• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

LA TIMES: Walt Disney World plans to deploy driverless shuttles

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
Has anyone heard more on the autonomous vehicles? Looking to know if the uber crash changed any minds at Disney, or if the idea was already fading.
GM will be the likely vendor and they haven’t had any major problems. What this accident in AZ might do is dissuade Disney from letting GM bring those cars to property until they are closer to T5 certification; that’s fully autonomous, no human action needed.
 

Gringrinngghost

Well-Known Member
Has anyone heard more on the autonomous vehicles? Looking to know if the uber crash changed any minds at Disney, or if the idea was already fading.
Uber is in loads of trouble. They actually disabled Volvo's SUV's Safety System Before Fatality. Both Intel who supplies chips to Aptiv who have worked on the Volvo XC90 stated "that it tested its own software after the crash by playing a video of the Uber incident on a television monitor. Mobileye said it was able to detect Herzberg one second before impact in its internal tests, despite the poor second-hand quality of the video relative to a direct connection to cameras equipped to the car."

I follow EEVblog on youtube and this was a pinned comment that he had for his first Uber video: "I spent years doing research on object segmentation and classification with lidar. Specifically I used the velodyne hdl-64, which captures about 1.3 million 3d points per second with like 2cm accuracy. That's with a distance of like 100m. Pretty sure Uber is using the same sensor. I am also really surprised that the car had what appears to be no reaction. There is plenty of data (with the lidar alone) and computing power to detect and react to what is a rather large obstacle. There was a TED talk by Chris Urmson about two years ago where they show their Google driverless vehicle detecting and tracking a person on a bicycle and avoiding a collision. It's really impressive. Again, I am really surprised that the Uber vehicle had basically no reaction with all that data and computing power."


EyeQ2 Teardown
 
Last edited:

Tom P.

Well-Known Member
Disagree, in P&R you have two factions TDA and TDO, TDA takes pride in maintaining the original principles set down by Walt and the care and attention to detail seen in the park even to things like the morse code message at the train station which could just be a random string of dots and dashes is actually a message, readable only by Military, Ham and Maritime radio operators.

TDO thinks details are wasteful money sinks because your average guest will 'never notice' them, Yet it's those details that make Disney well Disney, Does anyone have the same affection for their local Six Flags????, But TDO is trying to drag WDW to Six Flags level.

The monorail is a DETAIL a large and expensive one but a detail nonetheless, In Anaheim the monorails are seen as one of the attractions, And YES I do have my 'monorail pilot' card from both WDW and DL.

The monorail is one of my favorite attractions at WDW especially the EPCOT line where you can frequently see deer and other wildlife on the margins of the wooded areas.

TDO thinks buses cheaper, who cares about those expensive monorails, DL I think the CM's would chain themselves to the monorails in protest.

Just my 0.02
If what you are saying is true -- and I'm not saying it isn't -- then why has TDO not shut down the monorail system by now? I mean, is that not the logical conclusion of the attitude you are describing? There are plenty of other forms of transportation at WDW already in place that they can direct people to, and it's certainly easy enough to add more buses to increase capacity. So why continue to shoulder the expense of the monorail?
 

MansionButler84

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
If what you are saying is true -- and I'm not saying it isn't -- then why has TDO not shut down the monorail system by now? I mean, is that not the logical conclusion of the attitude you are describing? There are plenty of other forms of transportation at WDW already in place that they can direct people to, and it's certainly easy enough to add more buses to increase capacity. So why continue to shoulder the expense of the monorail?
Why, indeed.
 

Disone

Well-Known Member
Last I heard, BEFORE the Tempe incident is that Disney had put the driverless vechicles on the back burner, opting to let the technology develop more before they introduced this. I think the Tempe incident will only reinforce this decision. As for monorails, they are sticking around. A website that had "inside sources" tell it that Disney was going to shutter the Epcot monorail line to prolong the life of the resort and express lines. Disney took the unusual step of reaching out to that web site to say the information was completely false and there are no plans at all to close any part of the monorail system. Of note, they didn't even say or add the usual "at this time".
 

creathir

Monorail and PeopleMover Fanatic
Premium Member
I wonder how these cars are going to deal with deer? They don’t exactly know traffic laws.
In theory, they should detect the deer and react accordingly.

