1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Self driving vehicles

Discussion in 'General Technology Discussions' started by classic33, 27 Oct 2015.

  1. classic33

    classic33 Über Geek

    Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway

    "I WAS DRIVING 70 mph on the edge of downtown St. Louis when the exploit began to take hold.

    Though I hadn’t touched the dashboard, the vents in the Jeep Cherokee started blasting cold air at the maximum setting, chilling the sweat on my back through the in-seat climate control system. Next the radio switched to the local hip hop station and began blaring Skee-lo at full volume. I spun the control knob left and hit the power button, to no avail. Then the windshield wipers turned on, and wiper fluid blurred the glass.

    As I tried to cope with all this, a picture of the two hackers performing these stunts appeared on the car’s digital display: Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek, wearing their trademark track suits. A nice touch, I thought."

    "As the two hackers remotely toyed with the air-conditioning, radio, and windshield wipers, I mentally congratulated myself on my courage under pressure. That’s when they cut the transmission.

    Immediately my accelerator stopped working. As I frantically pressed the pedal and watched the RPMs climb, the Jeep lost half its speed, then slowed to a crawl. This occurred just as I reached a long overpass, with no shoulder to offer an escape. The experiment had ceased to be fun.

    At that point, the interstate began to slope upward, so the Jeep lost more momentum and barely crept forward. Cars lined up behind my bumper before passing me, honking. I could see an 18-wheeler approaching in my rearview mirror. I hoped its driver saw me, too, and could tell I was paralyzed on the highway."

    http://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/



    And approved by congress as being ok
    Library of Congress Says It’s OK to Hack Your Car
    "Car hackers rejoice: today the Library of Congress approved copyright law exemptions that will allow you to modify the software on your car for purposes of security research, maintenance, or repair. The catch is that the exemptions don’t take effect for another year."
    http://www.wired.com/2015/10/library-of-congress-says-its-ok-to-hack-your-car/
     
  2. welsh dragon

    welsh dragon Active Geek

    Another reason for not having a driverless car. I can't see the point. If you want one of those, you may as well get a taxi or a bus. No way would I ever drive one of those. I wouldn't trust them.
     
    classic33 likes this.
  3. amusicsite

    amusicsite dn ʎɐʍ sᴉɥ┴ Staff Member

    Location:
    UK
    Heck they only have to be better than humans...
     
  4. 0-markymark-0

    0-markymark-0 Senior Geek

    Here's the tipping point. When my daughter reaches 18 we can either pay the exorbitant insurance and tuition fees and hope she's as sensible as we teacher to be. Else buy her a driverless car which would be massively cheaper without all the worry she'll be young and do something stupid.
     
  5. amusicsite

    amusicsite dn ʎɐʍ sᴉɥ┴ Staff Member

    Location:
    UK
    Because a bus or taxi will never go wrong? If you look at it logically then it only has to be safer than getting in a taxi. After all there are often taxi drivers who have crashes, have heart attacks at the wheel or just go psycho. It's not like it's 100% safe to get into a taxi but it's safe enough for us to take the risk. Self driving cars are the same. Yes, at the moment there are problems like them getting hacked and having problems which is why the law needs to catch up and install safe guards on these new cars. Just like seatbelts, air-bags and the like were introduced to make cars safer then there will be new requirements on self drive cars to make them safer.
     
  6. Just look at that bin lorry driver in Scotland! Crashes a bus, covers it up, gets a job driving bin lorry. Crashes that, kills several people, gets away with a ban. Ignores the ban and gets caught driving again ... I would rather have a computer driving than idiots like him!
     
    0-markymark-0 and andyfraser like this.
  7. classic33

    classic33 Über Geek

    However, in the US of A, hackers have been given the green light to start next year. From then it'll be perfectly legal, to hack into a cars system.
    This what they've made known so far. And it had a human driver, who was locked out of controlling the vehicle.
     
  8. welsh dragon

    welsh dragon Active Geek

    Im not saying people or some people are any better than a driverless car, and to be honest that isn't the issue here. Its purely as classic has said that people may be able to hack into the system.

    we can argue till doomsday about whether driverless cars are better than cars where people are In control and still wont be able to come to any agreement.

    Technology is a wonderful thing until it doesnt work for whatever reason, and technology isn't necessarily the answer to everything.

    Personally, I dont like driverless cars and wouldn't have one. Just a personal opinion.
     
  9. amusicsite

    amusicsite dn ʎɐʍ sᴉɥ┴ Staff Member

    Location:
    UK
    Every time you find a bug in a system then you have the opportunity to permanently fix that bug. Most hack attacks are exploiting a bug... What we have now is poorly thought out systems, still with many issues to debug.

    But like all systems, each new generation will be more secure and perform better. I think the question is when will self driving car systems become reliable and secure enough for us to trust them. I think we are not there quite yet but not far off and getting there fast.
     
  10. welsh dragon

    welsh dragon Active Geek

    I can understand what everyone is saying, but having more and more sophisticated cars, where manufacturers say are safer than having a driver at the wheel will surely be like a red rag to a bull for hackers.

    After cars, will lorries have these things fitted? And say a tankers system is hacked. The carnage if something goes wrong or its hacked could be horrendous. Technology can go wrong as well. Just look at sat navs that send lorries down lanes that are not made for them. Id like them to work and work well but I do have reservations.

