Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nevada Authorizes Development of Driverless Car Rules

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the must-take-asimov-test-first dept.

Google 122

DrEldarion writes "Via Forbes: 'The State of Nevada just passed Assembly Bill No. 511 which, among other things, authorizes the Department of Transportation to develop rules and regulations governing the use of driverless cars, such as Google's concept car, on its roads.' Pretty soon, cars will be able to dump their own dead bodies into the Nevada desert."

cancel ×

122 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How much lower could speeds go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36548108)

I wonder how slow vehicles could travel but still get you there faster due to massive organization of traffic. I wonder how much gas would be saved with the slower speeds.

Re:How much lower could speeds go? (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548140)

Personally I would rather they go faster, to speeds that no human could feasibly manage, than see them slow down. Of course, erecting fences along driverless roads would probably be ideal in that case.

Re:How much lower could speeds go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36548198)

Actually, I believe that's prior AC's point: current freeway speeds are already quite a bit faster than any human can reasonably manage, insofar as not creating huge fucking traffic jams goes...

Re:How much lower could speeds go? (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548240)

Actually, I believe that's prior AC's point: current freeway speeds are already quite a bit faster than any human can reasonably manage, insofar as not creating huge fucking traffic jams goes...

So, uh, the traffic is going too slow on the freeways due to traffic jams caused by traffic going too fast?

Re:How much lower could speeds go? (3, Insightful)

xMrFishx (1956084) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548342)

I think he means the bunch - spread - bunch - spread of traffic slowing and speeding up that you get with lane changers, idiot drivers, middle lane managers and so on. Breaking, when it's busy can have a mile long knock-on effect on cars behind you. Of course, when there's noone on the road, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. We as drivers, are fairly bad at being a swarm and acting as one. We're all very selfish. I'll take computer managed driving on motorways any day.

Re:How much lower could speeds go? (1)

Sosetta (702368) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549122)

I've seen what happens when drivers are not selfish. Two lanes approach a stoplight. Most of the traffic wants to turn right, and can do so even if the light is red, but the "not selfish" driver who doesn't pay attention to the fact that there's another lane (with no cars in it) ends up sitting at the front of the overly-full lane, stopping traffic flow.

Re:How much lower could speeds go? (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549750)

Imagine a Venn diagram of selfish people and inattentive people. Now imagine the area of people who are neither selfish, nor inattentive. Look, there are people there! Hi Guys!

Re:How much lower could speeds go? (3, Insightful)

QuasiEvil (74356) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549540)

Actually I'd agree. The average densely packed freeway moves at a rate and a following distance where pretty much the only choice in the event of anything bad happening is to plug the brakes. That causes a cascade effect, and you wind up with a slow spot that takes hours to dissipate. We need more space between vehicles and drivers trained to do something other than panic stop, or lower speeds to give people time to react more rationally. Or computerized drivers.

Goddammit, I sound like a fucking eco-hippie. I'm a single guy with six cars, four of which are purely for fun, and I'm arguing for lower speed limits. Actually, I guess I'm arguing for better drivers.

Personally, I wouldn't mind being able to hand control over to a computer in dense traffic, but I want control back when I exit onto surface roads or get out of congested freeway areas. I drive as much for the fun of it as to actually go anywhere.

"Driver" is a regulation. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36548148)

Licenses are the private contract that gives you the benefit of that regulation from a private corporation.

Google "Roads are Open as a Matter of Right to Public Vehicular Travel" and you'll discover that commercial nature of that and the Vehicle Code.

Registration is the initial commercial enactment to entrust a regulator over that property defined as a Motor Vehicle; likewise a car follows the lines (rails) to the system of streets not the rule of the road by Right of Way.

My automobile and vessel doesn't need a driver, because it lacks a grant for a Operating System: I'm with the legislated assembly and keep as near to the dirt as possible...until I retract the landing gear and my ship is flying above the road even if only 1-foot off the ground.

Re:"Driver" is a regulation. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36549376)

My automobile and vessel doesn't need a driver, because it lacks a grant for a Operating System: I'm with the legislated assembly and keep as near to the dirt as possible...until I retract the landing gear and my ship is flying above the road even if only 1-foot off the ground.

Does your vessel perchance go SOI SOI SOI SOI SOI SOI SOI?

Seriously, though: How the fuck are posts like that generated? Looks like dissociated press [wikipedia.org] at first glance, but that's usually far less coherent. But I can't believe it's human-generated either; can someone really be on enough drugs to write that, and still able to spell straight?!

Hey, captcha is "boater" -- slashcode has a sense of apropos.

Mandatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36548234)

I, for one, welcome our new driverless overlords.

In Soviet Russia... (1)

rmedinaday (1360843) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548242)

Cars drive you! Sorry, I meant in Nevada!

Re:In Soviet Russia... (2)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548518)

As a current Nevada resident, I feel that driverless cars can only be an improvement from the massive influx of Californians escaping their debt-ridden state.

