Slashdot Mirror
GM Claims Advanced Cruise Control By 2008
pavelvp writes "Economist is reporting that General Motors is working on the prototype of the self-driving car. From the article, "The car uses updated technology combined with several existing innovations and, according to the manufacturer, could be in production by 2008. But, while the technology takes some of the boring bits out of driving, it falls far short of an automatic taxi service and, anyway, various legal, technical and social barriers to its introduction remain.""
I look forward to the day when we relinquish all control of our cars once we enter the freeway. Scientific papers have found that traffic throughput could be increased up to 918.49% while reducing fatalities by a factor of 17.5!
Test 1 2 3 4
Can I push the gas pedal down hard enough to triumph over the computer system? I would really hate to see a computer have more control than the human. We've seen plenty of movies, where that happened.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I know of one such event where a guy set the cruise control in his Winnebago and then got up and when back to the kitchen to make a sandwich. Truth, Fiction, Urban Legend, or Darwin Award. Your guess is as good as mine.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Mercedes has had their automatic cruise control now for over 5 years. It only applies about 10-15% of braking power and is available in all their upper end cars. With the new S-Class coming in December, the new version can fully stop the car and bring it back up to speed on its own. So where is the innovation? Mercedes has been a tech leader in cars for as far back as I can think. ABS, Stability control, Airbags, etc are all Mercedes innovations which they allow other car companies to use.
It's 2008. Give me my f*ing flying car instead.
As long as the system can distinguish what is running into the street ahead of you if you're boxed in and the vehicle behind you is tailgating (or its driver isn't paying attention). If it's a dog, the the answer is to hit it instead of risking getting run over yourself. If it's a kid, then slam on the brakes and get rear ended.(*)
Also, the price target of $1,830 seems a little optimistic. That's close to the cost of a nav system, but will require more components.
(* Alternate answer: deploy the tire spikes and drag chain to force the car behind to stop)
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
Make something Fool Proof and a better class of fool will come along and proove you wrong.
Still, we can dream of jumping into the car for a relaxing nap on a 12 hour drive, eh?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Will this car also drive itself to Alaska, drill for oil, refine the crude into gasoline, and then fill up?
Otherwise, I'm holding out for a Mr. Fusion.
Windows 98 SE(First edition was unstable around corners.)
"Comedy's a dead art form. Now tragedy, that's funny."
If people don't have to work to drive, do you think they'll give a second thought to making an unnecessary trip?
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
The mechanical parts must be exceedingly reliable, and the electronics must be fault tolerant.
In short the electronics of a self-driving car must be triple-modular redundant (TMR) with a majority output voter between 3x replicated electronic blocks. Expect the first self-driving Buick LeSabre to cost 3x last year's model. The price will be about $100,000.
Perhaps they should be concentrating on making their vehicles safer http://www.latimes.com/business/investing/wire/sns -ap-gm-recall,1,3343951.story?coll=sns-ap-investin g-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true instead of making their cars drive themselves.
Heck, they should be worrying about trying to sell their vehicles! Cause Honda and Toyota aren't going away any time soon!
welcome our new automotive overloards...
Car drives you!
It seems as if the ultimate (admittedly, far off) goal of such developments is to establish a virtually automated mass transit system using today's road networks. When cars automatically take the correct routes, make correct lane changes, and communicate with each other to ensure safe distances and traffic queues the joy of driving, for those who value it, will be essentially lost. I can't help but wonder if the joy of driving will be entirely lost in 20-50 years.
Business Voyeur
since we last had self driving cars. Friggen amazing that it took this long to re-invent the horse.
Oh well, what the hell...
...working on something more useful, such as making your entire consumer line hybrids by 2010 or something along those lines? Seems like we're adding all these frivolous things to cars nowadays but neglecting to do anything about the fuel issues in automobiles.
*** For a better tommorow, change your life today ***
And not only that, but what's holding the GM version up is that they're still trying to engineer it to fail as soon as the warranty runs out.
If this is anything like other GM innovations, it won't be here until 2018...
Chrysler is OWNED BY Mercedes.
Also, gone will be the 'sporty' designs in cars, especially the dash. There are already designs for cars with 'couplings', so they work like train carriages in built-up areas. Your car will resemble a small train compartment more than a Ferrari.
On the other hand, at least it will rid the world of this lot.This technology will give a new meaning to the phrase blue screen of death.
I look forward to the day when we relinquish all control of our cars once we enter the freeway.
Yeah. Problem is, manufacturers cannot guarantee that their software is bug-free. This is the reason that automated cars are legally banned in most of Europe and other parts of the world.
Software unreliability is a huge problem, one which is preventing us from achieving the full promise of the computer age. The more complex our systems the more unreliable they are. The reason is that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way we create software. Contrary to conventional wisdom, unreliability is not an essential characteristic of complex software programs.
The solution will require a radical change in the way we program our computers. In my opinion, the main reason that software is so unreliable has to do with a custom that is as old as the computer: the practice of using the algorithm as the basis of software construction Switching to a signal-based, synchronous software model will not only result in an improvement of several orders of magnitude in productivity, but also in programs that are guaranteed free of defects, regardless of their complexity.
go check automotive history. mercedes benz and bosche invented both. original parent is correct.
From the article:
For example, self-steering cars are currently illegal in most European countries. Carmakers want the law changed to allow them, but they are also keen not to be held legally responsible for any accidents which result. Drafting legislation which would make it attractive for carmakers to introduce the technology, but still allow some recourse for those hurt if something goes wrong, could prove tricky.
I see, they want to build self-steering cars but take no responsibility for what they have built going wrong.
I think alerting systems are a great idea - if you think I'm shifting lanes or following too close or not noticing a braking driver in front of me, by all means help me out.
But don't take away control based on incomplete sensor input. The distance that it is safe to follow another car depends on conditions. What if you reach a sharp bend and that other car can corner a lot better than you? What if you stop paying attention to the road ahead because the car is following another, and that other car fails to notice traffic stopping too quickly ahead? That car hitting anything else probably means you're going to hit it.
The consider the whole business of automatically following lanes as the GM car does. Has no-one out there seen roads after construction is through that have remains of old lines? What happens when a car starts AUTOMATICALLY correcting your steering to follow the old lines instead of the new?
To give auto makers a free Get-Out-Of-Jail card because they have the hubris to think they can build something that really drives better than a human is madness. Let them try but they must pay for failure so they are properly diligent as to issues that may arise.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Comparing this with an auto-pilot is a bit stupid, if you don't mind me saying so. Apart from redundancy, which you mentioned, there is also the issue that auto-pilots are directly controlled by human beings, who are, in turn, directed by other humans with large radars. Also, one should notice that most flight plans are a great deal straighter than roads, meaning that precision offered by an autopilot far exceeds what a human could ever hope to do, thus increasing safety. Now, using an autopilot during VFR flight (i.e. light aircraft in good conditions in sight of the ground the whole time) is unsafe, because it is fully the pilot's responsibility for traffic separation, not to mention that more precise tracks from place to place mean that there's a greater likelihood of two aircraft being in the same spot at the same time.
