Imagine Computer-driven Vehicles

[Inclusa]

Due to slow reaction time, I refuse to be a human driver; still, North Americans often place high regards on ability to drive, and public
transit is not exactly well-developed.

The only way I may "drive" may be a computer-driven vehicle, but I'm not too sure how far are we from it.

[danscope]

You can not delegate absolute authority and responsibility for operating a motor vehicle . YOU are the pilot in command.There is no computer which
can replace you. Period.

[Celestial Mechanic]

And which operating system would you trust to drive your vehicle for you? Microsoft? It would bring a whole new meaning to the phrase "Blue Screen of Death".

[Inclusa]

Ok, the realistic alternative is still taking public transit? Many North Americans often don't realize "pushing" everyone to drive is dangerous.

[Frog march]

computer driven cars would create a revival in country pub in the UK.

[Jens]

You can not delegate absolute authority and responsibility for operating a motor vehicle . YOU are the pilot in command.There is no computer which
can replace you. Period.

I agree with your skepticism regarding space travel, but in this case I don't. I don't think that computer-driven cars are all that far away. And I think they will make roads safer, and as a bonus will lead to a revival of country pubs! Seriously. I have been in computer-driven trains and I would be happy to ride in a computer driven car. Not with MS Windows at the OS, of course.

[Van Rijn]

And which operating system would you trust to drive your vehicle for you? Microsoft? It would bring a whole new meaning to the phrase "Blue Screen of Death".

But people already die all the time on the road. Obviously, you wouldn't switch over to automated driving until it was shown to have no more risk than human drivers. Automation is about the only path I see with a real possibility of significantly reducing traffic deaths and injuries.

[geonuc]

Ok, the realistic alternative is still taking public transit? Many North Americans often don't realize "pushing" everyone to drive is dangerous.

It is not just 'North Americans' who drive automobiles. There are a lot of dangerous things in life and a lot of ways to minimize the risks to acceptable levels. The realistic alternatives to using a computer-controlled vehicle (which is not an option, yet) are to use public transportation as you say, but also to learn to drive non-computer-controlled vehicles. You could also use employ the Sheldon Cooper option: rely on others to drive you around.

[novaderrik]

i would hate not being in control of my car- it's relaxing to get in a car and go for a drive thru the countryside, not knowing where you are going, how long it will take to get there, or what you will see or what kind of people you will meet along the way..

as to why public transportation hasn't really caught on in the USA like it has in Europe- it's a matter of geography and culture. on the geography side of things, this country is BIG compared to European countries and we tend to live farther from where we work.. on the culture side of things we tend to be more independent minded and taking a train or a bus to get everywhere just doesn't fit in with that mindset.

[ddubs]

The problem with humans driving is there is very little communication between vehicles on the road. You get two-way comm which is brake/turn signals (which can be easily missed) and one-way which are your mirrors, the latter being more reactionary to what is currently happening. A computer driven car would have the advantage of being on a network of sorts with other vehicles on the road. They can communicate back and forth/verify safe maneuvers/very accurately estimate distances around the entire perimeter of the vehicle. The computer NEVER takes its "eyes" off the road - unless there is a catastrophic failure of the system, however that's probably its own topic. Living in the US, I'd love to have fully computer automated driving and hopefully its not too far off.

[Frog march]

one problem is the driving on small roads, where you have to pull in to let the other driver by......things like that probably require an intelligent, perhaps conscious, system.

[cjameshuff]

Full automation would pretty much require instrumentation of the roads themselves (with RFID tags, tracking targets, etc) so the computer knows where it is and what it can do. This might eventually be an option in and near cities and on highways, but would not be practical to do for all the roads, and maintenance costs must be considered as well as transitions between roads equipped for automatic driving and those without...you'd need things like emergency auto-parking areas for use when the human driver isn't responding. It might help with some of the major congestion problem areas once a large enough percentage of cars are equipped.

An interesting intermediate system I've seen proposed is to have vehicles automatically follow each other, forming up behind a vehicle with a professional driver (who themselves might have computer assistance for things like coordinating with traffic lights to minimize disruptions in traffic flow). Even better would be to have two drivers watching the road, switching control of the vehicle once an hour or so to minimize fatigue.

[danscope]

Answer: Deer , Child , Rock , black ice etc. You have to react to these. The computer???? Shrug .

[cjameshuff]

Answer: Deer , Child , Rock , black ice etc. You have to react to these. The computer???? Shrug .

Any car that could reliably follow roads and handle the various bizarre and misleading curves and intersections encountered would have everything needed to react to the above hazards better than any human driver could. Reacting to such things is pretty trivial in comparison to navigating the roads.

[ddubs]

I think that's why the largest benefit to computer driven vehicles would be on expressways around crowded cities. You shouldn't run into too many of these types of obstacles. Once you are off the expressway then you can take manual control of the vehicle.

Another thought, maybe the computers will have IR camera's and tracking software to determine if an obstacle is "alive/moving" and navigate around it. That would end the "lady who swerved to miss a squirrel and hit a kid on the sidewalk" type stories.

