4 ms·
In the end, the "messing with cars" problem renders almost all explicit-communication-between-vehicles moot, or at least not as useful as people first imagine.
by stormbrew 10y ago
In the end, the "messing with cars" problem renders almost all explicit-communication-between-vehicles moot, or at least not as useful as people first imagine. The autonomous car will still, no matter what, have to trust its 'vision' over any informative messages.
This is not any different from cars driven by humans, btw. Someone can put up a sign (say a merge left sign and some pylons) that can cause accidents pretty easily, which is why drivers still have to pay attention.
The thing is that wide, let alone 360 degree, vision should provide the computer with more and more useful 'messages' than humans are ever capable of taking in. And probably more than any attack vulnerable information messages could provide too.
- vosper 10y agoYes, though I can't recall any incidents where someone set up traffic signage to intentionally cause an accident (I'm sure it's happened, but I bet it's really uncommon). Anyway, I'm not suggesting that the car take a remote signal on blind faith, but I still think it might be useful to have some kind of indicator. It can be factored into the other sensor data - "this signaling object does appear to be in close proximity and moving like a cyclist". Just as people don't tend to mess with signage and cause crashes now, I think they're unlikely (on the whole) to do it with these kind of signals. Especially since you'd be in serious trouble if you caused a wreck.
- stormbrew 10y agoWell, keep in mind how much harder might be to catch someone messing with traffic with radio signals of some sort than by physically being present and visible and putting nonsensical signs in the road. I do think it would be more common.