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!

Making Driverless Cars Safer

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the limiting-them-to-1-mph dept.

AI 140

colinneagle writes "Several autonomous cars have been developed elsewhere, most famously by Google, and they are generally capable of identifying objects in the road directly ahead of or behind them. The challenge undertaken by MIT researchers is making these cars aware of dangers lurking around corners and behind buildings. MIT PhD student Swarun Kumar showed a video of a test run by the MIT researchers in which an autonomous golf cart running the technology, called CarSpeak (PDF), encountered a pedestrian walking from the entrance of a building to a crosswalk. The golf cart stopped roughly five yards ahead of the crosswalk and waited long enough for the pedestrian to walk to the other side of the road. The vehicle then continued driving automatically. The solution Kumar presented is based on a method of communications that is intended to expand the vehicle's field of view. This can be accomplished by compressing and sharing the data that autonomous vehicles generate while they're in motion, which Kumar says can amount to gigabits per second. In a comparison test, a car using CarSpeak's MAC-based communications was able to stop with a maximum average delay of 0.45 seconds, compared to the minimum average delay time of 2.14 seconds for a car running 802.11, the report noted."

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

Does not 802.11 a (wireless) Ethernet... (1)

PaulBu (473180) | about 2 years ago | (#41636639)

... thus the notion of MAC still applies?

Just curious...

Paul B.

Re:Does not 802.11 a (wireless) Ethernet... (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41636819)

Does not 802.11 a (wireless) Ethernet... ... thus the notion of MAC still applies?

Uh... what?

Re:Does not 802.11 a (wireless) Ethernet... (1)

PaulBu (473180) | about 2 years ago | (#41636993)

Well, first word in Subject should have been "Is"... Sorry, edited from something else... ;(

MAC, as in, "Media Access Control" address, or Ethernet address, which every Ethernet card, wired or wireless, has. To quote Wikipedia on IEEE 802.11, "Current 802.11 standards define "frame" types for use in transmission of data as well as management and control of wireless links. Frames are divided into very specific and standardized sections. Each frame consists of a MAC header...".

So, I was totally confused by the last line of the summary, one possible interpretation of that is that "MAC-based comm." is somehow lower-level that full-fledged 802.11, but how would that shave off almost 2 sec of latency is a bit puzzling...

Paul B.

Re:Does not 802.11 a (wireless) Ethernet... (2)

spazdor (902907) | about 2 years ago | (#41637191)

I checked TFA, and found this:

As noted in this report on the project, standard 802.11 networks cannot accommodate the data transmission needs for communication between autonomous vehicles because they generate more data than the available bandwidth can handle. CarSpeak instead uses a content-centric MAC protocol for transmitting data, in which data pertaining to specifically requested roads and regions contends for space in the medium, as opposed to the cars sending requests for information. This ensures the network only displays relevant data, avoiding a flood of data pertaining to open roads.

So, yes, apparently they're talking about low-level wireless networking protocols, but... it's like saying that your revolutionary new Web search engine is "copper-based." I mean, that's what the conductors on the server CPU are made of, and without copper none of it would work, but it hardly captures what's unique or noteworthy about the technology.

Re:Does not 802.11 a (wireless) Ethernet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41639577)

It's because it only needs to detect that there is a network card there, no authentication or handshaking is required.

Re:Does not 802.11 a (wireless) Ethernet... (3, Informative)

spazdor (902907) | about 2 years ago | (#41637035)

From the OP: "a car using CarSpeak's MAC-based communications was able to stop with a maximum average delay of 0.45 seconds"

This acronym 'MAC' is not used or explained anywhere else in TFS, so it's unclear whether they mean Media Access Control from the IEEE 802 spec (which probably is employed in moving data wirelessly from car to car, but has little to do with the specific problem of detecting or responding to safety hazards) or something else entirely.

Re:Does not 802.11 a (wireless) Ethernet... (4, Informative)

malakai (136531) | about 2 years ago | (#41639367)

From the OP: "a car using CarSpeak's MAC-based communications was able to stop with a maximum average delay of 0.45 seconds"

This acronym 'MAC' is not used or explained anywhere else in TFS, so it's unclear whether they mean Media Access Control from the IEEE 802 spec (which probably is employed in moving data wirelessly from car to car, but has little to do with the specific problem of detecting or responding to safety hazards) or something else entirely.

They explain MAC right in the paper ( which is linked in the article ). It's MAC just like you think MAC is (Media Access Control).

Really, the gist of the paper, is instead of each car being the source or identity of a packet, via normal MAC 'addressing' and trying to communicate some important information ( like soft squish target...er.. human at X,Y,Z moving Z-> Y-> Z-> at such and such a rate ) via the full OSI model ( like packaging that info in UDP or TCP), You instead break down the 3D space around the car ( and other cars do the same thing ) using an octree graph ( just like visibility systems in 3D game engines), and send out this info with the MAC layer altered to show which region of the octree your information is pertinent too.

So if you are Car A, and Car B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I are all in your broadcast range, and they are dumping out gigabytes of network aware info based on their laser scanners, you can quickly and at a very low level (hardware) pick out the packets that are important to you (from the air).

tl;dr:
It's a clustered index for wireless packets based on GPS location of events stuffed into the MAC (data link) layer. It's a complicated QOS scheme that has been crafted around a specific engineering latency problem.

Re:Does not 802.11 a (wireless) Ethernet... (1)

spazdor (902907) | about 2 years ago | (#41639895)

Interesting! So it uses spatial addressing rather than hardware addressing! That is actually a pretty clever approach, come to think of it. Thank you for breaking this down for me.

Re:Does not 802.11 a (wireless) Ethernet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41638967)

This unintelligible gobbledygook passes for PhD research nowadays?
Apu should read English for dummies before attempting something more potent than jerked curry chicken.

Weather Conditions (4, Interesting)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 2 years ago | (#41636673)

How do these things perform in weather? ex. Blizzards

I'd hate to wind up in a snow drift in the middle of the road rather than backing up and finding an alt. route... or going home.

