Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Hardware Technology

GM Claims Advanced Cruise Control By 2008 425

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the more-time-to-play-games dept.
pavelvp writes "Economist is reporting that General Motors is working on the prototype of the self-driving car. From the article, "The car uses updated technology combined with several existing innovations and, according to the manufacturer, could be in production by 2008. But, while the technology takes some of the boring bits out of driving, it falls far short of an automatic taxi service and, anyway, various legal, technical and social barriers to its introduction remain.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GM Claims Advanced Cruise Control By 2008 More

GM Claims Advanced Cruise Control By 2008

Comments Filter:

  • Good idea (Score:5, Funny)

    by Catamaran ( 106796 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @07:27PM (#13440531)
    I look forward to the day when we relinquish all control of our cars once we enter the freeway. Scientific papers have found that traffic throughput could be increased up to 918.49% while reducing fatalities by a factor of 17.5!

    • Re:Good idea (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ZeroGee ( 796304 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @07:35PM (#13440595)
      relinquish all control of our cars once we enter the freeway

      Although your numbers are probably a joke, the actual theory merits discussion. Still, it won't happen for quite a while. People enjoy driving far too much. Movies like I, Robot and others involving "manual overrides" are actually fairly close to the truth. You think all the owners who buy sports cars, whether it's a base-model ford mustang or a top-end ferrari, are going to be satisfied "turning over all control" of their car and just reading the newspaper or watching a movie on the way to work? The only way this highway works is if every single car participates, otherwise the stupid human will be bumping into the super-fast computer-driven cars all day. Good luck getting buy-in from 100% of drivers. Not during my lifetime.
      • It would not be unreasonable to make it legally required to use such a system on some highways. You don't like it, take the side streets.

        • Re:Good idea (Score:5, Interesting)

          by ZeroGee ( 796304 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @07:48PM (#13440704)
          It would not be unreasonable to make it legally required to use such a system on some highways. You don't like it, take the side streets.

          Nice thought experiment. In reality? Good luck getting your congressmen and senators to vote for this. First the auto-lobby will scream bloody-murder because it would require extra systems in every car, which raises their costs. They sure as heck aren't going to eat into their own profits, so that means the price increases are passed along to the consumers, who want to know why their honda accords now cost $35,000 for a feature they don't want anyhow.

          This doesn't even take into consideration the ACLU who will claim this is a movement to make cars inaccessible to poor people, as well as the far right who doesn't want no stinkin' computer driving when they can do it perfectly well themselves.

          In summary, you have a system that is popular with about 18% of the population. Yep, I bet that one races through the legislature.

          • Re:Good idea (Score:5, Insightful)

            by soft_guy ( 534437 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:01PM (#13440816)
            I don't know. I could see this happening. At first, maybe someone creates one experimental road with this technology. If GM and Ford could use it as differentiation, they might have the clout to get some assistance from congress. GM and Ford really need to do something serious to shake things up very soon.

            If it worked, the fact that it would work would be a compelling reason. Think about cities like Seattle, Houston, etc. where the freeways are very crowded and the costs of new freeways are too high to be practical.

            The ACLU is not some all powerful "spoiler" out to hold back innovation.

            Plus, if your argument would hold, then people wouldn't have catalytic converters, airbags, or seatbelts. These are all features which make cars cost a lot of money and most people don't want.

            • Re:Good idea (Score:3, Insightful)

              by ZeroGee ( 796304 )
              catalytic converters -- protect the environment, cheap, only downside is it lowers power very slightly.

              airbags -- cheap, saves lives, downside is possible added injury due to deployment but overall benefit is worth it

              seatbelts -- very cheap, saves lives.

              automated traffic system -- vastly increases costs, reduces traffic congestion, reduces traffic fatalities only if the system is perfect and the mechanical parts never fail. What if you blow a tire? The car behind you might still plow into you, only now

              • Re:Good idea (Score:3, Insightful)

                by soft_guy ( 534437 )
                No, the ACLU would not fight it. They only take on cases that have to do with protecting civil rights related to the constitution. Driving is not a right, nor is it protected by the constitution.

