For the past four years, Google has been working on self-driving cars with a mechanism to return control of the steering wheel to the driver in case of emergency. But Google’s brightest minds now say they cannot make that handoff work anytime soon.There are a lot of potential good things about this, especially if going driverless is an option on a car. Had too much to drink, then just tell the car where to go, hop in the back seat and pass out while the car takes you home.
Their answer? Take the driver completely out of the driving. The company has begun building a fleet of 100 experimental electric-powered vehicles that will dispense with all the standard controls found in modern automobiles. The two-seat vehicle looks a bit like the ultracompact Fiat 500 or the Mercedes-Benz Smart car if you take out the steering wheel, accelerator, brake and gear shift. The only things the driver controls is a red “e-stop” button for panic stops and a separate start button.
They had primitive versions of such things over a century ago, but they were called "horses and buggies". If you got potted in the saloon, you just unhitched your buggy, pointed it in the right direction and told the horse to go.
Of course, all of these driverless cars are going to talk to each other, so they can more seamlessly integrate themselves into the traffic flow. And sooner or later, it will be illegal to drive on some roads or in cities without the car being in autonomous mode. Which might improve capacities, as there is no reason why the computers couldn't drive the cars at 90 MPH and at an interval distance of inches.
But still, I think this new future as envisioned by Google is going to have a degree of suckiness. Especially since it's a dead-nuts certainty that a database of who drove where at what time will inevitably be created and maintained by one or more law enforcement agencies.
We should bow to the inevitable.
ReplyDeleteAnd pass a law quickly that Google executives must only travel in such cars.
That ought to push back the problem a century or so.
Or "strapped to the bumper of", perhaps?
ReplyDeleteDidn't one have to hitch the buggy to the horse? Otherwise, when the horse goes the buggy stays. Although that's better for the sleeping part, I suppose.
ReplyDeleteSelf driving cars are OK, but what about the other guy? Will a driverless car swerve to avoid a head on? How about braking at a green light for an ahole running the red? can it see a squirrel that I don't want to turn to road pizza? Will it see behind me when the next guy comes around the corner and I am stopped for the squirrel?
ReplyDeleteToo may questions.
w3ski
What happens when the cars get hacked by terrorists, or catch viruses, or drive into a dead spot in the tunnel?
ReplyDeletemakes me think of an old NTSB report...
ReplyDeleteSeems an airliner with a landing gear light out or maybe a landing gear problem crash in the 'glades due to that very same issue. When does "iron Mike" [autopilot] have it and the pilot have it. That case was a result of an inadvertent release of the AP due to pressure on the wheel when reaching for the landing light bulb. Similar problem, far better trained users.
Events like stopped wagons or wildlife are within the control loop its when the user jumps in that havoc happens.
If it were simple people would be able to do it reliably.
Eck!
On a related note, all autos with onboard computers are vulnerable to hacking.
ReplyDeleteUC San Diego and UC Washington did a series of experiments a few years ago on standard autos. First they infected them with viruses through the bus connections. Then they inserted viruses through CDs the owner would slide into the stereo.
But in the real thought-provoking test, they were able to hack into autos through their onboard cell phones or internet connections from anywhere and, in real time, remotely operate the engine (start, stop or accelerate), door locks and brakes (engage or disengage) along with all the other electronic systems, including steering on autos with auto-lane change or parking systems.
http://www.autosec.org/pubs/cars-oakland2010.pdf
http://www.autosec.org/pubs/cars-usenixsec2011.pdf
Three words: License plate scanners.
ReplyDeleteWe now know that license plate scanners have been set up throughout the SF Bay area, for example, and that local police agencies keep a database of what license plates were seen where, and when. They don't normally attach that information to a particular person, but if they have reason to do so, it's an easy trip onto the CHP computer to do so.
Talking about the Google cars as a possible privacy violation is like talking about the importance of locking the barn door after the horses have already gotten out. Just sayin'.