Driverless Cars (and Trucks): Caution
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Login or register to improve your experience
Main Navigation
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Full-Text Search & Archives
Leverage, the book
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility; author(s) may have positions in securities or firms mentioned and have no duty to disclose same.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must be complete (NOT a "pitch"), include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. Pitch emails missing the above will be silently deleted. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2015-05-11 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Technology , 170 references Ignore this thread
Driverless Cars (and Trucks): Caution *
[Comments enabled]

Grrrr.....

Self-driving cars now have some company on the road.

A new self-driving truck, the Freightliner Inspiration, was unveiled this week in the Nevada desert just outside of Las Vegas.

The Inspiration can drive itself on highways, similar to an autopilot function in an airplane.

I have a prediction -- systems like this, and similar ones in cars that require the driver be able to take control back from the computer at any given point in time will increase the risk of serious multi-vehicle crashes rather than decrease them.

If you're going to wreck your car or truck the wreck you want to have, from a societal point of view, is the single-vehicle wreck where only the people in the vehicle are at risk.

In other words the guy who falls asleep at the wheel and dies in a single-vehicle crash takes all the risk of his conduct and all of the consequence; he hurts nobody else.

The worst case scenario is the one where due to your inattentiveness or whatever you wind up plowing into a bunch of other people, injuring or killing them.

I am quite-interested in a self-driving vehicle where I can literally get in the car and tell it to take my drunk ass home.  That's the only standard that works for such a vehicle; one where I can sleep, text, work on the computer or whatever without any requirement to take control of the vehicle myself.  Unless I am relieved of the legal liability for operation (and thus can be smashed, sleeping or whatever) then requiring me to be available if a dicey situation develops but am not in command at all other times means that I'm less-likely (more like not at all!) to be mentally processing the situation around the vehicle in the moments leading up to the dicey situation and thus the risk of that crash goes up, not down.

"Augmented driving" sounds great but it reduces the amount of mental acuity necessary to operate the car.  This sounds great in low-conflict situations where little acuity is necessary in the first instance, for example, cruising on a highway at 70mph.  However, if such augmentation means I am not paying attention to the road if a deer suddenly runs across it or a "gator" (blown truck tire) appears just over a crest in a hill right in front of me the odds of my not noticing that in time to react go way up compared to my being fully "in command" in the minutes beforehand.  As such these systems are likely to increase rather than decrease the risk of serious accidents involving multiple people and/or vehicles.

Purely warning-oriented systems sound great too (e.g. blind-spot detection) but as things stand right now I need to turn my head before changing lanes in order to know that the space into which I intend to move is in fact clear.  Less than perfect coverage by such sensors means that if I don't turn my head due to the BSM system I may run over a motorcycle.

Likewise, backup camera sound great and I like the ability to know exactly where my rear bumper is when backing into a tight parking spot.  But, if you try to use that as a replacement for your mirrors and manually clearing the sides with a turn of the head you will eventually clip someone or something on the side of the car due to not performing that basic act as a driver.

So yeah, bring on the automation.  But let's cut the crap about "safety benefits" until I can climb in the back seat and punch in a destination, leaving as my only remaining manual task refueling when the tank gets low.

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 



 
Comments on Driverless Cars (and Trucks): Caution
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Page 1 of 2  First12Last
Jackofva 21 posts, incept 2015-03-02
2015-05-11 07:19:44

There's been a similar argument over aircraft automation in the "Airbus versus Boeing" design philosophy, as I understand it. (Not a pilot so this is my opinion more from the prospective as an occasional software designer.)

The argument goes that Boeing's automation helps the pilot, but it's ultimately the pilot's aircraft to control. Airbus replaces much of the normal flying by computer and can, every now and then, put the pilot into a situation where he has less than full knowledge of how the situation developed or even what the problem is, but where a correct diagnosis and fix must be applied in seconds or else the aircraft will auger into a hole in the ground.

Now in defense of Airbus approach, overall safety records between similar vintage Boeing and Airbus craft is similar, so we are concerned with relatively rare events.

Still, the best studies of man-machine interaction show exactly what Karl has said, absent a 100% automated environment where there is no MMI, the optimum performance and safety point is where the machine helps the operator, and never leaves him in a position with inadequate reaction time or incomplete or misleading information to correct a problem.

Ckaminski 7k posts, incept 2011-04-08
2015-05-11 10:22:44

Quote:
So yeah, bring on the automation.


How about we take all this money on automatic trucks and spend it on something proven, and pretty damn reliable. Like trains.