M0d me down, up, off-topic whatever, but I never go out of my head a story by Asimov, I think, called The Wheels Must Roll. It was all about a public conveyance that simply rocked (and rolled.) Anybody remember more about it? I googled the name and surprisingly didn't find much. I want that system!
Say hello to my little sig.
...shouldn't we be taking a heavy focus on more fuel efficient, cost efficient forms of transport and increasing passive safety over gizmos like this?
I honestly can't say I'd trust a vehicle to do my driving for me.
Very good idea, as far as the actual driving goes -- that is, I would use it.
/have/ to watch the road anymore, attention will drift for longer and longer, and you won't see something, and it will crash.
Problem: It will crash when presented with some situations. You can watch for those situations, but since you don't normally
The few problems will be directly blamed on the car makers. They will not be able to keep this cruise control on the market.
I've often wished that my car would automatically stay between the lines. The roads are already tilted so that you can drive (with good alignment) quite a ways without touching the wheel. But if I had that option, it's only a matter of time before I fell asleep on a long freeway, and then the computer makes a mistake, and I crash.
The technology is not new. I saw a video on it quite a while ago. But you can't introduce it because some people will die as a viscerally direct result, even if it saves other lives in the process.
They mentioned that it would probably first be introduced as a "you're going off the road" warning system, and verrrry slowly work its way in from there. That's the only feasible option I see.
I really don't feel alarmist about this at all. They're gonna need to be very, very careful in introducing this, because when cars crash -- as they inevitably will at least once -- due to unexpected circumstances that arise quickly -- they will look very bad.
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
With high gas prices.. Of course.
This is old news. Slashdot sucks nowdays. This was on Digg I know a few days ago.
I, for one, welcome are new automotive overlords.
-- Jinsaku
wow. You should Never talk again. Ever. Ask your friends to join you in on that too. Thanks.
Someone with mod points, break this person's karma.
I'm really disappointed that there isn't an internal component, just sensor feed back. what happens when one of those sensors fails?
I mean shouldn't there be a WiFi component to this? I'd imagine it'd make the whole system a whole lot easier if the cars could talk to each other to make decisions regarding automatic driving. In fact, I don't know why they don't network cars first, to have a car follow the path of the car in front of them. It seems that would be the easier, more practical milestone than sensor feedback. probably less expensive too.
Searched the bosche and mercedes pages. Mercedes invented those things. BMW sourced its part from bosche and got them from there. Airbags without a doubt are an invention of dailmer-benz. Americans didn't invent much of anything in terms of car safety features.
This is perfect 'cause now I can use my cellphone while driving. Initially I thought I just needed a headset, but all those reports show that conversation is really the distraction. But with better cruise control, that becomes less of an issue, so I can use my cellphone more...
PDA & Smartphone Optimized Sites
Replacing my laptop with a Treo
Adaptive cruise is a far cry from automatic cars, and a lane-departure warning system is the first step in making cars that will be allowed to steer themselves.
But, like the summary and article say, the more difficult aspects are sociological, not technical.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
I hear concern that it MIGHT happen is why they stopped calling it "cruise control" and started calling it the more accurate "(automatic) speed control".
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I have multiple physical disabilities, and I am unable to drive a vehicle. However, this could be useful for me and others with multiple physical disabilities. It would be like KITT from Knight Rider's without the advanced weapons, AI, etc. :)
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
I can't help but wonder if the joy of driving will be entirely lost in 20-50 years.
IMHO the joy of driving took a big dive 'WAY back in the Nixon era, when the 55 MPH speed limit was imposed.
The relaxation to 65 and 70 in limited locations is a far cry from the "no limit - basic law" (i.e. pick a speed you consider safe) regime that preceeded it.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Maybe, but the thing I'm really interested in is not can the software be bug-free, but can it be more reliable than humans?
The article says:
The funny thing is that I feel a lot less safe because other people, people I have no control over, are in control of their vehicle. The sad fact is that so many people are so mind-numbingly stupid behind the wheel of a car that I would much rather trust software that's slightly buggy and causes a few fatal crashes a year than humans who are outright stupid that cause almost 40,000 fatal crashes a year. And yes, if that means giving up control of my car so that other people have to give up control of theirs, I'm okay with that.
Now you and your friends can get drunk smoke crack while cruising along the high street.
Should it have a "Drive it like you stole it" option for the car thiefs.
Experience with ABS systems is instructive. ABS systems definitely improve braking, but don't reduce accidents. Drivers with ABS use their shorter stopping distance to follow more closely, cancelling out the safety benefits.
I run one of the DARPA Grand Challenge teams, which requires somewhat better technology. The current Grand Challenge technology is clunky (everybody has huge, mechanically scanned LIDAR devices or weak vision systems), but true solid state eye-safe outdoor 3D LIDAR imaging devices are just becoming available. With that technology, doing this right is within reach.
Besides the fact that other companies that actually make good cars, like BMW and Mercedes, are farther along on this, GM should be more concerned about actually achieving a profitable quarter than with developing a robot-driven car.
blair bags were in buick which is a first for american cars but the modern day design of every air bag is from the original Mercedes concepts. Mercedes was also the first to implement them in mass production on a global scale.
Go ahead, mods. Do it in one fell swoop.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
I wrote some software to optimize the fuel efficiency of my car's engine controller.
Damn thing wouldn't even start, and kept insisting that it was currently experiencing infinite miles per gallon. Actually starting would only lower its efficiency.
The cars drive you!! ..3 second pause for -1 overrated...
Waste of time - we have drivers in cars already. How about expending the effort and investments on electric vehicles so we can still drive when the oil it too expensive to use or unobtainable?
:v)
Sorry, I forgot. That's the period of maximum profit for the oil industry, isn't it? Silly me. Oh well, roll on with more of those CO2-induced hurricanes...
Vik
In as much as a human has to input the destination that's true. Otherwise a modern plane is capable of taking off, flying to another airport and landing without the pilot touching the controls.
The next person that accuses me of having a muscle car to make up for some inadequacy in genital size is going to get beaten to death with my enormous penis.
Seriously, I'm sure there's a lot of this going on but it comes up _way_ too much in the comments for any article relating to automobiles. Some people, myself included, just like the sound and feel and look of a muscle car. I've got a wife and two kids -- a happy little family -- and no need to try to impress chicks with a car.
Besides (back on topic), someone could just as easily see your tricked-out, nano-plastics, auto-pilot, hi-tech intarweb connected, rice-burning car as compensation for something.
Oh, and incidentally I drive a Saturn sedan to work every day and my muscle car is rotting in my driveway (what's that say about my penis?)
Kevin
I think you would be more lucky if you asked to have dedicated lanes set aside for the Robot cars.
Some lanes for the advanced cars, the rest for older cars and people who want to drive manually.
Everyone wins.
Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
Whoa, Nelly.
What? I feel far safer on public transport because it's a great big bloody hunk of metal that would scarcely show a dent if that latte-chugging SUV-not-needing chain-smoking lunatic who is weaving in and out of lanes looks away for those critical thirty seconds to finish off the Filet O Fish in their lap...