                Also, you are making assumptions about the automated traffic system without actually having used one. People made the same kinds of arguments about airbags, seatbelts, etc.

                My father was the first person to get to a car accident when seatbelts were pretty new. He could not get the driver out of the car which was on f
                • Just to clarify: when I wrote the above, I did not mean that the seatbelt caused the woman's car to be on fire. The car was in an accident which caused the seatbelt latch to become jammed and also caused the car to catch on fire.

                  My dad tried to get the lady out, the car was on fire, the fire was spreading, he tried cutting the seatbelt, squeezing her out, unlatching it. Eventually the fire started burning his arms and he had to back away and listen to the woman scream while she burned to death.

        • Robot Lane (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Agarax ( 864558 )
          I think you would be more lucky if you asked to have dedicated lanes set aside for the Robot cars.

          Some lanes for the advanced cars, the rest for older cars and people who want to drive manually.

          Everyone wins.
      • You think all the owners who buy sports cars, whether it's a base-model ford mustang or a top-end ferrari, are going to be satisfied "turning over all control" of their car and just reading the newspaper or watching a movie on the way to work?

        Maybe it's high time to realize that pony cars and "sport" cars (whatever that means, the driver doesn't do any sport in them), as well as SUVs, with the manlyhood people think they get out of them, are a thing from a past where gasoline was cheap and inexhaustible.

        My

        • Re:Good idea (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ZeroGee ( 796304 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @07:55PM (#13440769)
          Today's teens are starting to seriously think hybrids, electrics and hydrogen-powered cars are cool.

          Today's teens also think aston martins, ferraris, and lotus elises are cool as well. Granted, hybrids have taken on a "hip" status, but they haven't replaced sports cars. Many teenagers still think that '69 Charger is pretty darn cool too.

          If you haven't noticed, auto manufacturers are in the midst of a huge horsepower war that hasn't been seen in decades. 400 bhp is now becoming standard on upper-end luxury vehicles, with the 500hp threshold being crossed by vehicles still south of 100k. It also so happens that this is being done with engines that aren't just "bigger" as in the mid-20th century, but rather with exciting new efficient technology.

          Cars have been status symbols since they were invented a hundred years ago, and that hasn't changed at all. High gas prices don't matter. I live in California and pay $2.99/gallon these days. If I was paying $2.00/gallon, I'd save $600 a year. Whoopee. My sports car gets 23 mpg, and a "fuel-efficient" non-hybrid gets 35 mpg. Is my car worth the price delta? You bet it is.

          • Re:Good idea (Score:3, Insightful)

            by glitch0 ( 859137 )
            Yeah, I'm 17, and I can tell you that no teens actually care about hybrids because they're hybrids. I haven't seen them taking on a "hip" status at all, in fact most teenagers probably think that a hybrid is something their gay biology teacher would talk about.

            In the end, even the teens that have heard of a Prius or other hybrid only know that they get good mileage which is pretty damn important at $7 an hour. I think in my school of 1900 students, probably 50 could tell you that a hybrid uses a batte

          • Re:Good idea (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Mr. Maestro ( 876173 ) *
            Not sure how we got on the topic of hybrids, but while we are, there was a fantastic article if one of the automobile monthly magazines.

            The author was talking about the fact that a hybrid needs to be driven for something like 66,000 miles per year to realize a savings of fuel costs versus price of the car.

            He also went in to the eventual disposal of the giant battery/batteries in these cars. Not a pretty picture.

            And perhaps most interesting was this. While the Toyota Prious (sp) is a hot seller, t

            • Re:Good idea (Score:3, Insightful)

              by el_womble ( 779715 )
              So I guess in the rest of the world thats more like 22,000 miles. Thats still a heck of a lot of mileage, but not out of the reach of sales reps and long-haul commuters.