Re:In Soviet Russia... (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548620)

As a Californian resident I would like to thank you for helping alleviate the burden of crappy California drivers in this state. In fact, we are probably going to run our politicians out of this state in your general direction pretty soon too. We don't have much use for them anymore. But we are keeping our oceans, mountains, and hot movie-star-wannabe bimbos and there's nothing you can do about it! =P

Re:In Soviet Russia... (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548738)

Once you get rid of all of the undesirables...would California be interested in a few Nevada residents? I hate the snow and love the beach, I may be in the wrong state. I promise to not let Microsoft drive my car and to never vote ex-movie stars into public office.

Re:In Soviet Russia... (1)

Stone2065 (717387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36550662)

Fuck that... you want to give up your lack of State Income Taxes? California will bleed you dry! I'll stay in Nevada, thanks.

Re:In Soviet Russia... (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#36551616)

Are you also getting rid of the stupid people?

The ones who voted to prevent your government from being able to raise taxes, but still demand more and better services from it, for example?

Re:In Soviet Russia... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36553544)

As a nearly-lifetime California resident, I think you should be grateful for some Californians; When I see a Nevada plate, 95% of the time I notice because of shitty driving. And yes, I do just check out plates when I have idle time.

MOD PARENT DOWN! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554482)

Says so by a MEXICAN LIVING ON THE SYSTEM. Get a life. Get a job. Get off my news for nerds site.

I support this, especially in Nevada (1)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548320)

Ever driven or even walked the strip in Vegas? Few roads are worse to navigate than the ones in Vegas with a bunch of blasted white trash in rentals.

Re:I support this, especially in Nevada (1)

enderjsv (1128541) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548422)

Yeah cause the entire city of Las Vegas can be summarized by what it's like to drive on the strip... c'mon

Re:I support this, especially in Nevada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36548596)

Totally shows how much he knows about Vegas....

Re:I support this, especially in Nevada (1)

enderjsv (1128541) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548644)

Well I live there, so I think I know enough.

Re:I support this, especially in Nevada (1)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548646)

I specifically stated the strip. Have you been there?

Re:I support this, especially in Nevada (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549954)

Yeah, as recently as April for a conference. No one 'drives' on the Strip because it's a fucking parking lot 24/7. I don't see how automated cars are going to help that.

You know what I did when I was in Vegas? Rode BRT and walked--like the apparent majority of people who were there with me.

(I was also there in December of 2006 and it was the same).

Re:I support this, especially in Nevada (2)

Confusador (1783468) | more than 3 years ago | (#36551868)

No one goes there anymore, it's too crowded?

Kidding, I'm well aware that the only vehicles are the strip are taxis and non-locals who made a wrong turn. It'll be interesting to see whether taxi's are one of the first or last to get autodrivers.

Re:I support this, especially in Nevada (1)

Confusador (1783468) | more than 3 years ago | (#36551872)

*headdesk*
Preview, moron!

Re:I support this, especially in Nevada (1)

imdx80 (842737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36552174)

You don't drive the strip to get from A-B. It's a thing tourists do, they might regret it 60 minutes after turning off Spring Mountain and are still looking at the Venetian.

Re:I support this, especially in Nevada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36551344)

White Trash? Was that necessary? Would any other race, under any other conditions be accepted? Oh wait, no doubt you area young liberal white male thus it's OK. It's never OK and if racism isn't acceptable, it isn't ACCEPTABLE. Don't get pissed off just think about if this fits what you require out of everybody else.

Good (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548432)

ti's nice to see a lot of features i cars not only rolling out quickly, but the time it takes to go from a luxury car feature to a stand car feature is getting shorter with each technology..

Can't wait to have my car drive me to work. So many advantages.

A step in the right direction (4, Insightful)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548438)

In the very long term, automated cars able to coordinate their driving will be more efficient. There will be fewer driving accidents and people will get where they are going faster. In the short term this sort of technology is more likely to be first actually used when it is limited to highway driving (which is comparatively simple) before it becomes useful for general driving. Unfortunately, it could take only a few bad accidents before people will start reacting strongly against automated systems even if the systems are safer than humans on average. This is sort of what we're seeing now already with nuclear power: the death toll from nuclear power is much smaller than coal, but nuclear power is treated as terrible because the accidents are rare and spectacular and involve a technology that is seen as novel, strange and unnatural.

Re:A step in the right direction (2)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548588)

The real key will be getting insurance companies behind the new tech. If these cars truly are safer (and all evidence shows that they are), then insurers will love them (since they'll have to pay out fewer claims), and will be happy to ensure they succeed by lobbying whoever necessary.

Re:A step in the right direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36548890)

Which will be a very interesting issue since what happens when there is a legitimate software bug/glitch that causes an accident. Who pays out in that case, is the car company at fault?

Re:A step in the right direction (2)

William Ager (1157031) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549098)

The insurance company for the car company, most likely.

It's likely, of course, that the costs of that insurance will be added into the price of the car, with car company's marketing department making the point that one would be paying a bit more for a car that resulted in paying vastly less for personal car insurance. It would have the added benefit of making car companies more worried about safety and accident prevention.

Re:A step in the right direction (2)

naoursla (99850) | more than 3 years ago | (#36551090)

And you will pay a lot more if you want to drive your car yourself. Once safety passes human ability, insurance companies are going to be the driving force behind adoption.

