Nissan's Autonomous Car Now Road Legal In Japan

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nissan's Autonomous Car Now Road Legal In Japan

Posted by Soulskill on Friday September 27, 2013 @07:43AM from the as-long-as-you-don't-program-it-to-run-over-mimes dept.

Daniel_Stuckey writes "The current test vehicle uses what Nissan calls its 'Advanced Driver Assist System,' which isn't fully autonomous, but rather can be thought of as a really advanced cruise control system. According to the company, the system can keep a car in its own lane, while automatically changing lanes to pass slower vehicles or prepare to exit a freeway, which it can also do automatically. Along with that, the car automatically slows for congestion, and — most impressively in my opinion — can automatically stop at red lights. In other words, the car isn't fully automatic in that you can't simply type in a destination and have it do all the work, but the bulk of driving load is taken care of. Curiously, Nissan's goal appears to be to take sloppy human drivers out of the equation to eliminate road fatalities."

47 of 205 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Curiously? by Antipater · 2013-09-27 07:48 · Score: 5, Funny

Curiously, Nissan's goal appears to be to take sloppy human drivers out of the equation to eliminate road fatalities."
"We want fewer people to die" is a curious position to take?

--
Everything is better with chainsaws.
1. Re:Curiously? by pablo_max · 2013-09-27 07:53 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Why? Dead people tend not to buy as many cars.
2. Re:Curiously? by BreakBad · 2013-09-27 08:00 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  They sure do like to vote though.
3. Re:Curiously? by cusco · 2013-09-27 08:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Hell, in Miami they still drive.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
4. Re:Curiously? by gagol · 2013-09-27 08:26 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  As far as general availability of self-driving cars, I see it as a good step. The technology needs to mature much more before we should consider total automation. Keeping a responsible human in the loop is not bad too. Kudos Nissan.
  
  --
  Tomorrow is another day...
5. Re:Curiously? by EnsilZah · 2013-09-27 08:38 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  What's curious is the fact that this line has nothing to do with the car in the article and actually refers to Nissan's plan to build an army of ninja robots who would take sloppy human drivers out of the equation to eliminate road fatalities.
6. Re:Curiously? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-27 08:43 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Or may be they have a real problem with aging population there.
  So helping the drivers as much as possible and gradually going to autonomous isn't necessarily a bad thing.
7. Re:Curiously? by EEPROMS · 2013-09-27 08:49 · Score: 2
  
  what is curious for me is at what point will insurance companies insist on automated assist drive systems in cars especially considering 95% of crashes are due to human error. In 100 years it may be impossible to get insurance if you drive at all on public roads.
8. Re: Curiously? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-27 09:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This actually worries me, the natural inclination will be for people to stop paying attention while driving. Then when the sutuation has surpassed the cars ability, nobody will be in control and an accident could happen. At that time, it will be assessed as the "robot's" fault and may set back adoption of what is likely to be a safer form of driving.
9. Re:Curiously? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-09-27 09:24 · Score: 2
  
  As far as general availability of self-driving cars, I see it as a good step.
  Well, once self-driving cars fill the roads in significant numbers, if they'll have provisions for mutual communication and data exchange, you can count on them being more polite to each other than human drivers would.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
10. Re:Curiously? by aliquis · 2013-09-27 09:25 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In Texas they become presidents!
11. Re: Curiously? by Ralph+Wiggam · 2013-09-27 09:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The problem is the large percentage of people who *think* they're "perfectly capable drivers", but are not.
  And no matter how capable you are, a computer has a faster reaction time.
12. Re: Curiously? by Obfuscant · 2013-09-27 09:49 · Score: 2
  
