMBER 01, 2013
Progress to deployment of vehicle to vehicles communication and crash avoidance to help drivers avoid or reduce the severity of 80 percent of unimpaired vehicle crashes.
On Thursday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said it "could be at the verge" of a breakthrough to allow vehicles to communicate with each other and "transform the nation's surface transportation safety, mobility and environmental performance."
The NHTSA has just completed a yearlong test in Ann Arbor, Mich., with 3,000 cars, trucks, and buses connected by Wi-Fi to help avoid crashes and improve traffic flow.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/09/progress-to-deployment-of-vehicle-to.html

Bob Clark
 
I fear this may be the beginning of the end for driving enthusiasts of the future.

More driver aids will filter down to even the cheapest vehicles, reduced insurance premiums and tax breaks from governments driving the technology ever forward.... Until one day you find you can no longer afford or legally drive yourself. But I'll be old and grey and barely able to drive by that point so I won't mind so much... presuming I don't get ran over today :thumbup:
 
Tesla’s Autopilot is now better than humans at highway driving – Elon Musk press conference for the release of software v7.1.
http://electrek.co/2016/01/11/elon-musk-press-conference-v7-1-tesla-summon/

For the case when driving on city streets, how would it handle this scenario: a child darts out in front of the car. It could swerve to avoid him but that would take it into oncoming traffic. Say there are pedestrians on the sidewalk and no parked cars on the right so it can't swerve in that direction.

A human driver would probably just jam on the breaks. But a computer would be able to calculate, let's assume for this scenario, that the car could not stop in time. Let's assume your car and the car in the opposing lane aren't going terribly fast and though the cars would be damaged in the collision it likely would not be fatal. However, for the child the impact even though braked might be fatal. Should the computer be programmed to swerve into the oncoming car even though there is a chance, though smaller, this could also be a fatal accident?

Bob Clark
 
So, who goes to jail when such a car runs over a suddenly appearing kid?

The kid, for jaywalking.

---------- Post added at 09:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 AM ----------

Of course I'm replying to a four year old post. :facepalm:

Anyway, had to be said.
 
Tesla’s Autopilot is now better than humans at highway driving – Elon Musk press conference for the release of software v7.1.

Well, before stating that definitely, we should let a few million of them drive around the highways every day for a few years.

Nothing's as nerve-wrecking as the first few weeks after having a critical software component you wrote go live :P
 
Well, before stating that definitely, we should let a few million of them drive around the highways every day for a few years.

Nothing's as nerve-wrecking as the first few weeks after having a critical software component you wrote go live :P

Especially if you have news like recently, that reported that human test drivers needed to interfere more often than the manufacturers claimed to prevent accidents.
 
Back
Top