Slashdot Mirror


Cooperative Cars Battle It Out In Holland

An anonymous reader writes "The first cooperative platooning competition, where vehicles use radio communication in addition to sensors, was held in Helmond, Holland a week ago. By using wireless communication the awareness range of each vehicle is extended, enabling vehicles to travel closer together which increases road capacity while at the same time avoiding the shockwave effects responsible for traffic jams. The Grand Cooperative Driving Challenge distinguishes itself from earlier platooning demos (e.g. the PATH project) by having a completely heterogeneous mix of vehicles and systems built by multiple researcher and student teams. Using wireless communication to coordinate vehicles raises concerns about the safety of such systems, would you trust WiFi to drive your car?"

139 comments

  1. Just because the first car drives off a cliff, by fotoguzzi · · Score: 2

    does that mean all the others have to follow?

    --
    Their they're doing there hair.
    1. Re:Just because the first car drives off a cliff, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This might give a clue as to why they should not: [PDF] http://www.mate.tue.nl/mate/pdfs/11308.pdf

    2. Re:Just because the first car drives off a cliff, by linuxwolf69 · · Score: 1

      Nah, you just put a blocker up after the first couple go off. The cars will turn around then.

  2. Of course yes! by Sique · · Score: 4, Informative

    I would trust WiFi more than the tired trucker or the drunk driver in the other lane.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
    1. Re:Of course yes! by supertrinko · · Score: 1

      Same here, not to mention, the people that hate the idea of self-driving cars seem to ignore the fact that you can take over at any time.

      --
      If it rhymes it must be true.
    2. Re:Of course yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at least you can see the truck coming.. the programming? not so much.

    3. Re:Of course yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for now.. you know how this goes..

    4. Re:Of course yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can take over at any time.

      Taking over from auto control to manual is always the most dangerous moment in any dual control system mission. That will produce anxiety and push for removing of "manual" option.

    5. Re:Of course yes! by somersault · · Score: 2

      You mean: things get safer, and leave you free to do something other than the job that a sedated monkey could be doing?

      --
      which is totally what she said
  3. 'bout time! by fezzzz · · Score: 2

    Everyday I travel by car, I feel this frustration that the car still needs me. Having to stop at traffic lights as the cars aren't synchronized and worrying that I might be distracted when the car in front of me brakes suddenly are only two of my gripes with driving the car myself.

    1. Re:'bout time! by trigpoint · · Score: 1

      Having to stop at traffic lights as the cars aren't synchronized

      A good start would be to synchronise the traffic lights, like they used to do. Whatever happened to the 'Green Wave'? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_wave Oh I forgot, councils need to create congestion to justify workplace parking and congestion charges.

    2. Re:'bout time! by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      There are synchronised traffic lights on a road that I use regularly in the West Midlands, UK.

    3. Re:'bout time! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's still used, but it's difficult to get right. The problem is that traffic lights are not just random obstructions on a road, as they are in the picture in the Wikipedia article, they are used for junctions or pedestrian crossings. In both cases, you can often avoid the light turning red at all if there are no people waiting to cross the road, but that breaks the wave at the next set of traffic lights. If it's a junction, then you have a bigger synchronisation problem, because there are multiple independent paths between two sets of lights, and defining a wave in one segment may decrease the overall efficiency.

      When I was bored a few years ago, I wrote some code to try to define the optimal traffic light timings for a portion of Salt Lake City (where I was at the time - it has a very regular grid pattern, which makes it easy to model) to maximise total throughput. The results were quite counter intuitive (and very different to the traffic light timings that they were using).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:'bout time! by bughunter · · Score: 2

      Whatever happened to the 'Green Wave'?

      Sensors. Roadway sensors happened.

      Unfortunately, though, the signal controller is only aware of the sensor states at its given intersection, so in practice you have two results worse than simple sync'ed lights: a) whole lines of dozens of cars stopping and accelerating at each intersection due to the influence of single cars tripping sensors with low latency, and b) single cars stopped at intersections with high latency for multiple minutes where no cross traffic occurs. (Latency being the time it takes for the light to change after you roll up on the sensor.)

      Why don't we have distributed sensor networks yet? It's not like they're frickin' flying cars. How much fuel would we save and pollution would we prevent if we eliminated the first result, a) above? Every day on my commute I see fifty cars forced to stop at every light, many times for just one car on a cross street that has just arrived at the intersection, and then accelerate when it turns green. And I also sit for 4 or 5 minutes at lights that are red where there is no cross traffic for intervals 30 seconds or more, every day; if it were a stop sign I could cross easily, but to cross against a red would be illegal.

      Both events are routine on every pass thru the system. Clearly it's the norm. And it's a huge waste of fuel, and clean air.

      CPU cycles are cheap. The kind of bandwidth necessary is cheap. Why can't we build a network of these sensors and have them manage groups of traffic thru the system? And let them allow single cars to cross the main roads in the gaps? As an engineer, it's very frustrating to drive in these systems, knowing that it could be made so much better by the attention of just one smart person in city government.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    5. Re:'bout time! by somersault · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should go be that smart person?

      --
      which is totally what she said
  4. Integrating with reality by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

    How well do these cars cope with human-driven cars thrown in?

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:Integrating with reality by GeniusDex · · Score: 2

      The whole idea of this system is that it can be slowly phased in. The system looks at other cars with the system nearby and looks at their behavior. If a car somewhat in front of you is breaking, a signal is sent to the driver that something is about to happen. It is not really autonomous right now, but supporting the driver.

    2. Re:Integrating with reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. Let's stick them on the road and find out.

  5. so who do you blame? by sammyF70 · · Score: 1

    In case of an accident with human drivers, most countries have relatively sane laws describing who should be held responsible. How do you solve that with automated cars?

    --
    "DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
    1. Re:so who do you blame? by ledow · · Score: 4, Informative

      Answer: Lots and lots of money spent on legal cases with uncertain outcomes.

      This is part of the reason why people say we should have one road for human drivers and one for automated (which makes them so prohibitively expensive, it's not worth it). Basically if there's an accident, the human "driver" of the vehicle is responsible, whether he was on cruise control or his ABS failed or whatever. You can still have that but with automated cars, I foresee instant-law-suit as soon as something like that happens (in the style of the Toyota lawsuits) blaming the car.

