[
Paywall - if you cannot get access, send me a PM with your real e-mail address]
GM Expects to Offer Hands-Free Driving by 2016 -
Automated Steering System, Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications Would Seek to Reduce Crashes (http://online.wsj.com/articles/gm-expects-to-offer-hands-free-driving-by-2016-1410124540)
QuoteGeneral Motors Co. GM -0.14% plans to launch by 2016 cars with a hands-free automated driving system and Wi-Fi-enabled vehicle-to-vehicle communications systems designed to help avoid collisions, intensifying the race among the world's auto makers to build cars that can partially drive themselves and avoid crashes without the help of their human drivers.
QuoteThe company will offer its "super cruise" system, which will allow a driver to ride in a car with hands off the steering wheel on a freeway with proper lane markings, on a yet-to-be named new Cadillac vehicle. Cadillac officials have said they intend to launch by 2016 a large sedan to compete with rivals such as the Mercedes S-Class.
QuoteGM officials declined to say how much the "super cruise" feature will cost. A package of optional driver-assistance features currently sells on Cadillac models for about $3,000.
QuoteOfficials with the auto maker said the super-cruise system will be designed to require that drivers remain attentive and ready to retake control of the vehicle. They also stressed the distinction between this "automated" driving feature and the vision of a fully automated, "driverless" car promoted by Silicon Valley's Google Inc. GOOGL +0.78%
QuoteSeparately, GM said it plans to start installing vehicle-to-vehicle communications systems in 2017 model Cadillac CTS sedans beginning in 2016, a likely first for such technology in the North American market.
QuoteOfficials with the auto maker said the super-cruise system will be designed to require that drivers remain attentive and ready to retake control of the vehicle.
But we all know that people with the feature will
actually start talking on their phones and whatnot with the feature. "But officer, my hands wouldn't have been on the wheel anyways!"
I'll wait until at least the third model year because I even think of buying one. As with anything software related, it's going to have a ton of bugs at launch.
QuoteOfficials with the auto maker said the super-cruise system will be designed to require that drivers remain attentive and ready to retake control of the vehicle. They also stressed the distinction between this "automated" driving feature and the vision of a fully automated, "driverless" car promoted by Silicon Valley's Google Inc. GOOGL +0.78%
If you have to be ready to retake control, what's the point? With how short peoples' attention spans seem to be these days, I foresee that requirement being a fatal flaw to GM's system.
The progression of driver assistance tech (lane departure warning, adaptive cruise control, self braking) has been inching toward a self driving car for some years now. And on the horizon, we have fully autonomous vehicle like Google's driverless car. But between here and there, there's a very dangerous gulf–vehicles which are capable of auto-piloting down a freeway but aren't truly autonomous.
The implicit paradox is mind-boggling: "We've equipped your vehicle with an automated driving system, but you need to remain alert, attentive, and ready to take over vehicle control at a moment's notice." As has been mentioned, what's the point?
How hard is it to keep your hands on the wheel and maintain control of your car? I have to worry enough about "brains-free" driving around here as it is. I'm tired of sci-fi features that try to distance you from the fact that you're in a 3+ ton missile of doom hurtling down a crowded highway with other people who aren't paying attention to what they're doing either. We'll see how it goes when the first 'hands-free' car plows somebody down.
If you don't want the responsibility of driving a car, don't drive.
I think that a self-driving feature would be much easier to implement for freeway use only, since the task of driving on a freeway is far less complex, and has far less variables.
I don't think I'd trust a car to drive itself in urban areas, or winter weather.
I love driving! I'm not sure I'd want to pay more to give that up.
I have a similar lament about the reduced availability of manual transmissions...
Government Motors cannot even make a basic Chevy that actually works, and I am going to let that crowd drive for me?
Right.
I'm not surprised that Cadillac is being used for the driverless experiment, because we're accustomed to finding these fancy gadgets on the higher-end cars from BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Lexus, Audi and the like. It'll be interesting to see how this latest technology advancement goes, seeing that as a kid, I imagined that all cars would drive themselves by the year 2000, and 14 years later, they're still not able to.
Quote from: Henry on September 09, 2014, 11:05:15 AM
It'll be interesting to see how this latest technology advancement goes, seeing that as a kid, I imagined that all cars would drive themselves by the year 2000, and 14 years later, they're still not able to.
Well, you were only off by about 16 years.
QuoteOfficials with the auto maker said the super-cruise system will be designed to require that drivers remain attentive and ready to retake control of the vehicle.
...thus making the feature completely useless and prone to a whole lot of abuse.
