Self-Driving Car Faces Off Against Pro On Thunderhill Racetrack

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Self-Driving Car Faces Off Against Pro On Thunderhill Racetrack

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @10:37AM from the see-you-on-the-top-gear-track dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "Rachel Swaby reports that a self-driving car and a seasoned race-car driver recently faced off at Northern California's three-mile Thunderhill Raceway loop. The autonomous vehicle is a creation from the Center for Automotive Research at Stanford (CARS). 'We tried to model [the self-driving car] after what we've learned from the best race-car drivers,' says Chris Gerdes (who talks more about the development of autonomous cars in this TED talk). So who won? Humans, of course. But only by a few measly seconds. 'What the human drivers do is consistently feel out the limits of the car and push it just a little bit farther,' explained Gerdes. 'When you look at what the car is capable of and what humans achieve, that gap is really actually small.' Because the self-driving car reacts to the track as if it were controlled in real time by a human, a funny thing happens to passengers along for the ride. Initially, when the car accelerates to 115 miles per hour and then brakes just in time to make it around a curve, the person riding shotgun freaks out. But a second lap looks very different. Passengers tend to relax, putting their faith in the automatically spinning wheel. 'We might have a tendency to put too much confidence in it,' cautioned Gerdes. 'Watching people experience it, they'll say, oh, that was flawless.' Gerdes reaction: 'Wait wait! This was developed by a crazy professor and graduate students!'"

112 of 151 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Seconds? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-31 10:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Seconds aren't "measly" in motorsports. They can decide an entire season championship.
1. Re:Seconds? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-31 10:52 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Outside the race track, who cares? It is like saying my processor is 1 Mhz better than yours.
2. Re:Seconds? by jtownatpunk.net · 2012-10-31 11:06 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  And that would be technically correct. The best kind of correct.
3. Re:Seconds? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-31 11:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Similar to ABS, this has potential for saving John Driver's butt when he gets in over his head.
  Firstly, if all robot cars can successfully drive at the limit of performance, avoidable accidents will cease to occur. Race drivers might be able to dodge a spinning car or deer in the blink of an eye, but John Driver can't.
  Secondly, taking a page right out of ABS's playbook, one of the places human drivers have the most difficulty is variable or unusual conditions, like rain or loose surface (gravel, dirt, etc). Robots, as ABS has proved, are quite valuable in this sort of situation. While they cannot perform at the absolute limit, they can consistently perform close to that limit, while even the most skilled humans can have difficulty performing at the peak in variable or unusual conditions. Rally drivers may do it for a career, but John Driver isn't a rally driver.
4. Re:Seconds? by realityimpaired · 2012-10-31 12:23 · Score: 2
  
  Seconds depends on the length of the track. There are tracks that can be cleared in less than a minute, and a few seconds is a significant difference. It also depends on the type of car being used... track records at Thunderhill vary from 1:37 for a lap to 2:15 depending on the type of car, and TFA doesn't provide any information as to the type of vehicle being driven. ( http://www.sfrscca.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4448&Itemid=93&selTrack=Thunderhill+Raceway+Park&selLength=2.866&selSession=Race&cmdSubmit=Submit ) Thunderhill also has a short track route that has been done in under a minute.
  That being said, the better question is how does the computer compare against an average driver? I'd lay odds that it would thoroughly trounce most of us in such a race, which makes it very impressive.
5. Re:Seconds? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-31 14:01 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  But clearly autonomous cars are bad for everyone because of (insert fringe case) where the car can't perform above 98.5%. Also, humans are better at (thing that rarely happens,) so since I think I'm a better than average driver (just like 90% of people think they're above the median,) then this is clearly a failed technology that shouldn't be allowed to be used by anyone.
  Also, I don't use a seatbelt, airbag, or ABS because I'm not fooled into thinking that researchers, engineers, empirical evidence, and years of track record prove that these things make driving more safe. Obviously me, an IT professional, knows better.
6. Re:Seconds? by dreamchaser · 2012-10-31 14:14 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I've done rally racing and I'm pretty damn good at it, and I'd still welcome an AI assist for my daily driving. Would I want it in a race? Probably not just yet, but when I'm driving to a job site I am not racing and would love to have the extra protection.
7. Re:Seconds? by Skal+Tura · 2012-10-31 15:59 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  AC is correct.
  In motorsports few seconds is a very long time. The lap times are not mentioned.
  The raceway in question is probably this: http://thunderhill.com/staticpages/index.php?page=TrackMap
  But which variation? Long version 2.866miles record times tend to be just over the 2minute mark for somewhat normal cars.
  Short version is 1.769miles for which SCCA website is missing the record times, the medium version is 1.814miles and record times tend to be close to 1:30 mark with somewhat regular cars.
  Also they don't say how good race car driver was the AI against, there is a huge variety of race car driver skill levels.
  Few seconds? They are being vague, i bet it was more than just 2 seconds because they are being vague.
  Some racing series have 3% rule to qualify, ie. within 3% of the best time, for 1:30 lap time that is 2.7seconds, in other words this AI wouldn't even qualify. :)
  All that being said, great work! Got to start from somewhere.
  In theory AI could become better than humans, but then again AI will most likely always lack intuition, so could well be that a human will always surpass AI.
  Nevermind that a very highly skilled human with very high motivation can do some insane reaction and completely remove the guesswork some of the time when surpassing the limits, ie. see Ayrton Senna. For AI we'd need sensor capable of few ms polling rates with data returned, then compute all the data within few milliseconds and then some insane fast and accurate servos to achieve that level.
  Few millisecond polling rate doesn't sound like much until you realize that for example USB has 90ms, PS/2 is in theory capable of 5ms, and serial port even faster, but that doesn't account for data transfer rates.
  There's a reason why we cannot even build a simple ECU/EMS with standard off-the-shelf hardware: Polling rates are too slow.
  
