Self-driving Cars

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Threads
447
Messages
14,174
Location
NorCal
Stuff nVidia announced at CES 2015. The video is cool. I started it at 13:30 to see the really good part that starts at 14:15. It shows what the self-driving car can 'see'. It's part 2 of a keynote address (I think). Look around for part 1 if you really want some gory details. The whole box is watercooled. :eek:



Edit: The whole playlist is here if anyone's really interested. NVIDIA @ CES 2016 - YouTube
 
Last edited:
And nVidia display chips used in a Mercedes Concept car. The previous-gen chips are already in every Audi and Tesla.

Note there are three screens...

Mercedes-Concept-IAA-int3.jpg
 
Last edited:
The last thing in the world I would ever want is a self-driving vehicle. I LIKE to drive.
 
Agree. That will be a nice project for the hacker community.

With the issues Chrysler is having (found in the media... and some not.... there was a new 2015 challenger hacked while driving on the road in Seattle... to keep it quiet Chrysler gave the buyer a 2014, instead, that didn't have the same connectivity).... it's already a reality.

There were also a couple of guys who came out, to Chrysler and the media, to say they were able to hack the vehicles (certain Jeeps).
 
The last thing in the world I would ever want is a self-driving vehicle. I LIKE to drive.
I do, too. But there's some cell-phone-browsing, make-up-applying, newspaper-reading idiot sticks out there that should be required to have a self-driving car...
 
I do, too. But there's some cell-phone-browsing, make-up-applying, newspaper-reading idiot sticks out there that should be required to have a self-driving car...

Eventually insurance will make it cost prohibitive to take the wheel yourself.
 
With the issues Chrysler is having (found in the media... and some not.... there was a new 2015 challenger hacked while driving on the road in Seattle... to keep it quiet Chrysler gave the buyer a 2014, instead, that didn't have the same connectivity).... it's already a reality.

There were also a couple of guys who came out, to Chrysler and the media, to say they were able to hack the vehicles (certain Jeeps).


It was Wired magazine that hacked the Jeeps. They claimed to have disabled the brakes. It's possible, I suppose. It's also very, very easy to make it so that can't happen. And Chrysler since has.

Mercedes claims that the system will make it impossible to die in a car accident. That's kind of a big deal, being that people are clearly always going to drive drunk, distracted, tired and stupid.
 
Security has come a long way. All these chips have the security features integrated, which is a big deal. Once they encrypt all the CAN bus traffic and use private keys that are unique to each vehicle I don't know how it would be possible to hack them without decapping the chips and reading out the keys with an electron microscope, but that's pretty far past what the average owner would ever have to worry about.

Maybe if you had some spooks who wanted you dead it could potentially be a worry, but some script kiddies on the freeway aren't going to be able to use your car as an R/C toy.
 
The Jeep hacking wasn't just a one time incident that Wired magazine claimed they could do.... it resulted in a recall.

Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway—With Me in It

After Jeep Hack, Chrysler Recalls 1.4M Vehicles for Bug Fix

The fix for the recall was purely an electronic fix. The only thing Chrysler has done is repair the currently known/public weak spot.

Cars these days that are connected have just about everything electronically controlled - including steering, acceleration, and brakes.

The incident regarding the Challenger was never made public.... it happened in the Seattle area.


In theory the system can work based off of sensors, 'visual' mapping, gps, and communication with other vehicles. That is how MB is able to make that claim - a computer making decisions based off more inputs than we can imagine can stop an incident from happening.

However, the problem is that it's all based on human design, which will always be flawed.


From one of the articles above:
This wasn’t the first time Miller and Valasek had put me behind the wheel of a compromised car. In the summer of 2013, I drove a Ford Escape and a Toyota Prius around a South Bend, Indiana, parking lot while they sat in the backseat with their laptops, cackling as they disabled my brakes, honked the horn, jerked the seat belt, and commandeered the steering wheel. “When you lose faith that a car will do what you tell it to do,” Miller observed at the time, “it really changes your whole view of how the thing works.” Back then, however, their hacks had a comforting limitation: The attacker’s PC had been wired into the vehicles’ onboard diagnostic port, a feature that normally gives repair technicians access to information about the car’s electronically controlled systems.

A mere two years later, that carjacking has gone wireless.

Obviously way above anything I could do.... but how difficult would it be to make a wireless transmiter of the OBD2. Yes, it would need to be attached to the car, but definitely feasible with the right knowledge, and a far cry from needing to root around within the computers/chips themselves. Simple bluetooth OBD readers are available, for a very cheap price, I can guarantee you someone somewhere has made a wireless OBD scan port that sends and receives data...


On top of all of that - there is another great feature that self-driving cars would be able to do.... identify it's occupants and notify authorities if a problem, and shut the car down. Once you realize that as a feasibility, it will be more likely than not implemented. This now means that there are data warehouses with data pertaining to self-driving cars.... as in, how to communicate and shut down certain aspects of the vehicle. Now the flaw in the system is that the information is "somewhere" that could be hacked and/or individuals who shouldn't be in a place of authority may have access to it.


