Self-Driving Vehicles -- Are They that Great a Threat?

[BaltACD]

jeffhergert

We won't need any dedicated highways.  The self-driving trucks will have them all to themselves.  Why?  Because we will all be using flying cars, eventually pilot-less to boot.

 http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/10/28/uber-looks-flying-cars-next-big-shift/92878568/

Jeff

George Jetson is that you?  Will Spacely Sprockets get to bid on these?

[rdamon]

Uber’s Self-Driving Truck Makes Its First Delivery: 50,000 Beers

https://www.wired.com/2016/10/ubers-self-driving-truck-makes-first-delivery-50000-beers/

I would have to give this ..

[RME]

jeffhergert

We won't need any dedicated highways.  The self-driving trucks will have them all to themselves.  Why?  Because we will all be using flying cars, eventually pilot-less to boot.

 http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/10/28/uber-looks-flying-cars-next-big-shift/92878568/

Actually, it's much easier to build an autonomous flying car than an autonomous driving one, and has been (even net of near-all-weather flying) for quite a few years.  The principal issue is cost, not feasibility.  Relatively much more power needed to run one, continuous proof of rigorous maintenance, structure with multiple redundancy, and appropriate safeguards and knowledge about flight in what amount to light aircraft (don't forget the specific ignorance that killed John Kennedy, Jr.).

But the biggest single reason for 'no flying cars' to date -- the inability to do even a remote approximation of safe separation at all times, or non-confrontational traffic queuing -- goes away when you have autonomous piloting within a controlled information environment.  The need for onboard emergency piloting 'skills' collapses to little more than careful firing of a BRS-style emergency system in the right place, and shock management down to where the motion stops, so you don't give up nearly the oh-crap surprise need for immediate human oversight you do on the highway...

[Electroliner 1935]

Wonder what it does on slippery pavement (ice, and snow), fog, and other things. Could it be hikjacked by cars boxing it in and the load being taken? If a car cuts in front of it and slams on the brakes, what does it do? As in Candide's best of all possible worlds, it is wonderful but S**t happens and can the programers forsee everything? 

[Electroliner 1935]

Deleted duplicate

[rdamon]

 

Hijacking ..  or trying to pull in front in an attempt to get hit and have a nice lawsuit..

 

Of course, instead of hijacking the truck with all the video camera and data links, the old fashioned way still works today.

 

ATLANTA - Close to 80,000 bottles of Atlanta-brewed beer were gone in seconds.

 

The hops heist happened early Tuesday morning at the SweetWater Brewing Company in Atlanta. Company officials said more than 3,000 cases had been loaded into two 53-foot trailers ready to roll out in the morning. That's when thieves pulled up, hooked up the trailers and swiped the trailers full the suds.

 

http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/163868725-story

[Euclid]

Electroliner 1935

Wonder what it does on slippery pavement (ice, and snow), fog, and other things. Could it be hikjacked by cars boxing it in and the load being taken? If a car cuts in front of it and slams on the brakes, what does it do? As in Candide's best of all possible worlds, it is wonderful but S**t happens and can the programers forsee everything? 

 

Supposedly, those contingencies plus everything else under the sun will have to be detected and properly responded to.  Someone questioned how it will respond to grade crossings.  It will see the red flashing lights and stop short just as a driver is expected to do.  For a passive crossing, it will look side to side, and it will have to be capable of recongnizing a train, I suppose by detecting its movement; and will stop the vehicle short of the crossing. The system will have to recognize fog so it can know when it cannot see things.  It will have to read, understand, and comply with every road sign. 

This 100% reliability is where I think the concept seriously overpromises.  So promoters have sought to overcome these fine points with a driver on board who can step in and take over if necessary.  But, in my opionion, a backup driver is a major flaw in the concept.  Everything about this automatic driving will lull the backup driver into complacency.  He/she will be the last person capable of the razor sharp intellect needed to take over when the genius system makes a mistake.

[Ulrich]

Electroliner 1935

Wonder what it does on slippery pavement (ice, and snow), fog, and other things. Could it be hikjacked by cars boxing it in and the load being taken? If a car cuts in front of it and slams on the brakes, what does it do? As in Candide's best of all possible worlds, it is wonderful but S**t happens and can the programers forsee everything? 

