All the stories about this Apple connection miss an important fact... This location is not just for Autonomous Vehicle testing, it is also for Connected Vehicle testing. It seems to me any car with CarPlay is knocking on the door as a CV. It makes more sense for Apple to be connecting your car than to build it. They may well build one, but they are already working on connecting them. I would fully expect them to build a non-AV car first too. Add the AV to the platform after you have successfully put a car on the road.
That seems sensible. To say AV technology is immature is a huge understatement.
No self driven car is in the near future. To have a self driven car all of the infrastructure most be updated so that the car and the road can communicate. An smart car can not work alone it needs an smart road to work with. The way I see it, no smart road, no self driven car.
Sure, a self-driving vehicle might be able to go 150 mph on a track. But from everything I've read about them in real world driving scenarios is that they drive like extremely cautious elderly people. Granted, they are supposed to be safer -- although Google's car has a very high accident rate. Because of their conservative driving habits, self-driving vehicles tend to get rear-ended a lot. They also tend to get hit when they don't clear intersections fast enough. Google says it is always the fault of the other drivers. I'm just saying, blame anyone you want, but when your accident rate is many times higher than average, you're doing something wrong.
Sure, a self-driving vehicle might be able to go 150 mph on a track.
Oh, you mean you go 150mph on public roads because you're an awesome driver? :rolleyes:
But from everything I've read about them in real world driving scenarios is that they drive like extremely cautious elderly people.
That is just ridiculous on so many levels. :facepalm:
Granted, they are supposed to be safer -- although Google's car has a very high accident rate.
Do they now? Tell me how accidents were caused by Google Cars.
Because of their conservative driving habits, self-driving vehicles tend to get rear-ended a lot. They also tend to get hit when they don't clear intersections fast enough. Google says it is always the fault of the other drivers. I'm just saying, blame anyone you want, but when your accident rate is many times higher than average, you're doing something wrong.
So you admit it's humans who are not paying attention. You do mention one key problem with autonomous cars, although you don't directly state it: It will take time to train the ignorance out of people that their human awareness of complex surroundings and reaction times whilst driving are inherently better than sensors and computers. You're basically a Blackberry user in 2007 who scoffs at the idea that a touchscreen phone with no physical keyboard is a better solution, or that petrol powered cars are loud, release too much smoke, can't go where horses can, can't go as fast as a horse at top speed, can easily break down, and need to fuel despite there being hardly at petrol stations when the automobile was first being tested.
The reality is this is coming and you will likely change your view, but if you don't, it doesn't matter because you will eventually die out. Perhaps it will help you understand how this will happen by not looking at some Philip K. Dick novel turned movie where autonomous cars do some cool but impractical things, but instead look at how this will progress over time.
Do you even realize that making cars more autonomous started well before you were born? The Automatic transmission, anti-lock brakes, cruise control and self-parking cars are just four very common way in which the direct human component was taken out for convenience and/or safety. We're now getting Adaptive Cruise Control in automobiles It's just like standard cruise control, except that instead of just maintaining a particular speed, it will also slow down if it senses it's getting to close to the car in front (which includes if something carelessly cuts in from another lane). These sensors aren't just facing front, but also in the back and sides, and are commonly used to alert a driver of an object in their blindspot.
There will be a next step and eventually (I'm guessing within a couple decades) there will be autonomous cars for sale and on the roads. Autonomous vehicles also offer the benefit of reducing traffic due to 1) more efficient driving thereby reducing starting and stopping, and 2) being able to follow closer between other vehicles thereby allowing more vehicles on the road at once. This will also have the effect of reducing energy costs across the board from of using the accelerator and breaks more efficiently, as well as being able to draft more effectively. This also reduces wear and tear on the car's components.
Finally, autonomous cars will have the benefit of significant reducing, if not completely eliminating, the phenomenon known as a traffic wave since a connected autonomous cars will be able to stop and start without needing to sense just what's immediately around them, but can also receive data about every other vehicle in the chain. And all that's before we get into how this will save lives from accidents as well as from getting emergency vehicles to a scene faster without some idiot signing Taylor Swift's latest song at full volume while upset about their recent break up who is reaching over at a light to their pasenger floor to pick up something the dropped prevents the fire truck or ambulance from passing as quickly as it needs to.
Oh, you mean you go 150mph on public roads because you're an awesome driver?
That is just ridiculous on so many levels. :facepalm:
Do they now? Tell me how accidents were caused by Google Cars.
So you admit it's humans who are not paying attention. You do mention one key problem with autonomous cars, although you don't directly state it: It will take time to train the ignorance out of people that their human awareness of complex surroundings and reaction times whilst driving are inherently better than sensors and computers. You're basically a Blackberry user in 2007 who scoffs at the idea that a touchscreen phone with no physical keyboard is a better solution, or that petrol powered cars are loud, release too much smoke, can't go where horses can, can't go as fast as a horse at top speed, can easily break down, and need to fuel despite there being hardly at petrol stations when the automobile was first being tested.
The reality is this is coming and you will likely change your view, but if you don't, it doesn't matter because you will eventually die out. Perhaps it will help you understand how this will happen by not looking at some Philip K. Dick novel turned movie where autonomous cars do some cool but impractical things, but instead look at how this will progress over time.