  And no matter how capable you are, a computer has a faster reaction time.
  And that's why when you make a mistake with a computer's help, you can do much much more damage than doing it by hand. It takes a long time to shred 100 paper files, and you can figure out after five minutes that it is a mistake and stop, and still have half of them. If you do that to computer files, five minutes later means you have nothing left but the regrets.
  I'd go find a reference to the havok created by computer trading on wall street, where instant reaction times lead to financial catastrophe, but I think we probably are all well aware of these stories. Why we want to ignore those stories and assume that a massive system of independent computers would be perfection personified this time, when they've been problematic before, is a mystery. I sense a lot of money to be made for people shilling autonomous vehicles on an unsuspecting public...
13. Re: Curiously? by Ralph+Wiggam · 2013-09-27 09:57 · Score: 2
  
  We only have one data set for real world performance of an autonomous vehicle, 350k miles by Google's prototype. It has been involved in one accident- when a person backed into it. So it has been perfect thus far.
  If it makes you feel better, lots of people thought that horses were superior to cars for years.
14. Re: Curiously? by Ralph+Wiggam · 2013-09-27 10:33 · Score: 2
  
  You sure make a lot of assumptions for someone that doesn't know anything about the subject.
15. Re:Curiously? by Garridan · 2013-09-27 10:36 · Score: 2
  
  George W. Bush is still from Connecticut, no matter what he wants the Rupublicans to believe.
16. Re: Curiously? by Mike_EE_U_of_I · 2013-09-27 10:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  But will it detect that guy you've seen in your rear view mirror switching lanes doing 40mph faster than you?
  Yes. And it will almost certainly do it better than almost any human driver.
17. Re: Curiously? by Obfuscant · 2013-09-27 11:38 · Score: 2
  
  I may be ignorant to my states laws but I have never heard of slowing down a requirement for NY.
  
  Oregon. The law says you must slow down or pull over when going past an emergency vehicle on the side of the road. Not every vehicle on the side, just emergency ones. This points out another risk of autonomous vehicles. Will they be programmed with all the laws of all the states they may be driven in, and how will they deal with people who live close enough to a border that there are two sets of laws?
  Here's another interesting law. In North Carolina, if you have the wipers on, you must also have your headlights on. Also in NC, there is an arcane twist to the laws regarding stopping for police. I don't recall the details, but I think there are exceptions of when you have to stop for flashing lights from the car behind you (cops), based on a rash of fake cops pulling people over.
  
  In fact I feel it makes things a nuisance and possibly dangerous. Most cops I see position themselves well to mitigate risk.
  They do their best. As do road workers. And yet, they get run over by drivers to the point that there are special laws for work zones and now emergency vehicles.
18. Re: Curiously? by Obfuscant · 2013-09-27 11:56 · Score: 2
  
  We only have one data set for real world performance of an autonomous vehicle, 350k miles by Google's prototype. It has been involved in one accident- when a person backed into it. So it has been perfect thus far.
  One data point. Many years ago I remember the buzz about a new field of study -- emergent behaviour in clusters of simple robotic devices. For example, you can program a small robot to obey simple rules like when to turn, when to go, when to stop, etc, and predict pretty well what it will do. But when you put a roomful of them together they start doing things that weren't obvious. I wish I could remember the name of the guy who was at the forefront of this. Randy something, I think.
  The point being, one computer programmed to do one thing is something we can pretty much understand, and predict how it will react. When you get large collections of systems interacting, you sometimes find miraculous, and sometimes not so miraculous, results. Kind of like, if you have one computer programmed to watch the stock market and make trades you will probably be ok. When you get thousands of them all interacting indirectly (via the stock prices, e.g.) and all acting in milliseconds, you can get havok. That's why I referred to that in my original post.
  So, I'm really surprised you would respond with a statement that we know the world filled with autonomous vehicles will be safe and accident free because one autonomous vehicle acting in controlled conditions and in a human-centric environment had only one accident. I suspect that we will find all kinds of unpleasant emergent behaviour as the roads begin to have more and more of these things.
  I'm also fascinated that you see this as an issue of cars vs. horses, since in neither case was the human removed from "driving".
19. Re: Curiously? by Pinky's+Brain · 2013-09-27 14:52 · Score: 2
  
  Of course for the majority of drivers the context is :
  I didn't keep enough distance, time to hit the breaks and pray
20. Re: Curiously? by AmiMoJo · 2013-09-27 21:15 · Score: 2
  
