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.""
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
...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 ***
If you had any idea of the complexity of flying anything, you'd take that comment back. I'm in the final stages of getting a private pilot license, and let me tell you, it's a lot harder than it looks (not to mention 1-2 hours of trip planning before any flight away from the airport a meaningful distance). I've just been doing my cross-country flights, and there are about 5 times per flight where I have no clue where I am (GPS notwithstanding, because you have to be able to find your way around in the event of an electrical failure). I know you merely meant this comment to be a witty, quick-way-to-+5-Funny one-liner, but the thought of the average person expecting to get into their flying car and be able to drive it without killing anyone scares me enough that I had to comment anyway.
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.
...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.
Today's teens are starting to seriously think hybrids, electrics and hydrogen-powered cars are cool.
Today's teens also think aston martins, ferraris, and lotus elises are cool as well. Granted, hybrids have taken on a "hip" status, but they haven't replaced sports cars. Many teenagers still think that '69 Charger is pretty darn cool too.
If you haven't noticed, auto manufacturers are in the midst of a huge horsepower war that hasn't been seen in decades. 400 bhp is now becoming standard on upper-end luxury vehicles, with the 500hp threshold being crossed by vehicles still south of 100k. It also so happens that this is being done with engines that aren't just "bigger" as in the mid-20th century, but rather with exciting new efficient technology.
Cars have been status symbols since they were invented a hundred years ago, and that hasn't changed at all. High gas prices don't matter. I live in California and pay $2.99/gallon these days. If I was paying $2.00/gallon, I'd save $600 a year. Whoopee. My sports car gets 23 mpg, and a "fuel-efficient" non-hybrid gets 35 mpg. Is my car worth the price delta? You bet it is.
I don't know. I could see this happening. At first, maybe someone creates one experimental road with this technology. If GM and Ford could use it as differentiation, they might have the clout to get some assistance from congress. GM and Ford really need to do something serious to shake things up very soon.
If it worked, the fact that it would work would be a compelling reason. Think about cities like Seattle, Houston, etc. where the freeways are very crowded and the costs of new freeways are too high to be practical.
The ACLU is not some all powerful "spoiler" out to hold back innovation.
Plus, if your argument would hold, then people wouldn't have catalytic converters, airbags, or seatbelts. These are all features which make cars cost a lot of money and most people don't want.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
And beyond that, they could adjust for weather conditions. The speed limit is designed to incorporate reaction time for mmild-to-moderate inclement weather, as well. Automated cars could adjust automatically.
However, this would also require more rigorous maintenence to be done on each vehicle... tires suddenly become much more important when you're taking a tight turn in the rain.
Maintenence and inspection would have to be tied into the cost of the vehicle to prevent Billy Joe Bob's automated rustbucket from causing a pile-up at 200 MPH.
0x0D 0x0A
Yeah, I'm 17, and I can tell you that no teens actually care about hybrids because they're hybrids. I haven't seen them taking on a "hip" status at all, in fact most teenagers probably think that a hybrid is something their gay biology teacher would talk about.
In the end, even the teens that have heard of a Prius or other hybrid only know that they get good mileage which is pretty damn important at $7 an hour. I think in my school of 1900 students, probably 50 could tell you that a hybrid uses a battery and a gasoline motor to get better gas mileage.
-Glitch "We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds." - Linus Torvalds
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.