The idea/desire of self driving cars is amazing, as I said above.... until it gets hacked.
 
Last edited:
As I continued to read one of the articles I posted I came across this:

"Aside from wireless hacks used by thieves to open car doors, only one malicious car-hacking attack has been documented: In 2010 a disgruntled employee in Austin, Texas, used a remote shutdown system meant for enforcing timely car payments to brick more than 100 vehicles. But the opportunities for real-world car hacking have only grown, as automakers add wireless connections to vehicles’ internal networks. Uconnect is just one of a dozen telematics systems, including GM Onstar, Lexus Enform, Toyota Safety Connect, Hyundai Bluelink, and Infiniti Connection.

......

But Corman cautions that the same automakers have been more focused on competing with each other to install new Internet-connected cellular services for entertainment, navigation, and safety. (Payments for those services also provide a nice monthly revenue stream.) The result is that the companies have an incentive to add Internet-enabled features—but not to secure them from digital attacks. “They’re getting worse faster than they’re getting better,” he says. “If it takes a year to introduce a new hackable feature, then it takes them four to five years to protect it.”"


Then think about the industry as a whole and their reaction to recalls/failures. Something as simple as a mechanical ignition key failure possible on millions of vehicles over the course of over a decade.... while the company also knew about it and squandered the information...... did in fact cause deaths.
 
As I continued to read one of the articles I posted I came across this:

"Aside from wireless hacks used by thieves to open car doors, only one malicious car-hacking attack has been documented: In 2010 a disgruntled employee in Austin, Texas, used a remote shutdown system meant for enforcing timely car payments to brick more than 100 vehicles. But the opportunities for real-world car hacking have only grown, as automakers add wireless connections to vehicles’ internal networks. Uconnect is just one of a dozen telematics systems, including GM Onstar, Lexus Enform, Toyota Safety Connect, Hyundai Bluelink, and Infiniti Connection.

......

But Corman cautions that the same automakers have been more focused on competing with each other to install new Internet-connected cellular services for entertainment, navigation, and safety. (Payments for those services also provide a nice monthly revenue stream.) The result is that the companies have an incentive to add Internet-enabled features—but not to secure them from digital attacks. “They’re getting worse faster than they’re getting better,” he says. “If it takes a year to introduce a new hackable feature, then it takes them four to five years to protect it.”"


Then think about the industry as a whole and their reaction to recalls/failures. Something as simple as a mechanical ignition key failure possible on millions of vehicles over the course of over a decade.... while the company also knew about it and squandered the information...... did in fact cause deaths.

Whoever had the bright idea to connect the networked entertainment system to the car's vital controls is a farking idiot.

Even if that gets locked down sufficiently, there are still issues with GPS/wifi/cell tower jamming or spoofing as well as dazzling or jamming the visible/radar/lidar sensors or messing with the vehicle-to-vehicle nav communication envisioned by some of these concepts.

This stuff isn't insurmountable, but it's going to take alot of careful effort that car companies haven't been very good at considering, much less implementing so far in their electronic systems.
 
I attended an insurance industry meeting last summer, and one of the speakers topic was self driving cars and liability.

He laid out an interesting scenario;

Self driving cars are programmed to keep the occupants safe as a primary function, and at any cost, which could create problems...

A self driving car is confronted with an impending accident that would result in a fatal injuries to the cars occupants. To avoid the fatal accident, the car would have to go onto the sidewalk which is full of pedestrians. This action would result in fatalities to the pedestrians. The car must decide what to do - Save the driver or kill the pedestrians.

Who is at fault, and liable, when the pedestrians are killed when the self driving cars program decides to run them over to save the driver?

Brave new world when a computer program make a choice like this.
 
The last thing in the world I would ever want is a self-driving vehicle. I LIKE to drive.
I like to drive too, but not over the same route again and again and again. There also just doesn't seam to be as much time in the day any more. On my trips to see the therapist or doctors, 2 hours away, 2.75h, and 5h away, I'd like to recover some of that time and be able to read.
 
I kind of like the idea of driverless motorhomes. Just put in the destination and go to bed. Motorhome refuels/recharges itself,drives all night to your camp site .Then it makes the wake up coffee after it has made camp
 
The last thing in the world I would ever want is a self-driving vehicle. I LIKE to drive.

I don't see the point, why have the expense and hassle of ownership if you can't drive? It makes more sense to me to invest in better mass transit.
 
I don't see the point, why have the expense and hassle of ownership if you can't drive? It makes more sense to me to invest in better mass transit.
Mass transit, you may have to wait.
With ownership, you can go now.

I personally think mass transit is the way to go for most, but I live in the country where it isn't practical.
 
I kind of like the idea of driverless motorhomes. Just put in the destination and go to bed. Motorhome refuels/recharges itself,drives all night to your camp site .Then it makes the wake up coffee after it has made camp

Or point it at work, jump in the back, shower and make some bacon and eggs.
 
This thrills me as much as a "Self voting ballot" would!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom