Toyota To Spend $50 Million On Self-Driving Car Tech

An anonymous reader writes: Toyota is the latest automaker to see which way the wind is blowing; they've committed $50 million over the next five years to build research centers for self-driving car technology. They'll be working with both Stanford and MIT, and their immediate goal is to "eliminate traffic casualties." "Research at MIT will focus on 'advanced architectures' that will let cars perceive, understand, and interpret their surroundings. ... The folks at Stanford will concentrate on computer vision and machine learning. ... It will also work on human behavior analysis, both for pedestrians outside the car and the people 'at the wheel.'" Toyota's efforts will be led by Gill Pratt, who ran DARPA's Robotics Challenge.

Comments

Why?

[jtownatpunk.net]

I thought they already had this covered with unsecured floor mats or something.

$10 million per year?

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably spend more than that on door handles.

Re:$10 million per year?

[crow]

Exactly what I was going to post.

This is the behavior of a company that doesn't see the technology going forward anytime soon, but wants to fund some research to get control of some patents just in case.

If they were spending ten times that amount, then that would be serious.

Of course, this might just be one part of a larger R&D program. They don't talk about what they're doing in-house; this is just additional spending to fund outside research to make sure they get a share of any patents that are generated.

THIS I'm OK with.

[kheldan]

Technology is supposed to help people, not replace people. Technology in your car that helps you be a better driver is a good thing. I have been, and will remain of the opinion that attempting to replace human drivers, literally preventing them from actually operating the vehicle, is a bad thing. What Toyota is aiming for, if implemented well, will be a good thing.

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? You can't get a better job than driving an Uber, so you're whining here against technological progress?

Re: THIS I'm OK with.

[Anonymous Coward]

That republican-ruled corporation hates us and wants us to die. They want the rich to have safer self driving cars while the poor die I accidents.

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? You can't get a better job than driving an Uber, so you're whining here against technological progress?

What are you one about? Did you forget to take your meds today?

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[ShanghaiBill]

Technology is supposed to help people, not replace people.

When you make a phone call, do you still call the operator, and ask her to switch the wires on the punchboard?

Re: THIS I'm OK with.

[Anonymous Coward]

That republican-ruled corporation hates us and wants us to die. They want the rich to have safer self driving cars while the poor die I accidents.

What are you talking about? The rich will be the only ones able to drive their cars because they're "elite".

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[Applehu Akbar]

I can tell you what's going to happen. When cars gain the ability to self-drive, perhaps sixty percent of the people will heave a sigh of relief and enjoy being able to sleep, watch movies or read a book while on the way to work. The other forty percent, nostalgic for the Corvette they dreamed of having one day when they were young, will express various degrees of reservation about going self-drive. As insurance companies push up rates for drivers and reduce rates for auto-drive passengers, most of the remaining drivers will admit that there's no Corvette in their future, ever, and go automatic.

As the number of manual drivers drops toward five percent, automatic drivers will start insisting on higher road speeds to get where they're going faster, which the system will accommodate as the technology matures. At some point the superhuman reflexes demanded of the remaining manual drivers will push them out of the system, with the last one percent of "driving enthusiasts" relegated to closed tracks as highway traffic blurs by at a hundred miles an hour.

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[Dutch Gun]

Technology is supposed to help people, not replace people.

Since when? Our lives have vastly improved since technology has been replacing people, typically by doing things that are repetitive, boring, and/or dangerous (all of which describe driving).

Think carefully about how silly your assertion sounds in a broader context. How'd you like to go back to planting and harvesting fields by hand. Yeah, technology replace a bunch of people there. How about digging tunnels with picks and shovels? Oops, yeah, technology replaced all that sort of backbreaking labor. What about entire offices filled with people mindlessly adding columns of numbers? Technology eliminated that sort of work, didn't it?

