Drone vehicles carrying people - Autonomous Aerial Vehicles

[Irene]

Passing all the People who are driving well to deal with One who isn't?

Cherry-picking. Pursuit policies have been drastically revised in recent years. Again, you'd have to be in the driver's seat of a squad to understand this.

We have a responsibility to enforce the law. If you don't obey it, within reason, we have a duty to act.

[Irene]

Clearly, over the last decade or two, cell phones have increased the number of distracted driving incidents, although Im not sure if deaths have increased.

Also, a lack of concern for fellow citizens while one is concealed behind an armored dickmobile, is an issue, whereas even the most meek person you meet out of their car, will be a total inconsiderate dickhead behind the wheel.

Civility, courtesy, and attentiveness have gone to the wind, for texting, self centered unsafe driving techniques, and a lack of vehicle inspections in many states, has left the daily commute as a frustrating, sometimes dangerous venture.

Do as I do, drive an RV at 55 in the right lane and finally see everything unfold in front of you in full view, it is like watching the worst(best) tragic comedy, sometimes I think autonomous vehicles are the only answer for certain drivers.

Perhaps legislation will allow for those who get DUI's, speeding, and aggressive driving charges, to have to ride in one of these drone cars for a year, to appreciate what they actually have when they drive themselves.

Cheers
Le

Distracted driving due to cell phones has increased dramatically. What has also increased accidents? Cameras and computer interfaces in and on newer cars.

As in some countries overseas, drunks should lose their licenses permanently after a certain number of arrests, perhaps two or three. Even that number makes me uncomfortable.

Two people I knew died in separate drunk driving accidents. They were innocent victims.

[ArMaP]

Please, tell Me WHY?  Would You remove ALL risk in life?

I think that removing the risks for people that didn't choose to face them is a step in the right direction.

You want to run risks, that's OK, as long as you don't force other people to run those same risks.

Is that YOUR idea of a perfect world?

I think it's a step in the right direction, but, obviously, one action doesn't make the world perfect.

[biggles]

I rode shotgun to my son over 10 years ago and when I turned to him he was texting while driving me.

Daughter did the same.  I hate when people play with their bloody phones while driving; they still do it. 

[spacemaverick]

Spent 20 years in law enforcement/corrections.  Our department has the laptops in the vehicles set up to not work while the vehicle is moving.  It keeps the officers attention on the road.  Most have a Bluetooth setup for their phones.  However, in a pursuit with 2 units involved the secondary unit calls in the street numbers while the primary unit maintains contact with the vehicle being pursued.  They do not pursue for traffic infractions unless the infraction caused injuries and then they engage our helicopter and put out a BOLO (Be On Look Out) for the vehicle.

Strict protocols are followed at least in our county.  We have had officers hurt from people running into them drunk.  There are new technologies coming out and even used in some departments to track or shut down vehicles that have committed a forcible felony.

[biggles]

Eventhough I could drive in the States; I wouldn't myself, I'd be worried about being pulled over.

"Can I see your licence mam" gulp.

[Littleenki]

Distracted driving due to cell phones has increased dramatically. What has also increased accidents? Cameras and computer interfaces in and on newer cars.

As in some countries overseas, drunks should lose their licenses permanently after a certain number of arrests, perhaps two or three. Even that number makes me uncomfortable.

Two people I knew died in separate drunk driving accidents. They were innocent victims.

Im in total agreement Irene, there is no excuse for endangering the lives of others in such a way, I dont have any use for people who drink and dont handle themselves, no sympathy at all when they do get caught and punished..Im not much for government stepping into many things, but since driving is a govt controlled privilege, it makes sense that they can revoke that driving privilege for such cases of anyone who makes the mistake even the first time, especially if they have had alcohol related infractions of other kinds, since it often shows a pattern of alcohol irresponsibility.

I too have seen half a dozen or so through my life gone by way of drunk driving, either themselves or others..and it never gets any easier when the solution is so clear.

My wife always jokes when we drive somewhere, the guy who hits me is going to wish he hadnt..drunk or not..seems the way folks drive these days, it is getting like Mad Max out there. You always hope in the back of your mind though, if someone does hit your car, you just make it out alive.

Be safe,
Le

[spacemaverick]

The question is:  Will Autonomous vehicles solve that problem of irresponsible driving?

[Ellirium113]

The question is:  Will Autonomous vehicles solve that problem of irresponsible driving?

No. Simple reason is some signs are not placed properly or so vague they are open to interpretation. The A.I. driver may stop at misplaced sign or if a sign is missing may not stop at all causing an accident. It may react unexpectedly when it encounters OTHER drivers not following road rules that may be in proximity to the vehicle. It can not anticipate an accident it can only react to what is happening.

[ArMaP]

No. Simple reason is some signs are not placed properly or so vague they are open to interpretation. The A.I. driver may stop at misplaced sign or if a sign is missing may not stop at all causing an accident. It may react unexpectedly when it encounters OTHER drivers not following road rules that may be in proximity to the vehicle. It can not anticipate an accident it can only react to what is happening.

