Driverless Cars?! (1 Viewer)

[Maurile Tremblay]

Seems pretty cool.

 

[Sarnoff]

This will either go really well or really poorly. But if it goes well, then you might be looking at googles stock price now as getting in on the ground floor.

If we solve the cheap power problem, then this is only a stopgap technology. You'll only use Google's driverless operating system to get you to the electronic guideway grid.

at that point, there's no need to own a car. These things become taxis and shuttles that predict demand based on weather, time of day, etc, then pick you up wherever you are, bring you to the grid, and go back to get the next set of customers. Then we use the solar power generating roads to move you around the grid, which can handle a ton more traffic on the same size roads because drivers don't merge or weave.

Driverless cars means you don't have to own one. Right now, the car you own sits there doing nothing 90 to 99% of the time. Just depreciating so you have it around when you need it later. And, it most likely occupies at least two parking spots--one at home that's empty when you're at work, and one at work that's empty when you're at home.Cut all that out, get rid of the idea of individual ownership, and we'll have fleets of driverless cars ready to pick you up anywhere in five minutes with a text message. You'll rent service for a much lower cost than the price of a car over its lifetime. The ability for cities to reclaim parking lot land is a giant incentive for them to move to make sure driverless cars stay legal.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This will either go really well or really poorly. But if it goes well, then you might be looking at googles stock price now as getting in on the ground floor.

If we solve the cheap power problem, then this is only a stopgap technology. You'll only use Google's driverless operating system to get you to the electronic guideway grid.

at that point, there's no need to own a car. These things become taxis and shuttles that predict demand based on weather, time of day, etc, then pick you up wherever you are, bring you to the grid, and go back to get the next set of customers. Then we use the solar power generating roads to move you around the grid, which can handle a ton more traffic on the same size roads because drivers don't merge or weave.

Driverless cars means you don't have to own one. Right now, the car you own sits there doing nothing 90 to 99% of the time. Just depreciating so you have it around when you need it later. And, it most likely occupies at least two parking spots--one at home that's empty when you're at work, and one at work that's empty when you're at home.

Cut all that out, get rid of the idea of individual ownership, and we'll have fleets of driverless cars ready to pick you up anywhere in five minutes with a text message. You'll rent service for a much lower cost than the price of a car over its lifetime. The ability for cities to reclaim parking lot land is a giant incentive for them to move to make sure driverless cars stay legal.

Cars don't really have to be driverless for that to work. In San Diego, car2go is catching on. I've seen one parked on the street a few times, and I've heard people talking about it. What would be about a $40–$50 cab ride is about $6 using car2go. And the more it catches on, the more convenient it will be. So the fact that it's already gaining some traction bodes well.

 

[Sarnoff]

Cars don't really have to be driverless for that to work. In San Diego, car2go is catching on. I've seen one parked on the street a few times, and I've heard people talking about it. What would be about a $40–$50 cab ride is about $6 using car2go. And the more it catches on, the more convenient it will be. So the fact that it's already gaining some traction bodes well.

Right, that's definitely a step down the path. I think full realization comes with driverless cars, because then you're not locked into the location the car has been left by the previous user. You can have a car out to your house in the 'burbs in minutes without prior arrangement. It's pretty much the same thing, but instead of having to find a car that's been parked somewhere and left for you, it comes to you.

 

[Maelstrom]

Too long to post the entire thing. Interesting article.

http://www.economist.com/node/21560989

Look, no hands

Automotive technology: Driverless cars promise to reduce road accidents, ease congestion and revolutionise transport

Driverless cars would provide further benefits beyond safety. They could co-ordinate their routes and travel in close formation, increasing the capacity of road networks, reducing congestion and saving fuel. They would be able to drop someone off and then go and park themselves. They might even usher in an era of widespread car-sharing, with vehicles dispatched on demand to people who need them, rather than spending most of the day sitting idle by the side of the road. And they would, of course, do away with the stress of driving, allowing their occupants to read, browse the internet or take a nap. It may sound like science fiction, but much of the technology needed to turn ordinary vehicles into self-driving ones already exists. Indeed, almost all carmakers are developing sensors, control systems and other equipment that turns cars, in effect, into autonomous robots. Prototypes are on the roads today.

