[Raymondjram]

The less famous "Steve" (but still active) co-founder and chief engineer/designer of Apple, Steven Wozniak, commented on the AV development. He owns a Tesla Model S and a Chevy Bolt EV (was one of the first California customers), but the Bolt EV is his "daily driver":

Apple co-founder, programmer, inventor, and entrepreneur Steve Wozniak, speaking with CNBC, has reservations about the immediate proliferation of self-driving cars. “I do not believe in auto driving cars,” he said, adding, “I don’t really believe it’s quite possible yet.”

Wozniak owns a Tesla, which has Autopilot, the company’s assisted-driving technology. And it’s not perfect. He said, “Tesla makes so many mistakes. It really convinces me that auto piloting and auto steering car driving itself is not going to happen.” He didn’t elaborate as to what kind of mistakes his Tesla makes on the road. Woz also owns a Chevrolet Bolt EV.

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/11/apple-co-founder-has-doubts-about-self-driving-cars/

Wozniak is someone to follow and admire as he is just one simple person, not a "public figure" (as Steve Jobs was) nor asking for "privileges". When a new iPhone comes out, Woz waits in line as many other to buy it.

So, as a fellow engineer, I know that he speaks the truth and really means it.

 

[ai4px]

I too own a Tesla with AP1. It isn't perfect and to be fair I've never used AP 2 or AP 2.5. The issue I see constantly is at the top of a hill when the road seems to disappear over the crest of the hill. At the point the camera sees that crest, it may jerk the wheel left or right pretty violently. I really wish they didn't market it as "autopilot", at least at this stage because it's really just a very good lane keeper. We also have a 2016 Civic with auto steering. The civic will drift to one side of the road and jerk back into the lane. It looks like a drunken sailor. Tesla's autopilot stays in the center of the lane aggressively and is MUCH better but no so good I would trust it.

We also own a Bolt and am very happy with it. Having one of each has allowed me to make some really good side by side comparisons. Each has it's place, advantages and issues. For example, I work in heavy industry and often come home with more of work on my clothes than I like. I couldn't bear to drive the tesla every day and soil the interior. I use the bolt for trips to Lowes and the dump with a small trailer. But the MS will fit a 10' stick of PVC pipe and the Bolt wont. I'm 100% about using the Bolt on round trips of <200 miles or overnight trips of 300 miles one way. Further than than, I'll use the Tesla because of the logical geography of their superchargers and the cost of DCFC in the Bolt brings it down to the equivalent cost of 20mpg car. I appreciate that Tesla charges M3 owners for the actual number of KW used and not the $0.30 a minute for charging. Day to day, the Bolt costs me less to charge on L2 than the Tesla does.

Ford used to say "race on Sunday, sell on Monday" and I gotta give credit to Tesla in this category... it's like the public perception of EVs are split in to two camps.... glorified golf carts that go 35mph and 30 miles and Tesla supercars. Most have no idea the Bolt is a lot closer to Tesla for performance than to the golf cart. The first day I drove our Tesla, a guy pulled up next to me and asked if that was the car that drove itself. Not surprisingly no hot chics have pulled up next to my Bolt and asked about it. ha. When I talk about the bolt, people are shocked when I say it'll squall the tires until you run out of parking lot and it's speed limited at >90mph. The public absolutely expects that from a Tesla and doesn't realize there is any other option that's even close.

The Bolt is a very good first attempt at a BEV that is good enough to be your only car....and I wouldn't hesitate to tell someone that the bolt would be a great year round car. The most difficult part of the "sell" is getting people to admit they don't drive 200 miles in a day except on vacation. Everyone wants a one size does all car... they want an SUV as a daily driver when the truth is they only need its abilities for a few days a year.

As for Woz, I'm so glad to see famous people who are humble and just down right down to earth. Love it!

 

[keeperchris]

I too own a Tesla with AP1...Tesla's autopilot stays in the center of the lane aggressively and is MUCH better but no so good I would trust it.

We also own a Bolt and am very happy with it. Having one of each has allowed me to make some really good side by side comparisons. Each has it's place, advantages and issues. Most have no idea the Bolt is a lot closer to Tesla for performance than to the golf cart.

The Bolt is a very good first attempt at a BEV that is good enough to be your only car....and I wouldn't hesitate to tell someone that the bolt would be a great year round car. The most difficult part of the "sell" is getting people to admit they don't drive 200 miles in a day except on vacation. Everyone wants a one size does all car... they want an SUV as a daily driver when the truth is they only need its abilities for a few days a year.

Love the comparison notes! Thank you.
The Bolt absolutely is good enough to be my every-day car. I have driven it literally everywhere and done everything I have wanted to in the last year, with two tiny exceptions:
- an 1,800 mi roadtrip and carrying 10' lumber, which we did in our Volt.
As an aside, the only other longer drive for the Volt was one I could have done in the Bolt, but I had 8-month old gas than probably needed to be used (I vowed never to fill up the gas tank past half, since my wife drives about 97% electric).

