Breaking News
Comments
Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 3   >   >>
junko.yoshida
User Rank
Blogger
Pro-V2X argument
junko.yoshida   9/17/2013 1:49:57 PM
NO RATINGS
This is supposed to be a counter argument to another V2X story I posted last week: "If a Car's Really Autnomous, Why V2X?"

For every story, there are always two sides to the argument. I wanted to explore the topic further in this new article.

Let the debate begin.

 

Max The Magnificent
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Pro-V2X argument
Max The Magnificent   9/17/2013 2:07:31 PM
NO RATINGS
@Junko: For every story, there are always two sides to the argument.

The problem is that I'm usually arguing on both sides :-)

junko.yoshida
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Pro-V2X argument
junko.yoshida   9/17/2013 2:10:45 PM
NO RATINGS
@Max, ha ha, that is true. I am also doing exactly that with this piece...

DrFPGA
User Rank
Blogger
Safety is Phase One
DrFPGA   9/17/2013 5:04:37 PM
NO RATINGS
Seems like the argument being made is that autonomy isn't possible until safety with an actual driver is dramatically improved. Once there are fewer accidents then autonomy could be considered and implemented. Sounds like a good strategy to me, but proving out 'just' crash avoidance features sounds like a very, long process. I don't expect to see autonomy for a very, very long time...

junko.yoshida
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Safety is Phase One
junko.yoshida   9/17/2013 5:18:16 PM
NO RATINGS
DrFPGA, I agree. But what's muddying the water in the autonomous car discussions is the fast progression (and adoption) of today's advanced driver assitance systems (ADAS) introduced in luxury cars.

Further improvements we are seeing in the ADAS makes us all realize that ultimate "autonomous car" scenario is not exactly the stuff of science fiction.  

Of course, there is a big gap between ADAS and self-driving cars. And yet, there are also a lot of overlaps between ADAS features and technologies enabling autonomous cars.

Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
Re: Pro-V2X argument
Bert22306   9/17/2013 5:19:03 PM
NO RATINGS
All good points in this article. I especially likes the point about redundancy, since that seems to be missed by those who think self-driving cars can never work. If one type of communication fails, or if one type of sensing fails, others will take over, and the car will operate in a degraded mode.

Honestly, unless people are talking about different things when they say "self driving," I can't begin to understand why there would be any debate about this. I mean, unless "self driving" is only driver assistance, e.g. to provide a little extra safety, but the driver is still driving. In that case, maybe.

When one designs a control system, what you do is you ask yourself, how would I do this manually? And not JUST the easy way, when everything works. But it has to include contingencies. An example here would be, when you drive in a snow-covered road, how do you manage to navigate without seeing the road markings? That needs to be worked out. Or even, how do I react if suddenly I lose visibility, e.g. in hard rain or snow?

And then you write algorithms that duplicate the human behavior, only hopefully without the panic, slow reflexes, or incompetence.

The only way I would accept a notion that V2I isn't imperative is if someone can make a convincing argument that maps, traffic lights, pavement markings, and road signs, are useless. That all you need to drive a car is to see the cars around you. Make that argument, or tell me that self-driving only really means "driver assistance," and maybe I'll be convinced.

Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
The role of LTE or other cellular scheme
Bert22306   9/17/2013 5:33:56 PM
NO RATINGS
Not sure why this side-debate gets so much attention either, actually. Use of cellular makes a lot of good sense, especially for long range V2I or V2V. Like, download the map. Or, talk to your buddies back home, or out on the road 50 miles ahead.

LTE doesn't make as much sense to show you the lanes or road edge, where you are traveling this instant. For that, you want a more direct and short-range link, with information that is valid right now. If you think this info is useless, then ask yourself how you drive on snow-covered roads (or any other situation where road markings aren't visible). What cues do you use? Provide those cues somehow, if not with an RF link then with some other scheme, and you're good to go. Or, how do you navigate through a construction zone?

It will take a mix of link types and/or on-board sensors to get there. LTE is only one piece of the puzzle, seems to me.

Luis Sanchez
User Rank
Rookie
about fuel economy...?
Luis Sanchez   9/18/2013 12:15:01 AM
NO RATINGS
The article states that we need autonomy on the cars because of lesser accidents, traffic jams and better fuel economy? That last point draws my attention because I've always heard that having a stick shift is better for fuel economy than the automatic shift. Is this statement still truth? If so, what is the reason behind it? 

I simply thought us humans would have even a better feeling than computers on how to step on the pedal and when to switch gears. Isn't it the gut feeling that which makes a driver better than others? Oh... just had a vision! There will come the day in which a autonomous vehicle be raced against a human driven one! First it was chess. then Jeopardy... then Nascar? 

Kinnar
User Rank
CEO
Human Errors Are the Cause of Accidents Today
Kinnar   9/18/2013 7:44:54 AM
NO RATINGS
Human Errors are today considered the major cause of Accidents. Automation and/or Driverless Vehicles are of discussions today to overcome the human errors, the studies are comming up with the fact feagures stating that Automation will be adding to the safety, but once the Automation and/or Driverless Vehicles will start taking the critical decision "Machine Errors/Failures" will become the major cause of Accidents. And these will not be under anyone's control then after.

vasanth kumar d
User Rank
Manager
Count matters
vasanth kumar d   9/18/2013 10:18:54 AM
NO RATINGS
I dont agree with the idea that autonomous system would only be accepted if it causes zero accident.

Consider these two options.

A transport system with human control that takes 100 life/year.  (or)

A transport system fully autonomous that might only take (0...50) life/year.

I choose the second one. What would you prefer?

 

 

Page 1 / 3   >   >>


EE Life
Frankenstein's Fix, Teardowns, Sideshows, Design Contests, Reader Content & More
Max Maxfield

Aging Brass: Cow Poop vs. Horse Doo-Doo
Max Maxfield
41 comments
As you may recall, one of the things I want to do with the brass panels I'm using in my Inamorata Prognostication Engine is to make them look really old. Since everything is being mounted ...

EDN Staff

11 Summer Vacation Spots for Engineers
EDN Staff
18 comments
This collection of places from technology history, museums, and modern marvels is a roadmap for an engineering adventure that will take you around the world. Here are just a few spots ...

Glen Chenier

Engineers Solve Analog/Digital Problem, Invent Creative Expletives
Glen Chenier
11 comments
- An analog engineer and a digital engineer join forces, use their respective skills, and pull a few bunnies out of a hat to troubleshoot a system with which they are completely ...

Larry Desjardin

Engineers Should Study Finance: 5 Reasons Why
Larry Desjardin
45 comments
I'm a big proponent of engineers learning financial basics. Why? Because engineers are making decisions all the time, in multiple ways. Having a good financial understanding guides these ...

Flash Poll
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)