Computer algorithms will probably be several orders of magnitude better at driving than humans, and all that time currently spent in traffic can now be used for productivity, relaxation, or socialization. Still, you probably don't have to worry for a while. The first generation of self-driving cars will start adding these features gradually, and we'll use them as safety features or a more advanced cruise control for a while. It's going to be quite a while before humans are *completely* out of the loop when driving.

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[fisted]

as highway traffic blurs by at a hundred miles an hour.

They become self-driving, they don't become self-paying. It turns out solving the self-driving problem does not do away with the air-drag problem.

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[NetFusion]

They are behind and trying to catchup. Subaru already has the jump on them with Eyesight technology

I've used it, it works, and has saved me from a collision with a lead car making a false start in a merge, made a 1000 mile road trip a breeze with adaptive cruise that will even bring you to a stop in heavy traffic , and once alerted me about lane departure while nodding off behind the wheel when i was really tired. It has taken awhile to adjust that the car technology is shadowing my decisions and ready to act, but now I'm use it to and wouldn't buy a car without it. This is the thin end of the self driving car wedge.

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[ShanghaiBill]

It turns out solving the self-driving problem does not do away with the air-drag problem.

To some degree, it does. SDCs can drive much closer together in "platoons", greatly reducing drag.

Automobile Platooning

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[Anonymous Coward]

Technology is supposed to help people, not replace people.

When you make a phone call, do you still call the operator, and ask her to switch the wires on the punchboard?

??

That was exactly his point.

Technology has replaced the people.

What was your point?

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[kheldan]

Perhaps it's repetitive, boring, and/or dangerous when YOU are doing it? :-) Some people actually enjoy driving themselves. If you don't then that's fine, but don't think that your opinion should be forced on everyone else. By all means, don't drive if you don't want to, take a bus, or a cab, or have someone else drive you, or just stay home, or whatever you decide to do. But I talk to plenty of people, and they all prefer to drive themselves, and give you a funny look when you describe some people's dream of a 'self-driving car' that has no controls a human can use to drive manually; they think it's an insane idea, just like I do and will continue to do, and I'm far from alone in the world with this opinion -- and it's not an 'old people' idea, either, so get that notion out of your head, too. I get accused of being a troll all the time for daring to voice my opinions strongly, when ironically enough, on this subject, it's all the 'self-driving autonomous car' advocates that sound like trolls to me: A box on wheels controlled by a computer, and you have NO way to manually control it yourself? LOL, that's a trollercoaster in the making! It's also pure fiction, no government is going to be so stupid as to allow such a thing, at least not anytime in this century. So I suggest all you driving-hating people just suck it up and accept that most people prefer to drive themselves, manually-driven cars will not be the majority anytime soon, and if you hate it so much then please do find alternative transportation for yourselves, there's no worse safety hazard I can imagine than someone who is unwillingly engaging in operating a motor vehicle, or worse, is scared constantly while they're doing it. Enjoy the fact that so-called 'autonomous vehicle' technology will more likely manifest itself as features that prevent you from causing an accident; I know I will.

..and to reiterate: For the forseeable future, all vehicles will be required to have a full set of manual controls available to the human operator at all times that completely overrides any 'automated' system, and that all vehicle operators will continue to be required to be educated, trained, tested, licensed, and insured, in order to operate a motor vehicle, regardless of any 'automated' features. I and others of a like mind will ensure such with letters written, meetings attended, votes cast, and whatever else might be necessary to ensure it, because in the end a human being must always be the final fail-safe in place to override and take control from any automatic system, especially when other human lives are at stake. To design a vehicle or transportation system any other way is completely irresponsible and utterly negligent. So get over it.

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[kheldan]

Hello newfriend, you seem to have lost your way on the Internets, here, let me help direct you back to where you belong: http://www.4chan.org/b/

..oh, and if 'sticking to your guns' (as my father used to say, meaning 'sticking up for what you believe') is now considered 'being a troll', then I guess I'm guilty as charged. I ain't no sellout, I ain't no hoe; I think what I think, and anyone who doesn't like that can get fucked.

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but he still sends out an office boy to run with a message on a stick as a backup.