 

 

That could happen with a driver on board too. Driver's safety always paramount in such situations, and when there's no driver then at least that aspect of it goes away. Definitely more work needs to be done on cargo securement... having a load of whatever (computers, gasoline, explosives, etc) go down the highway unattended is just asking for trouble.  

[wanswheel]

[Ulrich]

These guys are right on the money, and they should know. So far there's been alot of hype, but there's still much work to be done. It's one thing to have a truck go down an uncrowded dry four lane on a sunny day.. and quite another to blindside back that same truck off of a busy street, down a narrow alleyway and into a dock that  sits on a slant and is maybe a couple of inches wider than the truck is. That's where the skill comes in, and I'm not sure how close we are to having machines replicate that aspect of the job. About driverless vehicles being safer, we all know that computer systems never fail, right? 

[Sonofahoghead]

With 249 replies so far I can't go through and check them all.. but if no one has mentioned it yet, I read a couple of weeks ago that Budweiser made their first driverless trcuk delivery.

Here is a CNN article copy from 10/25:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/25/technology/otto-budweiser-self-driving-truck/

[schlimm]

Ulrich

About driverless vehicles being safer, we all know that computer systems never fail, right? 

We all know that truck drivers never cause fatal accidents, right?

[Ulrich]

I never claimed they don't.. simply questioned the assertion that autonomous vehicles that are built and designed by imperfect people will be safer than nonautonomous vehicles that are currently driven by imperfect people. I don't know... I think there will still be accidents albeit not due to driver error.. maybe due to programming errors. Not sure that's better as dead or injured is still dead or injured regardless of cause. 

[CatFoodFlambe]

Someone mentioned it earlier, I think, but I think driverless vehicles will be placed in dedicated lanes on exisiting interstate highways between cities - basically an electronic conveyor belt, with the vehicles switched into a parking area at major junctions and cities for handling "off the main line" by a human being.  Larger companies (the Swifts and Schneiders) will have their local "home guards" pick them up and drive them to a local destination, much as they currently do with rail intermodal.   Others will have the road drivers "take their rest" on the roll, then resume driving driving. 

Methinks - it would likely doom the "team driver"  concept in very short order, as the companies could get team performance (18-22 working hours a day out of the equipment) while cutting back to a single driver.

[samfp1943]

Ulrich

I never claimed they don't.. simply questioned the assertion that autonomous vehicles that are built and designed by imperfect people will be safer than nonautonomous vehicles that are currently driven by imperfect people. I don't know... I think there will still be accidents albeit not due to driver error.. maybe due to programming errors. Not sure that's better as dead or injured is still dead or injured regardless of cause. 

 

 

         Think of the results recorded in stone on the tombstones of indivifuals, effected by tragedy, as of a result of computer errors:

         "...Joe was a trucker, wide awake as he rode down the interstate,

                       til he got to a junction, and his computer crashed....

                       Joe was"Glitched" as he rode down the road of life...

                       Not his fault,but he is still just as gone..."

       

 

[daveklepper]

The Nov. - Dec. '16 issue, 119-6, MIT Tchnology Review has two articles, p. 15, Policing Driverless cars, "C. Hart, Nat. Trans. Safety Bd., thinks we may never reach full automarion on U. S. roads." and p. 36-39:  Your Driverless Ride is Arriving (?) "I get to experience the of the technology's limits first hand, about half-way though my ride in Uber's car, shortly after I am invited to sit in the dirver's seat.   I push a button to activate the automated driving system, and I'm told I can disengate it any time by moving the steering wheel, touching a pedal, or hitting another big red button. The car seems to be driving perfectly, just as before, but I cannot help noticing how nervous the engineer next to me now is.  And then, as we are sitting in traffic on a bridge, with cars approaching in the other direction, the car starts slowly turning the steering wheel to the left and edging out into the oncoming lane.  "Grab the wheel, the engineer shouts."

[gregc]

the book, Our Robots, Ourselves: Robotics and the Myths of Autonomy, by David Mindell discusses the value of autonomous behavior to eliminate the tedious routine tasks of piloting sea, air, spave and land vehicles but relies on humans to perform analytic tasks.

it discusses the essential need for humans with autonomous flight systems in case of error or failure but that it is difficult for a human to recognize the need to "take over" in an instant.

