The Autonomous Audi TTS Pikes Peak vehicle -- co-developed by Audi, Volkswagen, and Stanford University -- autonomously completed the 12.42-mile Pikes Peak circuit in 27 minutes in 2010. (Source: Audi AG)
"There is an application for this in places that have private roads in wilderness areas, tunnels, etc., but NOT on public roads"
Rigby5, I think it's a general mindset of peoples, about the security concerns. I don't think there is any need of fear about it. Auto navigation systems will take care about colloid free journey even in busy streets.
Good point about the driverless trains, but you have to remember that is on a track and there aren't other trains (or cars) around also driving to create possible interference or cause an accident. I guess I didn't think about the idea of a commute...it seems like a good idea if a car can just be programmed to go on a set path and follow a route while the driver can kick back and relax. But then I see a future with cars all moving on tracks and everything being automated and predictable...again I tink it takes the fun and spontaneity out of driving. But that's just me!
Charles, quiet sometime I read the same from Google in Canada. Any updates about that. I think such vehicles will helps to reduce accidents and can offer safe journeys. So far we had seen only driving assisting systems only.
There is an application for this in places that have private roads in wilderness areas, tunnels, etc., but NOT on public roads.
Sensors, decision making software, circuits, etc. are never going to be reliable enough, and the self accelerating Toyotas should have already convinced everyone to minimize electronic involvement. Everything that can be done by humans, should be done by humans. It is likely to be more than a century before this could ever be both reliable and cheap enough to be of use on public roads, and it may never be acceptible.
The human brain has too many connections to sensing mechanisms to expect a series of man-made devices to duplicate. Therefore if we expect to successfully develop a driverless car, we need to establish a control environment for it to operate within.
Imagine a freeway system designed to accept driverless cars. It must have destination lanes, lanes allowing the vehicle to enter the correct traffic lane. Lane changes must be controlled by establishing a speed and spacing control for each traffic lane. All of this can be controlled by satellite communications. There is an immediate problem with a factor known as peristaltic effect, or adding to a fixed series of moving lines without spreading them. The new vehicles must combine with the existing lines without making them wider. This requires controlling the beginning spacing based on the anticipated additions. Destinations must be entered in advance so that all calculations of traffic flow can be control planned. A reservation system could be used for a fixed length of travel but it must be maintained by each traveler.
Problems require solutions and with our current calculating capability, I am certain a solution could be forthcoming.
At many airports you ride in driverless trains, and have been doing so for decades. While a much simpler case, there is still the potential for error and human loss. Somebody figured out the legal side of that, along with the technology.
I agree that driving can be fun; on the other hand sometimes a bus or train ride is really fun to relax, do some reading, have a real conversation, etc. and still get where you need to go. Think about all the other technologies that have become "personal" (i.e., all the power in your smart phone, for example) and consider that many people will welcome the idea to hop in the car and tell it where to go, then sit back. For them, it will be more enjoyable than the bus.
@naperlou--perhaps there is a relationship between the sophistication of the processor and the number of sensors required. The human has hands and feet as actuators (and maybe voice for some functions) and eyes, ears, pressure, and touch (for vibration, g-force, etc.). However, the human has the brain. Fast microprocessors in the autonomous system can't match the intelligent processing of the brain. Solution? Add more sensors to break up the input into more digestible chunks and write multi-variable models to try and account for everything.
In the last month, Toyota agreed to pay about $1.1 billion to settle the class action lawsuit over unintended gas-pedal acceleration. Wonder if that will indirectly factor into the development of this technology.
Two problems I see are litigated responsibility for accident injuries and consumers giving up their spot behind the wheel. We're in love with our cars and it will take a lot to get us to turn them over to computers.
There is currently much discussion around the term "platform," which may be preceded by the adjectives "mobile," "wearable," "medical," "healthcare," etc. However, regardless of the platform being discussed, they usually have one key aspect in common: They tend to be wireless. So, why is this one aspect so fairly universal? The answer is convenience.
Everyone has a MEMS story. For most of us it’s probably the airbag that saved our lives or the life of a loved one. Perhaps it’s the tire pressure sensor that alerted us about deflation before we were stranded alone on a dark muddy road.
Bioimimicry is not merely a helpful design tool -- it also encourages designers to think not only about how to solve design problems by imitating nature, but how to make the products, materials, and systems they design more ecologically sound and nature-friendly.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.