Advocacy & Safety - cars that drive themselves, will they see cyclits?

I'm no fan of motoring, or motorists, but generally most drivers are safe because they remain attentive. However, potentially dangerous technology, developed by Ford and BMW, is premiering that allows motorists to be more inattentive. Said technology involves radar equipped cars that allow vehicles to drive themselves. These gagets are being introduced in baby steps, for instance:

<http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/bmw-working-on-collision-prevention-system/>

"BMW is developing a system to bring a car or truck to a complete stop (safely) if the driver loses control because of health-related problems.
Developed with help from the German government, BMW’s Emergency Stop Assistant is aimed at the elderly and people with medical problems, although BMW said it was applicable beyond that population.
Emergency Stop Assistant uses sensors, positioning data and other information (some of it based on existing technology in current BMWs), to determine when a driver isn’t reacting to a potential crash. It switches on the hazard lights and MANEUVERS THE VEHICLE TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD BEFORE STOPPING IT ENTIRELY."

That last sentence, and the technology generally, is disconncerting, since often cyclists are along the side of the road. Will these radar equipped cars see cyclists?!? What if you're riding a carbon fiber bicycle. The industry is moving towards cars that drive themselves, but are they thinking of bicycles and pedestrians?

It would have to be able to see. There are lots of things on the side of the road that not made of metal.

This is the continued absurdity of how we are trying to "fix" the rampant irresponsibility on our roadways!

The problem: Motor vehicle operators are derelict in their duty to operate with due care.

Proposed solution: Make technology compensate for recklessness!

This is trying to fix a software problem with hardware. But technology is doomed in an arms race with fools; There are so many of them and they are so persistent and innovative! Some real stratagems for making headway can be found here (http://chipsea.blogspot.com/2009/07/hardware-fix-for-software-problem.html) and here (http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2009/07/10/the-incompetent-shall-inherit-the-roadway/). (Not that anyone really wants to do the hard things to fix the mayhem and carnage on out streets.)

This is an excellent question sc0ch! I would like to expand it further. What about when cars fly? When they do vertical landings, will the pilots (drivers) notice cyclists in the bike lanes? What about the auto pilots? Will it be able to sense us on our carbon fiber bikes?

Furthermore, what about when our national highway infrastructure moves from roads to embedded rails like in the prophetic movie "Minority Report"? Will our carbon fiber bikes be compatible? Will we need new wheelsets? Will there be any bike lanes?

I'm no fan of motoring, or motorists, but generally most drivers are safe because they remain attentive. However, potentially dangerous technology, developed by Ford and BMW, is premiering that allows motorists to be more inattentive. Said technology involves radar equipped cars that allow vehicles to drive themselves. ....


Anti-car and anti-progress luddism at its greatest. The cars may, in fact, in the future 'drive themselves,' but the incremental steps you whine so much about are, in fact, to make sure that the mistakes are corrected along the way, which is exactly how technology should move foreward. In the meantime all kinds of helpful technologies will warn of, or even prevent, accidents and fender benders which can be so annoying and harmful (if not fatal) to cyclists. Exactly how does a warning that a vehicle is on your right, thus preventing a right hook, constitute dangerous technology?

The vast majority of decisions about how to fly an airplane are made not by attentive pilots (or even inattentive ones) but by pilots who receive tremendous help, warning, and even control, from computerized systems. The incorporation of these onto our roadways is long overdue.

roughstuff

...
Proposed solution: Make technology compensate for recklessness!




SO you don't support spelchek? I mean spellczech. OOps, I mean spellcheck! :)

roughstuff

This is the continued absurdity of how we are trying to "fix" the rampant irresponsibility on our roadways!

The problem: Motor vehicle operators are derelict in their duty to operate with due care.

Proposed solution: Make technology compensate for recklessness!

This is trying to fix a software problem with hardware. But technology is doomed in an arms race with fools; There are so many of them and they are so persistent and innovative! Some real stratagems for making headway can be found here (http://chipsea.blogspot.com/2009/07/hardware-fix-for-software-problem.html) and here (http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2009/07/10/the-incompetent-shall-inherit-the-roadway/). (Not that anyone really wants to do the hard things to fix the mayhem and carnage on out streets.)



has anyone ever seen the movie idiocracy with luke wilson. its basically a look into the future 500 years from now and shows exactly where we are headed ha.