Re:A step in the right direction (1)

hackingbear (988354) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549004)

Could be. But there have been a lot more than a few mechanical bad accidents involving airplanes, yet people are still flying.

Re:A step in the right direction (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549796)

There's still a lot more people with a fear of driving than with a fear of travelling in a car. It's all about not being in control, the standard mind says "I'm behind the wheel controlling this car, so I'm safe, but I have no idea what the pilot's doing so I may or may not be safe..."

Of course the benefits of flying outweigh the fear factor for most people, and in time automated cars will probably gain as much trust as we have in airplanes, but it will take time to bring the public perception around to the new realities.

Re:A step in the right direction (1)

guttentag (313541) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549290)

Over the last decade I've spent a little over a year of my life sitting in traffic on U.S. 101 (anyone else here ever wonder why the metering lights are never on at the 101/85 junction?). I have spent much of this time contemplating the possibilities of self-driving cars, and reached the following conclusions:
  1. it would have to be done in some other country first, because people here will consider it "Unamerican" to not be able to drive your own car.
  2. Driverless cars are theoretically far safer than cars with drivers, but more dangerous the second you mix them with regular traffic. I don't care how many sensors you put on them. By virtue of the fact that they will be less aggressive on the road, live drivers will target them, tailgating or cutting them off in ways the software can't compensate for. Computers may beat our smartest chess players, but they'll never be able to outwit our stupidest drivers.
  3. because of reason number two, they would have to be restricted to "driverless-only" roads initially. In the long-term, the major freeways would be driverless access only, you would drive your car onto the onramp and it would take over until you come to a stop at the end of the offramp. This would be the major hurdle... Convincing the public it can't drive its old cars on the freeway.

Re:A step in the right direction (2)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549886)

I think you underestimate the skill of the people designing these cars. I'm not an aggressive driver myself, and I've found that all you need to do when you're targeted is lift off the gas and let them get on their merry way. Plus the range of sensors means it can see the person 4 lanes over as he starts to go perpendicular to traffic to make his exit and start backing off way back then.

Convincing people not to drive their own cars will probably take an entire generation. Once everyone who is alive today has passed on it will be mainstream, but everyone who's already driven will want to keep driving. Of course there will be pockets who educate their children that we used to drive our own cars and we should still be doing it, but we'll just laugh at them as though they're Amish.

Re:A step in the right direction (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36550882)

> but everyone who's already driven will want to keep driving.

Speak for yourself. Driving is no longer a 'cool, new experience' for some of us who would rather do something else while being driven. I, for one, would love to gain back my hour a day commute as time I could be doing something other than paying attention to traffic.

Re:A step in the right direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36552060)

It will remain a mix between automated vehicles and live drivers or people anyways. Motorcycles, oldtimers and sport cars will probably not be automated for some time. And what about bicycles, pedestrians crossing the road, dogs on the run, etc?
And sometimes people will just take the scenic route, the inconvenient detour over the mountain pass, just for the curvy roads or to take in the views, and drive the car manually.
An automated car would be great for the daily commute, I would definitely want one.

Re:A step in the right direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36553368)

"everyone who's already driven will want to keep driving"

I don't think so. As part of my work (arboriculture) I drive a truck. As far as I'm concerned the sooner that part of my job can be automated the better and I'd certainly like to see cars automated. I'm sure they'd have to be programmed not to cut in front of heavy vehicles in a dangerous manner which would remove a great deal of the stress from my day. As another poster already said, I'd also like my commute time back.

Something else popular would be to be able to have a few drinks and have the car take you home. This would have an enormous effect on uptake.

Re:A step in the right direction (2)

rubeng (1263328) | more than 3 years ago | (#36550396)

...live drivers will target them, tailgating or cutting them off in ways the software can't compensate for.

With all the sensors onboard watching in all directions, you'd think it'd be easy to keep the evidence of the other guy's stupidity. In the case of a crash you'd probably have all kinds or proof as to who was at fault. Maybe these cars should have a "report-an-asshole" button that sends data to the cops. Someone who gets pinged by that enough times would maybe get sent back to drivers training school. (someone who hit the button without good cause too many times would also get talked to)

So maybe a live driver would have to be on better behavior around a robot car, knowing there's an unblinking eye recording exactly what's going on.

Re:A step in the right direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36550234)

appreciate and agree with the comment on nuclear power but i may add that it is also politically correct and sometimes financially lucrative to be seen as a vociferous opponent of nuclear power ( very similar to the anti-smoking campaign)

Driverless car is like a nuclear reactor... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36550440)

Driverless cars is like nuclear reactors. They will be much much safer than alternative, but one accident and you'll see front page everywhere "CAR MURDERS DRIVER!" and "Are we really ready to let buggy technology control our lives and deaths?" plus "Is your car a deathtrap? Most don't feel safe with computer drivers!"

Efficiency isn't the same as good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36552726)

I like driving. So do many other people. It might be more efficient to use public transport but that misses the point. I like driving. It would be more efficient for the whole world to use the same language, the same measurements, the types of standard clothing for various environments. Colors would no longer be chosen according to personal whim but for their coding. Forget about hair styles. Architects are a waste of space in the world of efficiency. Don't even bother to grow your own food.