  --
  Pulsed Media Seedboxes
8. Re:Seconds? by hairyfish · 2012-10-31 19:37 · Score: 1
  
  Outside the race track, who cares? It is like saying my processor is 1 Mhz better than yours.
  Well this was on a race track so it matters quite a lot. If this was about driving to work I could understand you point, but the experiment was to exactly to demonstrate the minute detail that differentiates the winner and loser on the race track.
9. Re:Seconds? by Stalks · 2012-11-01 00:07 · Score: 1
  
  You went AC just so you could add "moron" to your comment.
10. Re:Seconds? by MufasaZX · 2012-11-01 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  I've raced, Autocrossed, and instructed with the SCCA in Northern California for many years, and after checking the video it's clear that they are running the full length course, including the blind high-pucker-factor Turn 5 (NASA punks run a bypass around it, which IMHO takes the fun out of it. No, not that NASA).
  
  And I gotta say while the AI seems to drive with a good amount of commitment, it's only kinda on the "Driving Line", and not remotely close to nailing the apexes to use every inch of pavement. It's easy to see how a real human driver would crush the AI for now, but as you said, it's a great start, and lots of room for improvement.
  
  A fully AI racing serious would be very interesting, I can imagine the programmers setting up their AI's to more and more aggressively bluff and fake and dive to the apex without compromise to force the other AIs dodge out of the way. Rubbing paint would be inevitable, and for once, not be accompanied by risk to squishy humans...
11. Re:Seconds? by Mattcelt · 2012-11-01 02:16 · Score: 2
  
  Screw the assist. I love to drive, and I'll never want to give up the option of manual control completely, but I would MUCH rather spend my commute reading, playing music, writing, watching movies, or fucking while my car automatically gets me to work. Give me the whole enchilada and not just some driver augmentation.
12. Re:Seconds? by SleazyRidr · 2012-11-01 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  Well the summary says it's a 3 mile track, so it sounds like they were using the long track.
  I would have thought oval racing would be where computers could completely kick humans' butts. It's all about getting your turn in point just right, hitting the apex at exactly the right point, then applying the right amount of throttle to get away from the corner as fast as you can without losing grip. I think in a couple of iterations no human would be able to keep up.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
13. Re:Seconds? by mcgrew · 2012-11-01 02:57 · Score: 2
  
  Also, I don't use a seatbelt, airbag, or ABS because I'm not fooled into thinking that researchers, engineers, empirical evidence, and years of track record prove that these things make driving more safe.
  Ok, you're joking, but many people actually believe that seatbelts and air bags are more dangerous than not having them, and I even doubted ABS. I was trained as a driver in the USAF and knew that in a skid the vehicle will travel farther than when the brakes are almost at skid level, and that when in a skid you have no steering whatsoever. It took a while to unlearn my Air Force training and stand on the brake in an emergency, but I have to tell you, the milliseconds a computer can react is far faster than the fastest human. My ABS has kept me from hitting stupid dogs, ignorant children, and idiots driving cars who don't look when they pull out, or slow for stop signs, more than once.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
14. Re:Seconds? by Lashat · 2012-11-01 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  I am Lashat and I approve of this message.
  This is right. Semi-Pro Racer here. The last thing I want is my vehicle second guessing my input in white knuckle manuevers. However, I would enjoy kicking back and playing with my kid while during the commute.
  