Re:Weather Conditions (1)

chronokitsune3233 (2170390) | about 2 years ago | (#41637667)

Probably not very well yet, but touting safety for pedestrians as well as other drivers is one way to say, "We're not stopping this quest just yet." Winter is approaching in the U.S. where it seems a lot of the testing is done, so I'm sure there will be questions answered w.r.t. weather such as blizzards and heavy rainfall. I'm fairly certain the latter hasn't been tested much either, so a car won't notice a mildly flooded street where tires can start to spin. In that case, the autonomy would need to be suspended to allow the driver to actually drive. I would rather not think about how it would work on more heavily flooded streets like the one that killed my friend's car one rainy night a few years ago. In his defense, he was going down a hill around 23h00 (11:00 P.M.) at night with no street lamps, so he thought he was merely driving through a normal flooded road rather than getting his undercarriage buried in water.

Re:Weather Conditions (4, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41637695)

How do these things perform in weather? ex. Blizzards

The same way cars driven by people do: They get stuck in snowdrifts several feet wide and thick. And that's before you back out of the driveway. Disclaimer: I'm from Minnesota. Autonomous vehicles can't unbury your car, and any visual sensor would be as blind as you are in a blizzard. For that matter, even radar operating at microwave frequencies would be... snow is made of water, and water attenuates it. That's why you're supposed to stay inside during a blizzard... It's suicidally stupid to try driving in conditions where, should your vehicle become disabled, not only are you at risk yourself, but others have to risk themselves to come rescue your sorry, impatient ass. And incase you're wondering, no -- your cell phone doesn't work very well in a blizzard and GPS is straight out too, so if you don't know exactly where you are, emergency workers may not find you even with E911 capability; It's only accurate to within 50 meters. In a blizzard... you have trouble even seeing a couple meters in front of you.

Take it from someone who lives and breathes the fluffy white death from above -- Never, ever, trust a vehicle with your life. Any vehicle, even ones connected to Skynet with an IQ of a billion and a hundred different types of sensors. If you can't walk 10 miles in the weather, don't go out in it.

sensors on the car can become dirty (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#41639089)

sensors on the car can become dirty and then what do you hot shot??

remember coming to a dead stop can be unsafe or it can block up traffic.

Go to a fail safe speed?? can be very unsafe on some high speed roads and even a slow speed can do some big damage if it hits something.

Re: sensors on the car can become dirty (1)

Mr Bubble (14652) | about 2 years ago | (#41639207)

I'm sure there is a self diagnostic and calibration that can sense when a sensor is dirty and prevent the car from operating. I also don't imagine that the car will be programmed to stop any more suddenly than is safe for all concerned. But, what's the alternative - plow into the pedestrian? Any of us would slam on our brakes anyway and stop as rapidly as we can. The thing about autonomous cars is that they will see the pedestrian and implement braking the microsecond he becomes visible - unlike human operators who are likely tp be brushing tacos off of their lap, fiddling with the stereo, texting, or watching some chick's ass on the side of the road.

Re:Weather Conditions (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#41639569)

The same way cars driven by people do: They get stuck in snowdrifts several feet wide and thick. And that's before you back out of the driveway. Disclaimer: I'm from Minnesota. Autonomous vehicles can't unbury your car, and any visual sensor would be as blind as you are in a blizzard. For that matter, even radar operating at microwave frequencies would be... snow is made of water, and water attenuates it. That's why you're supposed to stay inside during a blizzard... It's suicidally stupid to try driving in conditions where, should your vehicle become disabled, not only are you at risk yourself, but others have to risk themselves to come rescue your sorry, impatient ass. And incase you're wondering, no -- your cell phone doesn't work very well in a blizzard and GPS is straight out too, so if you don't know exactly where you are, emergency workers may not find you even with E911 capability; It's only accurate to within 50 meters. In a blizzard... you have trouble even seeing a couple meters in front of you.

In other countries with severe winter weather, people drive in convoys during blizzards. Only the last car in the convoy is really vulnerable, and only until it isn't counted at the end, or until the second-last car can signal.
Drivers also make sure they have their cars equipped for winter, including studded tires, chains, spades, ballast, blankets and everything else that goes with winter, and they won't even get a permanent driver's license without slick training.

Never mind that what Americans in general calls a "blizzard" is really "heavy snow". For it to be a blizzard, there has to be persistent strong winds approaching or exceeding gale force.

It also never seems to snow here in the US - it's always called a "snow storm", despite there not being any storm. And schools close if there's as little as a few inches of snow.
<mode=curmudgeon>When I was young, it took at least a couple of feet of snow to close the roads, and even then school wasn't out - we went on skis to school.</mode> I remember stringing ropes between the buildings, leaving the house through a window because the door was snowed shut, and never lifting more than one foot at a time outdoors, or being blown into a snowdrift.
Or when lowering the flag at sundown, and it was as stiff as sheet metal, and we'd have to be careful not to break it. Cool!

Yes, nature is big and scary. And we can handle it just fine with some preparation and common sense. Whether driving or not.

In America (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41639863)

everything's bigger. I've never seen as much snow as I saw in Mammoth Lakes, CA. I'm from Finland, where schools and offices have never been closed because of snow.

Re:Weather Conditions (1)

stephanruby (542433) | about 2 years ago | (#41637805)

How do these things perform in weather? ex. Blizzards

I'd hate to wind up in a snow drift in the middle of the road rather than backing up and finding an alt. route... or going home.

Golf Carts have never traditionally done well in snow blizzards.

I wonder if it might help to record video... (3, Insightful)

mlts (1038732) | about 2 years ago | (#41636701)

Even with faster stopping, there will be those who deliberately jump in front of cars in order to get hit, hopefully to score a big jury verdict.

The solution -- a camera that turns on and records encounters with pedestrians, bicyclists, etc, with a timer in place. That way, if there is a wreck, there is documented proof that the other party jaywalked or violated traffic laws.

Of course, if it is the car's fault, it will be documented as well, but assuming a fully automatic vehicle which obeys all traffic signals, it likely won't be the vehicle that caused the collision.

Re:I wonder if it might help to record video... (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 2 years ago | (#41636839)

Privacy concerns aside.