Do you even realize that making cars more autonomous started well before you were born? The Automatic transmission, anti-lock brakes, cruise control and self-parking cars are just four very common way in which the direct human component was taken out for convenience and/or safety. We're now getting Adaptive Cruise Control in automobiles It's just like standard cruise control, except that instead of just maintaining a particular speed, it will also slow down if it senses it's getting to close to the car in front (which includes if something carelessly cuts in from another lane). These sensors aren't just facing front, but also in the back and sides, and are commonly used to alert a driver of an object in their blindspot.
There will be a next step and eventually (I'm guessing within a couple decades) there will be autonomous cars for sale and on the roads. Autonomous vehicles also offer the benefit of reducing traffic due to 1) more efficient driving thereby reducing starting and stopping, and 2) being able to follow closer between other vehicles thereby allowing more vehicles on the road at once. This will also have the effect of reducing energy costs across the board from of using the accelerator and breaks more efficiently, as well as being able to draft more effectively. This also reduces wear and tear on the car's components.
Finally, autonomous cars will have the benefit of significant reducing, if not completely eliminating, the phenomenon known as a traffic wave since a connected autonomous cars will be able to stop and start without needing to sense just what's immediately around them, but can also receive data about every other vehicle in the chain. And all that's before we get into how this will save lives from accidents as well as from getting emergency vehicles to a scene faster without some idiot signing Taylor Swift's latest song at full volume while upset about their recent break up who is reaching over at a light to their pasenger floor to pick up something the dropped prevents the fire truck or ambulance from passing as quickly as it needs to.
I guess in a perfect world this is all great in theory but the practical application is next to impossible. We might see something like this centuries from now but certainly not decades. First having an autonomous car is only have of the equation. The road and highway infrastructure has to be setup so cars can communicate with the environment not just be able to communicate with cars like it.
Something like adaptive cruise control is great but that only takes into account the car directly in front of the driver, if the car in front of them stops suddenly and that driver doesn't react the ACC is useless. So everyone would have to be driving autonomous cars for this to work. Auto makers have even given back more control to the driver with SAT transmissions with paddle shifters so the driver has more control over the transmission and shifting not less.
Every safety feature you mentioned is flawed because it relies on a sensor having to react to a clear object or a clear line on the road. A road without a clear yellow or white line and lane departure warning or control is useless and in most cases will never warn or activate. Rain or fog and the crash mitigation system may never see the car in front of it. Cars parking themselves need a clear curb. All cars would have to be linked.
A car computer is never going to have the same multi level reaction of a human. The computer knows how to take one action for a given situation. This is the same old theory that AI was going to eliminate humans in the workforce and we should all be driving around in flying cars by now. We can't even get people to buy electric cars and have a system setup so people can charge the on long trips.
Also there are the physical limitations. All cars would have to accelerate at the same pace, the 60-0 braking would have to be the same for all cars because a computer reactions means nothing if the car in front of you can break in 90 feet when your car needs 120 feet.
The NTSB would have to approve them, insurance companies would have to be willing to provide insurance on a car that is not controlled at all by a human.
The bureaucracies alone that would get eliminated would never allow this. The DMV would no longer be needed, no one would need a drivers license because they aren't driving. Insurance companies would have one rate, no reason to employ anyone and they wouldn't get to make billions overcharging young drivers that never actually get in an accident. Police departments in areas without high crime would no longer be needed most of there budget comes from traffic control and violations. No more feeding county and state budget with fines, DUI charges legal bills.
The funding that would be needed to setup roads and highways with the needed sensors and communications and interact with these cars would be trillions.
Something like this is a pet project that will never even remotely translate into mass production. Like I said we can't even get people to buy electric cars without massive government subsidies.
I guess in a perfect world this is all great in theory but the practical application is next to impossible. We might see something like this centuries from now but certainly not decades.
So at least 200 years? LOL You're serious, too! Consider where technology was 200 years ago and then consider the rate in which it has been increasing, and now consider that we already have the basic technology and knowledge as well as successful trials it make it a reality, unlike (say) 200 years before the Wright brothers first took flight at Kitty Hawk. Just think of where flight is today scarcely 100 years later, and that we put people on the fucking moon less than 66 years after their first flight. We didn't even a network of artificial satellites or which we have 2,271 currently in orbit and that's only 5 decades after the first geo-stationary, communications satellite was launched.
"Sorry M, did you mean my left or your left? And which back end? Also, we don't have any meters. This is what I found on the web."
Haha! Exactly, sometimes I park on the lawn at a weird angle so I can unload some things. Siri can't sort out most of the last names on my contact list, and until she can do that, she's not driving my car.
No self driven car is in the near future. To have a self driven car all of the infrastructure most be updated so that the car and the road can communicate. An smart car can not work alone it needs an smart road to work with. The way I see it, no smart road, no self driven car.
Autonomous cars will talk to each other, vehicle-to-vehicle. No smart road needed (see edit below). However, possibly in the beginning of these autonomous cars, they may be restricted to HOV or other special lanes until V2V cars hit a critical mass.
Edit: V2V also encompasses infrastructure (smart traffic lights, etc.), so a smart road would be a possibility. Yes, you are correct, infrastructure needs to be in place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlApple
The bureaucracies alone that would get eliminated would never allow this. The DMV would no longer be needed, no one would need a drivers license because they aren't driving. Insurance companies would have one rate, no reason to employ anyone and they wouldn't get to make billions overcharging young drivers that never actually get in an accident. Police departments in areas without high crime would no longer be needed most of there budget comes from traffic control and violations. No more feeding county and state budget with fines, DUI charges legal bills.