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[Anonymous Coward]

A final part may be changing forward-facing seats for rear-facing ones as they are better for crash survivability, although people do like to see where they are going.

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[Anonymous Coward]

Technology is supposed to help people, not replace people. ... I have been, and will remain of the opinion that attempting to replace human drivers, literally preventing them from actually operating the vehicle, is a bad thing.

Good god. I can't believe this luddite shit is actually a thing - and on a tech website, of all places.

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you retarded or something? His point was that replacing people with technology is a GOOD thing, retard.

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[Anonymous Coward]

You dial a wrong number, nobody dies...

Your automated car does not understand the fireman urgently redirecting traffic at a chemical spill... well, that's worse

The parent is righ. Augment... not replace.

For one, it would be trivial to automatically sound the horn when collision danger is detected.

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[Anonymous Coward]

No Technology isn't supposed to help people, that is entirely your own view and incredible infactual. Open up a history book sometime, technology has been replacing people since the dawn of man.

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[MrL0G1C]

It does help people.

It helps disabled people who can't drive.
It helps blind people.
It helps old people.
It helps young people.
It helps people who haven't passed their driving test.
It helps people who are too tired to drive.
It helps people who are too drunk to drive.
It helps people who shouldn't drive because they are on medication.
It helps people who simply don't want to drive and would rather talk on the phone or do work.
It even helps cyclists and pedestrians because the roads will be safer.

I sincerely look forwards to the day when drivers are legally confined to racetracks and private land.

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[MrL0G1C]

That's nice but the simple fact is a lot of people simply aren't responsible enough to drive safely and policing the roads is not effective and doesn't remove them at least here in the UK, where you can kill someone and oops sorry, slap on the wrist.

You like driving, fine, do it on a racetrack or private land is my attitude for the future. Self driving cars will likely be 80-90% safer and even more for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders etc.

Or the compromise could be the car senses when you've lost concentration and you lose control of the car for the rest of the journey.

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[Noughmad]

Technology is supposed to help horses, not replace horses. Technology in your carriage that helps your horse be a better horse is a good thing. I have been, and will remain of the opinion that attempting to replace horses, literally preventing them from actually drawing the carriage, is a bad thing.

I'm sure that Henry guy got lots of comments like this.

Re: THIS I'm OK with.

[Anonymous Coward]

Replacing fulfilling jobs would be a problem. Replacing farming, factory work, phone operators, garbage collection, street sweeping? Bring it on!

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[Anonymous Coward]

Driving is repetitive unless you go the same place every day.

It is debatable whether it's boring, but come on, everybody you talk to prefers to drive themselves? Does nobody ever even carpool ever? How are you *not* bored when stuck in rush-hour traffic? Are you just never stuck in rush-hour traffic? Because I hate to break it to you, people get stuck in rush-hour traffic all the time.

Then you've got weird luddism. There exist today boxes on wheels controlled by computers. TODAY. They exist. Governments are allowing those things today. Not just Google cars, but combines, trains, etc.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So I suggest all you driving-hating people just suck it up and accept that most people prefer to drive themselves

I seriously doubt it. Put up some statistics, or at least non-anecdotal evidence. Please note that the existence of uber and taxi services are an extremely strong argument that a very large number of people do not always prefer to drive themselves (they may sometimes prefer to drive themselves and sometimes not, which is no contradiction).

And even if true, that doesn't actually argue against self-driving cars. That's an argument for manually driven cars. It's not a contradiction! The world can have both.

there's no worse safety hazard I can imagine than someone who is unwillingly engaging in operating a motor vehicle, or worse, is scared constantly while they're doing it.

Unsubstantiated. I could equally claim that somebody who has no respect for the danger of driving is a worse safety hazard than somebody who is cognizant of it. Both claims are not completely unreasonable at first glance but they are contradictory and need substantiation.

