Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Virginia Wants Your Self-Driving Cars

Posted by samzenpus on from the look-mom-no-hands dept.

Nerval's Lobster writes: In a bid to help Google (and presumably other companies) test out their next-generation automobiles, the state of Virginia has reportedly opened up 70 miles of highway, overseen by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI), to self-driving cars. Portions of Virginia's highways—most notably Interstates 95 and 495—are notoriously congested, which could present any self-driving vehicles with a real challenge. The state government has stipulated that any automated car will need a human driver at the wheel to take over in case of malfunction or emergency. California, Nevada, and a handful of other states already have roadways reserved for autonomous-car use. As one Virginia state official acknowledged to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, opening public infrastructure to new technology is seen as a way to attract top tech talent and companies. (Northern Virginia and Washington D.C. are already widely viewed as a tech hub, powered to a large degree by federal money.)

67 comments

  1. Upgrade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, the self-driving cars have to be upgraded with road rage 2.0.

  2. too close to too many lawyers by turkeydance · · Score: 3, Funny

    there might be a lawsuit already filed.

  3. So you don't have to click too far by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 3, Informative

    The relevant roads are:
    "portions of Interstates 95, 495 and 66 as well as on U.S. 29 and U.S. 50 that are being dubbed Virginia Automated Corridors."

    Of course, that info was too complex to put in the summary.

    1. Re:So you don't have to click too far by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Woohoo! Finally something good about living near DC.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    2. Re:So you don't have to click too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think that was too complex for the summary? I think it would have helped more than anything. I even think there is room for more information. What's your problem?

    3. Re:So you don't have to click too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting, those are portion of roads that are typically engulfed in heavy traffic, everyone moving slowly at 5mph, no turning.

      Yeah, sure sounds like a great test area....much like that of the I-5 in CA in central valley, (dead straight, constant mph)

      Honestly the bar needs to be raised for test areas. I can program my Arduino to run any car on those test areas [challenges].

    4. Re:So you don't have to click too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh!

    5. Re:So you don't have to click too far by imboboage0 · · Score: 1

      As someone in Northern VA, I can say I'm excited to see someone driving around playing with their phone/tablet/radio that isn't just sitting at a green left turn light.

      --
      Honesty may be the best policy, but by process of elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
    6. Re:So you don't have to click too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that include parts of I-95 in Virginia that are being dubbed "parking lots" during rush hour?

    7. Re:So you don't have to click too far by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      Every big city has those. Virginia is in no way the only place with regular traffic congestion.

    8. Re:So you don't have to click too far by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      While DC isn't LA-bad, it's one of the top-most congested cities in the country. Much of that is simply that there isn't enough road for all the development that's going on here and the mass transit does not serve the outlying areas very well, so it's a lot of cars. We still don't even have the Metro go all the way to Dulles yet.

    9. Re:So you don't have to click too far by StikyPad · · Score: 2

      Yeah, it's really the perfect market since it's already inundated with driverless vehicles.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
  4. Nobody Wants Video Bytes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody Wants Video Bytes

    1. Re:Nobody Wants Video Bytes by weilawei · · Score: 1

      I'd be moderately cool with if, if I could figure out which friggin' domains to enable in NoScript in order to make it work. If it doesn't work from slashdot.org or fsdn.com, it doesn't get loaded. I'll consider enabling youtube.com and ytimg.com.

    2. Re:Nobody Wants Video Bytes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd be moderately cool with if, if I could figure out which friggin' domains to enable in NoScript in order to make it work. If it doesn't work from slashdot.org or fsdn.com, it doesn't get loaded. I'll consider enabling youtube.com and ytimg.com.

      Remember when you didn't have to download half the Internet every time you visited a single website? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

  5. Not a solution! by s.petry · · Score: 1

    Self driving cars are interesting, and in most cases safer than people driven cars but they do NOT fix the congestion problems.

    This does not take a PHD to prove.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Not a solution! by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      It does if you can just summon a car with an app, and it is reused for other later trips. Even more so if the trips are shared with 2 or more passengers.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    2. Re:Not a solution! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Self driving cars are interesting, and in most cases safer than people driven cars but they do NOT fix the congestion problems.

