Slashdot Mirror


"Road Trains" Ready To Roll

clickclickdrone writes to mention that "road trains," a system linking vehicles together via wireless sensors, could soon be rolled out in Europe. The system is designed primarily for cutting fuel consumption, travel time, and congestion. "Funded under the European Commission's Framework 7 research plan, Sartre (Safe Road Trains for the Environment) is aimed at commuters in cars who travel long distances to work every day but will also look at ways to involve commercial vehicles. Tom Robinson, project co-ordinator at engineering firm Ricardo, said the idea was to use off-the-shelf components to make it possible for cars, buses and trucks to join the road train."

31 of 318 comments (clear)

  1. What hath the free market wrought? by BitHive · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If this catches on in America some gear heads are going to explode.

    1. Re:What hath the free market wrought? by Idiomatick · · Score: 4, Funny

      It involves people joining together which is clearly socialist.

    2. Re:What hath the free market wrought? by yukk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well considering the internet evolved from a government project I'd say there isn't going to be any heads exploding over this. Especially if it has military applications which it probably does. Reducing fuel expenditure is a tactical advantage and the vast majority of free market types still support the idea of the government fulfilling the role of national defense to some degree.

      I doubt the military would use this, at least not overseas. Decreased fuel consumption isn't worth turning a bunch of small targets into one large target. An IED or RPG would go from hitting 1-2 Humvees to 3-6.

      The national security benefit from reducing our domestic oil consumption by even 1% is pretty significant, though.

      The US Army is already looking into something similar to this but not with the high-speed tailgating effect. They're using one lead driver to lead a group of radio-linked trucks so they can get several times the supplies moved with less exposure of personnel to hostile forces. I only did a quick search so here's what I came up with: http://www.controleng.com/blog/AIMing_for_Automated_Vehicles/14540-Robot_Convoy_Truck.php

      --
      The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat." Lily Tomlin
  2. Funny coincidence by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Funny

    The plan is called "Sartre". My first reaction: What if there's No Exit?

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Funny coincidence by natehoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hell, apparently, is other drivers.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    2. Re:Funny coincidence by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Funny

      Any resident of Chicago or Boston would agree with that, I'm sure.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  3. Re:Fuel economy ? by mmkkbb · · Score: 3, Informative

    The lead vehicle is a purpose-built vehicle driven by a professional driver, not a 'passenger' of the train.

    --
    -mkb
  4. road trains are stupid. by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You're handing control over to another driver, who may very well decide not to brake and cause a five car pileup, or worse. Also, there's no way to know the mechanical status of the vehicle -- what if one of them blows a tire, or runs out of gas, or the engine seizes?

    What you should do is create a dedicated lane that is controlled entirely by computer, and you program your exit/entry point at that time, and let the signal and control computers handle traffic management. If an unauthorized vehicle enters the lane, sensors will immediately detect it, alert nearby drivers (and disengage), and send the police to go catch captain speedy pants and send him to a pants-down facility. Computers also do a much better job of fuel consumption and control... I mean, it'd basically be a packet-switched network, but with cars instead of pieces of data. It's a relatively benign IT problem.

    As well, vehicle breakdowns would be handled a lot better because the system would be tied directly to the onboard computer and navigation systems: Just like lorries/semi-trucks operating on the road today. Having spoken to a commercial truck driver, I can tell you that the computer often knows about mechanical problems before the driver does, and their systems are pre-programmed to alert a dispatcher, who will send a rescue/repair vehicle out in situ.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:road trains are stupid. by swillden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've seen at least half-a-dozen deer on the roads in the last couple of weeks. How is this going to work when one decides to run right through the middle of the train?

      Well, I imagine what would happen is that the driver about to hit the deer would brake hard. The computer would relay this braking information to the following vehicles so they would all brake at very nearly the same instant. The problem that arises is that different vehicles have different braking capabilities, so if the vehicle about to hit the deer can brake harder than one of the vehicles coming behind, then we'd end up with a collision, maybe even a chain of collisions.

      Ideally, the vehicles in front should have their braking artificially limited so that it doesn't exceed the braking ability of any following vehicle. If that were done, then the computers could ensure that collisions in the train don't happen.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:road trains are stupid. by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 5, Funny

      I mean, it'd basically be a packet-switched network, but with cars instead of pieces of data.

      Hey! Here on /. we use car analogies to explain computer technology - not vice-versa!!

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    3. Re:road trains are stupid. by pwfffff · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "What if the "lead driver" rides the brakes, thus smoking my brakes/warping my disks?"

      You do know that the default state of most cars is 'slowing down', right?

      "What if something falls off / out of a car ahead of me (a more common occurrence than you'd think), can I quickly escape the train, and who is liable when by design I can not?"

      Yes. The same person that would have been liable if the exact same thing happened today. And that's a stupid question, isn't it? Do you really think it will be designed as a death trap? Do you not think anyone working on this will have your sagacity and forethought? Where in the plans did you see 'Ensure vehicles have NO ESCAPE (muahahaha)'?

