Competitive driving will still exist as a sport. Transportation should never be treated as a sport, but trust me, in urban NJ, it often is. Route 287 during rush hour can be a real white knuckle experience.
Want to drive competitively, go to the track, which I do on occasion. During my youth, I raced short track, motocross, the occasional scrambles, and even tried my hand at road racing. No I consign myself to the occasional go-kart track. Less risk, nearly as much fun.
So for those with the adventurous spirit, there will always be outlets. None of the rest care at all, and why should they? Very few of us grow our own food, churn our own butter, slaughter our own chickens. Does that matter?
"The automotive industry still has a long way to go; it needs to test, validate and prove technology for the very idea of self-driving to be accepted in a society -- in our generation."
It will be accepted by few in our generation, mostly only those who are involved in creating it. That is not a huge problem, though. Cars have a long life. If a working system were introduced today, it would still be at least a decade before it was considered the norm. Our refusal will be overruled when a younger, more numerous generation accepts it.
As I said earlier, infrastructure based control makes more sense; multiply your test cases for approval by the number of suppliers and 10k's tests rapidly do become millions of tests cases.
We do have the technology today to support drive by wire, and so with infrastructure based controls (V2I) we have the simplest way to automate driving.
Someone said V2I would be more expensive....but I would contend that it would be easier and cheaper to provide highway based sensors than mobile car based sensors...and with a better view of the world.
Hmmm. And how many work zones, potholes, or similar incidentals, would you expect in a Formula 1 race? But yes, that aside, it would make an intereting test. Of course, WITHOUT any V2I enhancements at all.
Barry, why are we rehashing? We already agreed that at a minumum, without making any changes to the existing infrastructure signals/markings etc. you would have to develop sensors in vehicles that can credibly, reliably, accurately READ these existing information systems. Traffic lights, obviously, speed limit signs, lane markings, INLCUDING in non-banal situations, such as work zones, merge signs, traffic reports would be nice, etc. etc. etc. You can't just rely on GPS and Google Maps, is the point. You need low latency, local information too.
I don't understand: "avoid your argument that using street signs is v2i, therefore v2i is required." So instead, what? We should ignore the fact that at very least the EXISTING V2I has to be accommodated, even though it hasn't been accommodated yet? This can't be ignored. Even if the problem can be as simple as enhancing the existing signals, signs, and pavement markings, for easier electronic scanning.
People have a way of wringing their hands when they aren't given to complete story. Until this V2I is fully addressed, I don't see fully autonomous vehicles being possible, and therefore I don't understand the frenzy about things going south. When your cruise control breaks, you simply put your foot on the gas pedal again. Same will happen if your proximity radar breaks. Hopefully, a warning will announce the failure, and the driver will know better than let that system have any driving responsibilities.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.