Forum menu
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-17989553
One part of me is dead against it due to job losses since eventually there will be no need for professional drivers.
On the other hand, the increase in safety and reduction in congestion (and probably the increased speed cars can travel at) has to be a good thing and difficult to argue against.
Then again, what becomes of all us petrolheads?
I dislike removing the driver entirely, purely for the "what if" scenarios. Planes are capable of take-off, flying and landing unmanned these days but they still keep pilots and they still need to be trained to deal with them when things go wrong, because things DO go wrong.
I also suspect they'd end up with dedicated roads, because the main benefits come from much closer driving and very much fixed speed driving which doesn't fit in with humans very well. Which means they are unlikely to be introduced in the UK.
On the other hand, the increase in safety and reduction in congestion (and probably the increased speed cars can travel at) has to be a good thing and difficult to argue against.
What happens when something goes wrong (as it will) and the person in the car has no idea what to do? What happens when you mix driverless cars with the millions of normal cars on the road?
We don't even have driverless trains, and that's a lot easier to implement than cars.
job losses since eventually there will be no need for professional drivers.
How many chaufeurs are there? Taxi drivers won't be replaced, otherwise who's going to clean Chantell and Crystal's vomit off the leatheret back seat as they stumble out with some 3rd division footballer?
Better on fuel consumption and congestion too I'd imagine, just think of the lack of congestion if everyone on the M1 did exactly 70mph, it'd be interesting too to see if even a computer can match manufacturers mpg claims though.
From my experience the main problem with cars is the driver....
much closer driving
Imagine being in the car behind the one that has a blow out......
Everyone assumes that something will go wrong but are quite happy to trust the fly by wire systems for the accelerator and the brakes.
What happens when something goes wrong (as it will) and the person in the car has no idea what to do?
Same as now
much closer driving
Imagine being in the car behind the one that has a blow out......
Same as now
etc
I like the idea of driverless cars, certainly a good thing in my mind.
What happens when you mix driverless cars with the millions of normal cars on the road?
That there is the big question in my opinion! Human drivers are often somewhat erratic to say the least.
From my experience the main problem with cars is the driver....
See, that's hysterical rubbish 🙂
IME the main advantage is the driver. FAR FAR more journeys are completed without incident or problem than ones that are.
Also, I see crashes and glitches on computers, don't you?
Same as now
No. It won't be though will it? When cars are travelling closer and faster. Removing the driver doesn't change the laws of physics. You missed the point entirely. 🙂
And another question for y'all:
Who's going to pay for all this?
I'm pretty sure the (very intelligent) designers of these systems are aware of the laws of physics and the fact that there are other drivers on the road.
And since its been built by google, i'd say anyone using the internet has already paid for it.
Then again, what becomes of all us petrolheads?
The age of the petrolhead is dwindling as it is, and will be a dim and distant memory for all but the vastly wealthy long before such a time as driverless cars ever reach common adoption.
I'm a software developer. No crashes or glitches here! 😉
Completed without "incident or problem" depends on your definition? Every journey will have some (usually very minor) issue caused by a human. It's all these little things that add up to the likes of traffic jams etc
The issues are not all incompetence. At least a computer driver won't be aggressive, impatient, be distracted by the kids (that last one was the excuse the woman used when she hit the back of my car the other week!)
I dislike removing the driver entirely, purely for the "what if" scenarios. Planes are capable of take-off, flying and landing unmanned these days but they still keep pilots and they still need to be trained to deal with them when things go wrong, because things DO go wrong.
Hundreds of people are killed every year when humans get it wrong at the moment. I think computers could probably do better.
But again people don't look at these things rationally when it comes to cars. I think coffeeking is right in that the main obstacles are in how they'd begin to work with the road system we have now.
PP that's a poor troll, or do you really believe that mechanical/electrical faults are responsible for more crashes than human error?
No mix of manual and auto cars would happen. Auto driving would only happen on certain roads
Also, I see crashes and glitches on computers, don't you?
Control systems already have far more control over the car than you do. ABS, fly by wire brakes and accelerators, etc.
Modern aircraft manufacturers and car manufactures test extensively using [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware-in-the-loop_simulation ]HiL Testing[/url] to find glitches in the control systems.
I have to say though, this looks slightly scary...
And another question for y'all:
Who's going to pay for all this?
Shouldn't really add much cost much on a car, the control systems are mostly there, you're going to need some vision systems and more processing power but in mass production the cost probably wouldn't be excessive.
Plus the insurance costs will be less from reduction in crashes 😀
I wouldn't want one - it no doubt drives 'sensibly'.
I'm pretty sure the (very intelligent) designers of these systems are aware of the laws of physics
Good answer. So the cars will travel further apart and no faster than current ones then. Excellent.
And since its been built by google, i'd say anyone using the internet has already paid for it.
It. IT.
As in one in number.
How much do you think it'll retail for?
Good answer. So the cars will travel further apart and no faster than current ones then. Excellent.
