China Catches Up With Google's Driverless Car

mikejuk writes "While Google makes headlines with its driverless car and even manages to lobby Nevada to legalize driverless cars on the public road — China quietly pushes ahead on its own. A driverless car navigated 286km of expressway all on its own. Using nothing but a pair of video cameras and laser rangefinders, i.e. no GPS, it managed to arrive safely even through fog. The computer vision based approach means that at the moment it can only drive during daylight hours. Google might need to speed up ..."

Comments

ethics of experiments involving humans

[decora]

Heres what psychologists have to do before they do an experiment involving humans:

"8.02 Informed Consent to Research
(a) When obtaining informed consent as required in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, psychologists inform participants about (1) the purpose of the research, expected duration, and procedures; (2) their right to decline to participate and to withdraw from the research once participation has begun; (3) the foreseeable consequences of declining or withdrawing; (4) reasonably foreseeable factors that may be expected to influence their willingness to participate such as potential risks, discomfort, or adverse effects; (5) any prospective research benefits; (6) limits of confidentiality; (7) incentives for participation; and (8) whom to contact for questions about the research and research participants' rights. They provide opportunity for the prospective participants to ask questions and receive answers. (See also Standards 8.03, Informed Consent for Recording Voices and Images in Research; 8.05, Dispensing with Informed Consent for Research; and 8.07, Deception in Research.)"

etc etc etc. (from APA website)

nice to know that the robot car people have, basically, no ethics whatsoever, considering that automobile-travel systems have killed more people than terrorism.

Re:ethics of experiments involving humans

[Kell Bengal]

Hello, roboticist here. I'd like to ask you a question: how were power steering, cruise control, anti-lock breaks, fuel injection and collision avoidance radar tested before it was introduced to the commercial car market? When you've answered that question, I'd like to ask you how robotic cars are substantially different in terms of 'experimentation'.

Re:ethics of experiments involving humans

[Anonymous Coward]

which is why the driverless cars have to date been involved in only one minor fender bender which was covered by the driverless cars insurance and *gasp* this is such a evil experiment for the helpless human drivers of the other cars on the road.
no doubt this evil experiment will one day kill all humans on any road everywhere. it must be stopped. where do i sign up ?

Re:ethics of experiments involving humans

[MacTO]

Is this a reference to the research vehicle sharing the road with unsuspecting motorists? If so, I agree that could be a problem.

On the other hand, those fatal "automobile-travel systems" are fatal when humans are behind the wheel. One factor was cited in the article: reaction times. Human motorists also tend to violate traffic laws at whim and make judgement calls that are contradictory to best practices. That isn't a lack of ethics (as in the case of a machine), it is contrary to ethics.

Re:ethics of experiments involving humans

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be pretty frightening to have a machine steering a car, instead of a good old reliable human who never gets drunk, tired, angry or distracted, and never has a heart attack or a sudden seizure.

Re:ethics of experiments involving humans

[0123456]

nice to know that the robot car people have, basically, no ethics whatsoever, considering that automobile-travel systems have killed more people than terrorism.

This is China; I haven't been there in a few years, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to build a machine that drives worse than the typical driver I saw on the roads there.

Re:ethics of experiments involving humans

[LordLimecat]

Im pretty sure they didnt just throw them on the highway with other cars prior to testing.

Re:ethics of experiments involving humans

[Riceballsan]

First of all, killed more people then terrorism? Are you from the US government because I'm pretty certain terrorism is a pretty low bar for deaths, On a national scale america had one big one, and next to nothing for almost all of it's history, on a global scale there's probably 15 different illnesses that can surpass terrorism. Secondly we already are risking our lives due to poorly tested and poorly manufactured systems driving our cars. Humans, we give each new human 30 hours in a classroom, 15 minutes with an instructor, and if they pass that test, good to go. No consent from every driver on the road needed. The high death rate of automobiles is exactly why figuring out something better is a goal. 2 fender benders vs 140,000k miles of drive time is far better then the average human being clocks in when it first learns to drive, and unlike humans as the computer based cars gain experience and intelligence, what they learn is automatically implanted into their next of kin. While humans have to re-learn from scratch every generation.

Re:ethics of experiments involving humans

[Anonymous Coward]

look mommy, an equivocator!

Re:ethics of experiments involving humans

[Gadget_Guy]

Heres what psychologists have to do before they do an experiment involving humans

This is exactly why the Google car doesn't ask other drivers about their feelings while stopped at lights. The psychologists said it wasn't ethical.

Other than that, the driverless car has as much right to be on the road as any young learner driver just starting out. And how else would this technology ever get tested under real world conditions, because requiring informed consent from all the other drivers is obviously impractical.

Re:ethics of experiments involving humans

[Runaway1956]

I share the road with unpredictable humans every day. Sharing the road with a predictable computer should be no challenge. Some people worry to much. Computers never worry. I think I prefer the computer over you.

Re:ethics of experiments involving humans

[Smidge204]

Relevant reference videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPxinqO3f8o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D36eisnZ3A4

If they really do manage a robotic driver to deal with that mess it will be a miracle of modern engineering to rival anything in the history of mankind.
=Smidge=

Re:ethics of experiments involving humans

[FhnuZoag]

Which makes the tech actually quite impressive, if it managed to survive the horrible, horrible general traffic behaviour there.

Re:ethics of experiments involving humans

[Smidge204]

First of all, killed more people then terrorism? Are you from the US government because I'm pretty certain terrorism is a pretty low bar for deaths

And yet look how much time, money and effort we spend trying (ineptly) to protect ourselves from terrorism while practically nobody seems to give two shits about traffic safety.

In 2001 alone, traffic related fatalities outnumbered terrorism related fatalities by about 14 to 1. If we include all the years since it's over 130 to 1.
=Smidge=

Re:ethics of experiments involving humans

[petteyg359]

I'll trust that robotic driver over the moronic human drivers any day.

Re:ethics of experiments involving humans

[Lumpy]

The number of people that have died from slipping on KY jelly while trying to do Auto-erotic Asphyxia is higher than TERRORISM deaths in the USA.

It's that low of a bar.... but we need to increase security!!!!!

Re:ethics of experiments involving humans

[Lumpy]

As a motorcycle rider. I would prefer a highway FULL of robot vehicles than the hand-full of complete idiots on the highway I see each morning that almost run people off the road. This morning I watched a complete idiot pass on the shoulder at 80+mph with his expedition XL because he did not want to wait for the traffic back up. the number of bend over reflector posts behind him made me grin wide knowing that his precious canyonero is now demolished in the front.

Re:ethics of experiments involving humans

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Amen! I can't count the number of times I've had with drivers (whilst on my motorcycle) texting or yapping.

Re:ethics of experiments involving humans

[GooberToo]

Normally these types of tests actually do have drivers in the driver's seat in case they need to take control. Lots of Google's tests have done as such. Just because there is a driver at the ready doesn't mean the vehicle was driven by a human. Being robotic and driver-less in no way needs to require increased danger to the public.

Re:ethics of experiments involving humans

[black soap]

Because their automated train system works so well?

Re:ethics of experiments involving humans

[black soap]

Would you give up your control of the motorcycle, in exchange for everyone else doing the same?

Re:ethics of experiments involving humans

[jellomizer]

The car safely arrived at its destination. In other news dissidence have seem to have been in some sort of hit in run by a car speeding at 286kmh.

Back in AI Class when I was in college we discuses the AI for driving on a highway we noted on a good stretch we could drive a car with some simple AI... Heck you can get fairly good if you just put a brick on the petal.

Then they asked how about having you car to drive in New York City... We came up with an algorithm that works just as well as the average human... Put a brick on the petal...

For some reasons American these past couple of generations have been playing it safe, In my opinion too safe, we are loosing a lot innovation to other countries because new innovative ideas are tossed out because there is some odd chance that something dangerous will happen. Other countries for years earlier had cars that can parallel park on their own, they didn't go to the US Market because of the Law Suits that could happen if a kid or a pet was in the sensors blind spots. (which would probably be a humans blind spot). Yes Human lives are valuable and should give due diligence towards keeping them safe, however it has gone too far in many cases (I know if I loss a loved one due to a safety accident I wouldn't care that it is for the greater good) it is preventing the improvement of technology for humans,

Re:ethics of experiments involving humans

[jellomizer]

Actaully Early power steering was much different then it is today's. I had the opportunity to drive my Dads 1968 Caddi. Its power steering was a full power steering so you had no feeling of the road or resistance when you turn the wheel, It was like driving a video game steering wheel. It was later replaced with the partial power steering we have today because it was safer when people could feel and respond to the road.

Re:ethics of experiments involving humans

[gorzek]

A key factor in reaction times is also whether or not the human driver has encountered a particular driving situation before. Do most people know how to properly recover from a loss of traction and avoid an accident? I would suspect not.

One of the positive aspects I can see with driverless cars is that they would have far more information on hand to make a good decision in a split second. They would know exactly how fast each tire is rotating, be able to judge immediately if any tires are losing or have lost grip, sense not just the car right in front of you but all vehicles and roadways surrounding you, and decide instantly the best way to avoid an accident or result in the least-harmful accident possible.

Essentially, people learn by doing and often by making mistakes. In driving, that sort of "learning" can get people hurt or killed, as it's difficult to train people on those rare situations where an instantaneous, instinctive judgment must be made and applied in order to avert disaster. Over time, driverless cars could actually get smarter as they encounter more and more situations and learn to make the right decisions--and share that knowledge across all such vehicles, a distinct advantage over the status quo.

Personally, I would love to be able to sit back and read a book while my car drives me to work.

Trains

[Penguinshit]

Apparently they already have driverless high-speed trains.

Re:Trains

[MaroonMotor]

Fuck Everything, India is doing carless drivers! Now we'll see who are the chumps with their dick in their hands!

Re:Trains

[Twinbee]

Yes, it was just a matter of time before people could realize it would take only a few simple lines of code to emulate the stop/start lever ;)

Catches up? Yeah right...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty well known that China has been sending spies disguised as academic scholars/PhD students to appropriate information on research projects conducted in the US (professors in my school had been questioned by the FBI and were advised to be careful of these disguised "students"). I wouldn't be surprised if some of the technologies used were stolen from research projects conducted in the US.

They catch up all right, whether by their own effort, I don't know.

Re:Catches up? Yeah right...

[hansraj]

You are an idiot. Any research available to a chinese scholar (any non-citizen for that matter) would be publicly - or for a small fee - available to anyone. It is not called stealing; that's how research is done.

Re:Catches up? Yeah right...

[Anonymous Coward]

Work in progress is available to anyone? Guess I oughta drop by Livermore Labs sometime soon...

Re:Catches up? Yeah right...

[Sir_Sri]

In many cases yes, it is. If you request it. Depends on the research, your relationship with the researcher and so on.

There are probably 40-50 graduate students from Chicom where I am, (In ontario Canada) and we have about 120 grad students... Just in computer science. Google can take the best and brightest all it wants, it doesn't get them all, a lot of them are chinese and will work on similar projects from the same starting points.

Building a driverless car is not a radical departure or great leap in technology from all of its constituent parts. Integrating that all together is of course a challenge, but there's been a lot of public research on the topic, it's just a matter of being the right persons student.

Of course chinese researchers in china don't have worry the same way google does about liability. What we don't know is how many driverless cars crashed and killed people in china. One google vehicle gets in one fender bender and it makes the front page of /. In some ways their way is going to probably be faster, real world data and all that. But well... causing accidents and the liability associated with is bad.

Re:Catches up? Yeah right...

[i_b_don]

LOL.... I got my masters in engineering from USC about 10 years back... I looked around the room and typically I was the only blond person there. I'd estimate that 75% of the people were of asian decent (Indian, and various asian countries). They're not coming to steal the research, they're coming to do the research!

d

Re:Catches up? Yeah right...

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

It's pretty well known that China has been sending spies disguised as academic scholars/PhD students to appropriate information on research projects conducted in the US

That's just regular academic behaviour. The whole point of sending students to study abroad is so that the student picks up skill and techniques which can brought back home with them. It also promotes the exchange of ideas. This is how academia works.