 

[discodanman45]

I know that there are many of us on the forums with a Bolt and a Tesla. Both are very capable cars and excel in certain situations. If I am going on a 300 to 500 mile trip I will bring my Tesla because of the comfort and charging infrastructure. I prefer bringing my Bolt on my 130 mile commute because I find it easier to park at my job and the highways get very narrow with road construction. The Bolt is a perfect commuter car, well besides the seats, and in the city I would much rather try to park with the Bolt than my Model S. I bought a older Model S on purpose since I really don't feel comfortable with autopilot. I like to drive and I like to control situations. If I see a crazy driver I will maneuver to put myself in the safest position on the road. There are too many variables for autopilot to be safer than my driving IMO. Plus I just love to drive! IMO autopilot or self driving will only be useful if all cars have it and the highways and roads have infrastructure to support it.

 

[GJETSON]

IMO autopilot or self driving will only be useful if all cars have it and the highways and roads have infrastructure to support it.

Don't worry. Governments forced bicyclists, and pedestrians off many roads and streets to accommodate the Gilded Age rich in their cars. I am sure they will be only too happy to help huge corporations get rid of thousands of driving jobs, by banning all non-autonomous vehicles from the roads.

 

[NoMoPetrol]

My impression of self-driving technology is that it will work much more seamlessly when 85-90% of all cars on the road are using the technology. The cars sharing a road in that scenario will "acknowledge" each other's existence and avoid contact. Plus, by that time I would expect that infrastructure will have been upgraded sufficiently for roadways to give autos a more well-defined path upon which to travel.

 

[redpoint5]

My idea for improving AV safety is to either have whitelists (areas known to be safe enough to activate AV) or blacklists (areas known to cause problems for AV) or both.

If an area requires frequent driver input, for instance, that info could be uploaded to the AI, and it could designate that area as too tricky to allow AV operation.

Large stretches of I-5 with few exits or turns; perfect whitelist place to allow AV operation.

Similar to my argument that EVs don't need to be better than ICE counterparts in every single use case to be worthwhile, AV doesn't have to be better than a human in every single situation to be worthwhile. Utilize the technology in the areas where they excel, while continuing to improve the technology in areas where they fall short.

It doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition, as hardly anything has an optimal result involving "all or nothing".

BTW- This is the point I'm making in my sarcastic signature.

 

[GregBrew]

Don't worry. Governments forced bicyclists, and pedestrians off many roads and streets to accommodate the Gilded Age rich in their cars. I am sure they will be only too happy to help huge corporations get rid of thousands of driving jobs, by banning all non-autonomous vehicles from the roads.

They can only take the steering wheel of my S2000 out of my cold, dead hands.


I think this is where I reference the Rush song "Red Barchetta", one of my faves.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Barchetta

 

[GJETSON]

I think this is where I reference the Rush song "Red Barchetta", one of my faves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Barchetta

Thanks for this reference. I have vaguely remembered this story all these years, but couldn't find it on the internet. I had no idea someone had done a song based on it.

From 1955 to 1965 I was totally enthralled with sports cars, hot rods, and cafe racers. By 1973 I had gone from worshipping fast cars and motorcycles to seeing fossil fuel powered machines as the cause of much of the world's problems. I read that story with an intimate understanding of where the author's romantic fantasy came from, but also understood that it was fantasy.

Not surprisingly I guess, I see that same romance with cars on this forum. As I have said here before, I think EVs are about 50 years too late to have any real impact on where we are headed as a civilization. We boomers got all the toys, even this one. My kids can't afford them, and will spend their declining years cleaning up our mess...if they are lucky.

 

[Sean Nelson]

We also have a 2016 Civic with auto steering. The civic will drift to one side of the road and jerk back into the lane. It looks like a drunken sailor. Tesla's autopilot stays in the center of the lane aggressively and is MUCH better but no so good I would trust it.

I believe that the lane-keeping system in the Bolt and cars like it is deliberately designed this way to discourage reliance on it. The hard part of lane keeping is detecting the lane markings in all of their forms and being able to distinguish them from among dappled shadows, reflective wet roads, etc. etc. Once you've solved the detection problem (which the Bolt has under most circumstances) it's pretty trivial to keep the car perfectly centered between the lines. But doing so in a very crude, ping-pong solution preserves the safety aspect of the system (keeping the car from straying off the road or into another lane) without letting the user become dependent on it.

It's rather like the blind spot alert system, which is cleverly engineered as a set of lights in the side mirrors so that the user will continue looking at those mirrors rather than just blindly assuming that the car knows best.

 

[phil0909]

My impression of self-driving technology is that it will work much more seamlessly when 85-90% of all cars on the road are using the technology. The cars sharing a road in that scenario will "acknowledge" each other's existence and avoid contact. Plus, by that time I would expect that infrastructure will have been upgraded sufficiently for roadways to give autos a more well-defined path upon which to travel.