Instead, it suggests that humans be "in the loop", using autonomous systems to provide detailed guidance to the pilot who actually controls the aircraft, in particular during take-off and landings.   This approach allows pilots to quickly take over, ignore erroneous guidance, partly because past experience has made them aware of what correct guidance to expect.   Pilots also report becoming better pilots because they become aware of optimal landing profiles, for example.

It seem technically very challenging for driverless cars to be "fail safe" under all conditions for both the occupants of the vehicle and surrounding vehicles.

I'm sure insurance companies would like semi-autonomous vehicles to limit speeds when excessive, apply brakes when essential and warnings to avoid collisions. 

[Euclid]

gregc

the book, Our Robots, Ourselves: Robotics and the Myths of Autonomy, by David Mindell discusses the value of autonomous behavior to eliminate the tedious routine tasks of piloting sea, air, spave and land vehicles but relies on humans to perform analytic tasks.

it discusses the essential need for humans with autonomous flight systems in case of error or failure but that it is difficult for a human to recognize the need to "take over" in an instant.

 

The fatal flaw is expecting drivers to take control the instant the automatic system makes a mistake.  This take-over would by one of the most critical and judgment-demanding tasks ever; far more so than any previous responsibility associated with manual driving.  And yet the whole point of automated driving is to relieve the driver from the responsibilities of driving. 

A driver lulled into the role of a carefree passenger is going to be the least capable of taking over suddenly when the need arises to second-guess the genius system that makes the miracle of autonomous driving possible. 

 

[tree68]

People around here get in trouble in the wintertime because they run down the Interstate on cruise control and can't react quickly enough if they hit a slippery patch...  And they're still steering the car (hopefully), so they are at least paying basic attention to what's going on...

[BaltACD]

tree68

People around here get in trouble in the wintertime because they run down the Interstate on cruise control and can't react quickly enough if they hit a slippery patch...  And they're still steering the car (hopefully), so they are at least paying basic attention to what's going on...

There are two strategies that the manufacturers have devised to diengage Cruise Control.  One is to tap the brakes.  The other is a button on the steering wheel, when pressed it disengages it.  I have had both.

Having to tap the brakes when on a slippery surface is almost a sure fire way to lose control.  Many drivers have not mastered the touch necessary to turn off cruise control but not actually apply the brakes.  I much prefer the button on the steering wheel.

[challenger3980]

Balt ACD wrote:

Having to tap the brakes when on a slippery surface is almost a sure fire way to lose control.  I much prefer the button on the steering wheel.

 

Unfortunately, the average driver will slam the brake pedal(Abruptly) to the floor, and hold it there until motion stops. This of course is the WORST thing that you can do. I have been a truck driver for over 28 years with extensive mountain and snow experience, I see this all too often and just wave Bye Bye, as they let physics take over, it rarely ends well, unless you own the local body shop

Doug

[wanswheel]

daveklepper

C. Hart, Nat. Trans. Safety Bd.

Christopher Hart says to National Press Club

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M_aQ6ip0nI&t=4m2s

Driverless cars are coming, and their potential for improvement is amazing.  First and foremost, driverless cars could save many, if not most, of the 32,000 lives that are lost every year on our streets and highways – a very tragic and unacceptable number that has been decreasing for several years but has recently taken a turn in the wrong direction.

Driverless cars could also increase the amount of traffic that our roads can safely carry because, instead of maintaining a car length separation for every 10 mph, as I’m sure we all do, driverless cars could reduce that separation.  Stay tuned for what other changes might be possible.

How might that happen?  Ideally, with automation. 

Most crashes on our roads are due to driver error.  The theory of driverless cars is that if there is no driver, there will be no driver error.  Ideally, removing the driver would address at least four issues on the NTSB’s Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements – fatigue; distractions; impairment; and fitness for duty.  The automation in driverless cars would presumably also address a fifth item on our list, namely, improved collision avoidance technologies. 

Decades of experience in a variety of contexts has demonstrated that automation can improve safety, reliability, productivity, and efficiency.  That experience has also demonstrated that there can be a downside.  As noted by Prof. James Reason, who is a world-renowned expert in complex human-centric systems:

In their efforts to compensate for the unreliability of human performance, the designers of automated control systems have unwittingly created opportunities for new error types that can be even more serious than those they were seeking to avoid.