As for the spies, most of those just bribe western company executives to get what they want.

probably more of a social/political problem

[Trepidity]

Automatically driving a car isn't easy per se, but it's not anywhere near the hardest AI problems we have. In particular, if we were to take a realistic bar for safety--- beating the average human driver--- the bar is actually pretty low, because the average safety record of human drivers is pretty shitty. A robot driver could just not speed and drive relatively defensively, and that alone would give it a big built-in accident-rate advantage, even if its raw skill was worse than a typical human driver.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[microcentillion]

Even if its raw skill was worse than a typical human driver.

It's worth noting that the 'typical human driver' has no measurable 'raw skill'. However, an AI system would have no emotions (in theory), and therefor would have no minuses to it's driving saving-throws.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[danlip]

Even if the robot car is 100 times less likely to be in an accident, the first time someone gets hurt by one there will be a huge outcry and a lawsuit.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Anonymous Coward]

And when they grab you with those metal claws, you can't break free.. because they're made of metal, and robots are strong.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Riceballsan]

On top of emotions, a lack of almost every other weakness of humans, in addition to emotions that vary our abilities widely, our skill also varies greatly on sleep, food, blood alcohol level, drugs, who's in the car. I'd have to say it is a miracle we make it to work every day.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[LordLimecat]

In particular, if we were to take a realistic bar for safety--- beating the average human driver--- the bar is actually pretty low,

You are approaching an intersection with a stopsign, and arrive at the same time as someone to your left. By the law, you have the right of way. However, the person to your left has started drifting forward.

Will the computer system catch that? Or what about when someone is attempting to merge and has indicated by glancing your way?

Its not as easy as youre making it, either, there are a lot of cues on the road that need to be followed so long as other falliable humans are on the road. A good deal of safe driving is anticipating other's actions when they are driving in an unsafe manner-- for instance, car in front of you is following far too closely, and it is misting-- you may want to start tapping your brakes so that when he suddenly stops due to collision you dont cause a pileup.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Dishevel]

The fact that large numbers of people are self-centered, greedy, and stupid is no reason to stop the progression of technology.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, in the rest of the world, they'd do the proper forensics a few investigations and impose new standards for the manufacturers. Twenty years later they'd be adopted by the US as well.

If driverless cars succeed, then does that mean speed limits will be completely removed?

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[geekoid]

Or driving isn't as hard as MADD would like you to believe.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[geekoid]

Why? It won't be any different then any other accident. How is this different then say, brake failure?

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[DigiShaman]

Speaking of a social and political problem, AI assisted and/or taxied driving won't become mainstream. Not because of technology, but because of liability. So tell me, when one of these units is involved in the death of a fellow motorist or pedestrian, who's to blame? Who do you think the lawyers are going to go after? The group that has the most money, that's who.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[geekoid]

Those problems have been solved, do try to keep up.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Anonymous Coward]

A robot driver could just not speed

It's a myth that speeding causes more wrecks. I won't argue over the fatality rates. But speed itself is not a factor in the multitude of wrecks. People wreck all the time at slow speeds. Wrecks are mostly a matter of not paying attention.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Anonymous Coward]

My exwife was a poor driver. More than half the time she was involved in an accident the insurance company handed the other drive a check for "medical". Often these accidents only scratched the paint and didn't even bend the metal. However, there was never a lawsuit. The insurance companies just ignored obvious fraud, because it was cheaper than fighting it. It always will be. It doesn't matter how many valid lawsuits against doctors and big corporations you stop.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[cheater512]

Yes the robot car could catch someone moving when they shouldn't be.

And in Google's implementation, the car knows what a merging lane is and where it is so it could very easily allow in another car as it would be expecting it.

Now if robot cars become the norm it gets easier still. The computers can just talk to each other to say 'can I merge?'

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[CrimsonAvenger]

if we were to take a realistic bar for safety--- beating the average human driver--- the bar is actually pretty low, because the average safety record of human drivers is pretty shitty.

Per mile driven, just what is the safety record of your average human driver in the USA?

Based on a quickie check of the statistics, looks like 0.08 accidents per driver per year, on average. Or 0.00025 fatal accidents per driver per year.

Doesn't look like human drivers are really that bad, when they drive most every day, and average 12 years between accidents....

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[hedwards]

I'm guessing that this is going to be like when Toyota was having problems with unexplained acceleration a while back. The matter took on a life of its own due to incompetence on Toyota's part in how they handled the programming.

They did ultimately get a clean bill of health on that aspect of it, but I don't think the problem was ever really solved. Which is different from break failure which is fundamentally a much easier to investigate problem.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[hedwards]

This is one of the bigger limitations with human drivers. We can't simultaneously be looking where we're going and looking to see that we can safely change lanes. We have to settle for looking back and forth, which also gives momentary stretches where we aren't looking in either direction.

A robotic driver could be looking in both directions and as you suggest actually asking for permission. Presumably, that would allow the other drivers the chance to adjust slightly to allow for a safer lane change. Which theoretically wouldn't be a problem with human drivers, but folks don't seem to understand what direction signals are for.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[hedwards]

There are tens of thousands of road related fatalities in the US every year and often times the number is similar to the total number of American servicemen that died during the Vietnam conflict. I'd say there's plenty of room for improvement.

What's worse is that those are deaths that didn't need to happen, rarely if ever are those deaths that genuinely couldn't be avoided. They tend to be things like drinking, distraction, falling asleep behind the wheel, running a red light etc.

So, I'd have to say that it's way too soon to suggest that robots couldn't do better or that it's not a worthwhile avenue to research. 40k in a good year is still 40k to many fatalities.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[ColdWetDog]

Or driving isn't as hard as MADD would like you to believe.

WARNING! DANGER!

Rationalization in progress.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[LordLimecat]

Yes the robot car could catch someone moving when they shouldn't be.

How does it determine whether the other person is looking at you, waiting for you to go, with his foot off of the brake, or actually preparing to move before you?

Im not saying these are unsolveables, but theyre a heck of a lot more complicated than gp was pretending. There are all sorts of cues that we pick up on that a computer would need to understand.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Macrat]

Why? It won't be any different then any other accident. How is this different then say, brake failure?

It makes a better headline on Faux News.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[RicktheBrick]

The freeway itself should be able to know where every automobile is located on the freeway. Every car should have a Wi-Fi system so that it can broadcast its speed and location to every car within a half of a mile of its location. Every car would be on cruise control so that if the car was in a particular lane its speed would be a certain speed in order to maintain a safe separation distance. Turning on one's turn signal would control the speed of the cars in the desired lane so that one could safely get in their desired lane. If there were a sudden occurrence of fog or ice than everyone would receive instructions on their speed to safely decrease everyone's speed. Every car should have a gps system and programmed for its desired destination so that when it must change lanes to exit every car around it would be notified and could respond to its need.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[0123456]

Oh boy, think of the hours of fun that hackers could have with that system.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[similar_name]

The fact that large numbers of people are self-centered, greedy, and stupid is no reason to stop the progression of technology.

I agree but it does tend to slow things down. Oh well, at least nothing has stopped the progression of technology so far.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[similar_name]

Seems like the problems in the examples you give are based on humans being bad drivers and are the cause of accidents now. The last example you give also depends on the computer acting like a person in the first place. A computer would always assume the car in front could stop at any time and thus will always follow at a safe distance. There's no need to pump the brakes (slow down) because unlike a person, the computer won't be following too close to begin with.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it you haven't seen the documentary Demolition Man.

I'm sure that if assisted driving systems perform above that of normal drivers in non-extreme circumstances, insurance companies would be willing to give out a discount for such systems. Even if there is no discount, I'd be willing to use an automatic driving system for my 30+ minute drives (often) so that I could study, eat breakfast, nap, yoga practice, etc. A system would free up to about 1.5 - 2 hours a day that I could use doing more important activities.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Pyrion]

If we were to take a realistic bar for safety, China's bar is pretty much nonexistent - their driving laws amount to "first is right," meaning whoever is first in line has the right of way, period. Meaning they don't stop for anyone. A robot driver in China needs only to keep moving and not hit anyone, and it's as good as everything else on the road.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Pentium100]

Since you get more injured if you were going faster before the crash, the robot driver would still have to go at a safe speed. Even it you are paying attention you can crash - something in thecar breaks and makes it uncontrollable, someone else hits you etc.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Because some slacker programmer didn't take into account all possible cases in an IF statement?

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[mysidia]

, the first time someone gets hurt by one there will be a huge outcry and a lawsuit.

There will be an outcry, until the video footage recorded in the robot car's black box shows that a human involved caused the accident, not the machine.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[mysidia]

Now if robot cars become the norm it gets easier still. The computers can just talk to each other to say 'can I merge?'

If robot cars become the norm, we can get rid of 'traffic lights', stop signs, etc, and use a network protocol to determine which cars get to enter the intersection in which order, in order to optimize the aggregate cars-per-second rate of the road system.

Speed limits can also be determined by a safety algorithm, and we won't need traffic cops anymore, which will save government a lot of money on road equipment, and free up police officers to investigate real crimes, like expired break tags.

With "parking rule data" stored in cars' memory banks, we can even eliminate parking enforcement officers; since cars will simply refuse to park in any properly designated no-parking area; and they'll automatically submit paid parking meter fees, so municipalities can have their meter maids doing something more useful like going around washing the cars whose owner pushed the "yes" button to please wash my car, when they were parking....

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Jeremi]

How does it determine whether the other person is looking at you, waiting for you to go, with his foot off of the brake, or actually preparing to move before you?

I don't think it can -- we're a long way from a computer being able to read a driver's intentions from looking at his (distant) face behind a window.

On the other hand, I don't think it really has to. As long as its reaction times are quick enough that it can stop itself before the human's car and the automatic car collide, that will probably be sufficient to avoid accidents. (if perhaps not sufficient to avoid getting the finger from the human)

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Lumpy]

"It's worth noting that the 'typical human driver' has no measurable 'skill'. "

you must see the drivers I see as well. You driving I-94 from Detroit to Chicago daily as well?

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Jeremi]

If robot cars become the norm, we can get rid of 'traffic lights', stop signs, etc, and use a network protocol to determine which cars get to enter the intersection in which order, in order to optimize the aggregate cars-per-second rate of the road system.

You won't be able to get rid of traffic lights (etc) until all manually-driven cars have been banned from public streets. Which will happen sometime between "when your great grandchildren are old", and "never".

And even then, there would still be pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles, etc, to worry about. So I think traffic lights won't be going away anytime soon.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Lumpy]

Actually a lot of people are doing this as well. I bought a video black box for my car. It's a smallish radar detector like device that mounts behind my mirror. when I hit the brakes or if an impact is registered it write protects that file and the next recordings until it fills the device.. I have lots of entertaining video clips of idiot moves I have seen on my commute.

search amazon.com for accident recorder. better ones are 720P HD and will use MicroSDHC cards to record about 8 hours worth of video before the circular overwrite starts.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Lumpy]

In Detroit Directional signals are a sign of weakness... If you use it you will cause someone to FLOOR IT and close the spot you were looking at.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[danlip]

The answer to that question is not rational, it has to do with how human beings react to things they don't really understand. Robots and AI definitely fall into that category, and seem particularly scary to many people.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[mysidia]

And even then, there would still be pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles, etc, to worry about. So I think traffic lights won't be going away anytime soon.

Motorcycles will be robotic too. Bicycle riders will be required to be equipped with an electronic interface to the vehicle network. Their bike will identify them to the other vehicles as a rider and tell them when they can stop/go; or they just won't be allowed on the road.

Lack of traffic lights does not preclude the concept of walk/no walk signs for pedestrians. Pedestrians crossing roads may be required to pay a tax/fee to a machine at the crosswalk in order to compensate for the locality's expenses involved in providing human readable signals.

You won't be able to get rid of traffic lights (etc) until all manually-driven cars have been banned from public streets. Which will happen sometime between "when your great grandchildren are old", and "never".