  The US could always harmonize its road laws, like parts of the EU are.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Now it just remains to be seen... by Kjella · 2013-09-27 07:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

Now it just remains to be seen if drivers will continue to pay attention to the road, or if it becomes so autonomous that people start slacking (more) behind the wheel. It really won't work to have a car that drives itself 90% of the time and then expects you go randomly jump in for the last 10%. Still, nice to see this tech getting closer to reality.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
1. Re:Now it just remains to be seen... by Dimwit · 2013-09-27 07:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That's what worries me. The transition to fully automatic cars needs to be essentially 100%, or at least 99% with a "pull over and stop moving" for the remaining 1%. Otherwise I would've be surprised if fatalities went *up* due to drivers taking a nap/getting drunk/reading a book and failing to notice when they need to take back over.
  
  --
  ...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
2. Re:Now it just remains to be seen... by pablo_max · 2013-09-27 08:01 · Score: 2
  
  I dont think that is true at all.
  I think it will start the way most things do. Baby steps. Most likely there will be dedicated lanes to encourage people to adopt the tech. Like fast trax or something.
  No doubt there will be a charge by the state to actually use the lane though, thus reducing its appeal.
3. Re:Now it just remains to be seen... by lgw · 2013-09-27 08:07 · Score: 2
  
  That's exactly the problem I'm most eager to see how Nissan solves.
  I have their system that's 1 step back from this: it can only steer gently with the brakes (using the brakes on one side or the other), but it will keep a safe distance form the car in front of you, even stopping as needed, keep you from drifting out of a lane if you're not paying attention, and, if you let it, brake for you in cases where it seems you're not paying attention. It's good enough that, even though you can't take your hands off the wheel, I sometimes have to remember in a hurry that my car won't stop for that red light if there no one ahead of me.
  How and when and if the driver is supposed to "jump in" is really the rub. And how easy is it to override if it gets it wrong?
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
4. Re:Now it just remains to be seen... by cusco · 2013-09-27 08:21 · Score: 2
  
  Pet Peeve
  If you have a blind spot your mirrors are adjusted wrong. Every Drivers Education course teaches students to adjust the mirrors so that the driver can see the side of the car, but unless you're worried about a quarter-panel falling off and not noticing it you really don't need to see your own car. The mirrors should be adjusted outwards so that you need to move your head at least 6"/20 cm to the right or left before you see the side of the car. Once you've done that drive slowly past a parked car and you'll see that the car appears in your peripheral vision just before it goes out of view in the mirror.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
5. Re:Now it just remains to be seen... by Obfuscant · 2013-09-27 08:34 · Score: 2
  
  Most likely there will be dedicated lanes to encourage people to adopt the tech.
  Yeah, we have so many empty lanes now that dedicating one of them to a small percentage of cars that are "not autonomous autonomous vehicles" will be a really smart idea to solve traffic problems.
  This "not autonomous autonomous vehicle" automatically stops at red lights? How nice. The local store has a red light in their signage out front and all the cars stop. Good for the store. Bad for the traffic, especially the updated version of the "not autonomous autonomous vehicle" which has that bug fixed and doesn't feel like stopping, and runs into V1.0.
  "Hello, Toyota support? My autonomous vehicle computer crashed." "Did you try to reboot?" "No, I mean it crashed into the autonomous vehicle computer in the car ahead of me."
  The headline is deliberately misleading. It's not an autonomous vehicle if is isn't autonomous, which even the summary admits.
6. Re:Now it just remains to be seen... by h4rr4r · 2013-09-27 08:40 · Score: 2
  