      And on an all-automated road, if you have an accident then it's *GOT* to be the automation fault, right? So you think that the car companies and road companies are going to pick up the tab for the first 50-car multiple pile-up? What about the associated traffic delays for a thousand people driving their automated cars just behind? Again, it gets prohibitively expensive and risky for the car/road companies to operate.

      If you have an automated car on a "human" road, then the human has to be able to take over (seeing as he is the one responsible in case of a crash!), so it becomes a little bit like cruise control and also becomes 100% the driver's problem, even if the automation fails.

      More interesting - can you get arrested for something like "driving without due care and attention" if you're the driver of an automated vehicle and do something behind the wheel? If so (and current laws say "YES!"), you might as well just drive the damn thing yourself.

      It's pretty much why these things are university projects and not actually on the road except in "tests" (and also things like the demonstration of two "crash-proof automated Volvo's a couple of months ago that, when aimed at each other head on at 30mph were supposed to stop before any possible accident - in front of the press they crashed about a dozen times and stopped once).

      We've had the capability to remote-control and computer control a car for YEARS. Hell, we do it with aeroplanes and oil-tankers. But the fact of the matter is that we ALWAYS have a responsible human behind the wheel with the control to take over and, if they take their eyes off the controls, are deemed to be irresponsible (imagine if your airline pilot and his co-pilot both went to sleep and left it on auto?). The problem is that the law, economics and common-sense tell us it's a stupid thing to do.

      You want an automated vehicle? Get on the London Docklands Light Railway. Entirely driver-less. But they had to put conductors on the trains to reassure passengers because occasionally the things get stuck and go wrong even though they are on rails. "a Passenger Service Agent (PSA), originally referred to as a "Train Captain", on each train is responsible for patrolling the train, checking tickets, making announcements and controlling the doors. PSAs can also take control of the train in certain circumstances including equipment failure and emergencies." Been in operation since 1987, can only travel on the rails, can't go past their stated safe speed, and you can have actual physical objects on the rails that activate brakes to avoid collisions and STILL they have a "driver".

      Automated cars are like the "flying cars" of science fiction - yeah, it'd be cool, and we probably have the technology - but do you really want joy-riders flying over your house?

    2. Re:so who do you blame? by Eivind · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sort of right. But when the benefits are large enough and obvious enough, a way is found (by changing law, if need be).

      Self-driving cars are significantly awesomer than normal cars, and I strongly suspect that their advantage is sufficient to force the necessary changes.

      Imagine what self-driving cars would do to DUI, to child-delivery, to parking-problems, to taxi-prices, to overnight long-distance driving, to commutes, to airport-parking-prices, to accidents-from-tiredness, to congestion.

      What will happen is -some- place will allow them, and shortly thereafter people elsewhere will demand that they be allowed, with sufficient force that they will be. (and in this case, industry is on the same side: the car-industry wants to sell these, at a significant premium initially offcourse)

    3. Re:so who do you blame? by ledow · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sell one car that will last until breakdown, require special roads, special taxation, special infrastructure, special laws, huge investment, extreme legal risk, having to ride around even-more-patents, having every politician in your pocket, etc.

      Or sell lots of cheaper cars that occasionally get dented/smashed up (but keep the driver intact of course), profit from the spare parts market (even if through patent licensing), require none of the above and where almost all the risk is on the driver.

      The car market is already over-priced and struggling (i.e. the ENTIRE UK car market had to be bailed out by the government just a few years ago, and it's not the first time). The governments already spend billions on road infrastructure (where a road is a bit of tarmac with some paint on it, not an isolated, obstruction-free, electronically-enabled, few-travellers, risky multi-billion-dollar venture) and, believe it or not, serious road accidents are actually rare given the number of cars in the road (multiply the number of air-accidents by the difference between the number of planes journeys and the number of cars journeys world-wide and see what happens!).

      Additionally, human drivers speeding and parking in the wrong places etc. is actually a HUGE source of income (not to mention drivers licenses, driving schools, insurance, etc.). Until the economics vastly change, it ain't gonna happen. If we see it in my lifetime, I will be hugely impressed at the amount of administrative and economic crap we've had to remove to get to that point. And to be honest, I don't particularly want it either.

    4. Re:so who do you blame? by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

      Three simple words. No fault insurance. In the event of an accident, your insurance covers your car and your injuries. There are no legal battles, because everyone is responsible for insuring themselves. They do this where I live. If you decide not to drive with insurance, then you aren't covered, regardless of whether or not the accident is your fault.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    5. Re:so who do you blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention productivity! The only productive thing I can do while driving is listen to librivox recordings. Being a mostly bicycle commuter, I do not find most of my time squandered by driving, but I imagine there are those who if they could get an extra hour or two coding or other portable work every day in a robot car, would be to accomplish significantly more.

    6. Re:so who do you blame? by ccguy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, for starters those sane laws you mention are usually just the traffic code, so those would apply equally. If a car doesn't yield when it has to then it doesn't make a difference if it was driven by a computer or a human driver.

      So probably no difference when it comes to other responsibility towards other drivers.

      Most interesting questions:

      - Would it be OK to be drunk in a fully computer driven car? (where the driver seat is just occupied by a passenger)
      - Would it be OK for someone without a driven license to use one of these cars?
      - In case of accident, assuming the computer was driving, do car owners take a hit in their driving license if they have one?
      - If the car is a rental or loan, how's the responsibility divided between car owner / insurance company / car driver / etc?
      - While we are at it, if cars are really able to drive themselves, do they actually need to have a human passenger at all? Can I send my car to my mom's to pick something up and come back?

      Anyway, obviously self driving cars would have a shitload of system getting data from external sensors, so it would actually be easier to find out exactly what happened in case of accident, particularly if more than one car is involved and you have two sets of data to compare.

      About mixing human and computer drivers, I'm not worried about it. I have no reason to believe that if the guy in the next lane is driving drunk and suddenly steers towards me I would have a better chance of solving it than a computer. I'd say the computer would actually react faster and with better control than I would. Sometimes accidents are inevitable by the way, and under some external circumstances there's no way at all to prevent them (even if you could replay the thing over and over). If I'm involved in one, I prefer to make sure its effects are minimized by a computer that knows what its doing.

    7. Re:so who do you blame? by dca58 · · Score: 1

      How does it work if one runs over someone on the sidewalk ? Should walkers have an insurance too ?

    8. Re:so who do you blame? by chill · · Score: 1

      Different type of insurance. By "no fault" the parent means "no fault collision", which relates to damage to vehicles only. Liability insurance covers property damage and bodily injury.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    9. Re:so who do you blame? by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Basically if there's an accident, the human "driver" of the vehicle is responsible, whether he was on cruise control or his ABS failed or whatever.