There are plenty of commercially available LIDAR and radar systems capable of detecting and tracking pedestrians and cyclists in motion in traffic. I did my Master's thesis on mobile autonomous robots and have kept up with some of the R&D work in the field of autonomous vehicles, including NC State's entry into the DARPA race.

The main question is when these sensor systems become cost effective for a commercial auto-driver product. Product liability should compel manufacturers to make them at least as safe toward pedestrians and cyclists as normal human beings are, probably more so. Another question is whether a robot autopilot that is cautious enough to not risk collision with other traffic will drive fast enough to make owners willing to use it, as opposed to taking over manual control.

This is the continued absurdity of how we are trying to "fix" the rampant irresponsibility on our roadways!

The problem: Motor vehicle operators are derelict in their duty to operate with due care.

Proposed solution: Make technology compensate for recklessness!


You're barking up the wrong tree. This autopilot nonsense is really all about increasing the complexity and cost of vehicles and adding "planned obsolesence" to vehicles so that automobile makers and their suppliers can increase revenue. It isn't about safety or convenience, it's about profit.

When cars fly, maybe we'll be safer on the road :thumb:

In the meantime all kinds of helpful technologies will warn of, or even prevent, accidents and fender benders which can be so annoying and harmful (if not fatal) to cyclists. Exactly how does a warning that a vehicle is on your right, thus preventing a right hook, constitute dangerous technology?

There is a valid concern that as we add more forms of automated safety netting around drivers' behavior, drivers will feel as though they no longer need to be particularly attentive while handling their vehicles. E.g.: "This car has an accident-avoidance radar system, so it should be no problem if I look away from the highway for 10 seconds to answer this text message."

The new line of Mercedes already incorporates some of this automated technology. Supposedly it can detect if a driver has fallen asleep and safely stop the vehicle. I'll believe when I see it, I wouldn't entrust my safety to an algorythm, they lack judgement.

So much for the drunk driving laws, since an algorythm also won't differeniate between drunk and sick.

Mercedes is also experimenting with a car that will drive itself on highways. It does so by receiving fiber optic signals from sensors implanted in the road surface. Similar to how reflectors are now embedded on some highways. The sensors transfer data such as rate of speed and highway conditions.

I've seen video of the prototype driving itself around a race track. It's probably on the web some place. The car I saw could start, accelerate, and drive in a single track, no lane changes.


Personally, I'm still trying to figure out how George Jetson was able to pick up his car after it folded itself into a suitcase. He must have been stronger than he looks.

hilarity. I get burned for being pro-carbon while anti-technology! I only mention carbon in looking out for my (stealth?) carbon fiber brethren. However, sggoodri's input on the robustness of modern radar is encouraging. In its final form, if self-driven cars are safer for all, then why not. Don't mean to be so, like o my gawd, 1800. However, that said, people whose age or medical state would benefit from an anticrash system probably shouldn't be driving. Driving is a priviledge, not a right, and the good of the many must overrule the convenience of the few. Public and senior transit exists for a reason.

There is a valid concern that as we add more forms of automated safety netting around drivers' behavior, drivers will feel as though they no longer need to be particularly attentive while handling their vehicles. E.g.: "This car has an accident-avoidance radar system, so it should be no problem if I look away from the highway for 10 seconds to answer this text message."

People already do that. There was a report on a study done with truck drivers. 150million miles with cameras setup inside and they found on average the drivers looked away 5seconds when texting.

Automated safety system sounds great and it works for commercial airlines and letting a computer drive sounds peachy.

That last sentence, and the technology generally, is disconncerting, since often cyclists are along the side of the road. Will these radar equipped cars see cyclists?!? What if you're riding a carbon fiber bicycle. The industry is moving towards cars that drive themselves, but are they thinking of bicycles and pedestrians?
I'd expect that the ability to pick up people, incl. small ones - i.e. children, would be part of the design specification. It certainly isn't beyond the technology since cyclists are routinely picked up by the radar-based signs that flash your speed and radar speed guns have no problem picking up baseballs and other small objects.