Something like this is a pet project that will never even remotely translate into mass production. Like I said we can't even get people to buy electric cars without massive government subsidies.
The US government and the EU are pushing for V2V, mainly in the interest of safety (no drunk driving, no distracted driving, etc.). This is coming. Make no mistake about it. Just like the US government mandated safety glass, seat belts, bumper regulations, anti-lock brakes, and airbags, V2V is the next step. All in the interest of safety. A side benefit is more efficient driving, as SolipsismY's post above described very well.
I guess in a perfect world this is all great in theory but the practical application is next to impossible. We might see something like this centuries from now but certainly not decades. First having an autonomous car is only have of the equation. The road and highway infrastructure has to be setup so cars can communicate with the environment not just be able to communicate with cars like it.
Something like adaptive cruise control is great but that only takes into account the car directly in front of the driver, if the car in front of them stops suddenly and that driver doesn't react the ACC is useless. So everyone would have to be driving autonomous cars for this to work. Auto makers have even given back more control to the driver with SAT transmissions with paddle shifters so the driver has more control over the transmission and shifting not less.
Every safety feature you mentioned is flawed because it relies on a sensor having to react to a clear object or a clear line on the road. A road without a clear yellow or white line and lane departure warning or control is useless and in most cases will never warn or activate. Rain or fog and the crash mitigation system may never see the car in front of it. Cars parking themselves need a clear curb. All cars would have to be linked.
A car computer is never going to have the same multi level reaction of a human. The computer knows how to take one action for a given situation. This is the same old theory that AI was going to eliminate humans in the workforce and we should all be driving around in flying cars by now. We can't even get people to buy electric cars and have a system setup so people can charge the on long trips.
Also there are the physical limitations. All cars would have to accelerate at the same pace, the 60-0 braking would have to be the same for all cars because a computer reactions means nothing if the car in front of you can break in 90 feet when your car needs 120 feet.
The NTSB would have to approve them, insurance companies would have to be willing to provide insurance on a car that is not controlled at all by a human.
The bureaucracies alone that would get eliminated would never allow this. The DMV would no longer be needed, no one would need a drivers license because they aren't driving. Insurance companies would have one rate, no reason to employ anyone and they wouldn't get to make billions overcharging young drivers that never actually get in an accident. Police departments in areas without high crime would no longer be needed most of there budget comes from traffic control and violations. No more feeding county and state budget with fines, DUI charges legal bills.
The funding that would be needed to setup roads and highways with the needed sensors and communications and interact with these cars would be trillions.
Something like this is a pet project that will never even remotely translate into mass production. Like I said we can't even get people to buy electric cars without massive government subsidies.
I got a real chuckle out of this rant from the 1970s, grandpa. Thanks.
Let's see what the mainstream car industry thinks.
By 2020, Volvo envisages having cars in which passengers would be immune from injuries.[98] Volvo also claims vehicles will effectively be "crash free." [99]
By 2020, GM, Mercedes-Benz, Audi, Nissan, BMW, Renault, Tesla and Google all expect to sell vehicles that can drive themselves at least part of the time.[65][100][101][102][103][104][105]
2020, ABI Research forecasts that truly self-driving cars would become a reality by 2020 and that 10 million such new cars would be rolling out on to United States' public highways every year by 2032.[106]
By 2020, Google autonomous car project head's goal to have all outstanding problems with the autonomous car be resolved.[107][108]
By 2024, Jaguar expects to release an autonomous car.[109]
By 2025, Daimler and Ford expect autonomous vehicles on the market.[110][111] Ford predicts it will have the first mass-market autonomous vehicle, but released no target date.[112]
By 2025, most new GM vehicles will have automated driving functions as well as vehicle-to-vehicle communication technology.[113]
By 2035, IHS Automotive report says will be the year most self-driving vehicles will be operated completely independently from a human occupant’s control.[114]
By 2035, Navigant Research forecasts that autonomous vehicles will gradually gain traction in the market over the coming two decades and by 2035, sales of autonomous vehicles will reach 95.4 million annually, representing 75% of all light-duty vehicle sales.[115]
By 2040, expert members of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) have estimated that up to 75% of all vehicles will be autonomous.[116]
So, in 5 years the tech should be on the market from many manufacturers, then twenty years after that, they will dominate the road. As they become a thing, expect roads standards to improve or change the meet the demands of driverless systems, such as new standards in signage for road work detours (so that detour signs that can understood by smart cars).
So at least 200 years? LOL You're serious, too! Consider where technology was 200 years ago and then consider the rate in which it has been increasing, and now consider that we already have the basic technology and knowledge as well as successful trials it make it a reality, unlike (say) 200 years before the Wright brothers first took flight at Kitty Hawk. Just think of where flight is today scarcely 100 years later, and that we put people on the fucking moon less than 66 years after their first flight. We didn't even a network of artificial satellites or which we have 2,271 currently in orbit and that's only 5 decades after the first geo-stationary, communications satellite was launched.