As soon as it's shown that all the accidents occuring involve human drivers; government will identify it as a safety feature, and require all new cars be fully robotic within some number of years.

Soon after all new cars are robotic, human drivers will get banned altogether. The DMVs will simply stop issuing drivers licenses, except under special cases, and only issue "robotic vehicle user's permits" to the rest of the population.

Eventually the special exceptions will be phased out, and all legal drivers will be robotic. 'Manual' cars will no longer be road legal.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Without reading the article, and having little knowledge about google's car... this is what I guess:
1. The lasers are used to determine speed and distance between the car and the front/back. The only danger here is the laser being too high powered and starts ripping the retina's of humans nearby. Even invisible lasers are dangerous. They could probably just as easily use a doppler sonar approach which determines how close it is to other cars nearby by the amount of road noise of the car makes subtracted from the ambient noise outside. Even "silent" cars make road noise.
2. Uses a purely camera approach, which would let it work in day and night. We've seen this already it's called Kinect and "Sony see-through cam", pair one color camera with one high resolution camera that is always in night-vision infrared filtered mode at each end of the car where there would normally be a mirror (eg drivers-side forward, drivers-side reverse, passenger-side forward,passenger-side reverse, bumper-forward and bumper-rear. (so all blind spots are covered. The bumper level cameras are for colission prevention and speed pacing.

The main problem as other readers likely already pointed out is that a self-driving car, if you can figure out the AI, even pairing it with GPS and accelometers still needs human interaction to safely deal with HUMAN drivers.

Take a few situations that an AI can't deal with:
1. Bad GPS instructions - The car won't pull over and ask directions.
2. Road ragers - The car won't know to back off when some jerkhole slams on the brakes.
3. Pileups and accidents - The car can't compensate for weather, and hazards like trees and bridges being out. It might be able to stop short if it sees these, but it'll still be stuck.
4. 911 - An AI driven car won't call 911, nor will it call 911 for someone it just got in an accident with, or help someone who just got into an accident. We do know that OnStar can do this, so if the car is required to have LTE/UMTS/GPRS ability it could call 911, but won't be much help without a human driver to describe the situation.
5. Human congestion - Bikes, pedestrians, protests, riots.

Most of these are few and far between, however you still have everyday stuff:
1. Parking garages - if you have a parking pass, it -might- let you through, but if it doesn't, the car is just going to sit there.
2. Parking lots - The car won't automatically pay for you
3. Toll bridges and border crossings - Like the parking garage, if you have a transponder will do it automatically, but it's the "arm down" that the car might not be able to deal with if the human driver causes a situation.

As for China... please do make an automated car, I'll certainly buy one once the safety level is better than a manually driven car. *not being sarcastic*

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Jeremi]

As soon as it's shown that all the accidents occuring involve human drivers; government will identify it as a safety feature, and require all new cars be fully robotic within some number of years.

Dunno what country you're in, but here in the USA I can just imagine how the "Tea Party" types (or their intellectual descendants) would react to that proposal. Good luck! :^D

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[mysidia]

I didn't see the tea party types react much to the NHTSA folks planning to mandate backup cameras for 2014. :-)

I don't know that the tea party will necessarily be that influential by the time robotic cars start coming around anyways. A lot can happen in 5 years

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution was noticing that all the claimants were over the age of 60.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[crutchy]

They will probably have a "human" mode that with variable settings for drunkenness, road rage, distraction and rule ignorance. There might also be switches for doing makeup, eating, yelling at kids and getting a blowjob while driving. It might take some tricky programming, but it may be possible to make a robot driver as stupid as your average human driver. I know I would feel so much safer on the road if there were no humans driving, except if the robots were powered by Windows Vista; then I would be scared shitless because I can't even imagine how crazy the conficker virus would drive.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[dudpixel]

I have to wonder if the experiments would be more difficult if there were MORE robot-driven cars.

If a human sees a car driving unusually, they will keep clear of it. This may artificially skew the safety results.

Also, robot-controlled cars are probably designed to navigate in a world of human-controlled cars. Are they equally as good at navigating around other of the same type of robot-controlled cars?

I'm sure they've thought of this, but my brain is telling me there are very different challenges in this case.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Compaqt]

Does it also work on country roads? Or just well-maintained city roads with freshly painted markings?

Or maybe you don't need a robot driver on a country road.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Archangel Michael]

You must be new here. Welcome to Earth!

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[FhnuZoag]

Why can't they use the model in the airline industry, where autopilots are commonplace? Require that there is always a driver to supervise the AI, and so whenever the car crashes, it would be the responsibility of the supervising driver.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It was not a software flaw, but a problem with the floor-mats and the accelerators.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in China ;-)

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[cowboy76Spain]

He is from the USA.

The idea that pedestrians should pay extra to be allowed to walk without being run over may only came from there.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of a social and political problem, AI assisted and/or taxied driving won't become mainstream. Not because of technology, but because of liability. So tell me, when one of these units is involved in the death of a fellow motorist or pedestrian, who's to blame? Who do you think the lawyers are going to go after? The group that has the most money, that's who.

OK, so driverless cars might not take of in the US.
Those of us who live in the rest of the world will welcome them with open arms.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Hado]

This seems to me a very American view of society. Your conclusion would perhaps be correct if the American way would be they only (or only feasible) way. In other countries, lawyers and money can typically buy you much less than in the US.

Now imagine what happens when someone else, e.g. China, starts manufacturing these cars. Imagine what happens when they are used there in large quantities. Imagine what happens when the US press catches wind of the extremely reduced number of accidents in countries that allow these AI cars.

Alternatively, it is not hard to write a law that assigns the liability unambiguously to the person using the car. Then, would you - as a consumer - use an AI taxi cab, if you where possibly liable for any malfunction? Perhaps you'd be urged to say you rather wouldn't. But what if you had the choice between a human driver - with an expected chance of death-by-accident of say 0.001% - and a robot driver - with an expected chance of death-by-accident of say 0.000001% and an expected chance of liability due to a non-lethal accident caused by the robot of say 0.0001%. Which would you choose?

I'm not saying such a law would or should be passed. I just don't share your conclusion that the question of liability will prevent these AI solution from reaching the general public.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[zippthorne]

Up here in the NE, people seem to think the turn signal means, "speed up and close the gap to block you out" So, the only rational approach is to wait until the last moment before executing a lane change maneuver before activating it.

Which has obvious safety implications (especially when it's the lane to you're right, because you're getting ready to take an exit. Or one of our infamous "left exits" always conveniently placed across four lanes of traffic, 200 ft down-range of the ramp you got ON in the first place..), but apparently we're not very good at game theory up here....

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Anonymus]

Humans should have to PAY for delaying a robot, in order to cross a street? Are you out of your mind?

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Anonymus]

On the other hand, if we ever got to the mythical "human drivers are banned and all cars are networked and computer-controlled", it would still be a hundred times safer to drive at 130mph than a human driving is right now.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Pentium100]

Well, assuming the software is perfect and is not similar to the modern software that is full of bugs, needs to be updated once a month or more frequently and still does not work as expected. Oh, and if the cars are networked, I really hope that the network is more secure than the one Sony has and cannot be hacked at all.

In my experience, currently, people can do hardware quite well, but software sucks. Hardware wears out over time, software shouldn't, but I have to update it quite often (and should stop using it when the version no longer receives support and updates), while I do not have to replace the hardware that often and can use hardware that is way past the warranty period.

However, I doubt that human drivers will be banned (human pilots are not banned and planes had autopilot before cars). The reason is that the process of replacing humans with AI will not happen overnight it will be gradual (people buying robot cars for convenience when their current car breaks and is uneconomical to repair), so the robots would have to be able to coexist with human drivers to be allowed on the road. If that's the case, then there would be no pressing need to ban human drivers.

As for your 210km/h - well, maybe it would be safer than now, but it would still be even more safe at lower speeds (since the result of, say, a brake failure would be pretty much the same).

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Defensive drivers can, and often do, cause wrecks. Driving slow in the left lane, speeding up in a two lane so people cant pass you, leaving your blinker on for half a mile, slamming your breaks randomly around a turn, etc etc.

I don't drive but I've noticed some of the more aggressive drivers tend to be a bit better at driving than conservative ones. Defensive drivers tend to be defensive *because* they're inherently poor drivers, and driving defensively lets them compensate for this. I'm sure most realize this on one level or another, even if they wont admit it.

Granted there's a difference between "aggressive" drivers who drive 5 miles per hour over the speed limit and red necks who try to run you off the road. The latter I'd put into a separate category.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[AK Marc]

From Who? MADD is pushing for drinking limits so low that having a radio in the car is less safe than being "drunk." MADD is just plain mad. They should do what the disease organizations do when they "win" against their disease and find something else, tiredness, cellphones, etc. and not focus on their tyrannical anti-drinking campaign that is unrelated to safety, but instead a neo-Prohibition movement.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[AK Marc]

With a driverless car, there is no "expecting it." When talking humans, the expecting it part cuts down on processing and reaction time (2-10 seconds depending on who you ask). Computers do not need that extra time. They do all the processing and reaction so quickly it can only be measured by another computer. You can't startle a computer.

Now if robot cars become the norm it gets easier still. The computers can just talk to each other to say 'can I merge?'

A meshed system would be best, but you could come up with an IR system with handshake and communication that people wouldn't even see that wouldn't have some of the security and monitoring problems that a full-mesh may have (but the full mesh system would be orders of magnitude more efficient).

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[AK Marc]

I've ridden with human drivers. No matter how limited and "stupid" it was, it couldn't be worse than people. For one, if the other car were a computer, it wouldn't be moving, solving the problem for everyone. For another, How do other humans deal with people that do what someone I rode with once (and only rode with her once) was, and that was she''d stop at every stop sign, then go. "If they had the right of way, they should have already gone." Technically correct, but with difficulties in practical implementation. Once someone with the right of way yields to you (by not already being in the intersection in her mind), then legally you do have the right-of way. Right of way is a statement of who must yield, not who must (or can't) go at any particular time. If you yield and they yield back, then you may legally go, even if the law says you don't have the right of way. She took that to mean that she came to a complete stop then, the next time the intersection was clear, went through. She never sat at a stop sign more than 2 seconds.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[AK Marc]

Statistically you are safest at about 15 mph over the limit and least safe at about 15 mph under the limit. Slow increases the chances that someone else will hit you. Common sense says, "the more energy the more damage" but reality indicates that the faster you are going, the less likely you are to be in the crash in the first place. Age is a much better predictor of injury severity than speed (old people die, even in slow crashes, they have paper mache for bones) And age is also a better predictor of crashing. Once you've driven over 5 years, old people crash much more often than anyone else. They are weak, slow, and have failing minds and bodies. Safety would be banning all people over 50 from driving. That would greatly increase safety for all.

Common sense has little to do with driving safety. Many things you'd think should be the case aren't, mostly because drivers are so darned stupid and unpredictable.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[AK Marc]

The good thing about IR cameras is that you can have high powered IR floodlights around the car and get good visibility in day or night. And, unless somone one is looking through a videocamera in night vision, they'd never see it.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[Pentium100]

My grandfather rarely crashed ecause he drove carefully, even when he was 81.

Google says: 15 mph = 24.14016 km/h

Going 24 km/h over the limit would get you a fine (up to about 87EUR). You are also more likely to crash because now everybody else is going at least 24 km/h slower. OTOH, driving 24km/h slower can be better or worse depending where you are. In a city, going 26m/h instead of the allowed 50 would probably be bad as you would be creating traffic jams, especially on single lane streets. On a two lane highway, going 76 or 106 instead of the allowed 100 or 130 would most likely be OK, since everyone else can easily pass you.

reality indicates that the faster you are going, the less likely you are to be in the crash in the first place.

For some reason most of the big crashes happen because the driver was drunk or was talking/texting on his cellphone without hands-free equipment or was going too fast and went out of control. Or some combination of the three.
If you drive faster than everyone else on the road you will have to pass them, this probably increases the probability of a crash, especially on single lane roads.

