Self Driving Cars: The Future is now and by now I mean soon.

[Lindley]

Re: Self Driving Cars: The Future is now and by now I mean s

Christopher said:

Lindley said:
The big problem with GPS navigation being the primary key point is that you can accumulate fairly large position errors when you go under a bridge or in a tunnel. You can compensate to some extent for that using inertial motion sensors, but they compound errors fast on their own. If you integrate visual navigation as well by keying off feature points seen by a camera, you might have a chance.

GPS isn't the only way to go. As long as you're on known roads that are clearly marked in a way the car can detect (say, RFID tags at every intersection/exit/etc.), then it can rely on internal maps and local sensor inputs. I mean, a person driving a car doesn't need to know their latitude and longitude to the arcsecond, so why should a computer? When dealing with a lot of individual units in a system, it makes more sense to have them rely on local rules than global control systems.

True; if that sort of infrastructure were put in place, it would make things much easier. The Urban Challenge required designing a car that did not rely on such things, however, but only used existing infrastructure.

If all you've got to work with is the stuff visually available to a human, then you need:
1) Accurate feature tracking to estimate movement
2) Foreground object tracking
3) Foreground object recognition
4) Foreground object motion prediction
5) Optical character recognition on street signs
6) Motion Planning

Those all have known approaches, but they aren't reliable enough to trust a car to yet. Especially not in combination. Some RFID would help particularly with the OCR and object recognition tasks.

 

[Deleted 2]

Re: Self Driving Cars: The Future is now and by now I mean s

^ I think visual recognition is a sine qua non for self-driven cars. A system that doesn't work when things get tough (lack of convenient RFID tags, holes in the road, other drivers driving like maniacs) is of little use.

Of course, you could use infrared lasers to measure distance, and mount camera's on multiple places on the cars. I just think that any system that can't function without pre-existing infrastructure would be very flawed.

 

[The Doctor]

Re: Self Driving Cars: The Future is now and by now I mean s

Boo-urns.

It's bad enough that you can't buy a simple car anymore without having to submit to traction control that can't be turned off, I'll be damned if I'm going to let a computer do my driving for me.

 

[Christopher]

Re: Self Driving Cars: The Future is now and by now I mean s

The Stig said:
I'll be damned if I'm going to let a computer do my driving for me.

Better than being damned if you don't. Driving is a very hazardous activity, not only to yourself but to others. It's damned irresponsible to refuse to use something that increases safety just because it offends your ego.

Besides, if you're so adamant about not letting computers do things for you, why are you on the Internet instead of going door to door to tell people what you think?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Re: Self Driving Cars: The Future is now and by now I mean s

Christopher said:
Besides, if you're so adamant about not letting computers do things for you, why are you on the Internet instead of going door to door to tell people what you think?

I think he was just insisting that a computer would never *drive* for him. And I can sort of see the point. I would have a very hard time trusting a computer to drive my car. Even if it isn't networked.

 

[Crewman47]

Re: Self Driving Cars: The Future is now and by now I mean s

Here's a question. In 15 to 20 years when self driven cars are used all the time and are proven reliable, do you think the Drving Test as we know it will still exist or will be replaced with something completlt different. I mean if cars are eventually going to do the driving for us (which I have nothing against btw) then there wouldn't be much point in giving us a full blown test other than to tell us how to switch the thing on and tell it where to go?

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Re: Self Driving Cars: The Future is now and by now I mean s

Self driving cars will just be one of those technologys that can be accomplished but isnt utilised, you cant beat a human driver, more should be done to get drink drivers off the roads and much harder driving tests should be developed but the human being will never be replaced behind the wheel.

 

[TerriO]

Re: Self Driving Cars: The Future is now and by now I mean s

Babaganoosh said:

Christopher said:
Besides, if you're so adamant about not letting computers do things for you, why are you on the Internet instead of going door to door to tell people what you think?

I think he was just insisting that a computer would never *drive* for him. And I can sort of see the point. I would have a very hard time trusting a computer to drive my car. Even if it isn't networked.

Yeah, I don't see these becoming anything more than fad for the time being. Cities like Los Angeles might see them work better than cities like New York. I mean, for those familiar with NYC, would you want a computer driving your car down the FDR? (For those not familiar, think the space of a proper four-lane highway, but divided into six lanes instead, with only the occasional "pull off areas" instead of a proper shoulder. No, I'm not joking. It's like driving slot cars. There's really not that much room for even the slightest error.)

I know very experienced drivers who hate the FDR with a fiery passion. The idea of a computer navigating that? They're going to need to upgrade the computing power if they're going to deal with NYC's screwed up traffic routes.

 

[Christopher]

Re: Self Driving Cars: The Future is now and by now I mean s

Crewman47 said:
Here's a question. In 15 to 20 years when self driven cars are used all the time and are proven reliable, do you think the Drving Test as we know it will still exist or will be replaced with something completlt different. I mean if cars are eventually going to do the driving for us (which I have nothing against btw) then there wouldn't be much point in giving us a full blown test other than to tell us how to switch the thing on and tell it where to go?

I'm sure there'd be the occasional need for the human occupant of the car to take over manual control, as an emergency backup if nothing else.

TerriO said:
Yeah, I don't see these becoming anything more than fad for the time being. Cities like Los Angeles might see them work better than cities like New York. I mean, for those familiar with NYC, would you want a computer driving your car down the FDR? (For those not familiar, think the space of a proper four-lane highway, but divided into six lanes instead, with only the occasional "pull off areas" instead of a proper shoulder. No, I'm not joking. It's like driving slot cars. There's really not that much room for even the slightest error.)

Heck, I wouldn't want to drive on something like that without computer assistance. I know I'm vastly more error-prone than a computer would be. I'm not designed to specialize in the task of driving and focus on it to the exclusion of all else. There are far too many things that could distract me or affect my judgment or throw off my timing.

The thing to remember is, it doesn't have to be that complicated. For something like that, just having every car equipped with computerized collision-avoidance systems, nothing more than sensors that detect when you're getting too close to another vehicle and alter your speed and direction just enough to compensate, would do wonders to improve safety. It's amazing how powerful a few simple local rules can be at regulating a complex system. And that simplicity means there aren't that many things that can go wrong.

 

[TerriO]

Re: Self Driving Cars: The Future is now and by now I mean s

Christopher said:
The thing to remember is, it doesn't have to be that complicated. For something like that, just having every car equipped with computerized collision-avoidance systems, nothing more than sensors that detect when you're getting too close to another vehicle and alter your speed and direction just enough to compensate, would do wonders to improve safety. It's amazing how powerful a few simple local rules can be at regulating a complex system. And that simplicity means there aren't that many things that can go wrong.

Were you ever on the FDR when you were here? First off, sensors are only so good when you're about a foot from the car next to you and going about 65 MPH. Then, just as a forinstance, the guy next to you's lane is suddenly backed up with bridge traffic, and he decides to just accelerate and pull over into your lane (with no signal whatsoever, I should add) because there's just enough room ahead of you for his car to fit. Don't laugh. I've seen it.

The FDR is like a Ph.D. dissertation in Driving. If you can manage to drive there, you're pretty much fearless.

That's why I said it would need a LOT more computing power to pull that off. You'd have to give the car a faster reaction time than any human being could manage. There are far more variables in that environment than even the human brain can handle. Factor in some of the craptastic drivers who couldn't be bothered with the traffic laws that are already barely enforced, and you've got a recipe for a massive pileup.

And passing new traffic laws? In NYC? You have obviously never dealt with the labyrinthine bureaucracy that is the NYC government. We'd both be dead by the time any progress even came close to happening.

 

[Christopher]

Re: Self Driving Cars: The Future is now and by now I mean s

TerriO said:
Were you ever on the FDR when you were here? First off, sensors are only so good when you're about a foot from the car next to you and going about 65 MPH.

Better than eyes and human reaction time, I'd think. A human driver is limited to line-of-sight from a single position and can only estimate the distances and motions of neighboring cars. The kind of sensors already available on high-end cars today can measure exact distances and can be positioned all around the car, even in a driver's blind spots. And a computer's reaction time is far faster than a human's.

Then, just as a forinstance, the guy next to you's lane is suddenly backed up with bridge traffic, and he decides to just accelerate and pull over into your lane (with no signal whatsoever, I should add) because there's just enough room ahead of you for his car to fit. Don't laugh. I've seen it.

And if the two cars could measure each other's position and motion precisely and get interactive feedback from one another, they could "negotiate" a way to perform that maneuver smoothly and safely in no more time than it would take a human driver to notice the maneuver happening in the first place.

Besides, if the other car is computer-driven as well, then such sudden maneuvers wouldn't arise from the driver's whim but from a precise calculation of the possibilities. The kind of tight, high-speed situation you're describing, with such narrow margins for error, is precisely the kind of situation where computerized driving could do the most to cut down on gridlock and accidents.

The FDR is like a Ph.D. dissertation in Driving. If you can manage to drive there, you're pretty much fearless.

Oh, yes, I know just what you mean. I figured that out about NYC traffic in general back in the '80s, when I came to town for various reasons and rode in cabs. At first, it looked like the cabbies' maneuvers were incredibly reckless, but I soon recognized the great skill and experience that made it possible to perform such maneuvers with reasonable safety. I saw that you pretty much had to be a superb driver there for the sake of sheer survival. Which gives new meaning to the line, "If you can make it there, you'll make it anywhere."

That's why I said it would need a LOT more computing power to pull that off. You'd have to give the car a faster reaction time than any human being could manage. There are far more variables in that environment than even the human brain can handle. Factor in some of the craptastic drivers who couldn't be bothered with the traffic laws that are already barely enforced, and you've got a recipe for a massive pileup.

I think the reaction time is a given. As for the variables, I think it might be the other way around -- sometimes the problem is that we're aware of too many variables and overcomplicate things. If each unit in the system just follows some very simple rules about interacting with adjacent units -- the most important one being to avoid hitting them -- it can produce surprisingly smooth results. As I said, local rules are very powerful organizational tools. Look at how the local interactions of neurons combine to produce the consciousness of a brain, even though the individual neurons have no awareness of that larger process. Look at how the simple interactions followed by ants result in incredibly intricate and patterned colony behavior.

As for bad drivers, that's only a problem if they're driving their cars manually. Of course it would take time for the transition to take effect, but even so, I don't think it's that big a problem. It doesn't matter to the computers and sensors in your car whether the driver of the other car is good or bad. It just matters that there's another vehicle moving into your car's path on a certain trajectory and it's thus necessary to calculate a revised trajectory for your own car. It's a simple math problem, to be addressed on a case-by-case basis like any other interaction.

Of course I'm not saying it would be a perfectly smooth system, but it can't be worse than the mess that constitutes the present American (and particularly New York) road system.

And passing new traffic laws? In NYC? You have obviously never dealt with the labyrinthine bureaucracy that is the NYC government. We'd both be dead by the time any progress even came close to happening.

Which is why it doesn't need to be a wholesale change, all at once. We already have cruise control. We already have cars that have computer-assisted parallel parking. We already have cars that alert you if they detect you nodding off at the wheel. We already have cars that have infrared sensors to detect if you're about to hit something as you back up and warn you. We already have cars that have satellite navigation built in. None of those required changing the traffic laws. They're just ways for the car itself to help you obey the existing traffic laws and to drive safely within the existing road system. It's a short jump from those things to built-in collision avoidance or to intervehicle communication that helps cars interact more smoothly and efficiently. We're already halfway there.

 

[Deleted 2]

Re: Self Driving Cars: The Future is now and by now I mean s

Christopher said:
I think the reaction time is a given. As for the variables, I think it might be the other way around -- sometimes the problem is that we're aware of too many variables and overcomplicate things. If each unit in the system just follows some very simple rules about interacting with adjacent units -- the most important one being to avoid hitting them -- it can produce surprisingly smooth results. As I said, local rules are very powerful organizational tools.

Except that it's very hard to predict the interaction of local rules in a decentralised system like that. It's very conceivable that a carputer wanting to make a turn into a certain street would keep driving the same route over and over again, because there's a statistical chance that an opening to make a turn might come up.

A human driver would eventually become more aggressive--like the New York cabbies are all the time--and take certain risks a computer never would.

Don't get me wrong, I think computers will work well in scenarios like these, but "a few simple local rules" can fail, and they can do so in an unpredictable and complex manner.

 

[Christopher]

Re: Self Driving Cars: The Future is now and by now I mean s

^^All the more reason for the human driver to have the ability to take manual control. I don't think anyone is proposing the creation of cars that forbid you from driving them -- just cars that can handle themselves under normal circumstances so you can talk on the phone or get some work done during your commute, which would be invaluable in today's society. And, more importantly, that can perform basic collision-avoidance functions to improve safety. There can and should always be the option for the human occupant of the car to have a say in what the car does, and to take control if the need arises.

By analogy, consider the modern jet aircraft. The system is so fully automated that even if the entire cockpit crew became incapacitated (they shouldn't have had the fish for dinner), all the panicked stewardess would have to do is punch a few buttons on the console and the plane would essentially land itself. Even in a less extreme situation, I assume that many of the tasks that used to be performed manually by pilots are now handled by automation, making the process safer and more foolproof. The planes do largely "fly themselves," but the pilot is still a participant in the process, the one making the decisions about what the plane does. Essentially what we're discussing has already been achieved in the air -- why not have it on the ground as well?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Re: Self Driving Cars: The Future is now and by now I mean s

Christopher said:By analogy, consider the modern jet aircraft. The system is so fully automated that even if the entire cockpit crew became incapacitated (they shouldn't have had the fish for dinner), all the panicked stewardess would have to do is punch a few buttons on the console and the plane would essentially land itself.

Uh...are you sure about that? No offense, but I have a hard time believing that a freaking *jet aircraft* could be that automated. When did that start? Can you give a link?

As for self driving cars: Of course they should have a manual override. Not only that, they should have one that could kick in *instantly*, if the driver senses something is wrong. Any kind of lag time could be deadly.

 

[zephramc]

Re: Self Driving Cars: The Future is now and by now I mean s

Babaganoosh said:

Christopher said:By analogy, consider the modern jet aircraft. The system is so fully automated that even if the entire cockpit crew became incapacitated (they shouldn't have had the fish for dinner), all the panicked stewardess would have to do is punch a few buttons on the console and the plane would essentially land itself.

Uh...are you sure about that? No offense, but I have a hard time believing that a freaking *jet aircraft* could be that automated. When did that start? Can you give a link?

As for self driving cars: Of course they should have a manual override. Not only that, they should have one that could kick in *instantly*, if the driver senses something is wrong. Any kind of lag time could be deadly.

Navy F-18s can land themselves on a carrier. I'm pretty sure most of the Gulfstream business jets can land themselves as well. I'd suspect that most of the big commercial jets made in the last 15 years (or more) could do the same.

As far as self driving cars, I'd imagine that all self driving systems could be disengaged by the driver, er passenger rather. I don't think the system would work too well for pickups that are connecting to a 5th wheel trailer, for instance. After everything was hooked up, then the driver may decide to give control back to the computer.

 

[Christopher]

Re: Self Driving Cars: The Future is now and by now I mean s

Babaganoosh said:
Uh...are you sure about that? No offense, but I have a hard time believing that a freaking *jet aircraft* could be that automated. When did that start? Can you give a link?

I don't have a link, but I have a source. On the most recent new episode of MythBusters, aired December 12, 2007, they tested the movie/TV myth of an untrained person having to land a jet with coaching from the airport tower. Using a flight simulator, they determined that it actually was possible to be talked down to a safe landing, but they were told that it's never actually been done, and the expert they were working with then showed them that it wouldn't even be necessary because the jet was automated enough to do the job itself.

I just Googled it, and apparently the feature is called "autoland" -- it's standard enough to be a shorthand term. In fact, it's become quite routine. Here's a Google Answers page on it:

https://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=482344

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Re: Self Driving Cars: The Future is now and by now I mean s

^ In that link, it's said that one of the things that an autopilot can't do is put down the landing gear. Wouldn't this be a rather huge setback?

 

[Christopher]

Re: Self Driving Cars: The Future is now and by now I mean s

Nobody actually said that autoland works entirely without human participation. A person does have to do some things to set it in motion, as I said above. Lowering the landing gear is a part of that, and it's a pretty simple part.

And it's not a hypothetical situation. Read the link I provided: autoland is used every day. Pilots are encouraged to use it every few landings to stay in practice for times when it's needed.

 

[JustAFriend]

Re: Self Driving Cars: The Future is now and by now I mean s

Why it's not new - Your Dad's self-driving car:

It could have been on the road 40 years ago, kiddies.....

Back in the mid-60's, Walter Cronkite hosted a great series of shows called "The 21st Century". (Wish somebody had 'em... that was back before home videotape.)

In one segment, he hopped in a (I think GM) concept car that had a single-joystick steering in the center console. He was amazed at how easy it was to drive: push forward for forward, left for left, right for right and back to brake and reverse.

Then he took it out on a test freeway track and pushed a button. The car locked onto an antenna wire buried in the concrete and followed it down the road. Radar sensors in the front and back of the car would keep it from hitting anything. The car was, at least on the freeway, totally self-guiding.

This was before small self-contained PCs, too.

I remember the segment vividly because my Dad's company built freeways at the time. His view: "Yup, we can do that... just a matter of the increased cost of burying the cables in the freeway and hooking them up to roadside controllers... no problem."

...so that's about 1.5 MILLION PEOPLE DEAD ON FREEWAYS since then because we wouldn't raise a few million dollars to make the freeways self-driving....