Our investigation experience provides three lessons learned that support Prof. Reason’s statement.  The first is that the theory of removing human error by removing the human assumes that the automation is working as designed; so the question is what if the automation fails.  Will it fail in a way that is safe?  If it cannot be guaranteed to fail safe, will the operator be aware of the failure in a timely manner, and will the operator then be able to take over to avoid a crash? 

An example of the automation failing without the operator’s knowledge occurred here in Washington – you may remember the Metro crash near the Fort Totten Station in 2009 that tragically killed the train operator and 8 passengers.  In that accident, a train temporarily became electronically invisible, whereupon the symbol of the train disappeared from the display board in the dispatch center.  When a train became invisible on the board, an alarm sounded.  This alarm, however, sounded several hundred times a day, so it was largely ignored.

Unfortunately, when the train became electronically invisible, there was no alarm in the train behind it regarding the electronic disappearance of the preceding train.  Thus, the operator of the train behind was unaware of it.  Instead, based upon the electronically unoccupied track ahead, the automation in the train behind began accelerating to the maximum speed for the area.  By the time the operator saw the stopped train and applied the emergency brake after coming around a curve – which limited her sight distance – it was too late.

Another lesson learned in support of Prof. Reason’s statement is that even if the operator is removed from the loop, humans are still involved in designing, manufacturing, and maintaining the vehicles, as well as the streets and highways they use.  Each of these points of human engagement presents opportunities for human error.  Moreover, human error in these steps is likely to be more systemic in its effect – possibly involving several vehicles – and more difficult to find and correct.  An example of this lesson learned is the collision of an automated – driverless – people mover into a stopped people mover at Miami International Airport in 2008.  That collision was caused largely by improper maintenance.

The most fundamental lesson learned from our accident investigation experience in support of Prof. Reason’s statement is that introducing automation into complex human-centric systems can be very challenging.  Most of the systems we have investigated are becoming increasingly automated but are not fully automated.  As a result, we have seen that the challenges can be even more difficult in a system that still has substantial human operator involvement and is not completely automated.

Situations involving partial automation with substantial human operator involvement have demonstrated two extremes.  On one hand, the human is the most unreliable part of the system.  On the other hand, if the system encounters unanticipated circumstances, a highly-trained proficient human operator can save the day by being the most adaptive part of the system.   

An example of the human operator saving the day is Captain Sullenberger’s amazing landing in the Hudson River when his airplane suddenly became a glider because both of its engines were taken out by birds.  In stark contrast, a textbook example of the complexities of the human-automation interface, in which the human was the most vulnerable part of the system, is Air France Flight 447 from Rio de Janeiro to Paris in 2009. 

After Air France 447 reached its cruise altitude of 37,000 feet at night over the Atlantic and began approaching distant thunderstorms, the captain left the cockpit for a scheduled rest break, giving control to two less experienced pilots.  The airplane had pitot tubes that project from the fuselage to provide information about how fast it was going.  Airspeed information is so important that there were three pitot tubes – for redundancy – and the pitot tubes were heated to ensure that they were not disabled by ice. At the ambient temperature of minus 50-60 degrees, and with abundant super-cooled water from the nearby thunderstorms, the pitot tube heaters were overwhelmed, and the pitot tubes became clogged with ice, so the airplane no longer knew how fast it was going.

The loss of airspeed information caused several systems to quit, including the automatic pilot that was flying the airplane and the automatic throttle that was maintaining the selected speed.  As a result, the pilots suddenly had to fly the airplane manually.  The loss of airspeed information also rendered inoperative the automatic protections that prevent the airplane from entering into an aerodynamic stall, in which the wings no longer produce lift.  The pilots responded inappropriately to the loss of these systems, and the result was a crash that was fatal to all 228 on board. 

As with most accidents that we investigate, several factors played a role.  To begin with, the redundancy of having three pitot tubes was not effective because all three were taken out by the same cause.  In addition, the pilots had not experienced this type of failure before, even in training, where the problem can be simulated in very realistic simulators, and they were unable to figure out what happened.  Finally, use of the automatic pilot is mandatory at cruise altitudes, so the pilots had not flown manually at that altitude before, even in training in the simulator.  This is important because the airplane behaves very differently at cruise than it does at low altitudes, such as during takeoff and landing.  Other operational and design issues compounded the problem and led to a tragic outcome. 

As an aside, the pitot tubes had frozen before in that type of airplane, but the pilots in those previous encounters responded successfully.  Consequently, the fleet, including the accident airplane, was scheduled for the installation of more robust heaters, but given the previously successful encounters, an immediate emergency replacement was not considered to be necessary. 

