Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Volvo To Test Full-Size Driverless Bus in Singapore (reuters.com)

Posted by msmash on from the marching-forward dept.

Speaking of Volvo, the Swedish carmaker announced today that it has partnered with Singapore's Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and unveiled a full-size autonomous electric bus for testing this year in the city state. From a report: High-density Singapore has been encouraging the development of driverless technology in hopes that its residents will use more shared vehicles and public transport. Tests with one bus on the university campus could begin in a few weeks to months, before moving to public roads after regulatory approvals, NTU President Subra Suresh told reporters. He hoped the tests could be extended to public roads in a year. A second bus will undergo tests at a city bus depot.

The 12-metre (39 ft) vehicle can carry up to 80 passengers and is the world's first full-size, autonomous electric bus, Volvo and NTU said. "This is the type of vehicle that real operators would use and that's why it is a milestone," Hakan Agnevall, president of Volvo Buses, told reporters.

44 comments

  1. Different company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Volvo Bus (owned by the Volvo Group), is a different company than Volvo Cars (owned by Geely).

    1. Re: Different company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have only one question: will they also limit the top speed of that bus to a maximum of 112 mph?

    2. Re: Different company by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

      no 49MPH.

  2. Excellent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is great. Now when the AI goes berserk, we can kill and maim up to 80 people at a time instead of just the onesie, twosies that Tesla's autopilot has been killing. Agenda 21 FTW!

    Save the planet, MFer's!

    1. Re:Excellent. by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the biggest problem is Tesla'a Autopilot isn't the same as a self driving car.
      The Autopilot is a tool to reduce driving strain, where it will keep you in your lane, and avoid collisions. Most of the Autopilot accidents is because some idiot thinks the car is a self driving car, and just lets it drive on its own, especially in situations where the road is non normal (bad conditions, road work, work men, traffic)

      This is good if you are on the Highway you have picked your lane, and need to refocus your eyes a bit.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  3. And, following the new Volvo policy, . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Funny

    . . . the speed of the bus will be limited to prevent accidents to 0 kph.

    (That's 0 mph for the Imperial Units crew).

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:And, following the new Volvo policy, . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wait - don't you still have to add 32?

    2. Re:And, following the new Volvo policy, . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's Volvo Cars' policy, not Volvo's. Those are two entirely separate companies.

  4. I am so glad these things aren't in Ashland by WCMI92 · · Score: 2

    That way I don't have to ever see these things on the road. Thing is computers are not advanced enough to do this and you had better hope they don't become that advanced.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
    1. Re:I am so glad these things aren't in Ashland by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 0

      Nice to see that others are also realizing how half-assed the so-called 'AI' is that the marketing people keep trotting out.

  5. Why a bus? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

    The nice thing about autonomous vehicles is that they could provide a comfortable, useful middle ground between public transport and private car ownership: autonomous cars on demand, autonomous taxicabs or minivans where you’ll often share a ride with someone else, but all providing point to pint transport at a reasonable price. Putting an AI driver on a large bus driving a fixed route might drive ticket costs down a little but won’t do much to make public transport more attractive in general.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    1. Re:Why a bus? by sheramil · · Score: 1

      I'd be more impressed if Volvo, the Swedish carmaker, had announced that they were going to test their bus in Sweden.

    2. Re:Why a bus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's an easier test track than private vehicles? Which users want to go *anywhere* ? And it's fairly reliable / predictable - same route all day every day?

      Automating long haul trucking and bus routes seems like the *most* logical place to start.

      I can barely get uber / lyft to not try to pick me up in the alley even though the dot on the map is in the right place. (on the flip side, what if you're trying to go into the alley, but it doesn't want to let you?)

    3. Re:Why a bus? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1, Troll

      'Public transit' exists primarily for one purpose: so The Poor can get around in some way other than walking or riding a bike. People who can afford their own personal transportation, will afford it, even if it's slightly a financial burden to them, because the benefits outweigh everything else. Even The Poor, riding a bus, dream of the day they can afford their own car, and go where they want, when they want, by themselves. Unless basic human nature changes, 'public transit' isn't going to ever be considered 'attractive'. It's just not how we're wired.

    4. Re:Why a bus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI In Public transit in Singapore exists, and is clean and efficient, so that Everybody can get around - cars are intentionally made very expensive and so the entire island does not become a traffic jam like Manila or other large densely populated cities. You need to buy a Certificate of entitlement (COE) before you can even buy a car and COEs go for >= 19K us dollars according to the last data I could find.

    5. Re:Why a bus? by Woeful+Countenance · · Score: 1
      So that when the Robot Uprising occurs, they can Kill All Humans more efficiently. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all: buy a new $800,000 bus to save $30,000 a year paying a driver?

