Re: GM Announces Autonomously Driven Car
 

Wow! Very interesting announcement.
#1. I drive the car, the car does not, cannot, and WILL NOT drive me, period. Let me just say, "blue screen of death!!!" A 'fatal' exception could occur.
#2. I'm wondering where the research was done for this technology, considering that my team is sponsored by GM? Certainly, this announcement was made in Germany, but given that GM is a global company, the research, design, build, testing, and all that stuff could've been done anywhere.

2 cents + tax = an opinion from Joe.

Re: GM Announces Autonomously Driven Car
 

Maybe I am one of the only people here who seems to like this idea. I think it is an amazing idea. If the techonology is further developed, then cars could possibly driving them selves better than humans can. It seems far fetched, but so did a car with a 1001 HP W16 engine with multiple supercharges and a tail that could adjust itself in order to create more down force in order to have better handling 100 years ago. (Veyron) I bet if you tol people about it back then they would have somewhat similiar opinions on it, such as that is horrible and completely unsafe. it can be used in an unsafe way, but the vehicle itself I do not believe is unsafe.
Yeah it is new, but I think it could be developed to become better. Many people are extremely tired after work and are not as alert as we would like them to be when they get behind the wheel. I myself would like to drive my own car around, but I would sometimes want to utilize the capabilities of me being able to take a break from driving for a while.
I do know that some higher end cars already have systems that hit the breaks for you when something goes by at a very high speed. I read about the writers on MotorTrend complaining about it a lot too. But come one. Is no one willing to see the benefits of such technology. I also know that there was a $10 million Volvo. it was supposed to be the safest car ever created. I think It could swith lanes and mantain distances on its own and do some other cool stuff like that. it wasn't fully autnomous but worked along side the driver.
I do agree that lots of money should be spent towards cheap alternate sources of fuel, better MPG, and other things.
Maybe I wrote this in a fashion that makes it confusing. If so pm me if you want a better explanation of my opinions.

Re: GM Announces Autonomously Driven Car
 

I have a few thoughts on the subject.

I don't agree that letting a car drive you is practical. As a very wise person I know said to me this summer, "Robots are amazing, but god forbid they should drive me...".

However, I think you should all stop basking in how "unsafe and dumb" this technology is, and start considering the potential.

1) Assistance for those with disabilities
I am of the firm opinion that a mild disability should NOT prohibit somebody from being able to get themselves from place to place. A more controlled car environment could provide a very good place for those with some kind of physical disability, or perhaps a memory problem, to learn the road and some driving skills.

2) Drivers Education
As Sanddrag said very aptly, we should be teaching people to drive better, not to be bigger idiots on the road. An automated car in a control environment could be used to run road tests, train drivers for any type of situation, and many other things. Here is an example: Say the car is programmed to avoid certain obstacles. Say they then program it to react like a car would in a really bad rainstorm. Hello Driver Training in bad conditions, without having to simulate the bad conditions in real life.

Maybe that idea sounds ridiculous, but think for a second about the possibilities that it could have. I'm not trained as an engineer by any means, and before you criticize me about all the technical things, just use your imagination...and think of what cars with autopilot could help with.

Re: GM Announces Autonomously Driven Car
 

I believe that everyone who has mentioned "idiot drivers" or the like in their posts have unwittingly made the case for smarter cars.

Imagine every single idiotic driver in the world was replaced by a car able to stay in its lane, accelerate and decelerate promptly, and remain under control at all times. Imagine every single drunk and tired driver that was replaced by a computer whose attention never wanes.

That not good enough? I'll go on.

What would happen if every car at an intersection accelerated at the exact same time, and maintained 5-10 feet between cars? Basically, traffic waves (and maybe even gridlock) would be eliminated.

What would happen if every car were computer-controlled, and due to the greater degree of control per car, highway speeds were increased to 100, 150 mph? If every car knew every other car's speed and direction, it could be done. How would your daily commute change?

Only a very small percentage of accidents on the road today are the fault of car failures. The other 95% of accidents are caused by fallible humans. You know, the ones talking on their cell phones, eating breakfast, having a beer, speeding to get to work on time... Why would you not embrace the ultimate safety technology with all these people on the road? I'll bet the car's reflexes are better than yours will ever be.

Obviously, this won't come about because of this one car, but this car is the first big step autonomous vehicles have to take before they're generally accepted. I think this pill will be much easier to swallow once a small, pilot project proves that you can reduce car accidents to 0 in any given year.

Re: GM Announces Autonomously Driven Car
 

I am also surprised at the negative reaction towards this. True, there are situations where a self driving car may not be necessary, but that doesn't make it a bad thing. According to the article- The car will be capable of piloting itself at speeds up to 60 mph in heavy traffic without any input from the driver sitting behind the steering wheel. Capable does not imply mandatory.

That said, I can definitely see a use for this. Elderly people who otherwise have trouble driving around, or people with vision problems preventing them from getting on the road can make use of a system like this. As long as it is proven safe in various environments (night, rain, snow, etc), I say why condemn a remarkable piece of technology. Anything to increase the potential safety of public roads is a good thing in my book. Ideally, I'd like to see a hybrid human/autonomous control system, where the computer constantly monitors for potential hazards, and takes corrective action faster than a human could otherwise react. Many fender-benders can be avoided if a computer can detect a car suddenly brake in front, and slow/stop the car before a collision occurs. It would also be nice for those long car trips where the drive is mostly highways, like I drive from here in Connecticut to Rochester, NY to visit my grandmother. I'd love to set the car on auto-drive and nap for an hour or two.

Necessity is the mother of invention, and I can definitely see a need/use for self-navigating cars.

Re: GM Announces Autonomously Driven Car
 

You're right to think this is horrible, but for the wrong reason....they should be making more fuel friendly cars instead of inventing autopilot....i don't like shelling out $35 everytime i go to the gas station.....

i don't need a car that can drive for me....i need one that i can afford to drive....

Re: GM Announces Autonomously Driven Car
 

Gui is right on target. As I read through this thread I interpreted every example of "idiot drivers" not as a rationale for doing away with this technology, but as a perfect reason why it is needed.

Some people advocate avoiding this technology and somehow forcing drivers to become more involved with the process of driving, with the hope that it will somehow improve highway safety. This argument goes that if we take away automatic transmissions and cruise control and other technical advances, then somehow - magically - people will become better drivers. If this were true, then following this path to its logical conclusion would indicate that automobile control systems should regress back to the point when drivers used tillers instead of steering wheels, speedometers and seat belts didn't exist, and brakes on all four wheels were considered extravagant. Each of these inventions made driving safely a little easier. But simultaneously, so the above argument goes, making driving easier causes all drivers to lose their ability to concentrate on the task at hand, and thereby they all become worse/less safe drivers.

Sorry, but the evidence says this simply isn't true. With the advent of each of these devices, automobile accident rates (accidents per 1000 drivers) went down, not up (source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration "Traffic Safety Facts").

This technology is aimed right at those that will benefit from it the most – the victims of traffic accidents caused by driver error. For the past 10 years, an average of 42,000 people die in the U.S. each year in traffic accidents, with over 95% of them attributed to driver error (source: NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System). Worldwide, the number reaches nearly 1,000,000 people per year. The numbers are clear and unmistakable: the existing system just isn’t working. Human drivers in complete control of motor vehicles, without some type of additional aides and/or technologies to prevent them from making stupid mistakes, will result in only one thing: a lot more dead people on the highways.

Unfortunately there will always be some driver of a big rig that had a fight with his wife that morning, and is working out his frustrations by tailgating an AMC Pacer while he is at the wheel of a 40,000 pound missle. I lost a friend in high school because that truck driver failed to consider the physics associated with differential deceleration when the young driver in front of him couldn’t get out of his way in time. There was nothing in the cab of his truck to warn him that he was way too close, or to force him to back off.

There will always be the moron that insists on "one more for the road" and ignores the fact that their license was revoked after their third DWI the year before. I don’t have a sister today because that habitual drunk was on the road and there was nothing in his car that could either take over the task of driving for him or detect his condition and stop the vehicle.

I will stand right in front with the group that says they enjoy driving. I admit that I also enjoy driving fast (be quiet, Kressly!). I like the sound of a big V-8 in a small car running around 4200rpm while driving up Grizzly Peak Blvd above Berkeley CA. It is a lot of fun.

But the reality is, if given the choice between the personal enjoyment of my own hands on the wheel while driving on a public road, using my own skills to guide a 450HP vehicle through traffic, or installing a robust technology that gets the typical error-prone human driver out of the loop, I can make that decision as fast as my neurons can fire. When this technology is really ready (and it isn’t yet), I hope it goes in every motor vehicle on the planet. I will gladly give up the privilege of personal control of a vehicle, and do the same for everyone else out there, to have my friends back and my family whole again.

-dave

Re: GM Announces Autonomously Driven Car
 

I agree with Dave totally one this.

I see at least 3 car wrecks a week, I am a Fire Fighter, and just about 85% of the time they are from some type of human error, the other 15% is mostly from weather or mechanical problems.
If a technology that could take that human error from driving could be implemented so many lives could be saved. I would LOVE to have that option in my car and my families.

Re: GM Announces Autonomously Driven Car
 

What Gui and Dave said.

If technology didn't make our lives safer/better/more comfortable we wouldn't focus so much on new technologies and innovative uses for existing technologies. Consider this quote from the March, 1904 issue of Popular Science regarding aircraft: "...The machines will eventually be fast, they will be used in sport, but they are not to be thought of as commercial carriers." A word to the wise - be careful not to limit your vision of the future based on the setbacks of the past or on your own personal paradigm. When you tell an innovator "it won't work", they'll find a way to prove you wrong.

Of course, I also agree that with the price of gas likely to speed rignt on by $4.00 per gallon, we'd (all of you future engineers in the FIRST community) better come up with a realistic alternative pretty quick!

My 4 cents worth...double or nothing.

Sean

Re: GM Announces Autonomously Driven Car
 

Oh, but they have!! ;) The car we rented for IRI was a brand-new Chevy HHR. The power window buttons were located....

Guess where!!

...in the center console, underneath the climate controls, where you could barely find them. Not on the driver door within easy reach, like all the other power window cars I've ever driven.

Not a very good example of GM technological advances, I'm afraid. :( I hope their computer-driven car is way much better designed.

(Note to everyone who noticed our silver HHR in the parking lot at IRI, thinking this strange looking beastie was something cool: Better test drive it before deciding it's for you. :) I suspect it will not sell very well--it's a niche market sort of thing.)

Enough about the unimportant details of automotive controls!

Last night, we witnessed an accident. A large pickup truck was being driven very badly, like the driver didn't know what lane he wanted to be in, or where he wanted to go. He suddenly veered, and sideswiped a $65,000 BMW. We thought surely he was drunk or something. To our surprise, he pulled into a gas station--he could have easily driven away.

When the lady driving the BMW asked the other driver for his license, he just shrugged. I called the police (ponder this for non-911 situations: how do you call the police on your cell phone when it's not a life or death emergency, seeing as the bad driver was no longer behind the wheel?).

The only good things about this were that no one was hurt, both cars were still fully drivable, and the driver was willing to take responsibility for his actions.

Now, how would a computerized car handle this situation? Here was an unlicensed driver, who had perhaps taken the family car without permission. Would the car have prevented the accident? Would it have prevented his driving the car in the first place?

And, on a lighter note, will a computerized car prevent its driver from practicing his trumpet behind the wheel? I just had to add that. ;) We really did see such a thing once.

Re: GM Announces Autonomously Driven Car
 

Yes you can call 9-1-1 for any type of emergency as long as its not like a cat in the tree situation, most police and fire agencies have non emergency phone numbers listed in the phone book and also using a 4-1-1 directory

Re: GM Announces Autonomously Driven Car
 

Many areas also have *-1-1 number for non-emergency situations. In Los Angeles it's 311 (which is for all city services, not just police).

Re: GM Announces Autonomously Driven Car
 

About the fuel efficiency arguement. I wonder if this new autonomous car does get better gas mileage. I wonder if it drives mor conservatively and drives in a way to improve its fuel conomy.

Re: GM Announces Autonomously Driven Car
 

You have a lot of great points in this post, Dave.
The above highlighted is only one of them.

*being very quiet now*

Oh, yeah, the topic of the thread. When the technology is ready, I'll gladly give up some control for peace of mind.

Re: GM Announces Autonomously Driven Car
 

how could this be bad, just gas up enter your destination and take a nap. i love the idea Where do i get one?