Rail-based Transit Discussion

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The concept is great in theory, but sounds a little too utopian to actually function as such.

Sure, you can remove human drivers, and assuming all systems continually work as they should, every vehicle could travel efficiently in harmony with one another with no need for traffic rules or controls.

But... that is a world where there are no humans or other animals in the mix. In the real world, you will have pedestrians wanting to cross the street, you will have children playing that might run out into the street, there will be domestic and wild animals that aren't aware of the amazing technology making all these vehicles work in harmony with one another.

And of course... cyclists, who are human controlled vehicles. Perhaps with the precision of self-driving vehicles, you can narrow the lanes and provide cyclists with separate roadways, but they still will have to cross paths at some point, and thus the self-driving system will still have to deal with unpredictable human 'drivers'.

Or, perhaps the cycling coalitions will insist that they share the roadways with the self driving vehicles, such as in the situation in Ottawa mentioned in this thread, where cyclists are encouraged to ride down the middle of the lane with motorized vehicles following. Nothing would cripple the efficiency of a self-driving vehicle system as much as that, but at least it would be safer for cyclists (as long as the sensors on every vehicle were functioning properly and calibrated correctly such that the vehicle "sees" the smaller cyclist in front of them).

How about motorcycles? Will motorcycles also be self-driving? If not, will people no longer be able to ride motorcycles on the road? That would not go over well... if you think that bicyclists are outspoken, you haven't heard anything till you deal with the motorcycle crowd - those guys (and gals) are very defensive of their right to ride...

Then you still have to deal with human nature. A friend brought up an interesting point in this past week - once self-driving cars are on the road, they will have to be tuned to avoid collisions at all costs, which means if a pedestrian steps out in front of a vehicle, it will be programmed to avoid hitting that pedestrian. Once people learn that, crosswalks probably won't be used as much, since people will start to understand that they can cross anywhere they want and the vehicles will stop for them. What will that do to the utopian traffic flow? Not to mention how the computer will be programmed for events where the car will have to choose whether to hit a pedestrian or injure its passengers by hitting something else - sounds like a legal nightmare to me. It's currently easy, you just blame the human driver for whatever happens, but once large corporations are involved it will be much more complicated.

Yep, lots of stuff to work out before we have a functional autonomous vehicle system working in our society. IMHO.

I think there are things to work out but not as many as naysayers make it seem. When it comes to new things, people tend to set higher standards of perfection in order to be considered feasible, when reality they just have to reach the point of being measurably better than the status quo in the net aggregate. That means there can still be problems and drawbacks that we accept if we accept problems of equal or greater magnitude currently. For example, children and animals running out into the road unexpectedly are problems faced by human drivers already and probably not handled any better. And cyclists not feeling safe and wanting infrastructure to separate them from traffic is already an issue. As a cyclist myself, having all the cars behave in a predictable, neutral manner (not excessively polite or aggressive), not pass you only to turn right and cut you off, or not be paying attention and not see you sounds like an improvement. Yes there would be times when the automated cars wouldn't see you but they would be less prone to distraction, emotion, or fatigue than drivers currently.

I do agree that there are legislative issues that need to catch up but that's the case with all new technologies. On one hand corporations might resist liability more than human drivers, but there would also be more reliable camera and sensor data on board making determining the cause of accidents easier. And i don't see a reason why there couldn't simply be no-fault insurance covering everything. There are some jurisdictions that are already "no fault" as is. And pedestrians would soon learn that automated cars are just "better" drivers rather than infallible, so as soon as someone was killed taking careless risks or prosecuted with the help of the onboard cameras, precedence would be set.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Yes, I do worry if the intent is to make everything efficient at the expense of our personal freedoms. I can't see it playing out that way, at least for now. But maybe future generations might be more compliant? I've seen hints of this showing up lately, but hope I'm wrong.

