Tech FAIL of the Day?

Already watched this so I can comment quickly.

The driver in me hates the idea of not controlling my own car.

However the realist in me recognizes the fact that most people absolutely are terrible drivers. These types of concepts are not a matter of if but when.

Things like the solve the following problems;
1) Distracted drivers - quite possibly more dangerous then drunk drivers.
2) Lowers the Accident rate significantly.
3) Eliminates drivers driving under the speed limit causing more of a hazard then the speeders.
4) Virtually eliminates speeding tickets
5) the ultimate evolution of the concept eliminates traffic citations significantly.
6) Police forces are able to be either reduced in size or better focused on "Real" problems.

That list can go on for quite a long time.
 
can only imagine what would happen when they hack the shit out of this.:D
 
Sorry Steve, but I think your analysis of this as a FAIL is the only FAIL going on here.

I have a family member as well who has his names on several of the patents that BOSCH (Germany) has for "auto-pilot" autos. The system already works... years ago they had Lexus cars that would follow each other around town when driving. They then "parted out" the liscence to several car makers for features you see today:

1. The Lexus and Ford cars that can parallel park themselves.

2. Mercedes Benz cars that sense if you swerve out of your lane.

3. BMW cars that communicate with each other to avoid crashes.

4. Volvos that sense when and if you are approaching the car in front of you too quickly.

The systems that are already in place to accomplish these small tasks are derivatives of what they developed years ago. Since then, the idea has been refined. Its about a decade old already. I see no problems with this system... sure, there are complicated systems and mechanisms that they have to plan out, but it will happen in one form or another. I for one, would love not having to drive... just plug in a destination and sit back...

On the other hand, you will likely see major opposition from some on the idea... mostly police and local governments. Why? Traffic tickets generate alot of money. You would be putting alot of traffic cops and small governments that rely on the ticket income they generate to be put out of a job. The complications of "what if you are drunk but using the auto-pilot" are also a hot topic. But make no mistake, police dont want you to have an auto-pilot.
 
It ranks right up there with the Disney roads and cars of the future-
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6pUMlPBMQA"]YouTube - ‪Magic Highway USA (HQ)‬‏[/ame]
(yes, circa 1958)
 
While eliminating possible points of failure is good, relying on one link that can fail and cause catastrophic disasters is not good. If for some reason the link goes down between the cars and the drivers are reading their books they probably wont be able to react in time to avoid a huge mess. Although this is an extreme case what is stopping the "Locomotive" of this car train from going off a cliff/bridge and taking everyone with it?
 
undertheradar said:
Sorry Steve, but I think your analysis of this as a FAIL is the only FAIL going on here..
Click to expand...


Just my opinion...BUT...that "anti-swerve" stuff is fail when you are swerving to avoid a collision and the car auto-corrects. Self parking cars make drivers WORSE. Auto detection is fail if you are accelerating to avoiding being rear ended when your Volvo slams on the skids for you. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Yes, but the whole scenario in the video is defeated by ..... a city bus. (we already have those)

10 cars and a truck to get 10 people to work is a GOOD idea? :confused:
 
If I wanted to be in a bus, I would take the bus. This is what this seems like to me, except that in a bus you don't pay insurance, get tickets, or have to deal with gas prices.

I don't see many people who love to watch someone else tail lights all day long. It would drive me crazy. I need my own lane, going at my own pace.
 
Ashbringer said:
If I wanted to be in a bus, I would take the bus. This is what this seems like to me, except that in a bus you don't pay insurance, get tickets, or have to deal with gas prices.

I don't see many people who love to watch someone else tail lights all day long. It would drive me crazy. I need my own lane, going at my own pace.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'll ride with you to save money ;)
 
Can you imagine the gas efficiency you could get out of the entire system if it was automated? I bet if you remove the human factor of jamming on the gas/brakes we could reduce oil imports anywhere from 10% - 25%.

The real hurdle to implementation is that I would bet this would be fairly easily accomplished if you removed all human drivers off the road and replaced our cars with networked "smart" cars. Unfortunately there is no way to do this, and a very slow phase in of smart cars will be further delayed by the additional complexity of an AI car dealing with human drivers. You would need to keep the full suite of safety equipment, whereas again if you had all smart cars you could most likely remove some of them (keep as an $ option for the paranoid/safety concious).
 
I remember seeing on "Tomorrow's World" back in the late 80's/early 90's a system that did something like this being tested by Mercedes Benz.