Re:probably more of a social/political problem

[AK Marc]

For some reason most of the big crashes happen because the driver was drunk or was talking/texting on his cellphone without hands-free equipment or was going too fast and went out of control. Or some combination of the three.

Speed magnifies the results of incompetence, but is, statistically, unrelated to the chances of crashing. Wishing speed to be a factor worked in the US. They've targeted speed like drinking. In the US, if a sober person is driving with a drunk person in the back seat asleep and stops at a red light and a person behind texting distracted with cruise control on at half the speed limit, the crash should (by us government guidelines) be listed as "speed related" and "alcohol related" (as if every car were at a dead stop, this wouldn't have happened, and there was someone in the car who was drunk). Short of this type of unethical statistical manipulation crafted to vilify a few specific traits the government wants to attack (rather than actually identifying risks and addressing them directly) and leads those who haven't done research into the topic to the incorrect conclusion that speed is "bad." Fatigue and inattention together kill many many more people than speeding and drinking do, but they are harder to test for and get convictions for and make money for the local government, so they stick to the speeding tax and DUI cash cows. Safety isn't even on the radar for the US governments.

Repercussions

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a lot less repercussions of a horrible crash in China than in the US. We're slow because we aren't willing to risk lives.

Re:Repercussions

[Macrat]

We're slow because we aren't willing to risk lives.

Nah. Lives are cheap and easily replaced.

The real issue is the compensation payouts that affect corporate profits.

Can it drive like some rich Chinese people?

[codeAlDente]

I've heard that in China, sometimes richer people drive cars while poorer people ride bicycles. If a car hits a bike rider, the bike rider can sue for damages. Thus, it can be advantageous, and it's allegedly common, for a car driver to accidentally hit a biker, back up, and run him over again to finish him off. I wonder if and when some company (maybe Google, maybe not) will have cars that do this.

Re:Can it drive like some rich Chinese people?

[siddesu]

Yes, it can, except in bad weather. When there is a thunderstorm, the robotic car is prone to rear-end other vehicles and then use its manipulators to bury the evidence.

Re:Can it drive like some rich Chinese people?

[MaWeiTao]

I've heard of this sort of thing happening in Taiwan, but specifically with truck drivers. For whatever reason they tend to be a seedy bunch and it's worse in China. My understanding is that the laws pertaining to this sort of thing have been changed. But it all could have been a myth or based on a single incident.

Re:Can it drive like some rich Chinese people?

[poity]

Yes, this is because death compensation is capped, whereas a lifetime's hospital fees are not.

Re:Can it drive like some rich Chinese people?

[poity]

Sorry, "capped" was imprecise. There's a standard for death compensation -- couple hundred thousand RMB -- and you can either accept it or not.

Re:Can it drive like some rich Chinese people?

[darkmeridian]

That's bullshit, and a common urban legend told about everyone. The main reason: the courts in China suck. Rich people get away with murder and everything else. There's an exception made if there's a tragedy that requires a scapegoat, such as poisoned milk killing a bunch of suckling infants. But generally, to a degree much more severe than our own, the Chinese court system is skewed to the rich.

Re:Can it drive like some rich Chinese people?

[FhnuZoag]

Do you have a source for this? It sounds a lot like an urban legend.

Re:Can it drive like some rich Chinese people?

[mathfeel]

I've heard that in China, sometimes richer people drive cars while poorer people ride bicycles. If a car hits a bike rider, the bike rider can sue for damages. Thus, it can be advantageous, and it's allegedly common, for a car driver to accidentally hit a biker, back up, and run him over again to finish him off. I wonder if and when some company (maybe Google, maybe not) will have cars that do this.

Or he gets out of the car and stabs you to death when he notices you eyeing his license plate: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/world/asia/08china.html

Re:Can it drive like some rich Chinese people?

[DominoCo]

I am from Hong Kong, and I confirm that this is not a urban legend. It happened several times for the last few years.

Re:Can it drive like some rich Chinese people?

[renzhi]

Not quite bullshit, and unfortunately, that's true. I have lived in Shanghai for 8 years now, and personally saw that. The problem is that, if the driver hits someone and the victim is dead, the driver only pays for a one-time indemnification. But if the victim is crippled, the driver would have to pay for his living cost, medical cost, etc, for the rest of the victim's life. It's less expensive to finish him off, you can get away as long as it is "not intentional".

Re:Can it drive like some rich Chinese people?

[FhnuZoag]

This feels kinda heavily anecdotal. It's not like things like that don't happen in other countries as well. http://www.cyclechat.net/topic/86407-us-driver-deliberately-hits-then-runs-over-cyclist-faces-no-charges/

Re:Can it drive like some rich Chinese people?

[Jeremi]

But if the victim is crippled, the driver would have to pay for his living cost, medical cost, etc, for the rest of the victim's life. It's less expensive to finish him off, you can get away as long as it is "not intentional".

This might make sense if the driver had only compensatory damage payments to worry about... but surely deliberate murder counts as a criminal (and I would imagine, capital) offense in China?

Re:Can it drive like some rich Chinese people?

[sco08y]

Not quite bullshit, and unfortunately, that's true. I have lived in Shanghai for 8 years now, and personally saw that.

Woah, you personally witnessed a driver deliberately back over someone he had hit in order to make sure they were dead?

Re:Can it drive like some rich Chinese people?

[mathfeel]

This feels kinda heavily anecdotal. It's not like things like that don't happen in other countries as well. http://www.cyclechat.net/topic/86407-us-driver-deliberately-hits-then-runs-over-cyclist-faces-no-charges/

I am not saying that it's not happening in other countries. But unfortunately there are so many incidents like this in Chinese news that new terms like "second generation rich" and "second generation official" has entered the Chinese lexicon.

I'm beginning to think

[93 Escort Wagon]

If Star Trek (TOS) was made in the current age rather than the 1960s, Pavel Chekov would've been Chinese rather than Russian.

Re:I'm beginning to think

[geekoid]

Incorrect. He would be mid-eastern.

Re:I'm beginning to think

[Kittenman]

So would Sulu. Oh, wait ....

Re:I'm beginning to think

[Anonymous Coward]

Pavel Chekov would've been Chinese rather than Russian.

Meh. Who cares, they're both Asian.

Re:I'm beginning to think

[Baloroth]

Sorry to nitpick, but Sulu was Japanese. Japanese != Chinese, despite what many people seem to think.

Re:I'm beginning to think

[Anonymous Coward]

Pardon me, I am looking for the nuclear wessels in ALALALALALALALameda.

Re:I'm beginning to think

[KingMotley]

That really made me LOL.

Useless slashdot title, once again

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot: "China Catches Up With Google's Driverless Car"

TFA: "However Google's car has logged 140,000 miles with only two minor accidents to its name and one of those was caused by a human driver. It will take some effort to match this performance."

Re:Useless slashdot title, once again

[Pyrion]

140,000 miles across China with only two minor accidents would mean the Chinese would basically have to shut down all cross-traffic that could possibly get in the way. Otherwise, statistically, there's just no way their robot car would avoid getting hit by cross-traffic thinking it has the right of way.

Remember, this is China we're talking about. They don't have sensible driving laws like we do in the West. They don't obey traffic lights or stop for anyone or anything - they assume they have right of way until the laws of physics get in the way.

Re:Useless slashdot title, once again

[maxwell demon]

But if they manage to build a car which doesn't cause accidents for 140,000 miles under those conditions, I guess you can say it's really safe.

Re:Useless slashdot title, once again

[Pyrion]

Under those conditions.

Why can't it drive at night?

[Anonymous Coward]

I turn up the gain on my Logitech web cam and I can see at night just fine with only the street light for illumination.

Re:Why can't it drive at night?

[FhnuZoag]

Daylight illumination is fairly uniform throughout. Streetlights are very spotty, with the same thing looking very different depending on whether it's directly under a streetlight or distant away from it. Hence figuring out things at night with just a camera is a comparatively more difficult computational problem.

Expressway?

[bluemonq]

Let me know when they get to handling pedestrians, traffic lights, cyclists, areas with different speed limits, yields, and turns in intersections.

Re:Expressway?

[SleazyRidr]

When we do let you know that they've done that, you'll complain that it's old news and that they were driving on expressways ages ago and this is just a small step in the technology and doesn't warrant a /. article.

Re:Expressway?

[Uhhhh oh ya!]

Stow your sarcasm, don't you realize this could mean I wouldn't have to volunteer to be designated driver ever again!

Suddenly I don't think people are giving Google enough support, if China's cars can't drive at night what good are they, I'm not gonna start getting hammered mid day cause that's the only time my car can take me home.

Re:Expressway?

[hedwards]

You don't have to now. Unless you live in a small town, chances are that there are people that are paid to provide such services. Around here we call them cab drivers.

Re:Expressway?

[Pyrion]

If a Chinese driverless car were to stop at a red light, it would get rear-ended almost immediately by the masses of Chinese that never obey traffic lights.

Re:Expressway?

[Jeremi]

Suddenly I don't think people are giving Google enough support, if China's cars can't drive at night what good are they,

Seems like there is an easy fix for the driving-at-night issue.... turn on the headlights?

Re:Expressway?

[bluemonq]

It'll be old news because Google's already done it, but at least that would mean they've caught up to Google, without using anything "but a pair of video cameras and laser rangefinders, i.e. no GPS".

its about the principle of the thing

[decora]

its experimental by its very nature. you dont experiment on people without their consent.

Re:its about the principle of the thing

[similar_name]

It's a stretch to call experimenting with driver-less cars on public roads experimenting on people. Any experiment that could affect the lives of others could fall under such a loose meaning. Does experimentation on viruses require the consent of everyone on the planet because they could possibly be affected if things go wrong? Should we have not ever attempted to launch anything into space without the unanimous consent of the planet? Do you think all drivers on the road should have to consent before allowing an experimental human driver (ie student driver) on the road?

I suppose as long as you announce that you are doing it ahead of time you could argue that people are giving consent by choosing to drive on that road or not. At any rate I would worry more about the hundreds/thousands of texting teens, drunken drivers and distracted drivers than one experimental robot. I also seriously doubt there wasn't testing before hand on closed roads or that there weren't any safety precautions. If nothing else safety precautions help protect investment in the vehicle itself.

Re:its about the principle of the thing

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Like learning drivers? Sorry but even if this is done poorly, its still gota be better than 30% of the other drivers out there.

Kilometers, come on.

[Anonymous Coward]

They couldn't use miles, they had to extend it by using a unit of measure that makes everyone think it's longer than it really is. We know the truth.

shady rat

[frinxor]

Shady Rat at work?

Just like Chinese bullet trains, no?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because it goes fast, doesn't mean it's caught up to anything. Have you seen the recent news about Chinese bullet trains?

I'm sure

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't care about the lives or safety of people, a whole lot more can be done quicker! Right on, China, thanks for showing us the way.

So did China's car crash too?

[billstewart]

Google's driverless car was just in the news for crashing into a Prius - I was assuming that this headline meant that China had a robot car that had done the same, but I guess this is /. and not Fark.

Besides, Google's car can also look up Sarah Connor when it's planning its route...

Re:So did China's car crash too?

[Macrat]

Google's driverless car was just in the news for crashing into a Prius

A human was driving the vehicle.

Re:So did China's car crash too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's driverless car was just in the news for crashing into a Prius

A human was driving the vehicle.

That's a cover story, insurance does not cover cars driven by no one and tickets can not be written to driverless car. Google sure as hell doesn't want to look embarrassed. No one takes out the driveless car to drive manually, that's like pushing your roomba robot vacuum cleaner around with a stick.

Automated driving on expressways

[Animats]

Automated expressway driving isn't that hard. If you have lane holding and radar cruise/braking control, both of which have been sold in production vehicles, that's almost enough. Quite a number of groups in both the US and Europe have done it. It's mostly a sensor problem.