    I'll stick to ordinary cars I think. :okay:
     
    classic33 likes this.
  11. amusicsite

    amusicsite dn ʎɐʍ sᴉɥ┴ Staff Member

    Location:
    UK
    Well to start with I don't think your reaction is unreasonable at the moment. Indeed the self drive cars around at the moment are really beta models.

    That said I really do think that sometime in the future you will not be able to buy a car which you can drive yourself. They just need to get the hardware and software right first. I think the quickest way to get there would be some sort of global standard for self drive cars. Something like the HTML standard. Where it's not something like a global operating system that all cars must run but more a case of a set of rules that you need to comply with to make a good self drive car. I think top of that list would be to not allow anyone who may gain access to the car's network connection to have any sort of control over the car that could endanger the driver or people outside the car. It worked quite well for HTML, you started with rapid development with the first real attempt at a standard HTML 2 was released in 95 followed quickly by version 3 a few years later with additions that people felt were missing from version 2 and dropping some of the things the big boys of the browsers had tried to shoehorn into the standards. Then over the next couple of years version 4 was developed that was a fairly usable set of tools. The next version took a lot longer as we lived with version 4 for a while, learnt exactly what we wanted from the standard. With plenty of time to debate ways to implement all you could need and fine tune how it works. The good ideas from the version 5 proposal were implemented as soon as they gained popularity even before the standard was fully agreed, giving real world feedback on how they perform. The resultant HTML 5 is a really good standard that should last decades or longer and browsers are judged in how well the comply with the standards.

    I think the same thing could work really well for cars where you are judged by how well the car complies to a good internationally recognised standard which helps protect the driver and keep the car driving safely. Obviously this framework does not exist yet so would I still want one of the current self drive cars... Well no. Though if the question is would you never want a self drive car because of incidents like this then the answer would still be no.

    The car market is a cut thought market, if your car is deemed unsafe your sales will drop very quickly. So the companies that get it wrong now could well loose billions when the systems mature as they will have a reputation of not getting it right. It's probably a case of the market will correct itself. One day someone will crack how to make a near perfect system and from that day forward all competition will have to be as good or better than that or people will not buy their cars. As to how long it will take to get there who knows.
     
  12. Ooops - one of the Google cars hit a bus! :giggle:
     
  13. amusicsite

    amusicsite dn ʎɐʍ sᴉɥ┴ Staff Member

    Location:
    UK
    It wrongly assumed the diver of the bus was reasonable, maybe the AI needs to take a few trips on the bus.... Still not a major incident that causes injury or death. I could live with a few minor bangs if you eradicated all the people who go into hospital every day from car crashes.

    They have now clocked up over a million hours of driving and starting to prove they will work one day. I'd still like to see more cooperation and some sort of HTLM type standards for what a self drive car can and should not be able to do. The one and only right way seems a better option than the free market competition.
     
  14. amusicsite

    amusicsite dn ʎɐʍ sᴉɥ┴ Staff Member

    Location:
    UK
  15. amusicsite

    amusicsite dn ʎɐʍ sᴉɥ┴ Staff Member

    Location:
    UK
  16. amusicsite

    amusicsite dn ʎɐʍ sᴉɥ┴ Staff Member

    Location:
    UK
    classic33 likes this.
  17. classic33

    classic33 Über Geek

  18. classic33

    classic33 Über Geek

    A vehicle being driven entirely by software, and carrying one passenger, on their way home from work. Having rounded a corner, whilst travelling uphill, comes across two young cyclist approaching, having passed a petrol tanker. Large warehouse opposite the petrol tanker. Driver of the tanker has seen them, decided to wait until they were passed before moving off. Cyclist are now on the wrong side of the road, owing to passing the tanker. The driverless car has detected the two cyclists approaching, on the wrong side of the road.

    In attempting to avoid the two cyclists, it can drive into the warehouse or the tanker, which will kill the occupant of the car. If it stops, the two cyclists will hit it and be killed, but the occupant of the car will be saved.

    What should the car do?

    Impossible. improbable? Just replace the building with a sheer drop and relocate to South Africa. All companies making driverless cars are now giving it serious consideration.
     
  19. amusicsite

    amusicsite dn ʎɐʍ sᴉɥ┴ Staff Member

    Location:
    UK
    The same as any human should do, break as hard as safely possible...

    Of course it's an illogical problem though. If the car was programmed correctly it would not be travelling to fast to stop. The golden rule, most humans ignore, is you should only be travelling at a speed where it's safe to stop. So if you were heading to a blind corner then you would be going slow enough to stop.

    That said, it's not about 0 casualties. People will still die... But ffs, in the time it's taken you to read this at least one person has died by the hands of a human driver and many more injured.

    If you could just half the number of casualties the money you would save in emergency services, hospital treatment and medications would be huge. If you could get to a state of 100% self drive cars you would not need...

    Any traffic cops.
    Parking bays.
    As many doctors, ambulance drivers and the like.
    Traffic signs.
    Street lights, at least on roads with no pedestrians.

    And probably a huge number of other things. In fact, once we get it right the weight of evidence for driverless cars well probably mean it will become mandatory for cars to drive themselves.
     
  20. classic33

    classic33 Über Geek

    This is the one the manufacturers are looking at. And trying to get the software to decide!