The only reason I would be made to feel unsafe on public transport is not because I am not in control of the vehicle, but rather some of the folks sitting around me might not be in control of themselves...
We were just discussing this with a collegue over lunch. Although there are many technical hurdles, it seems the legal one is the greatest: how is GM not going to be sued to hell after the first accident involving a car running on auto-pilot?
I look forward to the day when we relinquish all control of our cars once we enter the freeway. Scientific papers have found that traffic throughput could be increased up to 918.49% while reducing fatalities by a factor of 17.5!
I know the statistics are supposed to be a joke, but it's the worst 10% of drivers that cause 90% of the accidents (driving drunk, overtired, just plain inept, etc). This automated system doesn't have to drive as well as the best human driver; it probably doesn't even have to drive as well as average. As long as it keeps enough of the accident prone knuckleheads out of the driver's seat, it will make traffic safer for everyone.
--
AC
The problem isn't lack of innovation. It's liability.
If GM builds a computer-controlled car, then every time one crashes they're going to get sued, even when it's not a fault in their controller. If they leave the controls up the human, then the crash will be the human's own fault. There's no incentive for GM to open themselves up to lots of lawsuits. Consumers won't pay enough for the minor convenience of the auto-driver to make it worthwhile.
Same logic goes for aircraft. Boeing long ago demonstrated commercial airlines that could fly themselves from place to place, but the planes still have pilots.
I really wish I had mod points just now... that's the 3rd-funniest thing I've read all day -- and it's been a really good day for funny shit.
Check it out. Its still unproven, but on paper its supposed to be cheaper and more convenient than current mass transit systems. It does away with all the stop and go and sharing rides with those you'd rather not. You just swipe your payment card and key in your destination and it proceeds there nonstop. Its elevated and much narrower than light rail, so the right of way and construction costs are cheaper. Ultimately, even our packages, dry cleaning and take out dinners will all use a similar network. Why do we have to move 3500 pounds around to get 2 pounds of food?
Yep, and GM is also pioneering hydrogen powered vehicles...
... while the Japanese are (again) dominating with hybrids.
Where's your nearest Hydrogen pumping station ?
Hydrogen is a pipe dream, and a dangerous one at that -- extracting hydrogen from water (destroying the water in the process) is a recipe for the end of life on Earth. The returned water is, as I understand it, less than what is net removed.
If GM continues to live in the Surreal World the price that will be paid will be the ultimate demise of The General. It's not as unimaginable as you might think. The analysts say the clock is already ticking...
Regards, Lex
Hasn't Adaptive Cruise Control been out for a while? Look at the Jaguar model (I don't remember exactly which one), Cadillac XLR, etc.
In fact, I know that for a fact, because someone in my family worked on it.
Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Bugs are good for building character in the user.
i can't ever see any car manufacturer doing this, because the first time one of these has an accident lawyers will jump all over it saying it was the auto piolts fault.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Know what? Despite everything else...if I were to buy a new car today, right now, this instant...
It would be from GM. Why? Because the car would be for my wife, and the "Onstar" thing GM has in all cars would just make me feel a lot better about some of the things she puts herself through. I know it makes me a chauvanist (sp?) but...it would make me feel better, feel like she was safer.
If the car wants to do the steering for me when I'm falling asleep...hey! Even better.
ABS, Stability control, Airbags, etc are all Mercedes innovations which they allow other car companies to use.
Nice plug for Mercedes, but you may want to check your facts. ABS was invented by Bosch
Air bags were first offered on Cadillacs, Oldsmobiles, and Buicks (all GM products)
70% of statistics are made up.
But are they going to know the three laws?
... if I want a self driving vehicle I would just buy a train ticket !
Unless I'm not understanding what you mean, that doesn't make much sense. How is a line of code, a subroutine, or a method different from "synchronous signalling"?
All data processing eventually boils down to dataset manipulation over time, which is another way of describing an "algorithm".
Not to say that we don't need a different way to construct software -- we do. But I'm reminded of the famous axiom, "there are no silver bullets". Software is damn hard, because there are too many details than can be managed by humans. The ultimate solution will probably be software constructed by intelligent software, i.e., real AI. Unfortunately, there is no current science of AI, and nothing is really on the horizon.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Raised throughput doesn't really equal higher velocity. It just means more cars can pass per minute. One "easy" (read: difficult but possible) way to do this is just to let the cars drive closer to each other. Of course - with human drivers, that's not possible (reaction time - at least 100 m between the cars necessary or something). Computer controlled cars, OTOH, has been demonstrated driving less than 4-5 m from each other - at normal (neither lower or higher) highway speeds. That equals a pretty big throughput increase...
I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
If a truly self-driving car ever does come around, it would not only revolutionize our lives in terms of commuting, but also in the movement of goods. Why even have stores when you could let customers select what they want online and then immediately dispatch a cartload of goods to their house? If this comes around the time of some sort of renewable electric car, we may find ourselves living in ever more sprawling low-density cities. What trouble is it to live 50 miles outside of town when you can get into town in no time while reading the paper in your own private vehicle?
Picture this: personal, point-to-point air travel, with the aircraft doing peer-to-peer negotiation for collision avoidance, and steering themselves to their destinations by GPS. From a robotics standpoint, this is a much easier problem to solve than navigating on a road, since it doesn't require visual interpretation, and the collision hazard is so much smaller.
It could be a win over cars economically, once you consider the cost of road building and the fact that every major city has a couple of traffic fatalities nearly every day.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I don't know how difficult is the task to build a computer driven nationwide transportation system that has a lesser average level of accident/fatalities/whatever-the-metric than does the current human driver population.
Nor, at this point in our world's collective perceptions, does it really matter.
A human driver involved in a wreck that results in [multiple] fatality barely raises an eyebrow in the news these days. A computer-driven car that tweaks someone's ingrown toenail due to a glitch? The system will be shut down that very day.
Think about what you said in the context of indiviual events of failure rather than average levels of failure, and the logical conclusion of your position becomes clear. Expectations of automated systems that greatly exceed those of human-directed systems will severely, if not permanantly, preclude any sort of serious implementation effort, and by extension the development/refinement of safety measures. Mr Chicken, meet Mr. Egg.
that it's rotting in the driveway too?
"Thank you for riding with Johnny Cab". Can't wait for my next vacation.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Wasn't there just a story about how DIA has ditched their automatic luggage system?
So you all trust the Automation that BUILT your cars, but you dont think we can design a system that could DRIVE it?
Although it can technically do all that, it can't do all that without human intervention at each step, as far as I know. ILS frequencies still need to be tuned, not to mention that a major job of the pilots is to ensure passenger comfort by avoiding turbulence and weather, which a computer would have a hard time judging. Also, not all airports are equipped with a Category III ILS (Instrument Landing System), meaning that pilot control is required from a decision height. This is all notwithstanding the fact that pilots are hired for the one flight in 20 years when they need to make a quick decision to get the plane safely back to terra firma, not the 99.9% of the time they are sitting watching the autopilot.