The remaining hard problems in automated driving involve objects that aren't cars. Children, enemy troops, trash on the road, potholes, bicycles, low-hanging wires - stuff like that. That requires more situational awareness and object recognition, which is hard. None of this comes up much in expressway driving.

Re:Automated driving on expressways

[wvmarle]

Automated expressway driving isn't that hard.

You obviously have no experience with Chinese-style driving. At all.

Re:Automated driving on expressways

[Dahamma]

More than that, automated driving on an expressway (especially encountering only 67 cars in 3 1/2 hours!) is practically supported in cars that are already in production. Lexus has a reliable lane departure alert that could pretty easily be hooked up to the steering system, and a bunch of manufacturers have collision avoidance systems that activate brakes, as well as adaptive cruise control, etc...

Re:Automated driving on expressways

[FhnuZoag]

I don't think any of these do overtaking automatically though.

Re:Automated driving on expressways

[Dahamma]

Sure, but overtaking (from the trivial version that seemed to be described) is basically: "go that way, really fast. If something gets in your way - turn!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEHZJNQ5Y4A

Re:Automated driving on expressways

[FhnuZoag]

I don't know about your driving school, but I think you need a bit more judgement than that to overtake safely!

hello, kell bengal

[decora]

power steering: human is in control, power steering augments that control. if it fails, the human can still control the cars direction

cruise control: human is mostly in control. if cruise control fails, the human can still control the cars speed

if the anti-lock brakes fail, you just have normal brakes. the human can still stop.

if the fuel injection fails, the car rolls to a stop, as it would with most other kinds of show-stopping engine failure.

if the collision avoidance radar fails, nobody even notices.

in a robot car the human is not in control, the robot is. if it is going at 60 mph, that is 88 feet per second. if the robot malfunctions and jerks the car into the left lane, then the human can take over... but it takes a good portion of a second for the electrochemical message to get from the brain to the hands. in that time the car has have traveled a good portion of that 88 feet. maybe under the wheels of a tractor trailer, maybe into a bus full of nuns.

is the government watching over these robot experiments, to make sure they are done properly? maybe in the united states, but i can assure you that in China, scant attention has been payed to safety, and any whistleblowers have been put in prison (google Xiao Lianhai).

Re:hello, kell bengal

[Rakishi]

You're using the nice failure conditions on one side of the argument and the nasty ones on the other. That's not fair.

power steering: human is in control, power steering augments that control. if it fails, the human can still control the cars direction

Not if the failure locks the wheel in the wrong orientation. You hit a bus full on nuns in the other lane.

cruise control: human is mostly in control. if cruise control fails, the human can still control the cars speed

Not if the cruise controls locks up at full speed and does not turn off. You rear end a bus full of nuns.

if the anti-lock brakes fail, you just have normal brakes. the human can still stop.

Not if the brakes all lock shut and cause you to lose traction at highway speeds. You swerve into an oncoming bus full of nuns.

if the collision avoidance radar fails, nobody even notices.

Not if the failure is to trigger the brakes due to an "imminent collision." Bus full of nuns hits you form behind.

Re:hello, kell bengal

[demonlapin]

You don't really understand how cars work, do you? Power steering isn't steer-by-wire; it's just power assist. I've driven cars with broken power steering, and while it was hard to maneuver at slow speeds the difference wasn't really noticeable over 10 mph. If your cruise control locks in the on and maximum speed position, put the car in neutral and brake to a halt, just as you would if the throttle stuck in the fully open position. Antilock brakes prevent the pedal from staying down; they can't bring it down on their own. And if the bus full of nuns hits you from behind, it's because they were following too closely.

Re:hello, kell bengal

[mysidia]

Power steering isn't steer-by-wire; it's just power assist.

First of all... there ARE steer-by-wire systems. And they are in much more wide use than robotic cars, of course, but they are allowed on the road.

Also... I understand you've driven cars with inoperative power steering, in other words, you were using probably something close to manual steering with total or near total failure of the power assist systems, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all failures of the power steering system have the same outcome or failure mode... what happens when the power steering breaks in a way other than just causing the assist to go away.... what about failure modes of the power steering system that cause the power steering to be apply the hydraulic force TOWARDS one direction, when you are actually trying to steer in the opposite direction, because the servo mechanism has failed, but the power steering pump is still fully operational?

Re:hello, kell bengal

[Lumpy]

"if the anti-lock brakes fail, you just have normal brakes. the human can still stop."

you have never driven a car with anti lock brakes.

When they do fail and it happens a LOT in specific conditions you do NOT get "normal brakes" you get "OH SHIT NO BRAKES!"

there are two hills near where I work. BOTH if you approach the stoplight fast and hit the brakes kind of hard on dry pavement, the following will happen.

you start braking at a medium level nowhere near Anti lock trip point. and then you hit the washboard bumps that the city refuses to fix. this trips the antilock and disables the brakes because it keeps seeing the tires start to skid.

there is at least 4 rear-end accidents there a week due to this problem. when anti lock fails, you have NO brakes.

Re:hello, kell bengal

[Rakishi]

I've driven cars with broken power steering, and while it was hard to maneuver at slow speeds the difference wasn't really noticeable over 10 mph.

You are assuming all failure modes are the same. The AI car is also designed to fail gracefully as much as possible, yet you cite failures in that. So I cite ungraceful failures in your examples.

If your cruise control locks in the on and maximum speed position, put the car in neutral and brake to a halt, just as you would if the throttle stuck in the fully open position.

Which takes time and in many cases may very well lead to an accident. Guy in front is braking due to traffic? Ooops, crash time.

Stop being a pouty little child and admit when you are wrong instead of trying to dismis problems that are as severe as the ones you tried to cite just because they show you to have been wrong.

Also, in modern cars the electronics can, theoretically, override pretty much everything else so it is, theoretically, possible for the car to not stop. Yet by your own admission you have no problem with them testing those electronics and devices, in non-production quality, on the road.

Antilock brakes prevent the pedal from staying down; they can't bring it down on their own.

Modern variants can automatically apply the brakes. Furthermore, anti-lock brakes don't do anything to the pedal but rather control the pressure to individual brakes. That means a full failure of anti-lock brakes could mean no brakes if it locks in the "no pressure to any wheels" position. Quiet a problem if it happens at the wrong moment.

And if the bus full of nuns hits you from behind, it's because they were following too closely.

And your fault for coming to an abrupt stop for no reason. Welcome to life, things aren't black and white, enjoy your stay.

Re:hello, kell bengal

[Grishnakh]

You really don't know how cars work.

You are assuming all failure modes are the same.

No, the typical failure modes for power steering all involve a loss of assist, not too much of it.

Which takes time and in many cases may very well lead to an accident.

Wrong. If the cruise control floors the accelerator, you just hit the brakes. That shouldn't take you more than 1 second. The brakes on any decent car are far, far more powerful than the engine. After you've done that, you turn off the ignition or shift into neutral (or both).

Stop being a pouty little child and admit when you are wrong

You're the one who doesn't understand auto mechanics.

Also, in modern cars the electronics can, theoretically, override pretty much everything else so it is, theoretically, possible for the car to not stop.

Again, you show that you have absolutely no idea how cars work.

That means a full failure of anti-lock brakes could mean no brakes

I challenge you to find any incident of that happening anywhere. Furthermore, that's why cars have emergency brakes.

And your fault for coming to an abrupt stop for no reason.

Now you've proven you don't know road laws. In most jurisdictions, if you hit someone from behind, it's your fault, no matter what. If you can't avoid hitting someone who comes to a complete halt in the road, then you were following too closely. There are no exceptions. It doesn't matter if the lead car stopped because of a brake failure (which has probably never happened in history on a production car), or because they're trying to avoid hitting a moose crossing the road, it's the following car's responsibility to leave enough following distance to stop at any time.

Re:hello, kell bengal

[demonlapin]

You're trolling on the first few, so whatevs. However:

And your fault for coming to an abrupt stop for no reason. Welcome to life, things aren't black and white, enjoy your stay.

Actually, in the US, if you hit the rear of the car in front of you, you are at fault. Period. It is, legally, black-and-white. No gray.

Re:hello, kell bengal

[DarwinSurvivor]

There are actually a couple of exceptions, but they are VERY narrow.
A) Being cut off (fast lane change and simultaneous brake), usually takes some fighting to win that one
B) Baking into someone. had this happen to a family member (person put their car in reverse at a stop sign by accident), it's a bitch to prove without witnesses...

Re:hello, kell bengal

[DarwinSurvivor]

Really? I've driven cars where the anti-lock was completely busted and other than the little light on the dashboard you would swear it just had regular brakes.
Even if your POWER brakes (which almost all cars since 1970 have) die, you still have brakes, you just have to push REALLY hard.

Now if you were out of brake fluid (or had the master cylinder go), the yes, you would potentially have no brakes. But that really has nothing to do with "anti-lock".

Re:hello, kell bengal

[Q-Hack!]

Its funny that everybody is picking apart all your comments except the last one...

is the government watching over these robot experiments, to make sure they are done properly? maybe in the united states, but i can assure you that in China, scant attention has been payed to safety, and any whistleblowers have been put in prison (google Xiao Lianhai).

Why on earth would I want the Government to be watching every aspect of this? There are safety standards by which companies must follow to ensure the public safety. If there is a reason for suspicion of failure to meat those standards, then sure, they should investigate, otherwise keep out of businesses way and let them create. These companies know that if they cause a major accident on public roads, that they are liable. OMG! Think of the children.

Re:hello, kell bengal

[Anonymous Coward]

He may not know how cars work, but you don't appear know how safety-minded robots work. Google [model verification of control systems] for a taste of the kind of building blocks you can use. You layer the controllers so that at no level does it allow something that will break the systems below it. One of the lower layers will prevent it from flipping the car at speed by doing something dumb with the steering wheel.

Of course, this isn't something that robotics folks invented, its just something they borrow from model verification and control systems folks. IOW, the ones who designed things like power steering controllers, ABS brakes, and the other things you cite as failing gracefully.

It's true that higher layers can fail, such as perception, but then we're not comparing to car engineering to the robot, but humans and robots. Since we can't do model verification on humans, nor can we enumerate all possible inputs to a perception system, so the best we can evaluate is statistics. Robot cars are not as good as the best drivers, but at this point they are probably better than a 15 year old who just got his permit. If we let every permit holder drive in order to improve, it seems reasonable to let a few robot cars run so that all of them can improve.

Re:hello, kell bengal

[umghhh]

I think you have missed quite a few important details especially in bus full of nuns case i.e. body sizes, the way they were (un)dressed and what playthings they were using at the time (and in whith whom) - what is the title of the movie by the way?

Re:hello, kell bengal

[Lumpy]

Again, you are showing how you not only do not know what anti lock brakes are but have not driven one in a failed state.

Anti lock brakes RELEASE THE BRAKES when triggered. in other words they run a pump that actually lifts your foot off the brake in a sense (it actually modulates the braking pressure) to pulse the brakes and make the tires stop sliding. guess what, there is a failure mode for Anti Lock that leaves the valve in the bypass and you CANT STOP. I have seen this failure mode many times and there are several driving conditions that will cause a working anti lock system to completely fail and cause the vehicle to not stop. It's why Anti Lock is instantly removed from any car that is used for racing because it is inherently unsafe. If the anti lock system is being triggered and does not disengage, you will have no brakes at all. because it's triggered and releasing pressure. Stop foaming at the mouth go find yourself a very bumpy road on a downhill incline and hit the brakes when you hit the bumps to experience exactly what I am talking about. In racing just hitting the side rumble strips while corner braking will trigger this problem. And because most cars are designed cheap, Anti Lock kicks in for BOTH the wheels in the set. Front tire triggered? both front tires go into antilock. 70% of your braking power is the front so you just lost 70% of your brakes... now the rear tires have to stop the car, they ski triggering the antilock... you now have 0% brakes.

so yes. Really. Just because you dont understand the systems well does not give you the right to claim they still work when failed. a light on the dash is not "failed" FYI.