  --
  For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
15. Re:Seconds? by tlhIngan · 2012-11-01 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, you're joking, but many people actually believe that seatbelts and air bags are more dangerous than not having them, and I even doubted ABS. I was trained as a driver in the USAF and knew that in a skid the vehicle will travel farther than when the brakes are almost at skid level, and that when in a skid you have no steering whatsoever. It took a while to unlearn my Air Force training and stand on the brake in an emergency, but I have to tell you, the milliseconds a computer can react is far faster than the fastest human. My ABS has kept me from hitting stupid dogs, ignorant children, and idiots driving cars who don't look when they pull out, or slow for stop signs, more than once.
  Well, airbags are more dangerous if used WITHOUT seatbelts. They actually do cause more injuries to the occupants that are wildly flying about the cabin. But used with seatbelts they are very effective. I think most modern cars disable the airbags if the occupant is not wearing seatbelts for that reason. (Of course, are there any places where wearing seatbelts for regular driving are still optional? Not counting special cases like ice road driving, for example (a seatbelt only impedes evacuation if you break through, and you're driving slow enough that even if you have an accident (... which seems difficult to do since well, you're going slow) it feels like hitting a speedbump).)
  As for ABS - it turns out while you can threshold brake to demonstrate, in a real emergency most people can't and don't remember to, so the natural reaction to just stomp on the brakes works really well. The few who have to unlearn it typically have it strongly ingrained through training (more than what you get from normal driver training).
16. Re:Seconds? by nhat11 · 2012-11-01 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, in sports and in competition, a few seconds or milliseconds means the difference between winning and losing.
17. Re:Seconds? by davewoods · 2012-11-01 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder what these times would look like if they drivers raced one at a time, and none of them knew how well the other ones did.
18. Re:Seconds? by dreamchaser · 2012-11-01 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  I would have no problem at all with it as long as it has a manual override.
cool by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-31 10:46 · Score: 2

but where's the video?
1. Re:cool by Firehed · 2012-10-31 11:17 · Score: 2
  
  The TED talk has a few clips.
  
  --
  How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
2. Re:cool by kbob88 · 2012-10-31 11:45 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Try this: http://youtu.be/YxHcJTs2Sxk
BRAKE by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-31 10:49 · Score: 5, Informative

brake brake brake brake brake brake
the word is brake
1. Re:BRAKE by bdwebb · 2012-10-31 12:38 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I'm confused...AFAIK it doesn't work because in the context of making a "fast break for it" the term implies a breaking of your current action or state (suddenly bolting/running/attempting escape/etc.) In TFS it is stated that it "accelerates to 115 miles per hour and then breaks just in time to make it around a curve" which literally implies that the brakes are being pressed to slow the vehicle's entry into the curve which is 'braking' rather than 'breaking' as either the current state of acceleration or any physical characteristic breaking would need to be specified to give it context and make the this spelling appropriate.
  
  I see what you're saying in that it could be double entendre but for me to call it a clever poke rather than a grammatical error it would have to say "accelerates to 115 miles per hour and then breaks from acceleration just in time to make it around a curve". In a statement like 'take a break" or 'take a brake' I agree that either works as one implies departing from an particular action or state of being and the other implies slowing down or stopping.
  
  I'm not trying to be a dick, btw...just exploring the possibilities. IANAEP (English Professor) so I don't know what I'm talking about probably...that's just how it happens in my head piece.
2. Re:BRAKE by ozmanjusri · 2012-10-31 12:57 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  No.
  If "the car accelerates to 115 miles per hour and then breaks" several fragments of it might make it around the corner as TFA suggest, but typically, the larger portions of the broken car will continue in a straight line until deflected or destroyed by a wall.
  In that event, the idea that "Passengers tend to relax, putting their faith in the automatically spinning wheel" seems unlikely, unless we're talking about permanent relaxation and some kind of Tibetan prayer wheel.
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
3. Re:BRAKE by Legion303 · 2012-10-31 15:23 · Score: 2
  
  Slow down, there, cowboy, before you brake Slashdot.
4. Re:BRAKE by David_Hart · 2012-10-31 15:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  In the context of the article, the word used to decelerate when coming into a corner should be "brake" not "break". The traditional use of the word "break" indicates that the car has become "broken" or is damaged in some way.
  While it's true that the saying "make a break for it" indicates taking off in a different direction, there is no connotation of slowing down. In fact, it has the opposite connotation of picking up speed. In the case of cornering, you have to slow the vehicle down or centrifugal force will cause the vehicle to leave the road.
  In this case you would BRAKE going into a corner and you then MAKE A BREAK out of the corner (i.e. quickly picking up speed to try to gain an advantage).
5. Re:BRAKE by LMariachi · 2012-10-31 19:48 · Score: 1
  
  “Making a break” to me implies breaking the line that you were following, as when escaping a chain gang or somesuch.
6. Re:BRAKE by Guignol · 2012-10-31 21:49 · Score: 1
  
  That's because once this speed is achieved, the passengers brains produce a level of gamma waves — those linked to consciousness, attention, learning and memory — never before reported in neuroscience
7. Re:BRAKE by mcgrew · 2012-11-01 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  In the context of the article, the word used to decelerate when coming into a corner should be "brake" not "break".
  Only if you're literate.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
sorry, pedantry by History's+Coming+To · 2012-10-31 10:52 · Score: 5, Funny

Brakes, not breaks. Maybe it breaks, and that would certainly freak the passenger out, but I sense in this case it brakes. When you're driving at a wall braking lets you do it again, breaking doesn't. Subtle distinction I thought should be pointed out.

(This post brought to you by the collective might of the Oblivious Flaw In The Headline Committee, newly formed to point out the obvious flaw and thereby negating 50% of the discussion dealing with grammar and spelling.)