The Uber incident is the first time someone has been killed while one of these systems was active and in place.

They still are in trial mode and the driver who SHOULD have seen the person was too busy texting on her phone to notice...

She could have seen and stopped the car. But didn’t and now has to live with the fact that she killed someone.

In time, these systems will be perfected and be much safer than anything we have today as their visibility will be greatly enhanced compared to what we can do and see as human beings.
 

danlb_2000

Well-Known Member
Uber is in loads of trouble. They actually disabled Volvo's SUV's Safety System Before Fatality. Both Intel who supplies chips to Aptiv who have worked on the Volvo XC90 stated "that it tested its own software after the crash by playing a video of the Uber incident on a television monitor. Mobileye said it was able to detect Herzberg one second before impact in its internal tests, despite the poor second-hand quality of the video relative to a direct connection to cameras equipped to the car."

I follow EEVblog on youtube and this was a pinned comment that he had for his first Uber video: "I spent years doing research on object segmentation and classification with lidar. Specifically I used the velodyne hdl-64, which captures about 1.3 million 3d points per second with like 2cm accuracy. That's with a distance of like 100m. Pretty sure Uber is using the same sensor. I am also really surprised that the car had what appears to be no reaction. There is plenty of data (with the lidar alone) and computing power to detect and react to what is a rather large obstacle. There was a TED talk by Chris Urmson about two years ago where they show their Google driverless vehicle detecting and tracking a person on a bicycle and avoiding a collision. It's really impressive. Again, I am really surprised that the Uber vehicle had basically no reaction with all that data and computing power."


EyeQ2 Teardown

I love EEVBlog, I learn a lot about electronics and expand my Aussie vocabulary. :)
 

MisterPenguin

Fully Pfizered!
Premium Member
Here's one situation. Your car is operating full auto and a truck or something pulls out in front of you. Complete side ways, you will hit it at 45 MPH. The car can drive right to avoid the truck and slam on the brakes. To the right is a commercial area with 100's of people walking around. Who does the car kill? You and hit the truck to save the people in the commercial area or does the car go right and hope it brakes before hitting anyone? How do you program that? Do you want to take the chance that your car decides you are the one to die? Maybe you won't die but you will hit that truck full on.

So, what do you as a human driver do in that situation?
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Driverless tech is decades out kids, don't be fooled and for that matter it may not be completely possible.

Here's one situation. Your car is operating full auto and a truck or something pulls out in front of you. Complete side ways, you will hit it at 45 MPH. The car can drive right to avoid the truck and slam on the brakes. To the right is a commercial area with 100's of people walking around. Who does the car kill? You and hit the truck to save the people in the commercial area or does the car go right and hope it brakes before hitting anyone? How do you program that? Do you want to take the chance that your car decides you are the one to die? Maybe you won't die but you will hit that truck full on.

Same with the deer. Does the auto pilot just smack the deer as opposed to drive off the road to who knows fate? Most of the time especially in the country you will be better off hitting the deer but how does the computer know it's a deer not a person?

This auto drive thing isn't as simple as it would seem.
So, what do you as a human driver do in that situation?
You (people) have to make the same decision, but, I'll repeat... YOU have to make them not some machine. I think that someday they will be the thing, but, until they have had a long period of time with no incidents it will not gain the public's confidence. Just in the past few months there have been two (that we know of) incidents of accidents because no one was controlling the vehicle except the computer. The computer can only anticipate situations if they are programmed to do so. That is an iffy proposition at best.
 

