BMW Showcases Self-Driving Concept Car

SmartAboutThings writes: We've just been given a glimpse of what the future of motoring could look like, with BMW showing off its latest concept car, and it's self-driving. The Vision Next 100 was unveiled on Monday, at a ceremony celebrating BMW's 100th birthday, at Munich's Olympic Hall. This comes just a few days after BMW made official its intentions of competing with Google to build software for Self-Driving cars.

The Vision Next 100 has two driving modes, a driver mode and an autonomous mode, or 'ease' as its known. In driver mode the car operates mostly like cars do now, except the BMW indicates the ideal driving line and speed, but when the car is set to autonomous mode the steering wheel retracts and the two front seats turn to face each other. Perfect for two people to have a chat, and if it's only you in the car, put your feet up and relax.

Comments

Can the AI act like a BMW driver?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be nice if the AI can act like a BMW driver. No turn signals, swerving into lanes if there is a gap wide enough... then slamming on the brakes to show supremacy. Oh, and making sure the AI's algorithm when parking is to take as many parking spaces as possible.

Of course, to protect the sides, add e-ink paint, so the vehicle looks like it already saw the business end of a key.

If only

[monkeyxpress]

If only making a few renderings and CG animations was all that was required to make those driverless car things.

I don't know

[fyngyrz]

My first reaction to the seats turning to face each other was "so if the driver has to take control.... huge delay." My second reaction was "...and if you hit something, you'll be oriented sideways, which seems like a really bad idea."

Hmmm.

Re:I don't know

[N1AK]

It's all about balancing risk and benefit. If drivers only have to take control once every couple of hours and then being able to use the couple of hours better likely outweighs the small delay in those circumstances; from a safety perspective it is unrealistic to expect someone to be poised ready to act for hours straight while the car drives itself so the drivers ability to react to sudden dangers the car can't handle is very low anyway.

From a crash safety perspective if travelling in a self-driving car in 10 years time was say 90% less likely to result in an accident that could cause injury then you'd likely still be vastly safer travelling in a less safe position then than you are travelling in a safer position now. I'm not sure where the cut off is but given that our time is limited at some point you have to put a value on how you spend that time.

Re:I don't know

[AthanasiusKircher]

My first reaction to the seats turning to face each other was "so if the driver has to take control.... huge delay."

This is one of those things that everyone thinks, but seems completely unreasonable if you think about it a little more deeply. I know that self-driving cars right now require the operators to be attentive and take over when necessary -- because they are still being "trained" in their early phase.

However, this is simply not a reasonable thing to expect the general public to do with a self-driving car. The first mass-market car that truly claims to be "self-driving" should NEVER require human intervention to "take control" suddenly. The car needs to be able to handle all situations adequately, and if it can't (e.g., case of impending major mechanical failure), it should have a backup system that will at least exit the current traffic pattern to the side of the road and come to a halt safely.

Anything less is a huge safety problem.

The idea that a human driver will just "take over" control in an emergency is incredibly stupid and naive. Think about how many accidents are caused by drunk drivers. And most of them are caused because drunk drivers have impaired reaction ability -- and a few tenths of a second is an issue.

Now imagine some rich guy who buys a BMW to drive him to work every day. He'll bit sitting there drinking coffee and reading a newspaper, and you somehow expect him to suddenly "take the wheel" when the AI can't cope? Forget about seats turned sideways or whatever -- you're talking a couple seconds minimum before (1) he realizes there is a problem, (2) manages to get rid of his newspaper, coffee, and breakfast sandwich before he can, (3) hit the button to take control, and (4) actually adjust his body to the controls. And with that amount of delay and breakfast bits flying around the car, there's no guarantee that a human driver would even be able to respond well and make safe maneuvers for a few seconds even after he takes control.

Three seconds at 65 mph is almost the length of a football field. Once we get to the point that drivers expect a car to drive itself MOST of the time, we simply cannot rely on the idea that drivers will be alert and ready to take over at a moment's notice. Moreover, I think it will be actually MORE dangerous to have a human driver take over in most such scenarios when unprepared and emerging from distraction.