 

[Rayderr]

Too long to post the entire thing. Interesting article.

http://www.economist.com/node/21560989

Look, no hands

Automotive technology: Driverless cars promise to reduce road accidents, ease congestion and revolutionise transport

Driverless cars would provide further benefits beyond safety. They could co-ordinate their routes and travel in close formation, increasing the capacity of road networks, reducing congestion and saving fuel. They would be able to drop someone off and then go and park themselves. They might even usher in an era of widespread car-sharing, with vehicles dispatched on demand to people who need them, rather than spending most of the day sitting idle by the side of the road. And they would, of course, do away with the stress of driving, allowing their occupants to read, browse the internet or take a nap. It may sound like science fiction, but much of the technology needed to turn ordinary vehicles into self-driving ones already exists. Indeed, almost all carmakers are developing sensors, control systems and other equipment that turns cars, in effect, into autonomous robots. Prototypes are on the roads today.

I just don't see us suddenly making a jump to driverless cars. I suspect the first step would be something like the 360 Alert system they're trying out, where every car sends out information (where it is, direction it's going, and speed) and your car picks up all that and it alerts you if a car will potentially hit if you don't stop, or warn you that there's a car in your blind spot. Once those become standard, then I see the next step where it automatically employs accident avoidance maneuvers when necessary. Then once that becomes standard, we go to driverless cars. I think that's at least 30 (but more like 50+) years away from all driverless cars.

 

[Maelstrom]

Too long to post the entire thing. Interesting article.

http://www.economist.com/node/21560989

Look, no hands

Automotive technology: Driverless cars promise to reduce road accidents, ease congestion and revolutionise transport

Driverless cars would provide further benefits beyond safety. They could co-ordinate their routes and travel in close formation, increasing the capacity of road networks, reducing congestion and saving fuel. They would be able to drop someone off and then go and park themselves. They might even usher in an era of widespread car-sharing, with vehicles dispatched on demand to people who need them, rather than spending most of the day sitting idle by the side of the road. And they would, of course, do away with the stress of driving, allowing their occupants to read, browse the internet or take a nap. It may sound like science fiction, but much of the technology needed to turn ordinary vehicles into self-driving ones already exists. Indeed, almost all carmakers are developing sensors, control systems and other equipment that turns cars, in effect, into autonomous robots. Prototypes are on the roads today.

I just don't see us suddenly making a jump to driverless cars. I suspect the first step would be something like the 360 Alert system they're trying out, where every car sends out information (where it is, direction it's going, and speed) and your car picks up all that and it alerts you if a car will potentially hit if you don't stop, or warn you that there's a car in your blind spot. Once those become standard, then I see the next step where it automatically employs accident avoidance maneuvers when necessary. Then once that becomes standard, we go to driverless cars. I think that's at least 30 (but more like 50+) years away from all driverless cars.

I agree that we will see aspects of driverless cars start to popup first, like the 360 Alert, and then assisted steering for someone who starts to veer off the road. I disagree that it'll take 30 to 50 years though. I'm in the 10 years, you'll be able to buy one, in 20 they will be fairly commonplace. I won't predict this, but I also won't be surprised to see it become a mandated technology like seatbelts in 30 years in many states, starting with California and maybe New York. (Assuming they do prove to be significantly safer to operate.)

 

[Rayderr]

Too long to post the entire thing. Interesting article.

http://www.economist.com/node/21560989

Look, no hands

Automotive technology: Driverless cars promise to reduce road accidents, ease congestion and revolutionise transport

Driverless cars would provide further benefits beyond safety. They could co-ordinate their routes and travel in close formation, increasing the capacity of road networks, reducing congestion and saving fuel. They would be able to drop someone off and then go and park themselves. They might even usher in an era of widespread car-sharing, with vehicles dispatched on demand to people who need them, rather than spending most of the day sitting idle by the side of the road. And they would, of course, do away with the stress of driving, allowing their occupants to read, browse the internet or take a nap. It may sound like science fiction, but much of the technology needed to turn ordinary vehicles into self-driving ones already exists. Indeed, almost all carmakers are developing sensors, control systems and other equipment that turns cars, in effect, into autonomous robots. Prototypes are on the roads today.

I just don't see us suddenly making a jump to driverless cars. I suspect the first step would be something like the 360 Alert system they're trying out, where every car sends out information (where it is, direction it's going, and speed) and your car picks up all that and it alerts you if a car will potentially hit if you don't stop, or warn you that there's a car in your blind spot. Once those become standard, then I see the next step where it automatically employs accident avoidance maneuvers when necessary. Then once that becomes standard, we go to driverless cars. I think that's at least 30 (but more like 50+) years away from all driverless cars.

U.S. regulators plan car-to-car communications to prevent accidentsBy Jerry Hirsch February 3, 2014, 11:49 a.m.
The Department of Transportation will push the development of a short-range radio system aimed at stopping crashes by allowing cars to exchange basic facts about speed and direction to other vehicles as fast at 10 times a second.