Efficiency is not everything. There are many good reasons why we might not want more efficiency. Stop and think.

Driverless cars as verification testing (1)

Ichijo (607641) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548494)

Cars that drive themselves have the potential to be virtually crash-proof, even under adverse conditions. We'll wonder why we ever allowed ourselves to drive in the first place.

Until then, it will be interesting to see what deficiencies in our road designs and traffic laws these self-driving cars discover. For example, when making a right turn onto a road just after the speed limit sign, how will the computer know what the speed limit is? Faced with trying to make a left turn onto a road with a steady stream of traffic, will the car just wait forever, or will it find another way, even when local laws prevent any maneuvers that could get it out of the jam?

Re:Driverless cars as verification testing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36548640)

Faced with trying to make a left turn onto a road with a steady stream of traffic, will the car just wait forever, or will it find another way, even when local laws prevent any maneuvers that could get it out of the jam?

Dunno about your car, but my car will have an up-to-date version of metasploit and a turreted high-gain antenna, and some scripts to automatically crack any oncoming traffic with weak encryption to make it slow/stop to create a gap for my left turn.

Or maybe jamming/dazzling their radar/vision system will be quicker and easier? Better add both capabilities just to be sure...

Re:Driverless cars as verification testing (4, Insightful)

stinerman (812158) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548874)

You're a bit more keen on their chances than I am. People underestimate risks when they are in control.

In 2009 there were 30,797 traffic-related fatalities [dot.gov] in the USA. If we could cut that in half with self-driving cars that'd be amazingly good. But the public wouldn't go for it because now the machine is in control, so the risk is overestimated.

How many stories would we see about "killer cars that account for 10,000 traffic deaths per year"? How many people wouldn't buy them because of how "unsafe" they are?

Re:Driverless cars as verification testing (1)

sl149q (1537343) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549228)

We don't see stories about that because there doesn't appear to be any solution short of simply not driving.

Contrast that to the problem of impaired driving. Used to kill a lot of people. The solution was obvious, increase (drastically) the firms and penalties for driving while under the influence, couple that with extensive marketing and you get a corresponding reduction in fatalities.

Once there is solution that can start to drastically reduce traffic accidents (and associated injuries, fatalities and property damage) society will very quickly engage and start to adopt it.

Of course the usual suspects and nay sayers (in this case pretty much anyone who makes a living actually driving, e.g. taxis, delivery trucks, long distance truckers, mass transit etc, especially those with strong unions) will claim that this involves pretty much the end of the world and civilization as we know it.

Once this works the conversion will take place far faster than anyone expects.

Re:Driverless cars as verification testing (1)

QuasiEvil (74356) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549582)

I'd say it'll take at least a couple decades to make the switch, given the ever-rising cost of cars, the longer finance cycles that most people are on, and the longer lifespan of modern vehicles. My two daily drivers are both 16+ years old, and I have no intention of getting rid of them any time soon. They're cheap to operate. My 2008 truck largely sits in the driveway, but when I need to move big stuff or drive through a blizzard, it's darn handy.

Actually that brings up a good point. Teaching a computer to drive on dry or even wet pavement is one thing. I'm waiting until somebody tries one of these self driving cars on black ice. They're both going to need to know what kind of surface they're on and what lies ahead of them within their stopping range.

Re:Driverless cars as verification testing (1)

Shadow99_1 (86250) | more than 3 years ago | (#36550454)

Winter driving in general will be a huge issue, humans who otherwise are capable drivers typically go all nuts on even light snow. Simply lowering speed isn't the answer either. Going to slow can easily mean getting stuck (especially going up hills). Worse can sometimes be going down hills, where even in neutral you can slide and may need to actually add gas to straighten out...

More than anything I guess I just don't trust a programmer in Cali who has never even seen snow let alone driven in it to know what the heck to do in those conditions. GPS isn't really a solution either, GPS can often get flaky in storms and even in good weather can be off 10 or 15 feet...

Anyways... huge huge issues need to be taken care of before it's even viable where I live... And I can't imagine I'd be able to afford one anytime soon anyways.

Re:Driverless cars as verification testing (1)

Vegeta99 (219501) | more than 3 years ago | (#36552324)

You're part of the problem. What the FUCK are you doing going downhill on a wintry road in NEUTRAL? Low gear, let the engine keep the vehicle running at a constant, controlled speed. Don't use your brakes or FUCKING NEUTRAL (?!?) to do that!

Re:Driverless cars as verification testing (1)

w_dragon (1802458) | more than 3 years ago | (#36553036)

A computer can measure the slip on all 4 tires independently, apply brakes only to tires that have grip, compensate for skids properly (a lot of people steer the wrong way in a skid), and ideally even communicate to other cars about the location of slippery areas. A human has 2-3 petals, a wheel, and some form of shifter for control. The computer is going to do a far better job than we can.

Re:Driverless cars as verification testing (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | more than 3 years ago | (#36551278)

In regards to winter driving, we've already got a solution that works quite well called Stability/Traction Control. It's part of the ABS system, so you now have the needed sensors to detect if a wheel is slipping/spinning on ice and the computer can compensate. Of course it's the cause of more fatalities as people driving models equiped with it tend to over-drive based on conditions but a computer will not.

