Autonomous Cars

[theblackangus]

After some of these comments I have to ask something.
Who amongst you has an EV?
Who has popped the bread for an AV?

Not I.

[strad]

I should have said semi Autonomous...My bad.
I pretty obviously own neither.

[J.A.W.]

Request for non-autonomous mode denied. You are not permitted to endanger others upon public roads without sufficient credits in your account.

-Central control

"Central control"?

Dunno 'bout that.. roon, but..
my classic Mercedes-Benz sporty-coupe has a quite bullish-intrusive (analog) - cruise control - so, does that count?

& as for just when.. we'll all be happily relegated as 'meat bag' cargo - in our own vehicles..
I'd reckon the dreaded.. & duly pending.. AI Singularity.. may well arrive 1st, anyhow...

[Just_a_fan]

After some of these comments I have to ask something.
Who amongst you has an EV?
Who has popped the bread for an AV?

No EV but planning to get one once business builds (my first year in a new business venture so cash is scarce currently)

Are AVs even available yet to mere mortals?

[Just_a_fan]

It is the same as not having your radio on in the car. There are dozens of stations all zipping through your car and inbuilt radio, but you use some not others. It also goes back to something mentioned earlier being 'fail safe'.
If your car gets a 'brick' signal, it would examine it and decide this is not safe, ignore it or at very least fall back to a basic 'safe mode' without the bells and whistles while the car sorts its self out.

Its not the same as having the radio on. The radio has no need to connect to the control devices of the vehicle, where V2V communication does. Therefore V2V communication has much greater inherent danger. There is no brick signal as such (there better not be!!!) the point is if you allow remote communication there is likely a way to cause some sort of harm via standard computer architecture flaw or software flaws.

The V2V would just broadcast information, just like radio. "I am braking", "I have spotted debris on the carriageway at <coordinates>" etc. Just have a standardised set of information messages that each car broadcasts in a local area. No need to have anything that would allow/cause "bricking" of a receiving vehicle. Certainly any V2V communications should not be at the level / sophistication that allows software changes in the receiving vehicle.

[AJI]

After some of these comments I have to ask something.
Who amongst you has an EV?
Who has popped the bread for an AV?

I just travelled 440kms. I do that particular trip 50 to 60 times a year.
I can't wait for for an AV to drive me while I get something useful done, and the trip computer said 11litres to the 100ks, so, bring on an AEV. In fuel that trip cost me ~$80AUD, in time.., well that's priceless...

[theblackangus]

The V2V would just broadcast information, just like radio. "I am braking", "I have spotted debris on the carriageway at <coordinates>" etc. Just have a standardised set of information messages that each car broadcasts in a local area. No need to have anything that would allow/cause "bricking" of a receiving vehicle. Certainly any V2V communications should not be at the level / sophistication that allows software changes in the receiving vehicle.

Would be nice, but thats not how it works.
If I am connected (even listening only) to a control system then I could possibly affect that control system adversely.
This is not a guess, this is in practice repeatedly over the course of the last 20 years in computer systems.
The other cars will be broadcasting and listening, your car will be broadcasting and listening that combination can be exploited.
What ever you are listening for *has to be* passed to the control system or it can be used as input. That means you have remote access to the control system. Heck you can hack tire pressure sensors and cause some cars with them to stall, etc. Thats just a simple TPMS signal. Military drones have been hacked and told to do things other than what their owners want.
This is why I advocate aerospace level code review and standards for AV autopilots. To ensure companies like UBER are not cutting safety corners.

I know a guy who programs large computer systems and is very good at it, even in this environment he says he doesn't have enough time to work out the bugs he knows are present but corner cases.

[Tommy Cookers]

'aerospace level code review'

this doesn't prevent deficient systems rolling of the production lines today
code review seems to assume that the design functionality is faultless - but it never is

the AV car owner will not keep quiet about this in the way that pilots are paid to do
pilots regularly keep alive people when the flight control system is about to kill them
(of course the opposite is also true)
but increasingly only 'old-school' countries like Russia have pilots able to do this
there is no magic handle allowing manual piloting reversion
Western pilots are trained to 'work-around' ie trick the FCS out of its deficient modes - when they have been discovered
FCS design and design functionality is determined by people who can't fly a plane

but most AV equivalents have a driving licence
and presumably the AV must allow manual intervention if/when it demands manual intervention

[AJI]

'aerospace level code review'

this doesn't prevent deficient systems rolling of the production lines today
code review seems to assume that the design functionality is faultless - but it never is

the AV car owner will not keep quiet about this in the way that pilots are paid to do

100% agree. The domestic market is way more vocally critical than the professional market, especially in these times of '#fail' anything...
AV will have to work technically or it will fail commercially, it's just that simple. One death due to an AV crashing is harder to gloss over than a PS4 crashing 10 billion times. Well, right now it is, but 5 years from now maybe not?

