Slashdot Mirror


Nissan Leaf Prototype Becomes First Autonomous Car On Japanese Highways

cartechboy writes "As car manufacturers battle over futuristic announcements of when autonomous cars will (allegedly) be sold, they are also starting to more seriously put self-driving technology to the test. Earlier this week several Japanese dignitaries drove — make that rode along — as an autonomous Nissan Leaf prototype completed its first public highway test near Tokyo. The Nissan Leaf electric car successfully negotiated a section of the Sagami Expressway southwest of Tokyo, with a local Governor and Nissan Vice Chairman Toshiyuki Shiga onboard. The test drive reached speeds of 50 mph and took place entirely automatically, though it was carried out with the cooperation of local authorities, who no doubt cleared traffic to make the test a little easier. Nissan has already stated its intent to offer a fully autonomous car for sale by 2020."

24 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. Re:But does it ... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's not a particularly difficult problem. An autonomous electric car could drop you off at the front door of your destination, then drive to a relatively distant parking lot where it can recharge using an automatic (robotic) charging station. Shortly before you're ready to leave, your would alert the car using your phone and it would pick you up at the front door.

  2. I think people just won't own these cars by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 2

    I think for a person to own a self driving car might be the exception to the norm. I think if self driving cars work, corporations will buy millions of them, and station them in semi-patroling routes. Then people will just summon them like cheap taxis. Some people will even schedule their work day around them. The software will do all the planning on who gets what car. A guy could ride one to work, not pay parking, then the car plays taxi for the day, and comes picks the guy up at work to take him home.

    If they work, they'll work big time, but I really worry about lawsuits.

    1. Re:I think people just won't own these cars by timholman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they work, they'll work big time, but I really worry about lawsuits.

      I tend to think the lawsuit fears are overblown. In the U.S. alone, 35,000 people die each year due to human drivers, at a cost of about $200 billion annually, paid for by everyone's insurance. We seem to have no problem living with that.

      If autonomous cars can cut that fatality rate to 3,500 or even 350 deaths a year, the savings will be so enormous that it will be cost-effective for the auto companies to partner with insurance companies and create a general fund to reimburse those people who may be injured due to an automation failure, regardless of fault. The federal government already uses this concept with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. It provides no-fault reimbursement of vaccine-related injuries, because letting vaccine makers be sued out of business would result in more deaths and injures in the long run.

      And keep in mind that accident rates will only continue to drop as the automation improves with time. Moore's Law is inexorable.

    2. Re: I think people just won't own these cars by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't see that as any different than someone not properly maintaining their manual car. I know lots of people that have been in accidents because of bad breaks or bawled tires.

      people shouldn't be taking a break while driving much less bad ones! how can they even stand with crying tires? dude, you know some messed up people.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    3. Re: I think people just won't own these cars by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      I think the main difference is maintenance cycles, delicacy of sensor and detection of failure.

      Brakes don't suddenly go from good to bad. They have a very graduate wear and it's easy to detect that they should be replaced in the annual checkup. And when it is detected, there's plenty of time usually left, not to mention that you notice a change in the behaviour unless you're very insensitive to your car's signals.

      Likewise, if you're lacking oil, it's trivial to detect that. There's a sensor that notices when there isn't enough oil and it works trivially easy. Covered in oil = fine, not covered in oil = warning light on.

      And if a light goes dark, it's either easy to notice yourself (when you don't see jack anymore) or some friendly cop will point it out to you (usually while cashing in some money for that service...).

      It's a bit different with the kind of sensors that you need to let a car drive itself. I think the moment you notice that some important sensor is covered in mud is the same moment that airbag goes poof in your face.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:I think people just won't own these cars by timeOday · · Score: 2

      The subways in Seoul, Moscow, Beijing, Shanghai, and Tokyo together provide over 12 billion rides per year (cite). Tunneling is totally the way to go for dense transport. It's 3d, safe, efficient, relieves the open land of the blight of travel infrastructure, and the high initial cost of tunneling is super-amortized when ridden billions of times per year.

    5. Re: I think people just won't own these cars by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      I don't see that as any different than someone not properly maintaining their manual car.

      I see a big difference: with an automated car, the car will know that it needs maintenance. If it is a safely issue, it can limit its speed, or refuse to drive until the problem is fixed. Otherwise, it can automatically drive itself to a maintenance center while you are at work or sleeping.

