Ford Self-Driving R&D Car Tells Small Animal From Paper Bag At 200 Ft.

cartechboy writes "Autonomous driving is every car manufacturer's immediate R&D project. In car-building terms, even if a new technology isn't due for 10 years — since that's just two full vehicle generations away-- it has to be developed now. So now it is for autonomous car research and testing, and this week Ford revealed a brand new Fusion Hybrid research vehicle built for autonomous R&D with some interesting tech capabilities. Technologies inside the new Fusion Hybrid research vehicle include LIDAR (a light-based range detection), which scans at 2.5 million times per second to create a 3D map of the surrounding environment at a radius of 200 feet. Ford says the research vehicle's sensors are sensitive enough to detect the difference between a small animal and a paper bag even at maximum range. More road-ready differentiations include observation and understanding of pedestrians, cyclists, and plain old stationary objects. Ford is working on this project in cooperation with the University of Michigan."

Comments

Mis-read the title

[Maow]

I read it as "Ford Self-Driving R&D Car Smells Small Animal From Paper Bag At 200 Ft." and my first thought was, "What the hell kind of test is that?!?"

Split second later, "Waaiit a second, that can't be right."

But hey, my truck smells like a small animal in a paper bag - from 2 years ago.

*goes back to sleep*

Yes but

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Can it tell if the small animal is *inside* the paperbag? I'm thinking of cats specifically. Cats and paperbags... cat lovers know what I'm talking about.

Re:Yes but

[Rob the Bold]

Can it tell if the small animal is *inside* the paperbag? I'm thinking of cats specifically. Cats and paperbags... cat lovers know what I'm talking about.

You got modded "funny" but you make a good point. Unless you know what's in the paper bag, you should try to avoid it providing you don't have to do something even more dangerous. And you never know what's in the paper bag . . .

Re:Yes but

[karnal]

To be fair, at least spend a small amount of money on a laser pointer. Once the cat is sick of the paper bag, the laser pointer will continue to amuse.

salt and de-icer

[hunter44102]

lets see what it can detect in the Northeast after 2 days of snow, salt and de-icer puts a 'film' of gunk covering 90% of the vehicle

Re:salt and de-icer

[somersault]

I love RWD in the snow. I'd say the width of your tyres mattes more than the drive system. It also depends how much snow you get I suppose. Snow is never a problem for me, but ice can really suck when it's on an incline (as in the car park at my last flat, where I had a lot of fun trying to get going some days..).

Re:salt and de-icer

[MightyYar]

Jeep? That's a pretty American brand. :) Most of the time a rear-wheel drive vehicle with some extra weight in the trunk and a set of snow tires was pretty decent in the snow. My dad is from Pittsburgh, and if he could get around snowy hills with that configuration, I'm pretty sure other folks could too.

Four wheel drive was complicated and expensive, and you ended up with an extra bulge and shifter on your floor. FWD was and is pretty crappy for handling in all of the rest of the year, with a few standout exceptions. FWD is cheaper and gives you a flat floorpan - that is the primary reason why it was adopted.

Re:salt and de-icer

[somersault]

Why? FWD has better traction because more weight is over the drive wheels, and it's more stable (when rear drive wheels slip the car fishtails)

Well, for one thing, I enjoy drifting/fishtailing when it's raining or there's snow (I only do that if there aren't other cars around though). Having weight over the drive wheels is pretty good for grip yes, but having the drive wheels also doing the steering is not a good thing, especially in unexpected situations. I suppose that a driver that's aware of the limitations of their vehicle will always fare better in poor weather than someone who knows nothing about drive systems and weight distribution, so it just comes down to preference. I prefer RWD (even over all wheel drive).

With thinner tyres, your car is more likely to sink through the snow and get better grip. It's perhaps bad in really deep snow, I wouldn't know.. but for the less than a foot of snow that we usually have on UK roads, it's definitely better with thinner tyres. I've never used real snow tyres, so I don't know about them.

Re:salt and de-icer

[mrchaotica]

I've been in a few North American cars which, despite being FWD, have a big hump going through the middle for no good reason, the same as if there was a drive shaft to the rear wheels

Were those models available in 4WD or AWD? They might have just used the same floor pan for both. Still a bit sloppy, but marketing probably figures if you have the hump anyway, you're more likely to pay the extra for AWD.

Even FWD cars tend to need a little hump to accommodate the tailpipe, but if it's a big hump then your explanation seems more likely.