--
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
1. Re:sorry, pedantry by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-31 15:52 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, pedantry about the pedantry.
  That's not a flaw in the headline, it's a flaw in the summary.
I can see it now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-31 10:52 · Score: 5, Funny

Turn left
Turn left
Turn left
Kill all humans
Turn left
1. Re:I can see it now by Shag · 2012-10-31 18:39 · Score: 2
  
  From what I've seen lately, that's pretty much what NASCAR drivers are already trying to do.
  
  --
  Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
2. Re:I can see it now by Burning1 · 2012-11-01 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Turn left
  Turn left
  Turn left
  Kill all humans
  Turn left
  No no no no no... Thunder hill is a road course, not a Nascar circuit. It turns left AND right.
Re:ONLY a few seconds? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-31 10:54 · Score: 3, Funny

Not that I will ever trust an autonomous vehicle with my life.
Because you're irrational. I bet you'd trust a human, though!
It will win soon by swamp_ig · 2012-10-31 10:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

A self-driving car doesn't have to pay much attention to the fragility of the human form when it doesn't have any on board.
Accelerate at 50g? no problem just add extra bracing.
1. Re:It will win soon by aaronb1138 · 2012-10-31 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  Kinda misses the point of a car. Perhaps not a tractor-trailer, but cars are definitely not all that useful without passengers.
2. Re:It will win soon by OzPeter · 2012-10-31 11:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  Kinda misses the point of a car. Perhaps not a tractor-trailer, but cars are definitely not all that useful without passengers.
  Yes they are.
  
  Self driving car drops me off at the front door of where I want to be, and the drives itself off to an automated parking garage
  Self driving car starts up and drives to the local mechanic for its regular service in the middle of the day when I am working
  Tell self driving car to head to the local big box store and wait in the loading bay until it receives the latest toy that I ordered online
  --
  I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
3. Re:It will win soon by Burning1 · 2012-10-31 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  You miss an obvious problem... Modern race cars don't accelerate, corner, or brake anywhere near the limits of human endurance. Why? Those pesky physics get in the way. It's hard to make a car accelerate at 50G. Top fuel drag racers don't achieve anything near that kind of acceleration, and accelerating is pretty much all they can do.
  If you want to talk about aircraft or rockets, that's a different matter.
  (FWIW, you could probably make a self driving car much lighter than a human powered car by eliminating all those pesky creature comforts, such as seats and controls.)
4. Re:It will win soon by kwerle · 2012-10-31 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  The fragility of the human form is in no way a limiting factor. The factors are:
  * The vehicles are designed to carry people
  * They therefore have certain performance characteristics
  * The computer was not as good as the person at pushing to the limits of those characteristics
5. Re:It will win soon by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-31 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  They are starting to.
  F1 is having drivers 'red out' and there have been some detached retinas under braking.
6. Re:It will win soon by viperidaenz · 2012-10-31 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  seats, controls, crumple zones, side impact beams, air bags, the entire cabin area....
7. Re:It will win soon by characterZer0 · 2012-10-31 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  Tell self driving car to head to the local big box store and wait in the loading bay until it receives the latest toy that I ordered online
  I know Americans are stupid about using their cars for every trip whether it makes sense to drive or not, but sending your car to pick up a box instead of letting the FedEx truck do it is absolutely retarded.
  
  --
  Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
8. Re:It will win soon by OzPeter · 2012-10-31 13:22 · Score: 2
  
  Tell self driving car to head to the local big box store and wait in the loading bay until it receives the latest toy that I ordered online
  I know Americans are stupid about using their cars for every trip whether it makes sense to drive or not, but sending your car to pick up a box instead of letting the FedEx truck do it is absolutely retarded.
  Only if you assume 1) that the FedEx truck is more efficient than your car, and 2) Waiting for the twice daily FedEx delivery cycle is a good use of your time.
  
  But the point is that self driving cars open a whole range of possibilities that can't easily be done if you have to dedicate yourself to driving the car.
  
