I grant you that on highways with very controlled access, autopilot in cars might perform nearly as well as an autopilot airport train. But automatic trains run few and far between and are not of different manufacturer and performance. Even in a very controlled highway, how would an autopiloted car react to transport trucks' shredded tires, stray moose or even sheets of ice lifting off the roofs of truck trailers and other debris let alone stray pedestrians?
The permutaions on the average road are orders higher than on a protected rail system.
To counter that point, there is a way much safer emrgency mode for the driverless car: stop. Airplanes don't have that luxury.
I'm sure that before driverless trains were installed in airports all over the world, there was similar skepticism. And yet, here we are. I'm not sure why engineers would be so skeptical, since one would think that engineers have seen the march of controls automation moving in this direction for decades. Even in cars, for heaven's sake, where the only manual control left to the driver is SOME steering, SOME braking, as sometimes the throttle. (I'm referring to ABS, yaw control, and cruise control as steering, braking, and throttle that has already automated at least parts of these critical functions, always in ways that certainly the average driver can't hope to equal.)
Would an engineer really believe that there's some law of physics or nature or whatever, that absolutely forbids automatic control to get beyond this point? Seems odd, right?
There's a big difference between an autopilot in a plane and in a car. In the air, when autopilot is used, there are literally miles between aricraft. And despite all the training, autopilot still guides planes straight into mountainsides.
In aircraft situations, distance and timing become more critical around airports and landings - comparable to roadways. In such time distance critical situations, your average pilot would normally have his autopilot off and is unlikely to be distracted reading or texting. Even with landing automation, the pilot will no doubt have undivided attention.
So it appears nothing can save us from the perils of distracted driving, except less rather than more distractions available in cars.
To say that it is a driverless car and still expect the human driver to be present , and not just be present ,but be alert enough to take over the control of the car in case the system is not able to handle a situation makes the whole concept meaningless.
It is better to have a driver assistance system where the control always lies with the human driver.
"So, that says that true autonomous driving should only occur on roads that have been set up for such contingencies, e.g. roads which have some shoulder or emergency lane available. (The alternative is that traffic will more often come to a complete standstill, if drivers aren't ready to take over quickly.)"
I totally agree with the comment (for automated islands) but would add that you should not mix automated and manual driven vehicles. Imagine an automated car slowing down because of say sensor oe driver failure on a six lane highay with all the traffic doing 60mph. Not pretty.
If you mix manual and automated vehicles, then how do you deal with the manual driver not letting the automated one in (for some unexplained emergency). Is there such a thing as being rude to an automated car?
"It would be interesting to understand what the Google car algorithms would do if it prompted for the driver to take control and he/she did not?"
Don't know about Google, but if I wrote the algorithm, I'd always default to "slow down, move to emergency lane, stop." Whatever situation arises for which the automatic controls can't handle it and the human driver is unavailable. As this is happening, either V2V and/or just the proximity sensors in cars behind it, will slow down traffic.
So, that says that true autonomous driving should only occur on roads that have been set up for such contingencies, e.g. roads which have some shoulder or emergency lane available. (The alternative is that traffic will more often come to a complete standstill, if drivers aren't ready to take over quickly.)
Sensors will also need redundancy. For example, it would be nice for the car to have more than one way of determining where the emergency lane is. If not with an onboard sensor, then with a V2I signal.
I don't really think any of this is terribly futuristic. We have airplanes flying and landing on autopilot, we have trains with no driver, why not cars? For planes and trains, the path they can travel is well determined. So we have to do the same with autonomous cars.
>> "Drivers being asked to take more driver education courses and stay alert all the time behind the wheel inside a self-driving car, in a way, defeats the whole purpose of autonomous cars."
Sure, it is autonomous but you cannot have a nap in the car. You cannot even be distracted. Yet, it is an autonomous self-driving car. The main challenge is that the economics of replacing humans in driving cars is not that huge. You are going to part with four guys. Suddenly, no one needs to drive as the car can drive itself. What have you truly saved economically?
>> "Can you draw a parallel between a pilot flying an airplane on autopilot and a driver in a self-driving car?"
Considering that you can have a maximum of say 8 passengers, I do not see the reason why we need people in these self-driving cars. If the thesis is to drive someone to the mall, when people are seated, why not make one of the people have a driving license. But if the idea is to send the car to pick things in the mall without people in it, then it makes a lot of sense. While you can be in a car and be reading expecting it to drive itself, it does not offer a lot of productivity when compared to airplanes.
I think the point of V2I communication is manifold. Beyond reporting speeds, it should enable hazard warning, accident reporting, approaching emergency vehicle warning and even traffic lights violation warning.
You want V2I to work so that any info picked up by cars on the road will be automatically reported to the infrastructure, and as a result, that information is shared with other cars.
V2I is there essentially to give you look-ahead info your cars can't see (even if your cars are loaded with sensors. And for this V2I communication to work, you need standardized way of communication -- and ideally, every car on the road has the ability to speak that language.
Blog That A-Ha Moment Larry Desjardin 10 comments Have you ever had an a-ha moment? Sure, you have. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as "a moment of sudden realization, inspiration, insight, recognition, or ...