Wasn't the locomotive invented in the 1800s?
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
You must be infected with a virus or something, it says it right there in the subject (I'm just joking, I really said "fallac").
I didn't realize this was such a touchy subject. I seriously was not trying to offend you or hurt your feelings. I was just trying for a +1 Funny but I seem to have poured salt into some deep, gaping wound. Were you run over by a muscle car? (That's a joke, I hope you weren't really run over by a muscle car, that'd be terrible).
I have no excuse for my careless mispelling of the word "phallic". I truly hope whatever damage I've done throwing around pseudo-words like "fallac" (god, I'm such a moron) can be undone in time.
As for the talk of pollution, I guess I just never really considered what's good for my kids. Had I known that my dormant muscle car was going to cause such terrible damage, I certainly wouldn't have driven it five years ago. I'm such an asshole.
I'm going to cry myself to sleep now. I'm really, really, sorry.
Thanks for your insight.
Kevin
P.S. 20 years ago I was 9.
The car has automatic cruise control of the sort fitted to many expensive cars such as Jaguars and BMWs. These use either radar or infrared beams fitted to the front of the car to measure the distance to the car in front. That distance is kept constant by automatic acceleration and braking.
So it matches the speed of the dipshit in front of you. How is this better? If anything, you'll just get as crappy mileage as the asshole at the wheel of the car in front of you.
How is modern cruise control deficient? You get up to the speed limit, set it, and you'll get relatively great mileage, and are guaranteed not to get a speeding ticket.
aww boo-hoo... did he hurt your poor feelings? have you seen the borders lately? I think I recall there being somewhat of a problem... although I don't think he was being completely serious
So what, you'll are space-age engineers who develop self-driving machines on a daily basis? You're all just so smart as to point out all the inherent flaws and the inevitable failure of such a system?
I think if GM has the *guts* to come publicly and claim "We are making a car that will seriously drive itself." then they diserve a lot of respect.
If they go as far as say that, then they most probably have done their homeworks real good. The system must have tons and tons of failsafes mechanisms, and will possibly engage in auto-drive only on commutes that you, the driver, have already taken several times to "teach" the cars all the subtleties of that specific commute.
I mean, I love bashing as the next guy, but by all means, please allow GM to demonstrate how good they can actually do this before claiming snake oil.
Not me. I'd trade for auto-drive in a second. I'm a good driver, but being able to read or sleep. Have the car pull over and wake me up for manual drive. Even if it was slower I'd opt for auto-drive. I'd especially like to see trucks automated. They're the scariest things on the road.
Maybe we could leave a lane for the people who really want to go manual. I don't think we need 100% to make it work.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I wonder if Ford and Microsoft will drop WinFS from the car they have in the works in order to get it out before GM. http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/ 03/1735254&tid=109&tid=126&tid=137/
...its not powered by Linux, I don't want to hear about the damn project.
...make cars that are more efficient and last longer. Then, they actually might stand a chance against the Japanese and Germans.
Do you have any idea how much water we have here on earth?! Wayyy more than we know what to do with.
I'll give you a hint: if global warming caused the ocean to rise by 1cm, and we skimmed that 1cm off to supply the whole planet with energy for 75 years... what difference would it make??
It's wayyy cleaner and better than damming rivers for hydroelectric, burning millions of tonnes of oil and gases, and so on.
It's nice to see GM doing some R&D in this department (although it reeks of misbudgeting), as this topic is one that has fascinated me since my youth. I agree that their money is better spent on R&D of better fuel economy, but let's go with this topic for now. Having read all of the slashdotters diligent replies above, here is my vision for the near future as this technology matures...
Physical Design:
Firstly, a centralized system is necessary to make this happen. Yes, let's all put our Big Brother paranoia aside for a moment, and imagine (as mentioned above) "autonav"-only lanes on the freeway. These lanes would be restricted from the rest of traffic -- physically restricted, in fact, since stupid humans will surely attempt to merge into them.
"Hive" Communication:
The method for controlling entry into these lanes would likely be concrete barriers to segregate them from the rest of the roadway, and separate on- and off-ramps that can only be passed with autonav cars. The ramps and lanes must be embedded with radio antennas (cheap deployment, no line-of-sight problems) that communicate with every autonav car on the road. The cars all communicate with the system as well in a bit of a "hive" mentality, broadcasting their positions, rate of speed, preferred offramp, and any hazards.
Hazard detection:
Though the centralized system will "inform" vehicles of impending hazards, there must be some initial hazard reporter. In some cases, this will be Big Brother (ie. the Department of Transportation issues a "slick roadways" warning for a 20 mile stretch of road, thus slowing all of the autonavs to a reasonable speed.) In other cases, the hazards will be vehicle-reported, detected (and avoided) thanks to vehicle-mounted innovations such as the radar distance-sensors currently available on some cars, as well as the eye-safe 3D LIDAR systems mentioned by the DARPA Grand Challenge participant above. In the most extreme cases, vehicle malfunctions will be vehicle-reported as well. The centralized system must have the final say, at all times, concerning maximum speed and off-ramp decisions. Passengers will only be able to input a preferred off-ramp and hit a PANIC button, which will bring the whole lane to a stop (ie. your car is on fire).
Chain mentality:
The autonav lanes will only move as fast as the slowest car, hence the chain analogy. Automakers will be expected to produce cars with definite specifications in terms of braking distance, acceleration time, gas tank capacity, automatic tire reinflation, tire wear reporting, etc.
Scalability:
As the system fills up (more metro areas -- LA would probably be the first -- and people buy into the system), there will be cause for expansion and evolution. Generation 1 autonav cars will be allowed in certain lanes, while Generation 2 cars will be allowed in the newest lanes, capable of going much faster. In the end, newer technology will raise the bar for the maximum speeds of the system.
I don't need to extoll the benefits of such a system, as they were already mentioned by other posters. But, for the sake of completeness: Yes, you could sleep on long voyages. Deaths in autonav lanes would be minimized (drastically) compared to normal highways and possibly even mass transit systems (buses, trains, planes, and ferries have death tolls, after all). The most obvious benefit, SPEED, will be the selling point, inspiring consumers to buy into the system. Upper level business executives in major car-dependent metro areas (ie. LA) could put a hefty price on the convenience of getting to work at 100mph, with 1 traffic jam per year (the dumb guy who lit his car on fire and hit the PANIC button).
I present this fantasy as a spark for further discussion, not flamebait (I readily admit it is more sci-fi than not.) There are plenty of smart people reading this article, let's hear what you think can be done to make such a system a reality.
Any thoughts?
Fisslefink
... the car were driving down the highway and the lane you are in ends and merges left with the next lane? The solid line on the right shifts to the left to signal the merge and the lane markers on the left continue straight until the 2 meet. Where will the car go then?
... the lane you are in splits into two lanes? Which lane does the car go into, or does it decide to ride the line between the two. (Sure, go ahead and say "It always follows the left lines or the right lines. Read on.)
... The lane splits and the lane that the car picks happens to be an exit lane off the highway? Yes, there are left exits off of highways and a lot of those don't have easy ways to get back on the road you were just on.