I'm not sure why that seems odd. In 2015 the primary engine is still the internal combustion engine. The commercial drilling of petroleum began in the 1850's. While engines have improved and gas milage has improved the overall engine and overall design of how a car works has not changed that much.
We can't even get the US government to fund infrastructure repairs that should have been done 30 years ago let alone have them start setting up roads that can communicate with smart cars. Having the technology to do something and having it translate into mass production is very different.
At the end of 2014 about 712,000 highway capable electric plug-in vehicles have been sold worldwide. Which is 0.06% of stock vehicles. Consumers are not willing to pay a premium for a hybrid or electric vehicle. Major auto manufactures make these for one reason and one reason only, it allows these cars to figure into their fleets average mpg rating that the government is going to require. As an example the Chevy Volt can get averaged in with the Chevy Camaro that gets about 16mpg city. I believe the Volt gets whats considered a 38 MPGe.
It's taken BMW over 18 months to sell 26,000 units of the i3. Level 2 changing takes about 4-6 hours to fully charge a depleted vehicle. DC fast charging which is harder to find can give about 40 mile in 10 mins at a charging station. People don't want to be bothered with this nonsense.
As far as the technology, that is already here. If we are talking about Tim Cook and a few hundred other people driving around in a car that requires no human interaction to drive safely then yeah I don't see that as a big deal. If your talking mass production and mass acceptance, it's not going to happen while you and I are still above ground.
First people have to want them. I see nothing that indicates people are willing to change. We can't even get a moment to alternative forms of fuel. Second not only does the car need the technology, it needs something to communicate with, not just other cars like it. As I already stated technology like lane departure warnings and lane assist rely on clear lane markings without them it doesn't work, for it to truly work the roads would need sensors for it to be 100% effective.
It's simple the car is only half of the equation, unless the roads are setup with the same send and receive technology as the car it doesn't work. Without the infrastructure the car is relying on painted lines and cameras. The technology now doesn't work well in rain, doesn't work well in snow, doesn't work at all if the road is covered in snow. I'm not sure where you live but where I live we have things like rain.
As for adaptive cruise control and crash mitigation it is relying on a moving object in some case moving at 70-80 mph and that object may have nothing in the form of technology, so basically your car is now driving as well as the driver in front of you. So no we really haven't come very far in terms of technology.
That article mentions the hurdle in having the vehicle being autonomous but still requiring a legal human driver ready to take control instantly. The human mind simply isn't good at processing and reacting to such events well if they are engaged in a completely different task. One might say, "but they are suppose to paying attention the whole time so it's not a problem," but let's jump forward to when this is happening… At first, the novice truck driver will be very attentive, but as time goes by and the system simply "works" his confidence will grow and his innate human efficiency setting to be lazy will slowly engage. He may get to the point where he drives 100k miles or more without needing to interfere with the system so he may take that calculated risk of catching a little nap as he sits behind the wheel or trying to "multi-task" by engaging in something else (like crocheting for his Etsy site whilst being an over-the-road driver — brave new world, baby! The sexes have meshed into one asexual form¡). If some perfect storm, one-in-a-billion incident occurs he may not be able to react and could cause a lot of damage. Even if that is considerably safer than what we have no — it is! — we still need to build in a checks and balances for that human element. One method already in the works, as you know, is communication of the vehicles so that there is chain of crashes is unlikely. Another idea, which I've never seen elsewhere but is certainly possible with today's tech, is to have cameras and sensors in the cab to verify the driver is awake and alert. They could even include eye tracking so it knows if the driver is looking away for too long, but then could one where sunglasses? Honestly, that doesn't matter because we solved a lot more difficult things in the 20th century that makes this next step toward the future look like one average step for mankind.
@atlapple, many of your posts seem a bit snide in regards to Apple the company. I would like to ask, do you have a securities license by any chance? I'm baffled at what you seem to see in the company's future, just wondering.
I'm so sorry that you cannot envision an Apple car, or much of anything other than what you already know. There's certainly no shortage of folks who cannot do a scenario in their head and think about it. Honestly, your posts seem a bit like an elderly person screaming "get off my lawn". On and on and on, "can't" "won't" "impossible" "impractical" it makes me sad. I will add you to my blocked list soon.
I guess I should remember you are in Atlanta. Yea, the South is backwards as hell and chock full of people like you, as I know all too well. It's a cultural thing and I'll never understand it.
That article mentions the hurdle in having the vehicle being autonomous but still requiring a legal human driver ready to take control instantly. The human mind simply isn't good at processing and reacting to such events well if they are engaged in a completely different task.
It's just the first step in many steps. But you're correct, anytime a human is involved, all these systems can be compromised by human actions. That's not to say a computer can do better, but a computer shouldn't fail doing human things, such as napping or crocheting or being lazy/complacent.
It may be a long while (20+ years?) before autonomous+V2V vehicles totally take over human involvement (or we trust them to). And these vehicles may be isolated from the humans, at least in the beginning, such as in AV lanes on the highway, where this tech can really shine (or not be muddled by humans).
I know I'll be keeping my "dumb" cars as long as I can.
Edit: here's another article about AV cars, but the concept is the same as the previous article - only being autonomous on the highway.
You "not being sure why" is the problem. I can't write any more plainly than I already do. Sorry, but tough noogies.
Actually I was thinking it's the reverse. Nothing to show that the auto industry has made massive strides, nothing to show that the infrastructure could be funded to support this technology, nothing to support anyone would buy a car with this form of technology yet you think it's going to happen in a few decades.