              But you don't buy a hybrid because they're cheaper, you buy them for that warm, green, fuzzy feeling.

        • Today's teens are starting to seriously think hybrids, electrics and hydrogen-powered cars are cool.

          Somehow, I don't think anyone told the teenagers who are busy turning efficient Civics into inefficient turbo'd ricers with high volume exhaust systems.


      • I just think it's about time those poor lawyers can stop going after bad drivers that caused injury to their clients and go for a nice big fat class action suit against the manufacturers.

      • Re:Good idea (Score:5, Interesting)

        by moreati ( 119629 ) <alex@moreati.org.uk> on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:08PM (#13440870) Homepage
        Without quoted statistics this reply is of course conjecture, as is yours.

        I believe very few people enjoy the act of day to day driving, sports cars are a minute proportion of road traffic. What I and many others enjoy is the comfort and convenience of using a private car to travel. Auto-drive cars can increase these benefits by the following:
          - Removing requirement for continuous, dedicated, concious control. Instead, read slashdot or watch I Robot as you travel to work.
          - Removing necessity for private vehicle ownership, instead rent use of a class of vehicle - no need to find parking, drive straight to your destination, get out and the car will route/drive itself to a holding area or pickup.
          - Safer my faith in computer control is greater then my faith in millions of bored, distracted humans. Provided the system is built up over time, slowly, a few features integrated to a trusted (proven) platform at each revision, as cars today are develop.
          - Faster, with many vehicles coordinating with one another, it should be possible to increase thoughput and aggregate speed. As you say these will be mitigated by human and other uncooperative (incompatible) drivers. But it shouldn't be all or nothing.

        Auto-drive cars won't appear overnight - enabling features will accrue over years - Sat Nav, cruise control, rangefinding sensors, lane drift alarms, drive by wire, braking assistance, ubiquitous wireless communication etc.

        Thats my optimistic view, anyway.

        Regards

        Alex
      • I could see it happening on private highways: a.k.a. toll roads. I'm not sure how the process of acquiring a toll road is carried out, but GM could put in a new route, say direct from LA to LV, and only allow people who use an auto-drive system to enter the road way. This way GM could control the roadway, and the standards for interfacing with the roadway. That would ensure seamless protocol support between the end user, the system, and the system controllers. And for such a popular route, if they could get

      • Re:Good idea (Score:3, Insightful)

        by LionKimbro ( 200000 )
        It's first going to come in through the highway system, in special lanes, like when they trialed on I-15 in 1997. [cmu.edu] There's nothing for intra-city commuters for a while; That's just not technically feasible right now.

        It doesn't require every single car to participate. In trials, they are probably going to use special lanes. Second, the cars have light sensors, for detecting cars around them that don't play along with the system. My guess is that eventually, after 0 (zero) controlled-car accidents (outside of
    • That is true only if all the cars on the freeway are driving on automatic. As long as you have human beings driving anywhere in the "train of cars", you can't maintain short bumper-to-bumper distances required for the throughput increase, and you'll have accidents.

      What I mean to say is, either you mandate overnight that all cars have freeway autopilots to enter the freeway, and mandate that cars forcibly wrestle controls from stubborn drivers when entering the freeway, or the system will never work at all.

      • Re:Good idea (Score:5, Interesting)

        by william_w_bush ( 817571 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @07:41PM (#13440654)
        or computer only lanes/sections ala car-pooling?
        they can have a much higher density, along with less braking idiocy, or the "look at that crash" which stops traffic for miles. the govt can make that an incentive to have auto-cars.
      • I agree wholeheartedly.

        I was personally thinking about the situation where you're using autopilot, but a "bad driver" tries to change into your lane. While the autopilot can maintain your lane/speed/distance/etc., can it also react to the incursion?