Re:I wonder if it might help to record video... (2)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#41637011)

What privacy concerns are there about recording a public street?

Re:I wonder if it might help to record video... (1)

spazdor (902907) | about 2 years ago | (#41637155)

Well for one thing there's the security of the device doing the recording - if it's remotely exploitable then that data is practically exposed to everyone at all times, not just to law enforcement when a dispute needs resolving.

For another thing, existing in a public place != consent to being recorded.

Re:I wonder if it might help to record video... (1)

eugene6 (2627513) | about 2 years ago | (#41637521)

In these parts, existing in a public place removes any "expectation of privacy".

Re:I wonder if it might help to record video... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41637563)

Consent is not required. Recording images in a public space is completely legal. Publishing/broadcasting them might require some consent, but that is not what is being discussed here.

Re:I wonder if it might help to record video... (2)

tftp (111690) | about 2 years ago | (#41637615)

I can understand that you can be in a public place but still be unhappy if someone videotapes you. An otherwise empty nude beach, with no one in sight for miles, is one such example. There is no public good that would result from taping you on such a beach :-)

However there is a clear public good that results from videotaping all incidents on roads. You don't have to record everything that ever happens in 360 degrees around your car. It's enough to have a ring buffer for 20-30 minutes. If an accident happens the recording stops and the data is preserved. But modern car video recorders (like the one I own) have a ring buffer that holds 8 hours of HD recording on a 32 GB SD card.

With respect to your signature (1)

chronokitsune3233 (2170390) | about 2 years ago | (#41637691)

I can only presume that Waldo has been found and is now in prison. I can't think of anywhere else where a guy might wash another guy, who is already washing another. Sausage, anybody?

Re:With respect to your signature (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#41637737)

Maybe Dr. Seuss was sicker than I previously thought?

Re:I wonder if it might help to record video... (4, Informative)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41636847)

That kind of thing has been around for a while for your non-driverless car. You can get cameras that continuously record, only saving the last few minutes if you hit a button (or, with some systems I expect, a pedestrian).

Re:I wonder if it might help to record video... (2)

hawguy (1600213) | about 2 years ago | (#41637747)

That kind of thing has been around for a while for your non-driverless car. You can get cameras that continuously record, only saving the last few minutes if you hit a button (or, with some systems I expect, a pedestrian).

This is off topic, but what are some good brands of these consumer dash cams? I've seen lots of $30 models for sale (which I'm assuming are crap), and a few $500+ models with GPS tracking and optional "phone home" tracking that seem to be targeted toward trucks and commercial vehicles.

What is a good, relatively inexpensive, "set it and forget it" dash cam that I can mount in my car and have it keep a continuous video log of my last few hours of driving?

Re:I wonder if it might help to record video... (1)

noh8rz9 (2716595) | about 2 years ago | (#41637077)

driverless cars will always be unsafe. they can be hacked by chinese hackers to seek out pedestrians instead of avoiding them! or maybe people will do it for the lulz... criminals.

Re:I wonder if it might help to record video... (1)

jhol13 (1087781) | about 2 years ago | (#41639617)

In Russia insurance companies give you deductions if you have such. The camera is always on, and I suppose it overwrites old stuff as it goes. I do not knowhow long the buffer is.

Search from Youtube (e.g. russia car insurance scam).

Not safer, just faster (1)

Ichijo (607641) | about 2 years ago | (#41636757)

The challenge undertaken by MIT researchers is making these cars aware of dangers lurking around corners and behind buildings... This can be accomplished by compressing and sharing the data that autonomous vehicles generate while they're in motion...

So in other words, instead of slowing to what would be a reasonable and appropriate speed [ca.gov] , the cars are able to maintain high speeds without sacrificing safety by informing each other of hidden hazards.

It's an interesting solution, but it could actually sacrifice overall safety by showing a bad example to human drivers.

Re:Not safer, just faster (3, Funny)

Antipater (2053064) | about 2 years ago | (#41636859)

Nah. The next version of the Driverless software will target bad human drivers and run them off the road, increasing safety for everyone else!

Re:Not safer, just faster (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#41637037)

It's a fact that slowing down will always be correlated to safety. If cars creeped around at 1 MPH, almost no one would ever die. This technology will improve matters, no matter what is deemed "reasonable" or "appropriate".

Re:Not safer, just faster (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41637145)

Cue "A Fish Called Wonder" steam-roller scene. ;)

Re:Not safer, just faster (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41637115)

So in my words

FTFY. You've inferred that this must all be about increasing vehicle velocity, but I don't see that implied anywhere.

elsewhere (1)

Ultra64 (318705) | about 2 years ago | (#41636775)

"Several autonomous cars have been developed elsewhere"

Elsewhere? Elsewhere from where?

you know what? (3, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 years ago | (#41636937)

Do not want. It's obvious at this point that the real deal with all these innovations is to retain more and more control over what people do and where they go. They entice us with convenience as they remove the control. I realize this article is about technical minutiae, but I have no desire to help this project along.. Until society matures such that those in charge don't have insatiable desires to micromanage individual choice as much as possible, I'd rather deal with driving my own vehicles around, thanks. Besides, with the right fit, driving a car is enjoyable.

Re:you know what? (1)

Qzukk (229616) | about 2 years ago | (#41637005)

I can foresee absolutely no such problem whatsoever in getting into my autocar and instructing it to take me to the nearest crack den.

Re:you know what? (2)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 years ago | (#41637149)

the problem with these analogies is that they don't address the issue. Do you lock your doors even though it is illegal to trespass/steal? do you out of your way to avoid police even when you are fairly sure (as sure as our fucked up legal code allows us to be) you haven't done anything? Do you want to test it and find out? No? Why not? There's a dirty line that only gets crossed when the power balance is severely lopsided. Sure, in theory, you could hand over all control to the state, live a legally (as opposed to objectively) idealic life and not get into trouble, but reality is far from that. It would also have to be the most boring existence imaginable, and even this would not guarantee anything. This state also assumes there's no encroachment. This of course is not true. The encroachment by the authorities is continuous and accelerating. The only way to create a natural barrier to this is to retain power and control over the tools and property you use to live your life. If you let the authorities (state/corporate) take control, it's just a matter of time before you live for them instead of for yourself. I do not want this. Life just isn't worth it at that point.