Not to mention if we have a society that drives cars that are so technology advance it would certainly put the insurance industry into bankruptcy, local governments would lose mass amounts of money made off traffic violations, no need for the DMV anymore because no person would actually need to know how to drive.
However the biggest hurdle, human nature. I could just see someone letting go of the steering wheel on i85 in Atlanta where it's 12 lanes across of traffic and the speed limit is 65 with everyone doing 80. Or cab drivers in NYC not having control of their cabs...LOL. Everyone remaining calm as their computer controlled cars drive slowly in perfect formation. I'm starting to wonder if you accidentally drank out of @sog35 water bottle.
Sure, a self-driving vehicle might be able to go 150 mph on a track. But from everything I've read about them in real world driving scenarios is that they drive like extremely cautious elderly people. Granted, they are supposed to be safer -- although Google's car has a very high accident rate. Because of their conservative driving habits, self-driving vehicles tend to get rear-ended a lot. They also tend to get hit when they don't clear intersections fast enough. Google says it is always the fault of the other drivers. I'm just saying, blame anyone you want, but when your accident rate is many times higher than average, you're doing something wrong.
not if you're hit from behind and not being unreasonable -- then it's entirely the following vehicle's fault.
@atlapple, many of your posts seem a bit snide in regards to Apple the company. I would like to ask, do you have a securities license by any chance? I'm baffled at what you seem to see in the company's future, just wondering.
one of our resident trolls, dressed up like a fan. don't expect much from him.
Comments
I don't think you get it at all.
You should get your facts straight before you write.
Happy trolling yourself.
That seems sensible. To say AV technology is immature is a huge understatement.
Sure, a self-driving vehicle might be able to go 150 mph on a track. But from everything I've read about them in real world driving scenarios is that they drive like extremely cautious elderly people. Granted, they are supposed to be safer -- although Google's car has a very high accident rate. Because of their conservative driving habits, self-driving vehicles tend to get rear-ended a lot. They also tend to get hit when they don't clear intersections fast enough. Google says it is always the fault of the other drivers. I'm just saying, blame anyone you want, but when your accident rate is many times higher than average, you're doing something wrong.
Oh, you mean you go 150mph on public roads because you're an awesome driver? :rolleyes:
That is just ridiculous on so many levels. :facepalm:
Do they now? Tell me how accidents were caused by Google Cars.
So you admit it's humans who are not paying attention. You do mention one key problem with autonomous cars, although you don't directly state it: It will take time to train the ignorance out of people that their human awareness of complex surroundings and reaction times whilst driving are inherently better than sensors and computers. You're basically a Blackberry user in 2007 who scoffs at the idea that a touchscreen phone with no physical keyboard is a better solution, or that petrol powered cars are loud, release too much smoke, can't go where horses can, can't go as fast as a horse at top speed, can easily break down, and need to fuel despite there being hardly at petrol stations when the automobile was first being tested.
The reality is this is coming and you will likely change your view, but if you don't, it doesn't matter because you will eventually die out. Perhaps it will help you understand how this will happen by not looking at some Philip K. Dick novel turned movie where autonomous cars do some cool but impractical things, but instead look at how this will progress over time.
Do you even realize that making cars more autonomous started well before you were born? The Automatic transmission, anti-lock brakes, cruise control and self-parking cars are just four very common way in which the direct human component was taken out for convenience and/or safety. We're now getting Adaptive Cruise Control in automobiles It's just like standard cruise control, except that instead of just maintaining a particular speed, it will also slow down if it senses it's getting to close to the car in front (which includes if something carelessly cuts in from another lane). These sensors aren't just facing front, but also in the back and sides, and are commonly used to alert a driver of an object in their blindspot.
There will be a next step and eventually (I'm guessing within a couple decades) there will be autonomous cars for sale and on the roads. Autonomous vehicles also offer the benefit of reducing traffic due to 1) more efficient driving thereby reducing starting and stopping, and 2) being able to follow closer between other vehicles thereby allowing more vehicles on the road at once. This will also have the effect of reducing energy costs across the board from of using the accelerator and breaks more efficiently, as well as being able to draft more effectively. This also reduces wear and tear on the car's components.
Finally, autonomous cars will have the benefit of significant reducing, if not completely eliminating, the phenomenon known as a traffic wave since a connected autonomous cars will be able to stop and start without needing to sense just what's immediately around them, but can also receive data about every other vehicle in the chain. And all that's before we get into how this will save lives from accidents as well as from getting emergency vehicles to a scene faster without some idiot signing Taylor Swift's latest song at full volume while upset about their recent break up who is reaching over at a light to their pasenger floor to pick up something the dropped prevents the fire truck or ambulance from passing as quickly as it needs to.
Oh, you mean you go 150mph on public roads because you're an awesome driver?
That is just ridiculous on so many levels. :facepalm:
Do they now? Tell me how accidents were caused by Google Cars.
So you admit it's humans who are not paying attention. You do mention one key problem with autonomous cars, although you don't directly state it: It will take time to train the ignorance out of people that their human awareness of complex surroundings and reaction times whilst driving are inherently better than sensors and computers. You're basically a Blackberry user in 2007 who scoffs at the idea that a touchscreen phone with no physical keyboard is a better solution, or that petrol powered cars are loud, release too much smoke, can't go where horses can, can't go as fast as a horse at top speed, can easily break down, and need to fuel despite there being hardly at petrol stations when the automobile was first being tested.