      Usually thats the case, but if there is a proven defect with the car(see the Toyota case last year) then the car company is responsible. However PROVING that it was the car is another battle altogether.

    10. Re:so who do you blame? by Eivind · · Score: 1

      that was sort of my point when I mentioned commuting.

      Reading trough todays email, having a look trough the commit-logs, browsing some docs, taking those phonecalls -- is all more productive than sitting around steering a car.

    11. Re:so who do you blame? by Eivind · · Score: 1

      You mean you never have, and expect you never will:

      * Go to a restaurant, want to get home by car after a few drinks.

      * Be a kid, and want to get driven somewhere - at a time inconvenient for your parents.

      * Have kids, and need them driven somewhere at a inconvenient time.

      * Park somewhere expensive

      * Check something online, while going somewhere by car

      * Deliver something somewhere, or pick up something or someone from somewhere, without spending the time sitting in the car yourself.

      If you've not done any of these things, and can't imagine yourself wanting to do any of these things, I suspect you're a tiny minority. Keep in mind that a self-driving car may -also- allow manual driving, for those occasions when you want it.

      It's not as if auto-pilots on a plane mean you CANNOT fly manually at will.

    12. Re:so who do you blame? by ledow · · Score: 2

      That was a (non-existent) "brake defect" where the drivers claimed they weren't able to brake. Not one case was proved in court where this was the case, to my knowledge. But, damn expensive for Toyota to prove otherwise, I should think.

      However, an ABS failure, for instance, wouldn't necessarily be the car's fault as the device only operates when the car is skidding anyway (read: driver error). And cruise-control is a human-activated switch that warns against it's use and that doesn't excuse you from controlling the car.

      So, yes, you may have an expensive proof. And the car company may have an even more expensive one. But it's hardly a get-out-of-jail-free card to the automated car manufacturer - they either assign the fault to the driver (and thus automated cars are worthless because the driver has to be 100% switched on, same as driving), assign it to themselves (and take on massive class-actions), or fight over who's to blame at great expense. All loss-situations for a company producing automated cars.

    13. Re:so who do you blame? by ledow · · Score: 1

      - Taxi

      - Taxi

      - Taxi

      - Taxi

      - Taxi

      - FUCK NO - pulling over takes less time than than it would to fiddle for the device. I only know of a handful of roads where you're not allowed to pull over in my entire countries (so-called "red routes" which invariably join to lots and lots of other roads where you can do just that - motorways have a hard shoulder and services for a reason).

      - Taxi

      Amazing things, taxis. Been around for centuries. Damn sight cheaper than buying an entire automated vehicle for such one-off episodes. Stick your kids in an automated car so they can go to the prom when you're working? Sod off. The logistics and legalities don't even bear thinking about.

      That's not even mentioning the complete pipe-dream of being able to do that as a minor for many, many, many years to come (I doubt this century but that's a prediction). And I've already covered the problems with a car that has manual override too (as in how would you stop your kids having manual override capability too, and / or if you have manual override who's responsible if the car does something wrong and you take over, and who's responsible if manual override WOULD have saved the pedestrian you hit but you didn't use it?).

      I suspect your minority is much, much, much tinier than my one.

    14. Re:so who do you blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, why don't they simply NOT program the automated cars to crash?
      They can then avoid all these expensive liability lawsuits AND save developer time!

    15. Re:so who do you blame? by greylion3 · · Score: 1

      We've had the capability to remote-control and computer control a car for YEARS.

      We've had remote-control for over a century. Nikola Tesla made a remote-controlled toy boat in 1898.
      For computer-control, it's somewhere around five or six decades.

      Automated cars are like the "flying cars" of science fiction - yeah, it'd be cool, and we probably have the technology - but do you really want joy-riders flying over your house?

      Just like for airplanes, flight would very likely be restricted to air corridors over mostly low- and unpopulated areas.
      Radar has been around for three-quarters of a century, and would likely be installed on tall chimneys and radio towers, partially for warning systems, partially for detecting off-limit flight.
      So yes, the occasional/rare joyrider wouldn't worry me, since flying off-limits would practically certainly be punished much harder than reckless driving.

      --
      Privacy begins with ..
    16. Re:so who do you blame? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Government funded healthcare goes a long way to cover medical expenses. Also, I'm a big fan of being responsible for your own mishaps. You can get (term) life insurance or injury insurance for yourself if you're really that worried about being hit by a car. Sure in the very rare event that somebody hits you with a car, while walking, it would be nice to get some money out of them, but you can't really bank on that, as a lot of the bad drivers out there have no insurance/license anyway, and probably not much of a job either. There's so many other ways you can get hurt/killed where the person reponsible wouldn't have insurance that would cover it, or there wouldn't be anybody responsible at all, that you should probably have insurance anyway. Unless you have no family and no debts, then you could probably forgo the insurance, but that doesn't describe most people.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    17. Re:so who do you blame? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This is part of the reason why people say we should have one road for human drivers and one for automated (which makes them so prohibitively expensive, it's not worth it).

      It's not worth it if you spend the money to build an actual road which is expensive and space-consuming. It may be worth it in dense urban areas to build PRT, and then provide incentives to use it (or incentives against auto use, of course.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:so who do you blame? by m50d · · Score: 1

      multiply the number of air-accidents by the difference between the number of planes journeys and the number of cars journeys world-wide and see what happens!

      You end up with far more car accidents, still, and it's unsurprising given how (relatively) little training car drivers get.

      --
      I am trolling
    19. Re:so who do you blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would make little difference. If your car smashes into the back of someone elses because your brakes suddenly stop working (and you have nowhere to turn without hitting someone else) and you kill one of the passengers in the other car, in most countries you are responsible.

      It would probably be the same thing with automated cars. In both cases, you are driving something you don't fully understand and you are not at all qualified to service, thus relying on the competence of your garage (I'm assuming you are not a mechanic here, and even so, there are parts of a car you would have no clue about, i.e. do you have the source code for the ABS braking software?). Automated cars take this even further, but we are far beyond the stage where most people can understand their vehicle fully.

      In my opinion, the laws are no longer sane in a world where nobody are qualified to service their own vehicles, but luckily judges are likely to take this into account, unless they have a bad day or just don't like you.

    20. Re:so who do you blame? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Amazing things, taxis. Been around for centuries.