... two cars, one on the left side and one on the right side both try to cut in front of you with an 18 wheeler on your a--? Will it slam on it's breaks?
... you are on a highway with 2 lanes in your direction with a car on the side of you and the lanes suddenly shift to one side or the other because of construction? Oh, by the way, the lanes in these cases usually get very narrow. And turn suddenly. And there was an 18-wheeler on the side of the road further back blocking the change in speed from 70 MPH to 50 MPH for the construction zone.
I think I will keep control of my own car, thank-you very much.
1) We don't yet have an efficient way of extracting hydrogen from water.
2) Water will be the next oil, according to leaked Pentagon reports.
And that's not in 100 years but 20 years.
Still want to rip apart the planet's water molecules to feed The General?
Regards, Lex
Read pricey!
And the car would be named Matthew, and a later model would be Sally.
how about some *&^()$#!@? BETTER FUEL EFFICIENCY instead of this cruise control crap? an example of car companies looking after consumer interests: | 77 accord 38 mpg | 80 honda accord 33 mpg | 85 accord 33 mpg | 90 accord 30 mpg | 95 accord 31 mpg | 2000 accord 31 mpg | 2005 accord 34 mpg, hybrid 37 mpg |
The beauty of one of these systems would be eliminating the particle wave motion of traffic at traffic lights (once the cars got 'smart' enough anyway). Being able to move a line of individual cars like a train will provide a large increase in throughput at all lights in a system. (Has always annoyed me that we can't have everyone in the line accelerate at the same rate starting at the same time - I aways thought the answer was big rubber padding on either end of your car but maybe 'puters are a better solution!). Ah that would be rad
Check here
Think about what you said in the context of indiviual events of failure rather than average levels of failure
I am. And I say that do to all the wierd things that happen on roads every day it's going to be a long, long, long time before individual events of failure from a computer driven system like an automated steering mechanism become even half as successful at avoiding accidents as a real driver.
To some extent I agree there is paranoia about automated systems. Howveer as a programmer I have at least an informed paranoia, in terms of thinking about what level of sensors, programming and intellegence a system would have to have just to drive on the average road with any kinf os surprises at all. And I can see that given the description I have on how the new GM technology works its going to cause accidents on real roads, in situations a human would not because they can see ahead to what lines are real and what are not.
Look at the Darpa chanllenge where vehicles just have to get to someplace without obeying any laws, worrying about pedestrians, or having lots of traffic and construction around. Real roads have many dyanmic challenges that are tougher by far to deal with than static desert obsticles which have yet to be overcome.
The real future is not it automated cars that magically whisk us hither and yon. It's in tools that augment human abilty so you really do become one with the car, being able to see into spectrums and through environmetns you would be unable to otherwise. That's the real future of driving, and is far more attainable than even the simplest of automated systems like something that just tries to stay in a lane.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Glad to have helped you with my blinding intellect, which in fact is mere extrapolation of historical trends regarding computers, sensors, and automated systems that have to interact with real-world objects. In fact didn't we just see something about a baggage system at Denver International Airport because it simply could not get bags about a mile from checkin to a plane? And that's with humans overseeing it.
Furthermore I am myself an engineer and know the kind of overoptimism that can occur to make people think the system would actually work in reality. It's a huge step from a lane warning system (exists today, very new though) to one that takes over the wheel and makes damn sure you hit that biker (or armadillo) after all.
However fun your sarcasm was, if the GM system really worked so well why are they trying to get laws altered to make sure they are not at fault from accidents caused by it?
In short I'll believe it when I see it in production and working.
Waiting.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Good luck getting buy-in from 100% of drivers. Not during my lifetime."
I'm more of the opinion that cars carrying people will become extinct in my lifetime (say, in the next 50 years), except for goods transportation. Mass transit and/or taxi services will move those who absolutely have to move (say, for going to an airport).
There will come a time when the technology breaches a threshold whereby we will leave our homes virtually. Either we will visit friends and family daily through VR, we will telecommute to work more, including many manual laborers. Unless we construct a true AI, many jobs in factories and retail may be replaced by robots. However, it is my opinion that with ultra-high-bandwidth wireless, it will be humans behind the controls of the robots, not a computer. Surgeons are already demonstrating this capability.
The day will come when there will be truly no reason to physically leave home. We will be leaving virtually (VR) and metaphysically (telerobotics). Those long haul trucks may become fatality free. A combination of smart cars and telerobotic drivers sitting in a main office will remove the human from having to endure 10 hour drives and cheap greasy spoons (restaurants).
This will truly open up the world to globalization. Not only could someone in China do your job, they could do it in the same factory you are now. But, the opposite holds true as well. No longer will you be restricted to jobs in your area, but any job, anywhere. I think that such will be a positive, not negative, force on the world economy. It will accelerate equal wages among all workers, as changing jobs will be as easy as typing a different URL.
The car will remain only as a luxury item, not a necessary one. I would expect a rise in the ownership of motorcycles in that possible future. Its cheaper and more of an "enjoyable transportation" than your average car if your object if purely for fun.
I8-D
concentrate on making the cars it already has work properly first. I've never seen such shoddy workmanship as I have on GM dealer lots these days. They're starting to make Kias seem like good quality.
Oh, and then they could do with maybe making them look a little less like Ass.
This is awesome. Surely GM, the US's greatest engineering company can pull this off.
They've hardly had any recalls, except for the 2 million vehicles recalled earlier this year for seat belt problems, or the 800,000 for brakes, or these:
330,000 Chevrolet Suburban 1500 Series and the Yukon XL model, from the 2000 through 2001 model years, for potential overheating of fuel pump wires that could lead to engine stalling or crash and injuries.
142,000 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Series and GMC Sierra pick-up trucks, 1999 through 2002 model years, and the 2500 Series pick-up trucks and the 3500 Series pick-up trucks from the 2001 through 2004 model years, with manual transmission. Apparent problems deal with the parking brake systems and have resulted in at least 26 crashes.
69,000 Buick Lacrosse and Buick Allure 2005 models were manufactured in Canada, apparently for US sale, with a bent clip that holds part of the brake system. The problem is, if the brake clip comes off, it can lead to loss of the brakes and a crash. Apparently this problem was discovered during an investigation of just such a crash.
39,000 Buick Rendezvous and Pontica Azteks from the 2004 model year have been recalled for stalling and failure to start because of a problem in the ignition relay system. This problem was also apparently discovered during another investigation of a crash.
22,000 Saturn L Series Wagons from the 2002 through 2004 model year lines have been recalled because some of the seat belt anchors are not up to Federal Safety Standards.
I'll be the first in line for the new Chevy Kevorkian 4x4. Sign me up now.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
So now we're going to build special highway lanes, probably with special enforcement needs and special technological measures to make sure nobody with a 1987 grand am "cheats" and tries to get in, so that specially built and probably rather expensive robotic cars can have a safe (assuming they work right) place to move within?