It used rangefinding-enhanced cruise control to find the vehicle in front and "Lock on" to it, ensuring a safe distance from it at all times, combined with lane departure warning systems to keep the car in it's lane. They also had the system so that if the car in front supported the system, the two could communicate and bunch up tighter (as there was no need for a safety gap - virtually no reaction time needed to tell when the vehicle in front was going to do, as the two (or more) vehicles were in constant communication). The system was demonstrated with a train of 3 vehicles running round a track, and any car could at any time slow and drop out (With the cars behind automatically slowing to allow them out, then speeding back up to regain the pack), and join into a group automatically. The only requirement was that the lead vehicle, no matter what it was, was paying attention to the road. It didn't have the requirement that it had to have a professional driver leading the pack, and groups could be formed and broken up on an entirely ad-hoc basis.
 
One problem I've always seen with automated driving is the blame factor. People always want to find someone or something to blame other than the idiot who caused the problem.

It wouldn't matter if automated driving saved 50% more gas, and reduced accidents by 50%. People would still freak out "OMG automated driving kills x people every year, it must be banned!"
 
Could this be implemented badly and cause problems? Yes, absolutely. This is true for any technology - especially those that deal in safety. I'd like to see it implemented in a test setting first. Or even if it is slowly rolled out in a very controlled way (like how Google rolled out the testing of their new vehicles).

As a side note, cities and states are going to hate this due to the significant decrease in revenue. Some states depend on these fines for state revenue. Going 15mph over the posted speed limit in Kentucky would result in a $55 fine + court costs. Going $15 over the speed limit in Oregon would result in a $145. Guess which one would probably be most opposed to this new driving technology, even if it extensive tests proves it to be safer?
 
Wolfie said:
It ranks right up there with the Disney roads and cars of the future-
YouTube - ‪Magic Highway USA (HQ)‬‏
(yes, circa 1958)
Click to expand...

Except this is something that has already proven to work in practice. So your example is really meaningless.

Also to the ones posting stupid crap about 10 cars and a bus. Really guys? Do a little reasearch. Heck read the news here and you would already be aware of the self driving cars Google has had for years. Volvo's video here is just one of many potential automated transit ideas out there. There are pros and cons to every system but one simple fact remains. The technology as it currently stands, drives better then most of the idiots on the road. This is in no way similar to riding a bus, if you think that then you missed the entire point.

As I said though, this is not a matter of IF, but When it happens. The local police forces can oppose it all they want, but it isn't going to stop it from happening.
 
ccmfreak2 said:
Guess which one would probably be most opposed to this new driving technology, even if it extensive tests proves it to be safer?
Click to expand...

MMhmm, I can see it now.

Congressman Weiner: Thanks to a generous grant from the Highway Patrol Union, we were able to conduct a study finding potentially serious flaws in the software of these so-called "smart" cars. While I personally was testing one, it deviated from my set course of my local church were I was set to feed the hungry and instead took me to a local strip club against my will. Once there the car would not start for several hours and I was forced to go inside to seek sustenance; I assure my constituents I did not enjoy any of my time there and I plan to file a claim with my bank for my debit card which was stolen while I was there and used to purchase several hours in the VIP room.
 
Steve said:
10 cars and a truck to get 10 people to work is a GOOD idea? :confused:
Click to expand...

FYI
The lead truck is only for the testing of ideas. If/when this tech is put into use there is no lead truck. Instead each car knows where it wants to go and how to get there. As the car drives, it tells other cars around it where it is, where it plans to go, if it needs to brake quickly, etc.

This solution takes human error and reaction times out of driving; instead uses computers with instant access to the status of all surrounding cars and the reaction times in the nana-second range to drive.

This is an EPIC WIN
 
1. 90kph? no.... cars are safer now than the ever have been, limits need to go way up as it is like 130kph on express ways is more like it.

2. the professional driver in the truck...really? lol

3. to save fuel they need to add additional lanes, have trucks travel off peak hours, remove people from the major roads who aren't confident enough to drive on them, roads over say 100kph and up should require an additional part on your lisc to make sure you are competent/confident to drive on such roads, granny doing 70 in a 100 causes far to many problems, more so than speeders. also if they really want to save fuel/pollution get rid of drive through and learn to time street lights.