So what happens when said driver becomes incapacitated and/or dead behind the wheel? Car just drives until it runs out of gas, then...?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 09, 2014, 03:46:18 PM
So what happens when said driver becomes incapacitated and/or dead behind the wheel? Car just drives until it runs out of gas, then...?
Maybe there should be a periodic "if you are still alive, please press the red button" reminder.
In my opinion, if you want a car driven for you, get a ride with someone who actually wants to drive or have someone drive the car for you.
QuoteMaybe there should be a periodic "if you are still alive, please press the red button" reminder.
Locomotives already have this. They shut down if the operator does not press the button.
Quote from: Brian556 on September 09, 2014, 05:52:49 PM
QuoteMaybe there should be a periodic "if you are still alive, please press the red button" reminder.
Locomotives already have this. They shut down if the operator does not press the button.
Locomotives operate in a lot less traffic.
Sounds just like a bunch of people who many years ago said "Why is it so important to have a cell phone? They can just wait until I get home if they want to talk to me".
After 10 years of people using self-driving cars, people will wonder how we lived without them.
I mean, I guess this is the only way to phase in the technology.
But man, how hard would it be to stay awake and stay focused on the road if you're not touching anything? That's just an accident waiting to happen, even for people who try to use it properly.
Quote
But man, how hard would it be to stay awake and stay focused on the road if you're not touching anything? That's just an accident waiting to happen, even for people who try to use it properly.
You wouldn't have have to focus on the road. Simple solution. Have an alert when the autopilot needs to disengage. If the driver does not respond to the alert, the car automatically stops and parks and the nearest safe spot. Seas shakers could be used to awaken sleeping drivers.
Quote from: Brian556 on September 09, 2014, 08:53:32 PM
Quote
But man, how hard would it be to stay awake and stay focused on the road if you're not touching anything? That's just an accident waiting to happen, even for people who try to use it properly.
You wouldn't have have to focus on the road. Simple solution. Have an alert when the autopilot needs to disengage. If the driver does not respond to the alert, the car automatically stops and parks and the nearest safe spot. Seas shakers could be used to awaken sleeping drivers.
This isn't quite that though- it's a form of super cruise control, not true self-driving. Presumably, much like cruise control, the need to disengage it could come really quickly, and there's not really any evidence that these 2016 Cadillacs will know when they need to be disengaged.
Actually, http://www.kansascity.com/news/business/article1904364.html
Looks like it won't even be capable of lane changes, let alone pulling itself over to the shoulder and parking. I guess this will be useful in stop and go traffic, but that's about it. I do worry about this creating more lane campers- just get in the middle lane, throw on your active cruise, and go without regard to what's around you.
If it's not capable of a lane change, then it's not truly a self-driving car,
The self driving system should be all-or-nothing. If it's not capable of driving the car completely at least on freeways, then it should not be implemented at all just yet.
I can't wait to see the moose test videos.
Quote from: Brian556 on September 09, 2014, 09:37:12 PM
If it's not capable of a lane change, then it's not truly a self-driving car,
The self driving system should be all-or-nothing. If it's not capable of driving the car completely at least on freeways, then it should not be implemented at all just yet.
Well right, and they're not calling it a self-driving car.
It is good to test this stuff though, gradually ease in the technology, and after reading what it actually does it sounds like it's not quite useful enough to be dangerous.
QuoteThe company will offer its "super cruise" system, which will allow a driver to ride in a car with hands off the steering wheel on a freeway with proper lane markings
So basically the instant you encounter a work zone, poof, auto pilot doesn't work.
My problem here is that I see there being a sort of uncanny valley effect with vehicle automation - as you take a fully manual machine and start to automate things, it becomes safer. But when you start to get close to full automation without actually being there, there is a zone on the spectrum that is much more dangerous than no automation at all.
The idea that the driver is doing nothing to control the car most of the time but might need to take over at a moment's notice at any time just seems to be a disaster waiting to happen.
The times I was most crucial to the survival of me, my passengers, and my vehicle, not already having control of the wheel would have made a big difference. However, maybe some of the automatic technology would have made up for some of that.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 10, 2014, 09:33:21 AM
The times I was most crucial to the survival of me, my passengers, and my vehicle, not already having control of the wheel would have made a big difference. However, maybe some of the automatic technology would have made up for some of that.
Given the computer problems I've had at work, I'm glad I'm in control of the vehicle and not some software program written by a recluse who never bathes holed up in a darkened computer lab high on Oreos and Diet Coke.
As bad as people can be behind the wheel, I trust computer programs that much less.
If I'm supposed to keep my mind on the road, the best way to achieve that is to put those lazy members of mine to a road-related use and actually drive the goddamn car. That's why I deemed the feature completely useless and potentially prone to dangerous abuse upthread. The fact that it's "hands-free driving" and not even "self-driving" makes it even worse.