    6. Re: I think people just won't own these cars by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      It's gonna be weird seeing cars and trucks driving around with no-one in them at first. Could open up some new and interesting avenues in highway robbery too, especially if all you have to do is set up a stop sign in the road and the computer automatically brings the vehicle to a halt.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. Re:Glitch = Possible Death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What if it suddenly veers into a wall or oncoming truck due to an incorrect or faulty instruction

    What if it suddenly veers into a wall or oncoming truck due to the driver being drunk or sleepy or inattentive?

    Humans glitch, too. Far more often than computers.

  4. Re: Lets hope they are like Johnny Cab by Vanderhoth · · Score: 2

    Labor last for hours after contractions first start. Trust me you'd have time. My first one was 16 hours from the initial cramping. My cousins wife was 36. I could go on, but I'm writing on my phone. Despite what TV and Movies tell you labor is no excuse to speed to the hospital, putting both your wife, kid and others in danger. If you really feel time is of the essence, call an ambulance, let the pros handle it.

  5. Automotive networks have zero security by sinij · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Work by Dr. Charlie Miller showed that in-auto networks have zero security. It wasn't a problem up to this point because such networks were secured by air-gap. Unfortunately automakers decided that facebook integration for the car is worthwhile feature and decided to open Pandora's box. If you are planning to buy a new car, make sure it has no connectivity capability of any kind. This includes On-Star systems, this definitely includes any kind smartphone integration or mobile hotspot technologies.

    Car's CAN Bus is ring network with no authentication whatsoever and rudimentary priority system. If you can broadcast into it, then you can affect operation of the car in very drastic ways. Since it has to be real-time and responsive (e.g. controlling engine timing) there is no time for any kind of authentication. Insanity is allowing things like Entertainment/Navigation/OnStar system access to it, but this is how auto engineers do it. Why? Because they don't know any better, they are not IT Security guys.

    1. Re:Automotive networks have zero security by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Car's CAN Bus is ring network with no authentication whatsoever and rudimentary priority system. If you can broadcast into it, then you can affect operation of the car in very drastic ways.

      Much in the same way as the PCI bus on your computer has "no authentication whatsoever and rudimentary priority system". The bus does not need to be secured. The entry points to the bus need to be secures much in the same way as the Ethernet card provides secure access to the PCI bus.

      Security researchers have taken control of in-auto networks by plugging hardware into the bus. You can do a lot to control a car if you can plug onto the diagnostic port and have a laptop sitting on the passenger seat. I think most people would notice that and be a bit suspicious. There has yet to be a wireless access into an unaltered in-auto system. If that starts to happen then worry.

      Insanity is allowing things like Entertainment/Navigation/OnStar system access to it,

      If the OnStar system is secured and only responds to a specific set of commands I see no "insanity". The whole CAN bus API would not be exposed through the OnStar API. I used to work a a company that facilitated disabling vehicles and locking their doors (It was an application designed for an exotic car rental company. They wanted to be able to disable the vehicle if the vehicle was miss-used). Through our API those were the only commands available. There was no way a hacker could do anything else. The connection to the vehicle was authenticated and encrypted. Every entertainment system has authentication if it uses Bluetooth as authentication is built into the Bluetooth pairing protocol.

      Authentication on the bus is not an issue; authentication at entry points is.

    2. Re:Automotive networks have zero security by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The problem is that it is now quite common for the main dashboard computer system that controls the radio/CD player, air con and sat nav to be attached to the CAN bus. If you can hack that remotely and run arbitrary code you could gain access to the CAN bus.

      It's all very well saying that things like OnSat have a "secure" API with a specific set of commands, but what about exploits? Many cars have GSM modems for internet connectivity that contain complete TCP/IP stacks. What if the parser that downloads weather data or sat nav map updates has a buffer overflow issue that lets an attacker run their own code? It isn't unusual for such systems to have no security system, or to simply run all applications as root.

      Even the radio app decodes RDS data, and spoofing your own RDS messages was demonstrated years ago with low cost hardware bought on eBay. Wireless tire pressure sensors are now mandatory on US cars, so what if there was a vulnerability in the message handler for those which is, of course, connected directly to the CAN bus?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  6. Re:But does it ... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As a side effect, this will finally, finally, FINALLY put an end to the dreaded find-a-parking-space-in-a-busy-city-on-Friday-night drill.

    Self-driving cars can not only use remote parking lots, they can also make much better use of parking lot space. They are unoccupied when they self-park, so there is no need to leave room for people to exit. So they can park just an inch apart, and the absence of side mirrors will make that very close. Less space is needed for lanes, since the cars can steer optimally and coordinate their movements. Cars could park directly in front and behind each other, then when summoned by its owner, a car could signal for the blocking cars to move. The capacity of a parking lot can easily be doubled or tripled.