  --
  I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
9. Re:It will win soon by redneckmother · 2012-10-31 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  A self-driving car doesn't have to pay much attention to the fragility of the human form when it doesn't have any on board.
  Accelerate at 50g? no problem just add extra bracing.
  Or add extra braking / breaking (see discussion above).
10. Re:It will win soon by RicktheBrick · 2012-10-31 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  If the FedEx truck was also self driving than it would only make one trip empty. If it delivered 100 items than it would save those people 100 empty trips to the store. Assuming there is less distance between customers than there is between each customer and the store would ensure it efficiency. There could be revolving boxes inside the truck to ensure customer only gets what is theirs. Lets consider how much this would help the store. The parking lot of each box store is usually has more area than the store so they could fit in a lot less area. If the store could predict their needs they could have a lot less inventory. The needed inventory could be stored in shelves much higher than humans could reach and with much less space between the shelves. I have already seen videos of a robot climbing to get what is sent to get in modern warehouses so that has already been invented. There would be much less inventory loss because of shoplifting and from people who have a bad habit of picking up some meat and than going to hardware where they than discover they did not want the meat and just leave it there. There would be no need for check out clerks and people to stock inventory as that would be done by robots. I think our total commercial district could fit in a lot less area thus freeing up millions of square miles of area nationwide. With a lot of experience, I would think they could get delivery times down to a very short interval.
11. Re:It will win soon by mdfst13 · 2012-10-31 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  If the FedEx truck was also self driving than it would only make one trip empty.
  Why make any empty trips? Do pickups as well as drop offs and the truck can avoid being empty altogether. Of course, that only applies to generic package shippers like FedEx and UPS. More specific delivery vehicles may not be able to do that.
12. Re:It will win soon by ShanghaiBill · 2012-10-31 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  Why make any empty trips? Do pickups as well as drop offs and the truck can avoid being empty altogether.
  This doesn't work because the pickups and deliveries are mostly on different routes. Residential routes are mostly deliveries. Business routes are mostly pickups. Also, businesses want their deliveries in the morning as early as possible (repair parts, JIT inventory, etc), and the pickups late in the afternoon to ship out the days orders.
13. Re:It will win soon by ozmanjusri · 2012-10-31 18:08 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Retinas are breaking?
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
14. Re:It will win soon by MrL0G1C · 2012-10-31 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  Taxi's would get a whole lot cheaper.
  
  --
  Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
15. Re:It will win soon by mcgrew · 2012-11-01 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Taxi's what would get a whole lot cheaper? Their spare tires? Their gasoline? What??
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
16. Re:It will win soon by mcgrew · 2012-11-01 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  F1 is having drivers 'red out' and there have been some detached retinas under braking.
  
  From BRAKING? Sorry, without a citation I simply don't believe that. From smashing into the wall at 200 mph, sure, but not braking. If that were true you'ld have shitloads of fighter pilots getting vitrectomies, let alone prize fighters.
  Sorry, I'm calling bullshit.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
17. Re:It will win soon by Burning1 · 2012-11-01 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  F1 cars are closer to inverted aircraft than cars anyhow, but fair point. :)
18. Re:It will win soon by MrL0G1C · 2012-11-01 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  Taxi's hire cost would get a whole lot cheaper because there would be no driver to pay for.
  
  --
  Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
19. Re:It will win soon by mcgrew · 2012-11-02 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  Nice pun, someone mod the parent funny!
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
20. Re:It will win soon by mdfst13 · 2012-11-02 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  I've never lived anywhere that didn't have businesses between the UPS depot and me. It doesn't take a lot of pickups to keep the truck from being empty. One is sufficient; more is gravy.
  I also think that you underestimate the concentration of pickups. A single Amazon warehouse ships a lot of packages from that one location. So many that they tend to ship trailers that they load rather than have UPS load individual trucks. For that reason, I doubt that most business routes (i.e. ones that aren't to Amazon) are mostly pickups. Business routes would be more evenly divided. Some pickups and some deliveries. It's the home routes that would be concentrated on deliveries. You also need to remember that a UPS truck delivers a large number of packages per day.
  I did some Googling to confirm what I thought: http://www.browncafe.com/forum/f6/average-stops-per-day-delivery-pickups-35610/
  Note that even the most delivery oriented route still had two pickups. The median seems to be in the eight to ten range. The business route had thirty-seven pickups and almost a hundred deliveries. I'm sure that it happens for a truck to leave or return empty, but it doesn't seem to be typical.
Betteridge's Law by Andrio · 2012-10-31 11:00 · Score: 5, Funny

"In a Race Between a Self-Driving Car and a Pro Race-Car Driver, Who Wins?"

No.

--
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
1. Re:Betteridge's Law by p0p0 · 2012-10-31 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  I think you may have missed the point and landed in the lake of not-quite-sure.
2. Re:Betteridge's Law by circletimessquare · 2012-10-31 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  we lose
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
3. Re:Betteridge's Law by mcgrew · 2012-11-01 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  In a Race Between a Self-Driving Car and a Pro Race-Car Driver, what is that wooshing sound?
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
Re:ONLY a few seconds? by SternisheFan · 2012-10-31 11:04 · Score: 1

I'd like to see how this tests out with people other than me and my family as guinea pigs. Will a human driver be able to take back control of the vehicle, say, if the computer malfunctions causing the car to accelerate towards the edge of a cliff? Or will it just say to you, "I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that." as it goes over the edge?
Horrible article by Zapotek · 2012-10-31 11:04 · Score: 1

There wasn't anything remotely related to the title, no video, no telemetry not even laptimes. And "measly seconds"? Full seconds under racing conditions are not "measly".
I was really disappointed, the title sounded really promising...
1. Re:Horrible article by Eightbitgnosis · 2012-10-31 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  I believe most potential consumers of self driving cars don't plan to race them in the coming robot racing league
2. Re:Horrible article by jxander · 2012-10-31 12:29 · Score: 2
  
