While it's one thing to see these crazy vehicles as part of DARPA development projects, it's quite another to think of an autonomous car like the one Google is working on fighting New City cab drivers for right of way, crawling through the traffic jams in San Francisco, or cruising (hopefully not careening off) over the Golden Gate bridge.
As one that doesn't even trust the rear-view camera for backing out or parallel parking, I'm not sure I could leave the driving to the car--no matter how much onboard intelligence you pack on.
That is right, I won't be able too be fully confident in letting my car drive on itself. Though the texting while driving is funny yet dangerous, that's the one causes major fatal accidents on the road. Yeah, I agree that General Motors is not yet on the verge of technological advancement to lead this kind of automobile innovation.
There are some options that I think are a good idea. Adaptive cruise control that maintains a 'safe' distamce from the car ahead, and then resumes speed. But I don't like the function that the car applies the brakes if a collision is imminent. Supposedly the braking will be harsh so that the driver that is texting rather than driving will be unnerved, and not rely on this feature. I don't think I would be comfortable letting the car have control. However, this might be perfect for the driver that would rather text or read a book.
great idea to have self-driven cars but as they say, it could have disadvantages... not being safe enough. this volkswagen r5 has enhanced high tech car parts system like radar gps and inertial system. wish I could rebuild on my vw too... I do search car parts in jcwhitney site...this is where I get cheap car interior accessories
I agree it is definitely a fun challenge, but I do not know how much confidence I would have in a vehicle driving itself. Cars are already on the market that park themselves, but i am not sure if they will be able to market a car that drives itself by the end of this decade.
I'm a bit confused by the further reading links provided. While all-electric cars are admirable, I'm not quite sure how they are related to self-driving cars. Stanley is a diesel-powered Volkswagen, while the Google self-driving cars are based on the hybrid Toyota Prius, the same platform used for their fleet of Google Street-view cars. I'm all for innovation and I am hesitant to disparage any engineering lab, but I find it difficult to believe that the self-driving car revolution will be led by General Motors. I've read GM's press releases but I haven't seen GM take the technology lead in the past. Please set me straight if I'm way off base.
I have spent a few hundred hours at the testing end of automotive production lines, as well as watching the electrical portions of the vehicles being built. My experience says that no way would the quality be high enough for a life-critical system. We could have driver warning systems that could enhance safety, but production quality would just not be adequate for a road-speed autopilot.
Besides that, the programs would probably be written by some of the same individuals that write the current vehicle system code. That means that the autonomous vehicle would not think at all in the manner that I think, and so it would undoubtedly be unable to handle any exceptions to what it expected. So leave the computers to the engine controls and the navigation screens, where the harm that they can do is much less.
GM says they will be ready by the end of the decade. I can believe it. There are already mining trucks, ag tractors and other equipment that operate autonomously. Highway speeds with other drivers are a different environment since there is much more variability. these vehicles need to be capable of reacting to random human behaviour, just like we are when at the wheel.
We already have cars on the road, and every time one of these vehicles encounters a situation it isn't programmed for, we can add that to the abilities of the control system. The testing required to deploy these vehicles in production will be in the tens of millions of miles I would guess. A daunting task, but acheivable.
In the early days, there may be vehicles with limited situational capability. Lets say we have a vehicle that can handle highway traffic, but will require the driver to take over in any sort of urban environment with stoplights and such. This capability still has value without being absolutely autonomous.
Wow – we already have Skype (so glad there is a "no video" option - I think Jane would have preferred that for those early morning calls) and now yet another futuristic aspect of The Jetsons working towards reality. Now if I could only get a household robot like Rosey, my German Shepherd could learn to speak like Astro and we could all go to a three hour/three day work week like George – now that would be progress!
One question on the whole topic: Would you be willing to sign your name to the certicicate stating that the system was "safe enough", in todays litigous climate? I don't think that I would be willing to do that. Yes, there would be honour and fame, but also herds of hungry lawyers. Not within a few hours.
In an age of globalization and rapid changes through scientific progress, two of our societies' (and economies') main concerns are to satisfy the needs and wishes of the individual and to save precious resources. Cloud computing caters to both of these.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.