      And people who could afford to go some other way have been doing that for centuries.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:so who do you blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is really not that important. The primary reason for the blame game is to decide which insurer pays. On a grander scale (and that's what matters to insurers) they will still pay for accidents with automated cars. As long as those accidents are cheaper overall, insurers won't mind automated cars.

      The second reason for laws to be applied to accidents is to punish irresponsible (e.g. drunk) drivers, and that factor is pretty much eliminated by automated cars.

    22. Re:so who do you blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But it's hardly a get-out-of-jail-free card to the automated car manufacturer - they either assign the fault to the driver (and thus automated cars are worthless because the driver has to be 100% switched on, same as driving), assign it to themselves (and take on massive class-actions), or fight over who's to blame at great expense. All loss-situations for a company producing automated cars.

      This specious argument belies the whole problem (in the US, anyways, not sure about other countries): Why does someone have to be at fault. "Shit happens" or, for the bible belt, "Time and unforseen occurrence befall us all". The real (imho obvious) answer is that, assuming that the number of accidents per mile driven and the fatalities per mile driven are measurably better (and significantly so, I might add, no sense in spending a whole lotta cash on something that could have been replaced by better driver education and licensing), either the law or through judicial precedent it could be established that there is no "blame", no "fault", that "shit happens" and the "new shit" is significantly better than the "old shit". Perhaps proof of negligence would be required to so much as file a lawsuit.

    23. Re:so who do you blame? by SparkleMotion88 · · Score: 1

      Self-driving cars hold a lot of promise, but I think it will always be better to deliver your children in a hospital.

    24. Re:so who do you blame? by eth1 · · Score: 1

      Well, for starters those sane laws you mention are usually just the traffic code, so those would apply equally. If a car doesn't yield when it has to then it doesn't make a difference if it was driven by a computer or a human driver.

      IMO, this won't work. The car manufacturer would always end up getting sued (probably by all involved parties), and they're not going to sell self-driving cars in those circumstances. You'd have to have a separate road (no human-driven cars in the mix), with legislation in place that basically says you/your insurance is responsible for yourself, no matter what happens.

    25. Re:so who do you blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the car industry that will be the problem. It's the insurance industry. If there are no high-profile accidents they will create them. Automated driving is an existential threat to car insurance.

    26. Re:so who do you blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm surprised that people worry so much about this. It may require some law changes to make it happen, but to me the answer as to who to blame is a simple one and not at all dissimilar to what happens now in many countries - just make the car owner take out insurance on the car to cover any accidents that the car is involved in. Just like now if there is a dispute about which car/driver was at fault in the accident then the court can sort it out. There is no need to have the manufacturer have any liability. They will be motivated to produce self-driving cards that don't have accidents anyway because apart from the better image this will give them, the insurance on those cars will be cheaper which will make them more attractive to consumers.

      Sure, there's a few more details than that to sort out, but it isn't that complicated.

    27. Re:so who do you blame? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Not to mention talk on your cellphone without guilt, put the finishing touches on your last minute presentation on the way to work, drive all night on a road trip and still get a good night's sleep, and NO MORE TRAFFIC JAMS, the true bane of the modern commuter's life.

    28. Re:so who do you blame? by Eivind · · Score: 2

      Taxis are neither cheap, nor -nearly- as awesome as you make them out to be, and for this reason a tiny fraction of human transport happens by taxi (especially outside city-centres).

      Taxis amount to using one human being and a car to transport another human being. (or more, but a large fraction of taxi-rides are single) If that human being is paid the same you are, then because of things like VAT and taxes, it ends up being significantly MORE expensive to let a taxi do it, than to do it yourself.

      You have to wait for taxis - if you want one at the same time many others do, you'll wait a lot. Not all taxi-drivers are dependable. Taxi-fares are expensive, especially in countries without a large poor-caste. Storing belongings, or items bought in one shop, while visiting another, is right out, and so on.

  6. I wouldn't trust humans to drive cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

    1. Re:I wouldn't trust humans to drive cars by instagib · · Score: 2

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

      Interesting. Of the 5 countries with the lowest rates (ignoring islands and very small states), 2 drive on the left and 1 has highways without speed limit.

    2. Re:I wouldn't trust humans to drive cars by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      In my personal experience speed limits on highways make people that are too nervous and shouldn't be driving on them to begin with feel safer, and able to drive on them. My mother is a prime example of this. She either shouldn't have a license or should be restricted to roads with a speed limit of 60km/h or less. She's way too nervous and in a serious event simply can't react fast enough.

      I had to save both our asses from rear-ending a dump truck that twisted off its u-joint and stopped abruptly as the drive shaft slammed into the ground. She was death gripping the wheel, I had to turn it and her for the car to veer into the other lane to avoid the collision. If she'd been in the car with someone else, or alone, that would have been an accident with one or multiple fatalities. The only thing that saved us then is that she was too scared to think of slamming on the brakes, which would have meant I wouldn't have been able to turn the car in time.

      Its anecdotal I know, but at least 2 male and almost every female member with a few exceptions in my family are like this. Then they complain when other people don't follow the law to the letter etc. and it wasn't their fault. If you can safely avoid rear-ending someone when something goes wrong in their car or they don't follow the rules etc it should be your fault when you don't avoid it.

  7. Or you could just use the bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If car-people had the slightest awareness of their environment then they might actually choose to live somewhere near to public transportation and then we wouldn't need automated road-trains like this.

    But car-people are irrational and can only talk of their "freedom" to cause and sit in traffic jams.

    1. Re:Or you could just use the bus by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Many people could take public transportation, yes, but that's not reasonable in many other cases.

      Besides, public transportation could benefit from this too.

    2. Re:Or you could just use the bus by Chatterton · · Score: 1

      I live in front of a bus stop and I work at 6km from home (bird distance).

      These 6km bird distance are 6.4 km by car or 9.6 km by bicycle going thru very dangerous streets for a cyclist. 3 days over the 5 days of the week I can't take a bicycle due to my sport activities and the equipment I must take with me.

      With my car it take me 15 min (with traffic jam) in the morning to go to work and 7 min to go back from work or 15 min to go back from my sport activities.
      With the bus it take me 10 min (with traffic jam) in the morning to go to work and 30 min to go back from work or 7 hours to go back from my sport activities because there is no more bus from 22h00 until 05h00 the next morning.

      Then I can still live in town in a shoebox appartment for the same price I pay for an house with a garden just outside the town.

