The Future Of Driving
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-09-27/future-driving
California moved into the self-driving lane this week. With Google’s help, it passed a law that will allow computer-controlled cars on the road, at least on a test basis. Google has modified and tested a fleet of Toyota Prius hybrids that drive themselves using a range of video and radar technology. And that’s just the beginning. By some estimates, self-driving vehicles will make up 70 percent of the nation’s traffic by the year 2040. Proponents of driverless cars say their widespread use would reduce congestion and give elderly and impaired drivers new freedom. Others worry about safety, liability and privacy issues. Guest host, Tom Gjelten, and his guests discuss the future of driving.
Guests
David Shepardson
Washington bureau chief, The Detroit News.
Azim Eskandarian
director, Center for Intelligent Systems Research and professor of engineering and applied science, George Washington University.
Frank Douma
research fellow, Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota.
Anthony Levandowski
project manager, Google Self-Driving Car Project
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Question: How did Google log so many miles(kilometers) without proper legislation?
Sometimes it looks like even more cars are driverless.....considering the number of people texting, phoning, reading, talking, watching videos, and otherwise not watching the road.
What a great way to travel it would be to log in a desired destination and then sit back and ride.......especially cross country long distance trips.
Perhaps multiple cars following the same route could couple like impromptu "trains without tracks" and save fuel. Maybe large "locomotive" vehicles could latch to the front of such a chain and pull the rest along using turbines or high efficiency electric engines.....save $$$$.
I've been looking forward to a self-driving car for years now. Driving in the Washington DC area is not a fun experience!
I see potential downsides of course, glitches in the system or hardware malfunctions potentially causing accidents (or just whiplash from sudden breaking). However, drunk drivers and rubber necking would be a thing of the past - traffic would flow better and people could be more productive while commuting.
To be honest I trust a computer to drive a car more than any individual and someday I imagine drivers will have to pay extra to "manually drive" their car, at least in terms of insurance costs. More automation seems inevitable, however driving as a sport/hobby will likely remain for a long time to come. I welcome the change!
As long as its optional I could be all for it. Hey, some people like to drive ... including me! However if this technology actually works, the fascists will soon require that all cars be self-driving.
I won't argue with the idea that this is practical.
However, if you look at the economic reality in the world today, not to mention the very serious problems that plague the world's population that this idea won't solve, then I feel safe in saying that this idea won't amount to much.
Locally, in recent years, I have seen a foretaste of what the future will bring. We are seeing here an increase in the number of sidewalks that are being built. Why are they being built? Because more and more people are walking. Why are they walking? Because they are making less money, and that money won't buy as much as it once did.
When it comes to a car or food, what do you think people are going to choose? With wages falling, how are people going to afford this new technology? They often can't afford the present technology.
Sorry, I just don't buy this idea as being the future.
It all comes down to money.
I can't wait-- I'll be the first on my block. Great article in (of all places) Foreign Policy that talks about an exciting economic model for autonomous electric cars http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/06/08/self_driving_car
Please hurry and get these to market!
As unreliable as computers and software can be, I would trust this more than half the drivers on the road. The real problem, IMHO, is that our drivers tests are inadequate, especially for today's large trucks and SUV's. These should require a higher test standard. Those who cannot pass should be restricted to Smart cars (or smaller).
As long as our ends remain human, and we remain reasonable and perceptive enough to tell them from holes in the ground, it matters not the (decent) means.
The only question to me is whether our pride will let us acknowledge when the machines are doing better than we. I have no doubts on the subject, as I took a Google/Stanford person's on-line course on the subject, and with even the crude coding my own poor self could do under his direction, over the course of ten weeks I programmed the beginnings of such, watch it learn from its environment---serious people working more seriously are certainly going to better than at least average drivers, soon.
(Note that machines have done a better job diagnosing lung cancer than humans...but I don't know if they have replaced or supplemented us in this, yet---pride can be dangerous.)
The fascists, in this case, being the insurance companies.
Fascinating technology! Wonderful that Google is applying its considerable financial and intellectual resources to this matter.
This technology would also "reduce" distracted driving -- by removing (or reducing) DRIVING as the distraction!!!
It would leave "drivers" free to continue texting, phoning, etc., i.e., to enable them to use their Android (GOOGLE) phones and GOOGLE internet services CONTINUOUSLY throughout the day, even during lengthy commutes.
From Google's point of view: people text while driving anyway -- all the warning, admonitions, PSAs, etc. to the contrary -- why not make it easier for them?
Can your guests discuss how such vehicles would work during inclement weather (snow and ice covered roads? Also, what about driver complacency given that we already have it with cell phone and texting already. The notion that drivers will remain vigilant to be able to take back control of the car seems a bit optimistic.
Caterpillar now sells Large Mining trucks that drive themselves.
"autonomous mining equipment"
@DannyB
I really think you want computers and robots to take over the world. Too much SciFi for you, man.
I truly think this will make it more dangerous for drivers who rely on driverless cars to switch back to manual mode in an event of computer or hardware failure as they will be less experienced in driving in a manual mode.
One problem: though electrics will improve the situation considerably, the 'individual car' model is still a wasteful one, and in fact a bad one in built-up areas (I don't presume to prescribe to Montanans). In the final analysis, it were better if we kicked the habit...and fell off the wagon as needed with cheap daily rentals as needed.
Under what road conditions was the car tested? Does the technology allow for navigation of streets with snow, little to non-existent lane markings, or construction areas where lanes and traffic are re-routed or detoured?
An
Dallas
In response to 3,000 deaths on 9/11, we started a trillion-dollar war.
Shouldn't we therefore start a trillion-dollar "war" on traffic deaths, every month or so?
Well, it's already fact: phone guest just said state of Nevada has specifically exempted driverless cars from its "driving while texting" law. So if you're texting in a driverless car in Nevada, you're NOT breaking the law!!!
What is America's infatuation with cars? You're still pulling around massive amounts of materials with your 180lb pound person just so you can text.
I read a book on the way to work everyday, on public transit. I take a beautiful cross country trip every summer and text, email, read all way, on amtrak.
The other issue I am not hearing in this discussion is the number of potential jobs by human beings that this technology could cost; eg delivery drivers, etc.
When I was a boy, people thought that elevators couldn't be safely operated without a person, an elevator operator, in every one. Now we take automated elevators for granted, even with the rare glitches (stopping unevenly with floors, stoppages, etc.) that inevitably occur. (They also occurred when the human operators weren't working up to par, too.)
Most modern large commercial passenger aircraft can take off, fly, and land totally without human intervention now.
There will be a time, sooner than we expect, when we wouldn't want to get in a car that's driven by a person!
It's fascinating how many societal issues this technological advance brings up. Trust in science/technology issues, government regulatory wisdom or lack thereof, beliefs about our own competence compared to machines, automation displacing jobs, the works!
I think it's a fault of our political ideologies that real advances in automation aren't seen as real increases in our common wealth — Great! We don't have to work so much! — but as losses of "jobs". Even our current high unemployment really shows that we don't need that many workers anymore. But our politicians can't think of ways to distribute the goods without having most people earn money at needless jobs. This points to a consequence of allowing wealth, by deliberate past policy changes, to migrate to the top 1%, instead of being distributed widely to most people as our common heritage.
peteneal wrote:
"The fascists, in this case, being the insurance companies".
If the technology is great, and it reduces accidents, insurance companies will like it, yes. But if I want to drive my old Ford truck and I can afford higher rates, I should be able to do it. But when the government says that when I drive my old Ford truck myself I put too many other people at risk, therefore I can't drive it - or that if I have an accident that only hurts me but raises everyone's medical costs therefore I can't drive it - that is fascism.
MartyBrentwood wrote:
"I think it's a fault of our political ideologies that real advances in automation aren't seen as real increases in our common wealth — Great! We don't have to work so much! — but as losses of "jobs". Even our current high unemployment really shows that we don't need that many workers anymore."
What you describe is known as "creative destruction". Buggy whip makers get put out of business because of automobiles, but they learn new skills and do something else and society as a whole benefits.
You will probably be chagrined to learn that Mitt Romney is a big proponent of creative destruction as the sign of a thriving society/economy and talks about it at length in his book "No Apology".
While I am chagrined to be associated in any way with a doofus* like Mitt Romney, he can parrot valid ideas as well as anyone. He's also a proponent of uncreative, destructive capitalism, in the many ways his Bain Capital group looted pension funds of companies out of greed and the mere fact that he could manipulate such things legally. Capitalism as currently practiced is obviously, shall we say, "unstable". Anyway, there's no such thing as a "free market" without government policies helping it fundamentally: patent monopolies, protectionist trade laws, widespread infrastructure commonly paid for.
My post was hinting at a much wider philosophical issue, our general lack of vision and imagination in how we distribute the goods of our society. A wealthy society such as ours has long been ought to allow for people to have guaranteed national incomes (an idea once touted even by Republicans), allowing people to live in decent poverty if they choose to. People who have better things to do than hold down "jobs".
I'm sure you could daydream such things yourself, ecgberht.
*http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/sympathy-for-the-doofus/
This is a pretty fascinating field! I've been a motorhead since my teen years and I still very much enjoy driving, the engaged operation of a motor vehicle. Today's cars are very, very easy to operate and to me it seems that driver engagement is not necessary to the majority of activities done in cars. Thus, a lot of skills that were necessary are no longer needed to successfully operate a motor vehicle. I'm apprehensive about this, as new drivers are less equipped to respond to challenges and unforseen circumstances.
The advent of automated vehicles is so interersting. I would like to see folks who don't want to really engage in the operation of motor vehicles use public transportation, and for us to invest in the rejuvenation and innovation of those systems.
One question was 'What happens to the Corvettes...?' and I hope that one answer is that there are more opportunities, more spaces where we enthusiasts can operate fine -manually operated- vehicles while the automated users have well-defined and efficient spaces to use those. Maybe then they'll leave the beautiful, twisty back roads of America to us.
I’m a senior life member of the IEEE Reliability Society.
Toyota recalls million+ cars for sudden acceleration(SA). NASA investigated. 200+ page report (nepp.nasa.gov/whisker/) has evidence of tin whiskers shorting pedal sensors of 2002-2006 Camrys. Study ended before additional models could be examined. Tin whiskers grow from tin plated components when lead is not alloyed with tin. The EU banned lead (RoHS) except for medical, aerospace and military products. Exemptions will be eliminated in 2014-2016.
See NASA website. Invite Dr. Henning Leidecker, tin whiskers expert (and my former AU physics prof) to DR Show – he will attend.
Toyota SA events were made worse (fatal) due to software bugs that did not allow the brake pedal to override a command from the pedal sensor for full throttle opening.
Air France 447 had frozen pitot tubes (air speed sensors). Multiple redundant computers could not fly the plane, they informed pilots that "alternate law" existed, i.e. you pilots must fly the plane. Air France pilots were not taught to manually fly the Airbus plane. They did everything wrong. A retired senior USAF and commercial airlines pilot (friend) was hired to teach AF pilots. He tried to teach to fly the plane in "alternate law". AF ordered him to stop doing it as conputers are better than pilots. All they had to do was to set throttles to 85% and to keep the nose down. The co-pilot instead pulled back on the stick and stalled the airplane. All died.
Neal Armstrong insisted on being able to fly the LEM. NASA wanted the landing automated. Had he not won the argument, Apollo 11 would have been a disaster.
Humans are not perfect, they get sleepy, distracted, text their cellphones. Aids that alert drivers to dangerous situations are useful but my colleagues in the reliability world would never let an auto drive itself.
Automated monorail cars at DisneyWorld collided (there's a report at the NTSB website).
"kseverinsen wrote:
Caterpillar now sells Large Mining trucks that drive themselves.
"autonomous mining equipment"
September 27, 2012 - 10:29 am"
There are warehousing systems that are completely autonomous, but like the mining equipment, operate in extremely restricted environments with low traffic and very few possibilities for abnormal situations except for running into someone or something.
I think the system, as envisioned, is orders of magnitude more complex than the Runt Bush's antimissle system, which anybody with a ounce of intelligence knows will never work.
I'm amazed at Google taking on responsibility for this system, amazed at their hubris.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
MartyBrentwood wrote:
"My post was hinting at a much wider philosophical issue, our general lack of vision and imagination in how we distribute the goods of our society."
So was I. First, I suggest you get more familiar with the point of view with which you seem to agree and its relationship to Capitalism. Here is a primer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction
Romney was not "parroting valid ideas", he was putting them into practice. As for Bain, et. al. the company did what was within the law, much of it after Romney had given up control, etc., etc. but nevertheless, a popular talking point for the left. Bain did eliminate some jobs, but net, created thousands in companies like Stapes and Sports Authority.
"no such thing as a "free market" without government policies helping it fundamentally: patent monopolies, protectionist trade laws, widespread infrastructure commonly paid for."
There's free and then there's free. All of the things you mention which you claim make markets not free, hmmm, happen to be major elements built into the Constitution; article 1, section 8. By the way, businesses pay for that infrastructure just like everybody else. I don't believe Lobbyists, subsidies, grants, etc. are as easy to find in 1:8. Essentially, no. Free markets in this country have not existed in at least 150 years. I think it's time we give them a chance.
Part deux:
"A wealthy society such as ours has long been ought to allow for people to have guaranteed national incomes (an idea once touted even by Republicans), allowing people to live in decent poverty if they choose to. People who have better things to do than hold down "jobs". "
As for what you are talking about that is normally termed a "safety net", I have no problem with it for those who are truly needy, but for "people who have better things to do than hold down "jobs"?!
"For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. "
2 Thes 3:7-12
I thoroughly do not like this and I think there are a number of concerns about it.
If someone is owns one of these cars and is riding in it, they are responsible for it's operation. If the person is texting or eating or reading the newspaper or whatever, they are less able to take over in the split second which may be necessary. And if they never developed decent driving habits or their driving habits have gotten more sloppy as the result of using these cars, that would also make it more unlikely they could take over in an effective manner if necessary.
Is the technology really that good? Can the technology determine a small pothole from a slightly larger one that may do damage to the car? Will it take into account possible damage to the car with it's decisions? I assume there is a sensor for liquid on the road. Can it tell if it is a little bit of water or oil? What about ice? Can it detect fire? How about motorcycles weaving in and out of traffic? Will cops have to drive one of these cars or will they be exempt (I assume they'd be exempt)?
I like to drive and often when I go out, I don't know exactly where I'm going when I leave, (ie:out to eat). How easy would it be to change where one wants to go while moving? I don't have gps and don't want it. If I'm driving a long distance, I figure it out in advance and write down the directions. Will they put together some stupid database with information about where everyone drives to and be able to figure out where I drove at 5pm some Tuesday 3 years ago?
If this is implemented to any great degree, I can see the possibility of a lot of lawsuits if there are major malfunctions/flaws with the system.