The reality is this is coming and you will likely change your view, but if you don't, it doesn't matter because you will eventually die out. Perhaps it will help you understand how this will happen by not looking at some Philip K. Dick novel turned movie where autonomous cars do some cool but impractical things, but instead look at how this will progress over time.
Do you even realize that making cars more autonomous started well before you were born? The Automatic transmission, anti-lock brakes, cruise control and self-parking cars are just four very common way in which the direct human component was taken out for convenience and/or safety. We're now getting Adaptive Cruise Control in automobiles It's just like standard cruise control, except that instead of just maintaining a particular speed, it will also slow down if it senses it's getting to close to the car in front (which includes if something carelessly cuts in from another lane). These sensors aren't just facing front, but also in the back and sides, and are commonly used to alert a driver of an object in their blindspot.
There will be a next step and eventually (I'm guessing within a couple decades) there will be autonomous cars for sale and on the roads. Autonomous vehicles also offer the benefit of reducing traffic due to 1) more efficient driving thereby reducing starting and stopping, and 2) being able to follow closer between other vehicles thereby allowing more vehicles on the road at once. This will also have the effect of reducing energy costs across the board from of using the accelerator and breaks more efficiently, as well as being able to draft more effectively. This also reduces wear and tear on the car's components.
Finally, autonomous cars will have the benefit of significant reducing, if not completely eliminating, the phenomenon known as a traffic wave since a connected autonomous cars will be able to stop and start without needing to sense just what's immediately around them, but can also receive data about every other vehicle in the chain. And all that's before we get into how this will save lives from accidents as well as from getting emergency vehicles to a scene faster without some idiot signing Taylor Swift's latest song at full volume while upset about their recent break up who is reaching over at a light to their pasenger floor to pick up something the dropped prevents the fire truck or ambulance from passing as quickly as it needs to.
I guess in a perfect world this is all great in theory but the practical application is next to impossible. We might see something like this centuries from now but certainly not decades. First having an autonomous car is only have of the equation. The road and highway infrastructure has to be setup so cars can communicate with the environment not just be able to communicate with cars like it.
Something like adaptive cruise control is great but that only takes into account the car directly in front of the driver, if the car in front of them stops suddenly and that driver doesn't react the ACC is useless. So everyone would have to be driving autonomous cars for this to work. Auto makers have even given back more control to the driver with SAT transmissions with paddle shifters so the driver has more control over the transmission and shifting not less.
Every safety feature you mentioned is flawed because it relies on a sensor having to react to a clear object or a clear line on the road. A road without a clear yellow or white line and lane departure warning or control is useless and in most cases will never warn or activate. Rain or fog and the crash mitigation system may never see the car in front of it. Cars parking themselves need a clear curb. All cars would have to be linked.
A car computer is never going to have the same multi level reaction of a human. The computer knows how to take one action for a given situation. This is the same old theory that AI was going to eliminate humans in the workforce and we should all be driving around in flying cars by now. We can't even get people to buy electric cars and have a system setup so people can charge the on long trips.
Also there are the physical limitations. All cars would have to accelerate at the same pace, the 60-0 braking would have to be the same for all cars because a computer reactions means nothing if the car in front of you can break in 90 feet when your car needs 120 feet.
The NTSB would have to approve them, insurance companies would have to be willing to provide insurance on a car that is not controlled at all by a human.
The bureaucracies alone that would get eliminated would never allow this. The DMV would no longer be needed, no one would need a drivers license because they aren't driving. Insurance companies would have one rate, no reason to employ anyone and they wouldn't get to make billions overcharging young drivers that never actually get in an accident. Police departments in areas without high crime would no longer be needed most of there budget comes from traffic control and violations. No more feeding county and state budget with fines, DUI charges legal bills.
The funding that would be needed to setup roads and highways with the needed sensors and communications and interact with these cars would be trillions.
Something like this is a pet project that will never even remotely translate into mass production. Like I said we can't even get people to buy electric cars without massive government subsidies.
So at least 200 years? LOL You're serious, too! Consider where technology was 200 years ago and then consider the rate in which it has been increasing, and now consider that we already have the basic technology and knowledge as well as successful trials it make it a reality, unlike (say) 200 years before the Wright brothers first took flight at Kitty Hawk. Just think of where flight is today scarcely 100 years later, and that we put people on the fucking moon less than 66 years after their first flight. We didn't even a network of artificial satellites or which we have 2,271 currently in orbit and that's only 5 decades after the first geo-stationary, communications satellite was launched.
When you have actual proof of your claims, feel free to post it. Until then, enjoy the laughter at your expense.
And then never went back, which will be recorded by historians as the single greatest failure in human history from 1972-203x.
Quote:
No self driven car is in the near future. To have a self driven car all of the infrastructure most be updated so that the car and the road can communicate. An smart car can not work alone it needs an smart road to work with. The way I see it, no smart road, no self driven car.
Autonomous cars will talk to each other, vehicle-to-vehicle. No smart road needed (see edit below). However, possibly in the beginning of these autonomous cars, they may be restricted to HOV or other special lanes until V2V cars hit a critical mass.
