Google's Driverless Car - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: skipjackrc4
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2013, 02:08:19 am
content: I was on another forum where a thread popped up about Google's new "driverless" autonomous car. I think it's a neat concept, and has the potential to prevent a lot of avoidable traffic collisions due to drunk driving, texting, etc... At the same time, we have a long way to go before we are able to roll this out on a full scale. What do you all think about the future of this idea, from a safety and reliability standpoint?

author: thefatmoop
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2013, 02:19:45 am
content: I think it's going to be difficult for google to guarantee that the cars will function perfectly on every road. Imagine if there are a few roads that confuse the car and causes it to run off or something odd...I don't know - that just tends to be the nature of highly intelligent systems liek that

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2013, 02:21:23 am
content: i think however they implement it, they will need to go crazy on the watchdog process, as you want the vehicle to alert the driver to resume control or safely stop if a problem occurs and the driver does not react,there are also the worst case scenarios that you only see very switched on drivers pulling out unscathed on, e.g. idiot flat flooring out of a driveway with you in the corner lane 10m away, cause if the computer could not reliably react to things like that, i dont see any road authority supporting it, else it would face being sued for any of those cases be it injury damages or death,

author: lemmegraphdat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2013, 02:29:51 am
content: My driverless car want's to know where the other cars are going to be when it has to swerve to miss a deer. The other car cannot communicate it's actions because it is not taking any, and the driver is texting. What kind of mess will we have with driverless cars and stupid cars with dummies driving them? When will the driverless function give way to human control and will there be enough time for me to take action? If I got to be alert to this then what is the point of a driverless car anyway? Just for me to be able to goof off instead of paying attention to my surroundings?

author: thefatmoop
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2013, 02:33:12 am
content: Yeah i thought about that. In situations where the driver can't take over (disabled, intoxicated, sleeping) maybe a fly by wire driver can take over. Then a software engineer can make a patch for that specific street to reduce the number of remote drivers needed.Sounds like a ton of computing and cellular/satellite capabilities required, but remember: these self driving cars won't be popular for at least a few decades from now.Then again think of all the privacy problems. Do you really want google knowing exactly what's going on in your car 24/7? The smart phones today cause enough privacy concerns.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2013, 02:37:30 am
content: It's pretty "easy" to make it safe enough (passenger jets have had autopilots for many years), getting it cheap enough to be affordable for the average individual is another matter. At least failsafe is orders of magnitude easier on a car as opposed to an airplane...

author: skipjackrc4
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2013, 02:54:45 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on April 22, 2013, 02:37:30 amI don't know much about avionics, but there are no deer to jump out in front of an airplane.The only way this could really work would be to have almost every car on the road be controlled by a central system. Talk about security risk! We can't keep foreign governments out of classified military systems; how could we possibly keep a system of this size secure?I can see some type of automated taxi service in inner cities, perhaps, but I am extremely hesitant about this technology going anywhere but that.Take the deer example, for instance. If I am driving along at 55mph and see a deer on the side of the road, I slow down. If the deer decides to move, I now have time to react, or at the very least have less energy on impact. Radar will not detect a deer. We would need very advanced optical systems to be able to reliably deal with this kind of situation.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2013, 03:09:49 am
content: People have been talking about,& playing with this sort of thing since around 1955!If I remember correctly, Bendix,or someone had a road set up with a driverless car back then,& "it was just around the corner"!Obviously,we can do the number crunching better now,but I think that corner is one hell of a long one!

author: Adler
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2013, 04:30:46 am
content: Quote from: skipjackrc4 on April 22, 2013, 02:54:45 amI always envisioned the system as each vehicle representing a node in a network. From each nodes perspective, the network consists of all nodes within, say, 100 meters. There is no need for a car to know about a truck across the city. Each node publishes its intentions, listens to other cars intentions and acts accordingly.Of course this assumes that all cars are autonomous and that is a pipe dream.As for unexpected obstructions like a deer. I think a computer is FAR better equipped to handle that situation. The optics and the algorithms that back them would have to be advanced but humans suck at that kind of decision making. A computer never panics. (Ok... maybe a kernel panic every now and then but lets hope that a closed system like an automotive computer wouldn't have to deal with that.)

author: smashedProton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2013, 05:27:16 am
content: I have a driverless car. It is also more fuel efficient and safe than all of the others. I usually call it a bus though

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2013, 07:41:56 am
content: I could definitely see the advantage of a driveless car in a city. Morning commutes made so much easier. On a motorway they could also work quite well but they would need to rapidly respond to changing road conditions.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2013, 11:01:53 am
content: Quote from: skipjackrc4 on April 22, 2013, 02:54:45 amAviation is alsoverytightly regulated, they know exactly where every plane is at all times, and there's not that many of them in the sky compared to cars on the road. Driverless cars could work in closed environments consisting of long straight runs, but the regulatory issues are probably going to be more than anything.

author: ddavidebor
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2013, 11:37:44 am
content: Quote from: smashedProton on April 22, 2013, 05:27:16 amI have a driverless car too.Look at the avatar.