With that background on how automation can be both the good news and the bad news, let me turn to how the NTSB can help inform the process of moving toward driverless cars.  First, as I have just explained, we offer considerable experience regarding the introduction of automation into complex human-centric systems. 

Most of our investigations involve relatively structured systems with highly trained professional operators who have various requirements regarding proficiency, fatigue, impairment, distraction, and fitness for duty.  Given that human drivers will probably be in the loop for some time to come, I would suggest that as difficult as the transition to more automation has been in the structured and regulated environments we have investigated, it may be even more challenging in a public arena, in which drivers are usually not highly trained and may be fatigued, impaired, distracted, or not medically fit.  Query whether some human drivers may always be in the loop because they would rather not use the automation for various reasons, e.g., they don’t trust it or they simply enjoy driving.

The second way that the NTSB can help relates to collaboration.  The auto industry has already recognized the importance of collaboration, as most recently shown by their collaborative approach regarding autonomous emergency braking.   Our experience with collaboration, especially regarding commercial aviation, may help improve it further. 

The most recent fatal US commercial airliner crash occurred in 2009, and more than once in recent years, the commercial aviation industry has gone years in a row without a single passenger fatality.   Although automation has played an important role in the industry’s continuing safety improvement, much of the industry’s exemplary safety record is attributable to collaboration.  In the early 1990’s, after the industry’s accident rate had been declining rapidly, the accident rate began to flatten on a plateau.  Meanwhile, the Federal Aviation Administration was predicting that the volume of flying would double in 15-20 years.

The industry became very concerned that if the volume doubled while the accident rate remained the same, the public would see twice as airplane crashes on the news.  That caused the industry to do something that, to my knowledge, has never been done at an industry-wide level in any other industry – they pursued a voluntary collaborative industry-wide approach to improving safety.  This occurred largely because David Hinson, who was then the Administrator of the FAA, realized that the way to get off the plateau was not more regulations or a bigger stick for the regulator, but figuring out a better way to improve safety in a complex aviation system.

The voluntary collaborative process, known as CAST, the Commercial Aviation Safety Team, brings all of the players –airlines, manufacturers, pilots, air traffic controllers, and the regulator – to the table to do four things:  Identify the potential safety issues; prioritize those issues – because they would be identifying more issues than they had resources to address; develop interventions for the prioritized issues; and evaluate whether the interventions are working. 

This CAST process has been an amazing success.  It resulted in a reduction of the aviation fatality rate, from the plateau on which it was stuck, by more than 80% in less than 10 years.  This occurred despite the fact that the plateau was already considered to be exemplary, and many thought that the rate could not decline much further.  The process also improved not only safety but also productivity, which flew in the face of conventional wisdom that improving safety generally decreases productivity.  In addition, a major challenge of making improvements in complex systems is the possibility of unintended consequences; yet this process generated very few unintended consequences.  Last, but not least, the success occurred largely without generating new regulations.

As an observer in CAST, the NTSB can help the auto industry determine how much of this aviation industry success story is transferrable to them.  One size may not fit all – for example, the airlines do not compete regarding safety but auto manufacturers do – but the 80% reduction in the fatality rate accomplished by CAST is a powerful example of how much can be accomplished relatively quickly through voluntary collaboration.  Another difference is that the aviation regulatory framework is largely federal, whereas collaboration regarding driverless cars would probably need to include participation by the states.

The third way that the NTSB can inform the process of introducing automation relates to on-board event recorders.  Our investigations are significantly enhanced when we have event recorders to tell us what happened.  Airliners have had “black boxes” for decades, to record both the aircraft parameters and the sounds in the cockpit.  Other transportation modes are increasingly introducing event recorders as well as audio and video recorders. 

Assuming that difficulties will be encountered as automation is being introduced, the more the industry knows from the event recorders about what went right and what went wrong, the more the industry will be able to fashion remedies that effectively address the problems.   Accordingly, consistent with another item on our Most Wanted List – Expand the Use of Recorders to Enhance Transportation Safety – we would encourage the use of robust on-board event recorders to help the process.

Event recorders in other modes of transportation introduced significant issues regarding both privacy and the appropriate uses of recorder data. The NTSB’s sensitivity to those issues has already helped to inform the conversation in commercial trucking, and can inform the process of improving passenger vehicle event recorders as well.