    • Re:Good idea (Score:3, Insightful)

      by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 )
      That's a 1950s pipe dream. Get real. Every local government will have the cops standing by to cause accidents and traffic jams to give out tickets and collect the money. Highway robbery doesn't get any better than this.
    • I look forward to the day when we relinquish all control of our cars once we enter the freeway.

      Yeah. Problem is, manufacturers cannot guarantee that their software is bug-free. This is the reason that automated cars are legally banned in most of Europe and other parts of the world.

      Software unreliability is a huge problem, one which is preventing us from achieving the full promise of the computer age. The more complex our systems the more unreliable they are. The reason is that there is something fundamental

      • Bug-free humans? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by KingSkippus ( 799657 ) *

        Maybe, but the thing I'm really interested in is not can the software be bug-free, but can it be more reliable than humans?

        The article says:

        One reason why people feel safer in their cars than on public transport is because they are in control of the vehicle.

        The funny thing is that I feel a lot less safe because other people, people I have no control over, are in control of their vehicle. The sad fact is that so many people are so mind-numbingly stupid behind the wheel of a car that I would much rat

    • Given the overall quality of GM vehicles I am not looking forward to submitting my life to the qulity of their engineering.

  • I wonder... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TheOtherAgentM ( 700696 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @07:28PM (#13440543)
    Can I push the gas pedal down hard enough to triumph over the computer system? I would really hate to see a computer have more control than the human. We've seen plenty of movies, where that happened.
    • We've seen plenty of movies, where that happened.

      I doubt those movies would be as exciting, fast-paced, and high-grossing if the machines were given too much control over human lives, both sides were happy about it, and everyone lived happily ever after in a beautiful paradise of boringness.

      but that's just a thought as to why we see movies like that.
    • I'll never forget the pictures of one of the early airbuses flying itself into the ground. Apparently the computer could over-rule the pilot . . . but it was still blamed on pilot error (of course). I also saw some film once of a plane completely out of control (but can't remember what type it was) and the pilot explaining how he'd had to fight the computer for 20 minutes to prevent a crash.

      I think in the end, I'd rather have a human making the final decision and able to over-ride the computer.

  • Doesn't work well in motorhomes (Score:4, Funny)

    by infonography ( 566403 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @07:30PM (#13440562) Homepage
    I know of one such event where a guy set the cruise control in his Winnebago and then got up and when back to the kitchen to make a sandwich. Truth, Fiction, Urban Legend, or Darwin Award. Your guess is as good as mine.

  • Good job catching up GM (Score:3, Informative)

    by Critical_ ( 25211 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @07:31PM (#13440570) Homepage
    Mercedes has had their automatic cruise control now for over 5 years. It only applies about 10-15% of braking power and is available in all their upper end cars. With the new S-Class coming in December, the new version can fully stop the car and bring it back up to speed on its own. So where is the innovation? Mercedes has been a tech leader in cars for as far back as I can think. ABS, Stability control, Airbags, etc are all Mercedes innovations which they allow other car companies to use.

  • No use. (Score:5, Funny)

    by thermal_noise ( 57351 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @07:31PM (#13440571)
    It's 2008. Give me my f*ing flying car instead.

    • Re:No use. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by agraupe ( 769778 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @07:46PM (#13440686) Journal
      If you had any idea of the complexity of flying anything, you'd take that comment back. I'm in the final stages of getting a private pilot license, and let me tell you, it's a lot harder than it looks (not to mention 1-2 hours of trip planning before any flight away from the airport a meaningful distance). I've just been doing my cross-country flights, and there are about 5 times per flight where I have no clue where I am (GPS notwithstanding, because you have to be able to find your way around in the event of an electrical failure). I know you merely meant this comment to be a witty, quick-way-to-+5-Funny one-liner, but the thought of the average person expecting to get into their flying car and be able to drive it without killing anyone scares me enough that I had to comment anyway.
      • This is complete off-topics but I've been thinking about learning how to fly myself. How much did that cost you and how long did it take to get as far as you did?

