DriverLESS cars

[BigonaBianchi]

I was jus twatching a tv show about future gadgets..it was showing how the driverless car is already upon us, in fact it is in use at heathrow airport apparrently. It's well withing the realms of reality that in the not to distance future our roads will be populated for the most part by cars with no drivers, just passengers.

Hmmmmmmmmm....half of me is thinking it may improve cyclists survivability and the othe rhalf is thinkngthe exact opposite.

Throws it open for discussion...>

 

[Nantmor]

I've wondered about this too. I guess it depends on the software. Would Isaac Asimov's Laws of Robots (or whatever they are called) be useful. It seems to me that supposing the sensors are accurate then we will KNOW that the vehicle will behave correctly. As it is, we have to ride as if motor vehicles were driven by half blind idots.

 

[Deleted member 1258]

Sounds like another reason for them to drive us of the roads, its going to make an interesting exercise if they are going to try and introduce them in areas full of cyclists and pedestrians, I suspect they will start with the motorways, other places may prove to much of a challenge for the engineers and software writers.

 

[Arch]

The trouble I see is that some of the people who really ought to be forced to use driverless cars are the ones who think they are very good* drivers, and wouldn't dream of letting the car drive itself.

*Very good in this case meaning 'drives too fast and aggressively but gets away with it. so far...'

 

[Maz]

Driverless cars have been around for yonks, mate...

 

[BigonaBianchi]

maybe fiat will introduce the riderless bike to even things up?

 

[PBancroft]

I can see it being a bit Minority Report in that most of the time users would stay in control, but the car would have the ability to take over in there is a hazard the driver hasn't responded to - such as a change in speed limits. In certain circumstances, such as on Motorways, the car would be in control entirely, and allow the driver to take a break.

Again, I'm going to come across as a Google fanboy, but I've been half-heartedly following their driverless car project for a couple of years. It looks really interesting, and they are testing it on public roads in Nevada now. Interestingly enough, so far the car has only been involved in one crash... it was being driven manually at the time.

 

[Maz]

I'd prefer to see Carless drivers

+1
Much better than careless drivers.

 

[snailracer]

I've wondered about this too. I guess it depends on the software. Would Isaac Asimov's Laws of Robots (or whatever they are called) be useful. It seems to me that supposing the sensors are accurate then we will KNOW that the vehicle will behave correctly. As it is, we have to ride as if motor vehicles were driven by half blind idots.

The sensors are not really the issue - it's the car's model of the world and "knowledge" of the rules that are the tricky bits. While I'm not sure the average driver is particularly good, the driverless car would have to at least match the performance of excellent drivers, which is harder.

RE sensors, it's quite easy to improve on human vision - a car could see in all directions simultaneously, for starters. Radar also directly measures range and closing speed, which human vision can only infer by prolonged tracking. If you've ever seen those police helicopter infrared cameras working, the picture on those can be clearer than human vision in daylight, as anything alive or with a running motor stands out from the background clutter - great for spotting ninjas.