Yea that's my big concern as well. I can't say I feel comfortable having the detail of every trip tracked and recorded or more importantly for it to be recorded before it was even completed. Although a lot of people already accept this to an extent with the location services and navigation assistance on their smart phones and GPS devices activated.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

When it comes to new things, people tend to set higher standards of perfection in order to be considered feasible, when reality they just have to reach the point of being measurably better than the status quo in the net aggregate.

There are about 2,000 traffic-related fatalities in Canada per year. If you imagine very conservatively that automated systems become 10% safer, that is equivalent to saving 200 lives per year. This doesn't take property damage into account. If the automated vehicles become even moderately less accident-prone than human drivers there will be lots of pressure to switch.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by someone123

There are about 2,000 traffic-related fatalities in Canada per year. If you imagine very conservatively that automated systems become 10% safer, that is equivalent to saving 200 lives per year. This doesn't take property damage into account. If the automated vehicles become even moderately less accident-prone than human drivers there will be lots of pressure to switch.

I have no problem with self driving vehicles, as long as they are configured as a form of autopilot that you can turn on or turn off. "Autopilot" could be very useful, and probably could be deployed for about 90% of the time that a vehicle is in use.

I would still like the ability to override the autopilot in case of emergency, and also when simple leisure driving is being contemplated.

I would hope that people would still learn how to drive a car in the future, and would still learn the rules of the road. Turning over all control to a robot is a very bad idea. This results in a loss of autonomy, and a loss of personal freedom (this is the Libertarian in me speaking). I am also concerned that in an emergency situation, the robot might not always make the best decision as far as you are concerned. Option "A" might be to hit the small child who has just run into the roadway, and option "B" might be to smash the car into a tree to sacrifice the driver in order to spare the child, but what if there were an option "C" that the programmers had failed to contemplate. I think human judgement should supersede robot intelligence in at least some emergency situations.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

There are about 2,000 traffic-related fatalities in Canada per year. If you imagine very conservatively that automated systems become 10% safer, that is equivalent to saving 200 lives per year. This doesn't take property damage into account. If the automated vehicles become even moderately less accident-prone than human drivers there will be lots of pressure to switch.

You are forgetting to take into account fatal crashes CAUSED by the technology or by users lulled into a false sense of security. This used to be a Tesla with Autopilot.

[atbw]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Occasionally, I just want to hop on my horse and go for an old fashioned ride. I get on the horse with no planned itinerary, and just wander aimlessly around the city just wanting to see what's new or different, or what is going on. It's called exploration..........

For every day I want to go for a drive, though, there's about 13 that I'd rather have somebody or something else do the driving. As imperfect as the bus is, any day I'm not working, I'm happy to pay $2 to have someone else drive through Halifax traffic.

Exploring on foot or by bike is arguably a better way to see the city, too. I've been meaning to rent one of the e-bikes from I<3Bikes and see what it can do.

I think the timeline of full autonomy is still incredibly far out, and self-driven cars will probably continue to exist, even if only as recreational vehicles. Full electrification will be much sooner.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

You are forgetting to take into account fatal crashes CAUSED by the technology or by users lulled into a false sense of security. This used to be a Tesla with Autopilot.

That is why I specified a 10% reduction in fatalities. Nothing will be flawless and it doesn't make sense to wait for perfection before adopting something better that will save lives.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by atbw

For every day I want to go for a drive, though, there's about 13 that I'd rather have somebody or something else do the driving. As imperfect as the bus is, any day I'm not working, I'm happy to pay $2 to have someone else drive through Halifax traffic.

Exploring on foot or by bike is arguably a better way to see the city, too. I've been meaning to rent one of the e-bikes from I<3Bikes and see what it can do.

I think the timeline of full autonomy is still incredibly far out, and self-driven cars will probably continue to exist, even if only as recreational vehicles. Full electrification will be much sooner.

I see that you needlessly changed the wording in the quote you ascribed to me from "car" to "horse". While mildly amusing, I think quoted comments should be left as is. You have mischaracterized what I said, and I don't think that was called for.