It's a moot point. The automobile is heading for extinction, and the automobile-based lifestyle will be unsustainable in the healthy economy of the future. About freakin' time, too.

The new line of Mercedes already incorporates some of this automated technology. Supposedly it can detect if a driver has fallen asleep and safely stop the vehicle. I'll believe when I see it, I wouldn't entrust my safety to an algorythm, they lack judgement.

So much for the drunk driving laws, since an algorythm also won't differeniate between drunk and sick.

Mercedes is also experimenting with a car that will drive itself on highways. It does so by receiving fiber optic signals from sensors implanted in the road surface. Similar to how reflectors are now embedded on some highways. The sensors transfer data such as rate of speed and highway conditions.

I've seen video of the prototype driving itself around a race track. It's probably on the web some place. The car I saw could start, accelerate, and drive in a single track, no lane changes.


Personally, I'm still trying to figure out how George Jetson was able to pick up his car after it folded itself into a suitcase. He must have been stronger than he looks.

Honda was doing the auto pilot thing back in the early to mid 80's using video cameras that keyed off the paint stripes. I saw a test run at Sears Point Raceway on the road course where they had half a dozen or so cars running nose to tail with no hands on the wheels. Interesting system in that it didn't require much in the way of additional infrastructure, just clear and standard paint stripes.

Aaron:)

When cars fly, maybe we'll be safer on the road :thumb:

What goes up must come down...it's liable to ACCIDENTALLY come down on your helmeted head! OUCH! lol

People already do that. There was a report on a study done with truck drivers. 150million miles with cameras setup inside and they found on average the drivers looked away 5seconds when texting.

Automated safety system sounds great and it works for commercial airlines and letting a computer drive sounds peachy.

Yes, some people already do that. The concern is that with such systems, more people may be comfortable with doing it, more frequently. I think some serious research into this question is called for.

What about when the side of the road doesn't "exist," i.e. a shear drop?

Anti-car and anti-progress luddism at its greatest. The cars may, in fact, in the future 'drive themselves,' but the incremental steps you whine so much about are, in fact, to make sure that the mistakes are corrected along the way, which is exactly how technology should move foreward. In the meantime all kinds of helpful technologies will warn of, or even prevent, accidents and fender benders which can be so annoying and harmful (if not fatal) to cyclists. Exactly how does a warning that a vehicle is on your right, thus preventing a right hook, constitute dangerous technology?

The vast majority of decisions about how to fly an airplane are made not by attentive pilots (or even inattentive ones) but by pilots who receive tremendous help, warning, and even control, from computerized systems. The incorporation of these onto our roadways is long overdue.

roughstuff

I have nothing against making the streets safer for ALL users. But there is a BIG difference between flying and driving. One such difference is that when one is flying a plane there generally ISN'T another plane nearby. So if you have to make a sudden correction you're not likely to hit another plane.

When incorporating aviation technology into automobiles we have to make sure that it is done in such a way so as not to be distracting to the driver. Don't forget that this is the 21st century and we already have a little thing called "information overload." We don't need more distracted drivers on the roads, rather we need less distractions in the cars.

The new line of Mercedes already incorporates some of this automated technology. Supposedly it can detect if a driver has fallen asleep and safely stop the vehicle. I'll believe when I see it, I wouldn't entrust my safety to an algorythm, they lack judgement.

So much for the drunk driving laws, since an algorythm also won't differeniate between drunk and sick.

Mercedes is also experimenting with a car that will drive itself on highways. It does so by receiving fiber optic signals from sensors implanted in the road surface. Similar to how reflectors are now embedded on some highways. The sensors transfer data such as rate of speed and highway conditions.

I've seen video of the prototype driving itself around a race track. It's probably on the web some place. The car I saw could start, accelerate, and drive in a single track, no lane changes.


Personally, I'm still trying to figure out how George Jetson was able to pick up his car after it folded itself into a suitcase. He must have been stronger than he looks.

