Slashdot Mirror
How Europe Will Lower Emissions — Self Driving Cars
thecarchik writes "Scientists in Europe are working closely with industry and government as part of a new initiative called SARTRE (SAfe Road TRains for the Environment), which hopes to develop self-driving technology that will allow vehicles to drive autonomously in long road trains on the highway. The team behind SARTRE has now conducted its first real world test, using a sole Volvo S60 sedan that followed a lead truck around the automaker's test facility near Gothenburg, Sweden. In the video, the driver is free to take his eyes off the road and his hands off the wheel. In fact, he uses neither his hands nor feet during the test. Subsequent phases of the work will be carried out in 2011, and early 2012 will see the concept demonstrated on a five-vehicle road train with strategies handling interaction with other road users."
I would have had an existential crisis.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Safe Automobile Trains Is Reducing Emissions
If people wanted to be on a train in Europe, they have plenty of opportunities to do so.
Dog is my co-pilot.
When questioned about trouble with their algorithms when encountering other cars, developers replied "Hell is other vehicles"
Ice Cream has no bones.
Stop bolting technology onto a 19th century design. How about designing something from the ground up that solves the issues of our time ? We already have something that allows you to do other things while traveling, it's called a train.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
I cant see how this helps drive down emissions if all the people of Europe - and the world for that matter start driving everywhere, whereas before they were too old, too young, are disqualified, or hadn't passd their test. If the 50% of people who don't drive now take to the roads, dosn't that mean twice as many cars on them? Besides, if the car's on autopilot, why not get in and be driven 1,000 miles instead af a couple of hundred- that's already five times the journey length!
Self driving cars, and all they can think of is lower emissions? 1. I don't really see how it could significantly affect emissions. 2. why is it that every project has to have "a better environment" as it's main goal? I don't deny global warming, but what is being done about it is crazy.
The human species seems to be oddly obsessed with automating everything it can think of - and of course, it's always supposed to be in a good cause. Since there was much talk about commuting, why don't we go a step further and finish what we already started long ago: automate every possible kind of work humans can do. Then we won't need to commute anymore and the work environment should be much more efficient too. Thus, lower emissions. Then we can just sit around and maybe push one button or two every once in a while. But then, we might get very fat in the long run, if we just do nothing. And our own production of CO2 and other nasty gases ( ;) ) might eventually be a huge problem.
Then again, maybe at this point, we won't need to exist at all anymore.
Looks like a bright future, if you ask me.
It's not a move from trains to cars, but rather from highly congested highways full of cars controlled by people (who are, as we know, liable to cause traffic jams just by stepping on the brake at the wrong moment) to a more-or-less fluidly moving highway full of cars controlled by the equivalent of a guide beam, hopefully maintaining optimal positioning and speed.
Graduate of the LeRoy Funkified Badass School of Soul.
I would envisage that this would be integrated with satellite navigation. You wouldn't say, "I want to leave the train now", you'd say "I want to leave at junction 12". Not much fun if you need a the toilet!
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
I think it's pretty obvious that technologies along these lines (self-piloting automobiles) are the way of the future. The big question is how do we make the leap from where we are now to where we want to be? Clearly, the ideal would be to have the autonomous systems able to react and work around existing drivers on the road, but I have a feeling that it won't be too long before systems like these ones are incentivized in some way so that the transition is both easier and safer.
For instance, carpool lanes in some locations already permit motorists driving greener cars to use the lane, even if they're alone. 10, 15, or 20 years from now, whenever this technology finally matures and starts to enter the consumer market, the same sort of thing will likely be applied. We'll simply see the autonomous systems engaged whenever motorists enter a specific lane dedicated to their use. It allows manufacturers to prove that the technology works, instills confidence in it among drivers, gives them obvious benefits for choosing it, and can be used as a transition phase to having roads that are occupied predominately by self-driving vehicles. Over time, what began as a luxury will become a standard feature, just as has happened dozens or hundreds of other times in the industry, and soon enough, all new cars will be equipped with the system. Not long after that, legislation will require it of all street-legal cars.
In the long term, cars driven by actual people will be in the minority, and will likely be barred from driving on regular roads. They'll likely be regulated and restricted to only operating in specific places (e.g. enthusiast race tracks, special lanes in traffic, etc.). I'm not suggesting I like this, mind you, but I have been trying to figure out how a transition from piloted to pilotless automobiles would work and what it would look like once it was completed. The only result I can see is that piloted cars get relegated to a role not at all unlike that of horses today: used by enthusiasts in specific locations and circumstances, but not for general use in travel and transportation.
My car is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, it is responsible for everything it does.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Sure, but what about the buzz? I often overhear when someone is doing something interesting and/or wrong, and can instantly intervene. Also, whenever someone swears at something it is quite possible someone will say: Just do this or that, and your problem will go away. It is that sort of communication that I think is lost when telecommuting.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
I just did a quick search on google and pulled up an Edmunds.com article on efficient driving. That article says that your personal driving habits can cost you up to a 37% reduction in milleage. So take a few million drivers and reduce the fuel usage by 37% and tell me it doesn't matter...
Yeah, probably shouldn't feed the trolls, but:
Regarding history - just as a quick example, we had this little thing called the Civil War. It went on all over the continent for a period of years and killed millions of people. In the process, a large number of very colorful and interesting figures appeared on the scene, and a number of innovations in warfare were developed. The war settled a number of lingering political issues left over from the American Revolution, abolished the evil of slavery, and arguably set the stage for later American domination of the international scene.
History: just because ours doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean we don't have any.
Your statement with respect to wildlife, if possible, is even more ludicrous. A huge proportion of North American birds is made up of species not found in Europe. There are numerous mammal, reptile, and amphibian species found here that exist nowhere else. To claim there's no unique wildlife is just plain dumb.
Hey, don't get me wrong - if you'd rather visit Reykjavik, knock yourself out. But let's not pretend that there's nothing worth seeing in the US.