In closing, rather than waiting for accidents to happen with driverless cars, the NTSB has already engaged with the industry and regulatory agencies to help inform how driverless cars can be safely introduced into America’s transportation system.  Our experience in the introduction of automation into human-centric systems, our appreciation of the power of collaboration, and our understanding of the importance of on-board event recorders, all position the NTSB to provide valuable assistance to the process. 

[Deggesty]

challenger3980

Balt ACD wrote:

Having to tap the brakes when on a slippery surface is almost a sure fire way to lose control.  I much prefer the button on the steering wheel.

 

Unfortunately, the average driver will slam the brake pedal(Abruptly) to the floor, and hold it there until motion stops. This of course is the WORST thing that you can do. I have been a truck driver for over 28 years with extensive mountain and snow experience, I see this all too often and just wave Bye Bye, as they let physics take over, it rarely ends well, unless you own the local body shop

Doug

 

To me, the best way to handle the situation of possible ice on the road is to NOT use your cruise control at all in such a situation.

I am reminded of the story of a man who bought a car with cruise control who set it, turned his attention to something else--and the cruise control ran the car into tree (his version of the incident).

[tree68]

Deggesty

...and the cruise control ran the car into tree...

Reminds me of the story about the guy with the motorhome who set the cruise control and got up to make himself a sandwich...

Part of the problem in this area is the bands of lake effect snow.  You can be driving along on clear, dry roads, and within a mile be in zero visibility with accompanying road conditions.

[RME]

Deggesty

To me, the best way to handle to situation of possible ice on the road is to NOT use your cruise control at all in such a situation.

You mean there are idiots who would?

One of the fastest ways to really, really lose it on ice is to have the vehicle on cruise control, especially if it is FWD.  Part of this is related to automatic transmissions, which have a 'balancing' wheel speed even at idle (and the wheels if they break traction on ice will happily go to that speed and probably stay there).  It does not matter much of the time if you think you're 'controlling' the slip with the service brake.

I found myself at the top of a seriously flash-iced grade on I-80 in the Poconos during an unanticipated blizzard, in the early '80s.  There were various trucks and cars scattered down the grade and there I was, in my white Eldorado convertible, thinking about navigating the obstacle course with 'the miracle of front-wheel drive'.  Problem was that every time I put it in gear and tried to roll downhill it would squirm and try to deflect to one side (sure signs of slippage) no matter how I tried to feather the brakes (four-wheel disc with single-piston calipers).

Now, as soon as I shifted into neutral, there was a brief crunching sound and shudder, and I instantly had full steering and braking authority.  Rolled happily down that hill going around everybody who was "slided" and carried on my merry way. 

Imagine how much less likely I'd have been to keep traction in ice and snow if I had a device associating 'road speed' (taken off the speedometer, which is the driven wheels) with throttle-linkage position.  I've gotten into some VERY interesting high-speed slides with two-wheel-drive cars on cruise control in even marginally slippery road conditions ... the kind of place you're surprised but delighted to hear your antilock system actuating momentarily.

Which brings us to the second source of disaster -- training generations of new drivers to 'stomp and steer' as the instantaneous default reaction to skids or slides.  This is of a piece with the pravda regarding replacing '10 and 2' driving position with '8 and 4' (because of those idiot air bags in the steering-wheel hub shattering your wrists if you have your hands in the right place to try to control the car in an incident).  As noted, this is a quick prescription for disaster if (1) you don't have full antilock braking, (2) your tires STILL won't turn or steer the car even with the antilock system pulsing, or (3) there is something wrong or misconfigured in the antilock system.  I have experienced (3) firsthand in a diesel Suburban (brakes were bled without resetting the ABS VI motor) and it is not at all funny although weirdly interesting in a sort of Alice-in-Wonderland hallucinogenic experience sense.

If you don't reset the ABS pistons to zero, when the ABS system actuates (and the motor starts to run) it does not put full pressure on the brake system (as your foot on the pedal would without the ABS running).  The problem is that each 'shot' of ABS has to be relieved before the next one occurs, through a special 'undocumented' dump valve that can't be defeated, so when you 'stomp and steer' you're actually getting only some percentage of the service-brake application you thought you were.  And the ABS doesn't always disengage when 'stomped' until you lift your foot off the brake...