      If I could do this with a shared automated car I would do it without thinking a bit about it. Imagine a world where you can 'order' a car, the car come in front of the door where you are and take you in front of the door where you want to go. Its like taxis without the cost of the taximan, the congestions...

    3. Re:Or you could just use the bus by sseaman · · Score: 1

      Because whining about suburbanites is a better solution to dwindling fossil fuels, air pollution, and accidents than transportation innovation?

      Plus, if this works, we'll see platooning buses on cross-country trips. And virtually accident-free.

  8. Holland is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Holland is a province in the Netherlands. The Netherlands is the country. Holland is also a city in Michigan.

    Never go to Michigan.

    1. Re:Holland is... by JustOK · · Score: 1

      Go to Hell.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:Holland is... by Sique · · Score: 1

      Holland are in fact two provinties in the Netherlands, one is called Noordholland (capital Haarlem) and the other one Zuidholland (capital Rotterdam).

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    3. Re:Holland is... by Sique · · Score: 1

      Sorry... Zuidholland's capital is Den Haag. :)

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    4. Re:Holland is... by knappe+duivel · · Score: 1

      Go to Hell.

      Hell is a small rural community in the middle of the Netherlands.

    5. Re:Holland is... by knappe+duivel · · Score: 1

      For the unbelievers: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell

    6. Re:Holland is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like using England instead of The United Kingdom

      About England vs The United Kingdom
      http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/britain.html

      About Holland vs The Netherlands
      http://www.archimon.nl/general/holland.html

    7. Re:Holland is... by sosume · · Score: 2

      Helmond is definitely NOT in Holland. Maybe in The Netherlands, but not in Holland.

    8. Re:Holland is... by sosume · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's more like saying Belfast, England as Helmond does not belong to any of the Holland provinces.

    9. Re:Holland is... by JustOK · · Score: 2

      or at 42 26' 5" N / 83 59' 6" W, which is in Michigan.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    10. Re:Holland is... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      So you can choose between an American and an European Hell.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    11. Re:Holland is... by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Hell is also a tropical paradise on Grand Cayman. My wife and I were married not far from there, and in fact went thru Hell to get married.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    12. Re:Holland is... by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Or a nice tropical Hell.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  9. Safety is relative by Zouden · · Score: 2

    How about this:

    Using coloured lights and human eyesight to coordinate vehicles raises concerns about the safety of such systems, would you trust Joe Sixpack to drive your car?

    Humans are fallible, and hundreds die on the road every day. Would we accept a computer system that causes hundreds of people to die? Of course not. So any computer system that's considered capable of driving a car will almost certainly be safer than a human driver. Probably a thousand times safer.

    --
    "A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
    1. Re:Safety is relative by UnresolvedExternal · · Score: 1

      Would we accept a computer system that causes hundreds of people to die? Of course not..

      I know the Therac-25 didn't kill hundreds, but, a radiation therapy machine is not a car.

      So any computer system that's considered capable of driving a car will almost certainly be safer than a human driver. Probably a thousand times safer.

      Probably not if I wrote the code...

    2. Re:Safety is relative by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      One thing that makes the Therac situation different from an auto-driven car - you can _see_ when the car messes up; radiation is invisible.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    3. Re:Safety is relative by UnresolvedExternal · · Score: 1

      True indeed, but this seems like closing the stable door well after the horse has bolted. Although, to your credit, the airline industry seems to take the same line for finding the real edge case bugs.

      So who is responsible after the first driver is killed? I have always thought programmers need insurance.....

  10. Holland? by Zedrick · · Score: 2

    Helmond is in North Brabant, not Holland. Both are provinces in The Netherlands.

    1. Re:Holland? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear hear!

    2. Re:Holland? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also good to know that "Helmond" literally translates to "Hell Mouth".

      I've been there a few times, and never had any trouble.

    3. Re:Holland? by BorgDrone · · Score: 1

      Also, people from North Brabant aren't really considered Dutch. They're spare Belgians.

    4. Re:Holland? by Sique · · Score: 1

      To be more specific: Helmond is in North Brabant, not in North or South Holland. All three are provinties in The Netherlands.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    5. Re:Holland? by KFT · · Score: 1

      Using Holland to mean the whole country is widely accepted usage, also in the Netherlands. Some people from outside of the two Holland provinces (and also some pedantics, and Belgians) have a misplaced sense of inferiority and dislike it when you call them part of Holland.

      Anyway, I'm happy to Netherlands is at least putting some effort in to get to automated driving. With my skills, if I drive myself I will be dead within the day by some stupidity.

    6. Re:Holland? by jopie_b · · Score: 1

      And because there is no single province named "Holland" it is always obvious that when people refer to Holland they mean the whole county, not just a province.

    7. Re:Holland? by Sique · · Score: 1

      So if I start to talk about "Carolina"; it's always obvious that I am talking about the whole U.S.?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    8. Re:Holland? by Mogusha · · Score: 1

      I believe that the Netherlands was originally called Holland by many outsiders due to the confusion that originally came from the Dutch language itself. As Hollands is one of the old terms used to describe the Dutch language. To make matters worse, things that were considered "Dutch", at least in old Dutch, were called Hollandse. These two issues most likely contributed to the confusion about Holland vs Netherlands.

      Another issue is that the Netherlands, about 200 years ago or so, consisted of, at least in part (I don't recall if it was the entirety or not), of Belgium, and Belgium then was known as South Netherlands.

      It would appear that there is a strong push to try and make Netherlands to be the official term and uniform term for the Netherlands and it's language, as the language is now known as "Nederlands" in Dutch, and the land is refered to as "Nederland."

  11. What are the dangers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can imagine sudden accidents where there is no explanations except unless one knows about the strange occurrence of remote control systems in these devices

  12. Safety by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    TFA doesn't make it entirely clear but it seems like the radio network isn't critical to the cars safe driving. It supplies additional information that they can use to optimise their driving, but ultimately the car's own sensors take precedence in all safety related matters.

    Of more concern than loss of signal is the potential for hacking. People have already demonstrated accessing a car's wireless sensors for things like tyre pressure on high end models. It is difficult to validate data coming from other vehicles.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  13. drivers by Tom · · Score: 3, Informative

    would you trust WiFi to drive your car?

    Do I trust the drivers of the other cars?

    Cars are these strange things that drive our minds crazy. I don't know how much is cultural (i.e. movies, etc.) and how much is psychological, but there are few areas in life where the disconnect between reality and subjective is so dramatic.

