November 9, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Automated Driving
November 10, 2010 at 2:27 am
One thing you are forgetting about, at inches apart (on a motorway) whats happens if the car in front has a "blowout"?
There will always be too many variables, like how well a car is maintained, potential hardware failures, etc
Great idea though... motorways would be easy then. However I would be more impressed if they just got the trains (in the UK) right.
November 10, 2010 at 3:06 am
I agree there's just too many variables.
Weather can have a major impact on driving conditions.
Recently we've seen a concrete mixer fall off a bridge onto a railway line. How would an automated system deal with that if it had landed on a Motorway/Freeway?
Oh and what about road works?
I've never understood the DARPA thing about automated convoys in war zones so people are not put at risk driving. Who is going to guard the convoy? Surley "the enemy" could just drive up immobilise the truck and take what they want.
November 10, 2010 at 4:30 am
I think it's interesting that just yesterday I read "A Farewell to Arms" By John Carlin. If private transport was controlled centrally during some point in the journey, that central location needs very high security.
November 10, 2010 at 4:46 am
I think the editorial and most of the comments are setting the bar too high.
The system does not need to have cars inches apart to move traffic better, just take control away from the idiots who cut in at the last second, etc.
Bugs, shmugs! Who needs perfection? The system only needs to kill less than 40,000 to 50,000 people in the US each year to be a marked improvement.
November 10, 2010 at 5:04 am
I know when we think of software, we remember the bugs clearly, but don't remember all of the software that runs in our world without problems. Think of all the software that NASA is running? How much room for error is there on the way to the moon? Or nuclear power plants? Just look at all of the computers running in your house (TV, DVD, maybe your boiler). These run largely bug free.
I wouldn't advocate running cars inches apart, as that would just train people to tailgate worse than they do now, but highways would still be more efficient if everyone drove more consistently. Just look at what happens when some one breaks down during rush hour. You end up in a mile of stop and go traffic so that people can look at the tow trucks pretty flashing lights.
Then you look at what drivers are doing on the roads today. They are busy doing a lot of things that are not driving. A person sending a text message only looks at the road 1 out of every 3 seconds.
Driving is a tedious task that requires 100% attention 100% of the time (not that I'm any better than the average idiot), and that kind of task is perfect for robots/computers. I'm not saying we're their yet, but it doesn't seem at all beyond possibility that even a buggy computer could be safer than the average driver.
Oh, and I forgot to mention drunk drivers and little old ladies who can't see over the steering wheel...
November 10, 2010 at 5:05 am
steve from article (11/10/2010)
I'm not sure our technology is anywhere close to the level it would need to be for me to trust it.
Wait!! You're not sure?? 😛
steven.malone (11/10/2010)
Bugs, shmugs! Who needs perfection? The system only needs to kill less than 40,000 to 50,000 people in the US each year to be a marked improvement.
That is a really good perspective. Unfortunately you would probably end up weeding out the wrong part of the herd. :w00t:
<><
Livin' down on the cube farm. Left, left, then a right.
November 10, 2010 at 5:14 am
steven.malone (11/10/2010)
I think the editorial and most of the comments are setting the bar too high.The system does not need to have cars inches apart to move traffic better, just take control away from the idiots who cut in at the last second, etc.
Bugs, shmugs! Who needs perfection? The system only needs to kill less than 40,000 to 50,000 people in the US each year to be a marked improvement.
You're dead right. Computers controlling cars? Might be a good idea as long as Microsoft don't build it hehe!!! Heard about Microsoft decided to build a car? Whenever it has an error you get a message: Your engine performed an illegal operation. Please close al windows and restart your engine!!! Bwahahaha!!! Imagine that happening in peak time!!!
:-PManie Verster
Developer
Johannesburg
South Africa
I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. - Holy Bible
I am a man of fixed and unbending principles, the first of which is to be flexible at all times. - Everett Mckinley Dirkson (Well, I am trying. - Manie Verster)
November 10, 2010 at 6:02 am
There's also not enough testing ...