You are obviously a cycling zealot, which is fine, but bicycles remain impracticable for at least six months a year, and about 1/3rd of the time during the rest of the year (due to weather conditions). Cycling also may not be an option for people beyond a certain age, with certain health conditions affecting stamina or balance, or for people with physical disabilities. I find certain members of the cycling community to be not very sympathetic in this regard.

Again, I am not against autonomous vehicles as long as it consists of an autopilot that can be engaged or disengaged at the operators discretion. I think the option for personal decision making should exist in emergency situation. I am not against cycling, and have been mulling over actually purchasing an e-bike myself. I have nothing against electric cars either, and it is entirely possible my next vehicle might be electric (fully if I keep my current gas vehicle, or hybrid if I trade it in).

Even Luddites can change a little.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I see that you needlessly changed the wording in the quote you ascribed to me from "car" to "horse". While mildly amusing, I think quoted comments should be left as is. You have mischaracterized what I said, and I don't think that was called for.

You are obviously a cycling zealot, which is fine, but bicycles remain impracticable for at least six months a year, and about 1/3rd of the time during the rest of the year (due to weather conditions). Cycling also may not be an option for people beyond a certain age, with certain health conditions affecting stamina or balance, or for people with physical disabilities. I find certain members of the cycling community to be not very sympathetic in this regard.

I'd agree with much of that. The only issue is that in an urban setting, automobiles also remain impractical for about 12 months of the year. The huge amounts of road and parking space needed where demand for space is at a premium, the time wasted by congestion, the huge amount of energy wasted etc. Six month of the year sounds pretty good by comparison.

I don't have an issue acknowledging the downsides of cycling seeing as I deal with them on a regular basis. The only thing I ask is that people show equal concern toward the downsides of the alternatives.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

You are obviously a cycling zealot, which is fine, but bicycles remain impracticable for at least six months a year, and about 1/3rd of the time during the rest of the year (due to weather conditions). Cycling also may not be an option for people beyond a certain age, with certain health conditions affecting stamina or balance, or for people with physical disabilities. I find certain members of the cycling community to be not very sympathetic in this regard.

It is extremely interesting to me to note that while govts, and especially the People's Republic of HRM govt, bend over backwards to acknowledge and address every perceived wrong, slight, or unequal treatment directed at various minority, "oppressed", and special interest groups, they are also throwing tons of money and resources at the cycling lobby zealots, which is about as extreme an ableist bunch as you can find. Nobody with disabilities or other physical challenges is going to use the cycling infrastructure as those who do seem to perceive themselves as the second coming of Lance Armstrong. Imagine the outrage if HRM announced a plan to add high-speed lanes to streets for motorcyclists or those running wannabe rally cars on the street.

I also note with interest that the councillor for the southern part of the peninsula has recently jammed through a plan making THE STREET HIS HOUSE IS LOCATED ON, Vernon St., a "local bikeway", which is code for a no-through-traffic street for cars. The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I'll try to address your points without being too wordy (can't make any guarantees)...

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I think there are things to work out but not as many as naysayers make it seem.

Just to make it clear, I don't consider myself to be a naysayer, I was simply trying to convey the idea that the technology isn't ready yet for mass consumption, and given what I've seen of the current level of technology (all these new "driver assist" features on cars are basically testing autonomous technology in small bites), there is a way to go yet.

When it comes to new things, people tend to set higher standards of perfection in order to be considered feasible, when reality they just have to reach the point of being measurably better than the status quo in the net aggregate. That means there can still be problems and drawbacks that we accept if we accept problems of equal or greater magnitude currently.

I think you're ignoring the human element here. This is just my thinking, but I believe it's easier for people to understand when somebody makes a mistake while driving and causes a collision. After all, "we're only human" and most people probably have made similar mistakes while driving but had gotten away with it. Massive errors in judgement, like driving while intoxicated, excessive speed causing an accident, etc., are likewise judged harshly and people are penalized for their errors. We as a society feel that they are being punished for their deeds and tend to forgive and forget over the long run.