4. looking up from reading to see a BSOD and your car out of control... that or Anonymous or someone hacking the car computers, kill random people..might not be a bad thing to weed out political figures however.

if they want to do something like that for old farts who shouldn't be driving or something fine, but i would prefer to drive myself
 
TwistedAegis said:
Can you imagine the gas efficiency you could get out of the entire system if it was automated? I bet if you remove the human factor of jamming on the gas/brakes we could reduce oil imports anywhere from 10% - 25%.
Click to expand...
There's a problem with this. The human factor can also further increase mileage in a car.

A. When I'm driving down a hill, I like to put the car in neutral so the engine idles lower, and I save on gas.

B. A lot of times I like to let the car coast and avoid hitting the brake pedal. This will often have me going over the speed limit, but saves on gas.

C. In a automatic transmission, if you life the gas pedal just right, the torque converter will lock up, which will lower the engines idle. For my car, the sweet spot is around 40 MPH, where my engine is only running at 1.5k RPM.

D. Finally, a manual transmission allows the driver an infinite amount of control over the engine, and usually gives much better gas mileage over an automatic. Allowing this such as shifting early, to taking advantage of an engine with high torque, and thus allowing the car to run at lower RPM. Some automatics like from BMW's, like to run the engine at higher RPM, and often shift late.

The only reason this would get better mileage then a human being, is because the human being is a terrible driver. You know, the type of person who likes to hold the brake and the gas at the same time.
 
Millions of people already trust their lives to autopilots on planes everyday. Mid-air collisions are extraordinarily rare events.
-
 
Steve said:
Just my opinion...BUT...that "anti-swerve" stuff is fail when you are swerving to avoid a collision and the car auto-corrects. Self parking cars make drivers WORSE. Auto detection is fail if you are accelerating to avoiding being rear ended when your Volvo slams on the skids for you. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Yes, but the whole scenario in the video is defeated by ..... a city bus. (we already have those)

10 cars and a truck to get 10 people to work is a GOOD idea? :confused:
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, buses aren't implemented widespread enough in most areas. My town of 30,000 people doesn't have a bus connecting it 15 miles to our nearest large city of 300 thousand people. As a result, I can't take a bus for my 30 minute commute to work each day. :-/
 
Ashbringer said:
There's a problem with this. The human factor can also further increase mileage in a car.

A. When I'm driving down a hill, I like to put the car in neutral so the engine idles lower, and I save on gas.

B. A lot of times I like to let the car coast and avoid hitting the brake pedal. This will often have me going over the speed limit, but saves on gas.

C. In a automatic transmission, if you life the gas pedal just right, the torque converter will lock up, which will lower the engines idle. For my car, the sweet spot is around 40 MPH, where my engine is only running at 1.5k RPM.

D. Finally, a manual transmission allows the driver an infinite amount of control over the engine, and usually gives much better gas mileage over an automatic. Allowing this such as shifting early, to taking advantage of an engine with high torque, and thus allowing the car to run at lower RPM. Some automatics like from BMW's, like to run the engine at higher RPM, and often shift late.

The only reason this would get better mileage then a human being, is because the human being is a terrible driver. You know, the type of person who likes to hold the brake and the gas at the same time.
Click to expand...

All of that can be done automatically by a computer that can measure all inputs from the engine, road, etc. Further if all cars are networked together it can easily adjust speed / gears in the most efficient fashion. I commute an hour each way to work, and I see nothing but people acclerate to 2x-3x as fast as needed, then jam on the brakes. Every 20 feet.

Not only that, but traffic in general will be smoother due to this, which again will raise efficiency substantially.
 
MOAR GOVERNMENT!

They always solve more problems than they create, right?
 
Steve said:
Just my opinion...BUT...that "anti-swerve" stuff is fail when you are swerving to avoid a collision and the car auto-corrects. Self parking cars make drivers WORSE. Auto detection is fail if you are accelerating to avoiding being rear ended when your Volvo slams on the skids for you. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Yes, but the whole scenario in the video is defeated by ..... a city bus. (we already have those)

10 cars and a truck to get 10 people to work is a GOOD idea? :confused:
Click to expand...

I see where you are going but honestly automation is were cars are heading in time. Its currently going in baby steps but while you or I might be good drivers there are like 10-20x as many that are bad or even horrible drivers that lack the desire to improve. Eliminating there presence from the road by allowing the car and network to control the driving and the human can be as distracted as they want.

I hate the idea of giving up the fun of driving on the road but when I consider that its probably one of the most dangerous day to day forms of travel almost all of us experience. I think it could be done in a more gradual sense for instance anti-drunk driver tech. Where the car somehow senses you are drunk and pulls you off the road and shuts off for fixed period of time. The amount of lives that could save alone , preventing morons from destroying families from pure negligence would be worth the cost of infrastructure without question.
 