Re:Driverless cars as verification testing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36551632)

Traction Control is not part of ABS, it is part of a LSD (limited slip differential), or usually quaife differential on fwd cars... applying brakes to any wheel when there is no friction would be a really bad idea... furthermore, under driving with either type of differential is actually more common because people let off the gas when they feel it kick in, and the car is suddenly over compensating and can cause it to spin. Therefore they put very low aspect ratios gears (or low friction clutches) in production models so that the compensation is very rarely enough to cause an untrained driver to loose control... which means they also do not compensate enough for people to drive all that crazy with them either.

Re:Driverless cars as verification testing (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549062)

I agree there are lots of interesting questions to work out with robotic cars. Your first point, though, is easily handled by a standard GPS map database. It would only have to read temporary speed limit signs.

For your second case, my hope is that it would find another route (right turn, U turn, etc), which is what a safe human driver would do. I don't think you'd ever want them making an unsafe dart through cross traffic. Unless of course you want to put an AI for frogger into your car, which has the potential to be better than the human equivalent.

Re:Driverless cars as verification testing (1)

Vegeta99 (219501) | more than 3 years ago | (#36552312)

For example, when making a right turn onto a road just after the speed limit sign, how will the computer know what the speed limit is?

You answered your own question in the next sentence. Local laws. For example, Pennsylvania law declares that, unless otherwise marked, the speed limit is 35 in urban areas, 55 in rural. Urban and rural have regular definitions, as well. And, from what I understand, if you can prove you had no way to see the sign, but were going under the statutory default limit, you have a defense. A driverless car would likely know where it was at, hence having a nice record for defense.

That does raise the question of how the car knows when it's being pulled over, however.

Re:Driverless cars as verification testing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36553180)

It doesn't need to. It's driverless, not empty.
If the officer so indicates it would be adviceable of one of the passengers to resume control of the vehicle and pull over.

Re:Driverless cars as verification testing (1)

rgviza (1303161) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554444)

The first is actually simple to solve. You can make a grid of gps coordinates and assign a speed to each. Reading speed limit signs would be the worst way to tell the car's computer what the speed is, since they are often defaced, removed, or even shot up by drunk teenagers. There's already tech to tell you, via gps database, what the speed limit is. I have an app on my phone that does this. It's a HUD app that warns me when I'm speeding.

As far as a left turn into a busy street goes, the car could send a signal to central that it needs to turn and the cars could be slowed to allow a space. Call it the "courteous driver" routine. This would be fairly easy to coordinate and use algorithms similar to what the new york subway uses to give trains space to merge from one track to another.

This alone is worth automating cars. People are such dicks sometimes. Just about  _every_ time I put my turn signal on to switch lanes, like to get to an exit, if there's a car anywhere near me, literally doing the same speed in formation, they put the pedal to the floor to try and keep me from changing lanes.

Soooo tired of this kind of behavior. The worst is when you go to pass someone and they speed up because you are passing them, you drop back and get behind them again and they slow down to where they were before. You go to pass them and they do it again. WHAT   THE   FUCK.

I just wish people would use the automation already available, cruise control. Set a goddamned speed and stay there. That alone would just about eliminate congestion on highways. The idiots that don't, slow down and speed up, they don't pick a speed and stay there because they are talking on the phone or playing with their ipod. This causes a great deal of problems by itself. It causes people that are less patient than myself to do stupid shit due to road rage which leads to accidents.

I wish they'd all die in a fire or something and get the fuck off the road. Cruise control by itself solves a lot of problems. I just wish everyone would use it.

rule #1 (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548512)

no driverless cars on public roads

Re:rule #1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36549124)

What?! I can't send the car to pick my friend up?

Dig the holes first (2)

soundguy (415780) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548634)

Of course, before your driverless car goes out dumping bodies, you'll need a driverless backhoe to go out and dig the holes first.

I mean, you gotta have the hole already dug before you show up with a package in the trunk. Otherwise, you're talking about a half-hour to forty-five minutes worth of digging. And who knows who's gonna come along in that time? Pretty soon, you gotta dig a few more holes. You could be there all fuckin' night.

First thing that comes to mind... (2)

Burning1 (204959) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548688)

"Hello, I'm Johnny Cab. Where can I take you tonight?"

Great (1)

demonbug (309515) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548838)

Now there will be fleets of driverless trucks hauling trailers three at a time blasting across Nevada.

It is a great place to test this sort of thing, though. Once you get outside of Vegas and Reno the roads have very few turns or intersections to confuse our new robotic overdrivers.

First things first. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548858)

One thing that I have not heard or read about is bound to be one of the first things that somebody will sue over, so it should be taken care of first: who will be liable when one of these gets into a wreck?

Re:First things first. (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548930)

Depends. if the cars are "100% guaranteed not to cause accidents", then it could be the manufacturer. But since I doubt any car company will put something like that on a car, it will probably be the owner.

Re:First things first. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549084)

Which is just what I thought, and why car owners should avoid these things like the plague, at least for the first few years after they are introduced. Let somebody else be guinea pigs.

I know that sounds counterproductive. If people don't adopt it, it won't get better, etc...