  THIS!
  Push the mirrors all the way out. The rear view and sides should not have any overlap ideally.
7. Re:Now it just remains to be seen... by ShanghaiBill · 2013-09-27 09:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I dont think that is true at all.
  Of course it is not true, because the entire premise of the GGPP's objection is false. Self driving cars do not expect the human driver to "randomly" jump in. If the SDC calculates that it cannot make the best decision, it will prompt the human to take over. If the human does not respond, the SDC will either continue if it is reasonably safe to do so, or pull over and stop. The people designing these systems are not morons.
8. Re:Now it just remains to be seen... by timeOday · 2013-09-27 09:05 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Get ready to be annoyed for about 30 years, because "automated" commonly means "more automated than before," not "automated in every conceivable way."
  Your example about how this might cause a crash is incorrect, since the car doesn't just follow rules (such as red lights) in the hopes everybody else will also follow them perfectly. They do what you do - they also watch for and avoid other cars, pedestrians, and other obstacles (regardless of why the other car is doing whatever it's doing).
  Still I do worry about how they will accurately see stoplights and stop for the intersection even if no other cars are in view. There are bad lighting conditions where it's extremely difficult to do. (I guess as a backup it could know the GPS location of stoplights and stop if it doesn't see the light and confirm that it is green). But I am sure we will end up with some level of instrumentation on the road such as stoplights that emit at a frequency not obfuscated by sunlight, snow, etc, like visible light is.
9. Re:Now it just remains to be seen... by Mr.+Slippery · 2013-09-27 09:28 · Score: 2
  
  If you have a blind spot your mirrors are adjusted wrong.
  You do realize that your advice only moves the blind spot, right? If I can't see the edge of my own car, that means the blind spot is immediately next to my car -- where a pedestrian or bicyclist might be.
  
  --
  Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
  You cannot wash away blood with blood
10. Re:Now it just remains to be seen... by CauseBy · 2013-09-27 09:56 · Score: 2
  
  That's one way. Another is to get blind-spot mirrors. I have a little one on each side and I love them.
11. Re:Now it just remains to be seen... by AmiMoJo · 2013-09-27 21:23 · Score: 2
  
  Do you honestly think that the engineers developing this thing are that stupid, and have not thought of your obvious and easily fixed issues?
  Clearly any semi-autonomous vehicle will be able to detect other vehicles and not crash into them, even if it thinks the light isn't on red. One of the obvious test cases when developing this tech is to make sure it doesn't hit broken down or stalled vehicles just because it thinks it has a green light. It seems unlikely that it would even mistake a red sign for the traffic light anyway, since like a human driver it would notice that the sign wasn't next to the road but set further back and not placed next to amber and green lights. Google has already demonstrated this working perfectly.
  There is also no chance of the driver falling asleep and failing to take over when required. The car would sound a loud alarm to warn them that they need to take control, and if they didn't it would simply pull over and stop rather than just letting go of the controls and crashing. Really, did you honestly expect such stupidity from the designers of vehicles that have to meet very high safety standards and which required extensive testing before being allowed on public roads?
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I am all for it by pablo_max · 2013-09-27 07:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

I cannot wait until we have automatic driving cars! I love to drive as much as the next guy. Hell, I am the go-to car guy among my friends and family. But I hate sitting in traffic to and from work. It is the same every day. I would love to be able to sit back and relax.
So long as I can still take my Jeep out on the weekends in manual mode, you'll hear no complaints form me.
1. Re:I am all for it by pablo_max · 2013-09-27 07:59 · Score: 2
  
  I already can. I live in Germany. I can literally drink a beer while driving. So long as I am not over the limit..it is legal. Not a good idea and I would not actually do it, but I could if I wanted.
2. Re:I am all for it by Dimwit · 2013-09-27 08:03 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Most state laws (I'm assuming you're in the United States) allow for a DUI conviction if you are in "actual control" of a vehicle. That means if you're asleep drunk in the car and the keys are also in the car, you can be found guilty. If you're parked on private land and drunk, you can be found guilty. If you're in the driver's seat in an automated car and the car could be switched to manual control, you could be convicted of DUI if you're drunk.
  