  7. best application: the elderly by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2
    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:best application: the elderly by RivenAleem · · Score: 2

      And what does Japan have in excess?

  8. Re:Glitch = Possible Death by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What if it suddenly veers into a wall or oncoming truck due to an incorrect or faulty instruction. Fuck autonomous!

    You are obviously not an embedded system engineer with mission critical design experience. The proper way to design a system like this is to have multiple processes running on at least two separate CPUs. The most powerful CPU computes the car's speed and path, and another process running on a separate CPU performs sanity checks on the results. If something is clearly wrong (like steering into oncoming traffic), then the backup program applies the brakes and pulls off the road. Bits can be flipped by cosmic rays, or whatever, and a system like this is designed to deal with that. This is standard critical system engineering. Then you put it on the test track, and throw all the crap you can at it: turn off sensors at random, put corrupt data on the bus, flip bits in memory, etc. Keep hammering it and fixing the problems until it can handle any failure as safely as possible.

  9. insurance/leasing will take care of this... by schlachter · · Score: 2

    Not a problem...lots of biz models
    1. insurance includes mandatory and included in your premium sensor/systems maintenance
    2. car is subscribed to or leased which includes maintenance in monthly fee
    3. cars are not owned; just used like taxis; so they're maintained by a company under strict regulations ...and the cars will maintain themselves. a loaner car can drive over while your car is worked on.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  10. Re: Lets hope they are like Johnny Cab by Your.Master · · Score: 2

    I also do not understand why people think:

    a) Speed limit laws designed for human drivers will never change when driverless cars are common.
    --- to some extent in residential areas they still need a lower limit to account for children running out into the street, but anywhere you can go kind of fast now, the roads could be built for driverless cars to go much faster.
    b) Driverless cars will not have an emergency mode.

    Emergency situations are always a priority as transportation and communications infrastructure becomes commonplace -- think of 911 and then E911 etc.. The greater the percent of cars on the road that are driverless, the more you can just punch a "911" button and get to the nearest hospital quick with every other car automatically dodging out of your way, clearing a single lane of a multilane street just-in-time. Resisting driverless cars is tantamount to insisting that when you drive your wife to the hospital, you want to deal with random jackasses and you also do not want the police to know why you are driving like an idiot.

  11. Re:will also need an NO eula / blame passing law by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 2

    Make sense. You can't contract your way out of your basic obligations to society (e.g., you might be able to coerce your employees into signing a contract that says they work 80 hours a week for $1 per hour but you'll sure have some questions to answer if you try to actually enforce it) so it seems wise to think about preventing legal slipperyness before it really gets started. If there's one thing common to business around the world it's that given an inch, most will take a mile.

    --
    ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
  12. Re:Glitch = Possible Death by savuporo · · Score: 2

    I have done a lot of embedded system design, coding and integration in my life - baremetal, RTOS, bigger combined systems with RTOS and desktop os collaborating etc.

    Read this
    http://it.slashdot.org/story/07/02/25/2038217/software-bug-halts-f-22-flight

    --
    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
  13. bad journalism by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    who no doubt cleared traffic to make the test a little easier.

    Nothing in the article nor in the video backs up this assumption. So why was it in the summary? Having been to Japan, I doubt they would've done this, as the whole point of running the test on a public highway is to show it can cope with other traffic and real-life conditions, and making the test invalid in such a stupid and public way would mean quite a bit of lost face.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  14. Re:Glitch = Possible Death by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, obviously nobody has ever thought about that possibility before, so engineers have certainly not worked on making the system fault-tolerant.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  15. Re:But does it ... by Vanderhoth · · Score: 2

    Kind of funny you brought that up. I came across a line of five cars trying to get out of the parking garage downtown a couple years ago. I waited for 15 minutes before getting out to see what the hold up was. Someone had tied the arm for the exit down and the person at the front of the line was just sitting there. I knocked on her window and asked what she was waiting for. She told me she wasn't sure if it was ok for her to untie the arm so she was waiting for someone to come. I assumed she had called someone so I asked her how long she had been waiting there, two hours. I asked when and who she called and she said she hadn't called anyone. I walked over and pulled the rope of the arm which lifted up and I went back to my car. She may not have been the sharpest tool in the shed, but what does that say about the other four cars behind her that also didn't bother to do anything about it. If I hadn't gotten out we might have sat there all evening.