Self driving car project

[Golfingdad]

Actually this is false. They will need traffic lights for pedestrians. The issue is that pedestrian signals are tied to the green and yellow times on a signal phase cycle. So when a pedestrian comes to an intersection to cross, does he just step out? He would need to push a button, and the cars will need to stop in on direction plus any turning movements to allow pedestrians to cross the intersection. It would be insane to try to program those cars to move around pedestrians, especially if you have a lot of pedestrian movements. It would be best to leave some sort of traffic signal for pedestrian movements.

Wait ... you mean these cars aren't going to be hovering???

No Jetsons?!?!?!?!?!

[nevets88]

Spoken like a true Californian!  Didn't you say you have family on long island or northern jersey or something?  Ask them if she thinks those NYers going 80 on a winding road with no shoulders that's littered with mega-pot holes, are going to change their tune about anything!

OK, I admit to doing 75 in the diciest portions of the Taconic and Saw Mill but I know those tortuous portions very well and know they are extremely dangerous I've had to wait out several dead stop traffic jams because a helicopter had to do a fast evac from an accident. I.. want... driverless... cars... Big time. And as for flying cars. They'd better be driverless. People already have enough trouble with 2 dimensional driving. They'd be toast if you add the z axis.

[dsc123]

OK, I admit to doing 75 in the diciest portions of the Taconic and Saw Mill but I know those tortuous portions very well and know they are extremely dangerous I've had to wait out several dead stop traffic jams because a helicopter had to do a fast evac from an accident.

I.. want... driverless... cars... Big time.

And as for flying cars. They'd better be driverless. People already have enough trouble with 2 dimensional driving. They'd be toast if you add the z axis.

Then maybe there is hope!

[Lihu]

Wait ... you mean these cars aren't going to be hovering???

No Jetsons?!?!?!?!?!

I was going to ask "What's Jetsons?". Yeah, I don't think we've developed that technology yet.

Pedestrians can just walk across the street and the cars will brake accordingly. The cars view the surrounding area for any activity. http://www.slashgear.com/ford-self-driving-car-parks-and-swerves-around-pedestrians-08300666/

[newtogolf]

Spoken like a true Californian!  Didn't you say you have family on long island or northern jersey or something?  Ask them if she thinks those NYers going 80 on a winding road with no shoulders that's littered with mega-pot holes, are going to change their tune about anything!  My guess is they'll repeat the famous sign on the Belt Parkway:

These guys aren't so reasonable

DC could use it too!  I swear, anytime the weatherman predicts rain there are crashes and delays everywhere!

Driving on the Belt Parkway and Southern State is more like racing at Daytona than commuting.  Once you get into Nassau county you better put your harness belt and helmet on if you want to survive.

[dsc123]

Driving on the Belt Parkway and Southern State is more like racing at Daytona than commuting.  Once you get into Nassau county you better put your harness belt and helmet on if you want to survive.

Yep.  I take both when I visit my parents.  Staten Island--Verrizano--Belt--Southern State--Sagtikos/Sunken Meadow.  Coming back to MD, the Southern State is ok when I first get on (from Sagtikos) and gets progressively worse as it approaches the belt.

[nevets88]

Driving on the Belt Parkway and Southern State is more like racing at Daytona than commuting.  Once you get into Nassau county you better put your harness belt and helmet on if you want to survive.

These parkways were made for slower cars and never widened. IMHO, people in Toronto or Dallas or Atlanta etc... drive at higher speeds but it's pretty much straight and wide. New Yorkers probably average 10-15 mph slower. But narrow, curvy and bumpy. Don't get me started on the motorcyclists doing wheelies at 65 mph. That dog with the goggles on the back of the Harley was cute though. As Al Pacino said, NYC, freak show central.

[newtogolf]

Yep.  I take both when I visit my parents.  Staten Island--Verrizano--Belt--Southern State--Sagtikos/Sunken Meadow.  Coming back to MD, the Southern State is ok when I first get on (from Sagtikos) and gets progressively worse as it approaches the belt.

It must be really different experience for you given I lived in the DC Metro area for 10 years and know all too well that one can walk faster than drive on I-95 during most hours of the day and night.

[dsc123]

It must be really different experience for you given I lived in the DC Metro area for 10 years and know all too well that one can walk faster than drive on I-95 during most hours of the day and night.

yeah, 95 can be rough, too.  I tend to head out late--leaving around 8pm and getting in around 12:30 or 1am.  Lets me miss some of the traffic and the kids sleep the whole way.

[Lihu]

yeah, 95 can be rough, too.  I tend to head out late--leaving around 8pm and getting in around 12:30 or 1am.  Lets me miss some of the traffic and the kids sleep the whole way.

Now, wouldn't it be great if both you and your kids could sleep the whole way?

[saevel25]

I was going to ask "What's Jetsons?". Yeah, I don't think we've developed that technology yet.

Pedestrians can just walk across the street and the cars will brake accordingly. The cars view the surrounding area for any activity. http://www.slashgear.com/ford-self-driving-car-parks-and-swerves-around-pedestrians-08300666/

That would still be stupid. What if you have a guy who walks out infront of a car going 35 mph. There is still physics that have to be accounted for. I understand the car may swerve out of the way, but what if the street is full of cars. Where are they going to swerve to? If one car swerves, then another and another, does one car go on the sidewalk to avoid a car? Just saying, when in engineering the number 1 priority is safety. Keep some sort of traffic control for pedestrians. I get the hype, "OH NO MORE TRAFFIC SIGNALS". Yea, but if you can get pedestrian accidents near zero just by having a few at some major pedestrian movements, I rather have that as an engineer than some lofty goal of getting rid of traffic signals.