But I'll be damned if I will go to jail for negligent homicide because of some bad software written by a college freshman intern at some automobile company.

Re:First things first. (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549118)

I agree with you. I wouldn't go to a self-driving car until EVERYONE used them and I knew that, not just buggy code had been worked out, but that there aren't still people driving themselves around (which, in a world where cars are driverless could be almost as dangerous as we consider a driverless car to be today)

Re:First things first. (1)

naoursla (99850) | more than 3 years ago | (#36551124)

You'll need special insurance for the cars. The insurance companies will negotiate with the manufacturer to share the burden of responsibility. The manufacturer will have insurance protecting them too.

The cars will have all of their sensor data recorded. If the other person is at fault, they will have a much higher chance of taking the blame.

Re:First things first. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36552254)

Great, just what we need (sarcasm). To expand our broken, extortionist insurance system into even more areas of liability and mayhem.

Re:First things first. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549106)

Remember how hard it was to prove that just Toyota's software for its accelerator was not malfunctioning? Now imagine the whole car...

Re:First things first. (1)

sl149q (1537343) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549278)

The rewards will go to wherever this is done first.... as that is where the development, research and initial manufacturing takes place.

So if (for example) Singapore, China or Nevada "solves" the liability issues first, then assume that there will be some early adopter benefits accruing to them.

And of course the usual suspects (in this case the lawyers) will proclaim this to be the end of the world and civilization etc etc etc.

Re:First things first. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36550406)

That seems reasonable, and I don't disagree. My point was simply that it is something that needs to be addressed.

Re:First things first. (1)

jthill (303417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36552790)

Storage is cheap. They'll have 360deg video in the black box for forensics.

Sounds like a bad idea (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548866)

I mean already more than 50% of the cars are only carrying the driver, so if you have driverless cars, they will be going around empty.

Re:Sounds like a bad idea (1)

sl149q (1537343) | more than 3 years ago | (#36552166)

I suspect you thought that was a good joke (and actually it is...)

But in fact there will be a lot of driverless cars driving around. For example your car drops you off at the front door at work and then drives itself to the parking lot or perhaps home to drive the kids to school or to the local battery charging station or just around the block a few times while you pick something up and go and wait for it to take you to your first appointment. A lot of deliveries will get done without anyone in the vehicle (it can be unloaded by the recipient.)

In fact your car may not be your car but just a robo-taxi taking you somewhere and once it drops you off then it simply travels to where its next passenger needs to be picked up.

So yes a lot of those driverless vehicles will definitely be driverless and still doing exactly what they need to do (and probably at a lower operating cost then current equivalents.)

Driverless cars: New hacking frontier (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549296)

Am I the only one that sees the potential for serious abuses should driverless vehicles become massively adopted and standardized?

Roadways are ALWAYS under construction, which means that static map data inside the vehicle is never going to be an option. The vehicles will *HAVE* to connect to the internet in some fashion to pull updated maps.

It might be well within the tinfoil hat arena, but I can clearly see this being used to kill somebody. Case in point:

The Turn-by-Turn navigation software I used to use fell out of date by about a year. "Thats not too bad.." I said to myself, so I decided that I wouldnt update it before my next roadtrip when I went to go visit a friend of mine in another city out of state. Low and behold, the navigation software told me to turn *OFF THE TOP OF A BRIDGE* onto the parkway below, in order to reach my destination.

Reason: The software was unaware that I was crossing a bridge, and not an intersection.

Now, imagine an automatically driving vehicle, a sleeping diplomat inside with a hangover, and a similar malfunction. (Either purposeful or accidental, doesnt matter. The diplomat will be just as dead.)

A little step further, and you have malicious map injection attacks, with the intent to redirect vehicles at the hacker's whim. Sony losing millions of customers information would seem like small potatoes compared to hackers sending their CEOs to their deaths.

Then you have the whole can of worms of the vehicle-to-vehicle communcation cells that some automotive engineers want to try to implement to help "Improve roadway safety." Abuse of these transmissions could give a whole new meaning to the term "Road hog."

Re:Driverless cars: New hacking frontier (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36549500)

What makes you think that anyone sane would design a driverless car to rely exclusively on map data for its navigation?

Any halfway sensible system would also use physical telemetry as a backup - cameras, LADAR, ultrasonics etc. At the very least, it needs to be able to handle unexpected changes in the topology of the road, like say, a roadwork. Or a drunk person asleep in the lane.

The worst that a map exploit would really do is send the car down the wrong road, where it would get hung up and stop, likely waiting for manual intervention from the passenger.

Re:Driverless cars: New hacking frontier (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549588)

The operative term there is "Sensible."

You have at least 3 ways to use that word in this particular situation:

1) Sensible from the systems design point of view, where security of the vehicle and its occupant are given priority. (the one you chose.)

2) Sensible from the hardware design point of view, where things like dirt, corrosion, vibrational damage, etc are all going to deteriorate sensor function, leading to the vehicle thinking it is approaching a wall or other obstacle when it really isnt, because it has occluded sensors from the MAC truck in front of it not having mud flaps, or any other potential hazard that would make reliance on sensor telemetry unreliable without festidious maintenance.

3) The finance boy's idea of sensible, in terms of pricepoints for implementations of both previous systems.

Any automatically driving vehicle would have to simultanously meet all 3 definitions of sensible to avoid the kinds of problems I am saying would plaugue the system.

Re:Driverless cars: New hacking frontier (1)

QuasiEvil (74356) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549648)

The car control computers are going to have to be doing what humans should be doing today - being situationally aware and discarding routes that conflict with direct observations. Just like a car shouldn't turn left into a pedestrian, it also shouldn't turn left into a bridge guardrail or off the pavement. GPS maps are going to have to be used for routing, and local, realtime sensors and vision algorithms are going to be needed for operation. It's just that rather than being biological, they'll be electromechanical.

Personally I love the stories about people who wind up in rivers and the like due to just following the GPS. Seriously, wake up and look the fuck around. Turns out water looks like water, and driving into large bodies of it is still stupid. It's not like Indiana Jones - there's no invisible bridge, I promise.

Re:Driverless cars: New hacking frontier (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36550070)

It's not like Indiana Jones - there's no invisible bridge, I promise.

Only for those with doubts. My faith will carry me forward.

Re:Driverless cars: New hacking frontier (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 3 years ago | (#36551078)

The problem is that "Common sense" (admittedly lacking in the people who drive off bridges. I did not say I did so, only that my TTN software suggested that I do so, then bitched mightily about my being offroute when I failed to do so when it said to. I believe my exact words were "Fuck that shit!" before continuing over the bridge in the sane and rational fashion.) is extremely difficult to imbue to a computer.

Automatic driving systems would be at the mercy of the quality of the GPS maps, the GPS reciever hardware, and the quality of the sensors it uses to determine what lane it is in, etc...

If you have ever performed automotive work, you would know exactly what I mean when I say that delicate computer hardware, like precision optical sensors/cameras, and the like, are not going to hold up under the adverse road conditions present underneath a vehicle's hood, or in the undercarriage.

Mud, bug splatter, rust, oily road grime, etc are all going to take their tolls on the utility of any external sensor systems built into such vehicles, which means that the vehicles are going to need to rely more heavily on GPS, and on inter-vehicle communication, and use exterior sensors as more of a "fuzzy logic" decision factor. (Otherwise your vehicle would come to a screeching halt after getting mud-splattered by the cattle truck in front of you on the highway, as the optical sensors would insist that you were mere inches from an obstacle.)

This would mean that the vehicle would need to be doing the following things:

Retrieving GPS timestamps, and calculating rough coordinates and vector.

Collecting data from external sensors for fine tuning.

Collecting data from other vehicles about speed and distance (and possibly collision hazards, like obstacles.)

Store all that data, and decide accordingly.

Given the highly volatile, and complicated natures of that data, something a little more sophisticated than the fuel injection computer built into modern vehicles would be required, which means there are possibilities to hijack execution with a well formed exploit. At that point, you can override sensor data, and all kinds of things.

I didnt say it would be easy, only that it would be possible. Given the relentless march of "For the Lulz!" types of hacks lately, do you really want to be in a vehicle that even remotely has such a vulnerability?

Re:Common Sense (1)

JadedIdealist (2057592) | more than 3 years ago | (#36552672)

Most important thing the cars need to do is tell when their sensors etc are in a state where the car is not in a fit state to drive.

It needs to give itself a drunk test before every trip.

another way to censor decision making... (1)

SeeSp0tRun (1270464) | more than 3 years ago | (#36550730)

Call me "that tinfoil hat guy," but isn't this just another way to take away freedoms if abused? There are plenty of benefits, sure, but there are also many who want to know where you are, lock your car, and wait kindly for the reeducation agents to arrive.

I like my car. I like modding my car, and I sure like driving the way I do (like a maniac, thx Boston). This seems like a great way to censor that little bit of rule breaking, which has saved my life more than once.
Just couldn't help thinking Minority Report on this one...

Driverless cars? Florida's had them for years! (0)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#36550866)

At least, that's what they look like of you're following them. You can't say someone's actually "driving" the car if they can't even see over the steering wheel. Just like you can't say they're parking it if their "acoustic sensor system" is the sound the other car makes when they back into it.

They're not really driving - they're playing a game of chance ... like their bingo nights, but on public roads.

What's it like being a childless monstrosity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36551356)

That no man wants cyclops? I see from your posts you troll others and think that it's cool as well. tomhudson, just because you are a miserable hideous beast (lol) with only 1 eye that works, and that no man could sleep with to produce a child doesn't mean you can go take it out on others. I heard you have dogs. They're probably miserable too. Do you troll them also tomhudson? After all I heard you have a website called trolltalk.com which makes sense. I can picture it now: A troll with one eye hiding under a bridge to eat children passing by. Oh, so that must be it. You ate the children you had (or did you feed them to the dogs?) LOL!