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[Sark666]

Why is it a bad thing? let's say for sake of argument that the tech works and it's significantly safer than human drivers. Is it still a bad thing? I read that there are on average 40,000 fatalities due to driving in the US each year. I can only imagine the world wide figure. And that doesn't include devastating accidents where someone is crippled for example and other serious injuries. No solution is perfect but lets say the figures drop to 10,000. Are you still against it? And are you only against it because of tech replacing people? Would you rather the figure stay at 40,000 simply for the sake of keeping humans doing this? (driving in this case)

You say tech is supposed to help people not replace them, I'm sorry but that's pretty much what all technology does. It does what was once previously done by a human. From bank tellers to automotive assembly to farming equipment and on and on. I once read an article talking about technology and it said it's going to eliminate capitalism. Capitalism at it's heart is to pay a human being for goods or services that person provides. Well, technology devalues that work and makes it cheaper.

So if you are against technology replacing people well you are pretty much against technology in general. What was once man work becomes machine work. It's been going on for ages since the invention of the plow, it's just that now we are going to see this accelerate at a very dramatic rate.

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[Applehu Akbar]

Highway speeds like this are already routine in Germany (I have driven there). Drivers are a more select part of the German population than in the US, because the less skilled have alternative transportation.

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[fisted]

Highway speeds like this are already routine in Germany

No, they're the exception. On the about 1/3 of the Autobahn where it is legal to speed, you'll find only about one in a (few) hundred cars going 180+ (km/h). One in ~50 goes 160+. The vast majority cruises at around 120-130, many even below that.

And guess why? Not because it isn't *fun* to speed, no. Because it is damn expensive, the non-linear way (note the v^2). And frankly we already have to pay the equivalent of over $6 per gallon on gas. It really makes you think twice.

(I have driven there).

Really. Once?

Drivers are a more select part of the German population than in the US, because the less skilled have alternative transportation.

What a ridiculous statement.

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you retarded or something? His point was that replacing people with technology is a GOOD thing, retard.

Jesus, are so fucking stupid to not understand this:

kheldan: technology isn't supposed to replace people.

Shanghaibill: telephone operators have been replaced

Please explain so we can gauge the level of your intellect. I'm especially keen on why you call eveyone retard, retard.

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[tehcyder]

A final part may be changing forward-facing seats for rear-facing ones as they are better for crash survivability, although people do like to see where they are going.

I'm quite happy having a rear-facing seat on a train. And the idea that on a plane you can see anything with your forward-facing seat is self evidently absurd (unless you're the pilot).

I don't see that having rear facing seats would be much of an issue in cars as long as you were never going to need any human intervention.

Re:THIS I'm OK with.

[tlhIngan]

So I suggest all you driving-hating people just suck it up and accept that most people prefer to drive themselves, manually-driven cars will not be the majority anytime soon, and if you hate it so much then please do find alternative transportation for yourselves, there's no worse safety hazard I can imagine than someone who is unwillingly engaging in operating a motor vehicle, or worse, is scared constantly while they're doing it. Enjoy the fact that so-called 'autonomous vehicle' technology will more likely manifest itself as features that prevent you from causing an accident; I know I will.

If that's the case, why is distracted driving now the #1 cause of accidents? It used to be, since time immemorial, drunk driving. Now distracted driving has overtaken drunk driving for the past few years as the leading cause of automotive injuries and accidents.

Could it be, and this is a stretch now, that people are bored and hate driving that they really be doing anything else but?

If people really enjoyed driving, they would pretty much give it their full attention. And not allow a moment of idleness suddenly cause them to reach out for something else.

And alternative methods of transportation don't exist in many areas. At least not practically.

I drive... the short trip to the parking lot where I take the commuter train in. I don't enjoy driving, but at least the trip is short and the hassle part of it is replaced by commuter train. But I'm lucky in that my work is near transit. I turned down a job with 20% more pay so I can remain this way rather than stuck in traffic.