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
FWIW, I don't think the claim is (or ever will be) that driverless cars will eliminate accidents; they will just lessen the number of them. There are scenarios where a human driver would be the safer option, but there are far more where the automated option is the preferable method.
The inherent problem with AI is that each solution to a possible incident must be learned. Therefore, an incident must occur in order to be learned from with additional incidents needed to refine the learned algorithm.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
FWIW, I don't think the claim is (or ever will be) that driverless cars will eliminate accidents; they will just lessen the number of them. There are scenarios where a human driver would be the safer option, but there are far more where the automated option is the preferable method.
To me there are two things that will have to be overcome and both of them are people. First they have to convince people that turning over control of something that is inherently dangerous over to a buzzing chunk of circuits and 1010101010's. Second, they have to convince people that driving isn't fun and that we should just become couch potatoes no matter what the activity. We do allow that in airplanes because, frankly, we don't really know what is happening or how to do it, but, at least at this point, we still know that there is a crew up front at least watching the gauges and the planes relationship to oncoming mountain ranges. How many people do you know that aren't control freaks. That alone will delay progress for generations.

There is very little in life that I have enjoyed more then a road trip. There was a time when you couldn't put enough road between me and my destination, because I loved (still love) to drive. I can sit at home. If I have two options based on time restraint, etc. to drive or use public, no drive alternatives, I will take the drive route every time. I know I'm not alone in that feeling. I have noticed, however, that today's teens do not seem to have the same desire to start the driving process then those of my generation.
 

MisterPenguin

Fully Pfizered!
Premium Member
You (people) have to make the same decision, but, I'll repeat... YOU have to make them not some machine. I think that someday they will be the thing, but, until they have had a long period of time with no incidents it will not gain the public's confidence. Just in the past few months there have been two (that we know of) incidents of accidents because no one was controlling the vehicle except the computer. The computer can only anticipate situations if they are programmed to do so. That is an iffy proposition at best.

You're not answering the question. What would you do?

The point is, until you answer what you would do in a situation with no good options, you just can't say we can't use computers because they'll find themselves in a no-good-option scenario. That happens to humans, too. A human will make a decision that gets someone killed because they don't have an option not to. It will be the same for the computer.

I'd rather the computer made the decision based on algorithm programmed by humans because then they'll make the better choice every time. And given their reaction time, the amount of damage will be less than with a human.
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
The inherent problem with AI is that each solution to a possible incident must be learned. Therefore, an incident must occur in order to be learned from with additional incidents needed to refine the learned algorithm.
The first part of your comment seems right, but I’m not sure the second part is. AI can “learn” from historical data. The value of AI is that it can learn solutions in anticipation of possible outcomes rather than having to wait until every possible scenario actually occurs.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
You're not answering the question. What would you do?

The point is, until you answer what you would do in a situation with no good options, you just can't say we can't use computers because they'll find themselves in a no-good-option scenario. That happens to humans, too. A human will make a decision that gets someone killed because they don't have an option not to. It will be the same for the computer.

I'd rather the computer made the decision based on algorithm programmed by humans because then they'll make the better choice every time. And given their reaction time, the amount of damage will be less than with a human.
That's the thing, no one really knows until presented with the situation and at the point the brain makes about a zillion calculations and then might even find a third alternative that wasn't included in the computer program. No one really knows how one would react, but, I think that most would choose not to plow down a group of people. We all have some degree of humanity, I would hope. It's not the dying, it's the lack of choice that bothers me. And would the car even know that there were a bunch of people there and not just some random bushes until after it had pointed itself in that direction. And would you rather have the computer make that decision so you can walk away and have a "machine" to blame. Something that you still have to live with because you made the decision to ride in a car that you were not in control of. It seems to me that there would be unlimited algorithm's in every movement that is made. The car is not going to get sued, you or the manufacturer will be spending out the cash. You can bet that before you can incorporate that technology into your life, you will be signing off the right to go after the manufacturer for damages. The fine print will need the Hubble Telescope strength Microscope to be able to read.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom