GM Announces Autonomously Driven Car

[dubious elise]

I think it is nice that they followed through on this project (I recollect having read something about it a few years ago in, I believe, Tech Review) but now it is time to put it to good use... the DARPA Grand Challenge Race!

Honestly, with the speed limitations, as some of you have already mentioned, this car may only be useful as a resort/city vehicle for now. And what about highway signs like the ones we have around my home that read "Old Hwy 164, Formerly CR-J" , "New Hwy 164, Formerly CR-F", and "Hwy 164/ CR-K". Even I can't make sense out of those, let alone know where each one now travels to! Just like with Mapquest, you can't expect the car to know every new road, construction project, detour, or shortcut.

The only saving grace is that the United States has much stronger restrictions on what kind of silly technologies we allow into our vehicles.

Besides, who wouldn't want to see a car try to putter along the "unlimited speed" sections of the Autobahn at 60 mph?

[Greg Perkins]

Ok, here are my views on this controversial topic...

Cars...should we be inventing new and innovative technology? YES. Should we develop a "lazy man/woman" car? ABSOLUTLY NOT. See the way i look at it is, if we cant drive safely now, whats going to happen when a auton car is traveling at 60 doing its own thing and all of a sudden some lunatic swerves to impair the robots sensors and the car gets confused? someones going to end up killed. I also see it as a way for people to get more and more distracted on the highway, ive seen people reading, doing makeup, this one's good...changing a diaper, and etc. It'll. just be an incentive for people to do more stupid things behind the wheel. I agree 100% to what sanddrag had said, and then some.

[Billfred]

I seem to recall way back when that people testing autonomous systems in cars used a closed-off section of highway. Perhaps that'd be the way to run such a system, especially around cities. It'd yield two advantages:
1) People see those cars whizzing by and think "Man, I need one of those!" leading to more autonomous vehicular goodness (and thus they could do those stupid things with fewer problems.
2) With a proper concrete barrier, no idiots could slow me down (temporarily or permanently).

[Eric O]

Originally Posted by Greg Perkins

Ok, here are my views on this controversial topic...

Cars...should we be inventing new and innovative technology? YES. Should we develop a "lazy man/woman" car? ABSOLUTLY NOT. See the way i look at it is, if we cant drive safely now, whats going to happen when a auton car is traveling at 60 doing its own thing and all of a sudden some lunatic swerves to impair the robots sensors and the car gets confused? someones going to end up killed. I also see it as a way for people to get more and more distracted on the highway, ive seen people reading, doing makeup, this one's good...changing a diaper, and etc. It'll. just be an incentive for people to do more stupid things behind the wheel. I agree 100% to what sanddrag had said, and then some.

I was amazed to see the negative response this article has received so far. I think that is a GREAT thing. There is no doubt in my mind that people in these cars may die, or even that it is a fault in the car itself. There are ~40,000 people that die in car accidents every year. If the technology that these cars reduces that rate in any way then I think it is a good thing.

The car companies are always trying to make the vehicles we ride in safer, and I am sure that they would not take the liability of releasing a system that would injure more people than it would save. Engineers are always trying to improve the quality of life by making more useful and safer automobiles.
A common saying comes to mind: 'Design it to be idiot proof, and there will be a bigger idiot.' Its almost like taking the idiot partially out of the equation.
Greg, the reason I wanted to quote your post is because there is some irony involved. Take every 'car' in your post and replace it with 'scooter'. Then take a look at your who am I picture.

I guess my overall point is that new technology is usually safer than old technology, that is why money is put toward designing/building it. I do not feel that the article tells me enough about how the system works for me to say 'that's not safe at all'.

-Eric

[The Cyborg]

Although I specialize in controls for my team, I have to say that I disapprove of autonomously driven cars. For one thing, there could be far too much clutter in the controls system, and too many lasers and sensors to worry about. If one of those components fail, there will be trouble for the full operation of the autonomous drive. Until further development of the compactness and the simplicity of such control system, I believe such a project should have to wait. There are other components of the vehicle to worry about, and to add another component would be overwhelming for the owner of the car.

People should be more responsible when driving a vehicle.

[David Kelly]

Has anybody ever heard of autopilot? They use it in airplanes.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by David Kelly

Has anybody ever heard of autopilot? They use it in airplanes.

The difference between autopilot and and autonomous car is that in the air, there aren't any airplanes within miles of you, unless you are flying a military jet in formation. On the road, you have a car within a couple feet of you side to side, and maybe one ten to twenty feet ahead of you and another that is (hopefully) the same distance behind you. And, on the road, the surface is variable depending on conditions. In the air, you don't really have any variation (to my knowledge) unless there's a storm or a thermal. Also, in a typical airplane, you can have up to two pilots (one is the copilot) who can both fly the plane. In a car, one driver at a time and no backup system. I don't think autopilot is a good analogy here...

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by David Kelly

Has anybody ever heard of autopilot? They use it in airplanes.

They wouldn't if they flew Malfunction Junction, where I-96 meets I-696 meets I-275 meets M-5 near me.

Nor would they if my wife was running a little late on her flight to work.

[Greg Perkins]

Originally Posted by Eric O

I was amazed to see the negative response this article has received so far. I think that is a GREAT thing. There is no doubt in my mind that people in these cars may die, or even that it is a fault in the car itself. There are ~40,000 people that die in car accidents every year. If the technology that these cars reduces that rate in any way then I think it is a good thing.

The car companies are always trying to make the vehicles we ride in safer, and I am sure that they would not take the liability of releasing a system that would injure more people than it would save. Engineers are always trying to improve the quality of life by making more useful and safer automobiles.
A common saying comes to mind: 'Design it to be idiot proof, and there will be a bigger idiot.' Its almost like taking the idiot partially out of the equation.
Greg, the reason I wanted to quote your post is because there is some irony involved. Take every 'car' in your post and replace it with 'scooter'. Then take a look at your who am I picture.

I guess my overall point is that new technology is usually safer than old technology, that is why money is put toward designing/building it. I do not feel that the article tells me enough about how the system works for me to say 'that's not safe at all'.

-Eric

Eric, thanks for criticizing my post, i wrote that too quickly this morning and never proofread it. I do think that automotive companies should keep innovating, however i think that there are other categories that they should focus on. IE safter cars, not cars that drive themselves. thats what i really was trying to aim at. Or ways of making the so called "50mpg" engine, SUV's with lowered CG, or alternate fuels. i just dont see autonomous cars being as useful as the other things i mentioned. Do i think that this is good technology? yes, i do think it is, i just dont think its the top priority.
As for the segway comment, a segway only travels 12-13mph, not 60, thus the technology in the segway is useful, much safer and the human is still in full control of the segway. from what the article says the computer on the car will completely not need human input.
again, good technology...bad priority

[tiffany34990]

i think it's an interesting idea. but it's not fully practical. humans need the ability to take control. it's just like our calculators in a way. the computer in there can only do so much with what it's told. there are some things it can't. if like some have pointed out before.. some can fail so therefore you need a way to take control. it perhaps may be able to help w/ driving with the different sensors...

but new technology can be helpful yet at time it isn't. we should though i think keep an open mind. who knows what other things will come from this

that's just my two cents.. happy thinking...

[JoeXIII'007]

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.

[santosh]

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.

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

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.

[Gui Cavalcanti]

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.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Gui Cavalcanti

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.

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