      "What if the guy in front of me is one of those smokers whom flicks ashes all over my car ventilation system? Bonus points if I'm allergic / asthmatic? Or an unmaintained beater pumping my car full of particulates, unburned hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide? I bet an unmaintained diesel could literally kill someone, maybe not the driver, maybe a passenger, maybe a sleeping baby... What if a driver in the train passes out from the CO fumes, or has a heart attack or whatever, is everyone in front of him just dead meat when he plows into them?"

      OK, so you don't like highways. We get it. This isn't meant to solve any of the personal problems you have with cars. It's to make the method of travel slightly more convenient and slightly more efficient. All of those things are issues today, and would not be made worse.

      "What if the lead driver successfully goes thru a big puddle, flooding my intake and blowing my engine, and then I'm crashed into by the remainder of the train?"

      Last time I went through a puddle there wasn't a tidal wave behind me.

      "What if its typical winter weather conditions, with patches of ice/snow, my car is ordered to brake, but I spin out of control into other vehicles because my individual car was on a patch of snow/ice/sand at that instant? Or just simply plow into the vehicles in front of me, whom can't accelerate out of the way because they are now temporarily on an icy patch?"

      You're the stupid kind of brave if you don't already fear these things on TODAY'S ROADS.

      "What if, being the ridiculously hyper-paranoid USA, the lead vehicle is a terrorist/rapist/pedo/filesharer (according to my TV, aren't they all the same?)"

      Then you'll never know or care. Stupid question.

      "What if, the lead vehicle routes us thru an area that is ethnically incorrect, and the police pull me over (the crime of Driving While Black in a White Neighborhood, etc)."

      Your post isn't even amusing, it's just painful.

      "What if a vehicle is carjacked while in a train, is the lead vehicle liable? What if the lead vehicle was working with the carjackers?"

      They'll jack a parked car instead, you dumb piece of shit.

      "What if the lead driver drives over a pothole fast enough to set off my airbag, but not his?"

      Then that sucks for you.

      "What if the lead vehicle makes a minor traffic error that results in no physical problems, but some legal problems? Like not slowing down for an unmarked speedtrap? Everyone gets a ticket, only the lead, maybe the system designer or manufacturer or dealership? Who pays for the higher insurance?"

      What if you had actually thought about the bullshit you asked and tried to determine if it was a valid question or if it instead tried in vain to disingenuously prove a point?

  5. Re:Fuel economy ? by russotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    (they forget to mention the *EXTRA* fuel expense for the leading vehicle that is basically towing the others..)

    This is not always the case. In some cases, the reduction of the drag from turbulence off the rear means that the leading vehicle also gets a benefit, though not as much as the following ones. This is true in stock car racing and in skating; I don't know about cycling.

  6. Re:Fuel economy ? by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't forget that if you're in front you're winning. A true gamer has rear view mirrors that say "Objects in mirror are losing".

  7. Re:Fuel economy ? by mlyle · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, lead vehicles benefit from this, too, just not nearly as much.

    Even though vehicle aerodynamics have tried to combat it, there is a big negative pressure bubble forming your car's wake 'pulling' it backwards. Partially filling it with another vehicle's high pressure region where it 'cuts' the oncoming air helps.

  8. Re:Fuel economy ? by jcochran · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, the vehicle in front also benefits from the drafting. Not to the same degree as the trailing vehicles, but it gets a significant benefit none the less. See http://www.livescience.com/technology/070215_nascar_aero.html for details.

  9. Reminds me of a dream I once had by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 5, Funny
    The scene: A road that was winding its way along a treacherous landscape (think Wile E. Coyote's home turf).

    A generic couple were standing by the side of road, which was basically a piece of flat pavement cut into the side of a mountain. They were watching a garage inventor/scientist type explain his latest invention, a motorized luggage carrier. Sort of a motorcycle sidecar or luggage unit for people who didn't want to change the visual impact of their motorbike. It was an independent unit, had its own motor and fuel, and required only a slight modification to the motorcycle in the form of a radio transmitter. After that, it basically mimicked the motions of the "master" motorcycle.

    Garage inventor gets on his bike, fires it up, and drives off. Sure enough, the other device (which I recall looking a lot like a large cooler on wheels) fired up by itself and followed. A few minutes later, the garage inventor loops back and drives by. Getting cocky, he waves at the couple. Unfortunately, he hits a rock and with only one hand on the handlebars, can't recover. He loses control, and drives off the side of the cliff. An unpleasant "crunch" is heard below.

    Moments later, the motorized luggage holder comes along and dutifully throws itself off the cliff as well. A second "crunch" is heard.

    The couple look down at the carnage and then leave.

  10. Re:Tailgating to the max by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why is my first thought of someone playing 'crack the whip' on one of these long trains??