This thread exemplifies the difference between American and European ideas about what is good or bad. I think road trains are brilliant. What's with you Americans?

I don't know why there are people that think this is "fail" or about "more government", etc.

This is basically like creating ad-hoc virtual trains on a highway to increase traffic efficiency. Germans automakers have been making auto-piloted cars for years and there are millions of euros going into research into that at Mercedes and BMW.

This road train is much safer than those concepts which are driven by radar and GPS. At least there is a lead vehicle that drives the whole train.
 
While I love the joy of driving as much as the next guy, I also know that humans driving is ineffecient. Even the simple thing of "rubber-necking" can slow hundreds down for hours in major cities so I applause anyone who's trying to do something to improve roadways. Do I expect any major changes in my lifetime? Not really. Do I hope someday something comes out that automates traveling? Absolutely
 
Following a professional driver? How stupid. Let's skip that and go straight to robot cars that don't rely on following a professional driver.
 
Spare-Flair said:
This thread exemplifies the difference between American and European ideas about what is good or bad. I think road trains are brilliant. What's with you Americans?

I don't know why there are people that think this is "fail" or about "more government", etc.

This is basically like creating ad-hoc virtual trains on a highway to increase traffic efficiency. Germans automakers have been making auto-piloted cars for years and there are millions of euros going into research into that at Mercedes and BMW.

This road train is much safer than those concepts which are driven by radar and GPS. At least there is a lead vehicle that drives the whole train.
Click to expand...

Come to America and see why it would not work. Europe is NOT America. What works in Germany will not necessarily work well in Nevada and vice versa. In many places it would be a huge waste of resources due to the distances needed to travel between places, hence we do not have large national rail networks. Distances are so great and often sparsely populated that it costs more to make a rail run than build an airport or freeway and maintain them for 100 years. In dense cities, we have decent transit that should be expanded before we create moving pile ups.

If this works in Europe great.
 
The problem that I see with this concept is, how many lead vehicles are they going to have to put out to make this viable?
This is presumably only for highway traffic, what distance would the lead vehicle cover, would there be one every 15, 30 60 minutes to manage to get behind?

I would think that projects such as, but not limited to, the self driving Google car are a much more reasonable solution.
The concept of wireless car communication as part of the self driving process, while not reliant on that communication or a lead vehicle, would be beneficial.

But then the pessimist in me just wonders how long before any wireless car communication that results in decisions that lead to actions taken by the car gets hacked
"Wardriving" could be re-coined
 
how do you merge onto the highway when there is a Semi + 6 car length behemoth chugging along in the right lane?
 
While I do love this idea, the comment above about the difference between Europeans and Americans is right in line with what I was thinking would be the biggest roadblock (no pun intended): lawsuits. Americans (being one myself, BTW) are too damned sue-happy. It's sickening. The ambulance chasers will be all over this, as will the lawyers. Who's responsible when there's an accident? The professional driver? The software manufacturer? The car maker? Let's just sue them all.
 
Ashbringer said:
If I wanted to be in a bus, I would take the bus. This is what this seems like to me, except that in a bus you don't pay insurance, get tickets, or have to deal with gas prices.

I don't see many people who love to watch someone else tail lights all day long. It would drive me crazy. I need my own lane, going at my own pace.
Click to expand...
I am the same.

Want to know what would render these things obsolete?

-- Throw out our joke of a driver test system. Remake it much stricter.
-- Increase penalties for driving like a d-bag.
-- Almost a full road test every 5-10 years for younger drivers. After 60-70 every 3 years. 70+ every year. FFS most places don't even make you take an eye test to renew your lic! Let alone hand eye coordination and reaction times.

These are things that can be done NOW. They are not some mythical thing that will not have 100% coverage for another 50+ years.
 
One of the biggest problems of a rush hour traffic jam is the stop start nature of people jamming into the same space. Shuffling along. These car trains should give a way to ease that. And as they are optional, if they don't work then people won't use them.

To me, I have often sat in a traffic jam dreaming of an electro magnet to attach me to the guy in front during the boring bits. The point being I can drop the link any time I want and drive free down the fun un-jammed roads.

As long as I have the control of the OFF switch, I can see the win in this. Pity it could not drive me home when drunk - now that would be a great system. Save on taxi costs :)
 
This simply would not work where I live. There is always road construction and always at least 2 accidents to deal with. This system would never be able to handle such dynamic situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top