[orionjim]

Google has been working on developing a driverless car and won a two million grand prize for their work from the US Department of Defense.

Currently Nevada is the only state that allows a driverless car to be driven and they can only be driven in specified areas set up for testing. This is where Google has been testing their vehicle.

This is a link that describes Google’s work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car

Note; if you read the article you will see that the car has driven 1,000 miles without any human intervention; and has logged about 140,000 miles with some human intervention.

Also it was involved in one accident, but a human was driving at the time.

I know that GM and Nissan have been working on driverless vehicles, and I am fairly certain other car manufactures are also working on developing them.

[NEOWatcher]

Google has been working on...

I don't want to put google down, because thier work is impressive. I just think that there needs to have a few statistics put into context.

First off, this is only a test, so things definitely aren't at the point of real world situations yet.

Currently Nevada is the only state that allows a driverless car to be driven and they can only be driven in specified areas set up for testing.

A large part of Nevada is flat wide open non-populated areas.
I would be interested in knowing what these specified areas are like.
Another issue is the climate. I'd love to see what happens during rain or snow or heavy fog.

Note; if you read the article you will see that the car has driven 1,000 miles without any human intervention; and has logged about 140,000 miles with some human intervention.

I'd like to see some profiles on what that human intervention is.

Also it was involved in one accident, but a human was driving at the time.

Yes; humans are fallible. But; giving them trust in technology makes them fallible in another way.
I've heard this about airliners. Pilots start to rely on the technology and are letting thier piloting skills lapse.
This situation could have been caused because the technology was there rather than the human in complete control.

I think for the technology to work, the human factor would have to be removed from all the cars on the road.
The other thing is people can't maintain thier cars now.
And; the more technology there is, the more likely you completely lose the use of your vehicle when there is even the slightest malfunction.

[danscope]

Computer driven cars are ridiculous. I think that somewhere there is an engineer who wants to make a push-broom and put an integrated circuit on it so they can monitor the amount of strokes per minute..... and sell it to the Army at $500
a piece.
If you want to use computers, use them on a monorail with a proximity sensor with back-ups. Put your personal car
on the monorail and select your exit in advance and sit back or sleep untill you get there. Now you are talking.
Charge your car off the rail while you are at it.


" There are ways of telling if one is a witch." Sir Bevedere

" Are there ? " an ignorant peasant

[orionjim]

...

I'd like to see some profiles on what that human intervention is.


...

I found the following quote at:
http://www.inglewoodtodaynews.com/?p=4190

Humans won’t relinquish total control of their driverless cars. Google has a built in mechanism in the cars that switches from a human-controlled mode to self-driving. The technology guides the car and tells it where to stop. It also gathers information on its exact location and the direction to proceed. In situations best judged by a human, the car’s landing strip allows a human driver to decide acceptable parking places for the vehicle.

[Solfe]

I drive almost every time my family takes a trip. When I don't drive I use public transit because I am not travelling with anyone I know. Typically I sit in the back and read a book, never looking up. Not ever.

Very rarely, my wife will drive. She hates it. One time my children found my wife driving and me in the passenger seat to be so novel, they asked:

"Dad, why aren't you driving?"

My answer was equally novel. "Because the imaginary pedals don't work."

I would hate being in a car that drives itself. I would feel that I was seconds from being an organ donor.

[Ara Pacis]

I disagree with Danscope and some others. Computer systems do react faster than humans, the issue is that you just need to give it enough sensor input to make the correct decision. A visible light camera can keep an eye on road markers better than humans. This doesn't need to be a one-eye-sees-all system but could have subsystems where there is a camera at each corner of the car to take note of lane markings and alert the main computer when there are deviations, this could be enhanced with simpler optical sensors that can look straight down and can alert the computer when it passes over a lane marking with a different albedo than the road surface. GPS, a magnetic compass, and internal navigation databases (preloaded and learned) can allow the computer to discern when lane markings deviate and why. One or two main cameras can keep an eye on the road for obstructions including tail lights and headlights of oncoming traffic using optical parallax to discern distance. Near IR lasers and/or RADAR can scan the road ahead for obstructions by seeing a laser scan-line gap caused by an elevated obstruction or depression, and may be able to discern information about the hazard based on parallax. Humans can't see at night, but a computer can be fitted with near IR and thermal IR sensors for when visible light is too low or too bright. The vehicle can also be equipped with accelerometers and stress indicators to estimate lateral loads from curves/turns and winds.

Cars can also be made with signalling systems that let other cars estimate distance and aspect changes as well as actively signalling what they are doing or intending to do. This doesn't have to be as privacy-concerning as destination information, but a signal of an impending turn in x-number of feet with a countdown and could be useful. Of course, this could be a target of off-road hackers, so making it an limited angle signal instead of omnidirectional radio might be better, and it should be over-ridden by optical road and traffic hazard scanning, in case of on-road hacked cars.

Multilane freeways might be more difficult instead of less difficult, due to the ability to determine appropriate lane changes and how to anticipate lane changes of other vehicles. This might be resolved by a freeway management system external to the car or special lanes.

