Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday February 21 2017, @06:48PM   Printer-friendly
from the not-the-time-for-napping dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

As predicted by many (including posts here on SN), extensive testing now shows that if the driver's workload is reduced to near zero they are in no position to intervene should the autonomous system get in trouble.

The Detroit-based company has tried many ways to keep its engineers alert during autonomous car test runs, employing everything from alarm bells and lights to even putting a second engineer in the vehicle to monitor their counterpart. "No matter — the smooth ride was just too lulling and engineers struggled to maintain 'situational awareness,'" said Ford product development chief, Raj Nair.

Ford's strategy of eventually removing the steering wheel and pedals from self-driving cars has ignited a debate between automakers on how to approach the development of Level 3 self-driving vehicles, or if Level 3 should even exist at all.

BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Audi will introduce semi-autonomous Level 3 vehicles next year that require human intervention within 10 seconds or the vehicle will slow to a stop in its lane. However, other automakers like Nissan and Honda have upcoming systems that give the driver 30 seconds to prepare and re-engage the vehicle or it will pull to the side of the road.

The article continues with quotes from other manufacturers and US DOT. As a reminder, levels from 0 (no automation) through 5 have been defined by SAE. Level 3 is "conditional automation" and it's starting to look like this level is not such a good idea.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22 2017, @03:45AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22 2017, @03:45AM (#469982)

    build road systems by hydraulic-tamping the dirt and consolidate its surface with some environmentally friendly polymers
    Someone likes mud and ruts. That 'polymer' will do nothing. Lets be nice and say a car weighs 1 ton (older models can be as high as 4). That means each wheel has 250 pounds in a 1/4 ft area. The thinner the tire the more weight on the area. The bigger the area the more distributed it is.

    Now do the same thing with truck. The legal weight is 80,000 pounds. Or about 4444 pounds per tire. They can also get permits to go overweight so long as they stick to particular roads.

    Now add in water, ice, grit, dirt, and other things. Those other things become abrasives. Many states have tried making roads out of plastic. Usually recycled 2liter bottles. They found the grit ate the roads up in no time at all. So they went with mixed and it was better but they still did not last as long. Also add in weeds. So you better have some way to remove them. As weeds do not stop. So now you are talking chemicals and frequent spraying.

    The cement and asphalt is actually cost effective. Repaving roads is expensive in time, money, and traffic jams. The material itself is actually the CHEAP part (2-3 cents per pound). Properly grading and water run off design is the part where all the cost goes. Many times they regrind it in place and re-mix with new just to save cost. Cement has an amazing amount of compression strength but poor lateral strength. Dirt has neither. Asphalt is usually slathered over cement (not always). Because it has an interesting property. It is slightly gooey and easy to lay down a new layer. It can sorta self heal in hot weather. Which is nice as you do not have to come out and tear up the road every 3-4 years but maybe every 10. However, it is very brittle in cold weather. It is why you see it more in the south and not as much in northern areas. You see it in cities more as they like the speed at which it can go down. Which means minimizing the disruption tearing up the roads creates.

    For some areas your idea may be quite feasible. Others not as much. Sorry. There will be a long cross over of driving/self drive cars. For cars the cycle is around 10-15 years. Someone will pay the price for all of that new infrastructure you want. Who will do that? I can 100% guarantee it will not be those rich oligarchs. It will be you and me with a good portion ending up in their pocket. They will make up a tax for it. On the other end what do I get out of it? A lesser system that has more limitations and costs more to do anything with.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1