Re:you know what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41637611)

That is a siege mentality and will ultimately prove useless. The only real way to create a natural barrier is to create a governmental system where power seeking is punished and civil liberties are respected. The government of the USA is the most advanced in existence and is not up to this task. It needs to be done away with.

Re:you know what? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 years ago | (#41638721)

well yeah, a government that punishes power seeking and respects civil liberties IS a seige..

Re:you know what? (4, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#41637099)

I have the opposite reaction. I think we are entirely too cavalier about the unbelievable human toll that our current reliance on human-guided cars takes. Tens of thousands die in the US every single year. Look at the way the country responds to something like war casualties at 1/10 the scale and ask if this situation makes any sense.

Re:you know what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41637249)

And do most people even care that 'tens of thousands die in the US every single year' in traffic? We want freedom and mobility, both similar and important but not equal concepts. People choose to participate in traffic and assume the negligible risk that they themselves or some other causes them injury or death.

War casualties are a different matter. WE sent those people over there, therefore the entire country is responsible for those deaths, while a significant portion of it's residents feels they should never even have been sent.

Re:you know what? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#41638097)

That's a great theory, except for two inconvenient facts:
(a) Our army is all-volunteer.
(b) Many poor people have little choice but to drive if they want to get to work.

Re:you know what? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 years ago | (#41637299)

I can't comment on your statistics, but generally, when 'studies' are published, they are insanely biased to push particular political agendas, so I take them with huge grains of salt.

Whether you trust the drivers of today, or the cut-rate programmers who direct the auto-cars of tomorrow, you still have to assume failure. Centralized systems sound great except when they fail, because when they do, it's catastrophic. A computer will happily cause the deaths of 1000 drivers if it misreads a situation since, unlike a human whose in control of one car, the computer controls of all of them. We can't even automate our trains completely without catastrophic failures, so as far as safety goes, I still trust my situational awareness over that of a computer.

Risk is a fact of life. If we attempt the ultimate safety utopia, it will be antithetical to human psychology and crumble from within. Taking risk has rewards and drawbacks, but life without any risk isn't worth living. This entire culture has become so risk adverse that I think it's becoming maladaptive to its environment. This is similar to being 'too clean' such that children's immune systems never mature properly. If you want to cut down on accidents, then here's what I suggest:

1. remove some of the sound insulation from the vehicles so that more road noise is let in. this will cause people to pay more attention to what's going on around them.
2. remove the cell towers along major highways. if cellphone performance is spotty enough, people just won't bother until they get where they're going. this is for the best.
3. have a license system that actually requires people to master basic driving skills and not just memorize a bunch of rules.
4. design the cars so that more feedback is given through the steering column and suspension. currently, the trend is the opposite..
5. have speed limits that actually reflect the conditions of the road instead of the local municipalities' budget shortfalls.
6. actually fix the parts of the roads where the most accidents occur instead of reducing the speed limit. limiting speed only masks the issue.

Re:you know what? (0)

eugene6 (2627513) | about 2 years ago | (#41637549)

7. replace airbags with spikes, to discourage accidents.

Re:you know what? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#41638073)

I can't comment on your statistics, but generally, when 'studies' are published, they are insanely biased to push particular political agendas, so I take them with huge grains of salt.

I didn't quote any statistics? The only vague number I mentioned was automobile deaths, which aren't particularly controversial - you just count dead bodies. This Wikipedia article has them by year - in 2010 it was 32,885 deaths. [wikipedia.org]

Centralized systems

We aren't talking about a centralized system - this article is about a distributed system.

We can't even automate our trains completely without catastrophic failures, so as far as safety goes, I still trust my situational awareness over that of a computer.

Trains are the safest transportation system we have today, so I'm not sure why you would use those as an example. In any case, almost all train accidents have been human in origin. Which makes sense, since most trains are controlled by humans. The automated train in DC had a big failure a few years ago - but that's the only big accident I can think of.

Risk is a fact of life.

Absolutely, but hurtling around at 75MPH in a piece of metal that we did not evolve to control is not a fact of life, and we can make sensible choices which reduce our risk of dying.

1. remove some of the sound insulation from the vehicles so that more road noise is let in. this will cause people to pay more attention to what's going on around them.
2. remove the cell towers along major highways. if cellphone performance is spotty enough, people just won't bother until they get where they're going. this is for the best.
3. have a license system that actually requires people to master basic driving skills and not just memorize a bunch of rules.
4. design the cars so that more feedback is given through the steering column and suspension. currently, the trend is the opposite..
5. have speed limits that actually reflect the conditions of the road instead of the local municipalities' budget shortfalls.
6. actually fix the parts of the roads where the most accidents occur instead of reducing the speed limit. limiting speed only masks the issue.

We're getting a bit off-topic, but...

Do you have a study that shows 1 or 4 will actually work?

I think you are on to something with 2, though I suspect that the cell companies know whether you are on the road or not and could easily block calls if they find you are on the road.

3 seems reasonable, as does 5.

I don't think I understand 6. I'm all for improving roads if the cost-benefit is reasonable, but there's nothing wrong with keeping the speed limit lower (as you suggest in 5) if the conditions are too expensive to change.

Re:you know what? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 years ago | (#41638831)

What I meant by risk is that any form of travel comes with it. I do not want the extra bit of theoretical safety if it means I have to give up gobs of freedom and control over my equipment to have it. Our system is fairly safe today, and a good balance between safety and freedom of movement. It could be better if it was based on reality and not the coffers of insurance companies, law enforcement budgets, and institutionalized control freakery.

1. Todays cars are whisper quiet inside compared to what they were even 20 years ago. It's common sense that hearing plays a large part in awareness.

4. Ask anyone who drives professionally. They'll tell you that feedback is important. I'm not saying let all of it through.. I'm saying let a bit more of it through. today's trends in car design are to minimize the effects the outside world has on the driver.. I think this is a mistake and ultimately less safe. I understand this would make it harder to have phone conversations or idle chat with passengers, but if you're driving, drive. Talk later. Interactive distractions that compete with your attention on the road should not be encouraged (contrast with non interactive distractions like a radio, but for those who find it distracting, turn it off).

