The Future is Here - Robot Cars

[Jacob]

Nevada passes a law to explicitly make driverless cars legal on the roads: http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/nevada-oks-robotic-cars.php

[Zoupa]

What's the purpose of a driverless car?

[Monoriu]

What's the purpose of a driverless car?

1. Some people like the comfort of a private car but don't want to drive.
2. Reduces accidents.
3. Improves traffic flow.  If a substantial number of cars are centrally coordinated, I can see some improvement.  They won't go too slowly.  They will know the optimal route to use.  Etc.

[DontSayBanana]

1. Some people like the comfort of a private car but don't want to drive.
2. Reduces accidents.
3. Improves traffic flow.  If a substantial number of cars are centrally coordinated, I can see some improvement.  They won't go too slowly.  They will know the optimal route to use.  Etc.

Actually, most of the practical applications I've seen so far are for commercial applications.  Volvo rolled out a system a few years ago where a single pilot driver could control several tractor cabs by infrared or laser targets "painted" on the backs of the trailers, frex.  I've heard of a couple car manufacturers who have driverless systems in testing, but the closest (that I know of) that's actually made it to the market is "active park assist" in some Fords.

As to your "centrally coordinated," I remember reading some fiction in either Asimov or Amazing Tales back in the 90s that dealt with the potential for disaster: a guy whose daughter is hit by a careless driver develops a centralized driverless system, makes sure the system is put in all parts of the country, and then shuts it off at rush hour.  "The Day the Streets Ran Red," or something like that.

[Ideologue]

Sweet.  What about robot wives?  Because I want both.

[Habbaku]

Sweet.  What about robot wives?  Because I want both.

Shouldn't you be worried about all those poor drivers that these things will put out of work?

[Ideologue]

Sweet.  What about robot wives?  Because I want both.

Shouldn't you be worried about all those poor drivers that these things will put out of work?

Why would I want poor drivers to keep their jobs driving?

[DGuller]

1. Some people like the comfort of a private car but don't want to drive.
2. Reduces accidents.
3. Improves traffic flow.  If a substantial number of cars are centrally coordinated, I can see some improvement.  They won't go too slowly.  They will know the optimal route to use.  Etc.

Actually, most of the practical applications I've seen so far are for commercial applications.  Volvo rolled out a system a few years ago where a single pilot driver could control several tractor cabs by infrared or laser targets "painted" on the backs of the trailers, frex.  I've heard of a couple car manufacturers who have driverless systems in testing, but the closest (that I know of) that's actually made it to the market is "active park assist" in some Fords.

As to your "centrally coordinated," I remember reading some fiction in either Asimov or Amazing Tales back in the 90s that dealt with the potential for disaster: a guy whose daughter is hit by a careless driver develops a centralized driverless system, makes sure the system is put in all parts of the country, and then shuts it off at rush hour.  "The Day the Streets Ran Red," or something like that.

  Active park assist is far from the closest thing that made it to the market.  Mercedes S-Class is a test-bed for all sorts of gizmos that will gradually make up a robot car.  Active cruise control that automatically accelerates or brakes is pretty nifty, and much more advanced than a park assist.

[Zanza]

The adaptive cruise control actually trickles down by now. It is available in mid-level exec cars like the Merc C class or Audi A4 by now. Give it three or four more years and all cars will have it as option.

It works fine but still has room for improvement as it only drives based on distance to the next car, not optics AFAIK. So if it senses a gap on the freeway it will accelerate even if a human driver would see that it is pointless because there is a long line of slow-moving cars in front so closing the gap a second or two faster won't gain you anything. It also breaks and accelerates rather hard for my taste. And it's limited to 200 kph, which may not be such a big problem in most markets.
The next generation of the system will have a dense traffic assistant that will just follow the car in front of you and also steer the car. It will only work at a rather low speed though. Not for technical, but for legal reasons.

[Zanza]

3. Improves traffic flow.  If a substantial number of cars are centrally coordinated, I can see some improvement.  They won't go too slowly.  They will know the optimal route to use.  Etc.

You don't really need a robot car for that though. It would be enough to implement car-to-car networking for the micro-level and GPS or mobile phone signal tracking combined with intelligent routing systems on the road or in navigation systems to control the macro-level of traffic flows.

[Ideologue]

The adaptive cruise control actually trickles down by now. It is available in mid-level exec cars like the Merc C class or Audi A4 by now. Give it three or four more years and all cars will have it as option.