Our short-sightedness at ripping up rails to build bike and walking paths in a cheap-oil era is going to cluster fuck us.

I love how everyone is just trying to reinvent the train.

Thomasblair 187 posts, incept 2009-04-03
2015-05-11 10:22:58

I've noticed this problem even in myself with regard to backup cameras. I've never seen or used them until I bought my wife a used 2014 Dodge Grand Caravan last year. I found myself in short order relying on the camera rather than looking until I bumped a stray grocery cart that was hiding in the blind spot by the rear quarter panel. I realized right then I had let the convenience overtake my thinking and thought to myself I was glad for the free lesson. I'm tempted to just disable it, but I'm afraid that the car's computer checks for proper function to operate and any disabling will be treated like a safety interrupt switch.
Tdurden 1k posts, incept 2015-01-29
2015-05-11 10:23:14

You'll never have the option of even the most advanced driverless car that you own take you home if you're drunk. No way the DUI industry let's go of that kind of power. There is just too much money to be lost. As I've read here and other places, they can, do and will arrest people and convict them for just sleeping while intoxicated in a parked car. Hell, I've heard anecdotes (which I have been unable to verify) of people being arrested for just having keys and accessing the interior of the vehicle while drunk. No way having the real life version of KITT is going to stop cops from making their arrest quota.

----------
"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next 10 generations that some favors come with too high of a price." -Vir Cotto Ba
Analog 1k posts, incept 2010-12-29
2015-05-11 10:23:18



Just say " No! "



----------
Never trust a computer with anything important.
Wearedoomed 4k posts, incept 2009-01-14
2015-05-11 10:31:59

Not only do I share the same concerns about this movement towards self-driving vehicles, but a purely self-driving car would take control away from me entirely. That isn't necessarily bad per se... except that statists would absolutely love to push everyone into self-driving vehicles and utterly destroy any non-self-driving ones. It's all about central control in the name of "higher safety," "less pollution," etc.

----------
Being successful is like being the Homecoming Queen. All the ugly bitches hate you.
- Charles Barkley
Vernonb 3k posts, incept 2009-06-03
2015-05-11 10:32:22

Quote:
"Augmented driving" sounds great but it reduces the amount of mental acuity necessary to operate the car. This sounds great in low-conflict situations where little acuity is necessary in the first instance, for example, cruising on a highway at 70mph.


Use it or lose it. You can bet actually real world driving skills will be on the decline after this introduction. Imagine generations unable to drive at all. Nice little control advantage for sick A-holes if you can prevent the population from relocating at will. "Sorry but that destination is no longer authorized."

You can also bet it will further depress wages in this country for truck drivers. The 'safety' thing in this case is simply a partial subterfuge to allow foreign drivers to take over our trucking industry in my opinion. Remember the Chinese sea disasters?

If they want such a freight system they need a separate highway system - not one shared by the public at large. Nothing like ~60,000# plus coming down the highway on top of you for a single cargo vehicle.

Now imagine how easy this commercial vehicle could become a terrorist target either by actions on the road or through control of its software! Safe my ass.
smiley

----------
"Mass intelligence does not mean intelligent masses."

Reason: fix quotes
Vernonb 3k posts, incept 2009-06-03
2015-05-11 10:56:37

Tyler,

On regard to the anti-drunk driving lobby Id have to agree. Too much money has been made in that racket for every person to have such a vehicle.

However, I can see this being viable for a large bar or taxi service that can afford to have a fleet of vehicles for their patrons. The patron would pay a fee and the vehicle would take him home and return. This would limit the need of everyone having such a system. The systems can also be relatively small size wise.

If one is going to use such systems you should still be 100% liable in case of an accident as you put the vehicle into motion. It is no different than me being responsible in case of mechanical failure of my car that could have been prevented. If its software well thats between you and the manufacturer (and likely a class action lawsuit).

Of course getting one to his driveway does not mean he is going to be able to get out of the vehicle and walk to the door. Some loss of coordination or a stupor induced sleep will happen with many. That is why these systems need to be equipped with a George Jetson style ejector, a puke/excrement flush system and sanitizer and as an extra service a drag bot to haul ones sorry ass to the doorstep.

As an added inducement we can paint another satisfied drunken patron on board all over the vehicle. With real time data we might even upgrade it to blind, stinking drunk patron on board - next destination hospital detox center to be further brutalized.