6. the solution the state uses for every trouble spot is to drop speed limits. they're financially motivated to do this, and from a human behavior standpoint, people in power positions love to wag the finger and stick it to you for violating their principles. I suggest we remove those incentives and fix the problem technically, whereever possible. lowering the limit should be the last choice, not the first. low limits for a given area cause frustration and frustration leads to impulsive decision making.

Re:you know what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41639985)

1. remove some of the sound insulation from the vehicles so that more road noise is let in. this will cause people to pay more attention to what's going on around them.
2. remove the cell towers along major highways. if cellphone performance is spotty enough, people just won't bother until they get where they're going. this is for the best.
3. have a license system that actually requires people to master basic driving skills and not just memorize a bunch of rules.
4. design the cars so that more feedback is given through the steering column and suspension. currently, the trend is the opposite..
5. have speed limits that actually reflect the conditions of the road instead of the local municipalities' budget shortfalls.
6. actually fix the parts of the roads where the most accidents occur instead of reducing the speed limit. limiting speed only masks the issue.

1. After a while you simply start ignoring all sounds without even meaning to.
2. actually that would would make things even worse. People today expect connectivity EVERYWHERE, if there's a problem, they'll just try harder and pay even more attention to the device than whatever else they were doing.
3. That's the problem actually, most people don't know or understand the rules, they pass an exam, learning things by rote. So, what you get, is a driver that knows what pedals to push and how to load gas, but will still be learning the rules for the next decade on the street, behind the wheel with no supervision.
4. Feedback is bad. Have you ever seen people drive a crappy car on a crappy road? Well, because of the quality of the car, they get a lot of feedback, and because of the road, they get even more feedback. And that's when they'll start zig-zag-ing left and right to avoid holes, and whatever.
5. Sure adjust the speed limits, but consider the pedestrians too. A lot of drivers seemingly forget their existence.
6. That's being done, but it's not a police issue, but city hall. In the town where I live, there were two intersections where there were accidents quite often. They changed the layout, the number of incidents dropped to almost zero.

Oh, and the guy above, only counted deaths, but, there are also injuries from maiming to light injuries, and let's not forget the simple bumps that make insurance such a proffitable bussines (if they care about people, they'll support those cars, if they want money, they'll try to kill the projects).

Re:you know what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41638329)

I don't have a problem with electronic cars as long as the government doesn't screw things up. By that I mean invading our privacy, installing backdoors, etc.

Re:you know what? (1)

Firethorn (177587) | about 2 years ago | (#41638941)

1 death is a tragedy. A thousand deaths is a statistic. People are affected disproportionally by low probability but unusual events than they are by the everyday dangers. Thus fear of flying, where you're safer on average than driving.

I've calced that a self-driving feature could be worth $30k, assuming the thing lasts at least 5 years. And this is a system that's in the top 90% of drivers, no where near 'perfect'. Note this would be a 'total' self driving feature - you give it the destination, perhaps some input on the route, it does the rest.

Note: I always assume when figuring this that the accidents a self-driving car gets into will be different than the ones human driven ones get into. I figure it's not going to get t-boned running a red light(not that good drivers normally do that either), rear-ending somebody from tailgating, etc... It's more likely to get into accidents with unusual road hazards that a human could see coming 'a mile away', while avoiding many accidents the fastest human alive couldn't avoid through sheer reaction speed.

On that topic, I wonder how long it'd take for the law to adjust to the fact that you're not really more of a hazard when drunk in one of these, even with the 'keys' in hand, especially if it's advanced enough that there's [i]no steering wheel[/i]? I wonder at what point they'll stop requiring breathalyzers and start requiring that you simply use a self-driving car with any manual operation controls disabled(or maybe those bits will require you blowing to activate)?

Even if my drive takes a bit longer due to the AI being a 'relaxed' type driver that goes for maximum safety and fuel economy, I figure that being able to read, sleep, watch TV or whatever while doing it will take any sting away.

Fine my me (1)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about 2 years ago | (#41637863)

Do not want. It's obvious at this point that the real deal with all these innovations is to retain more and more control over what people do and where they go.

The savings in time will result in everyone else in society being more productive and more successful than you. Good luck competing in that scenario:

  • 1) Read and/or do other things while the car drives you to work (or sleep a little more).
  • 2) Have the car bring the kids to school/soccer practice/wherever without my involvement. Also, get them and bring them home without having to leave work.
  • 3) Disembark near the destination and have the car go find a parking spot by itself. (Especially useful for the elderly and disabled.)
  • 4) Order online and have the car go get groceries. Saves time, and the supermarket doesn't need a large expensive public space to maintain. A factory floor with robotic pick-and-place out on factory street would be more productive.
  • 5) Trucks for shipping and delivery can be utilized 24/7, without having human drivers take time off for sleep, meals, or recuperation.
  • (This will put a lot of people out of work, but it's work that humans find tedious and don't like doing anyway. We'll need a new economic model, but that's a separate issue from self-driving cars being more efficient.)

Re:Fine my me (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 years ago | (#41638733)

sure, I acknowledged the convenience.. but it will come at a heavy price.

Re:Fine my me (1)

Mr Bubble (14652) | about 2 years ago | (#41639229)

sure, I acknowledged the convenience.. but it will come at a heavy price.

That's what they grunted about fire.

Automated delivery. (1)

Firethorn (177587) | about 2 years ago | (#41639015)

4. Order online and have the grocery store's automated delivery vehicle bring you your groceries, complete with refridgerator and freezer compartments.

If they're reasonably busy that would allow them to make a stop or five in addition to your delivery while still delivering faster, reducing overall miles traveled per delivery. It gets loads more efficient if you're willing to wait until the next day. Remember, if you send your car it has to go there first, it's your fuel that's being burned, you don't normally have a freezer compartment, the store has to worry about non-standard vehicle sizes/configuration/stuff left in the trunk/other compartments.

