Oxford Tests Self-Driving Cars

halls-of-valhalla writes "Using advances in 3D laser mapping technology, Oxford University has developed a car that is able to drive itself along familiar routes. This new self-driving automobile uses lasers and small cameras to memorize everyday trips such as the morning commute. This car is not dependant on GPS because this car is able to tell where it is by recognizing its surroundings. The intent is for this car to be capable of taking over the drive when on routes that it has traveled before. While being driven, the car is capable of developing a 3D model of its environment and learning routes. When driving a particular journey a second time, an iPad on the dashboard informs the driver that it is capable of taking over and finishing the drive. The driver can then touch the screen and the car shifts to 'auto drive' mode. The driver can reclaim control of the car at any time by simply tapping the brakes."

Comments

I hope they spell better at Oxford

[lophophore]

on your car, you have "brakes". if the brakes break, then you have big problems.

Kindly consult the Oxford English Dictionary.

Re:Google has done this already.

[Tx]

According to a TV report I saw on this, the point of the Oxford technology is that it's supposed to be much simpler and cheaper than existing implementations, with the development version costing only £5000, and projected price of a commercial version of just £100.

It would be nice if such the article mentioned the existence of comparable tech, such as Google's self-driving cars, and perhaps did some comparisons, but unfortunately being a science and technology journalist these days means copying and pasting press releases, so the journo in question probably actually does have such little interest in technology that he hasn't head of the Google initiative. Sad.

Re:You'd think it would be obivous

[serviscope_minor]

You'd think it would be obvious to some of the folks at slashdot that pontificating about a grand idea is much, much easier than making a simpler idea actually work right.

Re:"breaks" = "brakes"

[gestalt_n_pepper]

No, it's just shows the brakes in our education system, after the breaks were put on in the eighties and we started to loose what we had at our peek. No doubt due to the hoards of new students. Whew, well gotta go. I'm beet.

TMI Siri

[wynterwynd]

"I see you are driving down Laurel Ave and I can drive you to your destination. Are you heading to:

- Bosco's Liquor Store (1.73 mi)?
- The Bouncing Pasty Gentleman's Parlor (2.64 mi)?
- The Purple Nurple Tobacco Accessory Shop (1.25 mi)?"

".... Siri, change profile to 'Mom'."

"Okay. Changing user profile settings to 'Mom', please wait"

and yet....

[duckintheface]

All that time and engineering effort. All that programming expertise. And yet.... it still drives on the wrong side of the road.

Re:Google has done this already.

[ShanghaiBill]

Google's self-driving car is probably considerably more expensive at around $250000

That is the cost of an engineering prototype. The cost of massed produced cars would be far lower. I talked to a Google engineer that was demoing one of their cars at the San Jose Fairgrounds. He pointed out a bulky optical rotary encoder on each wheel, about the size of a soda can, and said they cost over $2000 each. He said they were going to soon replace them with a magnetic hall-effect encoder the size of a penny. Cost: $3 each.

Re:This is great, but not very exciting

[BasilBrush]

So these Oxford researchers are not doing something new, they are just doing less.

Doing less is a new approach. A sensible one, particularly in robotics. For example see the Roomba, vs the Electolux Trilobyte. The Trilobite mapped the whole room before designing an efficient cleaning route. The Roomba just wanders randomly, with some simple heuristics for occasionally following walls and occasionally changing direction. Result: The cheap Roomba approach is successful in the market, and the expensive Trilobite is a failure.

Here for example you mention GPS. That's of limited use, as the accuracy is in terms of meters. Far too course for self driving. And it can disappear completely in cities. And all it would do is narrow down the initial search space to identify the current location.

One way to make their system more useful would be to upload learned routes to a server, so they can be auto-downloaded to other vehicles. Then your car could self-drive even on roads you haven't driven on before, as long as someone else has driven them.

I suggest you RTFA, then you won't spend time describing something they already have slated for the future.

Re:Google has done this already.

[RaceProUK]

expected price decrease in the future would be achieved by going camera-only.

Cameras don't deal well with rain, snow, and fog.

Infra-red cameras cope fairly well, better than the human eye sometimes.

Re:Google has done this already.

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

No. Just making it non human is already an advantage in some respects. I would gladly replace myself with a self-driving car if it was as good as myself. I might even be willing to pay double for a car with that feature. I mean leather seats, climate control, wood paneling interior, crazy powerful engines, are features I wouldn't pay an extra dime for. Luxury for luxury's sake is stupid, imho. As is speed for speed's sake. But give me a car that drives itself, I 'll buy one right now for twice the price that my existing car is.