    Everyone thinks he's an above-average driver. Of course, that's statistically impossible.
    Almost everyone overestimates his (or her) ability to handle a car in unusual circumstances.
    Very few people can correctly judge road and weather conditions and their impacts on things like brake distance.
    Most people do not have a correct sense of speed anymore if they've driven at speed for a few hours.

    and so on and so forth. Car accidents are within the top reasons of unnatural death in most western countries, but most of us feel more uneasy going on a rollercoaster (which cause what, a dozen or so deaths a year, world-wide?) or on a plane (around 1000 deaths per year, world-wide) than taking the car to work (1,200,000 deaths per year, world-wide). Yes, that's the real numbers, here and here are some sources, or google your own. Plane crashes fall way below the rounding error margin of car crashes.

    Really, you would have to put really bad engineers with pre-historic computer equipment and unstable wiring into those cars to make them worse than human drivers.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:drivers by P1ON33R · · Score: 1

      Clearly, you must be an above average driver! (like me, btw)

    2. Re:drivers by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      I agree. Other drivers can't be trusted and should be replaced with computers. Not you and me though, right?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    3. Re:drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although I agree with you the examples are distorted:

      Absolute death numbers do not give a good picture.

      Death per mile traveled would be a better indication.

    4. Re:drivers by gclef · · Score: 1

      It's not really psychological, it's a side-effect of how humans assess risk. We assess a risk lower if it is: common (driving every day), self-controlled (driving yourself), failures aren't personified (hitting a tree is a different risk than a person driving into you), and if we've seen the event a lot. We assess risks higher if they are: rare (many people only fly once or less per year), something you can't control (someone else piloting), and if failures are spectacular (fireball from the sky). Add in being able to personify a risk (terrorist hijacking), and you begin to see why hijackers flying planes into buildings pushed so many people's buttons on 9/11.

    5. Re:drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I found the woman you refer to.

    6. Re:drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to support blanket statements, but that sounds like it falls under "psychological..."

    7. Re:drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't those statistics only meaningful if everyone drives, flies, and rides roller coasters in equal amounts? It seems like a no-brainer that more people die in car wrecks since the vast majority of people worldwide are much more likely to be driving than flying or riding roller coasters.

      It seems to me that fatalities per hour of would be a more useful comparison. I'm not disagreeing with your overall point at all, however.

    8. Re:drivers by Tom · · Score: 1

      Aren't those statistics only meaningful if everyone drives, flies, and rides roller coasters in equal amounts?

      You can play with those numbers all you like, because of course they can not be compared directly. But we are not talking about a few minor differences, we are talking about more than three orders of magnitude.

      It seems to me that fatalities per hour of would be a more useful comparison.

      Or per mile, or per trip, or, or, or - as I said, yes you can do various math to make the numbers somehow comparable. They are not. The magnitude matters, though.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    9. Re:drivers by Tom · · Score: 1

      Everyone thinks he's an above-average statistician.

      Actually, most people hate statistics, so that's probably not true.

      You forget that your artificial example is just that. In a population of any reasonable size, we can assume (unless you have evidence to the contrary) that driving abilities will at least roughly follow a bell curve. It's like that with most other skills measured, so unless we have actual reasons to believe otherwise, driving abilities are probably much the same.

      Or, if you want a pure math answer: The Median would not change in your above example.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    10. Re:drivers by Tom · · Score: 1

      Death per mile traveled would be a better indication.

      Or per hour spent travelling, or per trip, or, or, or - there are various equally valid ways to bring the numbers into comparison, depending on what you're after.

      I doubt any of them will be able to reverse a three orders of magnitude difference.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    11. Re:drivers by Tom · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'd prefer the computer, if only for the comfort level. I don't especially enjoy driving, and knowing that all the cars are computer-controlled would give us one massive advantage: Predictability. Humans are easy to predict in groups, but very hard to predict individually. And erratic reactions to minor events is one of the reasons the roads are as busy and unsafe as they are.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    12. Re:drivers by arkenian · · Score: 2
      Quite. Several of them actually make it worse. Please note: In several occasions we've had troops in ACTIVE COMBAT OPERATIONS with lower fatality rates than the same number of troops, statistically, would have at home commuting. (The first Gulf War was estimated to have saved several hundred American lives, and there's been, I think, entire years of the current conflict where its been about break-even.) If you're not a soldier who participates in active combat operations, or have one of a very few other activities as a profession or hobby, getting in your car and commuting in a major metropolitan area is possibly the most dangerous thing you will ever do in your life by an order of magnitude. Maybe not, insofar as we've all probably done some very stupid things at some point in our lives, but certainly its the most dangerous thing you'll do on any sort of regular basis.

      I, for one, welcome our robot car-driving overlords. Can't come too soon.

  14. Cooperative humans by mangu · · Score: 1

    If car-people had the slightest awareness of their environment then they might actually choose to live somewhere near to public transportation and then we wouldn't need automated road-trains like this.

    But car-people are irrational and can only talk of their "freedom" to cause and sit in traffic jams.

    Agreed. If car-people were rational they would just follow the traffic regulations that exist in most places that say the left lane is for passing and traffic jams would be much reduced.

    Traffic jams and too many accidents are caused by left lane hogs. Unfortunately, these people seem to believe the road is theirs alone as long as they do not exceed the speed limit. They classify any driver behind them as a "tailgater" who should be treated with contempt. They never stop to think that the ultimate cause of many accidents is the vehicles being too close together, and that situation is caused by a few people who drive slower than all other drivers and refuse to move to the right lane.

    1. Re:Cooperative humans by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      If someone is driving in the "overtaking lane" at the speed limit, how can you legally get close enough to tail gate them?

    2. Re:Cooperative humans by mangu · · Score: 1

      If someone is driving in the "overtaking lane" at the speed limit, how can you legally get close enough to tail gate them?

      The speedometers could have a small difference, while still being both within legal calibration limits. Maybe the guy in front has older tyres, that would translate to a slower speed at a given speedometer reading, because the circumference of a tyre decreases with wear. But why he's going faster than you is none of your business. Yes, he could be overspeeding, so what?

      That's the big problem with left lane hogs, they think they are responsible for law enforcement, while they ignore that their own attitude is illegal. The priority for any driver is always driving safely, not trying to control others. If you don't move right when someone is behind you then you are guilty of reckless driving, it's as simple as that.

