Driverless cars via GPS, the tech is here now.

casebro

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jun 14, 2005
Messages
19,788
Big concept for the future.

GPS is accurate enough for contractors to use it laying out buildings. It takes a local transponder to get things within inches, or fractions. Cars have systems nowadays that are as accurate as the satellites, less the local transponder. Maps are accurate, or can be made so. So the technology is there today. No sensors in the roads even needed.

Now hook all the cars to a central station via cellular technology. Central Station knows where every car is, where they are going, how fast, how far apart...

All the commuter does is go outside, stand on the curb, and punch his destination into his cell phone. The best passing car stops, and takes him to his destination. Cars would seldom travel with only one passenger. No 6,000 pound behemoth carrying Mom to the soccer game, without it picking up and dropping off a full load. Initially, no more single person commutes. Not car pools, more like picking up hitch hikers, but without the hitchhiker's anonymity. Security is easily as good as on the net. Digital ID needed, Central Station doesn't allow muggers and buggers to share a car without multiple riders/witnesses.

No more slow going busses, delaying forty commuters to pick up one more.Perhaps limiting the number of stops the first passenger makes? 3-4 for stops, then straight to passenger #1's destination. Your car might even start itself up, go pick up some riders, come back and get you, then continue on it's route.

The Central Station will keep everybody flowing into the office. Ultimately, no need for private cars anymore. Or traffic lights, or HOV lanes. Buses only as express, pick up a full load at one stop, haul them all a long ways, then everybody gets off at the same spot, and continues on in small cars. Sort of like sharing a taxi, but everybody already matched up for efficiency.

It's a commuter system that would work in scattered out America. Wonder what it will do to per-capital fuel use?
 
I think a lot of the technology is there. But there is still some missing. Like responding to unanticipated events, dodging a skateboarder, stopping to help someone in need, deciding if the surprise downpour is too deep to drive through, etc. Maybe it would work better on a closed road or tunnel system.
 
I could see something like this as an alternative system on a controlled access road. A perfect example would be a system that takes over once you move your car onto an interstate or expressway. You punch in the exit you want, and the system drives your car to that location. This would minimize things like pedestrians and other unexpected bits and pieces.

Most designs for driverless cars, though, also include some type or either visual or IR detection system, to determine what's in front of it. Some visual systems will "watch" for and follow the yellow and white lines on the road. Many will detect objects in front of them, and onboard sensors can determine relative speeds and stopping distances. A combination of local processing and detection to react to the unexpected with centralizd management of traffic flows would probably work.

IN any case, it would require new cars and modifications to existing cars. That would be the big problem in implementation...what to do about the old vehicles that wouldn't be part of the system? It would probably have to be phased in, one road at a time.
 
Well it would seem the tech is ther

link

Darpa self driving cars managed to drive 55 miles in city streets in simulated traffic and at least one was successful.

Unlikely to actualy be implemented any time soon though. It might be technicaly possible, but it makes liability a nightmare, and who would open themselves up to such liability?

The military might well use it, unmanned convoyes and the like. But it seems unlikely to get into civilian use any time soon.

There was also a long thread on this issue about a year ago.

Link
 
Right now the 'driverless' part is irrelevant...

It's the $4.50 (US) a gallon to make the thing move...

Solve that, and then we can ditch the 'driver'. ;)
 
I'll have to look at that Darpa car link. I'm betting it used sensors in the road and between cars, NOT a central control that knows where every car in it's cell is.

Okay, so you think remote control is not good, Don't fixate on the driverlessness.

Note also the Central Station for pick ups and drop offs.

Liability is easily fixable- pass a law. Like the way a GI can't sue the army. The trade off would be the fuel savings of never having a one-passenger car on the road. Save 75% of our motor fuel that way, good for the country. Bad for the tort system.
 
I'll have to look at that Darpa car link. I'm betting it used sensors in the road and between cars, NOT a central control that knows where every car in it's cell is. SNIP.

I'm sort of right about the Darpa cars. Lots of attempted on board AI, instead of the central 'brain' that knows where to send each car, and where every car and all obstacles are.

I didn't know Darpa was going urban. All the rest of the competitions I've heard of have been off-road. Tough to get an onboard AI to recognize natural obstacles, I guess.
 