Edit: V2V also encompasses infrastructure (smart traffic lights, etc.), so a smart road would be a possibility. Yes, you are correct, infrastructure needs to be in place.
The bureaucracies alone that would get eliminated would never allow this. The DMV would no longer be needed, no one would need a drivers license because they aren't driving. Insurance companies would have one rate, no reason to employ anyone and they wouldn't get to make billions overcharging young drivers that never actually get in an accident. Police departments in areas without high crime would no longer be needed most of there budget comes from traffic control and violations. No more feeding county and state budget with fines, DUI charges legal bills.
Something like this is a pet project that will never even remotely translate into mass production. Like I said we can't even get people to buy electric cars without massive government subsidies.
The US government and the EU are pushing for V2V, mainly in the interest of safety (no drunk driving, no distracted driving, etc.). This is coming. Make no mistake about it. Just like the US government mandated safety glass, seat belts, bumper regulations, anti-lock brakes, and airbags, V2V is the next step. All in the interest of safety. A side benefit is more efficient driving, as SolipsismY's post above described very well.
Here is a first step to autonomous vehicles:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27485-autonomous-truck-cleared-to-drive-on-us-roads-for-the-first-time
I guess in a perfect world this is all great in theory but the practical application is next to impossible. We might see something like this centuries from now but certainly not decades. First having an autonomous car is only have of the equation. The road and highway infrastructure has to be setup so cars can communicate with the environment not just be able to communicate with cars like it.
Something like adaptive cruise control is great but that only takes into account the car directly in front of the driver, if the car in front of them stops suddenly and that driver doesn't react the ACC is useless. So everyone would have to be driving autonomous cars for this to work. Auto makers have even given back more control to the driver with SAT transmissions with paddle shifters so the driver has more control over the transmission and shifting not less.
Every safety feature you mentioned is flawed because it relies on a sensor having to react to a clear object or a clear line on the road. A road without a clear yellow or white line and lane departure warning or control is useless and in most cases will never warn or activate. Rain or fog and the crash mitigation system may never see the car in front of it. Cars parking themselves need a clear curb. All cars would have to be linked.
A car computer is never going to have the same multi level reaction of a human. The computer knows how to take one action for a given situation. This is the same old theory that AI was going to eliminate humans in the workforce and we should all be driving around in flying cars by now. We can't even get people to buy electric cars and have a system setup so people can charge the on long trips.
Also there are the physical limitations. All cars would have to accelerate at the same pace, the 60-0 braking would have to be the same for all cars because a computer reactions means nothing if the car in front of you can break in 90 feet when your car needs 120 feet.
The NTSB would have to approve them, insurance companies would have to be willing to provide insurance on a car that is not controlled at all by a human.
The bureaucracies alone that would get eliminated would never allow this. The DMV would no longer be needed, no one would need a drivers license because they aren't driving. Insurance companies would have one rate, no reason to employ anyone and they wouldn't get to make billions overcharging young drivers that never actually get in an accident. Police departments in areas without high crime would no longer be needed most of there budget comes from traffic control and violations. No more feeding county and state budget with fines, DUI charges legal bills.
The funding that would be needed to setup roads and highways with the needed sensors and communications and interact with these cars would be trillions.
Something like this is a pet project that will never even remotely translate into mass production. Like I said we can't even get people to buy electric cars without massive government subsidies.
I got a real chuckle out of this rant from the 1970s, grandpa. Thanks.
Let's see what the mainstream car industry thinks.
So, in 5 years the tech should be on the market from many manufacturers, then twenty years after that, they will dominate the road. As they become a thing, expect roads standards to improve or change the meet the demands of driverless systems, such as new standards in signage for road work detours (so that detour signs that can understood by smart cars).
So at least 200 years? LOL You're serious, too! Consider where technology was 200 years ago and then consider the rate in which it has been increasing, and now consider that we already have the basic technology and knowledge as well as successful trials it make it a reality, unlike (say) 200 years before the Wright brothers first took flight at Kitty Hawk. Just think of where flight is today scarcely 100 years later, and that we put people on the fucking moon less than 66 years after their first flight. We didn't even a network of artificial satellites or which we have 2,271 currently in orbit and that's only 5 decades after the first geo-stationary, communications satellite was launched.
I'm not sure why that seems odd. In 2015 the primary engine is still the internal combustion engine. The commercial drilling of petroleum began in the 1850's. While engines have improved and gas milage has improved the overall engine and overall design of how a car works has not changed that much.
We can't even get the US government to fund infrastructure repairs that should have been done 30 years ago let alone have them start setting up roads that can communicate with smart cars. Having the technology to do something and having it translate into mass production is very different.
At the end of 2014 about 712,000 highway capable electric plug-in vehicles have been sold worldwide. Which is 0.06% of stock vehicles. Consumers are not willing to pay a premium for a hybrid or electric vehicle. Major auto manufactures make these for one reason and one reason only, it allows these cars to figure into their fleets average mpg rating that the government is going to require. As an example the Chevy Volt can get averaged in with the Chevy Camaro that gets about 16mpg city. I believe the Volt gets whats considered a 38 MPGe.
It's taken BMW over 18 months to sell 26,000 units of the i3. Level 2 changing takes about 4-6 hours to fully charge a depleted vehicle. DC fast charging which is harder to find can give about 40 mile in 10 mins at a charging station. People don't want to be bothered with this nonsense.