My understanding is that 85-90% is not nearly enough. When it's 100.00%, then great improvements will be available. Until then, every car and every automated decision will need to allow for the possibility of a human driver. And even then, there will still be human pedestrians to deal with.

And 100% autonomous cars on the road is still 50 years away...

 

[redpoint5]

I've said it before, and I'll continue saying it again; fossil fuel is directly or very closely related to nearly every measure (life expectancy, wealth per capita, disease reduction, increased nutrition, speed of transportation, etc) of increasing well-being for the world.

It can't last forever, and it may cause problems in the future, but so far it has been an incredible net good for humanity. History will not view the fossil fuel era as a dark spot in humanity; rather the beginning of many bright spots.

 

[DaV8or]

I believe that the lane-keeping system in the Bolt and cars like it is deliberately designed this way to discourage reliance on it. The hard part of lane keeping is detecting the lane markings in all of their forms and being able to distinguish them from among dappled shadows, reflective wet roads, etc. etc. Once you've solved the detection problem (which the Bolt has under most circumstances) it's pretty trivial to keep the car perfectly centered between the lines. But doing so in a very crude, ping-pong solution preserves the safety aspect of the system (keeping the car from straying off the road or into another lane) without letting the user become dependent on it.

It's rather like the blind spot alert system, which is cleverly engineered as a set of lights in the side mirrors so that the user will continue looking at those mirrors rather than just blindly assuming that the car knows best.

Agreed. Lane assist is just that, not automatic driving. It's just there to catch you when you're screwing up, it's not intended to take over driving for you. GM and other companies are far more risk adverse than Tesla is because they've been through a law suit or two.

 

[discodanman45]

I've said it before, and I'll continue saying it again; fossil fuel is directly or very closely related to nearly every measure (life expectancy, wealth per capita, disease reduction, increased nutrition, speed of transportation, etc) of increasing well-being for the world.

It can't last forever, and it may cause problems in the future, but so far it has been an incredible net good for humanity. History will not view the fossil fuel era as a dark spot in humanity; rather the beginning of many bright spots.

Fossil Fuels are also directly related to corruption, wars, environmental disasters, extinction of animals, pollution, and human health. I am not even mentioning climate change, which gets people up in arms. I don't care what your religion is, everyone's true god is oil. I disagree about the fossil fuel era about being a bright spot. Fossil fuels have given us this unsustainable life that will eventually have impacts that we will not recover from. The problem about science is that by the time you see a trend, the process has already started and will be impossible to stop. I am a bit of a pessimist and I think that whatever motions we sent Earth into will happen regardless of us 100% stopping fossil fuel right now. Stars should be the only objects that produce visible light. Look at a night picture of Earth and you will see a planetary body producing its own light by the parasites that live upon it. My carbon footprint is horrible and I am not preaching to anyone. I might be one of the worst polluters on the forum. I live in a large house and drive 130 miles a day for work. Even though I have solar panels, I feed the grid during the day for higher credits and use at night with a higher percentage of fossil fuels for a cheaper rate.

I would not say "well-being for the world." The world is far worse off for us using fossil fuels. I would say that fossil fuels gave humans a temporarily prosperous century with its ugly consequences about to be revealed. As a scientist I am really intrigued about what will happen to the Earth because of our consumption. Time will tell...

 

[GJETSON]

I've said it before, and I'll continue saying it again; fossil fuel is directly or very closely related to nearly every measure (life expectancy, wealth per capita, disease reduction, increased nutrition, speed of transportation, etc) of increasing well-being for the world.

It can't last forever, and it may cause problems in the future, but so far it has been an incredible net good for humanity. History will not view the fossil fuel era as a dark spot in humanity; rather the beginning of many bright spots.

Certainly, we owe our current world almost entirely to fossil fuels. Compared to 1700, there are many more people alive, with most living longer. The scientific knowledge gained is astounding. Whether most people alive now are happier than those who lived previously, or more to the point, might now be in any imaginable alternate present, is unknowable.

Our ability to do good has been leveraged a hundred times thanks to fossil fuels, but so has our ability to do wrong. *More people have died from the direct and indirect effects of conflict since 1750 than all who lived prior to then. This was only possible with the aid of fossil fuels.

I don't know how we weigh that suffering on the scale of human well-being, but our growth has come at the cost of massive degrading of the only world we have. This is not as difficult to quantify as human well-being. Thanks to our fossil fuel aided science, we know that we are consuming every living, and non-living resource our planet offers, at a rate far beyond its ability to restore.

You are young enough that, within your lifetime, you will see us spending much of those remaining resources trying to undo the damage already done. I wish you much luck.

*Well a bit of digging shows that is clearly wrong. The number of people who have died in recent centuries is obviously much higher than in previous centuries, but probably not as a percentage of the population, and the total number of people who lived before the fossil fuel era turns out to be much higher than I thought.