So, actually, some ideas about the BMW design are better -- assuming that the AI actually functions flawlessly (which I think we're still a long way from). But once we get that level of AI, it's probably better to encourage people to act like they're not really a "driver" anymore.

My second reaction was "...and if you hit something, you'll be oriented sideways, which seems like a really bad idea."

We already have plenty of buses, shuttles, long limos, etc. which have some sideways oriented seating. I realize those seats aren't generally at the front of the vehicle, but still -- if AI is not demonstrably better than most bus or limo drivers in completely autonomous driving, then it shouldn't be allowed on the roads.

Re:I don't know

[fisted]

This is my biggest problem with self driving cars at the moment.

Yes, it's really a shame they're on the market for so long already, yet /still/ suck ass.

They still aren't good enough that you can take a sleep or watch a movie while they drive you around.

Fully agree. It's a pain in the ass to sit there, every morning, watching my car drive me to work but not being allowed to distract myself. Why are they selling those cars already? Obviously the technology isn't there yet. Come to think of it, you also still have to manually remove the dead hookers from the trunk. How autonomous is that?!

Re:I don't know

[AthanasiusKircher]

Right it's entirely unreasonable to believe that unforeseen failures can occur those things never happen.

Of course failures can happen. What I'm saying is putting a so-called "self-driving" car on the road which can fail in such a way as to require a person to take over SUDDENLY is a major safety hazard, both for the "driver"/passengers and for those cars around it.

It's not like people, birds, and other wild life have ever ran out in front of cars without warning

If an AI can't respond to such things, it should NOT be allowed on the road. Period.

And if the "failure mode" in these scenarios is to suggest that the distracted businessman reading the newspaper while eating his breakfast is supposed to suddenly take the wheel... well, that's just not reasonable. And you can say, "Oh, but these 'drivers' should be alert," but that's just not how people are going to use a "self-driving" car in the real world.

If the distracted guy on his commute who takes 3 seconds to take the wheel is going to do better than the AI in avoiding "people, birds, and other wildlife," then I definitely would not buy such a car, and I would propose that such an AI is a TERRIBLE driver and should be banned from the roads.

and I have never seen a new car broken down on the side of the road.

Different scenario. Re-read my post. If a major failure happens, there needs to be a backup system that can get the car to the side of the road and to a stop safely. Clearly, in your scenario, the human driver was able to do that. Why precisely should we demand less of an AI "driver"?

I didn't say that mechanical failures would be impossible on future cars -- but the AI should be designed in such a way (with various backup systems) that it's basically the LAST thing that will fail... and if it does so, such a failure should never be sudden and in the middle of a highway.

In all but the most catastrophic of failures, the human should NEVER have to suddenly take control. It's dangerous, and it's a stupid idea.

Re:I don't know

[Grishnakh]

The problem is that drivers **cannot** take control, unless it's pre-planned. You can't expect drivers to have their hands on the wheel, ready to take over at a moment's notice. It's simply impossible; if you require that, humans will fail nearly every single time it happens. Humans just can't do that.

What *can* work is the car acting autonomously in certain places (like on highways), and then requiring the driver to take over outside of those situations, *as long as* the driver is given ample warning to be ready to take over. So if you're taking a 1-hour drive with 45 minutes on the freeway, you could have the car take over on the on-ramp and drive autonomously on the freeway, and then require the driver to take over on the off-ramp, giving plenty of auditory warning ("Arriving at off-ramp in 3 minutes, please be prepared to resume manual driving"), and then falling back to pulling over on the off-ramp if the driver has fallen asleep or something.

But any rules requiring drivers to be able to take over at a moment's notice **will** be a failure and cause catastrophic results. If autonomous vehicles are not ready to act autonomously without the need for manual takeover, then they don't belong on the road, or they need to be set up to be restricted to certain places or situations (like freeways, that really should be pretty easy to automate).

Correction

[wonkey_monkey]

BMW showing off its latest concept car, and it would be self-driving if it actually existed, which it doesn't

FTW.

In other news I will be unveiling my concept airplane/car/submarine/helicopter/spaceship.