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
1) First time poster
2) Post appears within same minute as story, despite being well over 500 words
3) Subtle plug for Bing maps
4) General gist of "Google Cars will kill people!"
Either bonch is again trying out his sockpuppets, or someone is trying to astroturf Slashdot again.
In the meantime, I look forward to hopping into my Google car and taking a nap while driving to Tahoe. As a matter of fact, driving might become really something you do while you have other things to do - like sleep, eat, work, or just read. I'd love it. There is no reason for anyone to drive.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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.
I think this will be mostly the end of private cars for the majority of us. It seems ridiculous now, but once people start looking at the cost of owning a car versus a well priced car service I think the transition will be fast. Especially among the young.
We'll probably be able to get by with a fleet of super-effecient driverless taxi cabs. I image paying a couple hundred bucks a month to have car come and pick me up whenever I need one.
You could get even more efficiency by offering a reduced rate for those willing to share a car. The system could efficiently route, pickup up multiple passengers and dropping them off.
Anybody who equates breaking the speed limit as automatic excessive speeding is a tool. The speed limit on my local highway is 55mph, the average speed is close to 70. It's a safe speed. Many areas put an artificially low speed to collect tickets at will.
In fact, it would be highly dangerous to go 55mph. You'd get rear ended in no time not to mention road rage.
There is a good rule in driving: when in Rome, do as the Romans do. The rules say one thing, but the reality is, most of the time, that it's far safer to go with the flow than to fight it. Any driving system that doesn't adhere to this within reason is one I don't want to step foot in.
I wouldn't know about that. My Mac gets the spinning beachball of eternal limbo often enough.
This is in fact the most important feature of the driver-less car. Particularly for teenagers.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
As a side question, why are American cities planned without any personal touch, but so "professionally"?
To a large extent this is just because they have been planned, whereas many older cities in Europe and Asia were built up well before modern city planning. There are other factors as well- cities that are planned well become less well-planned as time goes on. You see this in Europe with some of the old Roman cities. Also, when one didn't have cars and trucks, smaller alleyways weren't a problem, whereas many expanded American cities happened just as cars were showing up (remember the frontier in the US doesn't close until the 1890s). There's also just a long tradition in the US of careful planning, that's dates back to the very early settlements. New York was gridded out when much of the city was still wilderness, and that started a general precedent. There are some cities that aren't as carefully gridded (such as Boston) but many cities modeled themselves in a similar way to New York. Also, in much of the US land was pretty cheap. Gridding with big roads takes a lot of land up- when you have the room it is easier to do it.
And alternatively again, while some people wouldn't be able to afford a car that they have now, some families will be able to get by with fewer cars. Imagine a world where my wife goes to work 30 minutes before I do, and sends the car back for me to use; then I send it to pick up my teenager from school, who sends it back to my wife, who picks me up on the way and we all go home. If we're postulating a world where trust is high enough to read and do work while in the operator's (I hesitate to say driver's) seat, there's a very small jump from there to the car that can go to a destination sans passengers entirely.
And of course, that says nothing about how it would revolutionize the statistically very dangerous world of truck driving (though I suspect the truck drivers might not be too happy about that, I'm sure they can get a lobby together to make sure that entirely autonomous semi's never get approved).
Since driver less cars will need to receive roadmap updates, you might discover that a place you went to yesterday was no longer accessible.
I don't think anyone is seriously considering cars without some kind of manual override. Though in the long term I suppose it's possible.
I remember when flying cars were going to solve all our problems.
Back in the real world there are a few tests followed by hype followed by 'this invention will solve every problem we currently have!' followed by glowing endorsements of the first release followed by a huge collection of new problems discovered by the early adopters followed by a new technology that will 'solve every problem we have with the last new technology that turned out to be nowhere near as magical as predicted!'.
Yeah, these cars will be better in some circumstances but they'll be worse in others and they'll create new problems of their own. They certainly won't bring an end to insurance because they will hit things and they will crash and they will leave you with a huge payout to the victims if you're not insured.
On April 21, TrafficNet became self-aware and decided to play a giant game of bumper cars.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
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.
but 127.0.0.1 seems to be just filled with porn
I wouldn't mind having a self driving car, but i have a feeling your view of the intersections of the future wouldn't be safe for pedestrians.