At which point, exactly, does this stuff start to get so incredibly crazy and expensive that people start to realize there are worse things than creating public transportation infrasctructure?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I had a GM that in its first 40,000 miles went through 4 transmissions, 3 brake calipers, 2 alternators, etc. Is GM really the company we want developing something like this?
We could also take advantage of the upcoming hybrids and electrics to power the car with electricity while driving on the rail. Of course, you would have entry/exit queue stations; you specify your destination when you enter the queue, and the system drives you there.
The ecological and economical advantages to this system are obvious.
I can see two big problems with this design: cars malfunctioning while on the rail lane, and exit queues clogged by fallen asleep/sick/drunk drivers.
The first problem could be solved by placing the cars on autonomous pods (simple platforms with four wheels and electric motors), that would run on dual rails instead of monorail. That would significantly increase the cost of infrastructure, but it would enable it to work with any existing car, while also instantly transforming highway traffic into an ecological one.
The second problem could be alleviated by building buffer lanes at the exit stations; if you don't manifestly take control of your car just before getting into the exit station, you get parked on the buffer lane. Or it may be an automated parking lot, so you can get out of there before those in front of you do.
Tuff that Smatters.
I remember watching a show when I was younger at LEAST 10 years (probably 13) ago called 'Beyond 2000'. It was on the Discovery Channel before it was the "choppers and housewife" channel.
One episode of 'Beyond 2000' had some German engineers driving VW vans on the Autobahn 100% automated! These things were changing lanes, passing other cars, accelerating, stopping, etc with NO HUMAN CONTROL. In fact, the engineers were not even sitting in the drivers seat; they felt confident enough in their engineering that the computer had their lives in its hands.
Can anyone here dredge this up and post a link? Does anyone else remember seeing this episode?
I don't understand why this is news. Nothing new to see here... really.
Libertas in infinitum
I remember as a child reading a "Southern California Edison" flyer (~'93) that claimed by the year 2000 20% of cars would be electric, I wish all the success in the world to GM.
No Dave, I don't want to go to the grocery store today.
The tiny millimeter wave radars used in these vehicles of the future could be utilized to build a guided missile. They typically have around a 100 meter range, maybe up to 300 if it was detecting an object the size of a jumbo jet. That's enough to home in on the target given adequate aiming, same as most shoulder launched missiles, such as the stinger. I'm interested in these devices for my own use, more toys to add on to my R/C helicopter :)
I know that GM has gotten a lot of flak over the years about not being as reliable as Japanese cars, but I have had the exact opposite experience. My last car was a Chevy Blazer, and it was absolutely solid. Very few problems although I drove it into the ground (driving 60 miles a day to college in awful traffic). The car I had before that was a Toyota RAV4, and man, what a piece of crap. The idling was never completely right, despite the car only being two years old when I got it, the rear tires always seemed to get slow-punctures, the head gasket blew, and the car just felt very sluggish after a year of driving.
After my bad experiences with the RAV4 and my good experiences with the Blazer I decided to stick to GM and bought a 2005 Equinox. it is absolutely solid and a very smooth ride. My girlfriend drives a VW Golf 1.9 TDI and it also seems very solid. So far I can honestly say that I prefer American, French, German, and British cars to Japanese cars, because of my own experiences and those of my friends and family - although a few still swear by Japanese cars, the majority don't, and I certainly don't. (Just an opinion, Your Mileage May Vary).
Liberal Ontarians and French Quebecers are draining Western Canada's wealth. Stop them now! Support Western separatism.
I actually read about that yesterday on a website which listed the Stella awards, so just now I tried to find that page again but instead I found a site which debunked this story and all the others:
http://www.atla.org/homepage/debunk.aspx
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/stella.shtml
Honda's been working on this for over 10 years now.
The only reason to mention that GM is doing it would be to illustrate how yet again another American company has come in 2nd place.
Who cares about the ozone layer?...thanks to CFC's I can write my name......IN CHEESE!!!
I use the autopilot all the time for VFR flight.. the autopilot has nothing to do with traffic seperation. It is much easier to let the autopilot fly the plane and tell it what to do rather than do everything myself. I don't believe it's unsafe at all; in fact I believe it's safer. Try flying a single-pilot piston-powered twin engine aircraft (complicated compared to jet power) in a busy area... there are a lot of things to do. Having an autopilot reduces this workload significantly. My guess is that you're referring to a complete hands off 'go-here' flight.. which is unsafe in VFR and IFR flight. The pilot needs to make safe autopilot corrections regardless of whether it's his decision to avoid a dangerous situation or ATC's advice.
That's not proof that something isn't fun. Fun isn't a matter of statistics.
There are more people who do NOT play Dungeons and Dragons than there are who DO play Dungeons and Dragons. But that doesn't mean that playing Dungeons and Dragons isn't fun, at least for those people who do.
By your same reckoning, there are more people who cannot drive at all; ergo by your "proof", driving cannot ever be fun at all.
I enjoy driving. I own a small manual 4x4 with only a 1.3 litre engine. I enjoy driving it on the motorway just as much as I enjoy driving it across local rural byways. It suits me, it doesn't suit everyone. The fact that my vehicle isn't suitable for the majority of the population isn't an indicator of whether I enjoy using it. I live in the countryside where my little 4x4 is very practical, most people live in towns where a 4x4 is normally a waste of energy.
People aren't uniform. Local conditions aren't uniform. There are different tools for different people and different jobs.
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
Oh, it was nothing.
I quit!
What is all this about, US knockers (and US defenders)? If you RTFA you will find that the Economist stresses that this work is NOT original. An example:
"The car has automatic cruise control of the sort fitted to many expensive cars such as Jaguars and BMWs. These use either radar or infrared beams fitted to the front of the car to measure the distance to the car in front."
The only point made is that GM is joining all the other car manufacturers in experimenting with this technology, and several other manufacturers already have products on sale. If you live in the US, you can get a Nissan with this technology - other countries have had it for longer.
For your information here are some generalities:
1) The US has a poor record of true technical or scientific innovation. It is not an academic country.
2) The US has a strong record of taking pre-existing ideas and making money out of them. It is a business-friendly country.
3) The US has an insular world view and an arrogant mentality which makes it claim that it invented any aspect of modern living it sees as important. This is not seen as an issue by most people in the world, since they do not often talk to Americans.
Detriot continues on with its insane gewgaw heated furlined frenchfry holder mindset while gas becomes more expensive than crack.
Nevertheless, it's not true. Sex is used in advertisements for darn near everything - not just cars for men. Or are you gonna tell me that men who drink alcohol are compensating for their tiny cocks, and that women who drink it have the envy? Anyone with a webcam, according to X10.com, is compensating, as is anyone who went to see Swimfan or Spiderman2 (ads with wet t-shirt women off the top of my head).
Maybe my wife likes her Chevelle because she wishes she had a dick, not because it looks cooller than a modern cookie-cutter and can merge/pass safely in more situations than some tiny golf cart? Maybe I have three cars that make over 300 HP because I give a shit what some ass on the street thinks about part of my anatomy that they're never going to see, not because I actually enjoy *driving*. Maybe I have a big truck because I need to make up for something, not because I used to live on a farm and I still get more usefulness out of being able to haul things + drive down dirt roads than I'd get out of the couple thousand bucks and 40 square feet of garage space I'd get from selling it.