Re:salt and de-icer

[jellomizer]

while (visibility 85 && hasfluid)
{
        hasfluid = applyfluid();
        whipe(3);
        sleep(1);
        whipe(1);
}
if (!hasfluid) {
    auto = 0;
    manual = allertHalt("Out of fluid, Car is stopping, do you want to switch to manual?", "Yes", "No")
}

Re:I'm waiting for autonomous taxis being everywhe

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Autonomous taxis already exist: you tell the driver to go the shortest or quickest way, and the driver almost always ignores you and chooses the least direct, more gridlocked route instead, all by himself

Also, you don't have to drive the taxi yourself.

Noise

[jklovanc]

I wonder about all these active technologies; lidar, radar, ultrasonic, etc. They work very well when there is only one vehicle in the area. What happens on a crowded freeway when there are a couple hundred vehicles an the area pumping out all those emissions? Wouldn't it be difficult to differentiate between returns due to your emitters and the emitters from other vehicles? Unless each emitter is working on a different frequency interference is a possibility. There is also the issue of sensors being sensitive enough to detect return but filtered enough not to be dazzled by the direct emissions from other vehicles close by.

Re:Noise

[AmiMoJo]

It generally isn't a problem because single readings are never used. They are always averaged over time and combined with other sensors. They also pulse their output and can detect interference and adjust their timing randomly to avoid it.

Think about how many devices manage to share unlicensed radio spectrum and how few cars will be that close together. The reason for having so many sensors is that if any one fails the others can make up for it.

Of course it will still fail from time to time, but less than a human.

Re: Noise

[ebno-10db]

There are quite a few techniques for dealing with that, although at such close range I'd imagine they'd work better w/ lidar than radar. Emphasis seems to be on lidar anyway.

Re:Noise

[swb]

My Volvo S80 has radar for the collision avoidance feature and the distance-sensing cruise control.

The only problem I've ever had with it has been in snowstorms where the radar panel gets covered with snow and ice -- the dash display will then show "radar blocked."

On the other hand, my Valentine 1 radar detector will false on other cars radar detectors and some automatic doors on commercial buildings.

About the only other problem I've had with the distance sensing cruise has been getting behind cars driving slightly slower than my set point and not noticing that I'm going a little slower than I want to drive. My car will basically follow the other car and match its speed transparently until it goes faster than my cruise set point.

Re:ONE independent demo, please

[somersault]

They don't stand to profit from anything right now, this is just news about a research project. If you are annoyed at the lack of product reviews for a product that doesn't even exist yet, maybe you should stop reading tech news sites.

What are they really saying?

[jklovanc]

Ford says the research vehicle's sensors are sensitive enough to detect the difference between a small animal and a paper bag even at maximum range.

Given that the sensors can detect a difference here are some follow on questions that seem important.
1. Can it detect which one is the animal and which one is the bag? (they talk about difference not identification)
2. Can it tell if the small animal is alive or dead if it is not moving.
3. Can it tell if the animal is on a leash and not going to be an issue?
4. Can it detect if there is a barrier between the animal and the desired route of travel and the animal not being an issue?
5. Can it tell the difference between a turtle and a rabbit? Turtles having much more restricted movement possibilities than a rabbit.
6. Will it remember that the small animal went into the bag. Out of sight out of mind.
7. Can it differentiate between an empty bag and a bag of cement? Driving over an empty bag is not a problem. Driving over a bag of cement is probably a problem.
Detecting the difference between a small animal and a paper bag is important but it is only the first step in in a very complex decision process to determine what to do with that information.

Re:What are they really saying?

[ustolemyname]

Bag: Should be avoided.
Baby: Should be avoided.

Bag: May involve gently changing direction, do not brake erratically, do not disturb flow of traffic.
Baby: May involve driving into the ditch, other traffic, making full use brakes, honking horn, etc.

You really think it doesn't matter?

Re:What are they really saying?

[Chrisq]

...The mathematician is the most correct in that the statement is based on exactly what he saw. Only one field and only one side of each sheep.

If he were a Scottish mathematician he would certainly have seen the rear end of the sheep too.

not just seen it!

Re:What are they really saying?

[HornWumpus]

I once went to full braking because a ball was bouncing out from behind a parked car on a 35mph road.

The kid was a couple of seconds behind the ball. I would have killed the rugrat if I waited until I saw him.

That's a challenge for an AIs judgement.

OMG, No! Not Ford!

[Wingsy]

I won't sit in a Ford with the engine running, and in the future it seems I won't get on the highway with Ford's self driving cars on the road. I'm terrified that there's going to be some leftover Microsoft code in there somewhere (i.e., from Sync).