However, I think "we" have a different standard when a "computer" makes a mistake that results in injury or death. I believe such cases would be judged much more harshly, and especially in litigious USA, it could result in potentially crippling lawsuits to the company(ies) responsible for the vehicle/software/system.

So while, yes, statistically the autonomous systems could be better than humans (especially in the errors of judgement noted above), I think that they will be held to a higher standard. But I'm an old(er) guy - my understanding is that typically the generation coming up is much more accepting of "tech" having an integral part in their personal lives and may be more accepting of injuries or deaths happening as a result of 'tech failure', if the statistics say it's better overall.

For example, children and animals running out into the road unexpectedly are problems faced by human drivers already and probably not handled any better.

I think you misread the intention of mentioning children, animals, and pedestrians causing cars to stop. It was in response to your previous statement: "Ironically if all human drivers were to be off the road by tomorrow, automated operation would suddenly become far more feasible. If all the vehicles on the road were able to communicate as part of some master network it would solve so many problems. You wouldn't need traffic lights or stop signs or minimum following distances since all the traffic would be controlled by the same system."

And cyclists not feeling safe and wanting infrastructure to separate them from traffic is already an issue. As a cyclist myself, having all the cars behave in a predictable, neutral manner (not excessively polite or aggressive), not pass you only to turn right and cut you off, or not be paying attention and not see you sounds like an improvement. Yes there would be times when the automated cars wouldn't see you but they would be less prone to distraction, emotion, or fatigue than drivers currently.

A couple of points:
- Having all cars act in a predictable manner can also have the effect of human cyclists being lulled into a false sense of security, until something goes wrong. But, then, statistically I'm sure it would be better, though we won't have any real-world data on that until the system is actually in use. Any problems encountered in early versions would be countermeasured in later versions, and if the problem is extreme enough would result in recalls that would retrofit older/existing models with the newer hardware/software necessary.
- I think there will have to be some sophistication built into the software/hardware to be able to be aware of and predict the actions of cyclists to prevent the right turn in front of them scenario. Presumably that will be considered - if not at first then at least (as industry tends to do) after a number of fatalities occur.
- The 'not seeing you' scenario was specifically referring to the Ottawa situation, such that if there was a camera/radar malfunction the following car might see the car in front of them but not the cyclist. Again, statistics, and eventual countermeasures. The product will be improved as problems arise.

I do agree that there are legislative issues that need to catch up but that's the case with all new technologies. On one hand corporations might resist liability more than human drivers, but there would also be more reliable camera and sensor data on board making determining the cause of accidents easier. And i don't see a reason why there couldn't simply be no-fault insurance covering everything. There are some jurisdictions that are already "no fault" as is. And pedestrians would soon learn that automated cars are just "better" drivers rather than infallible, so as soon as someone was killed taking careless risks or prosecuted with the help of the onboard cameras, precedence would be set.

I agree. If there is enough political will to bring this technology into the mainstream, then it will happen. Legislation will be created to make it workable.

Insurance doesn't bring back loved ones in the event of a fatality, but society tends to view a monetary payment as suitable compensation.

Oh well, so much for not being wordy...

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Yea that's my big concern as well. I can't say I feel comfortable having the detail of every trip tracked and recorded or more importantly for it to be recorded before it was even completed. Although a lot of people already accept this to an extent with the location services and navigation assistance on their smart phones and GPS devices activated.

I think you're right in that upcoming generations will be more comfortable with their every word and every action being recorded and stored in a massive database to be used against them if necessary (via in-car cameras, etc.). Already I see huge discrepancies in the concept of privacy between the older generations who grew up without social media and smartphones and the younger ones who have. (Why do I feel like I'm talking about some 1980s sci-fi flick like Robocop as I'm typing this?)