Or maybe people who don't have the money to buy a big/fast car and don't have the ability to build one are jealous of those who can, and come up with some asinine claim that 1) is unlikely to be proven and 2) will hit a guy where it hurts. It's just as true that people with tiny "economical" cars are poor, stupid, jealous sheep who always make pathetic baseless claims to draw the attention away from others. Which is to say, neither generalization is totally true.
Would welcome not having to actively drive the car. For example, those with long commutes could read their document of choice, eat a meal, have sex with themselves or someone else, etc.
Why waste your time controlling a vehicle in traffic or on wide open highway when you can be doing so many things that are better for you and more enjoyable.
I disagree. Driving a car on the freeway you are about 2-10 seconds from a nasty end, almost continuously. Aircraft have minutes to manouevere, and are in well separated corridors, in theory, most of the time.
For that matter even landing can't be all that hard. As I remember the British had a reasonable system for auto landing in fog in the early sixties.
Whereas nobody has demonstrated a real robot driving in traffic, so far as I know.
There will probably be dedicated lanes or even dedicated roadways to automated driving vehicles
"The car uses updated technology combined with several existing innovations"
Wow that sounds fancy! The future is today!
Well, it's not really unsafe, but things such as the more common installation of GPSs in GA aircraft have led to more collisions. This is because, whereas pilots used to drift, they are now more precise because the GPS can tell you exactly what heading to be on, and how far you've drifted. Of course, this should never lead to an accident, because you should always be on the lookout for traffic, but mistakes do happen. Perhaps I was wrong with how I phrased my original statement, so I would say the following: autopilot in VFR flight cannot be used in the same way it would be in IFR flight, and it requires a substantial amount of input from the pilot.
Lets call these an auto-mobile, a vehicle that drives itself :-)
This is not an "I, Robot" situation. In fact, it's nothing new! It's just improvements on current technology. If any of you bothered to RTFA, you'd see that. The only thing that is really "new" is the self-adjusting steering which is meant to keep you in your lane on a primarily straight road, when you would USE cruise control, not to drive the car by itself!
Just some ideas for these new cars:
If one were 'glue' a RFID chip variant on the back of public road signs, place a corresponding reciever in the car, update the algorithum of the cars computer to be able to adjust the speed accordingly. As part of the data, have the GPS coordinates transmitted for the cars own map system. Pizio Transducers for a partial sonar solution.
Who? Not me! I hate driving. I, for one, am looking forward to our new automotive overlords...
However, "people want to feel in control" is a reasonable statement. My daughter doesn't like cruise control at all, despite the fact that it's less tiring and uses less gas than 100% manual.
She says without her foot on the gas she doesn't feel "as much in control," despite the fact that the steering wheel, brake, and gas work whether or not cruise is on.
Wow, I could never think that someone finds the local circuit flying to be less of a hassle than out in the open skies.
The reason why people are there riding your ass to do things is to keep you safe. If they didn't do this, and you stumbled into their airspace and had a significant emergency, then you could find yourself in a much worse world of hurt than if you had listened to them in the first place. You need to remember that they don't want to annoy you, and would like to see you reach your destination in an expeditious manner, but to do so, you need to play their game for a little bit.
Ignoring the rules of the air leads to situations where you become a posthumous case study for the latest aviation safety papers.
If you think that the obligations faced by a PPL or CPL are onerous, it might be worthwhile looking into what military aircrew have to deal with. There is a reason why they have multi-crew aircraft with personnel whose primary role is communications. Not only do they have to play by the civilian rules, but they need to adhere to the military rules attached. While sometimes they get right of way (either if they are pushy, or you have stumbled into their airspace), you can bet that a nasty letter will be headed their way if they abuse their status to sidestep the civilian rules.
InfoSec that matters, when it counts.
OK, I get sick and tired of the shout that "If you are enjoying driving you should be on a track" Not _all_ enjoyment in driving comes from high speed!
I have driven cars from a 3lt Senator, 2.8 Injection Special Granada, via a Customised Transit van to a 998cc Mini Mayfair, along with a few motorbikes. I have enjoyed driving them all. I am currently restoring a '74 mini Clubman estate. I intend to enjoy driving that too! I don't speed. What do I enjoy about driving? Acceleration is fun, not top speed. What else do I enjoy? Taking a slightly unusual route, avoiding all the traffic, and getting there before all the drones on the motorway, without once speeding or driving dangerously! Taking a cruise through the contryside. Picking the perfect line round a roundabout, _without_ excessive speed or tyre smoke.
In the context of the parent, In motorway driving, I enjoy keeping with the flow of traffic, anticipating when to pull out to get round that truck without slowing down or holding up traffic, whilst the Turbo-nutter in his CVXZ-GTI-Turbo-skirted whatnot with all the driving skills of a damp dishcloth gets stuck behind the truck, then pulls out causing the 5 cars coming up on his outside to brake like loonies, blue tyre smoke everywhere.
You can take pleasure in the smoothness of your drive.
You _can_ enjoy driving without driving like a common hoon!
I'm just here to regulate Funkyness
Remember the old Road Runner / Wile E Coyote bit where they repaint the lines to aim the road right into a wall?
There have been people in RV's in the present day who have set their RV's on "Cruise Control" and then got up out of their seats and went to the back for a nap only to wake up a few minutes later after colliding with a Semi Truck!!!!!
.....
Maybe these people are not stuipid, just ahead of the times
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
It is a much more complex matter to make a system that is capable of driving itself with out guides. A functioning system is used in making 'bots' for computer games. They have way points and directions built into the map. Why not use something like that for our highways. Just use a simple cheep method of indicating where the road lanes are and what is up ahead. Use a system much like they use in shopping centers to keep people from stealing merchandise. Put those emitting strips in the road itself spaced out. Each 'tone' indicates what lane you are in. It would not cost all that much and the tech to detect them could be installed in cars. You could even use strings of tones to tell cars what's up ahead. Then cars can detect what's going on around them and where they are. That would make it much more possible to have the car drive from one place to another with minimal costs. A lot more would go into it but the system could be implemented easy enough for now.
Thermal depolymerization - Lazy recycling.
I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but doesn't anyone remember watching this exact thing being done near San Diego? There was a discovery channel special on it. They embedded cheap little magnets in the highway and the vehicles tracked based on those. They even had a public demonstration on it. The group that did it was called "PATH" from Berkeley and their summary of the experiment(from 1997!) is Here. ...and why is GM billing this as some "amazing new discovery that is 3 years on the horizon"? Couldn't GM just go to those college students and buy the technology off of them for a few six-packs?
On a related note, I also remember seeing(in the same show) a piece on a van that was rigged to self-drive. They navigated cross-country on public roads with 97% of the driving being automated. This was done by CS majors using standard equipment publicly available at the time(no later than '97). It shouldn't take much adaptation to make it user-friendly and foolproof enough to survive public use... lawyers may be another story though.
