VW creates "self driving" car

[CodeRedR51]

👍

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=393401&in_page_id=1770

 

[McLaren]

Pretty cool idea, but it'll need to be 100% non-failure before even thought of being sold, since malfunction wouldn't be something people wanted when in it.

*Remembers Audi incident*

 

[daan]

*Remembers Audi incident*

Do you mean the Mercedes automatic brake test that didn't go exactly to plan?

 

[franz]

Wow ... great cognitive technology
I am wondering what will happen if a bug strike on the sensors on the highway
but I really like to see how it recognize the traffic lights
because some intersections have several light signals for different directions
it will be quite interesting if it can find the closest parking spot and park itself

 

[McLaren]

Do you mean the Mercedes automatic brake test that didn't go exactly to plan?

I never read about that. The Audi thing where the car's automatically took off on their own.

 

[daan]

From Wikipedia

Towards the end of 2005, a video clip of a demonstration at the Mercedes' factory in Germany was being circulated on the internet, and was even broadcast by BBC's Top Gear car program. In the video an S-Class vehicle crashed into a parked car in front, the Distronic feature appeared not to be functioning in the heavy fog of the simulation. A Mercedes-Benz spokesperson later said that the Distronic Plus and Brake Assist Plus systems failed because of the test conditions: the demonstration was conducted in a ‘metal-walled room,’ and as the driver aids react to metallic objects, the system was overloaded, resulting in failure. Mercedes Benz claims that Distronic Plus and Brake Assist Plus have been thoroughly tested and scrutinized from infancy.[citation needed] When Jeremy Clarkson reviewed the vehicle on Top Gear in 2006, it effectively slowed and stopped in city traffic without the use of the brake pedal.

Here's a video
http://www.leftlanenews.com/2005/12/02/video-of-mercedes-distronic-pile-up/

 

[Famine]

I never read about that. The Audi thing where the car's automatically took off on their own.

The famous "unintended acceleration"?

More like "panic-and-press-the-loud-pedal-instead-of-the-big-one-in-the-middle".


Clarkson claimed that the system had actually been turned off by mistake when Mercedes ran their auto brake assist test.

 

[Kylehnat]

The Audi thing where the car's automatically took off on their own.

You mean, every automatic transmission ever made?

 

[the Interceptor]

Clarkson claimed that the system had actually been turned off by mistake when Mercedes ran their auto brake assist test.

Yes, but that's one of his numerous misinformations.

 

[Onikaze]

I would like this technology made transparent and integrated into SUV's ASAP.

Reduce traffic fatalities 50% in the first year, I'd bet.

 

[Wolfe]

You mean, every automatic transmission ever made?

As Famine said, *McLaren* is referring to the Audi "unintended acceleration" scandal that happened in the united states --

...In the early nineties, sales began to slump for the Audi 80 series, and some basic construction problems started to surface.

This decline in sales was not helped in the USA by a 60 Minutes report which purported to show that Audi automobiles suffered from "unintended acceleration". The 60 Minutes report was based on customer reports of acceleration when the brake pedal was pushed. Independent investigators concluded that this was most likely due to a close placement of the accelerator and brake pedals (unlike American cars), and the inability, when not paying attention, to distinguish between the two. (In race cars, when manually downshifting under heavy braking, the accelerator has to be used in order to match revs properly, so both pedals have to be close to each other to be operated by the right foot at once, toes on the brake, heels on the gas. US citizens are used to automatic gearboxes and only two well-separated pedals). This did not become an issue in Europe, possibly due to more widespread experience among European drivers with manual transmissions.

60 Minutes ignored this fact and rigged a car to perform in an uncontrolled manner. The report immediately crushed Audi sales, and Audi renamed the affected model (The 5000 became the 100/200 in 1989, as in Germany and elsewhere). Audi had contemplated withdrawing from the American market until sales began to recover in the mid-1990s. The turning point for Audi was the sale of the new A4 in 1996, and with the release of the A4/6/8 series, which was developed together with VW and other sister brands (so called "platforms").

Clarkson claimed that the system had actually been turned off by mistake when Mercedes ran their auto brake assist test.

I don't remember that, but I do remember him remarking that the automatic brake assist is turned off as soon as you touch the brake (just like cruise control), and that it would be easy to inadvertantly hit the brake but still think that the system is on as you barrel towards a traffic jam on the freeway.

 

[amp88]

Looks very interesting indeed, but I think I'll need some convincing before I believe the following quote from the article:

On a race circuit, it drove itself faster and more precisely than the VW engineers could manage - and can accelerate independently up to its top speed of 150mph.

