Vehicles with no human driver

[WTFH]

Out of curiosity, would people feel differently if driverless cars were restricted to specific lanes rather than mixed in with everyone else?

They could sit in the middle lane with the zoned out zombie drivers who are unaware of anything around them, or in the outside lane with the BMW drivers -would just need to program the car to drive one metre from the car in front.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Regarding planes - a human tends to control the take off and landing and then it's the computer that takes over for the cruise phase which, as woody says, is in relatively clear airspace (barring any Russian/Iranian missiles out for a Sunday stroll).

They only do that so the pilots keep their skills up to date - even then stuff like the throttle settings on takeoff are automated. Planes could very easily manage the takeoff and landing (and they do the landings at times) - in some cases like full cat III landings in dense fog there's no way for a human to do it.

[ladymuck]

They only do that so the pilots keep their skills up to date - even then stuff like the throttle settings on takeoff are automated. Planes could very easily manage the takeoff and landing (and they do the landings at times) - in some cases like full cat III landings in dense fog there's no way for a human to do it.

That's why I said "tends to", not "always do". Call me old fashioned but I think keeping human flying skills up to date is quite useful. I'd love to see if an automated system would have picked the Hudson river as a landing spot.

[Protagoras]

That's why I said "tends to", not "always do". Call me old fashioned but I think keeping human flying skills up to date is quite useful. I'd love to see if an automated system would have picked the Hudson river as a landing spot.

An aviation forum I hang out on has been debating for decades the perceived de-skilling arising from automation. There have been accidents and near misses where pilots have failed properly to handle situations of automation failure. Then there's the issue of keeping up with what automation is actually doing in real time, leading to "what's it doing now?" type commentary.

Automation doesn't always fail gracefully; sensor failures commonly seriously compromise automation. A challenge for vehicles would be how reversion from automation to manual operation is handled. It can't be assumed that the driver of an automated vehicle can maintain the situational awareness to be able to take control instantly.

[ladymuck]

what could possibly go wrong?

https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/...ign_hijack_ai/

"...In a new class of attack on AI systems, troublemakers can carry out these environmental indirect prompt injection attacks to hijack decision-making processes.

Potential consequences include self-driving cars proceeding through crosswalks, even if a person was crossing..."

[Paddy]

what could possibly go wrong?

https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/...ign_hijack_ai/

"...In a new class of attack on AI systems, troublemakers can carry out these environmental indirect prompt injection attacks to hijack decision-making processes.

Potential consequences include self-driving cars proceeding through crosswalks, even if a person was crossing..."

One could put a no overtaking sign on the back of bicycle or carry a stop sign on a briefcase for crossing the road.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

That's why I said "tends to", not "always do". Call me old fashioned but I think keeping human flying skills up to date is quite useful. I'd love to see if an automated system would have picked the Hudson river as a landing spot.

No argument from me about keep flying skills - BUT in simulator exercises, other pilots got back to the airport (or landed at Teterboro) about half the time - and that was relying on human decisions too. That landing is (rightly) hailed because no-one died, but ditching in a river is a big risk - lucky for everyone it paid off that time, but it isn't proof that an automated system couldn't have done as good, or a better job.

I think there's some element of "human exceptionalism" - like when ABS first became commonplace in cars - my mate reckoned the car couldn't do a better job of braking than him in an emergency - even he's had to accept that's not true now, although he still disables the stop/start and sets the HVAC manually all the time as he hates automation.

Also, autopilot is used a lot more than just the cruise phase - it handles climbs, descents, speeds etc at pretty much every point except the very start and end (and with autoland - which most jets now have - can even do that bit).

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Imagine trying to program a computer to predict the behaviour of BMW drivers.

Pretty easy - will ignore all speed limits, tailgate the flip out of anything/everything and ignore any rules/courtesy that doesn't suit them. A bit like people trying to barge you out of the way on the tube - expect everyone else to recognise their innate superiority and importance and defer to them at every opportunity.

[malvolio]

No argument from me about keep flying skills - BUT in simulator exercises, other pilots got back to the airport (or landed at Teterboro) about half the time - and that was relying on human decisions too. That landing is (rightly) hailed because no-one died, but ditching in a river is a big risk - lucky for everyone it paid off that time, but it isn't proof that an automated system couldn't have done as good, or a better job.

You miss the point, as Sully pointed out to the enquiry. You could fly back to the airport and land provided you did all the right things immediately. It took him and the co-pilot about 20 seconds to work out what went wrong by which time it was too late. The pilots who made the theoretical landing weren't panicking, knew what the problem was beforehand and reacted immediately.

An autopilot, even an AI enhanced one, would not recognise the Hudson as a landing option. If it worked out it couldn't get home, it would most likely have picked the I25 as the best option...

[ladymuck]

You miss the point, as Sully pointed out to the enquiry. You could fly back to the airport and land provided you did all the right things immediately. It took him and the co-pilot about 20 seconds to work out what went wrong by which time it was too late. The pilots who made the theoretical landing weren't panicking, knew what the problem was beforehand and reacted immediately.

An autopilot, even an AI enhanced one, would not recognise the Hudson as a landing option. If it worked out it couldn't get home, it would most likely have picked the I25 as the best option...

Yes, I saw that testimony. The simulation pilots were told what the problem was before they started. That's information Sully and his copilot didn't have in real life.