Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Toyota Wants Cars to React to the Unexpected, and Then Explain Themselves

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 48 posts

Re: Toyota Wants Cars to React to the Unexpected, and Then Explain Themselves

#31

Post by abakker »

mikestew wrote: post #19
abakker wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it is rare, but this situation can arise through no error of the car's controls. Consider the failure of the car's master cylinder. If your Brakes don't work, then this might be the exact choice you make. I don't want to sound overly cynical, but I somehow doubt that self-driving cars are going to suddenly make cars more reliable. Mechanical failure are not a common cause of crashes - http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.…

Consider the failure of the car's master cylinder. I realize it's just one example to make a point, but automotive master cylinders don't completely fail all at once since about fifty years ago. What causes a master cylinder to fail is a failure of the seals. But because modern master cylinders have "dual channels" (for lack of a better description), half of it might fail, but it's so unlikely for both sides to fail…

You are quite correct. This was a poor example. A better example would be a failure of a brake hose or brake line, where the system loses pressure quickly. (I had a 99 suburban do this recently. It was quite an adventure)

Your examples of tire/ball joint failure is of course much better.

Re: Toyota Wants Cars to React to the Unexpected, and Then Explain Themselves

#32

Post by Qworg »

zyxley wrote: post #8
ceejayoz wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think that self-driving cars should act in the self interest of the owners. To what extent? At some point, we're going to have to decide as a society what call a self-driving car has to make in situations like "I can run down this family in the cross-walk or get rear-ended by that oncoming vehicle".

I'd rather see a focus on smarter and faster braking then on solving contrived moral dilemmas.

There are physical limits on how fast or smart you can make braking.

We make thousands of unconscious decisions while driving - many of them moral/ambiguous. "Should I pass this car in the intersection even though it is breaking the law?" "Can I squeeze past this bicyclist even though it forces them towards the curb?"

The core of most of these arguments assume a fully autonomous world - and it just won't work like that.

Re: Toyota Wants Cars to React to the Unexpected, and Then Explain Themselves

#33

Post by mikeash »

mikestew wrote: post #19
abakker wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it is rare, but this situation can arise through no error of the car's controls. Consider the failure of the car's master cylinder. If your Brakes don't work, then this might be the exact choice you make. I don't want to sound overly cynical, but I somehow doubt that self-driving cars are going to suddenly make cars more reliable. Mechanical failure are not a common cause of crashes - http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.…

Consider the failure of the car's master cylinder. I realize it's just one example to make a point, but automotive master cylinders don't completely fail all at once since about fifty years ago. What causes a master cylinder to fail is a failure of the seals. But because modern master cylinders have "dual channels" (for lack of a better description), half of it might fail, but it's so unlikely for both sides to fail…

I believe the only steer-by-wire model on the roads right now is some Infiniti. Even that has a clutch which engages the steering mechanically if the car loses power.

Electric cars potentially have additional braking redundancy. Even if the brakes failed entirely, they could drive the motor in reverse to stop the car. I don't think any of them actually do this, since total brake failure doesn't happen very often, but they could.

You pretty much have to trust the ECU. A failing ECU could just punch you in the face with the airbag and floor the accelerator. Fortunately, they seem to be pretty reliable.

Re: Toyota Wants Cars to React to the Unexpected, and Then Explain Themselves

#34

Post by [deleted] »

Qworg wrote: post #30
intopieces wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When autonomous vehicles encounter an obstacle, they brake. Moreover, why in this problem, that appears in absolutely every thread about self-driving cars, is there a family in a crosswalk with no awareness whatsoever of a speeding vehicle? Are they deaf and blind without assistance? This is not a joke. The car will be aware of the presence of the crosswalk. It will slow long before arriving at it. So the deaf and bl…

They sometimes break [sic]. I think your position requires a fully autonomous world. Instead, imagine that the car behind you continues to barrel forward instead of slowing itself. Your autonomous vehicle then has a decision to make.