This applies to more than just groceries - what about UPS/Fedex, or the pizza delivery truck. How neat would you find a delivery vehicle with a pizza oven inside, so your pizza is finishing baking as it pulls up?

Food truck laws may get in the way pizza oven insi (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#41639237)

Food truck laws may get in the way pizza oven inside maybe fire laws as well.

Also what about fuel for the oven???

Re:Food truck laws may get in the way pizza oven i (1)

Firethorn (177587) | about 2 years ago | (#41639823)

Pardon, I don't live in an area with crazy amounts of regulation about businesses, so 'food truck laws' are mostly the same as 'food establishment laws'.

As for the fire rules - wouldn't the engine/gas tank be bigger? I'm not thinking of just jamming one in there. As for fuel I was thinking mostly electric, though a vehicle completely powered by natural gas might be interesting. Heck, you can even power the thing via gasoline, though that might cost a touch more money.

Worst case a 20# propane tank will provide power to the oven for quite a while - it's a oven, should be mostly sealed.

Ironically, the thing would probably come under vending machine rules more than food service establishment rules.

Good point. (1)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about 2 years ago | (#41639279)

You make a good point - that would be an even more efficient way to deliver goods.

I don't see online ordering for things like fresh vegetables - people still want to squeeze the tomatoes and pick the best from the lot. Despite this, most of what comes from a supermarket could be auto-delivered.

One problem with this scheme (yours and mine) is that someone or something has to be home to receive the delivery. If the supermarket scheduler delays by a day for greater efficiency, it may not be convenient for the recipient. I can't see an automated home system dealing with frozen/refrigerated items either.

Perhaps a fixed schedule would work - like we have now for trash pickup or US mail. Groceries are always delivered once a week at a specified time, and the system will leave bags on your doorstep.

Re:Good point. (1)

Firethorn (177587) | about 2 years ago | (#41639847)

I don't see online ordering for things like fresh vegetables - people still want to squeeze the tomatoes and pick the best from the lot. Despite this, most of what comes from a supermarket could be auto-delivered.

There are grocery delivery services already, and they do deliver fresh fruit and vegetables. From what I understand the online groceries have pretty much a 'no questions asked' guarantee, and are very good at delivering high quality produce*, thus people are satisfied. Worst case, remember that most food service establishments have everything delivered, and because they're getting a whole crate of X, it's fresh. The service might divy the crate up, but it's still going to often be fresher than what people see in the store, as they have no need to keep full looking shelves.

Yes, somebody would have to be at home(unless you go schwan style where they'll pack your order into your freezer for you, but then that's a manned service). There's still lots of people who are home during the week, and when I said 'wait until tomorrow', I meant more 'pick a 1-4 hour window tomorrow', where 6-10 pm would be a valid option. Worst case, most are home during the weekend, and I see no reason automated cars can't deliver Saturday/Sunday. Giving at least a day's notice on an order allows them to pull the non-fresh goods early and have them standing by, while optimizing the delivery route for the next day.

*Matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they deliver restaurant grade stuff.

Re:you know what? (1)

stephanruby (542433) | about 2 years ago | (#41638007)

Never mind that this kind of technology could allow you to sleep while going to work, or sleep while going cross-country, or moon the people from the other cars, or pee outside the car drivers' window while doing 70 MPH.

Now, that's freedom! Having more options to do what you want is freedom. Now don't get me wrong, I'd also want to be able to turn off the automatic-pilot when I'd want. I just think your viewpoint on how to preserve that right is a little bit too extreme.

Re:you know what? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 years ago | (#41638737)

In the end it's not the technology or the convenience, it's the state and corporate middlemen who will demand that it come with some heavy strings attached.

Re:you know what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41638089)

It is ingrained in us during our teenage years that driving a car is a symbol of freedom, especially in comparison to being chauffeur by our parents. Do not mistake this for actual freedom. A self-driving car doesn't restrict where you can go. It may prevent you from violating traffic laws, but you don't have that freedom in the first place.

Think of it more like the transition from manual to automatic transmission. Some people like switching gears and such, but they're a minority. Most people prefer mundane tasks like driving to require as little attention as possible. The benefit of automation far outweighs the initial loss of efficiency inherent in replacing a highly skilled human with a newly developed machine. Furthermore, machines improve, so the difference narrows and we gain new benefits (e.g. higher mpg for transmission, faster travel for driverless cars).

Re:you know what? (2)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 years ago | (#41638765)

Depends who has control, doesn't it? currently, we have control over our vehicles.. Sure, there are laws, but laws aren't control necessarily and they can't dictate reality. Having the ability to remote stop or disable a car that does not belong to you is another thing entirely. I guarantee this power will come with your shiny automatic car, and the list for the usage of this feature will explode as insurance companies, law enforcement, and the IRS clamor for access.

Driver interaction? (2)

Tweezak (871255) | about 2 years ago | (#41636947)

So if the driverless car stops in the road for a perceived pedestrian that may-or-may not be crossing the street will it give me the electronic finger when I lean on the horn?

Seriously, I see a lot of people standing close to the edge of the sidewalk that I think might be going to cross. Usually it turns out they are just chatting and aren't going anywhere. I suspect there will be a lot of false positives resulting in the driverless car slowing or stopping in traffic for someone who isn't actually crossing the street.

I can also anticipate kids having fun with this by "faking out" the autonomous vehicles for a laugh.

Re:Driver interaction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41636977)

I can also anticipate kids having fun with this by "faking out" the autonomous vehicles for a laugh.

They can do that right now with plain old human-driven cars.

Re:Driver interaction? (2)

vux984 (928602) | about 2 years ago | (#41637699)

I can also anticipate kids having fun with this by "faking out" the autonomous vehicles for a laugh.

Given the system uses unauthenticated inter-car communications to report to eachother on safety issues ... when it comes to faking out autonomous vehicles, forget standing close to the edge of a sidewalk:

"There's an app for that."

[parse error] (1)

burne (686114) | about 2 years ago | (#41637001)

summary written by spam robot

marked as unreadable

parse error,

core dumped

*What the bloody fucking fuck* is this about? If you run wifi you cannot brake in time? What how why is this correlated to brakes?