It works fine but still has room for improvement as it only drives based on distance to the next car, not optics AFAIK. So if it senses a gap on the freeway it will accelerate even if a human driver would see that it is pointless because there is a long line of slow-moving cars in front so closing the gap a second or two faster won't gain you anything. It also breaks and accelerates rather hard for my taste. And it's limited to 200 kph, which may not be such a big problem in most markets.

Yeah, okay, score one for Europe.

Although that's an interesting aspect of robot cars: once truly mature systems are married with sufficiently high-performance vehicles, there's no rational reason for them to obey a 70mph speed limit.  (Well, except the fuel economy reason.)

[Slargos]

The adaptive cruise control actually trickles down by now. It is available in mid-level exec cars like the Merc C class or Audi A4 by now. Give it three or four more years and all cars will have it as option.

It works fine but still has room for improvement as it only drives based on distance to the next car, not optics AFAIK. So if it senses a gap on the freeway it will accelerate even if a human driver would see that it is pointless because there is a long line of slow-moving cars in front so closing the gap a second or two faster won't gain you anything. It also breaks and accelerates rather hard for my taste. And it's limited to 200 kph, which may not be such a big problem in most markets.

Yeah, okay, score one for Europe.

Although that's an interesting aspect of robot cars: once truly mature systems are married with sufficiently high-performance vehicles, there's no rational reason for them to obey a 70mph speed limit.  (Well, except the fuel economy reason.)

Only after all cars on the road have the same system.

[Tamas]

The adaptive cruise control actually trickles down by now. It is available in mid-level exec cars like the Merc C class or Audi A4 by now. Give it three or four more years and all cars will have it as option.

It works fine but still has room for improvement as it only drives based on distance to the next car, not optics AFAIK. So if it senses a gap on the freeway it will accelerate even if a human driver would see that it is pointless because there is a long line of slow-moving cars in front so closing the gap a second or two faster won't gain you anything. It also breaks and accelerates rather hard for my taste. And it's limited to 200 kph, which may not be such a big problem in most markets.

Yeah, okay, score one for Europe.

Although that's an interesting aspect of robot cars: once truly mature systems are married with sufficiently high-performance vehicles, there's no rational reason for them to obey a 70mph speed limit.  (Well, except the fuel economy reason.)

Only after all cars on the road have the same system.

Which is inevitable of course. While I would hate to totally relinquish control over my vehicle, I sure wouldn't mind just saying "Kit, take me home" after a hard day of work every once in a while.

[Brazen]

Can you be done for being drunk in charge of a driverless car? Over here, you don't actually have to be driving to be "in charge".

What is the legal definition of being in charge?

There is no legal definition for the term "in charge" so each case will depend on its exact circumstances and facts. Generally, a Defendant is "in charge" if he was the owner/in possession of the vehicle or had recently driven it. He is not in charge if it is being driven by another person or is "a great distance" from the vehicle.

Matters are more complicated where a person is sitting in the vehicle or "otherwise involved with it". In charge can include attempting to gain entry to the vehicle and failing, having keys to the vehicle, having intention to take control of the vehicle or even "being near the vehicle". 

http://www.drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk/offences/in_charge_of_a_vehicle_with_excess_alcohol.htm

[Slargos]

The adaptive cruise control actually trickles down by now. It is available in mid-level exec cars like the Merc C class or Audi A4 by now. Give it three or four more years and all cars will have it as option.

It works fine but still has room for improvement as it only drives based on distance to the next car, not optics AFAIK. So if it senses a gap on the freeway it will accelerate even if a human driver would see that it is pointless because there is a long line of slow-moving cars in front so closing the gap a second or two faster won't gain you anything. It also breaks and accelerates rather hard for my taste. And it's limited to 200 kph, which may not be such a big problem in most markets.

Yeah, okay, score one for Europe.

Although that's an interesting aspect of robot cars: once truly mature systems are married with sufficiently high-performance vehicles, there's no rational reason for them to obey a 70mph speed limit.  (Well, except the fuel economy reason.)

Only after all cars on the road have the same system.

Which is inevitable of course. While I would hate to totally relinquish control over my vehicle, I sure wouldn't mind just saying "Kit, take me home" after a hard day of work every once in a while.

No argument there. I like driving, and I would hate to have an autopilot forced on me 100% of the time but it would be very pleasant to have the option.