    3. Re:Cooperative humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't move right when someone is behind you then you are guilty of reckless driving, it's as simple as that.

      If only. What if there is no room in the right lane? What if there is a turtle in right lane 10 yards ahead? What if there a junction a quarter mile ahead which requres me in the left lane? I'll note that excessive lane-changing is about as annoying and carries more risk than hogging the left lane.
      That said, I tend to keep right at all times. But when I see someone in the rearview mirror flying into my trunk, I always take a deep breath before checking to change lanes. If someone is being an ass on the road, I'd rather have them solve their own issues than forcing me to make hasty decisions for them. That's not about law enforcement, it's about minimizing liability. I'd rather get run off the road than run someone else off the road.

      To respond to your earlier point:

      Traffic jams and too many accidents are caused by left lane hogs

      Source?

      Unfortunately, these people seem to believe the road is theirs alone as long as they do not exceed the speed limit

      As opposed to tailgaters, who believe the road is theirs alone regardless of their speed?

      They classify any driver behind them as a "tailgater" who should be treated with contempt.

      Source? I thought contempt was the number one prevailing emotion among all drivers.

      They never stop to think that the ultimate cause of many accidents is the vehicles being too close together

      agreed...

      and that situation is caused by a few people who drive slower than all other drivers and refuse to move to the right lane

      Of course. How about "the situation is caused by drivers not maintaining proper distance"? Then, if you want, you can attribute the failure to maintain proper distance to speed differences, then attribute the speed differences to character traits like impatience and hostility, then attribute those character traits to (self-perceived) social ranking. Only then can you blame left-hoggers for not recognizing the obvious superiority of the driver in the car that's completely blocking their rear view.

  15. The real question by captainpanic · · Score: 1

    Would you trust a 15 year old WiFi with outdated software, on a poorly maintained vehicle?

    1. Re:The real question by mad_minstrel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know about the US but where I live there is such a thing as a periodic maintenance checkup. They could make sensor checks and software updates mandatory. And the software can always transmit its year/version along with the data so that our car can disregard any data from outdated systems. But it's all moot until there's law that says car makers are not responsible for any crashes the software causes - because they won't ever dare sell you an automated car otherwise.

      --
      May the source be with you.
    2. Re:The real question by hrvatska · · Score: 1

      Would you trust a 15 year old WiFi with outdated software, on a poorly maintained vehicle?

      Maybe more than my 85 year old neighbor in her poorly maintained vehicle.

    3. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I wouldn't, but then, I doubt it would pass APK.

    4. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or 16-year old neighbor.

    5. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well here in the US it is a frequent occurance to see cars/trucks going down the street with various parts hung on by wire. The same goes for lights and other instruments that do not work. The only time you will get a ticket is if a cop is really having a bad day and you just ran over a kid. Seriously I have never seen a state that enforces (with regularity) any vehicle inspection. I have seen cars/trucks belching out billowing smoke from various parts of the car and no one gets a ticket. The law (read cops) is that lazy here in the US. That is one of the reasons our crime rates are so high. Yeah I am sure someone will pipe up but the judges don't back the cops up and while thats partially true if they don't make an effort no body cares.

  16. They have a name for this by 2.7182 · · Score: 1

    It's called a train.

    1. Re:They have a name for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beautiful comment.

  17. Where is Buffy when you need her? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So cars are starting to drive themselves in the Dutch place called Hellmouth. I suggest we sent in Buffy or Willow to investigate asap.

  18. What's the problem? by kieran · · Score: 1

    If the wi-fi fails, you just fall back to the data gathered by your own vehicle and drive more conservatively.

    ("you" in this case presumably being the program driving the car)

  19. Why not by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    Link said cars up with a steel coupler. Might as well give em a different name then, like, aaaaahmm....... train!

  20. Talking of accidents by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 1

    it would be trivial for the last 30 minutes or so of 360 degree video recording + sensor data to be stored in a black box style device.

    Analysis of this after any accident should give a clear enough picture of who is at fault

    1. Re:Talking of accidents by LordNacho · · Score: 1

      Could work, but surely if it was such a big deal placing blame someone would have mandated this. No idea about the stats, but I'd guess there aren't that many unexplained car crashes?

      With airplanes, they don't crash so often, and it's good to have an explanation for each crash. I suppose this has something to do with the perception of danger and the length of the dev process. With cars, the debris isn't as scattered, there's more crashes, and the fix can be implemented more swiftly.

    2. Re:Talking of accidents by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 1

      I meant in the case of automated cars

    3. Re:Talking of accidents by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 2

      So, I mention it, and an hour later there is an article on it??

      weird http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/05/24/0159212/Mandatory-Automotive-Black-Boxes-May-Be-On-the-Way

  21. Sure, when the backup is right by Teun · · Score: 1
    I can trust WIFI for driving cars providing there's a fail-safe backup system.

    But hopefully not of the kind where all stop and sit around till the night shift system operator is roused...

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  22. Wikipedia article by macraig · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Wikipedia article references a William J. Beatty:

    It has been said that by knowing how traffic waves are created, drivers can sometimes reduce their effects by increasing vehicle headways and reducing the use of brakes, ultimately alleviating traffic congestion for everyone in the area.

    I've been doing this as routine behavior for almost 30 years now, after observing these "waves" and theorizing the causes. I've been setting an example how to stop the waves (if not the jams altogether)... not that anyone recognizes the point of what I'm doing. Can't explain it to them! They just think I'm trying to piss them off, being lazy or not paying attention.

    That last is really why traffic jams occur, so taking the controls away from humans and giving it to machines that always pay attention, and thus know what to do and when to do it, is a good thing.

    1. Re:Wikipedia article by Zebedeu · · Score: 1

      It's useless. One driver alone can't make a difference in the "wave" and there aren't enough "clued-in" drivers to get the critical mass needed.
      Even if there were enough drivers to break the wave on a given section of the road, how long do you think it'd take for the guys on the back to restart it? At a given concentration of cars on a stretch of road, the waves are self-forming and inevitable.

      In the end, all you're doing is making the people behind you go even slower because the guys on the other lane see the empty space in front of your car and move in front of you.

      That's why people get pissed off at you. It's not that they don't understand (some of us do), it's just that you're letting everyone else on the other lane get in front of us for no actual benefit.

