Slashdot Mirror


Vans Drive Themselves Across the World

bossanovalithium writes "Four driverless electric vans successfully ended a 13,000-kilometer test drive from Italy to China which mirrored the journey carried out by Marco Polo in the Middle Ages. The four vans, packed with navigation gear and other computer software, drove themselves across eastern Europe, Russia, Kazakhstan and the Gobi Desert without getting lost. They had been equipped with four solar-powered laser scanners and seven video cameras that work together to detect and avoid obstacles."

11 of 157 comments (clear)

  1. More Importantly by Ltap · · Score: 4, Funny

    Did they bring back any spices or silk? And we can't trust their tall tales of two-headed men without proof!

    --
    Yet Another Tech Blog
    (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
    http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
    1. Re:More Importantly by snspdaarf · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh, great. First, my GPS tries to kill me by directing me down a one-way road the wrong way, now my automated van is going to stop for some Manson wanna-be on the side of the road. No, thanks!

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    2. Re:More Importantly by tophermeyer · · Score: 4, Funny

      At one point, a van stopped to pick up hitchhikers.

      I thought you were joking, so I checked TFA. This actually happened. Which is crazy. Horror movies start with stuff like this.

      Robot vans picking up hitchhikers? In what twisted universe does a hitchhiker: 1) flag down a van 2) discover that it is driven by nobody and 3a) trust the van's occupants that they are "researchers" 3b) trust that "it's totally cool, nobody's going to steal your organs".

  2. Sponsor by flyingkillerrobots · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those of you who want to know who made the vans, it was sponsored by the European Research Council. The lead researcher works at the University of Parma, Italy. Why, oh why do the summaries lack useful information? Yes, I am new here.

    --
    "It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations..." -Winston Churchill
  3. Autonomous vehicles by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem with autonomous vehicles is not what they can do successfully, it's what happens when they fail.

    If I don't press my brakes in time to prevent an accident, I risk going to jail for dangerous / careless driving.
    If the autonomous van doesn't... well... what? We can take the human "driver" off the road, sure, but that's not fixed the problem. So the second one person has an accident in an autonomous vehicle, you're looking at major liability and lawsuits directed towards the car manufacturer - whether or not it was their fault and whether or not a human driver could have prevented the accident in *any* car. That manufacturer now has to take responsibility for that car versus every idiot on the road, every pedestrian that runs out and everything that can confuse one of its sensors.

    Autonomous driving *is* possible and quite easy - but we need autonomous roads to make it work, with nobody but the autonomous vehicles on it. Nobody, nowhere has actually built a real-life one of those on a real road that people would want to use because you have to use their vehicles to do it and you have to (indirectly) pay for that vehicle, that road, and any mistakes those vehicles make. And those roads don't and won't exist for decades if at all - or, more accurately, it's called the rail network. Automated rail networks are commonplace - London has the Dockland's Light Railway that has no drivers.

    If you're going to have to build a road that only automated cars can use, and make some cars to use that road, you've effectively built a railway, or else you're putting billions of pounds of effort into avoiding obstacles and keeping to a strict lane when you could just make the thing run along a rail.

    Why is there no call for an automated rail network? You can make it as fast as the super-express trains, it's very safe in comparison to any road, on established technology, you know it's not going to veer off the road, you can pack thousands of trains onto the rails if you do it right and take thousands of passengers in each etc. But instead, people honestly think that it's more sensible to put an automated system of even the best technology on an open road with other idiots and do this on a one-person, one-car basis (hence millions of units and billions of pounds) with complete freedom over how it moves the car, among other traffic that will stop it ever doing anything a human couldn't do? It's ridiculous.

    Stop wasting your time and build a personalised rail network when I can get into a "pod" or something, enter my destination and it would take me there on good, solid, metal rails and a bit of signalling. And I don't have to worry that it thinks the man walking along the street with a cardboard cutout is actually a small child running in front of the car, or that it doesn't spot a police tape which has been strung across the road to close it because of a pedestrian parade further up the street.

    An automated car has to have a human in it. It's the best call ever made on the introduction of a new technology so far. An automated car needs exclusive automated roads to every destination in order to work anywhere near effectively under autonomous control - that's called a railway and any more "transportation routes" being built just for automated cars is a fantasy world in a modern city. Automated cars have been shown to crash WHEN DEMONSTRATING how they were uncrashable. An automated railway already exists and works perfectly and has an excellent safety record. Use it.

    1. Re:Autonomous vehicles by caluml · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Stop wasting your time and build a personalised rail network when I can get into a "pod" or something, enter my destination and it would take me there on good, solid, metal rails and a bit of signalling.

      Indeed. A packet-switched transport system. Broadcast your destination via Bluetooth, "routers" can receive that and direct you the best way. The pods would be unpowered, but pushed/blown along - possibly compressed air?
      If you had a system of tubes under the ground, and some sort of decent bearings, you could make it work. You could also have large "trunk"/"backbone" roads, which smaller roads joined. Basically, model it on the Internet. But without the packet loss, or routing loops. Or collisions.

  4. Re:Not more "safety features" please by somersault · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Who do you know that drives more like an idiot because their car has safety features? I drove like an idiot even when my car didn't have ABS, and these days even though all cars I drive have ABS, I drive like less of an idiot.

    Traction control is no use for driving like an idiot. I switch it off when I want to have some fun.

    --
    which is totally what she said
  5. Re:Why all-electric vehicles aren't there yet by cindyann · · Score: 5, Informative

    answers.com says it took Polo four years to get to China -- even with getting stuck in Moscow traffic the vans win.

  6. Re:Not more "safety features" please by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Humans might make slower decisions, but they have a much broader and more integrated matrix of perceptions and conceptions to draw from. Until AIs are strong enough to understand environments intelligently and intuitively as a whole rather than programmed to respond to a few set objects in a few set ways, a human decision and action will be necessarily more complete even if it is slower.

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  7. Re:Not more "safety features" please by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's become the problem with ABS, traction control, airbags and many other safety features: make drivers feel like they're safer, they will drive more like idiots.

    Never mind the fact that traffic deaths (in the US at least) have been decreased INCREDIBLY with the aforementioned technologies. Some do choose to drive like increasingly effective idiots, but not nearly enough to outweigh the safety benefits. I will go with the safety technology versus the notion that the sword of Damocles is effective at preventing accidents, thank you very much.

  8. Re:Not more "safety features" please by Eevee · · Score: 3, Informative
    You don't ride taxicabs in Munich

    Subsequent analysis of the rating scales showed that drivers of cabs with ABS made sharper turns in curves, were less accurate in their lane-holding behaviour, proceeded at a shorter forward sight distance, made more poorly adjusted merging manoeuvres and created more "traffic conflicts". This is a technical term for a situation in which one or more traffic participants have to take swift action to avoid a collision with another road user.[3] Finally, as compared with the non-ABS cabs, the ABS cabs were driven faster at one of the four measuring points along the route. All these differences were significant.