      That is not true. SDCs can drive much closer together, increasing the road carrying capacity. They also have faster response times, reducing the "accordion effect" as cars slow down and speed up repeatedly. They also may have more information about conditions ahead, so when traffic in front of them begins to speed up, they know if it is just going to slow down again, or whether this is really the end of the congestion and they should accelerate rapidly.

      This does not take a PHD to prove.

      At least one study showed that as few as 10% SDC will substantially reduce congestion.

    3. Re:Not a solution! by toonces33 · · Score: 1

      I can just see a traffic jam of unoccupied cars all tooling around trying to find parking.

      Oh, wait - the rules say that you need to have a driver in case of emergency. So you are sitting in your "driverless" car circling around to find parking, and you can't leave the car until it finds a spot.

    4. Re:Not a solution! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      What you point out is not losing congestion because of self driving cars, it's losing congestion because of turning cars into mass transit.

      Utopia looks really cool from outside, but when you find out that the person who is sharing your enclosed self driving car has a poor diet and flatulence problem.. well.. you will start to realize that your Utopia really is not.

      "you" in the 2nd part is a generalization, don't take that personally.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    5. Re:Not a solution! by toonces33 · · Score: 1

      Where I am, the bad traffic is stuck at a standstill. No more room for any cars on the road. Whether you are driving the thing or the car is driving itself, it isn't going to move any faster.

      The only case I can see the benefit you describe is in somewhat congested roads where the traffic is still moving.

    6. Re:Not a solution! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Where I am, the bad traffic is stuck at a standstill.

      That is because somewhere up ahead of you, some idiot is doing something stupid. SDCs don't yak on cellphones, they don't rubberneck, and they don't stop in the middle of intersections. With more SDCs, the standstill is less likely to happen, and when it does, it will clear more quickly.

    7. Re:Not a solution! by Ichijo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Self driving cars...do NOT fix the congestion problems.

      That is not true. SDCs can drive much closer together, increasing the road carrying capacity.

      But because peak-hour traffic congestion rises to meet maximum capacity, increasing the road carrying capacity has no long-term effect on traffic congestion. Therefore, self-driving cars will not fix congestion problems.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    8. Re:Not a solution! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      The "study" is you point at is not a study. It's an article which points to a simulation ran with perfect conditions for a self driving car demonstrating how they perform in _perfect_ conditions (key on that last part, it's like statistics but more blatantly fabricated).

      The main point of that article is safety, which I agree with. Come to the SF Bay area and follow one of the Google cars around. Interesting that they don't do any better going from San Jose to San Francisco as anyone else, and in many cases do worse. The self driving cars would help if the issue was drivers being boneheads and having accidents. Reality is quite different, which is that having nearly 9 million people in a very small area all sharing the same 3 Freeways will have massive traffic jams. 10% autonomous cars won't get you off an exit ramp with thousands of cars waiting to exit any faster. That is what causes long backups on Freeways most of the time.

      Turning cars into mass transit.. that would help congestion.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    9. Re: Not a solution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they don't work in snow.

    10. Re:Not a solution! by lgw · · Score: 1

      increasing the road carrying capacity has no long-term effect on traffic congestion.

      Total BS, that only applies to token efforts. In cases where increasing capacity didn't help you didn't increase it enough. When you increase capacity to the point where people are free to drive where they want, when they want, and stop doing inconvenient things to avoid peak traffic, everything's a win past that point.

      Build enough lanes, and you'll have no congestion. This may require a freeway 600 lanes wide, which I am totally OK with. Though often (usually) it's poorly thought-out surface streets that are the root cause of freeway congestion. A skyscraper (or campus) surrounded by roads with only 2 through lanes is a fundamental obstacle to free traffic flow, and is all too common.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    11. Re:Not a solution! by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      having nearly 9 million people in a very small area all sharing the same 3 Freeways will have massive traffic jams

      I think traffic congestion is more a factor of the number of vehicles, not the number of people. Leave all the people and take away all their cars and I guarantee it would completely eliminate traffic congestion.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    12. Re:Not a solution! by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      When you increase capacity to [600 lanes on the freeway] everything's a win past that point.