        Thanks.

        • Re:No use. (Score:3, Interesting)

          by loraksus ( 171574 )
          For private pilots
          USA - 2-5k, although it can be a bit less.
          Depends how good you are at it, the cost of the aircraft rental, instructor rental, etc.
          You need 40 hours of flight time (30 with instructor, 10 solo IIRC) in order to get the license, although you might want to take more.
          Plan on spending at least $20 an hour for the instructor and $35 for the aircraft. At least.

          Canada, 7-15k-ish. I think $40/$35 an hour and up and 40 hours are required.

          None of the above includes ground school - you usually have to

      • Re:No use. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by spisska ( 796395 )

        there are about 5 times per flight where I have no clue where I am

        If this is true, you really need to pay more attention to your charts and dead reckoning, not to mention your VORs or even your directional beacon. You should always know where you are, and should always confirm your location with multiple means.

        This was particularly important where I learned to fly, just outside of Washington. If you don't know where you are for even five or ten minutes, you may accidentally fly into the controlled a

      • Re:No use. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Quarters ( 18322 )
        Geebus! Never, *ever* during my solo x-country flights did I not know where I was. Drop the GPS, learn to use your charts, the VORs, and your eyes. The gadgets are cool and all, but they're disrupting your training.
    • Well, GMC has had f*ing cars for a long time already - Chevy Astro vans make for good f*ing.

      So, at least half your dream is true already, but you'll have get a girlfriend...
    • Anyone else here remember that show "Beyond 2000" on Discovery Channel? Well it's 5 years past that and still no flying car. For God's sake there's no completely electric cars either! I remember in grade school reading about GM's EV1 car. My dad promised me that when I turn 18 he'll buy one for me. 18 came and went, no free electric car from dad. 4 more years later, the best we have is the hybrids and GM isn't even one of the makers. I would be wary of GM's promises...

  • Priorities (Score:2, Troll)

    by morcheeba ( 260908 ) *
    As long as the system can distinguish what is running into the street ahead of you if you're boxed in and the vehicle behind you is tailgating (or its driver isn't paying attention). If it's a dog, the the answer is to hit it instead of risking getting run over yourself. If it's a kid, then slam on the brakes and get rear ended.(*)

    Also, the price target of $1,830 seems a little optimistic. That's close to the cost of a nav system, but will require more components.

    (* Alternate answer: deploy the tire spikes

  • What is it they say about Fool Proof? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @07:32PM (#13440575) Homepage Journal
    "... General Motors is working on the prototype of the self-driving car. ... The car uses updated technology combined with several existing innovations and, ... while the technology takes some of the boring bits out of driving, it falls far short of an automatic taxi service and, anyway, various legal, technical and social barriers to its introduction remain.

    Make something Fool Proof and a better class of fool will come along and proove you wrong.

    Still, we can dream of jumping into the car for a relaxing nap on a 12 hour drive, eh?

  • but.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Enteebee ( 620669 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @07:33PM (#13440582)

    Will this car also drive itself to Alaska, drill for oil, refine the crude into gasoline, and then fill up?

    Otherwise, I'm holding out for a Mr. Fusion.

  • Perhaps they should be concentrating on making their vehicles safer http://www.latimes.com/business/investing/wire/sns -ap-gm-recall,1,3343951.story?coll=sns-ap-investin g-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true [latimes.com] instead of making their cars drive themselves.

    Heck, they should be worrying about trying to sell their vehicles! Cause Honda and Toyota aren't going away any time soon!
    • I have never bought a GM car and I probably never will. Their cars are just *so lame*. I really wanted a Saab for a while, but when I went to buy my last car, the new Saabs were really lame. (GM now owns Saab.)

      I bought a mercedes instead.

  • In Soviet Russia... (Score:4, Funny)

    by X1011 ( 819111 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @07:36PM (#13440611) Homepage
    Car drives you!