      "... point to pint transport" There you go. I could use a pint myself.

    6. Re:Why a bus? by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      'Public transit' exists primarily for one purpose: so The Poor can get around in some way other than walking or riding a bike

      No, it exists so that people can move efficiently through a city. A real city, I mean, not the shitty "100 strip malls and tiny restaurants surrounded by parking spots intermixed with housing-only suburbs" that many in the US call cities. I mean actual cities.

      People who can afford their own personal transportation, will afford it, even if it's slightly a financial burden to them, because the benefits outweigh everything else

      You've never driven in a city, have you?

      The only people who drive in cities are those who have a terror of actually being near other people, or who have very specific one-off tasks to do that require hauling a large amount of stuff from one place to another. Even when my mother had a car when I was brought up in Britain we used the bus for most journeys. Even if you like driving (why? Moreover, why the fuck does every idiot car advocate think that EVERYONE loves driving?), you won't like doing it in cities.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:Why a bus? by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People who can afford their own personal transportation, will afford it, even if it's slightly a financial burden to them, because the benefits outweigh everything else

      Some of the larger metro areas, like SF or NYC, I find it way more beneficial to not have a car in than to have a car. In MYC I can often beat most traffic on foot for just a few blocks, for longer it might be even using the subway...

      Or at least that way true, every visit the subway in NYC gets more unreliable and worse.

      Anyway, point is that if you are living somewhere in the middle of a few places it still may be more desirable not to own a car, and just rent something really nice when you do need one.

      Now me, I do need a person car for what I do. But I would dearly love to have it be autonomous so I could do other things on long drives. My dream would be a kind of small camper van that I could sleep and work in while it drove me overnight to various destinations. That would be amazing.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    8. Re:Why a bus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Swedish law doesn't allow them to test in-country, given the scope of this proposed level of testing.

    9. Re:Why a bus? by rgmoore · · Score: 1

      The reason Singapore is interested in public transportation is because their roads are too crowded. They've already implemented a bunch of measures to reduce individual driving, like limiting the number of cars sold in the country and congestion pricing in the busiest areas of the city. They absolutely do not want to encourage more driving, even by autonomous vehicles.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    10. Re:Why a bus? by rgmoore · · Score: 1

      buy a new $800,000 bus to save $30,000 a year paying a driver?

      A few points:

      1) Buses have a limited lifespan, so they'll need to be replaced eventually anyway. As long as they're only buying the new buses as part of their regular fleet replacement, you need to look at the difference in cost between an autonomous bus and a conventional bus. Since even a diesel bus can cost over $500,000, paying $800,000 for a driverless bus is much less of a stretch.

      2) The amount you're suggesting for driver pay would only cover a single driver working a conventional workweek. Most bus routes run way more than 8 hours a day 5 days a week. You'd need at least 2 full time drivers to cover a route that's 12 hours a day 7 days a week, and more like 3 drivers if it's 18 hours a day.

      3) Drivers need more than just their hourly wage. You'll also need to pay for benefits, a manager to oversee them, HR overhead, etc. That's going to add considerably to the cost of hiring them.

      Add it all up, and an autonomous bus can pay for itself pretty quickly in reduced driving costs.

      And that's also assuming they're intending to maintain existing service levels. As it is, a metro system needs to buy enough buses to serve its peak service levels, but it takes many of those buses out of service during off-peak periods to save on driver costs. If they eliminate the need to pay for more drivers, they can improve their off-peak service levels cheaply, which makes the service more attractive.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    11. Re:Why a bus? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      I own a car, but I rarely use it within the (european) city I live in. Streets are narrow, mostly one way only, it's busy, and there's no place to park. I walk or take the bike when I need to be in town.

    12. Re:Why a bus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if you like driving (why? Moreover, why the fuck does every idiot car advocate think that EVERYONE loves driving?), you won't like doing it in cities.

      Why does every car hater insist that everyone else also truly hates driving and only does it "because they have no other option?"

    13. Re:Why a bus? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      even if it's slightly a financial burden to them, because the benefits outweigh everything else.
      In your country perhaps. In Germany no. I hardly manage to drive my car 10,000km a year ... In the town it is close to useless, longer distances in my country for work I do in a train, where I can either work on my laptop or read a book and enjoy a beer in the restaurant wagon.

      Unless basic human nature changes, 'public transit' isn't going to ever be considered 'attractive'.
      Again: in your country perhaps. I'm not driving 12h in my own car when I can take a bus/train over night, or have a plane that only takes an hour. And then there are situations where you are simply lost with your own car or a rented one ... look at Bangkok. Why the funk would I have a car when I can go EVERYWHERE for close to no money with public transport? Or Paris ... or Copenhagen?