[deleted]

Re: Toyota Wants Cars to React to the Unexpected, and Then Explain Themselves

#35

Post by OopsCriticality »

mikestew wrote: post #19
abakker wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it is rare, but this situation can arise through no error of the car's controls. Consider the failure of the car's master cylinder. If your Brakes don't work, then this might be the exact choice you make. I don't want to sound overly cynical, but I somehow doubt that self-driving cars are going to suddenly make cars more reliable. Mechanical failure are not a common cause of crashes - http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.…

Consider the failure of the car's master cylinder. I realize it's just one example to make a point, but automotive master cylinders don't completely fail all at once since about fifty years ago. What causes a master cylinder to fail is a failure of the seals. But because modern master cylinders have "dual channels" (for lack of a better description), half of it might fail, but it's so unlikely for both sides to fail…

> By that I use our Nissan Leaf as an example. There is no direct mechanical linkage on any part of the car that makes it stop, go, or steer. Parking brake is electrically actuated. Brakes are run on a wire. "Gas" pedal is wire. I'm pretty sure the steering is drive-by-wire, but I'd have to go back and look it up to make the claim with confidence. I'm sure there are redundancies, but I'm picturing an ECU letting its smoke out and then you might as well just let go of the wheel and pray to your preferred deity.

This is not completely correct: your Leaf does have a purely electronic throttle and the e-brake is actuated by a solenoid, but no production passenger car presently uses brake-by-wire, and the first (and presently only) production passenger car with drive-by-wire is the Infiniti Q50. While your Leaf does have additional electronic braking means to make the regenerative system work, if the ECU lost its magic smoke the service brakes would still work. As to drive-by-wire (perhaps you're confused with electronic assist?), on the Q50 at least there is a physical linkage to the steering in case of electronic failure.

Re: Toyota Wants Cars to React to the Unexpected, and Then Explain Themselves

#36

Post by intopieces »

Qworg wrote: post #30
intopieces wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When autonomous vehicles encounter an obstacle, they brake. Moreover, why in this problem, that appears in absolutely every thread about self-driving cars, is there a family in a crosswalk with no awareness whatsoever of a speeding vehicle? Are they deaf and blind without assistance? This is not a joke. The car will be aware of the presence of the crosswalk. It will slow long before arriving at it. So the deaf and bl…

They sometimes break [sic]. I think your position requires a fully autonomous world. Instead, imagine that the car behind you continues to barrel forward instead of slowing itself. Your autonomous vehicle then has a decision to make.

What is the decision? The car will follow exactly the rules of the road. If the car behind it continues to barrel forward, that driver did not allow for adequate stopping distance. In this scenario, that driver is at fault.

Of course that doesn't say anything for the safety of the child, but just as we don't expect humans to be able to account for every single scenario, neither can we require a computer to do so.

For every one of these supposed ethical dilemmas, replace the computer with the most pedantic driver imaginable: this person has literally memorized the driver's manual. Ask that person how they would respond in that situation. That is how the computer would respond. There are no choices to be made: the choices have already been made by the legislators who enacted the driving laws.

I imagine the first set of self-driving cars will require a huge bumper sticker (like the ones they put on learner cars: "STUDENT DRIVER") that indicates this car will not exceed the speed limit and will not deviate from the rules. Everyone else can adapt accordingly.

Re: Toyota Wants Cars to React to the Unexpected, and Then Explain Themselves

#37

Post by pc86 »

protomyth wrote: post #26
ryanmarsh wrote: post #14

Customers Want Cars to Not Kill Them FTFY

Pedestrians on the sidewalk want the car not run them over to avoid killing the Customer.

Fair point, but if the alternative is hitting something that has an as high or higher likelihood of killing the occupants, I'm not sure what the alternative is (don't say "avoid the situation in the first place," that's obvious).

Nobody's going to buy an automated vehicle that might intentionally kill them to save a pedestrian.

Re: Toyota Wants Cars to React to the Unexpected, and Then Explain Themselves

#38

Post by Qworg »

intopieces wrote: post #36
Qworg wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They sometimes break [sic]. I think your position requires a fully autonomous world. Instead, imagine that the car behind you continues to barrel forward instead of slowing itself. Your autonomous vehicle then has a decision to make.