They can anticipate an accident by analysing the available data.

An AI driver with enough data can see that there is any risk of an accident if it does something or if it doesn't  do something. For example, in the case of a missing stop sign in what looks like a road with priority over the others: the driving algorithm only needs to see if, even with priority, there's a risk of a collision with other cars that may not follow the rules (or what it thinks are the rules, as the stop sign is missing) to avoid the accident.

And it's no AI magic, it's the same thing a human driver can (and should) do, instead of relying only on part of the available information, if he relies on all the data available (it looks like he has priority, because of the missing stop sign, there's a car approaching at a speed that looks like it's not going to stop before reaching the junction, etc.) and acts accordingly, he can also avoid the collision.

As long as AI doesn't turn into a know it all like those drivers that think that accidents are always other people's fault, accidents resulting from irresponsible driving from AI drivers will not happen.

[biggles]

The key words to me in your post ArMap is "with enough data" it "can".

Tell me if I am wrong, but AI would be engineered by humans, humans make mistakes.

If there is code in AI to make them AI, then maybe some programmer could interfere with that to purposely kill someone.  Just thinking out loud. 

[ArMaP]

Tell me if I am wrong, but AI would be engineered by humans, humans make mistakes.

Yes, and that's why there are tests, and sometimes the test phase is longer than the development phase, and the tests are not done by the people that made the development, although those also make tests.

In the development phase the tests are designed by the developers to see if the code does what they want it to do, in the test phase the tests are designed by test engineers, to see if the code behaves as it should.

If there is code in AI to make them AI, then maybe some programmer could interfere with that to purposely kill someone.  Just thinking out loud. 

A programmer can interfere with the code, but it would be hard to make a change to purposely kill someone, they can only change things to behave in a different way.

I read once that all changes in the software used on the Space Shuttle were done somewhere (I don't remember if it was NASA or not), then they were tested by the same organisation for six months, after that they were tested by a different organisation for another six months and then they were installed on the Space Shuttle computers. In all the years the Space Shuttle flew only a minor error was detected after all those tests.

PS: I know, if we are talking about making shortcuts to make more money in less time I'm sure some shortcuts will be made and the probability of errors will be higher, it depends mostly on how things will be implemented and controlled.

[Ellirium113]

They can anticipate an accident by analysing the available data.

An AI driver with enough data can see that there is any risk of an accident if it does something or if it doesn't  do something. For example, in the case of a missing stop sign in what looks like a road with priority over the others: the driving algorithm only needs to see if, even with priority, there's a risk of a collision with other cars that may not follow the rules (or what it thinks are the rules, as the stop sign is missing) to avoid the accident.

And it's no AI magic, it's the same thing a human driver can (and should) do, instead of relying only on part of the available information, if he relies on all the data available (it looks like he has priority, because of the missing stop sign, there's a car approaching at a speed that looks like it's not going to stop before reaching the junction, etc.) and acts accordingly, he can also avoid the collision.

As long as AI doesn't turn into a know it all like those drivers that think that accidents are always other people's fault, accidents resulting from irresponsible driving from AI drivers will not happen.

AI can't be programmed to react to every situation unless it is programming itself through deep learning. Eventually it will have to make a choice to kill either the occupants of the car or people outside the car when an accident may become unavoidable. At some point AI will drive better than humans but you will never remove the potential for unexpected results arising from unexpected situations.

[Littleenki]

The OP says "aerial vehicles" so Id venture to say they would testbed this with aircraft, then apply what they learned to roadways..since the infrastructure to monitor and coordinate aircraft is in place already to some degree.

As for irresponsible drivers? there would likely be a separate lane for autonomous vehicles, and human drivers interacting with or using that lane would face hefty fines, so irresponsible drivers, although they might still every now and then affect an autonomous vehicle, would be less of an issue if you were in one of those drones,

A separate lane or segment of roadway for drones would likely be monitored heavily, and anyone breaking the rules regarding it would be quickly identified, and even if they werent pulled over, deputies could visit them at home and enforce the infraction right then and there, likely curbing future transgression for the most part.

I cant figure out, with all the tech in cars today, why every new car doesnt have ample camera and gps information for every trip stored and recorded for insurance, police, and personal use...for some reason, this has evaded us..good lobbying, or do they not want to move closer to a big brother state just yet? Who knows?

Cheers
Le

[Amaterasu]

Cherry-picking. Pursuit policies have been drastically revised in recent years. Again, you'd have to be in the driver's seat of a squad to understand this.

We have a responsibility to enforce the law. If you don't obey it, within reason, we have a duty to act.

Hardly "cherry-picking."  Just noting that while in pursuit of a single vehicle misbehaving, there are MANY vehicles being passed that are NOT misbehaving.  We have a responsibility to choose Ethical behavior.  And stopping One choosing unEthical behavior is an Ethical choice.  "laws" are irrelevant.