      But that would be such a tax-inefficient use of land that you'll bankrupt the city, so it's a non-solution.

      No, the fiscally optimal number of freeway lanes is not the number where there's never any traffic congestion, it's the number where the marginal cost (MC) of building another lane equals the marginal revenue (MR) from building it. Or in other words, when the cost of traffic congestion equals the cost of abating it. On an unpriced freeway, this means a certain amount of traffic congestion is optimal, at least where the price of land and road construction is nonzero, which is everywhere.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    13. Re:Not a solution! by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Almost every "solution" these days would qualify as help for boneheads. It won't do anything better, but if you are weak at something or have a short attention span, or are simply fascinated by things you percieve as cool there is a new solution for you.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    14. Re:Not a solution! by toonces33 · · Score: 1

      No, the problem is somewhere ahead of you, there are people waiting for a traffic signal (blocked from moving most likely because the block on the other side of the signal is completely full). And the same goes for the block ahead of it, and so on, and so on.

      In some cases the cars are waiting to merge onto another road that is also at a standstill. Or sometimes merging from 3 lanes down to two.

      There are a limited set of cases where human behavior causes problems, and you have enumerated some of them. But day-in, day-out long traffic jams in the same place every day are just caused by too many cars on the road.

    15. Re:Not a solution! by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      That is not true. SDCs can drive much closer together, increasing the road carrying capacity.

      That is not true. Self-driving cars will be programmed to maintain an appropriate driving distance to insure safety, about 2 seconds distance. This happens to be larger than most humans drive from the cars in front of them (thus the reason for some many 3, 4, 5 or more car chain collisions). Therefore the number of cars on the road must be smaller, or the cars must go slower on that road. What will improve somewhat is stop and go traffic, as a line of vehicles will be able to react one after another more quickly than human drivers.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    16. Re:Not a solution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Build enough lanes, and you'll have no congestion. This may require a freeway 600 lanes wide, which I am totally OK with.

      Then you haven't thought it through. Add too many lanes, and everyone will need to spend so much time changing lanes that they won't bother to use the extra lanes, or worse they'll stop respecting the concept of lanes altogether.

    17. Re:Not a solution! by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      I have poor diet and a flatulence problem. Want to carpool? Ideally, the mass transit apps can let users ban co-riders and will allow matching similar to dating sites for rider compatibility. you don't want a tebagger homophobe riding with Ms Jenner.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    18. Re:Not a solution! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      having nearly 9 million people in a very small area all sharing the same 3 Freeways will have massive traffic jams

      I think traffic congestion is more a factor of the number of vehicles, not the number of people. Leave all the people and take away all their cars and I guarantee it would completely eliminate traffic congestion.

      That is surely true but the issues are related. There are many factors which are leading to every possible consumer purchasing a vehicle. Lack of good mass transit, lack of affordable housing close to work, lack of necessities like grocery stores near home, etc...

      The "study" (quoted intentionally) mentioned above is not a study. It's a hypothetical simulation with two major flaws. First, the incorrect assumption that 1/4th of all traffic jams are caused by accidents. Perhaps even worse, is the assumption that all traffic accidents are caused by humans and preventable by technology we have today. Both of those assumptions are completely wrong.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    19. Re:Not a solution! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      peak-hour traffic congestion rises to meet maximum capacity, increasing the road carrying capacity has no long-term effect on traffic congestion.

      By this logic, the best solution for congestion is to have NO roads.

    20. Re:Not a solution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cause of heavy traffic is ultimately compression waves which are caused by human drivers doing a poor job of maximizing their minimum speed. In other words, breaking earlier so you slow down as little as possible instead of going as fast as possible and stopping.

      Roads will still reach saturation that will cause a slowdown, but coming to a complete stop will be a thing of the past.