Called vehicle-to-vehicle communications, such a system would give vehicles the ability to warn drivers of potential dangers as far as 300 yards away.

The technology could be linked to safety systems already in some vehicles that automatically trigger the brakes or make steering adjustments to stop collisions.

“This is just the beginning of a revolution in roadway safety,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said Monday.

“I don’t think you can understate the significance of having vehicles that are smart enough to recognize that an accident is about to happen and can step in to stop it,” Foxx said.

The agency’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration plans to institute the rules for installing such systems in vehicles before the end of the Obama administration, Foxx said.

The government will establish the rules and standards for such a system and make sure that a segment of the radio spectrum is free for cars to use. Automakers will build the communications systems, GPS sensor and software into the vehicles.

Foxx characterized the decision as a watershed event that eventually could prevent as much as 80% of the more than 30,000 traffic fatalities that occur in the U.S. annually.

Where federal regulation previously has focused on improving the structure of vehicles to allow the occupants to survive crashes, this represents a shift in direction to institute technology that avoids collisions, he said.

The Transportation Department did not provide any cost estimates.

“The safety benefits here will clearly outweigh any concerns about cost,” Foxx said.

The agency is signaling its intentions now because it wants car companies to know there will be a communications standard that all autos will have to adhere to, said Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Moreover, it wants the Federal Communications Commission to protect the bandwidth and understand any safety implications of allowing others to use portions of the same radio spectrum, he said.

“The potential safety benefits are quite clear,” said Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. “The chief advantage is that this technology always pays attention, unlike drivers.”

Such a system will provide a 360-degree view of what’s happening in the vehicles' vicinity.

“It can see around a truck and can detect who is about to run a red light,” Lund said.

But with safety regulators just starting on the rules now, it will be years before drivers benefit, he said.

“The timeline for the safety benefits is unfortunately long because you need to have a lot of vehicles broadcasting their speed and direction before this is going to be useful,” Lund said. “If only 1% of the cars have this technology then you are not going to be warned about most of the threats on the road.”

Automakers are already working on such systems.

“Honda is working on a variety of vehicle to vehicle, vehicle to infrastructure and vehicle to pedestrian technologies, and we're pretty deep into testing in Japan in conjunction with local governments there,” said Chris Martin, a Honda spokesman.

The automaker believes the technology could extend to all road users, making most basic forms of transportation safer.

NHTSA officials called the technology “foundational” and said it could be used in conjunction with cellphones or other signals to protect pedestrians and cyclists.

NHTSA’s plan is based on research from an experiment with the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute using about 3,000 vehicles already sharing information about their speed and location in Ann Arbor, Mich.

Analysts said the NHTSA announcement Monday is an important step forward for automotive technology.

“I am just hoping that it will not be ‘watered down’ over the next few weeks regarding timing and scope,” said Thilo Koslowski, an analyst at Gartner Inc.

However, Koslowski said he was “disappointed” that transportation officials are pitching the system only as a method of alerting drivers to potential dangers rather than proposing that it be tied into active safety systems that trigger the car to intervene with braking and steering to avoid a collision.

Developing one standard so that all vehicles speak the same language is key to developing such a safety system, said Jeremy Anwyl, an automotive industry consultant with Marketec Systems.

“Just as we can all use email today across platforms and providers because standards exist for how emails are formatted and transmitted,” Anwyl said, “we need standards for vehicle-to-vehicle communication — no matter which manufacturer built the vehicle.”

NHTSA plays a key role in accelerating the development and adoption of such standards. For example, an automaker using NHTSA’s standards, even if not legally mandated, will allow a manufacturer a “safe harbor” in the event of an accident, Anwyl said.

Already active safety features such as collision warnings with automatic braking are in high demand by today’s car buyers.

In the future, vehicle occupants “will be far safer when vehicles can anticipate what other vehicles are going to do,” Anwyl said. “This means we need cars to be communicating with each other.”

 

[Al Czervik]

Elon Musk Describes the Future of Self-Driving Cars. Interesting article. With the recent talk of Apple working on a driverless car as well as Google, Tesla and every other OEM, it's really an exciting time in the auto industry. Feels like we are so close (and sometimes yet so far) from huge changes in personal transportation.

 

[moleculo]

Elon Musk Describes the Future of Self-Driving Cars. Interesting article. With the recent talk of Apple working on a driverless car as well as Google, Tesla and every other OEM, it's really an exciting time in the auto industry. Feels like we are so close (and sometimes yet so far) from huge changes in personal transportation.