As far as the technology, that is already here. If we are talking about Tim Cook and a few hundred other people driving around in a car that requires no human interaction to drive safely then yeah I don't see that as a big deal. If your talking mass production and mass acceptance, it's not going to happen while you and I are still above ground.
First people have to want them. I see nothing that indicates people are willing to change. We can't even get a moment to alternative forms of fuel. Second not only does the car need the technology, it needs something to communicate with, not just other cars like it. As I already stated technology like lane departure warnings and lane assist rely on clear lane markings without them it doesn't work, for it to truly work the roads would need sensors for it to be 100% effective.
It's simple the car is only half of the equation, unless the roads are setup with the same send and receive technology as the car it doesn't work. Without the infrastructure the car is relying on painted lines and cameras. The technology now doesn't work well in rain, doesn't work well in snow, doesn't work at all if the road is covered in snow. I'm not sure where you live but where I live we have things like rain.
As for adaptive cruise control and crash mitigation it is relying on a moving object in some case moving at 70-80 mph and that object may have nothing in the form of technology, so basically your car is now driving as well as the driver in front of you. So no we really haven't come very far in terms of technology.
That article mentions the hurdle in having the vehicle being autonomous but still requiring a legal human driver ready to take control instantly. The human mind simply isn't good at processing and reacting to such events well if they are engaged in a completely different task. One might say, "but they are suppose to paying attention the whole time so it's not a problem," but let's jump forward to when this is happening… At first, the novice truck driver will be very attentive, but as time goes by and the system simply "works" his confidence will grow and his innate human efficiency setting to be lazy will slowly engage. He may get to the point where he drives 100k miles or more without needing to interfere with the system so he may take that calculated risk of catching a little nap as he sits behind the wheel or trying to "multi-task" by engaging in something else (like crocheting for his Etsy site whilst being an over-the-road driver — brave new world, baby! The sexes have meshed into one asexual form¡). If some perfect storm, one-in-a-billion incident occurs he may not be able to react and could cause a lot of damage. Even if that is considerably safer than what we have no — it is! — we still need to build in a checks and balances for that human element. One method already in the works, as you know, is communication of the vehicles so that there is chain of crashes is unlikely. Another idea, which I've never seen elsewhere but is certainly possible with today's tech, is to have cameras and sensors in the cab to verify the driver is awake and alert. They could even include eye tracking so it knows if the driver is looking away for too long, but then could one where sunglasses? Honestly, that doesn't matter because we solved a lot more difficult things in the 20th century that makes this next step toward the future look like one average step for mankind.
You "not being sure why" is the problem. I can't write any more plainly than I already do. Sorry, but tough noogies.
I'm so sorry that you cannot envision an Apple car, or much of anything other than what you already know. There's certainly no shortage of folks who cannot do a scenario in their head and think about it. Honestly, your posts seem a bit like an elderly person screaming "get off my lawn". On and on and on, "can't" "won't" "impossible" "impractical" it makes me sad. I will add you to my blocked list soon.
I guess I should remember you are in Atlanta. Yea, the South is backwards as hell and chock full of people like you, as I know all too well. It's a cultural thing and I'll never understand it.
That article mentions the hurdle in having the vehicle being autonomous but still requiring a legal human driver ready to take control instantly. The human mind simply isn't good at processing and reacting to such events well if they are engaged in a completely different task.
It's just the first step in many steps. But you're correct, anytime a human is involved, all these systems can be compromised by human actions. That's not to say a computer can do better, but a computer shouldn't fail doing human things, such as napping or crocheting or being lazy/complacent.
It may be a long while (20+ years?) before autonomous+V2V vehicles totally take over human involvement (or we trust them to). And these vehicles may be isolated from the humans, at least in the beginning, such as in AV lanes on the highway, where this tech can really shine (or not be muddled by humans).
I know I'll be keeping my "dumb" cars as long as I can.
Edit: here's another article about AV cars, but the concept is the same as the previous article - only being autonomous on the highway.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/self-driving/first-aftermarket-autonomous-cars-hit-the-road-in-california
You "not being sure why" is the problem. I can't write any more plainly than I already do. Sorry, but tough noogies.
Actually I was thinking it's the reverse. Nothing to show that the auto industry has made massive strides, nothing to show that the infrastructure could be funded to support this technology, nothing to support anyone would buy a car with this form of technology yet you think it's going to happen in a few decades.
Not to mention if we have a society that drives cars that are so technology advance it would certainly put the insurance industry into bankruptcy, local governments would lose mass amounts of money made off traffic violations, no need for the DMV anymore because no person would actually need to know how to drive.
However the biggest hurdle, human nature. I could just see someone letting go of the steering wheel on i85 in Atlanta where it's 12 lanes across of traffic and the speed limit is 65 with everyone doing 80. Or cab drivers in NYC not having control of their cabs...LOL. Everyone remaining calm as their computer controlled cars drive slowly in perfect formation. I'm starting to wonder if you accidentally drank out of @sog35 water bottle.
The idea there would be an extra free seat in a cab, meaning more money per.
not if you're hit from behind and not being unreasonable -- then it's entirely the following vehicle's fault.
one of our resident trolls, dressed up like a fan. don't expect much from him.