Pretty Cool video from Bosch - Automated Driving in a MS

[HankLloydRight]

Can you provide any links or backup of those claims?

This doesn't sound that advanced or promising:

Google driverless car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Limitations[edit]
As of August 28, 2014 the latest prototype has not been tested in heavy rain or snow due to safety concerns.[SUP][30][/SUP] Because the cars rely primarily on pre-programmed route data, they do not obey temporary traffic lights and, in some situations, revert to a slower "extra cautious" mode in complex unmapped intersections. There are limitations on identifying objects such as trash and debris, causing the vehicle to veer unnecessarily. Additionally, the lidar technology cannot spot some potholes or discern when humans, such as a police officer, are signaling the car to stop.[SUP][31][/SUP] Google projects having these issues fixed by 2020.[SUP][32][/SUP]

 

[skilly]

Most accidents are a result of distracted or drunk drivers. A computer is never either of those things.

not true. In fact, most accidents happen in intersections, parking lots or other confusing areas at lower speeds. Notice in the overview, the activation of driver assisted mode happens on the freeway.

Claiming carnage in the case of this emerging technology is a stretch - its akin to pointing to aircraft falling out of the sky due to turbulence...not sure that has ever happened! It may not be ready yet, but it will be soon. I think the only thing that may hold true in the definition of humans being "better" may be the slower approach to navigation that this automation will take...in the form of following speed limits; keeping a safe gap between itself and the lead car etc. Likely most frustrating for those with bad driving habits to start with.

I for one, embrace the technology. I may marvel at the view I miss focusing on the road (lots to see in California) but I cant see myself using it only to watchdog it closely - as another post said, whats the point in that?

 

[ecarfan]

Claiming carnage in the case of this emerging technology is a stretch - its akin to pointing to aircraft falling out of the sky due to turbulence...not sure that has ever happened!

Aircraft definitely have crashed due to severe turbulence and wind shear, but other than that I agree with the general tone of your post.

 

[brianman]

No, cars will still not fly!

Ok, I'll bite. One argument might be that vehicles designed to hover/fly 2 truck heights above the freeways would, in some areas, have the space all to themselves. If all of those vehicles were automated rather than human controlled, you wouldn't have to clear out existing freeways of the "unpredictable human-controlled vehicles". Also, you could have "go up 10 feet" as an accident avoidance feature in case something still goes wrong.

Having another dimension to leverage is pretty powerful.

 

[ken830]

That video was shot on the 280 freeway a few miles northwest of my house. Of course the scenes were out of order from a geographic point of view, but no one would notice unless they were very familiar with that freeway.

I know it's just a fictional mock-up, but I found it very difficult to watch. The geographic inconsistencies were way too distracting. The nav screen shows the route from Woodside to SFO, but the freeway entrance scene was at the John Daly Blvd ramp and I was thinking, "you're not supposed to be there and you're going the wrong direction!" Then he doesn't even take the ramp onto the freeway and instead is getting on the overpass that leads to northbound 19th Ave through Sunset. And then there are a bunch of scenes from 280 North and South bound all jumbled together. And the plates indicate that it is a 2013 Model S with VIN in the mid-8,000 registered in April 2013, many months before the availability of parking sensors even. And the Nav screen shows Highway 85 as an automated drive section, but that section of highway is Woodside Road with tons of lights, cross-streets, and stop-and-go traffic. Just too distracting.

 

[HVM]

Can you provide any links or backup of those claims?

This doesn't sound that advanced or promising:

Google driverless car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Robots don't get angry, sleepy or other way distracted. Your quotes are from Lee Gomes articles which are both critical of self-driving cars. And from same wiki page (Google blog) “700,000 autonomous miles” vs. ”U.S. driver has one accident roughly every 165,000 miles”


Also human driver are totally safe and reliable at snowy roads:

And potholes...


(Not saying limitations aren't true, but are they unsolvable?)