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  11. I was driving ... by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... on I-94 to Minneapolis, but I fell asleep and missed the exit by 150 miles.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  12. Re:Fuel economy ? by ivan_w · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ok.. Made a fool of myself..

    There seem to be overwhelming evidence that I was utterly wrong.. Ah well..

    Since I can't mod myself -1 stupid, I'll just flog myself 10 times !

    --Ivan

  13. Train Wreck by smitty777 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    OK - imagine this scenario: a train is driving along, and something happens to car number 2/8. Hit by another car, flat tire, accidentally leans on the joystick, whatever. The car veers out of control, unlinking cars 3-8. So now you have six cars being manned by people who were sleeping/reading/eating/daydreaming 10 nanoseconds ago.

    I'm just sayin, I don't think you could pay me enough to get in one of those trains. Mythbusters did an interesting piece on saving gas by drafting. You could save a great deal of gas, but at great expense to safety.

    --
    "Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish"
    Albert Einstein
    1. Re:Train Wreck by nutshell42 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      OK - imagine this scenario: a large number of very intelligent specialists work for years on this idea and the necessary tech is implemented in every European car and noone ever thought of the 100% obvious first-problem-any-person-would-come-up-with-when-introduced-to-this-idea problem smitty777 discovered with the vast power of his uber-brain. European roads then become deathtraps, depopulating the continent like it's 1349.

      I'm just sayin, every /. article with new ideas gets swamped by people stating absolutely obvious problems as if the people working on that project were all functionally retarded. I said the same thing just a few days ago but this article really brought the geniuses out of the woodwork like I haven't seen in some time.

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
  14. Re:Ummm (use actual trains) by Garridan · · Score: 4, Funny

    Naw, killing the young is both a better deterrent to overpopulation, and easier because the ignorant good-for-nothing whippersnappers won't even see it coming.

  15. Re:Tailgating to the max by daem0n1x · · Score: 4, Funny

    Here in Europe, we already use these trains during rush hour. They can reach lengths of many kilometers.

    We call them traffic jams. And we don' need no stinkin' wireless link.

  16. Re:Tailgating to the max by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "aimed at commuters in cars who travel long distances to work every day"

    I have a better idea. Hook those road trains up to their houses, and move the houses closer to work. That will save a LOT of fuel, not to mention wear and tear on the infrastructure.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  17. Re:Ummm (use actual trains) by Bakkster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Exactly, this is a quick and dirty optimization for commuters. By just linking up on the fly and on the highway that's already being driven, any properly equipped cars can hop in instantly and follow the route they normally take. Loading onto an actual train takes time on both ends and requires the drivers to board/depart only at train stations, making it more effective for long distance (3-8+ hours). It also allows this to go all along the freeway you travel, rather than just along the rail lines, meaning more people would use a system tied to just the highway.

    Of course, I can guarantee this system would limit travel speed to the legal speed limit, so this wouldn't catch on with the majority of commuters. Most cities, if traffic isn't moving 15mph, it's going 15mph faster than the speed limit.

    --
    Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
  18. Re:I just hope... by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It sucks that this system even needs a professional driver to begin with. A better system would be fully peer-to-peer in that any two cars that happened to be traveling in the same direction could link up.

    Of course that would break this company's buisness model, but it would make sense for the car manufacturers to implement it that way.

  19. Re:I just hope... by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You don't check a railway train driver's safety record. Or a bus drivers or a taxi drivers. Yet you are putting your life in the their hands on the basis that you trust they are qualified from the job, haven't been sacked for being incompetent, and have some trust in whatever safety systems are in place. This is no different.

  20. Re:Tailgating to the max by jfengel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except that with this system, they don't need to be jammed. If everybody in the train presses the accelerator at once, knowing that the car in front of them will as well, everybody gets to move. You're not as limited by the following distance required by an unpredictable human driver and the unpredictable circumstances ahead.

    Reducing inter-car distance reduces the amount of road you need because you put more cars on the same amount of pavement, and the same highway functions as a much larger road. But it only works if you get the humans out of the loop.

    Of course it also provides opportunities for truly spectacular failures.

  21. Re:Fuel economy ? by macbutch · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wait! What? Did someone on the internet admit they were wrong?

    What the hell is going on???

  22. Re:Ummm (use actual trains) by Orange+Crush · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Designate the leftmost lane the "train lane." Hit a button on your dash, and it signals the train to make an opening for you, hand off driving control to the "conductor" and you get to cruise at 15mph above the posted speed limit--legally. When you approach your exit, it signals you to leave the train, and you resume manual control to get the rest of the way to your destination.

    Sounds workable to me.

  23. Re:Tailgating to the max by MadnessASAP · · Score: 3, Informative

    They do say that the lead car of the train would be driven by professional drivers. of course that won't really help if a car in the middle of the train does something unexpected.

    --
    I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.