If they were to mix with normal drivers then I guess so (although it could be argued they need less stopping distance due to increased reaction times).
If they were only driving with other driverless cars then the stopping distances could be vastly reduced and the speeds increased if the cars were able to communicate with each other. Also, there would be no need for traffic lights.
I think driverless cars will probably happen. Most of the technological hurdles have been overcome. How they would integrate with existing traffic is the difficult one. The real advantages of the system would only become clear when every car on the road was automatic and communicated with the cars around them in a network to maximise road usage and minimise delays
As much as I enjoy driving, being able to switch over to auto mode for motorway journeys would be great.
And just think - auto lane discipline - no more middle lane drivers!
Control systems already have far more control over the car than you do. ABS, fly by wire brakes and accelerators, etc.
Aye, but they're VERY simple systems with VERY simple control algorithms. There's a VAST difference between that and getting a car to self navigate and take part in a real world road scenario. Just the ability to identify what a car is, what a human is and what it is likely to do next is a monsterous task, HUGELY computationally intensive. And then you'd want redundancy.
fly by wire brakes
No such thing - trust me I design car brakes for a living 😆
In general I think the driver-less car is inevitable. Whether it will replace all other cars overtime is a matter of legislation and cost and is almost impossible to predict.
And just think - auto lane discipline - no more middle lane drivers!
Audi will find a way around that
Did anyone read the article?? Its already driving on normal roads with other traffic fully autonomously, with a person as a backup.
Did anyone read the article??
Don't be ridiculous.
Interesting to see how the solve the urban challenge of idiot pedestrains.
I'm wary of any approaching a minor junction with earphones in as there seems to be a nearly 100% chance of them crossing the road without looking. How's a non human going to identify and react to that risk?
trust me I design car brakes for a living
In that case can you design some that give me the same feedback I had on pre mid-90s cars. I hate the feel of modern brakes.
And just think - auto lane discipline - no more middle lane drivers!
That's what puts me off ..... gesticulating and shouting obscenities at other cars will become pointless.
It's going to take all the fun out of driving.
The biggest problem that driverless cars face is dealing with other cars, specifically those driven by badly-designed, unpredictable, error-prone and faulty piloting systems, or 'people' as they're more commonly known.
I say bring 'em on, the sooner we get them the better. I'd much rather take my chances against computers programmed to do nothing other than drive than carry on dodging the idiots that populate our roads now.
Brilliant idea IMO. Driving is one of few things which stresses me. I don't enjoy it any more due to idiots and recently had an experience with road rage. Although it ended worse for the other party it's not something I wish to experience again.
So in theory you could get as pissed as you like and the car will bring you home safely. Result
Then sleep your way to work in the morning. Result
If it can drive its self you could use it for uplifts and it would be along to pick you up at the bottom of the trail. Result.
I think the motorways will be automatic and the rest of the roads won't be, so you drive to the motorway normally, get on, computer takes over, and when you want to come off, it disconects you at a gate at the end of the off ramp, so the car is bought to a stop (just in case you've fallen asleep LOL)
How's a non human going to identify and react to that risk?
Faster than a real human in all likely hood.
The Google car has shown the technology is pretty much there. The hurdles now are around the public and government adoption of it.
Who is at fault if a driverless car crashes?
Who is at fault if a driverless car crashes?
The manufacturer, I would hope. To my mind that would seem to be the best way to ensure that the cars are as safe as possible.
(Assuming it's been maintained and the passengers didn't meddle with it or anything, etc.)
Everyone assumes that something will go wrong but are quite happy to trust the fly by wire systems for the accelerator and the brakes.
The fly by wire systems are fine. It's the control law that they respond to which is limited. The 'brain' as opposed to the arms and legs.
I wouldn't trust your average person behind the wheel as backup - just look at the recent Air France crash repeated on here a few times to see what happens when even highly trained professionals encounter a malfunctioning control system.
Does anyone know if there are any industry standards for the communication between cars? This is the sort of thing Google would have a patent war over... I wouldn't want a patent war involving cars with different manufacturers being unable to communicate with each other...
*wanders off*
The manufacturer, I would hope. To my mind that would seem to be the best way to ensure that the cars are as safe as possible.
A very good point. It would need to be looked at though. Not all accidents are driver error. The majority for sure but not all.
Its interesting that the first country to adopt them (in a very limited fashion) is probably the most litigious in the world
Agreed with somewhere above - get driverless trains to be the norm where the variables are so much less and then sort out the roads. I'd imagine unions would be as much of a stumbling block there as the technology though.
No mix of manual and auto cars would happen. Auto driving would only happen on certain roads
lolwut? That's rubbish. There'd be not much point in inventing a driverless car that could only use dedicated tracks. Google's driverless car is already mixing it with normal traffic.
there will be human error somewhere along the line, there always is.
PP that's a poor troll, or do you really believe that mechanical/electrical faults are responsible for more crashes than human error?
That's not what I said is it?
Well, electrical fault is a bit broad. Human error could at a level be considered an 'electrical fault'.