Re:[parse error] (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about 2 years ago | (#41637113)

It's about signals processing time. It doesn't matter how long it takes your brakes to stop your car if it takes you too long to figure out that you're supposed to brake in the first place.

Communication (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41637101)

Yes, and this communication is not authenticated... which means you now have up to seven tons of machinery barreling around a corner... and if it's told that the way is clear, instead of blocked, instead of a gentle deceleration and safe crossing you get human hamburger. Up next on CSI... hacking GPS signals and inter-car communication to create the perfect murder: No forensic evidence, looks just like an accident.

I do not like the idea of autonomous cars depending on or accepting unauthenticated inputs, or having two-way communication abilities while in operation. We already have a pile of broken nuclear facilities in Iran caused entirely by malicious digital communications, the source of which can't be proven. Most systems rely on GPS and network communication for route planning, which is problematic enough but can probably be made reasonably secure... but when you start processing realtime data from unauthenticated sources to make operating decisions, not just navigation decisions, I just don't see it as being possible to secure because of the wide number of variables which could be influenced independently or collectively to create an unsafe condition.

Re:Communication (1)

Animats (122034) | about 2 years ago | (#41637349)

I do not like the idea of autonomous cars depending on or accepting unauthenticated inputs, or having two-way communication abilities while in operation.

I tend to agree, given how appallingly bad computer security remains. Seeing the "cloud-based internet enabled crowdsourced" people getting involved with automatic driving worries me.

Re:Communication (1)

whydavid (2593831) | about 2 years ago | (#41639481)

I second this. Authentication or not, someone will find a security hole and exploit it. Maybe someday this will be a great extension to autonomous car technology, but for now it isn't needed. After all, humans can't see around walls or through objects either, so it's not like it is impossible to safely navigate a car through a busy area without this ability.

Re:Communication (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41637981)

A) It will obviously prioritize its own sensors and likely prevent accidents (albeit it might spill your coffee)

B) All communication will be recorded, leaving a record of any tampering

C) Driving cars is the deadliest thing we do; intentional homicide is a rounding error on the statistics in comparison. So even if it were trivial to kill someone with a self-driving car, it'd still be the far safer option for everyone.

Re:Communication (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41638283)

When did you turn into a bile-spewing troll?

Re:Communication (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41638437)

I am wondering the same. Was the account sold to someone, or was it a sockpuppet account all the time?

Re:Communication (1)

malakai (136531) | about 2 years ago | (#41639397)

The paper references IEEE 1609.2 for trust based system. Such that all inter-vehicular networks use digital signatures and verify all messages.

Still, it's outside the scope of the paper.

Re:Communication (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | about 2 years ago | (#41639711)

Didn't people learn anything from the Iranian centrifuge incident? They even worked this angle in Battlestar Galactica [youtube.com] . Accepting commands or inputs into driving decisions from external sources is just asking for trouble.

how does it react to the unexpected? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41637159)

How does these systems react to small animals suchs as cats, dogs, squirrels, racoons? Do they over react to small animals versus say something bigger?

How does a system react to dear and/or moose jumping out in front of a car? These are common events in many parts of Canada and at times are very lethal to the occupants of the car.

What happens when a major solar flair or power outage affects the in-road sensors?

These are things to consider.

gerry from gta

cats, dogs, squirrels, racoons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41637289)

RoAd KiLL! YuM! ScooP 'eM Up Ad EaT 'uM!

Safe enough already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41637167)

Considering driverless cars already don't have the most dangerous component, the moron between the seat and the steering wheel, I believe it's already much safer.

More information in general? (1)

LxDengar (610889) | about 2 years ago | (#41637215)

I'd like to see some more information about the technical challenges behind driverless cars. Can anyone point me (and hopefully other Slashdot readers) to something more than a press release? Its seems that driverless cars will need several different ways to interact with the road, pedestrians, and other cars. I'd really love to hear about how some of these different communication networks are being conceived.

Re:More information in general? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41637303)

http://people.csail.mit.edu/lixin/files/CarSpeak.pdf

Adversarial Implications of sharing information (2)

kye4u (2686257) | about 2 years ago | (#41637329)

When people mention how autonomous vehicles can share information with each other, they implicitly assume that the vehicles and other entities within the environment will play fair and honest.

What happens if any of those systems are hacked either for nefarious reasons or just so that the driver of the hacked car can gain some advantage by sharing misinformation. ?

In this setup of autonomous vehicles, they become essentially computers on wheels. The issues that are faced in network security can manifest themselves with autonomous vehicles.

Re:Adversarial Implications of sharing information (1)

Dekker3D (989692) | about 2 years ago | (#41637627)

That problem is solved if cars act as if all the information they can trust is their own, and only add "potential dangerous situations" reported by others to their own list, but never discarding them purely based on another machine's information.

Car Insurance? (1)

NinjaTekNeeks (817385) | about 2 years ago | (#41637451)

If I have a driver less car in which I am the passenger, will I still require car insurance? If so, shouldn't rates be static for all driver less cars? I mean, theoretically you should never crash, and if you do it would be the cars fault...?

Re:Car Insurance? (2)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#41638461)

Theoretically there is always a chance of a crash. I would expect the chances of crash to be less than human driven cars and would expect insurance to be way cheaper. But yes, the car would need insurance. And yes, it would be the cars fault, and insurance premium for all cars of the model would increase.

Black Cat Defeats Object Recognition (1)

BrendaEM (871664) | about 2 years ago | (#41638661)

Cat fur hides edges. It keeps heat in, as generally only the eyes, ears, and a little of a cat paw is warm on IR. Cat fur helps absorb Radar. I probably soaks up ultrasonic sound as well. What more can you ask for in stealth?

Darpa wants driverless cars so we can comb the desert looking for adversaries. What Darpa wants, Darpa gets, but who wants to be the first lucky person to be killed by a driverless car. Do you want your kids to die, just so we have the capability to go into another country and kill their kids?

Already past point of diminishing returns (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41638881)

...by removing the most unsafe element of a car already.

