Automated road vehicles

[LE Greys]

I've seen this come up on a few threads recently. I happen to think that an automated road vehicle is a very bad idea, because a minor glitch in the system could cause major problems, and because the driver would simply behave like a passenger, and might not notice something was wrong until too late. A lot of this comes from my mistrust of any technology that makes decisions for me. Basically, I have a constant suspicion that one day something like this is going to go wrong and kill me by mistake. I can imagine the control computer crashing, the car doing an emergency stop, and something else ploughing straight into the back. Another problem might be the navigation systems, which send people via the craziest routes, or the vehicle not being able to detect a road hazard (even as big as a flood) up ahead and driving blithely into it.

There are advantages, the system would never speed, never tire and be able to deliver the car to the driver anywhere within a reasonable radius (just ring a number and it will find you by your mobile signal. It might reduce the number of collisions by detecting when another vehicle is too close. The reaction time might be a lot quicker than Humanly possible as well.

So, with ATO having worked fine on the Victoria Line and DLR for decades, what do other people think? Can it ever be safe on a busy road?

 

[deltic1989]

There have been cars like this developed ( I think Top gear did a bit on them a while back), the reason they have not caught on is for the reasons you have highlighted i.e. humans are unwilling to trust technology to do a job for them. What must be factored in to a case for automated vehicles is the fact that 99% of road traffic accidents are caused by human error, by automating the driving and navigation of the car thus removing the human from the equasion, theoretically you could reduce accidents. A good example to use in this instance is aeroplanes, auto-pilot has been a standard feature on aircraft for a number of years, and the most modern jets can take off, navigate, and land with no help from the pilot, all he does is program the computer, and sit there monitoring the instrements. On aircraft of course there is a fail safe in that if the computer goes wrong the pilot can simply grab the contorl column and take over, a system that could be implemented in automated cars.

 

[Zoe]

The space shuttle has four General Purpose Computers. If it any time one doesn't agree with the other three then it can be voted out. If you have this system in a car then it will prevent accidents should one of the computers fail. Remember also Google have been testing a driverless car recently and it has covered thousands of miles of California without incident caused by the car. The only incident so far was when it was rammed by a car behind.

 

[deltic1989]

a bit like space big brother then?

 

[Zoe]

A self-driving car also won't go into zombie mode when on a motorway.

 

[LE Greys]

A self-driving car also won't go into zombie mode when on a motorway.

The thing is the Human driver would, since it is really no different from being a passenger. If it were me, I would be on full alert with my hand hovering over the kill switch and my foot resting lightly on the brake pedal, just in case. It's a case of the difference between a driver and a passenger. Perhaps giving the main operating system a "self-preservation" system might help, subject to the Laws of Robotics (meaning it can't deliberately run down a bicycle to avoid crashing into a lorry). I haven't a clue how this would work, but I'm sure it's possible.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The space shuttle has four General Purpose Computers. <snip>

I believe they are collectively nicknamed "Spock".

 

[Oswyntail]

Has no one ever seen the film "Robocop"? And does no one remember the "Laws of Robotics" are science fiction?

 

[BestWestern]

Does anyone else think that all this stuff will come to a grinding halt before it really takes off simply because an awful lot of people actually like driving and being in charge of their own vehicle?! If you want to sit and look at the scenery there's always a bus/train/taxi!

 

[Zoe]

Does anyone else think that all this stuff will come to a grinding halt before it really takes off simply because an awful lot of people actually like driving and being in charge of their own vehicle?! If you want to sit and look at the scenery there's always a bus/train/taxi!

Why should people be allowed to be in control of a few tonnes of metal at high speed when safer alternatives are available?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

my foot resting lightly on the brake pedal, just in case.

You are assuming there will be one.

 

[WhiteJoker]

In Rotterdam (NL) they'be been experimenting with a project called ParkShuttle. The project consists of 6 busses (each seating 12 people). The busses drive on a separate road with 2 lanes so busses can overtake each other, the road is 1800m long and consists of 5 stops. The bus works just like a horizontal lift. Each bus has buttons for each stop so you don't need to worry about pressing the button on time. Each stop has a button as well. The busses drive during weekdays and during peak times it'll drive constantly every 2.5 minutes. Outside these peak times you'll have to push a button and the bus will be on the stop within 6 minutes.

There have been some errors and an accident but it has been running flawless since 2006.

Source: Group Rapid Transit Systems

 

[ChrisCooper]

I can imagine motorways will become more automated in the future, with urban equivalents (like guided busways, but fully automatic, and perhaps for more than buses). Automation allows better use of space as there is less margin for error. Vehicles can travel closer together, both front to back and also side to side due to the computers being more accurate and reacting quicker than human drivers. That's already found in Air Traffic Control, autopilots allow planes to operate closer together because they can maintain a far more accurate cource and altitude than a human pilot, for example Reduced Vertical Seperation Minima which allows planes at high altitude fly with 1000ft of vertical seperation (often in opposite directions) instead of the old 2000ft, even whilst over the Ocean (the North Atlantic Tracks are RVSM, although in that case planes fly in the same direction).