Re:I'm waiting for autonomous taxis being everywhe

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I've ridden in a lot of taxis recently in the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Germany and Greece. I would miss having a live driver to tell me all the gossip in the city. Taxi drivers are always the most informed folks in any city. They can tell you who the mayor is sleeping with and where he buys his drugs.

The NSA shouldn't pay employees to play online games. They should have them drive around in taxis and talk to the drivers. Taxi drivers would make the best intelligence network.

Re:I'm waiting for autonomous taxis being everywhe

[hawkinspeter]

Don't look at the CCTV cameras in Milton Keynes. You could get stoned.

cool, but...

[Wasusa]

200ft? That's about 60m. That puts it far to close to the ideal, best condition stopping distance of a car moving at about 60km/h. The software for detection isn't new, and ladar has had this sort of range for a while. Quintiple the range and keep processing real time, then it'll be worth news

Re:Moore's law

[ebno-10db]

It will be interesting to see how the end of Moore's law will affect this and similar projects.

Maybe programmers will learn the nearly lost art of writing efficient code.

Re:I'm waiting for autonomous taxis being everywhe

[ebno-10db]

You won't hear that in NYC.

Re:Moore's law

[rally2xs]

The production of the flying car has always been just 10 years in the future, for about 60 years now. Wonder if this is the same situation.

Re:Coincidence

[Virtucon]

Yeah but if it misinterprets a squirrel or a cat vs a plastic bag you're going to get a sudden deceleration you weren't expecting. When people are in charge you can determine that if it's a small animal which allows you to swerve or just use it as a speed bump.

OK, It Works, But What's Next

[rally2xs]

The autonomous car detects a cat in the road, and then what does it do? Does it slam on the brake even tho you're doing 65 mph and there's an 18 wheeler 3 feet from your rear bumper? Does it try to brake and swerve even tho there's a glaze of ice on the road?

Re:OK, It Works, But What's Next

[blackbeak]

The autonomous car deftly picks up the cat via robotic arm extension without even needing to slow down, reconfigures the route plan to stop by the nearest animal shelter, and automatically drops cat in the shelter's autonomous stray animal receptor.

Can it tell a small animal inside a paper bag?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Well the Russians are way ahead of Ford. They drive around with dash cams all the while and their systems can not only tell a paper bag from a small animal, it can tell if there is a small animal inside the paper bag. Not only that, it would take that cute cat in a paper video and upload it to the click bait web site also has a drive by download malware. Sergey Gregorovich, the owner of the malware site, says, "My R&D investment in integrating small animal in paper bag detection technology with dash cam, auto upload and drive by download technologies have given me rich dividends".

Re:Moore's law

[timeOday]

We must be pretty close to some sort of concrete wall right now. I just replaced a 3-year-old MacBook pro that had a 4 core 2.3 GHz Intel Core i7 processor. The new one has, wait for it... a 4 core 2.3 GHz Intel Core i7 processor. I know, MHz myth, yadda yadda yaddah... the fact is, it is hardly any faster. I've been using computers since the C64 and this has never happened before. (Granted, the new one is smaller, has better battery life, twice the RAM, the SSD has twice the capacity, and the screen has nearly twice the linear resolution... but still, it is hardly any faster.)

Kobiashi maru

[TheCarp]

I ran over a cat once; and it was the right decision at the time. Will the car be able to make that assessment?

I know I had no choice and it still bothers me. I still see that kitten running out from the side of the onramp, diagonally across the road. I still remember that split second where I saw no where to go but off the road into a ditch, no time or space to stop....and the look of excitement on the kittens face running towards a fate he could not have expected.

I wonder, how will a driverless car react in a no-win situation? Because I know I am not the only person to have faced one. Someone I know was on her first long distance trip out of state and suddenly found a deer in front of her. She didn't have the experience to make the snap judgement, she didn't hit the deer...instead she swerved and ended up bouncing off gaurd rails like a pinball. Telling this to my rural living cousin his response was unceremonious: "Never swerve for a deer; just hit it" (moose btw, are another story)

Then again, maybe if it was a kid, do you go for the ditch? Is it different if its just me in the car or a carload of people? (kids in the car?). A driver can debate these things and make split second decisions to sacrifice himself; a driverless car has to leave this decision to engineers who design how it makes decisions.

I think it makes the most sense to constrain its emergency response to what keeps the occupants the most safe in all situations; that seems most right but, its not always easy to feel good about. I don't think I would want to be the guy who wrote that code.