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2013, 12:34:23 pm
content: I don't think the barrier to autonomous vehicles is a technical one, the problem is in deciding who is responsible for it.When I drive my car, the law requires me to be in full control of the vehicle at all times. If the vehicle is involved in a crash, the fault is mine, or possibly the other driver's if a second vehicle is involved. Accidents which are wholly caused by inherent vehicle design flaws are exceptionally rare compared to those which are down to some kind of driver error.Now imagine that the autonomous vehicle I'm in crashes for some reason. By definition, I'm not in control of it, and cannot therefore be held responsible for its actions. Will the engineers who designed the sensors or wrote the control algorithms ever be prepared to take personal responsibility if their design runs somebody over? I highly doubt it.I can see driver *assistance* becoming increasingly viable, in the form of systems that warn the driver of obstacles, road signs and the like - but anything which actually takes away control must also take on the associated responsibility.If my family were hurt in a crash, I wouldn't take much comfort from knowing that the computer which was driving at the time had been thrown in jail.

author: Neilm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2013, 06:40:19 pm
content: Quote from: AndyC_772 on April 22, 2013, 12:34:23 pmYes - the lawyers will want to know who to sueNeil

author: Wartex
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2013, 01:56:34 am
content: Quote from: skipjackrc4 on April 22, 2013, 02:08:19 amthey have close to 200k km on them collision-free FYI

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2013, 02:17:09 am
content: Quote from: skipjackrc4 on April 22, 2013, 02:54:45 amhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_strike#IncidentsSame sort of problem.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2013, 02:22:30 am
content: The vids are very impressive. While still early the google car is far beyond the darpa contest ones a few years ago. I think the designer is or was part of the original contest.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2013, 02:50:53 am
content: While most are aware that the drive to the airport is more dangerous than taking the plane, but more people are afraid of flying than of riding in a car. The issue is control. With the car, there is the appearance of your being in control, whereas, with the airplane there is no doubt you are not in control (except if you are the pilot). From studies I recall reading, being in control even reduce stress.Technical problems are solvable. Human behavior may take a lot longer to change. Human tastes take perhaps even longer.How many of you are driving a manual transmission car? Why? (I have a 5 speed manual)I don't even like some of the decisions my applications/OS made (actions the computer takes). For example:- the way MS-Word auto-add an indent when I start a "bullet point", or when I press ENTER for a blank line between bullets or at the end of bullets. You can't put an extra LF in there without it automatically adding a bullet point do (or numbered points).- or when I type in IHS and it changes to HIS by itself making me look stupid and not knowing what project I was working on.- etc. etc. etc.Bill Gates doesn't know my preference, so I don't want his team making decisions for me.I have an "intelligent drier" that insists my cloths are dry enough, so since the "upgrade", unless I choose the override, I have to dry my cloths twice. My washer's timer motor broke last year. I was so please to find a replacement motor on eBay - otherwise, I will be washing my clothing multiple times because the damn washer insist my wash is clean when I can still smell the cat-pee. (I went washer shopping before I decided to fix the old junk. Almost all of them were automated cycles for energy and water conservation. Two models I looked at detects "clean" by the water's light-transparency. If lights pass through well = water is clear = cloth is clean; it doesn't matter if it smells, or if what you are trying to wash off is clear-colored. Seeing that I can't get just a simple washer, that was it, I went on eBay to hunt for a replacement motor.)Just like I drilled out every shower/faucet head I got so I don't have to stand there for 5 minutes just to get enough water to fill a coffee cup, the first thing I will need to do with these "intelligent appliance" is to make it brain dead.--->>> I think manufacturer actually knows the customer's preference. last time I replaced a facet, I saw the packing/install-guide hints at how you can easily defeat the flow limiter. They must make it with a flow limiter by law (America used to be a lot freer). It would not be legal to sell if they don't. I am not sure if it is legal for them to have direct instructions on "defeating the flow limiter."I probably don't like most of those guys in Google, last thing I want to do is them making more decisions for me. I will take a lot of convincing before I give up my autonomy to some programmer from a galaxy far far away, let alone a bunch of Google kinds.I want computers and technology to assist me in having a better life. I don't want computers (government) to decide for me what life I should be living. When computer decides, no doubt laws will come in to the picture.