  In the context of racing, you are correct : seconds are not measly
  In the context of my daily commute, seconds are completely irrelevant. Even a few minutes are pretty measly.
  Also consider the competition. The car is roughly on par with a professional race car driver... or rather a seasoned one, though the fail to mention what seasoning they used. Either way, that's already leaps and bounds ahead of 95% of drivers
  
  --
  This signature is false.
3. Re:Horrible article by viperidaenz · 2012-10-31 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  yes, even horse racing has been decided by milliseconds. I believe 0.002s is the record for closest horse racing finish.
4. Re:Horrible article by RespekMyAthorati · 2012-10-31 17:44 · Score: 1
  
  What I want to know is did the robocar have time to study the course beforehand?
  Also, did it have a detailed 3D GPS map of the course to use as a reference to pre-compute the optimum strategy?
  If not, it would have had to figure out the best braking, acceleration, and steering strategy in real time, which would be much more impressive.
5. Re:Horrible article by Kjella · 2012-10-31 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  Ultimately where you car is going is determined by four little contact points between the car and the ground, that has a certain grip (rubber on road friction). That grip can be used for accelerating, braking or keeping a turn. The math here is a few integrals and nothing humans do in their head, but for computers that's pretty straightforward. It doesn't make the car road safe though. The main reason your typical driver isn't so good at this is that you don't actually want to find out where that limit goes. I remember when I was 18 and cocky and did a turn at an intersection just on the limit, my back tires actually went a little sideways on dry asphalt. It was not a "wow, fucking awesome just like at the race track" it was an "oh crap, 2 km/h faster or 0,2 seconds slower at braking or the road grip being slightly worse I'd have slammed into the railing" moment.
  If you want to get good at this you have to set up a training area with cones and just go for it - how fast can you go and still make the turn and you haven't really tested it until you've gone off the road and then dialed it back a notch. That's what race drivers have in their blood, they know that's exactly how far you can push it. For the rest of us, like you say for your commute even a few minutes are pretty measly so why risk it trying to shave 0,2 seconds off that turn? If the computer can reliably squeeze out those extra margins that's fine, but that's never been a selling point nor the blocker for having automated cars. Hell, I'd probably take 45 minutes as a passenger over 30 minutes like a driver.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
6. Re:Horrible article by Neil+Boekend · 2012-10-31 21:32 · Score: 1
  
  When avoiding a crash this becomes very important. It isn't the only thing a robot car should be good at, not by far, but it is wise to teach it to them.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Re:Been there, done that..... by Zapotek · 2012-10-31 11:09 · Score: 2

Not quite, if I recall correctly, it wasn't behaving as a racer, it just did a GPS-navigated lap of the track -- a human took it for a spin, it recorded the lines and then just replayed them. And it was a regular model (maybe even diesel), not a performance (M-something) one.
Why'd the human driver really beat the robot? by CruelKnave · 2012-10-31 11:13 · Score: 2

Its strength and its speed are still based in a world that is built on rules. Because of that, it will never be as strong, or as fast, as we can be.
1. Re:Why'd the human driver really beat the robot? by DadLeopard · 2012-10-31 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  I would be inclined to think it was more limited by how well it could sense the tires gripping the road than how strong or fast it was, since they can always make it stronger and faster than the previous model, it is a machine after all! Kind of why we don't compete in marathons with Automobiles! 8-) Also why some UAVs can pull more Gs than a piloted aircraft!
2. Re:Why'd the human driver really beat the robot? by CruelKnave · 2012-10-31 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I know. It just made me think of that line from the Matrix. Like why Neo can beat Smith. Anyway, that was my lame attempt at humour.
There's room for improvement by DadLeopard · 2012-10-31 11:21 · Score: 1

Now we just have to see how it handles dogs on the track and the odd drunk or two! A farm wagon pulling onto the road right in front of it would also be a learning experience, to say nothing of the odd whitetail deer!
1. Re:There's room for improvement by vux984 · 2012-10-31 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget the moose attacks!
  http://www.theprovince.com/Moose+attacks+police+with+Prince+George+Mountie+inside/7447294/story.html
2. Re:There's room for improvement by pkinetics · 2012-10-31 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  Moose Gone Wild... Next on COPS!
The beginning of the end... by JustNiz · 2012-10-31 11:26 · Score: 1

One more step towards ideocracy and less freedom.
Get used to the idea that in a decade or two's time it will probably be illegal to drive a car manually. New cars might not even have controls, just a microphone to speak the destination into. Mothers Against Drivers, the government and all car manufacturers will successfully collaborate in brainwashing the general population into believing that humans are mentally/physically incapable of actually driving a car at all, certainly never safely.
1. Re:The beginning of the end... by geekoid · 2012-10-31 11:40 · Score: 2
  
  Just like it's illegal to fly a plane manually? oh wait. More alarmist bullshit form the 'League of Alarmist through FUD."
  And if it goes where you want, why does it matter?
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
2. Re:The beginning of the end... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-31 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  One more step towards less freedom. Why when I was a lad I took ol' Bessie across the mountain and she was bio fueled (that's HAY for you young uns). The only limits were your imagination. Then that guy Ford came up with some idea that required roads. Pretty soon you couldn't just prance about wherever you desired and had to travel to crossroads. Can you imagine the sheep who sit there listening to overlords colored red green and yellow? In my day, I'd just hoof it around that mess at 35 mph. Egads, these sheep are the future of our country. No doubt they'll never accomplish anything like landing on the moon or carrying all the information of the world in devices the size of their palms. They'll be forever in gridlock.
3. Re:The beginning of the end... by Ambassador+Kosh · 2012-10-31 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt these cars will be required but I will definitely get one. I hate driving and consider it an option of last resort when buses, bikes and walking are not available.
  