Newspapers have a habit of sensationalising and getting their facts wrong.

 

[McLaren]

I think some of you may agree with me, that maybe the car should have a top speed of 80Mph max. I personally think it will be much safer, for

1)If the driver could still program certain things.
2)If the car had read something that told it to speed.

 

[harrytuttle]

Thaaat's what we need! Just when cruise control, ABS, TCS, and host of other driver assistants couldn't take any more responsibility away from the driver, here comes something that will do all the driving for you.

Anyone wonder why crash statistics remain pretty much static as more and more "safety" features are added to cars? It's the same reason US football injuries remain the same year in & year out: a false sense of security. Why hold up a bit on that tackle when your shoulder pad should cushion the blow to his spine? SUV's become "dangerous" because they can't handle icy roads any better than penguins, and tend to roll over when taking turns your average Civic wouldn't think twice about, despite what Soccer Mom Suzy may think.

In the US, where we have the wonderful freedom to be the complete idiot we all aspire to be, suggesting that someone's hands can be removed from the steering wheel is tantamount to aiming them directly at a tree. Electronics fail. It's not a matter of "if", but "when". Having been involved in many levels of the electronics industry, and having experienced a wide variety of driving from all over the US, I assure you this invention will reduce our streets & highways to utter chaos.

That's it, then. I'm defecting to Canada.

 

[amp88]

Having been involved in many levels of the electronics industry, and having experienced a wide variety of driving from all over the US, I assure you this invention will reduce our streets & highways to utter chaos.

It doesn't seem to have done so to the aero industry (where auto pilots do most of the work now AFAIK). Ok, so car manufacturing is done more to a price than aero manufacturing, but still, no manufacturer would introduce something as radical as a "self-driving" car without thoroughly researching and developing the technology and introducing failsafe systems and so on. Think of the negative PR and downturn in sales if hundreds (or even tens) of cars go haywire and cause huge accidents. Although, you could argue that even if one in ten thousand or one in one hundred thousand (numbers conjured from the air obviously) "self-driving" cars does go wrong this would still account for less serious accidents than humans driving. Computers don't make mistakes (though programmers do ).

Have you never seen Terminator 2? The aircrafts flew with a perfect record when they were being flown by computers. That's good enough for me.

The biggest problem I see is if this technology does become widespread in the next 10 or 15 years we could see a new generation "learning" to "drive" in these cars, not having the knowledge of what it takes to properly drive a car, rather than just enter your destination and sit back. If the electronics in the car fail and the car has to be driven that could be a problem.

 

[the Interceptor]

I don't remember that, but I do remember him remarking that the automatic brake assist is turned off as soon as you touch the brake (just like cruise control), and that it would be easy to inadvertantly hit the brake but still think that the system is on as you barrel towards a traffic jam on the freeway.

Sorry, but that's not quite right. The brake assist is always on, but doesn't occur on normal driving. All it does is calculate the intensity you need to brake with to prevent you from hitting an obstacle. So, it's only applied when you're going to have a crash, or rather you won't, cause it'll stop in time.
The rest, such as the stopping behind another car JC demonstrated, is done by the radar guided cruise control.

And about the story from the Mercedes demonstration:
They set up those cars and the fog in the crash test building, which is full of metal walls, metal floors, electronics and stuff. They knew the system might not work properly in there. So they screwed a wooden bar on the floor and told the driver to brake when he crosses that bar. He knew the system was turned off, but they all behaved like it was fully functional. What they didn't think of were the cameras and the microphones in and out of the car, that would clearly prove they were setting the whole thing up.

It seems to be a habit of Mercedes to build giant repositories filled with dog poo, and then jump into it from the 10 m springboard. It's not the first time a Mercedes press meeting to show a new technology has gone as wrong as it probably can.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[Pebb]

I hope they put this car into production?

 

[Famine]

I would like this technology made transparent and integrated into SUV's ASAP.

Reduce traffic fatalities 50% in the first year, I'd bet.

Give it a rest now. It's getting boring.

 

[Onikaze]

Ok fine, let's change the record.

I would like this technology integrated into all cars, with the requirement that drivers pass a basic driving competency test to prove they aren't a moron, before being issued a special card that can turn it off and restore manual control.

 

[Carl.]

...And today's main event: The rematch of Deep Blue vs Micheal Schumacher!

Both sad and fascinating at the same time. Driving ending up as a hobby comparable to horse riding.

 

[Onikaze]

I like my idea, prove that you can handle a series of driving skills tests, and you can have free control of your car.

It is kind of predestined for personal transportation to become automated as more and more vehicles take to the roads/sky.