[dsc123]

Now, wouldn't it be great if both you and your kids could sleep the whole way?

Yes.  And terrifying.

[Lihu]

That would still be stupid. What if you have a guy who walks out infront of a car going 35 mph. There is still physics that have to be accounted for. I understand the car may swerve out of the way, but what if the street is full of cars. Where are they going to swerve to? If one car swerves, then another and another, does one car go on the sidewalk to avoid a car? Just saying, when in engineering the number 1 priority is safety. Keep some sort of traffic control for pedestrians. I get the hype, "OH NO MORE TRAFFIC SIGNALS". Yea, but if you can get pedestrian accidents near zero just by having a few at some major pedestrian movements, I rather have that as an engineer than some lofty goal of getting rid of traffic signals.

If there is activity around the crosswalk or anywhere near the side of the street the cars would be following the proper human driving guidelines and drive 15mph or slower depending upon the situation. Cars will drive slower, because computers are not impatient.

Here are some interesting facts regarding deaths in 2011.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

Motor vehicle deaths account for 37,275 deaths.

Falling accounts for 26,631 deaths, I am not certain how many are only senior related.

However, Robots are planned potential solutions in both cases.

[saevel25]

If there is activity around the crosswalk or anywhere near the side of the street the cars would be following the proper human driving guidelines and drive 15mph or slower depending upon the situation. Cars will drive slower, because computers are not impatient.

When you have people trained to see signals and pedestrian signals. No matter how much they look left or right, it isn't going to matter, at some point a person will walk in front of one of these cars in a condition in which the car will not be able to take action, or cause a chain event. Even 15 mph, there is still a point of no return were the car can not avoid a person. Example in downtown Dayton. A big delivery truck parks illegally near a cross walk. A person walks out from behind the truck. He is hidden from the car, and gets hit. Now if there was a pedestrian signal and the guy can see, "Ok it is safe to walk", that takes out this scenario.

Also knowing the cars are programmed to avoid conflict, does that give to much of a free will for humans to just run out into the street?

I rather have some sort of redundancy in the form of pedestrian signals. All it takes is one F'up and the City or Town + google is sued for millions of dollars because the defendant will ask the question, "Why did you take away our traffic signals?"

[CarlSpackler]

Wait ... you mean these cars aren't going to be hovering???

No Jetsons?!?!?!?!?!

Hover cars?!!! Now we're talking! Where do I sign up. Hopefully they make one that looks like Luke Skywalker's speeder.

[newtogolf]

Processors will need to get faster in order for the car to "sense" a person has walked out in front of it from a blind spot, calculate the safe and correct action that should be taken and then take that action.

Other interesting programming situations will be when a squirrel, possum, raccoon, cat or dog run in front of a car and the car has to evaluate the risk of hitting the animal versus the risk of corrective action to avoid the animal.  In many cases we try to avoid hitting all animals but many will make a riskier move to avoid a cat or dog than they will a squirrel or possum.

[CarlSpackler]

Processors will need to get faster in order for the car to "sense" a person has walked out in front of it from a blind spot, calculate the safe and correct action that should be taken and then take that action.

Other interesting programming situations will be when a squirrel, possum, raccoon, cat or dog run in front of a car and the car has to evaluate the risk of hitting the animal versus the risk of corrective action to avoid the animal.  In many cases we try to avoid hitting all animals but many will make a riskier move to avoid a cat or dog than they will a squirrel or possum.

I worked on a gov't project in the early 90s where they already had processor fast enough for continuous scan. They were going in phased radar arrays. The real problem was making them affordable, but this was one of the real world applications.

[Lihu]

When you have people trained to see signals and pedestrian signals. No matter how much they look left or right, it isn't going to matter, at some point a person will walk in front of one of these cars in a condition in which the car will not be able to take action, or cause a chain event. Even 15 mph, there is still a point of no return were the car can not avoid a person. Example in downtown Dayton. A big delivery truck parks illegally near a cross walk. A person walks out from behind the truck. He is hidden from the car, and gets hit. Now if there was a pedestrian signal and the guy can see, "Ok it is safe to walk", that takes out this scenario.

Also knowing the cars are programmed to avoid conflict, does that give to much of a free will for humans to just run out into the street?

I rather have some sort of redundancy in the form of pedestrian signals. All it takes is one F'up and the City or Town + google is sued for millions of dollars because the defendant will ask the question, "Why did you take away our traffic signals?"

That will only happen with a human driver. The plan is for sensors to be placed all around the vehicles are designed to prevent this kind of accidental injury. Even our "dumb" model vacuums have sensors all around to prevent damage to furniture and other things.

The only real way to "fool" the robot is to jump out in front of it while it is cruising along at a substantial speed. The pedestrian would need to be in a location he/she is not designated to walk. The main thing is that it needs to be programmed with the human occupant's safety first. It needs to weigh the two options. The person jumping out in front of the vehicle would be at fault, while the occupants of the vehicle are innocent of any wrongdoing. This type of behavior and similar ones would be hard programmed into the system.

I agree that a pedestrian would still have the right of way, and that crosswalks would be programmed as "slow zones". The vehicle would slow down at every crosswalk, as a human driver should.

Parking will probably still be an issue, but the vehicle may not allow itself to park in a non-designated spot. More than likely it could be programmed to drop off occupants and/or deliveries, then continue to drive around until it finds a space or if the occupant signals it for a pick up.