  --
  Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
4. Re:The beginning of the end... by Neil+Boekend · 2012-10-31 21:36 · Score: 1
  
  I consider that a good future. Driving your own car should be done on the racetrack, the only reason it's legal now is that we don't have a decent solution yet.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
5. Re:The beginning of the end... by Beyond_GoodandEvil · 2012-11-01 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  And if it goes where you want, why does it matter?
  Because, I for one do not want a future that resembles shitty Rush songs, red little boat indeed.
  
  --
  I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
6. Re:The beginning of the end... by jbmartin6 · 2012-11-01 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  Because it won't just go where I want. It will go where some busybody decides I should go instead. It will report where I go back to untrustworthy and unaccountable organizations. It will go where some hacker/serial killer/kidnapper decides it should go.
  
  --
  This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
7. Re:The beginning of the end... by JustNiz · 2012-11-01 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  Its people like you that happily give up their rights that make the erosion of rights possible.
8. Re:The beginning of the end... by JustNiz · 2012-11-01 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  Should have had my coffee. I mean freedoms not rights.
Re:ONLY a few seconds? by Type44Q · 2012-10-31 11:31 · Score: 2

I bet you'd trust a human, though!

Either way, you're trusting humans. The question is, which choice offers fewer points of failure? ;)
I want to see by geekoid · 2012-10-31 11:38 · Score: 2

a dozen driverless cars designed to race go at this. Would emergent behavior appear? Can we make them so decisions are recorded and then applied to the next situation?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
1. Re:I want to see by MangoCats · 2012-10-31 13:07 · Score: 2
  
  See: RARS
Re:Been there, done that..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-31 11:53 · Score: 1

And the bot still didn't use a turn signal.
what about utility trucks that need to be place th by Joe_Dragon · 2012-10-31 11:54 · Score: 1

what about utility trucks that need to be place that just having a microphone / touch screen will be a very poor way to get them in to place to work on lines / even be used as a temp prop on a power pole to hold it in place.
a race track is a poor test for a day to day use o by Joe_Dragon · 2012-10-31 11:55 · Score: 1

a race track is a poor test for a day to day use of a car.
Re:a race track is a poor test for a day to day us by CaptainLard · 2012-10-31 12:18 · Score: 2

It might not be a good test for how many groceries you can carry but its an excellent place to develop and test new technologies and find out what a car will do in emergency situation. If it's raining I'd feel much more comfortable if the car that's driving me has demonstrated an ability to recognize and correct over-steer or know the balance between braking/steering input when a deer jumps into the road.
And the TED talk guy screamed while cornering... by charlesbakerharris · 2012-10-31 12:33 · Score: 1

EHRMAGERDES!
Re:a race track is a poor test for a day to day us by pkinetics · 2012-10-31 12:45 · Score: 1

Rainy day one thing.
Rainy day with a bunch of kids, trees jumping out (honest ossifer), ostriches running around, moose attacks vehicle... Would depend on how reliable the system has proven to be.
Re:ONLY a few seconds? by viperidaenz · 2012-10-31 12:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

Software also undergoes thousands of hours of testing before being set loose on the road. Human drivers, not so much.
Re:what about utility trucks that need to be place by pkinetics · 2012-10-31 12:47 · Score: 1

The problem with utility truck drivers, they won't like not being able to stop at the strip club and bars along the way... They really hate GPS tracking...
Re:Been there, done that..... by viperidaenz · 2012-10-31 12:55 · Score: 3, Funny

It's a BMW, turn signals are optional extras.
Reasonably Priced Car by skine · 2012-10-31 13:01 · Score: 2

Personally, I would LOVE if Top Gear (UK) brought in this team to test how quickly they can make the Reasonably Priced Car go around the track.
1. Re:Reasonably Priced Car by mdmkolbe · 2012-10-31 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, please!
Re:ONLY a few seconds? by im_thatoneguy · 2012-10-31 13:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

For every one of them that drives off a cliff, it'll save 100 people who would have not noticed a stopped vehicle ahead while checking over their shoulder while merging or running a red light because were momentarily distracted, or looked down to check the stereo for a second and drifted into oncoming traffic.
subject by Legion303 · 2012-10-31 15:11 · Score: 1

"But only by a few measly seconds."
In auto racing, a few seconds is generally considered an enormous lead.
I've experienced that "freak out" in a way by istartedi · 2012-10-31 18:17 · Score: 1