    2. Re:Wikipedia article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I've done this same behavior but it is to save fuel and momentum. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I believe that this is basically using the car's natural friction to bake by slowly coasting towards the approaching car or stop light. This is opposed to rapidly accelerating and braking, which would reduce the headway between you and the car ahead. I never knew that the rapid, inefficient technique contributed to traffic jams.

      One thing that really irks me when I'm trying to conserve my momentum is when somebody cuts into the headway I'm using to coast; where I'm forced to rapidly brake.

    3. Re:Wikipedia article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've actually driven with an experimental system designed to dampen such traffic jams on the InterTraffic exhibition last yeat. To put it mildly, it is highly unintuitive. You'll be told to speed up at times and decrease headway. This is safer than it sounds: people who fail to pay attention (and therefore need more headway) won't follow the advice to decrease the headway. But if enough people do follow the advice, the road capacity increases quite a bit, and the standard deviation of speed decreases (more stable traffic).

      And no, the cause of traffic jams is not as simple as "not paying attention". Blaming invisible bad drivers is too easy, in the same class as saying "not enough roads". There's actually quite a bit of research in the Netherlands on this subject. For instance, the highway used in this GDCC challenge is the A270, which has a permanent video observation system. Not for the daily traffic jams, but because it's regularly used as a test track by TNO, a Dutch R&D organization. They've run real tests with dozens of vehicles to study traffic waves there (I'll update the wiki pages, they're really out of date now). Even in test situations, where participants do pay attention, it's easy to induce traffic waves.

      So I'm not really convinced that your "intuitive" solution is in fact helpful. Even if it did decrease the speed variance, it likely will do so at the price of decreased road capacity.

    4. Re:Wikipedia article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If all the jam-causing people pass you, eventually the other people that don't pass you will form a plug that prevents jam-causing people from further back to reach you.

      Kind of like clotting.

    5. Re:Wikipedia article by Zebedeu · · Score: 1

      There are no "jam-causing people", there are only "jam-reducing people", i.e., the GP.
      That's to say, they are the exception.

      The mechanism which causes the "waves" is a direct result of normal human driving. The only way you'll get rid of a jam by letting others pass you, is if you wait long enough that the jam disappears on its own.

  23. Security issues by kiwix · · Score: 1

    The problem is not that the WiFi might or might not be secure. The problem is that the basic premise of the system is to trust data send by random unknown cars. What happens if a malicious car sends false informations?

  24. I'd trust WiFi more than by RealGene · · Score: 2

    the woman in the Infiniti texting while driving in the left lane of the Mass Turnpike yesterday...

    --
    Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.
  25. Would you trust Google? by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    would you trust wifi to drive your car

    I believe there is an Audi concept car that does, if I remember correctly, by using google. The car gets data about weather conditions, not to mention road and traffic conditions from google. If your car veers into the opposite lane, the steering will be adjusted to bring you back to your lane. I believe it was a concept car, and was being test driven by Car and Driver or Motor trend, one of those magazines. I remember reading about the driver trying out that particular stunt, but not on a busy roadway, of course.

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  26. That depends ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does it run linux?

    I wouldn't risk a BSOD with windows. The implementation would be too literal.

  27. War driving by jimshatt · · Score: 1

    Gives a whole new meaning to 'war driving'...

  28. Would you trust a car controlled by WiFI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh hell no.

  29. Wi-Fi? Seriously? by mindbooger · · Score: 1

    Unable to RTFA (server not responding), but seriously? They _can't_ be talking about actually using 2.4GHz ISM band, _unlicensed_ spectrum, full of all kinds of crap that you have to accept, to build even a supplimental safety system. That's just the submitter putting a generic name to "wireless communication", right? *boggle*

    1. Re:Wi-Fi? Seriously? by krilid · · Score: 2

      Looks like www.gcdc.net has been Slashdotted, here are a few links that might be interesting: (they actually use 5.9 GHz communications, 802.11p specifically for use in intelligent transportation systems) Movie from the preparations to the challenge, lots of nerds and tech: http://youtu.be/lmRifLzw8iA Winning team technical paper: http://www.mrt.kit.edu/annieway/downloads/gcdc11_team_description.pdf Runner up technical paper: http://www.hh.se/download/18.7a4c72f812fdb65798d80003243/IDE1120KLTechReportTeamPaper.pdf

  30. Interesting idea an "autocar only" lane by voss · · Score: 1

    So if youre on a long drive you can pull in the autopilot car only lane, set course and speed to 70ish turn on the mp3 player and catch some zzz's.

     

  31. I was hoping for a more comprehensive set up... by cdpage · · Score: 1

    I have often thought it will only be a matter of time before our Cars would have access to other cars habits.

    If enough cars were fitted with its own GPS systems, and these systems recorded its average movement, this information could then be shared to other cars with in its vicinity, share not only its average commuter information but the average commuter information that it has gathered for other cars around it too.

    Basically a tether of info, ideal for rush hour traffic. The GPS systems can then take all this information, Current and historic, and help direct the best coarse of action for each driver on a per second basis.

  32. I trust myself to see them more than the computer by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I would trust WiFi more than the tired trucker or the drunk driver in the other lane.

    Those people will still be there. Only you'll be shaving or whatever and your computer will never have a chance when they wander over into your lane.

    Meanwhile I'll have noticed something is up with the car/truck next to me and have moved some distance away before there's ever a problem.

    Computers are great but they simply cannot have as much context as you can scanning all over. And you know it will be a long, long time before it would ever be the case that all moving vehicles were required to be computer controlled - perhaps never as there will always be people opposed to the idea.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  33. it's the Netherlands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only a small part can be referred to as Holland. And no surprise, Helmond is not in that part.

  34. Cars hanging from rails in US? by __aazsst3756 · · Score: 1

    How long before we just have a rail to hang your car from for long distance travel in the US? Streets in the burbs and rural areas, walk / bike / subway etc. in densely populated areas, put your car on the rail to go to the next town. It would not eliminate the need for roads everywhere, but would reduce the need for big interstates everywhere. If fast enough could also reduce the need for air travel. Would of course require purpose built cars with necessary hardware, light weight, computer in dash to select and pay for destination, etc. ... Crazy?

  35. Taxis aren't everywhere by danaris · · Score: 1

    You do know that taxis aren't available everywhere the roads go, aren't you?

    Yes, believe it or not, ledow, there really is a world outside your metropolitan paradise.

    Dan Aris

    --
    Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
  36. Interesting video link by MaxFlame · · Score: 1

    There is an interesting video link illustrating the competition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmRifLzw8iA