author: baljemmett
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 23, 2013, 02:23:43 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on April 23, 2013, 02:50:53 amShift-Enter should work for that - but yes, you do have a point. Having to remember all the little tricks to get the software to do what you told it to do instead of what it thinks you want is perhaps suboptimal.(Of course you can disable a lot of Word's autoannoyances if you want - there are tabs full of them in the AutoCorrect options - e.g. 'apply as you type: automatic bulleted lists' for this particular instance.)(And a further of course, of course, is that things like 'extra line between bullet points' are better defined in styles than inserted in text - which is why I haven't defeated the auto-bullet and auto-number features, since they do actually make life easier when composing a document. Formatting comes later)

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2013, 04:21:18 pm
content: Quote from: baljemmett on April 23, 2013, 02:23:43 pmWe are in agreement. There is always tricks to "make it do what you want" either hot-keys or key-combination or registry hacks. It is just complication one does not need in ones life.I cannot imagine life if: in the morning, right after getting into the car, remember to start the car and shut it down, do so 6 times in a roll, then you put the car electronics in input mode, and now you can set the car to "take right lane always" since is a series of big pot-holes on the left. (According to the car manual, 6 ON then immediate-OFF is how I change the security alarm should I want to do so).Oh, if the car doesn't run right, grab the antenna with your left hand (Control), push hard on the recharge plug on your right (Alt), and now kick the auto-adjust mirror (Delete) - now, that trick will reboot the start-up control PCB. Once after it finished rebooting, you can turn the radio on then shut the engine down. Then, start the engine again and it will run properly. You know, if only Detroit fixes the memory leak in the firmware, you can just start the car...By the way, if it still takes you to the theater instead of your office, reboot until the car runs correctly.* * *+ Honey, what are you doing in the garage all evening? It is getting late for dinner!- Sweat heart, you eat first, I must finishing to running anti-virus on the car brake control again.+ Honey, you know I can't! The microwave will only cook when it detects both of us secreting excess stomach acid and saliva.- Oh, I forgot to tell you, the link for the microwave oven is down. It can't get the security certificate to turn itself on. So, it is a good thing to learned to appreciate raw chicken...+ Oh, not that again! I am not so hungry anyway. Why don't we just fool around and be naughty tonight?- Great, I thought you will never ask. I will go reboot the bed and put it in "fun-mode" right now...+ No, not until you wash up! I don't want your dirty hands touching me.- Oh, honey, you mean I have to reboot the water heater first? You know how hard it is to reboot the water heater when there is no wind to drive the mill...

author: peterthenovice
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2013, 04:21:02 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on April 23, 2013, 04:21:18 pmWait i forgot to reboot the sun again.

author: JonnyBoats
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2013, 04:47:55 am
content: Actually one of the things that really messes up Google's cars is snow. When the highway and surrounding land is all white it is impossible for the car to know where the edge of the road is, much less the boundaries of the lane.

author: msousa
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: May 21, 2013, 02:22:09 pm
content: Quote from: JonnyBoats on April 24, 2013, 04:47:55 amOther challenges the AV's are having trouble with is changing roads (changes in roads when compared to the map they are using) and with recognizing the traffic direction given by humans (like you get at an accident or road work).As far as testing AVs, in Nevada, there are at this moment, three companies with AV testing licenses: google, audi and continental ag. My guess is, there are probably others with applications sitting on someone's desk at NV's DMV awaiting approval.

author: WBB
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2013, 04:39:03 pm
content: I believe the biggest problem is as already stated, responsibility and big brother. Who is responsible when it goes to hell? IMO, the human occupant couldn't be expected to be paying full attention in an autonomous vehicle, what would be the point? Besides, humans often don't pay enough attention in normal vehicles. Personal responsibility would be to vehicle maintenance to ensure everything is in working condition. Vehicle manufacturer would be responsible for design/implementation aspects. Then you would have the computer vendors, sensor vendors etc. A big ugly mess with each party pointing their finger at someone else. As for big brother, I have no clue what could be done there. Anonymity seems impossible.As for the deer example, that's a joke. A computer could detect the obstacle and go through millions of different options for what action to take, choose an appropriate action and take that action before a person ever knew Bambi was there.Communication between vehicles should be simple enough. Short range communications would be sufficient for the real time needs of the systems. Longer range "beacon" type antennas could be placed in communities and along highways for near real time information such as local maps, traffic patterns, weather conditions, accidents, lane closures, etc.Poor weather conditions could possibly be dealt with by some type of paint that sensors could detect. Or maybe some type of very short range beacon built into the reflectors on the dividing line. Vehicles could be programmed to not drive on the painted lines or the reflectors (unlike a lot of people) significantly increasing the longevity of both.The presence of non autonomous vehicles could be detected by a small GPS enabled beacon that could broadcast location, speed and direction of travel. Perhaps putting the autonomous vehicle into some kind of super sensitive "Idiot Alert" mode.None of this is trivial but I believe the technical aspects are far less daunting than the legal issues.Personally, I would much rather share the road with a buggy computer than most of the people I see "driving" today.