Pretty funny: all those "advantages" can already be had by using public transportation. Cheaper too. Kind of easy to overlook nowadays.
S
Well, they were not comparing it to public transportation. They were comparing driverLESS cars to cars with drivers. If they were comparing it to public transportation, they would have mentioned things like, you can leave directly from your house, you can change your mind mid trip, you can leave whenever you like and not be tied to a bus schedule, there are no transfers, you can make impulse stops at stores and restaurants, you car does not have "hours of operation", and many many other advantages to driving your own vehicle as opposed to public transportation.
Eventually, though, this system will be much like public transportation, except with the advantages I listed above. There will be routes designated for driverless travel. For example, the freeways may have a driverless lane, much like an HOV lane, whereas you may have to man the steering wheel while in neighborhoods. Efficiency will be greatly improved with constant speeds and drafting. Maybe not to the level of public transportation, but certainly better than now. It may even be possible to put rails on these roads to power electric vehicles, which would surpass public transportation (it would be more efficient as your vehicle does not have to stop and every single stop and then start back up again). The way I see it, driverless cars could be better than public transportation in every way, maybe with the exception of efficiency.
In the end, our cars will be more like a small bedroom, living room or office. We'll have a couch and a TV/monitor or a desk with a computer or whatever you want. There will be no steering wheel, gas pedal, or designated seats. If the system works well enough, we won't even need seat belts. Every car will be like a limo without a driver. I don't know if any of us will live to see that day.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Or how about no one no longer needing to own a car becasue they are autmated and have a car sitting not doing anyting is a waste.
You just pay your 50 bucks a month to be a member of a car pool.
Buses won't be needed any more, fewer parking lots, less congestion.
I suspect there will be different kinds of pools at different cost.
A pool of automated vans that ;pick up 12 people on the way to work, comfort car pool where a luxury car picks yo up. Sports car pool.
It gets real interesting with automated Motor Cycles.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
Two points
the ggp post you made, #3 is wrong - it wasn't subtle.
Also, Bing maps did appear to be faster than Google maps when I tested it just now, but then again, it's less popular, so it's probably getting hammered less. That being said, it was very confused by rather simple directions request. I'll happily take the 3x longer load time for google maps, since it can not only get me within the right zip code, but to the right place.
Note - this was a simple query - street number, name, and city. Google maps had no trouble, Bing Maps gave me four results, all in the wrong zip coes.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Traffic is a result of ( volume of cars) > (capacity of road).
It's not that simple. The number of cars on the road depends on the average speed of the cars. The slower cars go, the longer they'll be sitting on the road taking up space.
But as the number of cars increases past a certain point, the average speed decreases. People get nervous driving in tight formation, for good reason. This leads to roads never actually being used at capacity.
If instead we had driverless cars that would form into packs that move at the speed limit, even when the road is nearly saturated, we'll get more cars off the road faster thereby reducing congestion.
Nifty, huh?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Traffic is a result of ( volume of cars) > (capacity of road).
That's not the only cause of traffic jams. Some other causes, just off the top of my head:
- Lanes ending, either due to construction or accident.
- Major exit ramps onto another road with traffic issues. Not only does that screw up the right lane, it also screws up the next lane over with the jerks who drive past the line of cars waiting and then try to force their way into the line.
- A single slow driver can wreak significant havoc just by cruising down the right lane at 45 mph. The reason is that now the not-quite-as-slow 55 mph driver pulls into the next lane over to pass them, forcing the 60 mph driver into the left lane, leaving the 75-80 mph drivers going insane behind them.
- Sun glare and other natural conditions slowing down drivers, especially timid drivers.
I am officially gone from
I think if these take off (and I hope they will) we'll see a substantial increase in miles driven. Not just from people sending their cars back home to get someone else (it will be a while before they allow unoccupied driverless cars, I imagine), but from trips which were previously too tedious. If I can come home from work on Friday evening, get in my self driving car with the family, and wake up in Orlando or Cape Cod, I'm much more likely to take such trips over a weekend. I bet it would double the miles I put on in a year; if everyone was doing that type of thing, it'd put a big strain on gasoline supplies. Hopefully their introduction will tie in to increases in efficiency.