-half in sarcasm

Vern

----------
"Mass intelligence does not mean intelligent masses."
Ahhz 456 posts, incept 2011-06-12
2015-05-11 11:50:23

Tdurden wrote..
You'll never have the option of even the most advanced driverless car that you own take you home if you're drunk. No way the DUI industry let's go of that kind of power. There is just too much money to be lost. As I've read here and other places, they can, do and will arrest people and convict them for just sleeping while intoxicated in a parked car. Hell, I've heard anecdotes (which I have been unable to verify) of people being arrested for just having keys and accessing the interior of the vehicle while drunk. No way having the real life version of KITT is going to stop cops from making their arrest quota.


They won't lose that power as long as there is a possibility of a person getting any control of the vehicle. I can imagine the authority spew now:
You entered the vehicle is an intoxicated state, you COULD have engaged the manual override in your intoxicated state and driven while intoxicated!!

Hell, it gets even easier for them. Smart car will alert authorities to your impaired state and get instructions to take you too the nearest police for arrest.
Steph4liberty 2k posts, incept 2010-10-22
2015-05-11 12:04:03

Quote:
I am quite-interested in a self-driving vehicle where I can literally get in the car and tell it to take my drunk ass home.


Karl, didn't they already create one of those?? smiley

inline

----------
"Man will never be free until the last Banker is strangled with the entrails of the last Politician" - unknown

"This isn't a market anymore, it's a computer game."
Rufust445 995 posts, incept 2007-08-11
2015-05-11 12:54:26

I'm not sure a "driver" in a vehicle with Augmented driving could be any more distracted than some of the people I've seen using cell phones and other devices while on the road. Then there's the case of a woman cruising down the highway in her new motor home on vacation. She decided she was hungry, and set the cruise control to go back to the kitchen and fix herself a snack. Somehow she survived, enough to hire an ambulance chaser.

That said, I acquired my ninth car last year, all with manual transmission. I like the involvement with the driving task, and at this point have no intention of replacing the current ride with one having automatic transmission.

----------
"The stock market isn't bullish, it's bull$hit." -- Alan King
Bagbalm 6k posts, incept 2009-03-19
2015-05-11 13:11:23

If you are run over and killed by a robotic truck, then depending on your state law, you will be facing the legal resources of a large corporation to get any justice. You can figure their automatic response will be to stonewall and obstruct every claim. They are already paying the lawyers. Might as well get some use out of them.
Tickerguy 200k posts, incept 2007-06-26
2015-05-11 13:13:09

I don't see how that's any different than what goes on now. If the person (in the truck) that runs you over today, you can sue them all you want but odds are they're insured, and that's one of those big corporations with lots of lawyers (who will and do stonewall and obstruct.)

The only way that's not the case is if the person in question has nothing, in which case suing them is a waste of time.

----------
"Anyone wearing a mask will be presumed to be intending armed robbery and immediately shot in the face. Govern yourself accordingly."
Mortgageguymn 2k posts, incept 2009-03-09
2015-05-11 14:50:56

For a robot car to work for me, it'd also have to be able to go through the drive-thru at White Castle, order me up 4 sliders, hand them to me in the back seat and wake my ass up.
Chaparral 3k posts, incept 2007-09-11
2015-05-11 16:35:43

My dad always used to say "make people get a pilots license and land a small plane first before they graduate to automobiles". If im feeling less than charitable id add "and make them do a carrier landing in Beaufort 8 seas" in order to further assist natural selection. This technology is going to result in even dumber drivers. I drew the line at stability trac management for myself. Back up cameras are nice but only when going in straight and even then my brain doesnt feel comfortable if the neck muscles don't turn the head so the eyes can confirm.

If i want to fall asleep on a long drive and veer onto the shoulder i'll drive a modern car. If i want to stay awake and alert and actually enjoy the ride, ill drive a 1970s to 1980s sports car.

At any rate, there are some days i just want to say "fuck this technology".

Quietlurker 2 posts, incept 2015-04-03
2015-05-11 18:47:09

@Vernonb

"Now imagine how easy this commercial vehicle could become a terrorist target either by actions on the road or through control of its software! Safe my ass."

I had related thoughts but less terrorist, more mundane criminal stuff. Putting aside questions about the competence of robot drivers, I find myself contemplating another potential scenario which might make the introduction of driverless vehicles quite interesting:

- Long distance freight organisations are attracted to the idea of cutting out the cost of paying drivers, especially for long haul trips that don't involve congested traffic routes.

- Criminals start to look at these driverless trucks and wonder what they are carrying.

- You can see where this is going ...

If I was minded to rob a freight truck, I'd much rather hit a robot than risk a confrontation with a real driver. Incidentally, on the same day I read this Ticker post, I stumbled upon this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsb....
Jackl 3k posts, incept 2008-01-17
2015-05-11 23:54:01

Quote:
You can also bet it will further depress wages in this country for truck drivers.


