Slashdot Mirror
How Would Driver-less Cars Change Motoring?
Hugh Pickens writes "BBC reports that as Nevada licenses Google to test its prototype driver-less car on public roads, futurists are postulating what a world of driver-less would cars look like. First, accidents would go down. 'Your automated car isn't sitting around getting distracted, making a phone call, looking at something it shouldn't be looking at or simply not keeping track of things,' says Danny Sullivan. Google's car adheres strictly to the speed limit and follows the rules of the road. 'It doesn't speed, it doesn't cut you off, it doesn't tailgate,' says Tom Jacobs, a spokesman for the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles. Driver-less cars would mean a more productive commute. 'If you truly trust the intelligence of the vehicle, then you get in the vehicle and you do our work while you're traveling,' says engineer Lynne Irwin. They would mean fewer traffic jams. 'Congestion would be something you could tell your grandchildren about, once upon a time.' Driver-less cars could extend car ownership to some groups of people previously unable to own a car, including elderly drivers who feel uncomfortable getting behind the wheel at night, whose eyesight has weakened or whose reaction time has slowed."
Another reader points out an article suggesting autonomous cars could eventually spell the end of auto insurance.
Any municipality that allows cellphone use while driving is, essentially, endorsing driverless cars. If someone gets engaged in a deep conversation on the phone, their driving skills drop below that of someone with 0.08% blood alcohol...
There are too many other things insurance pays for besides hitting another car. For example hail storm damage, tree falling on your car or an unavoidable cow jumping in front of you on a bind corner. Not to mention cruising at 50 miles an hour and hitting an ice patch or getting hit by that guy who still actually likes to "drive" his truck.
I've got 101 mod points and you can't have them!
While driver-less cars would allow some people who currently cannot drive to have their own car, it will raise the price of cars so that some people who now can afford to own a car would not be able to afford one. It would also mean that someone other than you would ultimately determine where you could go. For example, only the cars of those authorized to go to certain places would even have the roads to those places in the maps in their cars. Since driver less cars will need to receive roadmap updates, you might discover that a place you went to yesterday was no longer accessible.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
America has many well designed cities. And many poorly designed cities. However, if all cars were converted to driverless, then the increased efficiency may be such that you could have far fewer roads because a road could handle that many more cars without becoming congested - especially with some sort of inter-vehicle communication protocol. You could have cars traveling 100 mph almost bumper to bumper on highways that are currently at 55mph. This would allow you to have more roads designated cars-only to avoid many of the pitfalls of mixed traffic. The next step will likely be driverless cars with the option to switch to manual (think Demolition Man) for areas that are not driverless-friendly.
This is in fact the most important feature of the driver-less car. Particularly for teenagers.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The only public transportation that even comes close to all of the advantages of an automated car is taxis... individual vehicles that go from Point A to Point B. Buses, subways, etc all fail hard when you start talking about suburbs, rural areas, etc. Automated cars would be able to handle all of these and more.
when in Rome, do as the Romans do.
You've quite clearly never driven in Rome.
I am officially gone from
Please, tell me how public transit can get me from my front door on a minor city street with no bus service to my parents' house outside of a small town about 30 miles away. Public transit is a fantastic option if you live in a large city and don't leave it very often, but it's no where near good enough to replace a car for a lot of people.
Europe has tons of cities which aren't planned like that
When London, Beijing, Cairo, and most other ancient cities were first laid out, their main roads connected little groups of buildings, in whatever way was convenient at the time. Maps didn't exist commonly, let alone a postal service, so the only important measure of efficiency was transit time on foot. With nothing else around them, those roads could be made straight, bending only around geographic features. This is clearly evident in rural Africa, where the roads between farms are generally straight, but run at odd angles.
Newer cities (including all the ones in America, which were all built in the last 500 years) were designed for people and postmen. Cities were expected to have a high population density, so their roads are designed to make the biggest buildings possible: rectangles. Their addressing was designed for efficiency, to the extent where cities like Salt Lake City, Utah have primarily numbered streets, with names being used only for main routes. There are still many odd angles, but they're generally old major routes that the city has grown around. Even landscape is getting ignored in favor of efficiency, with roads often stopping at a river's edge and continuing on the other side.
All of this means that outside America, Google Car has little use.
Conveniently, modern routing algorithms have absolutely no problem with any of these designs. Modern algorithms treat the city as a graph of intersections, knowing what intersections connect to what other intersections, how far apart they are (by time, distance, and even traffic density) and knowing what building numbers are between what intersections. The actual placement of those intersections doesn't matter when planning a route, but only when actually making a map for humans to follow.
In fact they would be fatal to others on the road.
As I'm sure has been pointed out by others by now, this is ridiculous. An automated car can be just as sensitive as any human-driven car, and often moreso. An automated car has cameras and laser sensors on it, that can poll thousands of points each second to construct a map of the world. Unlike humans, the sensors don't suffer from blindness, distraction, or optical illusions. If there's an elephant in front of the car, the car will know that there's an elephant-shaped object in front of it, and it will recognize the turning lights on its ass. the moment they come on.
Also unlike humans, an automated car is capable of communicating with other automated cars on the road. Despite what the summary says, they can tailgate, and they can cut each other off. The difference is that they'll be in constant communication at the time, so that if one car needs to stop, it will give plenty of notice to other cars, who will all apply their brakes at the same time at different strengths, so they will decelerate in unison. Cars traveling a half-meter apart on the highway will stop a half-meter apart, too.
With this communication, it's fully possible for a car to see around corners. Not only are there sonar sensors capable of making a decent guess as to what's approaching, but there are also projects to make stationary sensors, to be placed near intersections. These would watch for regular old dumb cars (and people, cats, dogs, and elephants, too), monitor their position and velocity, and send reports to automated cars in the area, which can then make fully-informed decisions about what to do.
I doubt Google has thought of this and they will be in for a big surprise when nobody but Americans can use them.
I can assure you that Google has thought of this. That's why Google Maps works for routes outside the United States, and why self-driving robots have been a major field of research for a few decades.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.