Or it was lighter then it looked. ;-)

It's a moot point. The automobile is heading for extinction, and the automobile-based lifestyle will be unsustainable in the healthy economy of the future. About freakin' time, too.

In their current form, yes, but I am sure that in one form or another that they'll be around for a LONG time.

There is a valid concern that as we add more forms of automated safety netting around drivers' behavior, drivers will feel as though they no longer need to be particularly attentive while handling their vehicles. E.g.: "This car has an accident-avoidance radar system, so it should be no problem if I look away from the highway for 10 seconds to answer this text message."

The more effective the technology is, the less attentiveness WOULD be needed from drivers. Anti lock and anti skid brake technology is an example. Before ya needed the coordination and reflexes of a ballerina if your vehicle started to skid on the ice. Now with computers and software, cars stop sooner and skid less.

It is a ways off---and as I said, we will use trial and error for new technologies along the way---but I can envision a point where the driver performs only the most basic functions when behind the wheel, and the vehicle largely drives itself.

roughstuff

It's a moot point. The automobile is heading for extinction, and the automobile-based lifestyle will be unsustainable in the healthy economy of the future. About freakin' time, too.


D'oh! Why say healthy economies of the future? Why not look at healthy economies of the present...maybe like North Korea, Zimbabwe, or some other 3rd world zithole, to see how much low cost private transit paralyzes economic growth!

roughstuff

SO you don't support spelchek? I mean spellczech. OOps, I mean spellcheck! :)


which is exactly how technology should move foreward....

dude, if you're going to drag the argument down to the level of who-can-spell better, you should make the attempt to, you know, spell things right.

out of sheer curiosity, did you intend to mean this (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&hs=lyr&defl=en&q=define:foreword&ei=arJxSoP5IYTOsgPSjLTICA&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title) or this (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu%3Aen-US%3Aunofficial&hs=BeC&q=define%3Aforward&btnG=Search&meta=)?

It's natural to be a little skittish about the idea of cars driven automatically. But look at the bright side. How many negative car/bike interactions have you had that were based on ego. Must beat cyclist to stop sign!!! That cyclist just ran a stop sign. I'll teach him a lesson!!! A computer driven car would just negotiate the scene without getting emotionally hung up on who or what is in it.

Speedo

That last sentence, and the technology generally, is disconncerting, since often cyclists are along the side of the road. Will these radar equipped cars see cyclists?!? What if you're riding a carbon fiber bicycle. The industry is moving towards cars that drive themselves, but are they thinking of bicycles and pedestrians?

If you believe the basic argument of Traffic, automated motor traffic could very well be much safer for everyone involved.

dude, if you're going to drag the argument down to the level of who-can-spell better, you should make the attempt to, you know, spell things right.



Dewd, when ya have no sense of humour, i guess it's neither hear nor their! :)

roughstuff

It would have to be able to see. There are lots of things on the side of the road that not made of metal.

Radar is not limited to detecting metal.

I saw a Lexus that parked itself in Top Gear. No way will I want to be close to one of this things! I want to be in control. Why can't people learn how to parallel park properly? Have ever notice that virtually all wheel scrapes are on the passenger sides? ;)

Radar is not limited to detecting metal.

Each vehicle on the road probably will have chips embedded in it which provide location, width, speed, and other information to a roadway management system. Maybe a chip will be in your bicycle which will send a loud message to drivers behind you saying: "the laws of massachusetts require you to provide 3 feet of space when passing a bicycle. Such space is not available at this time and location. Accordingly your override attempt to pass will not be acknowledged."

Perhaps that lady with the obnoxious smarmy British voice will deliver the news.

roughstuff

If this ever comes to be, I would never get one. I won't have a car without a manual transmission and I refuse to drive with ABS or any type of traction/stability control. I want the car to do what I ask, when I ask it to do it.

I know plenty of people who have become much worse drivers when they get a car with ABS, Traction control or All-wheel drive. They completely rely on the systems to keep them safe, and frequently overwhelm them.

When this auto-auto does get released to the public, they won't need chips and all that junk in bikes and cars, etc. It will be able to "see" and judge for itself.