Overall, I'm not entirely comfortable with this, but feel I could live with it. What I do have a problem with is how much control these automated systems have over what I now accept as my personal freedoms, such as MonctonRad alluded to. For example, if I want to go for a leisurely cruise around the city, but don't have all day to do it on a (slower, with me riding it) bicycle, will the vehicle system not allow that to happen? What if I want to take the more scenic route to my destination if I have a little extra time... will the 'system' override my choice and force me to take the most efficient route?

I think this comes down to a difference in philosophy, or at least a different level of acceptability, as the cycling movement often uses 'social problems caused by automobiles' as an argument as to why their chosen mode of transportation is superior.

So, yeah, going on a cruise or joyride could be judged as wasteful and unnecessary by some, and in absolute truth it is, but then so are a lot of things that we do in life that add fun and interest to our life experiences (like travel, sporting events, streaming movies... etc, etc). Where we draw that line is mostly a personal thing, but that's in a society where freedom is still considered to be highly important. Once we start erasing these perceived freedoms, I think we are going in a bad direction.

Just realized that yet again, I've gone way off the topic of 'Rail-based transit discussion'... so I'll stop there.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

That is why I specified a 10% reduction in fatalities. Nothing will be flawless and it doesn't make sense to wait for perfection before adopting something better that will save lives.

Where did you get that number? There is no real-world data to conclude how much better it will be, or if it will be better (I suspect it will, BTW, but that's just speculation).

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It is extremely interesting to me to note that while govts, and especially the People's Republic of HRM govt, bend over backwards to acknowledge and address every perceived wrong, slight, or unequal treatment directed at various minority, "oppressed", and special interest groups, they are also throwing tons of money and resources at the cycling lobby zealots, which is about as extreme an ableist bunch as you can find. Nobody with disabilities or other physical challenges is going to use the cycling infrastructure as those who do seem to perceive themselves as the second coming of Lance Armstrong. Imagine the outrage if HRM announced a plan to add high-speed lanes to streets for motorcyclists or those running wannabe rally cars on the street.

I also note with interest that the councillor for the southern part of the peninsula has recently jammed through a plan making THE STREET HIS HOUSE IS LOCATED ON, Vernon St., a "local bikeway", which is code for a no-through-traffic street for cars. The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven.

Agreed on many counts. I think in most political cases it's the 'squeaky wheel gets the grease' scenario. Young, able-bodied cyclists tend to have more time and energy to be able to create noise with the media and politicians, but (IMHO) older people with disabilities don't have that kind of time and energy as more of their lives are focused on surviving, and just getting through the day. Also, I read/hear it time and time again - young people often do not place much value on the lives of older people, for many reasons - it's almost as if they never expect that they will someday become old themselves.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Where did you get that number? There is no real-world data to conclude how much better it will be, or if it will be better (I suspect it will, BTW, but that's just speculation).

It's not a prediction about how good self-driving cars will be at a particular time, it's just a statement about when to adopt new technologies. At some point the benefits exceed the drawbacks and it makes sense to change even if the new system is not perfect.

Waymo is up to 10 million miles driven by self-driving cars with 0 fatal collisions.

Tesla has had 5 fatalities but Telsa autopilot is not a self-driving car. On autopilot you are expected to take over if something goes wrong (this is a terrible system, because humans are bad at passively monitoring in this way). There is a lot of confusion about this. If you want to know what the state of the art is, look at the mean time between human interventions of Waymo cars and ignore Tesla.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's not a prediction about how good self-driving cars will be at a particular time, it's just a statement about when to adopt new technologies. At some point the benefits exceed the drawbacks and it makes sense to change even if the new system is not perfect.

Waymo is up to 10 million miles driven by self-driving cars with 0 fatal collisions.

Tesla has had 5 fatalities but Telsa autopilot is not a self-driving car. On autopilot you are expected to take over if something goes wrong (this is a terrible system, because humans are bad at passively monitoring in this way). There is a lot of confusion about this. If you want to know what the state of the art is, look at the mean time between human interventions of Waymo cars and ignore Tesla.