What is the decision? The car will follow exactly the rules of the road. If the car behind it continues to barrel forward, that driver did not allow for adequate stopping distance. In this scenario, that driver is at fault. Of course that doesn't say anything for the safety of the child, but just as we don't expect humans to be able to account for every single scenario, neither can we require a computer to do so. For…

There's an implicit decision there - choosing between you (the passenger in the autonomous vehicle) and the people on the street. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Fault isn't what's at stake here.

You actually DO require the computer to account for every single scenario - since we DO require humans to do so. Nobody says "Oh, it's okay that they > - nobody expected that they'd be able to handle it!"

Legislators with driving laws aren't how people interact with roadways, except in a basic sense of a framework.

I do agree with the self identification of autonomous vehicles, especially if they replace LIDAR. However, there are already highway capable autonomous systems that are driving around right now (Teslas are an example). There's just no test case yet.

Re: Toyota Wants Cars to React to the Unexpected, and Then Explain Themselves

#39

Post by intopieces »

Qworg wrote: post #38
intopieces wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the decision? The car will follow exactly the rules of the road. If the car behind it continues to barrel forward, that driver did not allow for adequate stopping distance. In this scenario, that driver is at fault. Of course that doesn't say anything for the safety of the child, but just as we don't expect humans to be able to account for every single scenario, neither can we require a computer to do so. For…

There's an implicit decision there - choosing between you (the passenger in the autonomous vehicle) and the people on the street. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Fault isn't what's at stake here. You actually DO require the computer to account for every single scenario - since we DO require humans to do so. Nobody says "Oh, it's okay that they > - nobody expected that they'd be able to handle it!" Legislator…

>There's an implicit decision there - choosing between you (the passenger in the autonomous vehicle) and the people on the street.

Does the law ever require a person to break the law? That is the decision you've proposed the computer make. This is a serious question, not a pithy comment. Any action outside of immeditately stopping breaks the law: swerving into another lane involves changing lanes without signaling or entering into oncoming traffic. Swerving into the sidewalk breaks the law as well.

I contend that we do very often say "it is unfortunate this situation but you complied with your instincts as they have been developed within the confines of traffic safety law."

I also contend that fault is at stake and only fault can be considered at stake. We do not expect people to correct other humans' mistakes by breaking the law, correct? So why do we expect a computer to correct for all human's mistakes? There will certainly be tragedies involving autonomous vehicles. But to count that as a mark against the technology is holding it up to a standard we have never applied to any other technology.

The computer merely acts in accordance with traffic laws. That there are two possible outcomes (passenger injury and pedestrian injury) does not imply that a choice has been made. In fact, those are not the only two outcomes, we've merely whittled it down to those for the sake of discussion.

Re: Toyota Wants Cars to React to the Unexpected, and Then Explain Themselves

#40

Post by mikestew »

OopsCriticality wrote: post #35
mikestew wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider the failure of the car's master cylinder. I realize it's just one example to make a point, but automotive master cylinders don't completely fail all at once since about fifty years ago. What causes a master cylinder to fail is a failure of the seals. But because modern master cylinders have "dual channels" (for lack of a better description), half of it might fail, but it's so unlikely for both sides to fail…

> By that I use our Nissan Leaf as an example. There is no direct mechanical linkage on any part of the car that makes it stop, go, or steer. Parking brake is electrically actuated. Brakes are run on a wire. "Gas" pedal is wire. I'm pretty sure the steering is drive-by-wire, but I'd have to go back and look it up to make the claim with confidence. I'm sure there are redundancies, but I'm picturing an ECU letting its…

This is not completely correct: your Leaf does have a purely electronic throttle and the e-brake is actuated by a solenoid, but no production passenger car presently uses brake-by-wire

Thanks for the correction. I ass-u-med (and actually do recall reading it somewhere, but just some dude on a Leaf forum probably) that because of all the computerized fiddling required to balance regen braking with mechanical braking, the brake pedal was just a fancy potentiometer.

As for steering, I went to garage between builds and looked: yup, there's a mechanical linkage in there. Shows how often I lift the hood on that thing. :-)

I'll leave my error-filled post as-is as an example of how being a pro mechanic 20 years ago doesn't mean you know everything about modern cars. :-P

Post reply on HN