Whats the point ? (4, Funny)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 years ago | (#41638905)

Why do we need driverless cars?

The largest use of automobiles is to transport the driver (the sole occupant) around a city, or between cities.
So if you take the driver out of the vehicle, why does it need to go anywhere?

Re:Whats the point ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41639021)

so the sole occupant can do something productive other than holding the steering wheel in bumper to bumper traffic or on a wide open straight freeway.

I have done so much driving in my life and I hated almost every minute of it. Those minutes that I did not hate included me going really fast. I can't wait for something to take all that boredom away and just let me have the fun parts.

Re:Whats the point ? (1)

turkeydance (1266624) | about 2 years ago | (#41639085)

drivers (passengers) need to go to hospitals to have tests. d or p need to go to government offices to get passports. the Actual Human HAS To Show Up for some things. or...a lot of things....depending upon here you are. so...'take the driver out of the vehicle'...= stay put.

Re:Whats the point ? (2)

malakai (136531) | about 2 years ago | (#41639419)

Was watching some show recently which depicted late 1800's London, and the guy was in his horse drawn buggy headed to the country on a small road and was asleep. And I thought to myself, at some point we transitioned from intelligent vehicles which reacted to the enviornment around them, and had basic collision avoidance and guidance, to mechanical systems where were we sit directly in the loop all of the time. Nod off on a horse carriage and you'll not likely end up in a tree, try doing it in your car.

I can't help but now read these comments of people who are afraid of the coming autonomous vehicles as the same people 100 years ago that would have been afraid of the change to mechanical vehicles.

Re:Whats the point ? (1)

whydavid (2593831) | about 2 years ago | (#41639451)

They are "driverless cars," not "humanless cars." And even then, they aren't really driverless. I think there is close to zero chance that we'll see cars that do not require a human in the driver's seat with override capabilities, so driverless is a misnomer.

Re:Whats the point ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41639969)

well its true, whats the need?

Whats the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41639979)

well its true, whats the need?

arsenalfannews.weebly.com

It's kind of a shame (1)

gelfling (6534) | about 2 years ago | (#41639079)

That robot cars will be required to be a million times safer than people thereby negating any practical benefit. A robot that can do as well as 70% of the stupid rednecks, 90 year olds, soccer moms, illegal Mexican, drunks, teenagers, women yakking on the phone etc is way way way ahead of the game.

Re:It's kind of a shame (1)

religious freak (1005821) | about 2 years ago | (#41639435)

Illegal Mexicans tend to be better drivers, in my experience, because they don't have car insurance. If they get in an accident they are deported. That's a real incentive to drive slowly.

No, No, and No. (1)

holophrastic (221104) | about 2 years ago | (#41639411)

If your solution to moving object and in-motion safety is analyzing gigabits of data per second, you're already incorrect. It already won't work. It already won't be secure, it won't be safe, and it'll only work at STP. Safety has never been about longer checklists and more data. It's always been about learning which few of those billion bits are the important ones, learning to identify them, recognize them, and act upon them, in spite of the enormous amount of data surrounding them.

That's not a processing limitation. That's a logic rule. It's about eliminating ambiguity and about nearly eliminating any chance of mis-understanding.

Do we really need this? (1)

whydavid (2593831) | about 2 years ago | (#41639601)

Tens of thousands of people die in the US alone each year in car accidents. Many more are injured. Many more than that suffer some financial loss (even with zero insurance deductible, you will be paying a higher rate going forward). To improve on the status quo, you don't need cars to see through or around solid objects, nor do they need the intellect of an attentive human. We need cars whose drivers never fail to pay attention, don't act like they own the road, don't speed, don't get road rage, don't drink and drive, etc... Autonomous cars can do all of those things. People keep acting like autonomous cars need to be as good or better than the best human drivers, but they don't. They need to be better than the average human driver, and let's be honest: they're not going to have much problem with that requirement. I'm not sure what sort of automobile mecca some Slashdotters are living in, but where I live I don't go a day without seeing someone doing something stupid in a car. The nice thing about intelligent systems? They know their limitations. If the onboard systems cannot determine the appropriate action to take with very high certainty, they can alert the human in the cockpit and request that the human overrides the computer (pulling over in a safe spot or sending out an SOS if that override doesn't happen...such as might happen if the human has died). Someone earlier asked what might happen to an autonomous car in a blizzard. Was that seriously the best scenario you could think of? How about this: if the earth is blanketed in snow, an autonomous car won't drive through it. That's so stupid only a human would try it. I'm not oblivious to the fact that there are still a lot of issues to resolve, and a whole lot of testing to be done, before we're ready for autonomous cars to fill the roadways. However, I have a real hard time seeing how these issues somehow outweigh the current cost of crappy drivers in terms of lives, pain and suffering, time, or money. Autonomous cars make a ton of sense. It is only a matter of time before they hit the roadway on a limited basis (beyond the minor testing already going on in Nevada), and unless they suck, people will realize the world hasn't ended, the autonomous cars have not attacked them, and their daily commute is monotonous and annoying and thus not worth hanging on to, and sales will explode. If you hate the idea of autonomous cars, you are simply out of luck. Your best bet is to lobby for enabling legislation that stipulates a human-operated mode as mandatory, forbids two-way communication during driving (seriously, if this doesn't scare you, this must be the first story you've ever seen on Slashdot), and requires automakers to allow users to opt-out of features that would require sending their location data back to the automaker.

I just realised a Major problem ... (2)

giorgist (1208992) | about 2 years ago | (#41640023)

I have just realised the major problem with the driverless car !! People knowing their behaviour and hacking it. In other words the cars are being developed to emulate how humans drive responding to normally expected behaviour of other humans. The problem that humans will treat driverless cars differently. For example a human realising that it is a driverless car will cut in front of it knowing it will handle it. A pedestrian will step right in front of it and then step back, or will pretend to walk to the edge of the pavement ... and stop. This is what I can think of now. "Hackers" will understand how driverless cars will behave to external inputs and exploit that behaviour much like hackers exploit computer systems everywhere. It may take much longer to deal with that than it is to develop a safe driverless car in "normally predictable" scenarios.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?