 

[Flerbizky]

Real World B-Spec...

So very very interesting... not...

 

[Onikaze]

How many great people have been quoted throughout history stating that the masses should not be entrusted with anything of any importance?

I'd say the lives of others counts.

 

[Famine]

*curses Godwin's Law to hell*

 

[Onikaze]

So...I win?

Really though, while I doubt it would happen, it would please me to no end to see people be required to prove basic competency to handle a vehicle before being given one.

 

[Famine]

You mean like... some kind of driving test? Why didn't anyone think of this before?

 

[Onikaze]

You mean like... some kind of driving test? Why didn't anyone think of this before?

Yeah, because, ya know, Driving tests have anything at all to do with actually driving.

You're going 10-15 mph, listening to an instructor say "...make a left at this imaginary corner, stop at this stop sign, take another left, parallel park, pull out and go right, ok stop."

You could train a chimpanzee to pass a driving test, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to drive.

Maybe driving tests are actually related to the skills you use driving overseas, in America, well, the joke is, if you're 16 and can sign your name, you get a license.

 

[Famine]

Yeah, because, ya know, Driving tests have anything at all to do with actually driving.

You're going 10-15 mph, listening to an instructor say "...make a left at this imaginary corner, stop at this stop sign, take another left, parallel park, pull out and go right, ok stop."

You could train a chimpanzee to pass a driving test, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to drive.

Maybe driving tests are actually related to the skills you use driving overseas, in America, well, the joke is, if you're 16 and can sign your name, you get a license.

Yes, in the UK you drive on actual roads with actual traffic for about a half hour. Of course this means that you might get an easy test or a test from hell and there's no real way of guaranteeing that you're tested at all for difficult or unusual situations that you might encounter every day.

Though it ought to be pointed out that a driving licence only means that you've been judged competant enough to practice your driving skills on public roads without an instructor - it still doesn't mean that you can drive... And the test includes absolutely no motorway driving because learners aren't allowed on a motorway - there's no compulsory test which covers high-speed driving on our main arterial roads. You can get a licence and drive on them without ever having to go over 40mph.

 

[Onikaze]

Know what would be nice?

If you took the operation portion of the test, got your permit, and were allowed to drive with supervision, and then given a battery of written and driving tests before actually getting the license.

Unfortunately, over here in the states, passing the operation test (about 15-20 minutes around a coned off parking lot, and maybe an empty street corner) means you get a license, and liek, zomg, u kan dryv!

See why I'm so leery about American drivers? It is implied that you are fully qualified to operate a powerful and deadly machine, that no more training is needed, just get in and go kill someone.

 

[harrytuttle]

It doesn't seem to have done so to the aero industry (where auto pilots do most of the work now AFAIK).

Two major differences with the aerospace industry: the price of entry is much higher, and the quantity made is much lower. Law of averages (and the law of Murphy) states that the automotive equivalent will be a very different story.

Ok, so car manufacturing is done more to a price than aero manufacturing, but still, no manufacturer would introduce something as radical as a "self-driving" car without thoroughly researching and developing the technology and introducing failsafe systems and so on. Think of the negative PR and downturn in sales if hundreds (or even tens) of cars go haywire and cause huge accidents.

That's an extremely naive thought. Since you mentioned movies, I point you to 'Fight Club', which early on portrays a rather accurate summary of how auto manufacterers view defects. For example, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto

Computers don't make mistakes (though programmers do ).

Computers sure as hell do make mistakes when they're left outside for a few years. VW/Audi is notoriously bad for having their electronics fail after 3-4 years. It's not a software issue; it's a "computers don't work in the rain" issue.

Have you never seen Terminator 2? The aircrafts flew with a perfect record when they were being flown by computers. That's good enough for me.

...that was meant as a joke, right?

The biggest problem I see is if this technology does become widespread in the next 10 or 15 years we could see a new generation "learning" to "drive" in these cars, not having the knowledge of what it takes to properly drive a car, rather than just enter your destination and sit back. If the electronics in the car fail and the car has to be driven that could be a problem.

This would be all well and good if they keep things under wraps for the 15 years they might need, but when you look at the combined history of these two industries, we'll be the beta testers for years. There's another large problem with all this, and that's the programming itself. True self-driving vehicles will require truly artificially-intelligent control, able to deal with an infinite number of situations. These situations are the result of every other vehicle going to a different destination, weather, breakdowns, road construction, crime...everything that makes your daily commute just cheeky. Having done a fair amount of research & study in the AI field, a working product is a long way off.

And this is assuming there are no "manual" drivers on the road.