[Big Tea]

The V2V would just broadcast information, just like radio. "I am braking", "I have spotted debris on the carriageway at <coordinates>" etc. Just have a standardised set of information messages that each car broadcasts in a local area. No need to have anything that would allow/cause "bricking" of a receiving vehicle. Certainly any V2V communications should not be at the level / sophistication that allows software changes in the receiving vehicle.

Would be nice, but thats not how it works.
If I am connected (even listening only) to a control system then I could possibly affect that control system adversely.
This is not a guess, this is in practice repeatedly over the course of the last 20 years in computer systems.
The other cars will be broadcasting and listening, your car will be broadcasting and listening that combination can be exploited.
What ever you are listening for *has to be* passed to the control system or it can be used as input. That means you have remote access to the control system. Heck you can hack tire pressure sensors and cause some cars with them to stall, etc. Thats just a simple TPMS signal. Military drones have been hacked and told to do things other than what their owners want.
This is why I advocate aerospace level code review and standards for AV autopilots. To ensure companies like UBER are not cutting safety corners.

I know a guy who programs large computer systems and is very good at it, even in this environment he says he doesn't have enough time to work out the bugs he knows are present but corner cases.

I doubt very much any communication would be directly vehicle to vehicle. The whole idea would be an integrated system. Any 'deal' made between two individual cars would have to be passed through 'central' to ensure that any or all other cars in the area would not be adversely affected. Same as when you drive with waze or similar. You are advised by waze and your actions are reported back so they can update traffic conditions etc. You do not get the update directly from the car in front of you, it is processed and you are fed only relevant information and that from a centre.

[theblackangus]

'aerospace level code review'

this doesn't prevent deficient systems rolling of the production lines today
code review seems to assume that the design functionality is faultless - but it never is

the AV car owner will not keep quiet about this in the way that pilots are paid to do
pilots regularly keep alive people when the flight control system is about to kill them
(of course the opposite is also true)
but increasingly only 'old-school' countries like Russia have pilots able to do this
there is no magic handle allowing manual piloting reversion
Western pilots are trained to 'work-around' ie trick the FCS out of its deficient modes - when they have been discovered
FCS design and design functionality is determined by people who can't fly a plane

but most AV equivalents have a driving licence
and presumably the AV must allow manual intervention if/when it demands manual intervention

No it doesn't but the tests are rigorous than for most other industries.
Pilots are highly trained individuals that need to be alert at all times, we are not and having to "work around" issues. People don't receive training on the latest update and thing things they need to work around, and should not need to.

My point being that programing in general is being driven toward an "ok to fail, just fix bugs later" mentality, which IMHO is not acceptable in AV scenarios. Companies will not test rigorously unless they are forced to. Just look at UBER's software.

[henry]

The V2V would just broadcast information, just like radio. "I am braking", "I have spotted debris on the carriageway at <coordinates>" etc. Just have a standardised set of information messages that each car broadcasts in a local area. No need to have anything that would allow/cause "bricking" of a receiving vehicle. Certainly any V2V communications should not be at the level / sophistication that allows software changes in the receiving vehicle.

Would be nice, but thats not how it works.
If I am connected (even listening only) to a control system then I could possibly affect that control system adversely.
This is not a guess, this is in practice repeatedly over the course of the last 20 years in computer systems.
The other cars will be broadcasting and listening, your car will be broadcasting and listening that combination can be exploited.
What ever you are listening for *has to be* passed to the control system or it can be used as input. That means you have remote access to the control system. Heck you can hack tire pressure sensors and cause some cars with them to stall, etc. Thats just a simple TPMS signal. Military drones have been hacked and told to do things other than what their owners want.
This is why I advocate aerospace level code review and standards for AV autopilots. To ensure companies like UBER are not cutting safety corners.

I know a guy who programs large computer systems and is very good at it, even in this environment he says he doesn't have enough time to work out the bugs he knows are present but corner cases.

I doubt very much any communication would be directly vehicle to vehicle. The whole idea would be an integrated system. Any 'deal' made between two individual cars would have to be passed through 'central' to ensure that any or all other cars in the area would not be adversely affected. Same as when you drive with waze or similar. You are advised by waze and your actions are reported back so they can update traffic conditions etc. You do not get the update directly from the car in front of you, it is processed and you are fed only relevant information and that from a centre.