Obviously I wasn't riding shotgun with a robot. Instead, I was on an airboat in the Florida everglades. The first time the captain pointed us straight at the mangroves and gunned the engine, I freaked. Then I realized that with an airboat, you change the attitude, drift, and then accelerate. This guy was a master. He was able to navigate through the groves with just a couple feet on either side (at slower speeds of course). After the first few high speed turns, I sat back and enjoyed it just like the passengers in those cars.
He took pride in the fact that his boat had no rudder in the water, and thus was less likely to harm the endangered manatees. That first turn around a corner at speed was just one part of the experience. If riding an airboat through the glades isn't on your bucket list, it should be.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Re:ONLY a few seconds? by Neil+Boekend · 2012-10-31 21:25 · Score: 2

I'd be more worried if the computer isn't able to block human input that would lead to an accident. Because that is much more likely.
Humans are idiots. Distracted humans in a reflex situation doubly so.

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Re:ONLY a few seconds? by ledow · 2012-10-31 23:23 · Score: 1

And, unfortunately, software has little or no responsibility if it gets it wrong while a human does.
Don't think you'll see a CEO jailed any time soon because the company had inadequate testing procedures and they ran a kid over. Money will change hands, regulations will tighten, but people inside a software-producing company going to jail when their product fails? Very rare.
The other thing about humans is they have a superior (if slower) decision making capability. If you've seen the movie I-Robot (hardly Asimov-related, really, but not the point) you are given an example. The problem is that the computer follows orders, which aren't always ideal in all situations.
I'd rather crash into the cardboard box in the alleyway, or mount the kerb (if it's clear) than not get out of the way of the out-of-control juggernaut heading towards me that braking or staying still won't avoid.
Breaks / Brakes by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-10-31 23:44 · Score: 1

That has to be in the top 5 of incorrect word usage; fingernails on a chalkboard. Perhaps TFS needs to be written by bots too.
1. Re:Breaks / Brakes by neurovish · 2012-11-01 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  I could care less about that.
Downside by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-10-31 23:46 · Score: 1

As self-driving cars age, their reaction times slow down, they leave the turn signal on, and they mistake the farmers' market for the mechanics' service bay.
Re:ONLY a few seconds? by Hillgiant · 2012-11-01 00:25 · Score: 1

The human brain goes through a little over 140,000 hours of development and testing before being set loose on the road.

--
-
Re:ONLY a few seconds? by viperidaenz · 2012-11-01 07:44 · Score: 1

If a human driver accidentally runs over a kid who jumped out on the road, they don't get charged with a crime.

In the iRobot example, the robot saved the person they perceived to be the most likely to survive. A human would have tried to save the child and the more likely outcome would be two deaths instead of one.
Re:ONLY a few seconds? by viperidaenz · 2012-11-01 07:59 · Score: 1

Its a pretty slow learner. It takes over 10,000 hours to learn how to walk. After 20,000 its still learning fine control of individual fingers and still doesn't speak fluently. 0 of those 140,000 hours has been spent driving a car. 0 hours in a simulation, 0 hours learning how to correct an out of control car, 0 hours in emergency situations.
Re:ONLY a few seconds? by LateArthurDent · 2012-11-01 08:08 · Score: 1

Don't think you'll see a CEO jailed any time soon because the company had inadequate testing procedures and they ran a kid over.
I don't think so either. But then again, I also don't think he should.
How worried are you that a bridge you drive over won't fall if the winds pick up. How worried are you that the skyscraper you're on in LA won't collapse to the ground if an earthquake happens? These are all real dangers. And an engineer signed off on the design, indicating it meets all of the applicable codes. If something happens as a result of negligence from that engineer, his ass is on the line.
I am an engineer, and I know for a fact I'd face jail time if something happened to anything built from one of my designs that can be traced back to my negligence. I don't see why it would be any different with these cars.

The other thing about humans is they have a superior (if slower) decision making capability.
Not always, no. I've seen humans make plenty of bad decisions while driving that I know for a fact would not be made my software.

I'd rather crash into the cardboard box in the alleyway, or mount the kerb (if it's clear) than not get out of the way of the out-of-control juggernaut heading towards me that braking or staying still won't avoid.
And why are you assuming software won't? Those are not difficult human-only decisions, they're pretty standard and easy to recognize things. Currently google cars will actually avoid pedestrians that jump in front of the car at the very last minute. I don't know many people who I'm confident would be able to avoid hitting the pedestrian.
Furthermore, a driver goes to jail because he killed someone while driving drunk? Tomorrow another driver does the same thing. A car kills someone because of a software error? Next week, every car has received a software update that assures that error will never happen again.
USB latency is not necessarily 90 ms by olau · 2012-11-01 08:22 · Score: 1

According to this source USB can get down to around 1 ms theoretically. In practical terms, you can get an expensive MIDI keyboard with input through USB, and that's certainly much faster than 90ms, otherwise it would be completely useless.