SO, MY question is... why are we having so much difficulty with this now?
It seems like the only real barriers to this technology will be political, but that's just my $.02
If they could justifiably say that if you have auto drive in the auto drive lane you will get to your location faster than if you drive yourself, people would fall all over themselves to adopt it. Implementation of this promise is left as an exercise to the reader.
I drive an old Volvo 240 station wagon that was made in 91. It get's around 20MPG. While I do care about the environment I live 4.5 miles from work so getting good gas mileage is not really a concern. It does not have much acceleration but I can accelerate up to 85MPH up a mountain just fine. It's got better clearance that most SUV's and I have driven around in blizzards just fine. (I still remember the look on the guy's face when I drove up in my Volvo to pull him out of the snow The guy was in a Jeep but that's not as important as knowing how to drive.) I can haul a full sheet of plywood or a La-Z-boy just fine. I can drive though fields just fine (as long as their not overly muddy.) It's got 225k miles on the thing but I can't find anything worth replacing it for. It's also built like a tank. I could have a nicer car but I like putting 5k a year into savings vs. having a huge car payment. I want to retire at 40 a hell of a lot more than I want a car with a lot of image behind it. Not that I can find a new car with all the features I am looking for but that's a side issue. The reason why most people say it's a sports car is a status issue is because there is so little real difference between what the cars cost and what they can do. The auto industry pumps an amassing amount of cash into advertising because that's one of the few ways to differentiate cars. You can get a brand new car for 10k or 100k but what's the real difference between them? It does not really cost that much more to build a 500HP engine vs. a 140HP engine and leather seating ect is not really that expensive. When you buy a Ferrari your paying most of that cash to buy into the image of that car. If most people just wanted a high performance car then someone would build a no name model that preformed like a Ferrari at 1/2 the price. And a car company could corner the market by selling them to all those people who like fast cars but don't care about the image. But clearly something else is going on. PS: It's funny, but after getting back into shape I changed a lot of other attitudes. I am 25, 6'2" tall, good looking, reasonably educated, intelligent, and I have an above average girth and length (not that it's important but this is for the discussion.) ect. But, I sill found the need to try and make up for stuff when I was out of shape. It's not just about cars and such but after making eye contact I find a quiet smile works as well as a great pickup line, but it's the guys with image issues that worry about such things. I fund snowboarding fun in the say way you like to drive fast, but I think most guys that snowboard feel the need for an audience. It's not that having a snowboard or sports car means your compensating for something but it is a sign that you might be compensating for a preceded problem.
I drive an old Volvo 240 station wagon that was made in 91. It get's around 20MPG.
While I do care about the environment I live 4.5 miles from work so getting good gas mileage is not really a concern. It does not have much acceleration but I can accelerate up to 85MPH up a mountain just fine. It's got better clearance that most SUV's and I have driven around in blizzards just fine. (I still remember the look on the guy's face when I drove up in my Volvo to pull him out of the snow The guy was in a Jeep but that's not as important as knowing how to drive.)
I can haul a full sheet of plywood or a La-Z-boy just fine. I can drive though fields just fine (as long as their not overly muddy.) It's got 225k miles on the thing but I can't find anything worth replacing it for. It's also built like a tank.
I could have a nicer car but I like putting 5k a year into savings vs. having a huge car payment. I want to retire at 40 a hell of a lot more than I want a car with a lot of image behind it. Not that I can find a new car with all the features I am looking for but that's a side issue.
The reason why most people say it's a sports car is a status issue is because there is so little real difference between what the cars cost and what they can do.
The auto industry pumps an amassing amount of cash into advertising because that's one of the few ways to differentiate cars. You can get a brand new car for 10k or 100k but what's the real difference between them? It does not really cost that much more to build a 500HP engine vs. a 140HP engine and leather seating ect is not really that expensive.
When you buy a Ferrari your paying most of that cash to buy into the image of that car. If most people just wanted a high performance car then someone would build a no name model that preformed like a Ferrari at 1/2 the price. And a car company could corner the market by selling them to all those people who like fast cars but don't care about the image. But clearly something else is going on.
PS: It's funny, but after getting back into shape I changed a lot of other attitudes. I am 25, 6'2" tall, good looking, reasonably educated, intelligent, and I have an above average girth and length (not that it's important but this is for the discussion.) ect. But, I sill found the need to try and make up for stuff when I was out of shape. It's not just about cars and such but after making eye contact I find a quiet smile works as well as a great pickup line, but it's the guys with image issues that worry about such things. I find snowboarding to be fun in the say way you like to drive fast, but I think most guys that snowboard feel the need for an audience. It's not that having a nice snowboard or a fast sports car means your compensating for something, but it is a sign that you might be compensating for a preceded problem.
In other news: GM still makes cars that guzzle fuel like it didn't cost anything and the USA people are happy with it because they all suck as much as GM does.
I thought flying was rocket science until I took flying lessons. The actual flyinf of the plane is pretty easy and not very dangerous. It's pretty much just common sense. Airplanes are much more simple mechanically than cars. They don't even have transmissions. The only reason people think they're so dangerous is that, unlike when you're in a car, you can't just pull over to the side if you have a flat tire. Why do you think you have to do a pre-flight inspection before each take-off?
Besides, there's a lot of room for error. I know from personal experience that most things that go wrong won't impact your safety much. From malfunctioning landing lights and nose-wheel shimmy dampeners to bird strikes and bad starters, most malfunctions just make a lot of noise or scare your passengers.
One thing I will recommend. If you're in the local flying club and you overhear two old geezers talking about "tap-dancing the rudders" trying to land on an old railroad track... take it with a grain of salt. Never mind that your instructor makes you practice short and soft field landings out the wazoo. Never mind that your dad used to practice landing on sand dunes and dirt roads on the way home from work. Make it a practice to only land on surfaces you know--airport runways if possible. Otherwise you might spend 3 days on a dry lake bed in California with nothing to eat except kangaroo rats and stink bugs. Not that it's particularly dangerous, mind you, but although airplanes are mechanically simpler than cars, they're also more fragile.
Instead, the vehicle would likely "breath" oxygen from the outside air, much in the same way as current engines do (I imagine that a fuel cell could be designed to work with normal atmospheric pressure air as well).
Note that outside air is mostly nitrogen, not oxygen. Thus, you would be drawing in nitrogen as well as the oxygen, and you would "burn" it as regular IC engines currently do. What does that do to your equation?
Unfortunately, my expertise in chemistry ends here, I could not tell you what the balanced equation looks like. But, suffice to say, you will have a certain amount of NOX on one side of the equation (thus, no IC engine that breaths normal "air" can be made that is a truely "clean" or "green" engine because of this fact) - that is where some of the oxygen goes, thus you have less water on the output side...
Instead, you have added a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
There are no more roads where cruise control in its current form is useful. People set their fucking CC then waft in the left, passing lane. Or they set it at F1 speeds, and by the time you spot them in your rear view mirror, they're in your lap.
Cruise control assumes open roads. There are none, and it should be forbidden from all cars going forward. Hell, recall every motherfucking existing car and remove it from them too.