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2013, 05:05:52 pm
content: Quote from: WBB on May 21, 2013, 04:39:03 pmI'd go further than that, and suggest that the human occupant couldn't be expected to pay any attention *at all* in such a vehicle.Why? Because the basic premise behind why such a machine should exist at all, is that it would do things differently to a human driver. It would make different choices in terms of road position, speed, following distance and reaction to perceived hazards - these differences being the whole rationale for developing the machine in the first place. It cannot be better than a human driver unless it behaves differently to that driver.It follows that the vehicle will always be making decisions which differ from those which its human "driver" might otherwise have made. Either its "driver" must assume that the machine's control system knows best and allow it to make its own decisions, or it must be regularly overruled - in which case the autonomous system is pointless.We already have various driver 'assistance' systems, like those which watch out for road signs, park the vehicle in tight spaces or vibrate the driver's backside if the car senses it's drifting out of its lane. I don't like them, but as long as the driver remains in full control of the vehicle I have no particular objection to them existing.You couldn't, however, put me in a vehicle, tell me that it drives itself better than I could drive it, but then still try to hold me responsible for its actions. You'd get an answer which was short and unambiguous.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2013, 06:48:32 pm
content: IMHO the technology is very close to become available to the general public. Parts of the technology is already implemented as lane departure warning, parallel parking assist and adaptive cruise-control. Google's effort is based on research from many companies and institutes. About 8 years ago I worked for a research institute and I did have a ride in an early autonomous vehicle. That demonstration was nowhere near road ready but it did demonstrate the huge potential.

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2013, 07:31:46 pm
content: Quote from: skipjackrc4 on April 22, 2013, 02:54:45 amThat was what people thought for a long time. But it turns out that in reality, that way madness lies. You start having to put sensors on pedestrians, deer, cardbord boxes that fell off a truck, and so on. An autonomous vehicle that doesn't make unwarranted assumptions about what it will encounter is the only realistic solution, and it is what everybody who is working on this is going for. Vehicle-to-vehicle communication (not a centralized server -- that is just impossible) may eventually be used to optimize and supplement the on-board decision making, but not to replace it.Google (and others) have shown that it is possible to make a car that is at least comparable in safety to a human driver even in the face of an unpredictable external environment. They don't have enough data yet to say that they are as safe as a human driver, and their environments have been limited, but it really looks promising.I am not an expert, but from what I see, and from talking to people who know more about this than me, I think there is a very real possibility that we will see commercial self-driving cars on public roads in 10 years. Obviously there is a fair bit of uncertainty there, both from a technical and legal standpoint, and that doesn't mean it will be widespread. It would make the most sense from a safety and practicality standpoint to start with automating big rigs. They travel predictable routes over generally good roads--mostly highways, and they would be more tolerant of the cost given the potential benefits.

author: marshallh
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 22, 2013, 09:36:37 am
content: I saw one on the road this weekend. With its "eye of sauron" rotating death beam mounted on the roof. Creepy

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2013, 04:11:59 pm
content: If Google wants to test the cars they should bring them here and let them loose. If they survive a week they will work almost anywhere, except in New Delhi and possibly Iraq.

author: msousa
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: May 22, 2013, 06:08:52 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on May 22, 2013, 04:11:59 pmI'm not sure where "here" is, but they, along with Audi and Continental AG are on the ground testing AV's in Nevada. Except for little bits of rumors and such, it's hard to tell when any of them might get a CoC (Certificate of Compliance). Once NV's DMV issues one of those, then who knows how many other car manufacturers will jump in.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2013, 06:14:46 pm
content: Look to the left and see the flag.............. Easy to get them certified, and as long as they are not a left hand drive vehicle they can be imported as test vehicles and used on the roads, complete with the test load.