I'm thrilled that this will happen in my lifetime.

 

[Rayderr]

Top Gear had an interesting conversation regarding the morality of the self driving cars. What does the car do in no win situations? Say the car is driving along and suddenly a person steps out in front because he's texting or something. The car knows it can't stop in time and hitting the person would surely kill him. But it can swerve onto the sidewalk, where it would hit ten 5 year olds, but because the car has more room to stop, it won't kill them just cripple all of them. What will the car do? What do we want it to do? What are the ethics in programming a car to value some lives over others?

 

[cstu]

Top Gear had an interesting conversation regarding the morality of the self driving cars. What does the car do in no win situations? Say the car is driving along and suddenly a person steps out in front because he's texting or something. The car knows it can't stop in time and hitting the person would surely kill him. But it can swerve onto the sidewalk, where it would hit ten 5 year olds, but because the car has more room to stop, it won't kill them just cripple all of them. What will the car do? What do we want it to do? What are the ethics in programming a car to value some lives over others?

A self driving car should never be designed to leave the road. If that means being in an accident then so be it. The bright side is that a self driving car would be less likely to be in situations where a decision like that would need to be made.

 

[roadkill1292]

Top Gear had an interesting conversation regarding the morality of the self driving cars. What does the car do in no win situations? Say the car is driving along and suddenly a person steps out in front because he's texting or something. The car knows it can't stop in time and hitting the person would surely kill him. But it can swerve onto the sidewalk, where it would hit ten 5 year olds, but because the car has more room to stop, it won't kill them just cripple all of them. What will the car do? What do we want it to do? What are the ethics in programming a car to value some lives over others?

A self driving car should never be designed to leave the road. If that means being in an accident then so be it. The bright side is that a self driving car would be less likely to be in situations where a decision like that would need to be made.

The car could send an emergency text to the moron pedestrian. "WAKE THE EFF UP, #######!"

 

[BrutalPenguin]

Another interesting situation is a line of self driving cars approaching an unavoidable obstacle. The car in front could tell the cars behind to decelerate while the lead car takes one for the team and accelerates into the obstacle to knock it out of the way of the others.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Top Gear had an interesting conversation regarding the morality of the self driving cars. What does the car do in no win situations? Say the car is driving along and suddenly a person steps out in front because he's texting or something. The car knows it can't stop in time and hitting the person would surely kill him. But it can swerve onto the sidewalk, where it would hit ten 5 year olds, but because the car has more room to stop, it won't kill them just cripple all of them. What will the car do? What do we want it to do? What are the ethics in programming a car to value some lives over others?

I thought these were traditionally problems featuring trolleys, not cars.

 

[Gawain]

Top Gear had an interesting conversation regarding the morality of the self driving cars. What does the car do in no win situations? Say the car is driving along and suddenly a person steps out in front because he's texting or something. The car knows it can't stop in time and hitting the person would surely kill him. But it can swerve onto the sidewalk, where it would hit ten 5 year olds, but because the car has more room to stop, it won't kill them just cripple all of them. What will the car do? What do we want it to do? What are the ethics in programming a car to value some lives over others?

I thought these were traditionally problems featuring trolleys, not cars.

50 self driving Fiats are in a cave that's going to flood. The only exit is blocked by a self driving Hummer that is stuck with its engine outside of the flood zone. Can the fiats dismantle the hummer to escape?

 

[Statcruncher]

Top Gear had an interesting conversation regarding the morality of the self driving cars. What does the car do in no win situations? Say the car is driving along and suddenly a person steps out in front because he's texting or something. The car knows it can't stop in time and hitting the person would surely kill him. But it can swerve onto the sidewalk, where it would hit ten 5 year olds, but because the car has more room to stop, it won't kill them just cripple all of them. What will the car do? What do we want it to do? What are the ethics in programming a car to value some lives over others?

A self driving car should never be designed to leave the road. If that means being in an accident then so be it. The bright side is that a self driving car would be less likely to be in situations where a decision like that would need to be made.

I'm not liking that either. A semi jackknifes on the highway and the car is programmed to stay on the road and hit the truck instead of veering into a wide open median? Yeah, there's some details that need to be ironed out there.

 

[[icon]]

Top Gear had an interesting conversation regarding the morality of the self driving cars. What does the car do in no win situations? Say the car is driving along and suddenly a person steps out in front because he's texting or something. The car knows it can't stop in time and hitting the person would surely kill him. But it can swerve onto the sidewalk, where it would hit ten 5 year olds, but because the car has more room to stop, it won't kill them just cripple all of them. What will the car do? What do we want it to do? What are the ethics in programming a car to value some lives over others?