You can NEVER completely test software.
Think about testing a single expression, A * B for all possible 32-bit values; there are 2^64 possible results. Just checking all values using our fastest computer would take longer than humans have been on the planet! And even a simple real program has hugely - exponentially - more complexity than that.
Of course real testing does not attempt to test everything, instead it uses test cases meant to root out likely errors. But just as software is imperfect, so is writing test cases!
November 10, 2010 at 6:21 am
Where I live and work, a bordering state is regularly rated as #1, 2 or 3 as the worst driving state in the United States. Drivers are so careless, arrogant, and unconcerned about others that we regularly have major "road rage" incidents. Most recently we had one driver shoot and seriously injure another driver simply because the first driver did not appreciate the way the Kamikaze driver had passed him, speeding of course.
Automated roads in this area would never work because people love their right to put your life regularly in danger so they can get to work 5 seconds faster than you can - yes, thats how stupid and careless our drivers are - but they love their right to be that way. I regularly joke with my coworkers that it continues to amaze me that people drive like Al Quada terrorists every morning, as fast and carelessly as they can, to get to a place they probably would rather not be - work!
I think automated roads are unlikely to ever happen, let alone work. Its like smoking... We all know its bad, but there are still tons of smokers out there exercising their right to suck down butts.
If the roads were ever automated, how the heck could you make the transition? In my area you would have hundreds of people insisting that they be able to drive without automation so they can get up every work day morning and continue to behave like unconcerned, arrogant idiots, just so they can arrive five seconds ahead of the next guy.
Its nice to think that automation can overcome things - but stupidity and arrogance is one tough nut to crack - even for sensible automation. So I guess its the same old "Drive like hell, and you'll get there early" that is going to be with us for many years to come.
November 10, 2010 at 6:23 am
Privacy? What privacy?
Every trip you take is logged in some database.
(one of the reasons I do not use EZpass)
But there is too much variability. Have you ever had a piece of junk fall on the road in front of your car? I have, and I doubt an automated system would have handled it at all. A deer (or pedestrian) run across the road?
http://jalopnik.com/5648126/volvo-pedestrian-avoidance-crash-test-fails-spectacularly
It's deeper than this. Boeing discovered that automating all possible processes actually increased the likelihood of human failure, sometimes disastrously. The less driver's need to use their brains the worse they will become. I think that the products like the ones that failed (fortunately humorusly above) will probably increase accidents in the long run.
Railroads and subways are VERY different. There are far fewer vehicles, they all are under the control and ownership of the operating line, there are very limited and well defined travel routes. And they still have occasional trouble.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
November 10, 2010 at 6:40 am
I agree with a previous post that it doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better than the current system, which is more lethal than any war in history. That's not a very high bar to set.
On the other hand, why bother with individual transportation if you're going to do this kind of thing? It would be a much simpler engineering problem to set up high-speed rail and cheap car rental at every station. We already have the tech for that, and it probably wouldn't be any more expensive than building computer controlled cars and all the support infrastructure for them. Either one will completely transform the economy, just in different directions.
However, I personally like the ability to (a) own a car (not rail+rent at destination), and (b) stop at scenic viewpoints and such for no good reason at all. So, while I think an auto-drive system is possible in the relatively near future, I don't think it's feasible or desirable.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
November 10, 2010 at 7:32 am
The problem with having an automated system causing accidents, is who gets blamed when someone dies?? The programmer?? Who would want that job... Could imagine the lawsuit?
November 10, 2010 at 7:40 am
I'd be more concerned about the cost of such an unnecessary system. We have enough trouble with federal spending as it is without digitalizing every highway too. Some ideas are only good in theory and books.
November 10, 2010 at 7:48 am
blandry (11/10/2010)
...I think automated roads are unlikely to ever happen, let alone work. Its like smoking... We all know its bad, but there are still tons of smokers out there exercising their right to suck down butts.
...
I tend to agree, but I could see something like an HOV type lane, automating sections of roadway at a time. As with most things, we need a "get there from here" plan.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 75 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply