Breaking News
Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 3   >   >>
BarrySweezey
User Rank
Manager
Re: Pro-V2X argument
BarrySweezey   9/22/2013 8:43:37 PM
NO RATINGS
Okay, if you say that any way information gets into a car is v2i, then v2i is necessary.  But I don't think that's how Junko or the commenters view v2i.  I think the question these articles are asking is will we have to change the environment?  Will new communication devices in cars and the infrastructure be necessary in order for self-driving cars to operate safely?

Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
Re: Pro-V2X argument
Bert22306   9/20/2013 4:17:02 PM
NO RATINGS
If there's traffic congestion somewhere beyond visual range of the human driver, hopefully the human driver will have heard about it in a traffic report and found an alternate route. Or on some roads you get those LED warning signs about problems ahead. If the human driver ignores these V2I options, he gets stuck in traffic.

If a human drives along a street with multiple traffic lights in a row, often the traffic lights are timed (more or less) to the speed limit signs, so you can drive at a steady speed and most of the lights will be green (only works properly on one-way streets, obviously). If the human driver ignores the speed limit signs, he will have to stop at every light.

These are all forms of V2I that a truly self driving car also needs, in addition to maps, merging lane indications, modified traffic patterns in construction zones, and all the many other examples of V2I we have already talked about.

GPS is also a form of V2I. It is conceivable eventually that GPS could be replaced by a scheme that uses actual stars instead of the GPS constellation of aritificial stars (satellites). At least, while the stars are visible. More like migratory birds. In the meantime, this navigation data too has to be provided via artificial V2I.

BarrySweezey
User Rank
Manager
Re: Pro-V2X argument
BarrySweezey   9/19/2013 11:52:01 PM
NO RATINGS
My point was that if that's a valid argument for self-driving cars needing v2x, then it also implies that human-driven cars need v2x.  But no one is going to say that people shouldn't be driving cars if they can't see around corners or a km ahead.

rberg920
User Rank
Rookie
Re: about fuel economy...?
rberg920   9/19/2013 6:52:24 PM
NO RATINGS
Hi Luis, nobody commented on your autonomous vehicle racing against a human one.  Take a look at this:

http://www.gizmag.com/stanford-audi-tts-autonomous-car-thunderhill/24957/

 

There's a cool YouTube video near the bottom of the page.

Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
Re: Pro-V2X argument
Bert22306   9/19/2013 3:18:53 PM
NO RATINGS
"Well, unfortunately, not really. You can't see what's happening a kilometer ahead when you are driving a car."

That's right, Junko. Another of many examples, a work zone will often create different traffic patterns and different speed limits, from those a stale Google map might indicate. (The Google map itself being a form of V2I, btw.) Plus, the traffic congestions possibilities up ahead, beyond the range of car sensors, which will deteremine a different route must be taken.

A car's own sensors won't get this, UNLESS they can read road signs and pavement markings, and never mind the traffic reports. All of these are forms of V2I comms. Any time the car reads human-generated information provided by the infrastructure, that constitutes V2I comms.

And it's not enough to rely on what the cars in front of you are doing. Obviously, someone has to be the first in line, or the only car in the vicinity, so that car has to get up-to-date information.

junko.yoshida
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Pro-V2X argument
junko.yoshida   9/19/2013 6:34:39 AM
NO RATINGS
@BarrySweezey, I think you just made a perfect argument where the U.S. automotive industry is heading to. Let's see how far "Google cars" or any other autonomous cars can get to reduce accidents -- before making too much commitment to building V2X infrastructure.

But as to what you wrote:

"V2X can give a driver more visibility when cars are turning at a corner. It also offers the driver more information about what's happening a kilometer ahead."  Fine, but that's true for human drivers, too. 


Well, unfortunately, not really. You can't see what's happening a kilometer ahead when you are driving a car. 

Kinnar
User Rank
CEO
Re: Human Errors Are the Cause of Accidents Today
Kinnar   9/19/2013 4:31:17 AM
NO RATINGS
That is quite right, the life is full of threats, via science and technology we are trying to cope-up with the threats and improve the possibilities of living, on the same path I am very much sure that these developments will be ultimately leading towards better road safety, but this was just a point in the discussion.

 

BarrySweezey
User Rank
Manager
Re: Pro-V2X argument
BarrySweezey   9/18/2013 11:39:00 PM
NO RATINGS
I agree with your third and fourth paragraphs 100%.  And I think that'll be enough to make cars better drivers than people without v2x. 

BarrySweezey
User Rank
Manager
Re: Pro-V2X argument
BarrySweezey   9/18/2013 11:27:40 PM
NO RATINGS
"V2X can determine the vehicle's position relative to other vehicles, intersections, and infrastructure."  So can the car.

"V2X can coordinate movement and timing, particularly through dangerous intersections."  Seems like you give the infrastructure more credit for smarts that you're willing to give the car.  Herds, schools and flocks manage to turn on a dime without carrying transmitter-receivers.

"V2X can give a driver more visibility when cars are turning at a corner. It also offers the driver more information about what's happening a kilometer ahead."  Fine, but that's true for human drivers, too.

If self-driving cars prove themselves unable to compile a safety record better that humans', then they need v2x.  Otherwise, they don't.  It's an empirical question.

But if they turn out to require it, they'll take a lot longer to be realized and cost a lot more, so we should try like heck to see what they can do without it.

junko.yoshida
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Count matters
junko.yoshida   9/18/2013 5:44:17 PM
NO RATINGS
You have a point there, @vasanth.

There are in fact already "driver-less" transportation systems functioning well -- but they are limited to a certain rail or lane.

Autonomous cars are problematic because they can freely change lanes and they don't always drive on a "diamond" lane in a highway.

Page 1 / 3   >   >>


Most Recent Comments
Ian Johns
 
David Ashton
 
elizabethsimon
 
Anand.Yaligar
 
MeasurementBlues
 
Anand.Yaligar
 
Anand.Yaligar
 
Anand.Yaligar
 
Anand.Yaligar
Flash Poll
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Life
Frankenstein's Fix, Teardowns, Sideshows, Design Contests, Reader Content & More
Max Maxfield

Vetinari Clock: Additional Possibilities
Max Maxfield
11 comments
In my previous blog on the topic of my Vetinari Clock project, we pondered a number of possibilities for the positioning of switches on the front panel, and we ended up with a number of ...

Jolt Judges and Andrew Binstock

Jolt Awards: The Best Books
Jolt Judges and Andrew Binstock
1 Comment
As we do every year, Dr. Dobb's recognizes the best books of the last 12 months via the Jolt Awards -- our cycle of product awards given out every two months in each of six categories. No ...

Engineering Investigations

Air Conditioner Falls From Window, Still Works
Engineering Investigations
2 comments
It's autumn in New England. The leaves are turning to red, orange, and gold, my roses are in their second bloom, and it's time to remove the air conditioner from the window. On September ...

David Blaza

The Other Tesla
David Blaza
5 comments
I find myself going to Kickstarter and Indiegogo on a regular basis these days because they have become real innovation marketplaces. As far as I'm concerned, this is where a lot of cool ...