“Easy peasy, no human input necessary”
I have to say, you have a much more simplified view of the world, and engineering problems, than I do.
That’s important to note, because, well....I am an engineer. Degreed, licensed, work in the field every day.
I’ve got some bad news for you: There will always be human input in a situation as simple as reversible lanes. No database is going to continuously be re-populated with lane switch information, in real time, to account for changes due to weather, the football game went into overtime, or the rock concert was cancelled.
I am reminded of a product I once had, called the ‘Road Wizard’. It pre-dated the commercial internet, and was a handheld device that would tell you where hotels and gas stations were, based on the interstate and mile marker you entered in. Of course gas stations and hotels change, so you were supposed to mail it in every year, to get re-loaded with new information. A driverless car system would have to get re-loaded on a continuous basis, in real time, even in far off places with no cell coverage, and during bad weather when GPS doesn’t work well. Again, just one of many obstacles.
I will repeat - there is a vast difference between technically possible, and repeatable with an extraordinarily high rate of reliability.
And I believe you are over-estimating the capabilities of accident avoidance systems and/or under-estimating what is truly needed to control a driverless car. No, you can’t close your eyes for 10 seconds for any of the automated features out there. Even something as simple as the parking feature - a driver has to look in his mirror, identify the traffic approaching him from behind, and make a judgment call on whether or not there is enough time to safely park. And then the driver has to watch out and make sure nothing happens with the adjacent cars (I.E. if he see’s the brake lights and reverse bulbs come on, he starts hammering the horn). Again, just one small example.
But let’s talk accident avoidance, lane departure warning, etc. All of these systems use fairly fixed situations, and the computer reacts very simply when an input exceeds a certain criteria. This technology, as far as the computer is concerned, is not a lot different than the technology that retards timing based on the knock sensor. If it were described in terms of video gaming, its Pong.
A few of these systems involve rudimentary logic - they will steer you away from an obstacle, unless a sensor knows there is an object also next to you, for example. One step logic. Think about all the logic that you process in your head, when you do a simple driving task. Say there’s a dead skunk in the road. I make a determination as to whether or not it will damage my vehicle to go over it...if it would, I make a determination whether or not I can stop in time...if not I look at the shoulder...I see there is a bunch of broken glass on the shoulder...so I consider crossing into oncoming traffic. It may be a double yellow, and there may be oncoming traffic way too close to even consider a traditional passing maneuver...but I make a judgment call that I can momentarily swerve out into the oncoming lane, to avoid the skunk. And btw, I was keyed to this problem early, because I observed several cars in front of me going around it also. This is multi-step logic. Think Halo 3 vs pong. We’ve got a long way to go, before accident avoidance leaps from Pong to Halo.
And that’s what Google is doing, with $150k worth of LIDAR and computers in the car.
Now we haven’t even talked about weather. If this is ever to be viable in trucking, it must work all the time. Even in a freezing drizzle that covers the sensors. I mentioned I have experience with LIDAR - guess hat we do when it rains or is snows? We have a cover we put over the LIDAR head.
And what happens when the fleet gets older? What happens to a new car, when it gets older? The power locks start to get erratic...some of the window switches don’t always work, and the power seat is stuck in one position until the end of time. All this equipment, in order to justify its up front costs, would have to be robust enough to last a few years. We are constantly sending laser equipment to the manufacturer for calibration and repair. So I’m skeptical.
And frankly, when you start bolting hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment to an unmanned vehicle...you are inviting theft.
The list goes on. I will make you an iron clad guarantee. There will not be a large scale use of driverless cars for at least the next 50 years.
I’ve been in the software business 20 years. So you can stop stroking your ego and deal with the facts.
The facts are this isn’t difficult stuff, the cars already have most of what they need to pull it off. A database doesn’t need to be continuously re-populated with lane switch information, the rules for the lane switching are already set the switching is already being handled by computers. If computers can do the switching computers can understand the switching.
Temporary road closure can be a problem. But even then the smart GPS have been programmed with those areas that tend to do this and are programmed to avoid them. And if avoidance isn’t an option there will be optical clues. Since the computer will HAVE to be able to see lights and signage manual signals and cones are not that tough.
You’re not paying attention to how the avoidance systems work. They go under the assumption that you DIDN’T see what they see, and they react, mostly stopping the car, sometimes with steering. Since the basic concept is that you didn’t see something the why (eyes closed, just not paying attention) is immaterial.
Your “one small example” actually shows why computers will be better. The computer will be able to see the brake lights, and won’t have the idiotic human instinct to “punish” the other driver with the horn, instead dedicating its entire action to actually avoiding the accident. Our standard action in that actually makes an accident more likely.
All of these things are solvable. Most of them are in the process of being added to cars right now. And no, the computers don’t use “one step logic”, they can handle multiple inputs and make the judgements. That’s computer logic happening right now in the medical field, and in military hardware.
I’ve got a 10 year old car and all the switches are fine, locks lock, windows go up and down. It’s not the 70s anymore, stuff actually lasts.
Nobody is bolting hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment to the cars. That’s you holding onto your illusion.
Your list is all bunk. I’ll make you an iron clad guarantee, there will be self driving cars on the road by the end of the decade.