Re:hello, kell bengal

[Anonymus]

In your original post you said "nice to know that the robot car people have, basically, no ethics whatsoever, considering that automobile-travel systems have killed more people than terrorism." which I assumed you meant referred to ALL automated control systems.

Here, you're basically saying that you only meant the fully robotic controlled cars.

Can you point out even one single death from one of these cars?

Re:hello, kell bengal

[DarwinSurvivor]

I did a pretty good search and EVERY instance of "anti-lock" failure I could find indicated the same symptoms I described. If the master cylinder has problems, it could cause the conditions you were expecting, bu that is not a problem of the anti-lock. As for the race car thing, could you provide a citation on that? I couldn't find a SINGLE mention of them being unsafe. Every single mention of them not being in race cars is for fairness.

BTW, I am fully aware of how Anti-Lock works, but you description shows otherwise. They haven't used cylinder-bypass anti-locks in a long time, now-a-days the computer (cars have these now by the way) simply overrides the power-braking. And no, I was unable to find a SINGLE article about the anti-lock failing in the "bypass" position...

Re:hello, kell bengal

[AK Marc]

The problem is that people are assuming the worst possible robotic failure and the most mild (even if most common) power steering failure. That's the way it works with things they don't understand. It's always the horrible failure modes for the unknown things and the common failures for the known one (and those have had decades of tuning the failures to make them as mild as possible). It makes as much sense as saying that a power steering failure is a noisy belt or pump, and no loss of power, and a robotic car failure is explosive ignition of the CPU resulting in a gasoline-filled fireball headed at the closest school.

Re:hello, kell bengal

[AK Marc]

Wrong. If the cruise control floors the accelerator, you just hit the brakes. That shouldn't take you more than 1 second. The brakes on any decent car are far, far more powerful than the engine. After you've done that, you turn off the ignition or shift into neutral (or both).

The actual failure when that happens often results in a crash. Why? Beause WOT (Wide Open Throttle) is often applied in poor weather (weather being a cause of the failure) and hydroplaning and loss of control are much much more likely than you imply. The second is that people, in practice, *never* respond as you assert they "should." Instead, they note increased speed and conuter with mild application of the brakes. After a few seconds of that, the brakes are in a failure mode as well, and are then unable to stop the car. Yes, if at first problem the brakes were applied 100% then the problem would have been averted. However people do not do that. Hence why there are a number of cars adding what Mercedes calls Brake Assist. When the brakes are suddenly applied, the car brakes harder than requested as a safety feature. Go ahead, read up on it. You'll find that you are 100% wrong on every point. People will ride the brakes until the brakes don't work anymore. Thus a stuck cruise control will accelerate uncontrolled until the driver crashes at high speed. It may not be the "fault" of cruise, but it's the result...

Re:hello, kell bengal

[AK Marc]

Actually, in the US, if you hit the rear of the car in front of you, you are at fault. Period. It is, legally, black-and-white. No gray.

That is 100% false. There have been people convicted of felonies for stopping abruptly with the intention of causing the person behind them to strike them. It is gray. My sister was stopped in a parking lot waiting to park in a spot with her signal on and someone rearended her. She was declared at-fault for that crash as well. It didn't help her that she was hit by a lawyer. If it's legally black and white, then you should be able to point to the law. There isn't one because you are wrong. Quit spreading lies. Someone out there might actually listen to you.

Re:hello, kell bengal

[AK Marc]

I had a Subaru WRX that I couldn't keep from rolling into a particular busy intersection. There was a steep down hill with a pothole. The pothole would bounce the wheel while you were stopping, making ABS think that you were suddenly skidding. So brake pressure would be released. Then you would roll through the stop sign and into traffic. It happened as well over rail road tracks. There was a non-mandatory recall on the issue. I got the ABS CPU "fixed" (NHTSA and Subaru stressed it was not a safety recall and there was no evidence of a safety issue, but a comfort issue to make people think the brakes stopped better). After the non-safety safety recall, there were no more issues like that.

ABS on sand would so the same. ABS, when confused, defaults to "disable the brakes." The NHTSA considers that acceptable.

Re:hello, kell bengal

[Grishnakh]

I can't say I've ever heard of a crash where the cruise control floored the throttle. Not saying it's impossible, but it seems about as likely as getting hit on the head by blue ice as you walk down the sidewalk.

Anyway, yes, a lot of people aren't very good at responding to emergency situations behind the wheel. However, this shouldn't be much of a surprise, because a lot of people can't even handle driving their car down a straight road without somehow "losing control" and running into a tree. I can't tell you how many times I've heard stories on the local news about someone driving their SUV and then mysteriously "losing control". Face it, much of the population has no business driving a vehicle. It doesn't matter how much you dumb down the controls or add safety features, they're simply never going to be safe drivers.

Anyway, the fact remains that if your CC goes into WOT somehow, there's many things you can do to avoid disaster. I never said it was foolproof, or that other factors in the situation (traffic, wet roads, etc) wouldn't complicate things and reduce your odds of success. But there's usually several things you can do to regain control: 1) brake hard, 2) turn off CC (many cars have a master CC button for this reason; the one on my Acuras is a big round button to the left of the steering wheel; hitting it turns off the entire CC system), 3) put the car in neutral (manual transmission makes this easy and nearly foolproof), 4) turn off the ignition, 5) use emergency brakes (I wouldn't bother until turning off the ignition or switching into neutral however because e-brakes are pretty weak and only brake the rear wheels).

As for being wrong on every point, sorry I don't think so, I appear to be correct on every point in the previous post. Would you care to point out point-by-point where I'm wrong?

Re:hello, kell bengal

[demonlapin]

I should have said, "there is a legal presumption of negligence on the part of the party that hits the other that is almost impossible to overcome, unless you can demonstrate that some third party actually bears the guilt by virtue of jumping in front of the car, or blocking them in from the side, or attempting to conduct insurance fraud". Happy now? BTW, in the cited example, the driver of the "bus full of nuns" is likely to be held to an even higher standard than an average driver by virtue of being engaged in commerce.

Re:hello, kell bengal

[AK Marc]

I can't say I've ever heard of a crash where the cruise control floored the throttle. Not saying it's impossible, but it seems about as likely as getting hit on the head by blue ice as you walk down the sidewalk.

I love how a standard counter is "I'm ignorant of the topic, thus my opinion must be correct." Just because you've never heard of it doesn't make it less true. The cruise control moves the throttle cable. Have you ever heard of a stuck throttle cable? It happens all the time. And cruise control has caused that. One of the most nefarious is when the problem is caused by cruise itself. Drive on a rutted road in the rain. The ruts fill with water. When you are in the ruts you could be hydroplaning. The cruise will detect the slow down when you hit them and will often accelerate. This has resulted in a number of crashes. That you've never heard of them is a testament to your ignorance, not the lack of such incidents resulting in crashes.

Re:hello, kell bengal

[AK Marc]

"a legal presumption" is not the same thing as "you are at fault. Period." There is not set legal presumption of what you say either. Perhaps a programmed human presumption, and the legal system is run by humans, such that human's irrational assumptions are propogated through the system. And I'm confused why somone would presume sheltered nuns would have any other standard applied other than assuming they were at fault because of their obvious limited experience driving.

Re:hello, kell bengal

[Grishnakh]

I never said it didn't happen, just that I've never heard of it. I do however doubt its frequency, as you seem to be implying that it's a common occurrence.

Drive on a rutted road in the rain.

I don't know about you, but one time I definitely DON'T use cruise control is in the rain, on wet, rutted roads. Maybe that's why I've never had such a problem. Cruise control is for driving on wide-open rural highways in good weather, not negotiating wet roads. If anyone's had CC fail on them in such a situation, I'd say the crash is mostly their fault, for misusing CC.

Do you also use CC in the winter on ice-covered roads?

Anyway, what I was really complaining about in my last post is where you said everything in my post before that was incorrect, including things like drivers who rear-end others always being at fault. You've obviously ignored that, and I still contend that everything else I wrote there, including that, is correct.

Re:hello, kell bengal

[AK Marc]

I don't know about you, but one time I definitely DON'T use cruise control is in the rain, on wet, rutted roads. Maybe that's why I've never had such a problem.

Because you choose to not use it at such times indicates the opposite of your statement is true. If you've never heard of any problems on rutted roads in the wet, why do you have such a strong aversion to using the cruise control at such times? Or would you suspect that it would fail in that manner, reducing your safety, all the while arguing the opposite of your personal beliefs because you have some other agenda you want to push?

Re:hello, kell bengal

[Grishnakh]

If you've never heard of any problems on rutted roads in the wet, why do you have such a strong aversion to using the cruise control at such times?

I imagine I've never heard of any problems because most drivers also have enough sense to also turn off CC at such times.

Why do you think it's a good idea to use CC in wet conditions on bad roads? Where would you ever get such an insane idea? Anyone with the barest knowledge of physics would understand that it's not a good idea to have something holding down your gas pedal at a time when your drive wheels may encounter a loss of traction at any time.

Re:hello, kell bengal

[AK Marc]

Then you and your associates are irrational. "I'm going to not do something beacuse I'm afraid of the unknown." With no evidence that it's unsafe at all. How old is your car? New ones have mention in the user manuals about it (in which case you have heard of the problem), but older ones have no such warning against cruise in the rain.

Either you and everyone you know is irrational bordering on insane, or you know of a problem with it and are choosing to be obtuse because that suits your argument best. It's like a game to you of how much you can give the perceptions the opposite of what you actually think without forming a falsehood. Cruise in wet has caused crashes, despite your initial claims otherwise.

This is needed in China

[kurt555gs]

Given how Asians drive, I'd say this is a great idea.

Re:This is needed in China

[bytta]

Having driven (a motorbike) for over 2 years in India, I'm not sure how it would work.

All rules seem to be optional, the traffic school is a joke, with a short written test (identify 6 traffic signs to pass), and an even shorter drive. Only the golden rule applies - Don't hit anyone else, and they'll try not to hit you.

90% of the effort is spent on watching for other drivers that do something out of the ordinary...

Sample written test: http://www.drivingtest.in/start-sample-test.php
Video of the drive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGfLNqjh4j0
I guess China is similar...

aren't highways straight?

[recharged95]

Looks like a novel approach to adding a video camera into one of the available adaptive cruise control systems out there.

That's good enough for me.

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

If an A.I. driven car is capable of navigating Chinese traffic without incident, it can handle anything the U.S. can throw at it.

Re:That's good enough for me.

[PPH]

I'd say that, given China's broader definition of the act of driving, this is actually a pretty trivial accomplishment.

Re:That's good enough for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

A challenge to Google.

Take your humanless car and drive from Gilroy up Route 101 to Moffett in morning rush hour traffic, (leave Gilroy at 7:30 a.m.). Then do the return trip from Moffett
at 5:30 p.m.. Do that for 1 week and kill less than 4 people in the process, then we can start talking about being ready.

Re:That's good enough for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know some folks who work on the team and I'll pass this on to the them.

The car has logged enough time on 101 and 85 that chances are good that the return trip has already been done.

Re:That's good enough for me.

[FhnuZoag]

Rush hour traffic is actually pretty easy to program a robot car to drive in. The speeds are low, and because of the high density of the cars, you aren't going to change lanes or do anything complicated anyway. You could pretty much design a car on the principle of 'move somewhat slowly on a preset route, if anything gets in your way, stop' and it'll work moderately well. Or so I've been told by the local robotics research group.

Re:That's good enough for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

It was driving down a expressway, that isn't exactly a complicated task, not like city driving, if it navigated through a busy Chinese city during the day without hitting anybody then I'd be impressed. Okay, I've just read TFA and it is not a bad achievement, but I still doubt it is as good as Google's.

Re:That's good enough for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

...broader definition of driving? the act of driving is operating a vehicle...how is this a trivial accomplishment. I think if a car can drive itself without incident in some of the most congested roads in the world. It is a major accomplishment.

so why not use the train

[decora]

or a bicycle path or a number of other transportation solutions? why pour more money into a system that has proven to be so destructive, not only to safety, but to the environment and human health?

