| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science |
| GM Researching Driverless Cars - May be ready within a decade |
| 2008-01-07 |
| Better use Linux . . . . Cars that drive themselves—even parking at their destination—could be ready for sale within a decade, General Motors Corp. executives say. GM, parts suppliers, university engineers and other automakers all are working on vehicles that could revolutionize short- and long-distance travel. And Tuesday at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner will devote part of his speech to the driverless vehicles. "This is not science fiction," Larry Burns, GM's vice president for research and development, said in a recent interview. |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #17 Never will be fielded. Liability law here in the U.S. will insure (pun intended) that at some point, there will have to be some way to blame the driver for the inevitable accidents first before ANYONE trys to sell this. Too much money to be made by suing the deep pockets. |
| Posted by: N guard 2008-01-07 19:55 |
| #16 The thing about the Darpa grand challenges is that they are MORE difficult than GM's task, if one assumes dedicated lanes. The MIT car's inability to respond well this year to the Carnegie Mellon car's pause is an example ... but then, GM was a partner in the CMU project. ;-) |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-01-07 19:47 |
| #15 DARPA Challenges... |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-01-07 19:30 |
| #14 My insurance rates would go down. Sadly, most of my driving is on local roads rather than the highway, so I probably wouldn't get much benefit from such a system. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-01-07 17:27 |
| #13 I'm waiting until the George jetson flying cars that fold up into your briefcase come out. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-01-07 15:50 |
| #12 I'm sure the insurance companies will be glad to dump most of their costs onto the people who aren't buying a new car every couple of years. I still don't think it's good. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2008-01-07 15:45 |
| #11 Why don't they concentrate on a car that gets good mileage and doesn't break down all the time? Just saying. |
| Posted by: Sgt. D.T. 2008-01-07 15:25 |
| #10 That's a revenue source that will have to be replaced. Eventually we might see various Quality of Service options - pay more to go faster, within the limits that the optimization models suggest are worth the marginal cost to implement. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-01-07 14:59 |
| #9 So who does the cop give the ticket to for driving poor or black? |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-01-07 14:09 |
| #8 The bigger liability issue, or rather regulatory one, isn't with autonomous ground vehicles but with UAVs. FAA is tied in knots about whether and under what circumstances to deal with law enforcement, border patrol etc. uses of UAVs for surveillance. The several studies I've seen suggest that for every 3 people involved there are 6 opinions about how to manage the airspace / control issues. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-01-07 14:01 |
| #7 You will see these cars in special lanes at first. Precisely. If the automated vehicle lane (or whatever) has a greater carrying capacity than a typical lane of traffic then they can just reassign the carpool lanes to this purpose. Maybe even wall them off with Jersey barriers on high-traffic roads (Jersey turnpike, DC Beltway, etc.) |
| Posted by: Jonathan 2008-01-07 13:14 |
| #6 There will inevitably be blue on blue accidents. Who will pay then? That's where the ATLA will make a fortune. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-01-07 12:52 |
| #5 You will see these cars in special lanes at first. Collision avoidance was mastered back in the 90s during the Intelligent Transportation Systems programs that Newt Gingrich's congress destroyed after the 94 election. The technology has only become smarter, cheaper and faster since then. Accident liability will rest with the humans whose cars invade the dedicated lanes. Insurance companies will get on board quickly once their tests confirm that the automated systems are MORE likely to detect and correct for mechanical failures (including incipient ones) than are human drivers. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-01-07 12:29 |
| #4 It'll not happen any time soon. One question: Who is liable for accidents? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-01-07 11:15 |
| #3 Would it drive itself to the service bay in the event of a recall? |
| Posted by: Mike 2008-01-07 11:04 |
| #2 I don't think this is going to happen for several reasons. To start with, many road hazards are not created by a driver, but by other drivers. That is why they teach "defensive" driving. And as a rule of thumb, defense is harder than offense. Second, the biggest technique such vehicles would have would be "standoffishness". But in regular driving, if you follow the optimal rules, you not only drive at a snail's pace, but you *create* a hazard to other drivers. That is, if a road has a posted speed limit of 35, but the *typical* driver drives 55 on it, a vehicle driving 35 or less becomes a road hazard. If the interval between cars is less than three car lengths, which is very normally the case, the automatic car would probably slow down. Then other cars would cut in front of it, and it would slow down further. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-01-07 08:46 |
| #1 We have those now - cars with people on cell phones behind the wheel. I see and dodge 'em every day... |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2008-01-07 07:52 |