  • Ultimate destination? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sv-Manowar ( 772313 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @07:36PM (#13440612) Homepage Journal
    It seems as if the ultimate (admittedly, far off) goal of such developments is to establish a virtually automated mass transit system using today's road networks. When cars automatically take the correct routes, make correct lane changes, and communicate with each other to ensure safe distances and traffic queues the joy of driving, for those who value it, will be essentially lost. I can't help but wonder if the joy of driving will be entirely lost in 20-50 years.
    • Just put a TV screen in the car too (assuming they all don't have them by then) and the driver will be too distracted by American Idol 16 to miss the feeling of driving.
    • I can't help but wonder if the joy of driving will be entirely lost in 20-50 years.

      IMHO the joy of driving took a big dive 'WAY back in the Nixon era, when the 55 MPH speed limit was imposed.

      The relaxation to 65 and 70 in limited locations is a far cry from the "no limit - basic law" (i.e. pick a speed you consider safe) regime that preceeded it.
    • Right now, the car drivers don't have a choice other than have the "joy of driving". I enjoy driving very much, but there have been many times when I had bouts of micro-sleep while driving, and some times I had to pull over for a little nap.

      So, even the people that immensely enjoy driving may want this feature. Also, what is the great joy driving on an interstate bumper-to-bumper?

      S
    • I can't help but wonder if the joy of driving will be entirely lost in 20-50 years.

      Just like the joy of horseback riding has been lost? There will always be venues. And if you've ever been out to remote locations, you'd know that while these systems would work great in cities, it's usually completely unfeasible in a rural context.

      What you'll see is automation replacing where people would normally be stuck in bumper to bumper traffic. Less used outskirt roads would rely on manual driving.

      No amount of 'joy o

    • Re:Ultimate destination? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jemenake ( 595948 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:25PM (#13440982)
      It seems as if the ultimate (admittedly, far off) goal of such developments is to establish a virtually automated mass transit system using today's road networks. When cars automatically take the correct routes, make correct lane changes, and communicate with each other to ensure safe distances and traffic queues the joy of driving, for those who value it, will be essentially lost. I can't help but wonder if the joy of driving will be entirely lost in 20-50 years.
      I have two things to say about this.

      First, I think that the trade-off will be more than worth it. Consider these things: Cars won't need adults to drive them; you can let your kids take the car to their soccer practice while you stay home and do something more productive. Furthermore, the cars won't need *anyone* to drive them. Send your car to your kid's school to pick them up or drop them off. Send your car to the appliance-mart a half-hour away to have it loaded with the washing machine you just bought online. Go to the mall and hop out at the front door and have your car go park itself. It doesn't matter how far away it parks because it's going to come pick you up at the door anyway.

      The second point is this: The type of driving that they're looking to automate and the type of driving that most people enjoy aren't the same thing. I don't enjoy driving 7 hours to my mom's mountain cabin. I *do* enjoy taking my truck out onto the beach and cruising along the surf... or driving along a curvy road in the hills. It's a lot like flying. As I pilot, when I need to cover some *distance*, I want a plane that goes fast, has autopilot, good navigation instruments, etc. However, when I want to just tool around over the dunes, I want a piddly little two-seater that goes slower than the cars on the road under me. So, in other words, the *joy* in driving doesn't come (for me, anyway) from the kind of driving that they're looking to automate.

  • A hundred years... (Score:5, Funny)

    by HermanAB ( 661181 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @07:36PM (#13440615)
    since we last had self driving cars. Friggen amazing that it took this long to re-invent the horse.

  • how about... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wtmcgee ( 113309 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @07:36PM (#13440618) Homepage
    ...working on something more useful, such as making your entire consumer line hybrids by 2010 or something along those lines? Seems like we're adding all these frivolous things to cars nowadays but neglecting to do anything about the fuel issues in automobiles.