Inclement weather, like snow, might be problematic for computers, but it's just as problematic for humans. The computer should be smart enough to recognize when it has visibility problems and alert the driver to take control or pull over and wait for conditions to improve or for the human driver to take control. Then, the computer may be able to assist the driver using all its sensors so that human driver takes agency over decisions to drive in bad conditions, for legal purposes. The computer should also be smart enough to remind the human to clean the optics coverings when road-grime makes it less able to see adequately, and refuse to take control until this, or other mechanical issues are resolved.

See, it's not that difficult to conceptualize if you just think about it.

[cjameshuff]

A visible light camera can keep an eye on road markers better than humans.

And near-IR cameras would see better through fog, dust, etc. Cameras and other sensors could quickly detect obstacles and have the car reacting to them before the human driver has even registered their presence...this is another area that I have read about research into, systems to enhance safety of cars with human drivers.

GPS, a magnetic compass, and internal navigation databases (preloaded and learned) can allow the computer to discern when lane markings deviate and why.

Lane markings are often absent, worn, buried under snow, obsolete, or just plain incorrect, etc. They can not be relied on for navigation, which is why I assumed instrumentation of the roads.

Of course, this could be a target of off-road hackers, so making it an limited angle signal instead of omnidirectional radio might be better, and it should be over-ridden by optical road and traffic hazard scanning, in case of on-road hacked cars.

The bit rate required is not great, a straightforward solution would be to use IR LEDs in the vehicle lights to emit signals that the navigation cameras can pick up. This would make it quite clear which car is transmitting which signal and make interference difficult.

[orionjim]

I just saw this on Google News:

"googles self driving car takes blind man to taco bell"

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...l/1?csp=34news

[danscope]

Here's a fun scenario: There you are, driving down the street, minding your own business , when here comes..... no, not
a 'CellPhone Zombie' crossing the solid yellow line to take you out head-on; oh no...... it's somebody's bloody
computer-controled car !!!!!!!! You think that engine service light on your dash panel is a pain in the posterior? Just wait untill you are in a full body cast with no feeling from the waist down because of a failed computer.

"You won't get it !" Patrick McGoohan

[Jens]

I've heard this about airliners. Pilots start to rely on the technology and are letting thier piloting skills lapse.

That may be true, but I don't think the number of airline accidents is increasing. I think there were probably more accidents before the advent of autopilots.

[Jens]

one problem is the driving on small roads, where you have to pull in to let the other driver by......things like that probably require an intelligent, perhaps conscious, system.

Any intelligent vehicle would have to have a way for you to instruct it to pull over. For example, suppose a wasp gets inside the car and you need to stop the car to let it out. There would have to be something like an emergency button that would cause the car to stop as quickly as safely possible.

Similarly about the comment about a leisurely drive. Though typing in a destination would undoubtedly be a major way of using it, I assume there would also be controls for "go right at the next light" and things like that.

[cjameshuff]

Here's a fun scenario: There you are, driving down the street, minding your own business , when here comes..... no, not
a 'CellPhone Zombie' crossing the solid yellow line to take you out head-on; oh no...... it's somebody's bloody
computer-controled car !!!!!!!! You think that engine service light on your dash panel is a pain in the posterior? Just wait untill you are in a full body cast with no feeling from the waist down because of a failed computer.

Human drivers in the US had 10.8 million accidents in 2009, with 35.9 thousand deaths (http://www.census.gov/). Engine control computer failures are rather rare in comparison, and they aren't subject to anything like the reliability requirements that would apply to the systems we're talking about. When you consider the fault detection and failsafe systems that would be in place, your scenario just isn't plausible.

Far more likely is for the car to alert the driver and stop the car because they didn't respond fast enough (which is essentially what would happen if the engine control computer failed in a vehicle with a human driver), and then get plowed into by you because you didn't react quickly enough to an unusual obstacle when a computer would have handled the situation just fine.

[Van Rijn]

It is not just 'North Americans' who drive automobiles. There are a lot of dangerous things in life and a lot of ways to minimize the risks to acceptable levels. The realistic alternatives to using a computer-controlled vehicle (which is not an option, yet) are to use public transportation as you say, but also to learn to drive non-computer-controlled vehicles.

I know how to drive a car. I've taken defensive driving courses too. However, that can only help so much because there are a lot of incompetent drivers. Hypothetically, a driver's license could be made much harder to get and keep, and there could be much greater penalties given for driving without a license. However, that could have been done decades ago, but hasn't. It's doubtful that will change any time soon either. On the other hand, here is an emerging development that could get around the issue of incompetent drivers and provides more advantages than just safety. If we can develop computer controlled cars at reasonable cost that are safer than non-computer controlled cars, why not do it?

[Jens]

I have kind of a simple question, but I wonder if any of the people who responded they would not trust a computer-controlled car would be willing to go into space on a rocket.

[Cookie]

How many other rockets will I share the skies with?
How many of those will be within inches of my rocket?
Will they be taking any parallel, or overlapping, paths?