Feels as if you are sliding on ground glass and oil; you have full steering integrity but you're not slowing down very fast.  This occurred to me in light rain coming up to two rows of stopped traffic.  The harder you push to 'stomp' of course, the more nothing happens greater than the pathetic percentage, and so you loop in and out between cars, up onto the shoulder and over the grass and back down again (with perfect steering response, mind you, no skidding or tailslide) and finally to a gentle (!) stop about 15 feet from the actual intersection.  Just imagine the fun, and the blood tests/whiz quizzes, that you would get from the police trying to explain what had happened to you if you could not explain the technical reason.  And how many normal SUV drivers do you think would realize this (or that you had to lift your foot OFF the brake to make it stop quicker)?

I still chuckle at the thought of the BMW 7er pilot who ran straight off a ferry dock in someplace like Poland at high speed ... never hit the brake.  He was running his GPS, which used Soviet-era map data that ... you guessed it ... showed a bridge at that location.  This is very little different from a Tesla driver trusting that his "Auto-Pilot" actually referred to some semi-autonomous control functionality.

[daveklepper]

MIT Technology Review is an in-house magazine for MIT Graduates.  The Nov.-Dec. 2016 issue can be had by writing to: Technology Review, One Main Street, 18^th Floor, Cambridge 02142, MA.

No single issue price is given, but I suggest enclosing a five dollar  check.

,

[daveklepper]

Corection,  Tehnology review is not subsidized, since advertizing revenue more than covers cost of publication, printing, and distribution.

[IslandMan]

Deliveries by drone (Amazon) and driverless trucks present great opportunities for the future - for criminals.

Drone technology is already proving useful for delivering goods to the inmates of prisons. Drone delivery of rather more legitimate consignments to the law-abiding opens up new possibilities.  Criminals with a sporting streak might like to test their sharpshooting skills by bringing down down delivery drones and making off with the packages attached.  The less skilled might wish to use a pair of binoculars to trace the flight path of incoming drones, and phone accomplices near the likely landing site so that the goods can be intercepted before the rightful owners can lay hands on them.

The problem of theft will not be apparent whilst drone delivery is still a novelty and flights are few.  If drone delivery becomes common, then it will be worthwhile for thieves to develop the skills to focus on drone-robbing.

Driverless trucks would present an even more attractive target. It might be possible to hack into their systems and redirect them to an unloading destination of the felons' choice.  For the less IT competent, placing any obstruction in front of the vehicle would cause it to stop which would then allow a gang of old-fashioned hoodlums to break in and steal the contents.

Existing trucks can of course be robbed, but if the driver is not a willing accomplice he would have to be threatened, tied-up or worse. This means that the robbers if caught face charges far more serious than theft.  Robbing a driverless truck would avoid this risk whilst maintaining the same level of reward.

[tree68]

If anything will shoot down the concept of driverless delivery, that will (levity intended).

There are already folks who drive around looking for unattended packages on porches, and possibly even follow delivery drivers around.

Never mind free merchandise - if the drone is delivering a pizza, it's a free lunch!

And there have already been cases of thieves stopping trains by various means in remote locations and emptying entire containers before anyone in authority can reach the location.

On the surface, it sounds like a good idea, and might even work in some locales.  Not so much in others...

[samfp1943]

Pretty much agree with Island Man's Post !   The unmanned part , in particluar. If a driver is in a position with a vehicle, and it looks opportune... Thieves will go after that 'low-hanging fruil'.  

Then there is the 'Weather'.  In more recent times, many OTR )Newer) Units are utilizing an sutomatic, or semi-automatic transmission. Trucking Fleets find it easier to recruit drivers with an 'automated' transmission. They can give a driver, unskilled in adverse weather conditions, a sense of 'false; security.

    Exactly, as RME  described in his 'adventure on I-80 with a 'glare(black) iced' surface. Even the skilled driver can get into trouble under those conditions. THe thought of an autonomous vehicle in those circumstances should be more than enough to scare, even the most skilled of drivers on the road with an autonomous vehicle. ( Even if it has been described that there would be a human operator in the vehicle, on another Thread here.  Events unfold in 'heartbeats' and that other driver MUST get from wherever they are in the cab, to the Operators station(under the wheel). By then, it is probably too late ( to effect the outcome of that vehicular mis-adventure.)