      Sure: your answer will be, you are farmer and need a car ... rofl.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    14. Re:Why a bus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why does every car hater insist that everyone else also truly hates driving and only does it "because they have no other option?"

      Maybe because everyone who claims to love driving is always angry and spends all their time complaining about other drivers?

      If everyone else would stay off the road then I would also love to drive, but as it is now I prefer to walk when I have the option.

    15. Re:Why a bus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Public transit' exists primarily for one purpose: so The Poor can get around in some way other than walking or riding a bike.

      The Europeans and the Japanese must be pretty poor then, after all they have arguably the best commuter layouts in the world.

      It's weird how petrol heads hate public transport so much yet it's the most efficient way of moving in and between heavily populated areas. There's no way your stupid car is going to be efficient when everyone else also has a car and is trying to navigate through gridlock.

    16. Re: Why a bus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Singapore already has on-demand busses. You book trough an app and if enough people join a new route is created.

    17. Re:Why a bus? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      I disagree EXCEPT in the case of a huge city. Otherwise it's for The Working Poor. People who can afford a car, will have a car.

    18. Re:Why a bus? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Nope.

  6. Hakan Agnevall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That guy gave me a quest in Rorikstead.

  7. Ahead of his time by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

    Stephen King might have been a little prescient.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  8. Let's put this into perspective, shall we? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

    Before the SDC fanboys go apeshit over this, let's put it in perspective.
    An 'driverless bus' will operate on a set route, on a set schedule, making pre-determined stops at pre-determined locations. Compared to a so-called 'self driving car', this is closer to an elevator or a train than it is a 'driverless car'. The requirements placed on the so-called 'AI' running it are small in comparison. Furthermore I'm sure it'll run at a slow speed. The most complex thing it'll be asked to do is stop when something is in it's path. Overall this is nothing to get excited about, is not anything I'd consider a 'milestone'.

    1. Re:Let's put this into perspective, shall we? by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      If it's not been done before, I would call it a milestone.

    2. Re:Let's put this into perspective, shall we? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      If it's stupid or unimpressive then it devalues the word 'milestone'.

    3. Re:Let's put this into perspective, shall we? by 91degrees · · Score: 2

      It will be a self driving vehicle being used on public roads for genuine transport purposes. Dealing with potential unpredictable hazards on the road is still a problem that needs to be dealt with. If they believe this is adequately solved, then this is a milestone.

    4. Re:Let's put this into perspective, shall we? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An 'driverless bus' will operate on a set route, on a set schedule, making pre-determined stops at pre-determined locations

      Why? Not all buses with drivers conform to those requirements as there are some which will detour and pick people on demand and modify routes to drop people off.

    5. Re:Let's put this into perspective, shall we? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's stupid or unimpressive then it devalues the word 'milestone'.

      You think milestones just happens out of the blue?

      It involves a lot of work and gradual improvements until a milestone is hit.
      If you are working in the development it is just something you pass on the way.
      For marketing it is a big deal because they aren't directly involved and do other stuff instead, so to them nothing have happened until the milestone is hit.

      In the more traditional sense you would literally have to walk a mile until you passed the next milestone.
      The step past the milestone would be no different from any other on the way.

    6. Re:Let's put this into perspective, shall we? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey everybody! It's the Ack-shually Guy, live and in person! Let's have a look at his steaming pile of a comment, shall we, mm hmm, m'lady?

      First, feel free to point out all of the other driverless bus systems operating in major metropolitan areas that would render this not ack-shually a milestone in, say, the creation of driverless bus systems for major metropolitan areas.

      Next, you claim that this driverless bus will ack-shually operate on set routes and have set stops at pre-determined locations. And that's a great catch. Somebody might say 'you know, exactly like a fscking bus with a driver, but without a driver? A driverless bus, as it were? A thing we don't have now?' But they'd be missing your genius insight, Einstein. There's no fooling you.

      Next week - Boeing announces an AI-piloted passenger jet. You: "Not a milestone; we already have passenger planes with autopilots; this will only land at existing airports."

    7. Re:Let's put this into perspective, shall we? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      But the so-called 'AI' in this case is CRAP and everyone is starting to realize that, so it's stupid and doesn't deserve the word 'milestone'.

  9. Self-driving and public transport by hfox · · Score: 1

    I keep seeing this connection being made between self-driving vehicles and public transport as though you need one to have the other. "High-density Singapore has been encouraging the development of driverless technology in hopes that its residents will use more shared vehicles and public transport." Do they really think that their residents won't use public transport unless it's driverless? Or can Singapore not afford bus drivers?

  10. Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, less than 5 collisions an hour with no dead is success... right?

  11. You don't belong on a tech site, redneck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go mow a lawn, make yourself useful Cletus.

  12. route by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    I'm curious to know how they would deal with a construction detour on the bus route.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.