In North America, people drive because they have to. In places where there is better transit, the "car = freedom" is not happening among teenagers. In fact, the proportion of 18 year olds and up with driving licenses is going down. People drive because they have to, not because they want to, and they reach out for their phones and other things because they want to do anything else but drive. Unfortunately, infrastructure in North America isn't as amenable to public transit, so it'll be a long time before this situation reverses.

Yeah, I know in Europe transit is popular and common and more importantly, good. So much so that if you hate driving, you don't have to. You can grow up in Europe without a driver's license and still travel about the continent fairly independently. This is good, because it means those who DO drive generally are those who want to. Those who don't aren't stuck and forced to drive, so they take transit.

Self driving cars are for COWS

[Anonymous Coward]

You are all cows. Cows say Moooo. MOOOO! MOOOO! MOOOOOO cows MOOOOOO! MOOOOOOO say the cows. YOU COWS!!!

Re:Self driving cars are for COWS

[kheldan]

Actually since we're talking about vehicles this is more appropriate: http://vignette2.wikia.nocooki...

Marketing

[PopeRatzo]

Another "autonomous car" press release? Has it been two hours already?

Re:Marketing

[KGIII]

I turn 58 at the end of this year. Even if I live to be 158 I will not live to see ubiquitous autonomous vehicles.

I, for one, love driving. Hell, my MOS was 3505 during my second stint because of this. I don't even mind idling in traffic - I love driving. I love automobiles and being in control of a system like that is thrilling - even today. I have absolutely zero at-fault accidents on my record, ever. I do have one speeding ticket from when I was very young but I have no other violations including parking violations. I do, frequently, exceed the speed limit - but I do it where the risks are minimal and at times when the risk is also minimal. I've even done it, far too often, while intoxicated though I do not do so today (in theory - I'm not entirely sure why I'm allowed to drive while under the influence of Suboxone though it is against the law but not prosecuted). Even while intoxicated, heavily in fact, I've yet to have an at-fault accident.

Now, I suppose, I may be considered "exceptional" in these regards. After all, I have had specific training and have since furthered my training with a variety of paid programs to enhance my driving. However, I'd not consider myself exceptional but more of a hobbyist. As such, I own a variety of vehicles (an absurd number, to be honest) and can drive them all effectively. As an aside, I did not like the condition of the HMMWV in Westbrook due to some crawling that indicates a bent frame and did not opt to buy it.

To the point... I love driving. I absolutely love it. I've a collection of automobiles that span the entirety of my likes with only a few niche vehicles left to acquire. I spend ridiculous amounts of money buying specific vehicles and having them restored to factory conditions or better. One of my favorites is a 1982 Volvo 245... I sent it to the West Coast (those who are aficionados can guess the company) and had it restored entirely as well as upgraded for increased stiffness and fit a skid plate as well as a few other changes. I've sent a '78 911, in "Targa" trim, back to the factory for a complete restoration. My point being that I absolutely love automobiles.

Hell, my love for vehicles is great enough that I'm still debating which pure EV to purchase. How can a true lover of automobiles insist on being powered by an ICE? That is, to my mind, absurd! As a true lover of automobiles how can I not have an EV in my collection? I mean, hell, I want a FIRETRUCK. Yes, I want one. I am not going to buy one but I really want an Oshkosh built firetruck. What I really want is an MRAP but I don't believe I'm allowed to purchase one. On the other hand, I can indeed buy a firetruck - specifically I want the one used for airports but I don't recall the model number off hand and am too lazy to look it up.

Will I buy an autonomous vehicle? You bet your ass. I'll be first in line to own one. I'll pre-order two, perhaps. I might buy one just to put it in a demolition derby at the county fair - I bet it fails miserably. However, I'll buy one. I won't prefer it but it will get used. I want the choice to use it or not. I want to help advance the technology by making it more affordable to the masses because I think people should be able to choose to be driven or have the chance to travel when they're unable to do the driving themselves.

But no... They aren't happening. They'll be niche items in limited use circumstances for a very long time. I see one of their greatest uses in things like mining operations or in public transportation with a set route. I might even buy one then. I do already own a bus, one of the 16 passenger buses built on the Chevy frame, so I'd absolutely buy an autonomous vehicle too and I'd do it just to have it.

