The future is here
08/05/12 05:45
We live in a time of such rapid change that it feels like the future is continually unfolding. Things that were science fiction a short time ago are now a reality. But reality isn’t the same as we had imagined. I imagined an ever-increasing program of human space exploration with space travel becoming common for regular people. So far, there are no trips to the moon within my price range. I thought it possible that we would all have airplanes in our garages with private aviation becoming as common as private automobiles. That doesn’t seem to be going to happen anytime soon.
There have been more than a few things that I didn’t see coming. I never gave much thought to having a car that didn’t require my input to get from one place to another. The thought of taking a nap while the car drives itself isn’t among the things I had envisioned. That reality may be closer than we think. Nevada changed its laws to allow self-driven cars in March. The long-term plan is to license members of the public to use such vehicles on Nevada roads. California is expected to follow with a similar law soon.
The Google-modified Toyota Prius has accumulated over 140,000 accident free miles with trained drivers at the ready to take over should the auto driving system fail. So far there have been no failures and the only incident was that the car was tapped from behind while stopped at an intersection. The accident was, of course, driver error. Most accidents are.
Preventing accidents appears to be the motivation for the investment of time and technology in developing a car that will drive itself. The Google cars use video cameras mounted on the roof, radar sensors and a laser range finder to determine the location of other traffic. Cars have successfully negotiated the steep streets of San Francisco, traveled in traffic across the Golden Gate Bridge, and made the trip around Lake Tahoe without problems.
I can’t decide how attractive the technology really is. It does seem like it would be a good thing to have a car that would prevent someone from taking a turn into oncoming traffic, from wandering from the assigned lane and take over when an inattentive or over-tired driver fails to remain alert. But it is hard to think of a self-driving car without getting a vision of someone trapped in a vehicle heading in an unwanted direction, or failing to make a rest stop when needed.
I could find no information about how the vehicles performed in adverse weather conditions. I wonder if a Google car can maintain control on an icy road. I’m pretty sure that it would be stopped by some of the mud that one encounters in the open country around here. Of course, it would probably refuse to go places where the GPS shows that there are no roads. Around here we often drive where the GPS database believes that there are no roads. There is a place on Interstate 90 near Rapid City where the visual display consistently shows the vehicle leaving the Interstate when it actually is following the road and maintaining its lane. Nevada is a rural state with a lot of back roads. Something tells me that these cars will need a little human input from time to time.
That makes me feel a little better. I don’t really want to believe that a system of computers, lasers and video cameras can replace me. I am not a perfect driver. I have had a few minor accidents over the years. Fortunately no one has been hurt and damage has been slight. All in all, I have a good safety record. I know, however, that accidents do occur. You cannot control the behavior of other drivers.
There was a wild accident down near Hot Springs last night. A left-turning vehicle crossed into the path of a pickup pulling a 30-foot trailer that was coming down a hill. The two vehicles collided and then the pickup with the trailer jackknifed over a large culvert. It made a pretty good mess and sent three people to the hospital. I don’t know the details of the accident, but it is possible that some of the auto-driver technology could have helped avoid the accident. The automatic system probably would not have been sun-blinded as might have been the case with one of the drivers. It probably would have prevented the one vehicle from turning into the path of the other. Technology could have slowed the pickup pulling the trailer as it approached the intersection. It is unclear if more technology would have helped the driver to maintain control after striking the vehicle and prevented the truck and trailer from jackknifing.
I suppose that no technology will eliminate all accidents. Technology that can reduce accidents has a lot of value. It is also possible that the Google car will work best in areas with heavy traffic where most accidents occur. The idea of a car that would drive itself in the long open spaces of Nevada is appealing, but it might be most helpful to have a vehicle that would negotiate city traffic. As a person who has lived most of his life far from the big cities, but who occasionally drives in them, I think my driving could use the most help in heavy traffic.
The technology fascinates me. I do, however, have a suggestion for the Google engineers. If they want a real test of their auto drive system, they ought to bring one of their fancy cars to our part of the world. I’d let them park it in my driveway if they needed a place. It might be fun to see if I could baffle the computer by asking the car to drive out Sheridan Lake Road to the Victoria Lake cutoff, take the dirt road to highway 385 then head north to the Silver City road. Then it could loop back to Pactola on the back road before going south toward Hill City. If it didn’t get lost on that loop, I’d think it was a pretty good driver.
But that isn’t the real test. The real test would be to see if it could complete the route without hitting a deer. If they make a car that avoids all of the deer, I might be interested in that technology.
There have been more than a few things that I didn’t see coming. I never gave much thought to having a car that didn’t require my input to get from one place to another. The thought of taking a nap while the car drives itself isn’t among the things I had envisioned. That reality may be closer than we think. Nevada changed its laws to allow self-driven cars in March. The long-term plan is to license members of the public to use such vehicles on Nevada roads. California is expected to follow with a similar law soon.
Preventing accidents appears to be the motivation for the investment of time and technology in developing a car that will drive itself. The Google cars use video cameras mounted on the roof, radar sensors and a laser range finder to determine the location of other traffic. Cars have successfully negotiated the steep streets of San Francisco, traveled in traffic across the Golden Gate Bridge, and made the trip around Lake Tahoe without problems.
I can’t decide how attractive the technology really is. It does seem like it would be a good thing to have a car that would prevent someone from taking a turn into oncoming traffic, from wandering from the assigned lane and take over when an inattentive or over-tired driver fails to remain alert. But it is hard to think of a self-driving car without getting a vision of someone trapped in a vehicle heading in an unwanted direction, or failing to make a rest stop when needed.
I could find no information about how the vehicles performed in adverse weather conditions. I wonder if a Google car can maintain control on an icy road. I’m pretty sure that it would be stopped by some of the mud that one encounters in the open country around here. Of course, it would probably refuse to go places where the GPS shows that there are no roads. Around here we often drive where the GPS database believes that there are no roads. There is a place on Interstate 90 near Rapid City where the visual display consistently shows the vehicle leaving the Interstate when it actually is following the road and maintaining its lane. Nevada is a rural state with a lot of back roads. Something tells me that these cars will need a little human input from time to time.
That makes me feel a little better. I don’t really want to believe that a system of computers, lasers and video cameras can replace me. I am not a perfect driver. I have had a few minor accidents over the years. Fortunately no one has been hurt and damage has been slight. All in all, I have a good safety record. I know, however, that accidents do occur. You cannot control the behavior of other drivers.
I suppose that no technology will eliminate all accidents. Technology that can reduce accidents has a lot of value. It is also possible that the Google car will work best in areas with heavy traffic where most accidents occur. The idea of a car that would drive itself in the long open spaces of Nevada is appealing, but it might be most helpful to have a vehicle that would negotiate city traffic. As a person who has lived most of his life far from the big cities, but who occasionally drives in them, I think my driving could use the most help in heavy traffic.
The technology fascinates me. I do, however, have a suggestion for the Google engineers. If they want a real test of their auto drive system, they ought to bring one of their fancy cars to our part of the world. I’d let them park it in my driveway if they needed a place. It might be fun to see if I could baffle the computer by asking the car to drive out Sheridan Lake Road to the Victoria Lake cutoff, take the dirt road to highway 385 then head north to the Silver City road. Then it could loop back to Pactola on the back road before going south toward Hill City. If it didn’t get lost on that loop, I’d think it was a pretty good driver.
But that isn’t the real test. The real test would be to see if it could complete the route without hitting a deer. If they make a car that avoids all of the deer, I might be interested in that technology.