OK, fair enough. Of course I will always hesitate to say that any vehicle fatality is acceptable, and am not sure how to ethically set limits as to what is acceptable. But I do agree with your assertion that if autonomous systems make them safer than putting 'stupid humans' behind the wheel it will be an improvement.

I am quite familiar with Tesla's issues and agree that it was an accident waiting to happen from the start. You either have to be engaged and drive, or choose to not-drive - nothing in between is acceptable. To drive well and safely, you have to be completely attentive at all times, and remain 'on top of' the situation, phasing in and out does not cut it.

I am interested in what Waymo is up to, and will look into it - thanks - but as yet have not seen any reason to change my views on research/prototype vehicles vs aging, mass-produced, mass-used vehicles. Budget and level of attention/care can completely change the circumstances.

But... by no means am I claiming to be an expert on the topic. I have certain experiences/information which lead me to my current thoughts and opinions, but I will also gladly accept change if it is proven to be an improvement.

Either way, we don't really have a choice because there are greater forces than us (money, politics) that are driving this. So we'll see what happens...

[someone123]

I think the statistical view of this is the correct one. In other words, try to reduce the rate of fatalities, injury, and property damage. This is what road and highway development has done. In aviation there's a lot of attention paid to each accident and that has driven the fatality rate down to near 0. Self-driving cars should be approached in the same way.

It will take a long time for self-driving cars to replace all drivers but we are pretty close to the point where they will be profitable for some applications. The big wins will be in areas like long haul commercial vehicles and maybe transit. Self-driving cars don't need to work in every situation to be useful; it's possible to find limited applications.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by someone123

The big wins will be in areas like long haul commercial vehicles and maybe transit. Self-driving cars don't need to work in every situation to be useful; it's possible to find limited applications.

Not if you are a truck or taxi driver - expect hundreds of thousands of job losses.

And I can already hear people out there saying "good riddance", but there could be a lot of economic dislocation, and not everyone can be retrained to learn computer coding............

[MonctonRad]

Another problem with centrally networked and controlled autonomous vehicles is that the system becomes increasingly fragile and prone to disruption in case of catastrophe.

The next war will likely be a digital war, or at least will start out as a digital war. If all traffic flow is autonomous, and there is no option for the operator in the car to take over in case of emergency, it would be quite easy for the Chinese to insert a virus into the system at the beginning of conflict in order to completely disrupt the system and create mass chaos. The same thing could happen to out banking and financial system, and certain critical infrastructure could be specifically targeted (power plants and water treatment plants for example).

Another risk would be a gamma ray burst or a solar coronal mass ejection. The latter can send a stream of charged particles from the sun so powerful that it can overwhelm the Earth's magnetosphere. This has happened in the past. In the 1860s (I believe), there was a coronal mass ejection so powerful that brilliant aurora blanketed the sky as far south as the equator, and telegraph lines began arcing, and small fires were reported from the telegraph handsets. If such an event had occurred in the modern world, transformers would be fried and computer systems destroyed, A coronal mass ejection could have devastating consequences for a centrally controlled traffic system.

There are many reason why personal autonomy should continue for people using motorized vehicles. If we give up all control to the "system", very bad things could happen...........

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Another problem with centrally networked and controlled autonomous vehicles is that the system becomes increasingly fragile and prone to disruption in case of catastrophe.

I agree but this is not how they all work or how they have to work. The cars have onboard processing. They don't send sensor data off to be processed into control commands and they can coordinate by following the rules of the road.

We do need good laws and good engineering to make sure that good practices are followed, and I am guessing Canada has approximately zero controls in these areas (just like we have almost no laws about electronic spying that is everywhere today). This is something to fix.

If you consider this problematic then consider how modern cars operate. There's very little direct human control. When you move the steering wheel or perform some other action as the driver of a modern car, you are simply providing some inputs to the computer system of the vehicle, which then performs indirectly related actions much more complicated than a human could perform. This approach has proven to be much more reliable and efficient than purely direct mechanical controls.