I love driving. I'll never prefer to be driven. I can do that already and do that sometimes. Specifically, I have a house in Henderson, NV. Almost invariably I fly in, in fact, I am going there on Tuesday. When I go there I pretty much always hire a car and driver. I could do the same most everywhere but, no, I usu

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

$50 m is a rounding error

[vpness]

Why is this news?

Manufacturer

[XB-70]

Will it be able to detect the human behaviour caused by being an asshole BWM owner?

Re:Manufacturer

[KGIII]

I just recently acquired another new BMW. I went with the 640Li, it's the only time I've ever bothered with a 'bespoke' vehicle, and it is fantastic. I've had one speeding ticket, probably from before you were born, and zero at-fault accidents. I've never had a parking ticket nor the cause of an accident for other people.

I realize your attempt at humor is based on a common trope but, really, the assholes buy an Audi or Lexus or drive beat up old vehicles that aren't fit for the road. Not that all BMW drivers are innocent or even adept at driving but, honestly, I tend to notice poor driving from those with poor automobiles more often than any other noticeable trait.

When you spend somewhere in the area of $120,000 for a new 640Li you probably tend to be a bit more cautious about your driving and more aware of the drivers around you. I've not reviewed the data but I would be willing to blindly wager that more expensive cars tend to be found at fault in accidents at a lower rate than less expensive cars.

Perhaps tangentially related, I don't drive a BMW to impress you. I drive one because BMW impressed me. If you've never given yourself the chance to drive one - and I don't mean to simply point one - then you're missing out. I can own most any type of vehicle I want, within reason, but my go-to vehicle is generally a BMW and has been since 1995. I might add that my son has been driving that same 1995 BMW for almost ten years now. I never traded it in or sold it, I kept it specifically because he had said he wanted it when he was younger and I told him that I'd do so.

Seriously, go drive one. It's thrilling and, if not, you're broken. They don't automatically turn you into an asshole or a bad driver. I've mostly seen assholes in old crappy cars that are covered in dents, run like crap, and have seemingly lost any redeeming features they might have had including the ability to reliably go from one point to another.

I guess that kind of spoils your attempt at humor. Sorry about that but I'm kind of a fan of BMW. They truly make some great automobiles. Their sedans are absolutely fantastic driving machines and are as tough as nails. They are also about as much fun as you can have with your pants on.

And Dr. Evil says––

[darthsilun]

Fifty..... Million..... Dollars....

Let me know when they're going to devote Real Money to it.

Liability

[Schmorgluck]

What's amusing is that when a grave accident happens because a self-driving car's expert system is faulty, any court with the flimsiest grasp of logic will blame the seller, not the owner of the car. As a result, any damage will be on the seller, the manufacturer, etc. But apparently they don't seem to care. I'd suggest we watch closely what kind of ad-hoc law they will be pushing to avoid this fate through their political minions.

but... but...

[garyoa1]

I thot they already had that. Aren't they known for going and going and going...

Toyota. Going places unexpected, like brick walls!

[sethstorm]

At least this time, they'll have a lot harder time paying off people when the programming flings the car into an accident.

I'd worry about the car, not the driver...

[sethstorm]

I'd be worried more about the car itself being a Chinese knockoff and how it managed to get registered and insured for use in the United States.

$50 million?...

[pinzvidz]

... that's a piss in the ocean for Toyota.

Re:$50 million?...

[Anonymous Coward]

... that's a piss in the ocean for Toyota.

50 millions over 5 years...
They could just go ahead and say they don't believe in the concept yet.

I mean, 10 million a year must be what Toyota spends on toilet cleaning globally.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Already do

[Tablizer]

The break fiasco showed their cars already have a mind of their own.

Deer in the head lights

[jraff2]

Have them also be aware of deer and other semi wild animals that react strangely, differently to vehicles.