    21. Re:Not a solution! by lgw · · Score: 1

      Taxes all go to retirement pay anyhow - we could build 10x as many roads and it wouldn't affect overall spending worth mentioning.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    22. Re:Not a solution! by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I've been saying for years that the cause of traffic congestion is stupid people, one way or the other. They change lanes at a bad time and slow down 2 lanes of traffic at once, they don't pay attention and go when traffic moves in front of them, and they don't stop in time and cause a crash which really screws things up. Get rid of the stupid idiotic human drivers and automobile travel will be truly awesome. Of course the only way this would work is for manual-driving cars to be banned as soon as autonomous cars become widespread enough.

    23. Re:Not a solution! by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      By this logic, the best solution for congestion is to have NO roads.

      And by that logic, the best way for eBay to prevent too many people from winning the same auction is to have NO auction.

      So I should have said, peak-hour traffic congestion on an unpriced road rises to meet maximum capacity. Thanks for pointing that out!

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    24. Re:Not a solution! by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Good grief not this again.

      SDCs can drive much closer together

      No, they can't.

      Reaction time is only a fraction of stopping distance and cars already drive too close so, no, SDC's will not driver any closer than the cars you see on the roads today. Also you have to factor in the vast difference in braking distance difference between cars, braking distance can vary up to a third - for the very same car on the same day!

      See:
      The Power to Stop - Car Comparison - Car and Driver

      Autonomous cars still have to leave more than a 1-second gap, I frequently see drivers leave a lot less.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    25. Re:Not a solution! by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Capacity is measured in vehicles/hr, and it's a function of speed and packing. Traffic is not a function of capacity at all. You can have a traffic jam without exceeding capacity (v/hr), and you can hit capacity without traffic.

      SDCs increase v/hr because they allow both higher safe speed AND better packing. And since most traffic is actually caused by aggressive and timid drivers, though mostly the latter, we can eliminate that factor as well!

      The scientists [...] found that timid drivers had the biggest impact because they "shied away" when the car in front started slowing down, and deliberately started driving even more slowly to increase the gap between them.

      What about red lights? Surely even the smoothest of commutes will eventually terminate at a light, and traffic will start to accumulate there. Well, we can eliminate those as well.

      I love driving, but as a society, we needs SDCs, and we need to transition as soon as possible. If I slam on the brakes, I can waste thousands of man-hours as traffic behind me slows to a crawl. And if I get in an accident, I can easily waste thousands of man-lifetimes in an urban area while people wait for my mess to get cleaned up. If I have a good excuse, I can probably walk away without even getting a ticket. Autonomous, unilateral decisions that can negatively impact so many others must be reduced or eliminated where possible, and driving is really the most power one person has to negatively impact so many others with such little consequence. SDCs are the only opportunity for the sea change necessary to modify driving behavior to the degree necessary to allow personal transportation to be pleasant and efficient.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    26. Re:Not a solution! by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Ok, an accident with a 4 hour delay that affects 50k people would "only" be several man-years, not man-lifetimes, but that's still a lot of time.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    27. Re:Not a solution! by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Traffic is not a function of capacity at all.

      You could not be more mistaken, because congestion occurs when a road's volume to capacity ratio exceeds 1.0. You can read up on Level of Service for more information.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    28. Re:Not a solution! by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Traffic is not a function of capacity, rather capacity is a function of traffic, among other things.

      http://www.aboutcivil.org/high...

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    29. Re:Not a solution! by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Traffic is not a function of capacity

      Except when it is.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    30. Re:Not a solution! by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Sigh. My point is that LoS is not a measure of capacity, and that absolute numbers can be increased while congestion is decreased with driverless vehicles. You haven't provided anything that refutes any of my claims.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    31. Re:Not a solution! by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Your point was that, in your words, "Traffic is not a function of capacity." However, Level of Service describes traffic congestion (queuing and delays) as a function of traffic volume and capacity. Therefore, traffic congestion is a function of capacity.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  6. As long by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    As it isn't a Tesla, since you can't sell them there. Gasoline or diesel powered vehicles only, which is the wave of the future.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:As long by toonces33 · · Score: 1

      Really??? You can't?? We have a Tesla dealer just down the street from us, and yes we live in Virginia.