Re:so why not use the train

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, your posts make more sense now. You're really against cars in general. Ok. Consider, robots will make vehicle drafting more practical and thereby reduce fuel consumption. They may also be able to provide better driving habits to reduce fuel consumption. For example, they are unlikely to punch it when the light turns green only to slam on the brake at the next light. In fact, once all cars are automated there won't be a need for traffic lights or starting and stopping more than the one time for departure and arrival. You're unlikely to get rid of fueled personal conveyance any time soon, but at least automation will save tens of thousands of lives per year while reducing fuel cost and lowering cars environmental impact.

Consider the offshoots of this technology that could enable very high fuel efficient 'gopher' vehicles. A lightweight vehicle designed for running errands. Such a vehicle would not need the extra weight to protect and transport people. This vehicle could go to the store to get your groceries and return them. Take and pick up your dry cleaning. Light-weight and with a limited range such a vehicle might be cheap and easily electric.

BTW planes and trains at least are highly automated. Cars will be the very last transportation method to be automated (not counting bicycles and walking)

Re:so why not use the train

[russotto]

or a bicycle path or a number of other transportation solutions? why pour more money into a system that has proven to be so destructive, not only to safety, but to the environment and human health?

Because cars work so damned well compared to everything else. Sure, bicycles are safe. They're also slow as hell, can only be practically used by a relatively small portion of the population, suck in bad weather, are terrible when hills are involved, and require a lot of effort to use.

Trains aren't quite as bad; just about anyone can get on them and use them, and they aren't so bad in bad weather. However, unlike roads, they don't go everywhere, not even close. They aren't so good at hills either. Train systems tend to be vulnerable (even more so than automobiles) to single failures causing delays throughout the system. And they're incredibly expensive on a per-passenger-mile basis.

Re:so why not use the train

[0123456]

Sure, bicycles are safe.

Actually, when we looked at this a few years ago cyclists killed about as many people per passenger mile as motorists. In the UK, anyway, I don't know whether cyclists in other parts of the world are as dangerous as the 'red lights don't apply to me and get off that pedestrian crossing because I'm not stopping' lycra loons over there.

Re:so why not use the train

[MacTO]

I can tell that you've never commuted on a bicycle. They can be remarkably faster than cars under common traffic conditions, and exceptionally dangerous. (Never forget that a significant amount of engineering is devoted to automobile safety, virtually no consideration is given to bicycle safety.)

There are also hybrid methods of transportation: motorized bicycles are becoming more common, to tackle the hills; transit systems facilitate cyclists on both busses and trains; park-and-ride lots for motorists who can do part of the commute on trains; and so forth.

The final consideration is that cities are unfriendly to alternative forms of transportation because they were designed for the private automobile, and things aren't really going to change because the lobby groups that support the automobile (including people like yourself) fight tooth and nail against accomodations being made for other modes of transportation.

Re:so why not use the train

[Pentium100]

BTW planes and trains at least are highly automated.

Planes are also heavily controlled, that is, you need to get permission to take of, fly at a certain altitude, land and so on.
Trains are, well, on tracks, not much control there - just forward, stop, reverse. They also are controlled by dispatch, like planes.

Cars have more freedoms of movement than trains but are not controller. There are traffic rules, but not everyone respects them, people forget to turn on (or off) the turning signals, do not let you go first even though the law says you can, drive even though the red light is on etc. So, a robot car will require much more complex AI than a robot plane or train.

Re:so why not use the train

[cduffy]

Actually, when we looked at this a few years ago cyclists killed about as many people per passenger mile as motorists. In the UK, anyway, I don't know whether cyclists in other parts of the world are as dangerous as the 'red lights don't apply to me and get off that pedestrian crossing because I'm not stopping' lycra loons over there.

Last time I was current on the statistics, full-time cycle commuting took two years off one's expected lifespan for the chance of accidents -- and added 11 back on for cardiopulmonary health.

The sport cyclists (the ones in lycra) are a lot less attentive to laws (and safety, and good common sense) than the serious commuter cyclists -- it's a tough thing to deal with as a cycle advocate, as they think they know everything and so won't attend classes unless a court makes them do so. That's a totally fixable problem, though -- it just means one needs to actively enforce traffic laws, and have a cycling-specific traffic safety class offenders get sent to when ticketed. My jurisdiction does this already.

Re:so why not use the train

[Grishnakh]

This is why we need personal rapid transit systems like SkyTran. They're much, much cheaper on a per-passenger mile basis, they can be built in a grid fashion so they can go most places, they're suspended from utility poles so they can be installed in already built-up places, and they avoid the traffic lights and congestion that plague cars. Plus, since they're limited to traveling on rails, they don't need a lot of complicated and error-prone computer vision and AI technology to navigate.

Re:so why not use the train

[Grishnakh]

No, there's more to it than that. To make a city friendly for bicycles, you'd need to have extremely high density, like Manhattan. With a city where everyone has a house and a yard, there simply isn't any way to pack everyone in close enough so that it's realistic to bicycle between any two arbitrary points in the city.

The other problems that bicycles have don't go away even if you do bulldoze your city and rebuild it with high-rise apartments. Bicycles simply aren't ridable in bad weather. Well, I guess they are if you're young, fit, and motivated, like I used to be in college. But if you're older, not as in-shape, and not really wanting to ride in freezing weather, they're simply not a reasonable option. They're also not a reasonable option here in Phoenix, where the outside temperature is above the human body temperature for half the year. It's simply unhealthy to ride a bike outside in this climate, plus breathing the dust here in the frequent dust storms can make you very ill.

Bikes are a nice way to get around in small towns that don't have a lot of cars, and have a mild climate. Unfortunately, that's not the way it is with modern urban life.

Re:so why not use the train

[Tim the Gecko]

Actually, when we looked at this a few years ago cyclists killed about as many people per passenger mile as motorists. In the UK, anyway

That seems somewhat unlikely. Who is "we" and do you have the figures on a website? Also passenger miles are misleading, as I could drive 200 miles to the NEC and the only place I am likely to kill any pedestrians is in the first and last mile. That would reduce the car figures by a factor of 100 compared to the 2 mile cycle ride in a city. Cars with passengers reduce your car statistic even further, and the calculation seems to favor cyclists on tandems in some bizarre way.

The figures for cyclists killing pedestrians on UK sidewalks seem to be about 0.3 per year, compared to more than 500 pedestrians killed by motorists every year.

Re:so why not use the train

[russotto]

I can tell that you've never commuted on a bicycle.

Wrong. I actually do a bike-train-bike commute fairly regularly.

There are also hybrid methods of transportation: motorized bicycles are becoming more common, to tackle the hills; transit systems facilitate cyclists on both busses and trains; park-and-ride lots for motorists who can do part of the commute on trains; and so forth.

Theory, meet reality. Reality, in this case, being a New Jersey to NYC commute, with a hill. Park and ride lots? Ha... the waiting list for a spot in the rather small train station lots is nominally 5 years, in reality indefinite (because they don't acknowledge requests to be put on the waiting list). Motorized bicycles? Illegal in both states (and I've got a ticket to demonstrate that). Cyclists on buses? Forget about it. Maybe a few buses do, most do not. Trains? Sure, if it's a folding bicycle; otherwise, permitted only outside commuting hours.

The final consideration is that cities are unfriendly to alternative forms of transportation because they were designed for the private automobile, and things aren't really going to change because the lobby groups that support the automobile (including people like yourself) fight tooth and nail against accomodations being made for other modes of transportation.

NYC was not designed for the automobile, nor the bicycle. There's lots of accomodation for bicycles, including bike lanes. Which tend to be occupied with garbage trucks, pedestrians, street sweepers, taxis, homeless people pushing shopping carts, pushcarts, police and police cars, etc.

we have something better already

[decora]

its called trains, subways, bicycle paths, etc etc etc.
all it takes is the desire to put down the kool-aid and stop throwing money down the car-hole.

Re:we have something better already

[0123456]

its called trains, subways, bicycle paths, etc etc etc.

All of which suck ass unless you live in a city so poorly designed that driving becomes even worse.

Re:we have something better already

[Anonymous Coward]

At the extreme... vehicles are still more useful for things like ambulances, fire trucks and farming. It's not really practical to take a train out onto your property to feed cattle (likewise public transportation the needed infrastructure may do more harm in rural areas than cars. There's are many reasons people use cars besides 'drinking the kool-aid'. I agree there should be more investment (from whoever) for trains, subways etc. but I think more people will listen to you if you promote those systems rather than attack cars. In other words, explain why trains etc are better not why cars are worse. It is also counter-productive to attack improvements in cars just because they're not 'perfect'. It's hard to take someone seriously when they've decided cars are the boogie man.

Re:we have something better already

[Osgeld]

many metropolitan areas are sorely underdeveloped in mass transit, outside of the interstate and bypass system

Re:we have something better already

[Grishnakh]

No, as the other poster commented, all those things suck ass. The answer is SkyTran personal rapid transit. Trains and other such things are so 19th century; we need a system that can take you from any arbitrary point to any other arbitrary point in the system in a fully automated fashion.

Re:we have something better already

[Errol backfiring]

OR you live in a highly populated area such as here (Netherlands / Randstad). Bicycles are quite fast compared to the daily traffic jam. Especially at relatively short distances.

Driverless car with human backup driver

[billstewart]

I'm sure the Chinese research team didn't send their robot car out on the public highway without having tested it a lot in the lab and on closed tracks first, and that Google's robot car team didn't, and that the people who developed power steering etc. didn't either. My guess is that none of the DARPA Autonomous Vehicle Challenge competitors did either (or at worst, not many of them :-).

And you don't send a robot car out to drive itself without a human along to override its decisions, any more than a responsible adult would send a young human out to drive unsupervised in a public road for the first time. (Some of us humans learned to drive in "driver's-ed" cars that had an extra set of brakes in the front passenger seat so the instructor could stop the car if he had to, while others learned in cars that didn't have that, so the instructor was limited to yelling a lot and grabbing the steering wheel if needed. And lots of us learned to drive in mostly-empty parking lots before going out on the street.) Presumably the Chinese car had a human backup driver who could override the autopilot if necessary.

It's more fun if you can have the backup driver in the right-hand seat and a large dog or a Terminator mannequin in the left-hand seat, but that's strictly optional.

Re:Driverless car with human backup driver

[mysidia]

more fun if you can have the backup driver in the right-hand seat and a large dog or a Terminator mannequin in the left-hand seat

It would be even more fun with something more like the Airplane! The Movie: autopilot in the left-hand seat

Re:Driverless car with human backup driver

[AvitarX]

Not for the passenger that needs to blow him.

Its China...

[Wyatt Earp]

For a test like this I'll bet they found a long straightaway with minimal curves, closed the expressway or used one that's brand new and not opened yet, and set this beast free on it.

Nothing at all like what DARPA challenge or Google do with robot cars

Re:Its China...

[FhnuZoag]

Did you RTFA? Because that isn't true.

Re:Its China...

[Wyatt Earp]

Yes I read it and the article is sketchy in details.

"The project is being developed by the National University of Defense Technology."
One of the research team is reported as saying:
"We only set a maximum speed and then left everything to the car itself. It knew the speed limits, traffic patterns, lane changes and roads using video cameras and radar sensors to detect other cars. It was all controlled by a command center in the trunk."
Technical details are limited but it is claimed that GPS wasn't used to navigate the car and it relied on its sensors not only to stay on the road but to work out which road to stay on."

Details are limited, no one is saying how it did it or the details of the trip.

Re:Its China...

[FhnuZoag]

The article links to the original article, which says

"The test also showed the car could cope with potential dangers from other vehicles such as abrupt lane changes.

"The driverless car is much safer because it reacts more quickly than humans. It can respond in 40 milliseconds while human needs at least 500 ms."

During its trip, the driverless car overtook other cars 67 times and had an average speed of 87 kilometers an hour, according to the research team. "

So, no, the road wasn't empty.