Re:What's it like being a childless monstrosity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36551450)

That no man wants cyclops? I see from your posts you troll others and think that it's cool as well. tomhudson, just because you are a miserable hideous beast (lol) with only 1 eye that works, and that no man could sleep with to produce a child doesn't mean you can go take it out on others. I heard you have dogs. They're probably miserable too. Do you troll them also tomhudson? After all I heard you have a website called trolltalk.com which makes sense. I can picture it now: A troll with one eye hiding under a bridge to eat children passing by. Oh, so that must be it. You ate the children you had (or did you feed them to the dogs?) LOL!

I think this just may be the dumbest troll post ever. I mean, I've seen some trolls that I wanted to +1 because they were so clever, but I think this one actually lowered my IQ.

Re:What's it like being a childless monstrosity (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#36552016)

That's just my latest cyber-stalker - APK, the "hosts file guy." Yesterday he was accusing me of being greedy because I run a website where I allow people to download code I wrote that I license under the GPL version 2. He thought his hosts file was "blocking the ads" - there never were any ads, and the moron would have been able to see that if he had been using a more modern ad-blocking technique that allowed for disabling blocking on a per-site basis.

He appears to hate linux, women, and reality (not necessarily in that order).

In terms of whack jobs, I don't think there's anyone sillier than him on slashdot. Any time someone posts against him using their logged-in name, he attacks them. If they do the safe thing, and post as an AC, he thinks it's me and does his usual crap-flood of my posts, demonstration of how stupid he is, and giving me the opportunity to distract him from tracking down and attacking others.

He should do himself (and everyone else) a favor and go hosts file himself. Until then, better he attacks me than someone else who might not know his reputation and actually gives a ****.

tomhudson wrote these things about cyberstalking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36553034)

Wait until he starts on another kick, then reply to him as an AC. It's the new meme. - by tomhudson (43916) on Sunday May 09 2010, @08:29PM (#32150544) Homepage Journal

QUOTED VERBATIM FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1646272&cid=32150544 [slashdot.org]

HOWTO: trolling the hosts file guy in one easy step

The next time you see a post by him, just reply anonymously. And to really mess with his head, reply anonymously to your anonymous post, disagreeing with your first anon post (extra points if you claim in the second post that you're him - that REALLY sets him off). He'll accuse you of being me by tomhudson (43916) on Saturday April 16, @01:38PM (#35841122) Homepage Journal

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2086424&cid=35841122 [slashdot.org]

if you're going to tell this guy to stop spamming his hosts file crap, make sure you do it anonymously by tomhudson (43916) on Saturday April 16, @12:45PM (#35840680) Homepage Journal

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2086920&cid=35840680 [slashdot.org]

3 times tomhudson? It appears you're the cyberstalker.

Libeling others as well tomhudson? Very bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36553106)

Posting things designed to harm someone's career http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1992296&cid=35186644 [slashdot.org]

Got proof of apk going to trolltalk.com? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36553512)

tomhudson, show proof that apk went to your trolltalk.com troll's website: Can you show us a link where he states he did? No, you can't produce that. All you have is lies (trying to pass them off as invalid anecdotal evidence). As usual, tomhudson caught lying again, to try to save his hideous cyclops childless trolling ass.

Adhominem attacks aren't cutting it vs. facts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554940)

Of your own words quoted in the other replies beneath yours I am responding to now, are they tomhudson? You're a "pot calling the kettle black" notorious troll (and you think that's an accomplishment? It's harassment, plain & simple) and you can't take when your own misdoings are thrown back at you in quotes of your own words. Go back to trolltalk.com troll, and sit there by yourself, like you do in the real world with no partner of the opposite sex. Yes, that's what everyone here knows and thinks about you. Get used to it.

Does tomhudson cyberstalk by ac replies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36553048)

Sure does, see evidences of him planning it all out and telling others to do the same:

Wait until he starts on another kick, then reply to him as an AC. It's the new meme. - by tomhudson (43916) on Sunday May 09 2010, @08:29PM (#32150544) Homepage Journal

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1646272&cid=32150544 [slashdot.org]

HOWTO: trolling the hosts file guy in one easy step

The next time you see a post by him, just reply anonymously. And to really mess with his head, reply anonymously to your anonymous post, disagreeing with your first anon post (extra points if you claim in the second post that you're him - that REALLY sets him off). He'll accuse you of being me by tomhudson (43916) on Saturday April 16, @01:38PM (#35841122) Homepage Journal

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2086424&cid=35841122 [slashdot.org]

if you're going to tell this guy to stop spamming his hosts file crap, make sure you do it anonymously by tomhudson (43916) on Saturday April 16, @12:45PM (#35840680) Homepage Journal

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2086920&cid=35840680 [slashdot.org]

3 times tomhudson? It appears you're the cyberstalker.

concept car (0)

dreamingboy2011 (1984416) | more than 3 years ago | (#36551006)

what is concept car? Nike Air Jordan Pas cher [url=http://www.aaajordanshoes.com] nike free[/url]

Area 51 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36551678)

And what state is Area 51 in??

Waiting for news of the first virus for car OS's (1)

Smigh (1634175) | more than 3 years ago | (#36553052)

Soon it will be time to start working of viruses. I can't wait to hear my car's engine singing flight of the bumblebees for no reason.

Ocean's 11 (1)

Gyorg_Lavode (520114) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554892)

Can someone please provide an appropriate Ocean's 11 joke? This thread is lacking without it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>