Do you really think the companies building autonomous cars haven't thought about all these things? They may not have solved them yet (If they had, we've probably see their products on the road) but I'm sure it's in progress.
https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-hig...
Are there seriously cars on the road with complete fly-by-wire brakes which have no pure mechanical backup? That's horrifying. How did we go from dual redundant hydraulic systems that work (if in a reduced capacity) even when the ignition is off, to something at the mercy of some code that can be bamboozled over 3G?
It's more that if an autonomous car with no human stalls, due to a traffic light that's stopped working, or an oddly shaped plastic bag in the road, it's stuck, and would cause a traffic jam. Not sure how to resolve such a scenario, can't rely on someone remotely taking control, as mobile data doesn't have 100% coverage, so a human who is allowed access to the car would somehow need to get thorough the traffic jam to move the vehicle on. Can't think of an efficient way to resolve this situation.
I mean the other day on my daily commute there were two cars right in the middle of a freeway, one attempting to jump start the other and they were at it for a while. This is not shockingly new ground.
I can guarantee you that on a one to one driving skills shootout between you and the software you will loose 98% of the time.
Forget it, driver-less s cars will be the norm in the future. You won't be able to afford the insurance associated with a meat-driven car.
If we're crediting the car with being able to handle merging into a crowded multi-lane highway and dealing with idiot human drivers who don't indicate or hold lane position very well, it seems a bit odd to arbitrarily presume that it won't be able to identify non-hazards like said tumbleweed.
In any case, I'm not talking about whether it "should be allowed to drive", I'm talking about the level of capability an autonomous car would have to reach in order to become a viable product.
Hell yes I will still be using a "non-autonomous transport appliance" in ten years - it's called a "motorcycle" :) - and I don't want your high-tech self-driving future if it has no room for that.
People will continue to spend stupid amounts of money on hobbies. I'm not going not hand in the keys to my Landcruiser or my CRF250. But I don't leave those parked at the train station as a rule either.
That remark was separate from and unrelated to the actual point I've been trying to make: there is a very significant gulf between the notion of a "self-driving car" as a form of automation built into a vehicle which is still under the control and responsibility of a human driver, and the notion of a "self-driving car" which is a fully autonomous robot built in the shape of a car, that must be capable of doing something reasonable in all situations without depending on a human. The latter is a much harder problem than the former, and we don't yet know whether it can be solved in a way that yields a practical, profitable transportation system of the sort many people like to fantasize about when they discuss (for example) Google's autonomous vehicle program.
It is very clear that autopilot will be a successful feature and we can reasonably expect continued improvement in human-driver-assist technologies for years to come.
But people keep on handwaving past the very important gap between "automation which assists a human operator" and "autonomous vehicle which gets around on its own", as though doing well at the first problem necessarily makes the achievement of the second problem inevitable.
Driver assist technologies make all kinds of sense but they do not fundamentally change the nature of our transportation systems. They just make it easier to do a better job as a human driver.
Getting to the point where most wheeled vehicles are self-piloted autonomous robots with no human driver interaction...? I still think that's a really hard problem.
Sales. That's what makes a viable product. One that will sell. Despite elsewhere in this comment chain you saying "I'm talking about product viability not technical" I can't help but think that your response to me was about technical viability.
People are already willing to buy and trust their cars to drive for them right now, when they're specifically being told "don't trust it to drive for you". The second it's legal to advertise "let it drive for you!" autonomous cars will sell regardless of their ability to perform well in unregular circumstances.
But people keep talking about "self-driving car" as though it is going to be a robot capable of running errands on its own, with no human driver and not even necessarily any human passenger. The question is still open: can this be done well enough, enough of the time, solving a valuable enough class of problems, that producing such car-shaped robots will actually become a significant industry? Furthermore, will the problems solved by such hypothetical car-shaped robots be significant and widespread enough to justify the hype currently being lavished on them?
Personally I'm of the opinion that because we've been making tools for 2.5 million years and don't seem any happier than the average animal, the very concept of a new tool making all that much of a difference is absurd.
Does it drive better than me driving while being supervised continuously by a computer? I still make the important decisions, and my mistakes are pointed out by the computer.
The competition for self driving cars are not humans, but humans being adviced by driver assistance programmes
If google actually starts selling a self-driving car and doesn't give any information about whether it can deal with a policeman-controlled intersection, then you can be concerned. Until then, implying their self-driving car programs haven't considered the basic problems that any uninformed commenter on the internet can think up is not incredibly helpful.
For example getting out of the way of emergency vehicles on a blocked road. It will ask you what to do and if you tell it to drive up the pavement or into a bus lane or cross to the wrong side of the road -- the car will just do it.
I do wonder about all the non-verbal human-to-human communication. But a friendly baxter type screen with eyes that move (and messages that scroll across) would solve that.
We have to remember that these cars are all feeding unusual situations back to the google BRAIN that is learning. It'll watch us react to an emergency and learn. It'll see that 20 or 30 times a day and generalise a response.
ED: Not hitting kids is manditory, not blocking traffic is mandatory, parking in every random stop is optional as long as their are safe places it can drive to.
Basically, you don't need a perfect solution in every case, just a safe solution in every case. A self driving car that get's to a gas station is a good enough step 1 even if you have some human attendants there to fill up. Sure, it might add $2 bucks per fill up that's still cheaper than highway driving.
PS: Self driving car, only works in NYC is also useful.
The fully-autonomous route runs head-first into the inevitable, messy problems with software: security, maintenance, feature creep, complexity, unreliable networks etc. In theory, humans could nail all of these in car software. In practice, it's highly unlikely. The software industry can't even get basic security for IoT devices right.
The human-in-the-loop route runs directly into the only problem more daunting than reliable software: human nature. Human overrides for self-driving cars that need to be activated in a timely manner will not work. The drivers won't be paying enough attention to react in sufficient time. Note that overrides add even more complexity to an already fantastically complex system.
Say an always on self driving car, but it doesn't drive. Human has to drive, and the computer can correct any obvious mistakes the human does. Keep a really high liability for the car manufacturer though