  • BMW already has this in their cars. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @07:39PM (#13440637)
    And not only that, but what's holding the GM version up is that they're still trying to engineer it to fail as soon as the warranty runs out.

  • The 'Fun' Factor (Score:4, Interesting)

    by salvorHardin ( 737162 ) <adwulf.gmail@com> on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @07:41PM (#13440655) Journal
    This will entirely remove the 'fun' element to driving. Taking that tight bend at 80 won't have the same appeal, as you'll know that you didn't have anything to do with it.

    Also, gone will be the 'sporty' designs in cars, especially the dash. There are already designs for cars with 'couplings', so they work like train carriages in built-up areas. Your car will resemble a small train compartment more than a Ferrari.

    On the other hand, at least it will rid the world of this lot [barryboys.co.uk].

  • Well here's your problem right here (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @07:51PM (#13440730)
    From the article:

    For example, self-steering cars are currently illegal in most European countries. Carmakers want the law changed to allow them, but they are also keen not to be held legally responsible for any accidents which result. Drafting legislation which would make it attractive for carmakers to introduce the technology, but still allow some recourse for those hurt if something goes wrong, could prove tricky.

    I see, they want to build self-steering cars but take no responsibility for what they have built going wrong.

    I think alerting systems are a great idea - if you think I'm shifting lanes or following too close or not noticing a braking driver in front of me, by all means help me out.

    But don't take away control based on incomplete sensor input. The distance that it is safe to follow another car depends on conditions. What if you reach a sharp bend and that other car can corner a lot better than you? What if you stop paying attention to the road ahead because the car is following another, and that other car fails to notice traffic stopping too quickly ahead? That car hitting anything else probably means you're going to hit it.

    The consider the whole business of automatically following lanes as the GM car does. Has no-one out there seen roads after construction is through that have remains of old lines? What happens when a car starts AUTOMATICALLY correcting your steering to follow the old lines instead of the new?

    To give auto makers a free Get-Out-Of-Jail card because they have the hubris to think they can build something that really drives better than a human is madness. Let them try but they must pay for failure so they are properly diligent as to issues that may arise.

  • Er.. that's nifty, but... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by EvilCabbage ( 589836 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @07:53PM (#13440747) Homepage
    ...shouldn't we be taking a heavy focus on more fuel efficient, cost efficient forms of transport and increasing passive safety over gizmos like this?

    I honestly can't say I'd trust a vehicle to do my driving for me.

  • Overall (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Council ( 514577 ) <rmunroe&gmail,com> on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @07:53PM (#13440749) Homepage
    Very good idea, as far as the actual driving goes -- that is, I would use it.

    Problem: It will crash when presented with some situations. You can watch for those situations, but since you don't normally /have/ to watch the road anymore, attention will drift for longer and longer, and you won't see something, and it will crash.

    The few problems will be directly blamed on the car makers. They will not be able to keep this cruise control on the market.

    I've often wished that my car would automatically stay between the lines. The roads are already tilted so that you can drive (with good alignment) quite a ways without touching the wheel. But if I had that option, it's only a matter of time before I fell asleep on a long freeway, and then the computer makes a mistake, and I crash.

    The technology is not new. I saw a video on it quite a while ago. But you can't introduce it because some people will die as a viscerally direct result, even if it saves other lives in the process.

    They mentioned that it would probably first be introduced as a "you're going off the road" warning system, and verrrry slowly work its way in from there. That's the only feasible option I see.

    I really don't feel alarmist about this at all. They're gonna need to be very, very careful in introducing this, because when cars crash -- as they inevitably will at least once -- due to unexpected circumstances that arise quickly -- they will look very bad.
  • This is perfect 'cause now I can use my cellphone while driving. Initially I thought I just needed a headset, but all those reports show that conversation is really the distraction. But with better cruise control, that becomes less of an issue, so I can use my cellphone more...