  --
  ...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
3. Re:I am all for it by mlts · 2013-09-27 08:03 · Score: 2
  
  It can mean intersections designed just for autopiloting cars. No signals needed, and instead of forcing traffic to stop, cars can be slowed down or sped up to keep an intersection constantly moving. Road upgrades is something that is something very few municipal areas want to deal with, and usually if it is a new highway, it is a toll road. This would allow existing infrastructure to work faster, especially if breakdown lanes are able to be used, and cars spaced on a road by width (SMART cars can be packed better than tractor trailer rigs.)
  Of course, the ability for the car to go by itself to an all-night garage for an oil change, then be in the driveway and ready for the morning commute is a nice bonus.
  No complaints here. Computers are not perfect, but they are better what we have.
4. Re:I am all for it by Kaenneth · 2013-09-27 08:15 · Score: 2
  
  If you are inside a bar, with your car keys in your pocket; that STILL can count as 'physical control'... A lot of DUI laws are influenced by teetotalers who don't want people to be able to drink at all (ala Prohibition). I don't drink myself, and I have zero sympathy for drunk drivers, but some of it is being pushed a little too far than needed.
5. Re:I am all for it by h4rr4r · 2013-09-27 08:42 · Score: 2
  
  We can at least try.
  Roads are for transportation not pleasure. If you want that drive on private roads or a track.
Re:what happen when it miss reads an light? by LanMan04 · 2013-09-27 08:12 · Score: 2

I bet it misreads a light less frequently than a person blowing one accidentally/because they weren't looking.

--
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Impressed by the most unimpressive aspect by loufoque · 2013-09-27 08:12 · Score: 2

Detecting a red light is probably the easiest thing in the whole system.
1. Re:Impressed by the most unimpressive aspect by harvestsun · 2013-09-27 08:26 · Score: 2
  
  No, I'm not. Would you be impressed by a computer capable of multiplying two large numbers in half a second, just because most people can't? Ok that's a mediocre example, but it illustrates the flaw in your logic...
2. Re:Impressed by the most unimpressive aspect by bityz · 2013-09-27 09:09 · Score: 2
  
  That's nothing. Actual AI is seeing that the light has gone red, knowing that you should stop, but feeling that you don't really want to, and hoping that if you time it right you can kill the guy sitting inside you without damaging your own mind.
The trouble with semi-automatic driving by Animats · 2013-09-27 08:17 · Score: 2

Now it just remains to be seen if drivers will continue to pay attention to the road, or if it becomes so autonomous that people start slacking (more) behind the wheel.
That's a big problem with "driver assistance systems". With both lane-keeping and "adaptive cruise control" installed, the driver can take their hands off the wheel. Once that's possible, some drivers will stop paying attention to the road. That won't end well, because those two functions are only sufficient for good freeway conditions. They don't handle attempts by other drivers to change into your lane, for example.
Audi has an "adaptive cruise control" system in test which also handles stop and go traffic. That will tempt people to use it in cities with pedestrians. But its systems aren't good enough to handle a crowded city. That's probably why Audi isn't shipping it yet. That also seems to be about where Tesla is aiming. This Nissan thing sounds like lane-keeping plus adaptive cruise control plus a user control for "change lane right/left".
Real automatic driving means that the auto manufacturer takes responsibility for accidents. That's not unreasonable. It just means a lease package which includes insurance protecting both manufacturer and driver. Once automatic driving is statistically safer than manual driving, that will be financially feasible.
Re:So let me get this straight by mythosaz · 2013-09-27 08:28 · Score: 2

Multiple auto manufacturers disagree with your "a few decades (or) more" assessment.
What worries me with cars like this by petermgreen · 2013-09-27 08:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

Is that drivers will stop paying attention and/or take their hands off the controls. Then when something bad happens that the automatic system can't handle they will be in a much worse position to deal with it than if they had been driving the car manually.
The same is true to an extent of autopilots in planes but with a plane you usually have much more time to respond to problems than in a car. Still at least one plane has crashed because the pilots accidentally disabled the autopilot and failed to notice.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Dead man switch needed by WinstonWolfIT · 2013-09-27 12:08 · Score: 2

As it helps reduce road fatigue, this seems a really good thing. However, it should require some sort of feedback that says when a driver is unresponsive in some way, the car pulls over and parks.