Friday 16th December 2011

Google patents autonomous car mode

Automotive auto-pilot moves a step closer with new US patent

---

Google's push towards creating driverless cars seems to have moved a step closer, as it's been awarded a US patent for a vehicle that's able to switch from a driver-operated mode to auto pilot, more or less at the push of a button.

What US patent number 8,078,349 actually describes is "An autonomous vehicle comprising: a first sensor configured to detect a landing strip responsive to the vehicle stopping; a second sensor configured to detect a reference indicator, responsive to the first sensor detecting the landing strip; an analysis module configured to identify reference data associated with the detected reference indicator, wherein the reference data comprises an internet address; a wireless unit configured to wirelessly retrieve an autonomous vehicle instruction based on at least the reference data; and, a control module configured to switch the vehicle into an autonomous operation mode, wherein the autonomous operation mode comprises the control module executing the autonomous vehicle instruction."

And breathe.

What this effectively means is that drivers will be able to direct their cars across a 'landing strip' (kind of like an on-road QR code) and, providing various systems get the go-ahead, Google would send the car's brain GPS directions telling it precisely how to get to its pre-defined destination. Darn clever, in short.

As long as we can still take over the controls when we want to, it sounds like an appealing way to alleviate the pain of some of life's duller journeys...

[Twincam16]

Apologies in advance for the tin-foil hat, but this sounds dreadful.

As soon as it's been proved that 'driving' (a government-defined concept that will boil down to 'being moved around by a car' by people who spend their entire life in London/Brussels/New York and have probably never even learned to drive) is less dangerous if humans aren't allowed to do it, expect to suddenly find the kind of driving for pleasure we enjoy almost impossible to justify in the face of the kind of legislation that could make this ongoing computerised numbing unreality process mandatory.

[Twincam16]

-Z- said:

Twincam16 said:

Apologies in advance for the tin-foil hat, but this sounds dreadful.

As soon as it's been proved that 'driving' (a government-defined concept that will boil down to 'being moved around by a car' by people who spend their entire life in London/Brussels/New York and have probably never even learned to drive) is less dangerous if humans aren't allowed to do it, expect to suddenly find the kind of driving for pleasure we enjoy almost impossible to justify in the face of the kind of legislation that could make this ongoing computerised numbing unreality process mandatory.

How are they going to fit auto-drive to a Shelby Cobra?

It wouldn't be retro-fitted, but look at traction control:

-Turns up initially on Group B rally cars in the Eighties, developed from diff-locking systems that allow the driver to adapt the car to varying surfaces.

-Simplified systems turn up on top-end high-performance versions of road cars, is proven to work.

-The EU decides that it's such a good idea there's no excuse for anyone not to fit it.

-Even more simplified systems bordering on the cheap and nasty and spannered together by people you probably wouldn't buy a radio from crop up on the cheapest superminis whether you like it or not.

-Cars get more expensive to buy, repair and run, and duller to drive as a result.

How long will it be before this rather inhuman, anti-emotional process of computer-like rationalisation gets applied to the very act of driving itself?

I mean, seriously, it's something we all enjoy, but in the face of some stats drone from a government ivory tower, how can you justify the act of driving when it's statistically proven to be 100% more dangerous than letting a computer do it? And therefore unjustifiable etc.

This auto-driving idea just fills me with dread, yet another emotional, human, irrational, 'unjustifiable' thing I enjoy being threatened with extinction by the Vulcan-like logical rationalisation process of computers.

Computers have their place, but I really am starting to hate the world they're 'creating'.

[Twincam16]

Efbe said:

There is no talk of communication between vehicles.

without this, automated cars are pointless. with this, drivers are pointless.

the ability of two automated cars to communicate enables them to drive millimeters from each other. roads would clear up, accidents would decrease, fatalities would increase by a long way. but this wouldn't work with drivered cars as well. one or the other. a combination would be lethal.

So, lots and lots of cars, travelling under automated control at high speed, milimeters from the car in front.

Nothing can possibly go wrong
...go wrong
...go wrong
...go wrong
...go wrong
...go wrong
...go wrong
...go wrong
...go wrong
...go wrong

[Twincam16]

Efbe said:

Twincam16 said:

Efbe said:

There is no talk of communication between vehicles.

without this, automated cars are pointless. with this, drivers are pointless.

the ability of two automated cars to communicate enables them to drive millimeters from each other. roads would clear up, accidents would decrease, fatalities would increase by a long way. but this wouldn't work with drivered cars as well. one or the other. a combination would be lethal.

So, lots and lots of cars, travelling under automated control at high speed, milimeters from the car in front.

Nothing can possibly go wrong
...go wrong
...go wrong
...go wrong
...go wrong
...go wrong
...go wrong
...go wrong
...go wrong
...go wrong

hahaha

yes it can. but travelling very close is much safer than at distance. because there is no room between you, you can't create a speed difference.
running into the back of someone is hugely dangerous, because when you hit you are likely doing 15mph more than them.

and if all the cars are talking to each other, then they can all brake at the same time. but without drivers on the roads doing unexpected things, what do they need to brake heavily for?

and this is the issue. as an endpoint, it would work; yes i would hate it, but it would work well. but the interim of some automated, and some driven would be a lethal nightmare

Thing is, I'm just thinking about the state of our motorways - constantly being dug up and worked on, traffic lights frequently fail. Think about the railways - signalling failures, 'leaves on the line', cable theft, 'engineering works' and so on. These are our transport infrastructures. They use vast, sophisticated computer networks, they have large automated sections and they can be brought to a halt by quite small problems.

At the moment, if you're driving your own car and you happen upon a traffic jam, you can find an alternative route. If something goes wrong and all the streetlights switch themselves off, you just turn your headlights to a higher setting.

Problem with things like this is that they leave large numbers of people at the whim of one large system that, due to its size, complexity and need for maintenance, would actually be quite frequently and easily disabled. Automating the roads would result in the kind of problems that currently knock out the railways in one fell swoop leaving hundreds stranded at the station and giving advantage-1 to the car, being applied to the car.

And then there'd be no escape from public transport cock-ups, even in private transport.

[Twincam16]

traffman said:

Everytime i see another human interaction go out the window it allways reminds me of this......

I have a horrible creeping feeling that there are a fair few people out there who actually like the idea. I know one guy - a pathological 'early adopter' type - who found that vision of the future appealing.

I hate it too. I just feel that all the things I enjoy doing - from driving a car that allows full interactivity with all the controls on the public road, to just buying CDs and DVDs, is being taken from me.

I thought the whole point of democracy and capitalism was personal choice. Instead we get decisions restricted by what it's deemed the lowest common denominator can handle and what a relatively small number of people can make money from.

And before anyone accuses me of being a delusional wannabe EVO driving god - several generations and millions of people drove cars without these systems for over 100 years. Were they all 'driving gods'?