Trucking as a career is on it's way out. Right now automated driving doesn't really "work". It's clunky and buggy and not ready for 100% world conditions...but one day it will be. Eventually recognition and response time will be perfect with backup systems upon backup systems. By 2030 I don't even think human trucking will be a thing except in severe conditions(Icetruckers)


Quote:
If I was minded to rob a freight truck, I'd much rather hit a robot than risk a confrontation with a real driver.


Keep in mind once this transition really gets going traffic incidents are going to plummet. Highway patrol won't have much to do but protect the shipping routes from freight pirates.
Pitz 929 posts, incept 2010-04-08
2015-05-12 07:51:52

I believe the technology is being greatly exaggerated in its nature, and of its maturity. Simply to pump the stocks of a particular few vendors, namely a large-cap tech company, that otherwise have relatively poor fortunes.

For starters, the "self-driving" cars haven't even begun to incorporate proper synthetic aperture radar. They have never been demonstrated in anything but pristine weather conditions, on pre-programmed courses. No public testing has demonstrated performance with any degradation, whether partial or full, of sensors. GPS, which appears to be one of the main methods of guidance, is, itself, subject to the significant likelihood of (relatively easy) jamming or even natural unavailability for which few known countermeasures are available.

I suspect once everything is said and done, the tech stock/advertising bubble liquidated, that this 'self-driving' technology will only be of interest to mining companies able to make use of such on their closed courses in open pit mining.

Only investment in this technology worthwhile, IMHO, is on improving the HMI between the car and its operator. Think sidesticks instead of old fashioned steering wheels. Night vision systems. Etc. A lot of work just to get even close to the position of being able to roll out the rest of the technology package. When some big-name tech firm rolls out this junk on a Prius, with some silly spinning radar dish, you know its something that's mostly been concocted in the PR department simply to push hype around the firm's stock.
Beechdriver 1k posts, incept 2007-10-17
2015-05-12 07:51:58

There is a potential benefit - old people. It would allow them to stay at home longer rather than in assisted living since they would be able to get out and run errands without being a danger on the road.
Vernonb 3k posts, incept 2009-06-03
2015-05-12 09:59:40

@ Beechdriver
Quote:
There is a potential benefit - old people. It would allow them to stay at home longer rather than in assisted living since they would be able to get out and run errands without being a danger on the road.

Or keep them home....

@quietlurker

Looking at the Google accidents. In city driving that is up close and personal we can often see the face of the driver. Depending on how astute one is at reading people this can go a long way in PREVENTING an accident.

When you take the human element out of the situation and are dealing with a machine a level of interaction is lost. A machine does NOT currently have the predictive capability of reading facial expressions like a human being. Nor can a machine provide a human being with such information in another vehicle.

Driving SAFELY is not all logic and routine rules - Google seems to have forgotten that. Machines that drive currently are better on their own dedicated highways where they can sense each other and use their control 'logic' to its maximum.


----------
"Mass intelligence does not mean intelligent masses."
Ckaminski 7k posts, incept 2011-04-08
2015-05-12 10:09:39

Quote:
Depending on how astute one is at reading people


Kids don't seem to understand this at all. Nearly creamed a few who were going to walk in front of me at the school today. Never even paused at the end of the sidewalk.

Always make eye contact with the driver before jumping out in front of his death-mobile.
Bagbalm 6k posts, incept 2009-03-19
2015-05-12 13:51:44

I wonder with a system like this how often police would shut down the system and lock everybody in place any time there is a bank robbery or in a Boston Marathon situation? Just shut everything down for a couple miles each way when the bank alarm goes off. Seems like a tempting convenience. Even worse than a home shelter in place lock down. Stay in your car or we'll assume you are one of the fleeing felons citizen...
Jackl 3k posts, incept 2008-01-17
2015-05-12 16:51:06

Quote:
Seems like a tempting convenience.


For the networked functions yea. But ultimately cars will have layered guidance for backup. Both local and networked. They would have to make a closed off kill switch to bring all traffic to a halt.

And remember even if self-driving cars are perfected by 2020(optimistic IMO); I can't imagine manual cars disappearing until after 2040. If ever.
Flaps10 7k posts, incept 2008-10-17
2015-05-12 23:49:39

Quote:
Always make eye contact with the driver before jumping out in front of his death-mobile. [/a]

As a motorcycle rider I can assure you that eye contact makes no difference at all
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Page 1 of 2  First12Last