Terrorists will no longer need to have SUICIDE car bombs now.
Terrorists had no need to have suicide car bombs ten years ago. Whipping up a remote control car is trivial at best. I am really surprised they haven't done it all ready.
 
Last edited:
Terrorists had no need to have suicide car bombs ten years ago. Whipping up a remote control car is trivial at best. I am really surprised they haven't done it all ready.

RC requires that you have visualization of both the car and target.

With a GPS car bomb, I could load up a car with explosives here in the Chicago suburbs, and have it strike a target in Kalamazoo, MI in three hours.

Meanwhile, I am in another car passing though St. Louis by the time it hits.

"Fire and forget" is a major advantage.
 
RC requires that you have visualization of both the car and target.

With a GPS car bomb, I could load up a car with explosives here in the Chicago suburbs, and have it strike a target in Kalamazoo, MI in three hours.

Meanwhile, I am in another car passing though St. Louis by the time it hits.

"Fire and forget" is a major advantage.

Since when are terrorists lacking in either people to drop off the cars or die in them?
 
Since when are terrorists lacking in either people to drop off the cars or die in them?

How many MORE people WOULD do a bombing if they wouldn't have to die for it or get caught? The issue here is you create a whole new class of "casual" terrorists. Like the Unabomber, but able to deliver a payload in the several ton range.
 
I have a problem with this when it will reach a point when people won't even be allowed to drive their car, and they'll be required to use this system.

Additionally, if every car can be tracked throughout it's whole route... isn't that kind of a privacy issue?


INRM
 
This thread could be moved to the new Ct section.......

In fact, ..........My thoughts were just stolen?
 
Am I the only Top Gear fan here?

They had a BMW that, using global positioning, drove itself around their test track after it had been shown a lap. And it didn't creep around like something out of DARPA. It drove hard and fast, braking for turns only at the last second.
 
How many MORE people WOULD do a bombing if they wouldn't have to die for it or get caught? The issue here is you create a whole new class of "casual" terrorists. Like the Unabomber, but able to deliver a payload in the several ton range.

Tim McVeigh didn't seem to have much of a problem.
 
Am I the only Top Gear fan here?

They had a BMW that, using global positioning, drove itself around their test track after it had been shown a lap. And it didn't creep around like something out of DARPA. It drove hard and fast, braking for turns only at the last second.

That is a much more constrained enviroment, it so it does not need to see and interperate the road ahead.

How did it deal with traffic?
 
Got caught.

With this, there is never any reason to get caught.

He never had a reason to get caught, he just did not sufficiently hide his connection to the vehical. That is what you have not described is why such vehicals would need to be so open that you could move large quantities of material arround annonamously. That would be great for people needing to make deliveries as they don't have to pay for any of the miles and so on.

As from the bomb makers point of view it is not much different if you use a driverless car or a driven car with someone else driving, it does not seem to be a serious change in security.
 
My sister in law spent from nine thirty to eleven thirty at night driving in circles before she got the last 3 miles to the camp site where we were meeting. That was with GPS.

But wotthehell. We already have a technology to guide vehicles to anywhere in the city, and it's much more fuel- efficient than a car. It's called a tram (or streetcar to some).
 
Terrorists had no need to have suicide car bombs ten years ago. Whipping up a remote control car is trivial at best. I am really surprised they haven't done it all ready.

Hollywood got there first. Ever seen The Dead Pool? ;)
 
Regarding the OP, the technology is there now in the same way that the technology is already here that would allow a completely bug-free operating system that is compatible with every programme and piece of hardware a user could throw at it.

While we can make one car go around a test track with no problems, getting a city full of the blighters interacting with each other and the environment with absolutely no risk of running over the occasional 4-year-old? Not going to happen any time soon I feel.
 
Regarding the OP, the technology is there now in the same way that the technology is already here that would allow a completely bug-free operating system that is compatible with every programme and piece of hardware a user could throw at it.

While we can make one car go around a test track with no problems, getting a city full of the blighters interacting with each other and the environment with absolutely no risk of running over the occasional 4-year-old? Not going to happen any time soon I feel.

Which is likely why the army will be the first to use them. The risk of running over a 4 year old, vs putting people in the trucks and makeing them better targets to attack can pay off well for them.
 

Back
Top Bottom