    PDA & Smartphone Optimized Sites [mobileoptimized.com]
    Replacing my laptop with a Treo [mobileoptimized.com]
  • Interesting - the article doesn't talk about automatic cars at all - it just talks about an updated form of adaptive cruise control that works at low speeds and also incorporates a lane-departure warning system. Adaptive cruise is already available on many models of high-end cars, some low-end cars, and even some semi trucks. Lane-departure is a little more difficult because it's more difficult to discern a lane than it is an obstruction in front of you, and it's difficult to get a driver to acknowledge a
  • I have multiple physical disabilities, and I am unable to drive a vehicle. However, this could be useful for me and others with multiple physical disabilities. It would be like KITT from Knight Rider [tv.com]'s without the advanced weapons, AI, etc. :)

  • No officer i was not driving. (Score:3, Funny)

    by davro ( 539320 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:13PM (#13440913) Homepage
    Now you and your friends can get drunk smoke crack while cruising along the high street.
    Should it have a "Drive it like you stole it" option for the car thiefs.

  • Automatic driving is coming, but not this way (Score:4, Informative)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:16PM (#13440930) Homepage
    This "adaptive cruise control" stuff is scary. The basic idea is to have a lateral control system that keeps in lane, and a longitudinal control system that prevents tailgating. This is good enough for the driver to fall asleep, but not good enough to handle even minor emergency situations.

    Experience with ABS systems is instructive. ABS systems definitely improve braking, but don't reduce accidents. Drivers with ABS use their shorter stopping distance to follow more closely, cancelling out the safety benefits.

    I run one of the DARPA Grand Challenge teams [overbot.com], which requires somewhat better technology. The current Grand Challenge technology is clunky (everybody has huge, mechanically scanned LIDAR devices or weak vision systems), but true solid state eye-safe outdoor 3D LIDAR imaging devices are just becoming available. With that technology, doing this right is within reach.

  • Electric powered? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by vik ( 17857 )
    Waste of time - we have drivers in cars already. How about expending the effort and investments on electric vehicles so we can still drive when the oil it too expensive to use or unobtainable?

    Sorry, I forgot. That's the period of maximum profit for the oil industry, isn't it? Silly me. Oh well, roll on with more of those CO2-induced hurricanes...

    Vik :v)
  • In addition, most people relish driving. One reason why people feel safer in their cars than on public transport is because they are in control of the vehicle.

    Whoa, Nelly.
    What? I feel far safer on public transport because it's a great big bloody hunk of metal that would scarcely show a dent if that latte-chugging SUV-not-needing chain-smoking lunatic who is weaving in and out of lanes looks away for those critical thirty seconds to finish off the Filet O Fish in their lap...

    The only reason I would be

  • legal vultures (Score:3, Insightful)

    by timmarhy ( 659436 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @08:46PM (#13441209)
    i can't ever see any car manufacturer doing this, because the first time one of these has an accident lawyers will jump all over it saying it was the auto piolts fault.

  • More than just cars (Score:3, Interesting)

    by utexaspunk ( 527541 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @09:16PM (#13441503)
    If a truly self-driving car ever does come around, it would not only revolutionize our lives in terms of commuting, but also in the movement of goods. Why even have stores when you could let customers select what they want online and then immediately dispatch a cartload of goods to their house? If this comes around the time of some sort of renewable electric car, we may find ourselves living in ever more sprawling low-density cities. What trouble is it to live 50 miles outside of town when you can get into town in no time while reading the paper in your own private vehicle?

  • Some of us (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kilodelta ( 843627 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @08:25AM (#13444620) Homepage
    Would welcome not having to actively drive the car. For example, those with long commutes could read their document of choice, eat a meal, have sex with themselves or someone else, etc.

    Why waste your time controlling a vehicle in traffic or on wide open highway when you can be doing so many things that are better for you and more enjoyable.

Slashdot Top Deals

Your password is pitifully obvious.

Close