    2. Re:As long by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      You certain it isn't a showroom? One where sales are not allowed under penalty of law? http://www.greencarreports.com...

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      Fome the greencar site:

      "While Tesla has a showroom in the fancy Tysons Corners Mall, employees are forbidden to discuss sales of the electric car. Virginia forbids any carmaker to sell cars directly to paying customers."

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:As long by toonces33 · · Score: 1

      There is a 2nd location on Tyco Road - it looks like they have a service department there, but from the outside it looks like just any other car showroom.

    4. Re:As long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla reached a settlement with Virginia last year and have been granted a license for a single dealership. The dealership is located on Tyco road in Tysons Corner.

    5. Re:As long by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Tesla reached a settlement with Virginia last year and have been granted a license for a single dealership. The dealership is located on Tyco road in Tysons Corner.

      How accomodating of these bastions of capitalism to allow one Tesla dealership in their state.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:As long by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      Every state in the United States has the same set of laws banning anyone from selling new cars except members of the Dealer Cartel. This way they can outlaw any real competition. Car dealerships are second only to farmers in terms of congressional lobbying effectiveness.

    7. Re:As long by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Every state in the United States has the same set of laws banning anyone from selling new cars except members of the Dealer Cartel.

      And yet somehow Teslas are being sold, despite the fact that Tesla does not partner with the Dealer Cartel. How do they manage?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    8. Re:As long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Black market?

  7. Hah by wbr1 · · Score: 1

    most notably Interstates 95 and 495

    NOVA I can handle most days (excepting Tysons Corner). You should try 64 at the Hampton tunnel for fun.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:Hah by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      most notably Interstates 95 and 495

      NOVA I can handle most days (excepting Tysons Corner). You should try 64 at the Hampton tunnel for fun.

      At least the HRBT has an excuse for slowing down. It's the random stoppages on 64 in New Kent that really annoy me.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Hah by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      Ahh yes, accordion freeway heading inland for miles. I love it. Will be going to the outer banks this weekend, and look forward to it on the way back.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
  8. FTFY by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    California, Nevada, and a handful of other states already have roadways that allow autonomous-car use.

  9. Wonderful news! by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    That's great. Virginia wants my self-driving car. and by coincidence, I DON'T want my self driving car.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  10. How about automated trains? by ksheff · · Score: 1

    That seems like it could be a simpler problem.

    --
    the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    1. Re:How about automated trains? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They exist. Japan has them, but you can only phase them in slowly, otherwise many drivers become jobless.

  11. California has roadways reserved? by tompaulco · · Score: 0

    Wait, California, which has 12 line wide highways of stop and go traffic has whole roadways reserved for the current volume (zero) of autonomous vehicles? Why aren't the citizens revolting and forcing the state to open those roads to non-fairy tale vehicles?

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  12. They should be drawn by a horse also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just in case the engine malfunctions.

  13. It's a slow and incremental process by FlynnMP3 · · Score: 1

    I'd love to see the original driving reports of these self driving vehicles. Maybe they are publicly available and I just haven't looked hard enough. I want to see how well these SDCs perform in pouring rainstorms; like a cloudburst where you aren't sure if having your wipers on the fastest setting is doing anything or not, or thick to no visibility fog, or a substantial snowstorm. Or how about plowing through a significant snow bank on the road. Or poorly marked detours in a GPS deadzone - they just have static maps and dead reckoning to navigate.

    Until they can perform such tasks as that with ease and have a multi-year track record for doing so, SDCs are a luxury item for the city commuter. Granted that will help the larger percentage of drivers, but it will not make those things ubiquitous by any means.

    1. Re:It's a slow and incremental process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SDCs are a luxury item for the city commuter.

      Maybe in heavy traffic, otherwise who wants to be perpetual passenger in a car they paid $20-30K. Some people want to drive and if want to be a passenger, just take the bus or a taxi.