A self driving car should never be designed to leave the road. If that means being in an accident then so be it. The bright side is that a self driving car would be less likely to be in situations where a decision like that would need to be made.

I'm not liking that either. A semi jackknifes on the highway and the car is programmed to stay on the road and hit the truck instead of veering into a wide open median? Yeah, there's some details that need to be ironed out there.

Breakdown lane IMO.

 

[trogg78]

I am hardly ever a passenger in a car. That has made me deathly afraid when I am the passenger and don't have control of the car.

 

[Rayderr]

Top Gear had an interesting conversation regarding the morality of the self driving cars. What does the car do in no win situations? Say the car is driving along and suddenly a person steps out in front because he's texting or something. The car knows it can't stop in time and hitting the person would surely kill him. But it can swerve onto the sidewalk, where it would hit ten 5 year olds, but because the car has more room to stop, it won't kill them just cripple all of them. What will the car do? What do we want it to do? What are the ethics in programming a car to value some lives over others?

A self driving car should never be designed to leave the road. If that means being in an accident then so be it. The bright side is that a self driving car would be less likely to be in situations where a decision like that would need to be made.

Also brought up in Top Gear. That there are going to be instances where the car decides the best option is for you to die.

I agree that driverless cars are less likely to be in that situation, once all the cars on the road are driverless. But reality is, there's going to be a long crossover of both driverless and human driven cars on the road. That's where the danger kicks in imo.

 

[roadkill1292]

The U of Michigan is spearheading a new project that goes beyond the Google car, which largely depends on sensors and cameras. Instead of using visual input, they are building a mini-city to test traffic patterns and vehicle-to-vehicle communication without the aid of direct visual input. If the cars are able to swap data with other cars within a certain radius without physically "seeing" them, it's a huge leap forward. I think it's pretty possible that this technology will be combined with roadway-imbedded sensors to provide even better relational data to all the vehicles traveling along it.

Or even at convergent roads ahead. One goal is to eliminate traffic lights by managing the flow of traffic entering an intersection so that no cars ever actually come to a complete stop. This can be done if the computers have a count and destination of vehicles heading for a cross street.

 

[Jack White]

I am hardly ever a passenger in a car. That has made me deathly afraid when I am the passenger and don't have control of the car.

I feel the same way.

I don't know how many years it will be until this whole driverless car thing becomes a reality, but count me out.

 

[cstu]

Top Gear had an interesting conversation regarding the morality of the self driving cars. What does the car do in no win situations? Say the car is driving along and suddenly a person steps out in front because he's texting or something. The car knows it can't stop in time and hitting the person would surely kill him. But it can swerve onto the sidewalk, where it would hit ten 5 year olds, but because the car has more room to stop, it won't kill them just cripple all of them. What will the car do? What do we want it to do? What are the ethics in programming a car to value some lives over others?

A self driving car should never be designed to leave the road. If that means being in an accident then so be it. The bright side is that a self driving car would be less likely to be in situations where a decision like that would need to be made.

Also brought up in Top Gear. That there are going to be instances where the car decides the best option is for you to die.

I agree that driverless cars are less likely to be in that situation, once all the cars on the road are driverless. But reality is, there's going to be a long crossover of both driverless and human driven cars on the road. That's where the danger kicks in imo.

And how often does a human decision to avoid an accident by leaving the road result in even more damage to the driver and passengers than what the accident on the road would have caused?

A computer can make decisions to minimize the danger before it becomes a life-threatening event, which human react instinctively with delayed response.

 

[cstu]

Cars don't really have to be driverless for that to work. In San Diego, car2go is catching on. I've seen one parked on the street a few times, and I've heard people talking about it. What would be about a $40–$50 cab ride is about $6 using car2go. And the more it catches on, the more convenient it will be. So the fact that it's already gaining some traction bodes well.

Right, that's definitely a step down the path. I think full realization comes with driverless cars, because then you're not locked into the location the car has been left by the previous user. You can have a car out to your house in the 'burbs in minutes without prior arrangement. It's pretty much the same thing, but instead of having to find a car that's been parked somewhere and left for you, it comes to you.

The future will be like everyone have their own driver. The car drops you off at an event and finds free parking somewhere until you're ready for it.

 

[Dentist]

I can't wait for this. Very excited to buy before my ability to drive declines. Very excited that my sons may not ever make the decision to drive intoxicated like many of us have. I doubt I live long enough to see drivers completely eliminated but the day that happens is good

 

[James Daulton]

Lawyers will screw this up.