It is envisaged that it will be direct vehicle to vehicle. Initial standards are in preparation.

Here’s a report on the communication protocols. http://www.3gpp.org/news-events/3gpp-news/1798-v2x_r14

Here’s an overview of standards activities. https://www.pcb.its.dot.gov/StandardsTr ... m38sup.pdf

V2V, or rather V2X , vehicle and infrastructure, is happening and will happen relatively soon whether autonomous cars happen next year or never. There are a couple of cities in the US where the traffic lights talk to selected Audi and Cadillac cars to tell the driver when they will next change.

[theblackangus]

I doubt very much any communication would be directly vehicle to vehicle. The whole idea would be an integrated system. Any 'deal' made between two individual cars would have to be passed through 'central' to ensure that any or all other cars in the area would not be adversely affected. Same as when you drive with waze or similar. You are advised by waze and your actions are reported back so they can update traffic conditions etc. You do not get the update directly from the car in front of you, it is processed and you are fed only relevant information and that from a centre.

Which still isn't any better from a hacking perspective. (Well maybe slightly but not alot)
This doesn't provide any guarantee that someone cannot pretend to be central on the network (because it would be wireless) and send data.

[Big Tea]

I doubt very much any communication would be directly vehicle to vehicle. The whole idea would be an integrated system. Any 'deal' made between two individual cars would have to be passed through 'central' to ensure that any or all other cars in the area would not be adversely affected. Same as when you drive with waze or similar. You are advised by waze and your actions are reported back so they can update traffic conditions etc. You do not get the update directly from the car in front of you, it is processed and you are fed only relevant information and that from a centre.

Which still isn't any better from a hacking perspective. (Well maybe slightly but not alot)
This doesn't provide any guarantee that someone cannot pretend to be central on the network (because it would be wireless) and send data.

As today there is no guarantee someone will not drive a 40 ton truck the wrong way up a motorway.
Nothing is ever going to be 100% safe, it will always be a trade off. If it is demonstrably better than today, it has to be done or we will all be walking.

(edit, that sounded more 'flip' than I intended, sorry)

[Big Tea]

Would be nice, but thats not how it works.
If I am connected (even listening only) to a control system then I could possibly affect that control system adversely.
This is not a guess, this is in practice repeatedly over the course of the last 20 years in computer systems.
The other cars will be broadcasting and listening, your car will be broadcasting and listening that combination can be exploited.
What ever you are listening for *has to be* passed to the control system or it can be used as input. That means you have remote access to the control system. Heck you can hack tire pressure sensors and cause some cars with them to stall, etc. Thats just a simple TPMS signal. Military drones have been hacked and told to do things other than what their owners want.
This is why I advocate aerospace level code review and standards for AV autopilots. To ensure companies like UBER are not cutting safety corners.

I know a guy who programs large computer systems and is very good at it, even in this environment he says he doesn't have enough time to work out the bugs he knows are present but corner cases.

I doubt very much any communication would be directly vehicle to vehicle. The whole idea would be an integrated system. Any 'deal' made between two individual cars would have to be passed through 'central' to ensure that any or all other cars in the area would not be adversely affected. Same as when you drive with waze or similar. You are advised by waze and your actions are reported back so they can update traffic conditions etc. You do not get the update directly from the car in front of you, it is processed and you are fed only relevant information and that from a centre.

It is envisaged that it will be direct vehicle to vehicle. Initial standards are in preparation.

Here’s a report on the communication protocols. http://www.3gpp.org/news-events/3gpp-news/1798-v2x_r14

Here’s an overview of standards activities. https://www.pcb.its.dot.gov/StandardsTr ... m38sup.pdf

V2V, or rather V2X , vehicle and infrastructure, is happening and will happen relatively soon whether autonomous cars happen next year or never. There are a couple of cities in the US where the traffic lights talk to selected Audi and Cadillac cars to tell the driver when they will next change.

I am rather surprised at that. Looking around cities it seems there is fear of vehicles being used as 'terrorist weapons'', as there are what amount to barricades everywhere. I envisaged things being in control of a unit like air traffic with each rout individually logged and planned (fractions work for a computer, as it sets the rout or negotiates it not tries to fit you in like a puzzle).

My local bus has system linked to the traffic lights, don't know how it works though I think it is just an IR beam that says 'I'm Here, change now'