Re:Its China...

[FhnuZoag]

In fact TFA had this information as well.

Re:Its China...

[Anonymous Coward]

You Americans can't stand it when someone is better than you! Deal with it, ffs.

Re:Its China...

[Anonymous Coward]

As well as just driving in a single lane the car overtook other cars a reported 67 times at an average of 87km/h.

They also claim to do all their navigation & following of speed limits & road signs via image recognition which seems like a much more difficult problem & one that's hard to believe they solved flat out without other things like putting visual markers to indicate road signs & directions.

Re:Its China...

[FhnuZoag]

Is that really that hard? Out in the country, it should be pretty easy to code a computer to spot signs and comprehend what it means. I doubt whatever they did would work in an urban environment though,

Re:Its China...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. Last time I checked, China is full of incompetent engineers.

human brains and anticipation

[Anonymous Coward]

Can these robotic systems anticipate the thing I can as a human driver?

That baseball rolling down someone's driveway... followed 20 feet behind by a small boy who is focused only on getting his ball back. I can see what's going to happen, using human intelligence, and deal with the situation in a pre-emptive manner. Will the robot do that? Will it be aware that the car behind me is being driven by a distracted driver, and allow *more* than the usual following distance between itself and the car in front, so that if the car in front brakes suddenly, the one behind will have time to stop through whatever distracts the driver? Will it detect the moods and driving styles of other human vehicles from observing their driving behavior, and adjust accordingly?

Will it detect that the pickup truck in front on the highway has a very poorly secured load ready to come off at a bad bump, and speed up to get around it and avoid driving behind the dangerous vehicle?

There are a million situations where I think my human brain is going to be a better thing to have than such a robot controlled car.

Since slashdotters like to criticize: my driving record is zero accidents of any type in 34 years since I got my license. If the robot can match that, in as diverse situations as I have driven in, then I'll consider it acceptable to ride in one. Until that point, I will continue to drive my own vehicle, thank you very much.

Not very specific..

[Anonymous Coward]

it makes sense to be a bit more specific than "China". Was it a government programme, aru university or a company? Saying it's from china almost doesn't add any information by itself, besides that someone besides Google did it

Pure comparison... NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

If you honestly think you can compare the two and so easily discount googles system, which really isn't "google's", you are sorely mistaken and obviously have not read a single item about their driving system. The google cars have navigated over 140000 miles without a single accident through day and night, sun and snow and even roads that are not really "roads" by most peoples standards. Its great the accomplishment China has achieved but if anyone needs to speed up its everyone else behind Sebastian Thrun's Teams creation from Stanford University. They all have a lot of catching up to do. The GPS does not help when someone or thing runs out in front of the car and yet that car has no issues traversing even heavy pedestrian traffic or a single deer running in front of it. Its also capable of some pretty amazing high speed race car type driving and car stunts that very few people on the planet can actually do and those that can are typically professional drivers with hundreds of hours of practice.

YouTube clip of China's car in action

[jnpcl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FHYpzDinjY

Implications of driverless cars

[trout007]

I was thinking about all of these futuristic movies with autonomous cars driving on these California like freeways. In reality if all cars were automated and networked you would only need street level crossings of highways. The cars could weave into the cross traffic at full speed without incident. It might be scary for us old timers but not for long.

Re:Implications of driverless cars

[Jeremi]

The cars could weave into the cross traffic at full speed without incident. It might be scary for us old timers but not for long.

I think such a system would depend on all of the cars' software and hardware (speed/location/distance sensors, etc) working accurately at all times.

All it would take is one robot-jalopy's speedometer or GPS to be off by a few percent to cause a ginormous accident, with fatalities all around.

Therefore I would imagine a system like this would start out scary for us old timers, and quickly become terrifying for everyone involved. Every trip through an intersection would be a high-speed game of Russian roulette.

Re:Implications of driverless cars

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought about these 2 problems for a while & think I've got the solution: no intersections.
Visual-only cars with poor accuracy could still turn right, merge into traffic (the other cars would allow a sensible set of merges), and manage turnarounds (double-lefts under bridges). This system works well in Texas to virtually eliminate the need to have traffic lights and ofter just have stop signs. AI vehicles could manage stop signs slightly faster than humans, but otherwise generally avoiding intersections could mean high speeds and no Roulette such that even if you must pass your stop, take a turnaround, merge, then turn right, you'll never notice the slowdown.

This just in:

[Anonymous Coward]

China's self-driving car will also feature a voice interface. When it detects an American accent, it drives you off a cliff.

Sometimes doing it quick isn't best

[Kagato]

Hopefully the Chinese driverless car fairs better than the Chinese Bullet trains. No one needs another 40 dead.

And who did they steal it from?

[GeekBoy]

Just wondering, this is China we're talking about (and it's not a racist statement b/c I'm ethnically Chinese.)

What happens if lightning hits near by?

[headhot]

Will it slam into the car infront of it, and then get burried by the government?

No thanks. I'll take Google's approach.

slashdoter sore grape comments

[voidness]

Whenever there is something goes beyond your imagination on China, I see sore grape comments. Sure, China copies cause China lags behind Western technology in past 100 years. It has to copy to catch up first. Now the situation is changing. To tell some ambition projects (if you are willing to believe): - China lunar mission project is not national imaging project like US/Russia did. The real goal is to obtain helium-3 from the moon which can enable nuclear fusion plants on Earth. This will be ultimate human energy solution cause it's clean and unlimited resource. - China is building world’s biggest radio telescope in Guizhou Province. It's a five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical radio Telescope (FAST). To be expected completion in 2016. - China possess the world largest high speed train network across country. They are in service!. I knew what you would say about recent accident. Think about it. Japan has no accident cause it has one line only. US has none. Plane can crash. Don't complain high speed train only. It's relative new. I believe high speed train will compete aeroplane in future. I used to ride many times. It's comfort, spacious and quite. You go to train station, buy ticket and go, no airport hassle and not that slow compare to flight. - China is building its own GPS system, Beidou, rivals US one. Guess what, its receiver can send message back to satellite. A lots more...

Re:slashdoter sore grape comments

[Pyrion]

China would do themselves a favor by copying our driving laws.

Of course ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If an A.I. driven car is capable of navigating Chinese traffic [youtube.com] without incident, it can handle anything the U.S. can throw at it.

Except parking, merging or keeping up to the highway speed limit.

Here's the paper

[FhnuZoag]

Well, if you are actually interested in the science, the research this car is based on can be easily found, I think, using google. Here, read this article (exhibited at the 2008 IEEE computational intelligence conference hosted in Hong Kong), and if you comprehend it, you can implement their procedure yourself: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=4634099&tag=1

Chinese products

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you think when I say...

Chinese drywall
Chinese milk
Chinese toothpaste
Chinese public transit
Chinese cars
Chinese iPhone
Chinese toys
Chinese scientific research

Re:Chinese products

[PPH]

WalMart?

Safely? Define safety please.

[jageryager]

In China, the land of the One-Child Policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy, Tiananmem Square, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square, the phrase safely could mean something very different that it does in Europe or US. How many Chinese can be driven over before the the driverless car is deemed unsafe? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

Re:Safely? Define safety please.

[Pyrion]

In China, "safe driving" equates to "don't hit anything and don't get hit by anything."

crash

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Did China finally manage to crash their robotic car?

Google released info on accident?

[perpenso]

Google's driverless car was just in the news for crashing into a Prius

A human was driving the vehicle.

Last I heard google has not commented on the accident. IIRC the car always has a driver but it is not clear that the driver was actively at the controls. Much as aircraft always have a pilot even when taking off, cruising or landing on autopilot.

Re:Google released info on accident?

[SnowZero]

Last I heard google has not commented on the accident.

It was in the first article on any news site:

A Google spokesperson gave us this quote about the accident: "Safety is our top priority. One of our goals is to prevent fender-benders like this one, which occurred while a person was manually driving the car."

http://www.businessinsider.com/googles-self-driving-cars-get-in-their-first-accident-2011-8

Re:Google released info on accident?

[perpenso]

It was in the first article on any news site

Thanks. FWIW I did google it and the first three sites I looked at did not contain any google comment.

Re:Google released info on accident?

[SnowZero]

NP. The torrent of articles decided to copy the "ZOMG Google car crashes!" part, but left out the additional information from primary sources.

how safe is it? and how much will get covered up?

[Joe_Dragon]

how safe is it? and how much will get covered up? who will be at fault?

Over there they can have the car hit and kill some pay the family off and sweep it under the rug. In the us and other places all it will take is one death to put a stop to this.

What?

[bmo]

Fog *and* laser rangefinders?

Speaking as someone who used to use laser rangefinders in inclement weather, I have to call *bullshit* on using any kind of laser in a fog.

Having billions of little floating lenses in the air tends to play havoc with getting any kind of reflectivity beyond 20 feet even from a the most expensive retro-refracting prism you can find. I don't care how much money and technical expertise you've got but you can't fight physics.

Fog turns a laser into the light equivalent of a plant sprayer..

--
BMO

Computer vision == Daylight required?

[Anonymous Coward]

I could see daylight needed maybe for color segmentation? Or really far illumination distance..

I'd think, though, a car's lighting at night that's sufficient for a human would be enough for the machine vision system?

RAFF OUT ROWD

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask them how that bullet train worked out for them...

Yes, it would indeed be terrifying

[hackshack]

After watching this simulation of a computerized intersection, I would say that the situation at the street level would mean the end of airbags in cars, and the introduction of anti-pants-shitting technology for the passengers.

The group's videos page with their approach and statistics is quite good as well.

Oblig

[Anonymous Coward]

In communist China, car drives you!

Who would trust Chinese software to drive a car?

[Anonymous Coward]

With the avarage poor-to-appalling quality of embedded software in Chinese products, who in their right mind would trust a Chinese self-driving car?

Fog actually caused problems

[Arrepiadd]

Unlike the summary states the article says: "It also encountered some problems with fog and indistinct road markings."
What can we say... it's Slashdot, actually understanding a text is not a need to submit a piece on it!

In soviet China...

[bytta]

...car drives you!

All that hacking and espionage

[Anonymous Coward]

is paying off. Isn't it?

Aversion to robot drivers rational?

[Compaqt]

I think it may be more rational than you're making it out to be:

For instance, the brake system is comparatively simple. And you can test it easily. Press pedal, brake activates (or not).

Not so for the robot driving system. It's hard to set up a full test scenario that'll exercise all possible latent bugs in that system. And the software probably won't be open source.

Not only that, but people have learned from their computers and phones that software hangs.

So how are people supposed to trust the robot? Answer: they don't.

Is google car open source?

[cellurl]

I imagine Google plans on marketing a delivery system for mail, etc.
Does anyone know what their plans are?
Eg. will it ever be open source?

Help eliminate speeding tickets in your lifetime

Re:Safely? Define safety please.

[c6gunner]

In China, "safe driving" equates to "don't hit anything and don't get hit by anything."

I'm pretty sure that's what "safe diving" means everywhere in the world.

I think it's funny...

[Kamiza Ikioi]

Aside from the fact that Google was founded by and employs many multi-ethnic, immigrant (1st, 2nd, 3rd generation), and foreign nationals... here we are comparing a company to an entire country.

That bodes well in Google's favor, I think.

Driving's not bad. Parking however.

[painandgreed]

All of which suck ass unless you live in a city so poorly designed that driving becomes even worse.

I usually find that it's the parking that usually makes everything worse. There have been times that the distance I would have had to walk to get my car plus the distance I would have had to walk from where I could have found parking to the place I was going, often was close enough to the total distance to get there that driving was just more trouble than it was worth. Either that, or pay $12 to run into a store for a few minutes. Then there is finding parking again once I get back home.

No comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

No one has caught up this. Great what china is doing but watch it and weep.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp9KBrH8H04

truly driverless??

[Type44Q]

Life being as cheap as it seems to be over there, perhaps it's no wonder they neglected to mention 'the midget Chinaman' peering out from behind the grill... :p