EDIT: Typo.
Quote from: Dr Frankenstein on September 11, 2014, 10:21:07 AM
If I'm supposed to keep my mind on the road, the best way to achieve that is to put those lazy members of mind to a road-related use and actually drive the goddamn car. That's why I deemed the feature completely useless and potentially prone to dangerous abuse upthread. The fact that it's "hands-free driving" and not even "self-driving" makes it even worse.
Agreed. It completely runs counter to the big current push against cell phone use, texting and other distracted driving. We're getting the message strong now to focus on driving and maintain control of your vehicle, and at the same time they're coming out with a feature that allows us to lose that focus and control. It's not that hard to keep your hands on the wheel and maintain control of your vehicle. The technology, the roads and all the other 'dumb' vehicles on the road piloted by people who will swerve in front of the hands-free car just aren't there yet.
Not enthused. Just one more step toward not being able to drive at all anymore.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi24.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc41%2Fa_million_underscores%2FMacros%2Fn129753_I_dont_want_to_live_on_this_planet_anymore.jpg&hash=ff83c0e3c5e36fda5cc4616d15b324e03229fc35)
Self driving cars may also signal the end of public transit in many parts of the United States, and even where transit lines continue to operate, their patronage may well fall-off, since it will be possible to use a car to get to any area with little (or expensive) parking, and then send the car away to park in a cheaper or free place.
Or the transit-advocates dream of private car ownership ending and self-driving cars acting as glorified taxis. That would essentially obsolete all other forms of transit within a metro.
One tricky bit here is "proper" lane markings. The car might have a problem discerning lane markings in some areas due to DOT idiosyncrasies (in Oklahoma, for instance, double yellows are a lot closer together than most states, and dashed white lines are followed with a black line on concrete but not on asphalt). The system probably also expects the lane markings to be immaculately maintained, which would make using it in Oklahoma pretty iffy, since our road paint is only slightly more durable than sidewalk chalk and flakes off the pavement when subjected to a particularly withering glare.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 14, 2014, 01:38:20 PM
Self driving cars may also signal the end of public transit in many parts of the United States, and even where transit lines continue to operate, their patronage may well fall-off, since it will be possible to use a car to get to any area with little (or expensive) parking, and then send the car away to park in a cheaper or free place.
I think those scenarios are still a long ways off yet. You still have to be able to afford the car first, and so far, we're only talking about luxury vehicles that would have this technology. We're still a good decade away from
new Malibus, Fusions, and Corollas from having this as an
optional feature.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 14, 2014, 08:37:26 PM
One tricky bit here is "proper" lane markings. The car might have a problem discerning lane markings in some areas due to DOT idiosyncrasies (in Oklahoma, for instance, double yellows are a lot closer together than most states, and dashed white lines are followed with a black line on concrete but not on asphalt). The system probably also expects the lane markings to be immaculately maintained, which would make using it in Oklahoma pretty iffy, since our road paint is only slightly more durable than sidewalk chalk and flakes off the pavement when subjected to a particularly withering glare.
I'm also curious as to how temperamental the system will be with various weather conditions. Obviously, it won't work with snow-covered roads, but what about rain-soaked roads? The layer of water changes the reflectivity of most pavement markings.
Quote from: DaBigE on September 14, 2014, 08:44:30 PM
I think those scenarios are still a long ways off yet. You still have to be able to afford the car first, and so far, we're only talking about luxury vehicles that would have this technology. We're still a good decade away from new Malibus, Fusions, and Corollas from having this as an optional feature.
That assumes that you
own the car in the first place. We already have zip cars. Imagine self-driving zip cars. Imagine if all cars were self-driving zip cars.
That's a real proposal, by the way. I'm not making it up.
Quote from: vdeane on September 14, 2014, 06:32:55 PM
Or the transit-advocates dream of private car ownership ending and self-driving cars acting as glorified taxis. That would essentially obsolete all other forms of transit within a metro.
Obsolete? That's nuts. Have you been in the downtown of a major transit-dependent city center during a morning rush? Under even the best-managed self-driving car scenario, putting all subway passengers in cars would choke the streets to gridlock.
What you describe as "transit-advocates dream" is a fantasy of a small minority of transit advocates, a group that as a whole includes a very large chunk of the population in places that rely on a major transit system–thousands upon thousands of daily commuters and more. Having worked even among the hardcore committed activist types, I can say that only in a few will you find much of this type of extremism. It is a poor characterization of the general transit-advocating population, and it's a preposterous non-starter of an idea.