The problem is when it comes to systems that are not self contained. Air again provides an example as one thing pilots even on modern automatic planes still have to do is keep a good lookout for other traffic when at low altitude, including light aircraft that are being manually flown. The same goes for roads. For a start there is the interaction between automatic and manual vehicles. It can be hard enough for a human driver to judge another road users intentions, let alone a computer trying to. How do you program a computer to think "is he indicating because he's going to turn or has he forgotten to cancel?" etc. You've then got soft moving obsticals like pedestrians. How do you make sure the car avoids the child who runs out into the road, but not a plastic bag? Especially with animals there is also the moral element, how many people would be happy for their car to just plough over a small dog or a cat? How small do you go before it's swerving to avoid leaves (I know being that sort of person I've reacted to leaves blowing across the road thinking they might be a small animal). Even Asimov's laws can pose problems in some situations, what if the action of the "robot" harms a human to avoid harming another human. The ovious example is driving straight into a person because the alternative would be to swerve into oncoming traffic.

 

[Zoe]

If cars were all self-driving then I expect higher speeds would be possible on motorways. Maybe even 125 mph.

 

[LE Greys]

I can imagine motorways will become more automated in the future, with urban equivalents (like guided busways, but fully automatic, and perhaps for more than buses). Automation allows better use of space as there is less margin for error. Vehicles can travel closer together, both front to back and also side to side due to the computers being more accurate and reacting quicker than human drivers. That's already found in Air Traffic Control, autopilots allow planes to operate closer together because they can maintain a far more accurate cource and altitude than a human pilot, for example Reduced Vertical Seperation Minima which allows planes at high altitude fly with 1000ft of vertical seperation (often in opposite directions) instead of the old 2000ft, even whilst over the Ocean (the North Atlantic Tracks are RVSM, although in that case planes fly in the same direction).

They tested a thing called Auto-Formation-Flying on the Tornado when it was new. It didn't work then, but that was probably more to do with lack of computer power than any fault in the concept. I wonder if one day we will see big V-formations of airliners crossing the Atlantic, taking advantage of the drag reduction created by wingtip turbulence.

The problem is when it comes to systems that are not self contained. Air again provides an example as one thing pilots even on modern automatic planes still have to do is keep a good lookout for other traffic when at low altitude, including light aircraft that are being manually flown. The same goes for roads. For a start there is the interaction between automatic and manual vehicles. It can be hard enough for a human driver to judge another road users intentions, let alone a computer trying to. How do you program a computer to think "is he indicating because he's going to turn or has he forgotten to cancel?" etc. You've then got soft moving obsticals like pedestrians. How do you make sure the car avoids the child who runs out into the road, but not a plastic bag? Especially with animals there is also the moral element, how many people would be happy for their car to just plough over a small dog or a cat? How small do you go before it's swerving to avoid leaves (I know being that sort of person I've reacted to leaves blowing across the road thinking they might be a small animal). Even Asimov's laws can pose problems in some situations, what if the action of the "robot" harms a human to avoid harming another human. The ovious example is driving straight into a person because the alternative would be to swerve into oncoming traffic.

That's what I was getting at. It's possibly safer to crash into another car at a closing speed of 60 than to hit a pedestrian at 30. Writes off both vehicles, but the occupants will survive while the pedestrian would most likely be killed. Coming up with something complex enough to think about this in the time required would produce something bordering on sentient. (Anyone remember Knight Rider?) One answer might be only to use this only on restricted-access roads, i.e. motorways, which means that you would still have to have conventional controls for other roads, and perhaps for unfitted roads and parking.

A self-parking car, now that is a concept.

If cars were all self-driving then I expect higher speeds would be possible on motorways. Maybe even 125 mph.

Unlikely, because of fuel consumption issues, although it might be possible. One thing I do expect to see it cars interchanging at crossroads at 60 mph, which from my perspective would be terrifying. It's bad enough with lunatic taxi drivers as it is.

 

[Zoe]

A self-parking car, now that is a concept.

The Toyota Prius already does.

 

[jopsuk]

A lot of cars now have "parking assist" that will pretty much automatically do parallel parking- not sure about reverse parking. Started on higher end (and bigger, harder to park) cars a few years back, now trickling down to more afforadable cars.

 

[Zoe]

Unlikely, because of fuel consumption issues, although it might be possible.

If this system is going to be self-contained then electrification could be an option.

 

[LE Greys]

If this system is going to be self-contained then electrification could be an option.

I agree there. That's likely to happen in cities for trolleybuses, and possibly on motorways for trolleytrucks, so having thousands of cars going along like dodgems seems to make sense. Particularly as there will be virtually no overtaking if all systems are automated, they will all be going at the same speed.