Driverless cars & trains

[Lester Perry]

Rather than use technology to drive the car for you, I'd rather see technology to keep driver's informed, honest, and focused. In other words, perhaps governors on vehicles that limit speed to 69 MPH... or even better a "tattle tale" system whereas if you get above a certain speed, road side detectors read a wireless tag in your license plate and send your info to the MVA who issues you a Citation. Or in car technology that renders cell phones useless when in the vehicle is shifted into drive. Sensors that can tell how close you are to the car in front of you, and reduce your speed accordingly to prevent tailgating. Sensors that won't let you merge if there isn't space to do so. There are already sensors that will apply the brakes in your car if the car in front of you suddenly applies theirs. Roadside communicators that constantly monitor the conditions of the road surface (icy?), flow of traffic, interruptions ahead, and communicate such info to your car so you can make educated decisions on travel routes, etc.

It all sounds far fetched, in some cases it may seem invasive to your privacy, but in all cases it is better than relying on a computer to drive the vehicle for you.

Sounds like we think alike.

[Puddlejumper]

I generally agree with this. I think governors and sensors (telling you that you're too close to a car ahead of you, etc.) would all be good. Not too keen on having a ticket emailed to me if I drive the car too fast! although I rarely drive above 70-75 mph, which is the standard speed on our major highways. Also, I like to have my cellphone available in case my wife or sons would like to use it while I'm driving. But all the other ideas are great though!

I don't necessarily think that cell phones need to be deactivated, but I can't think of any other way to keep people from texting while driving.

[nachoman]

There will be a driverless shuttle train around our airport soon. I am sure there are already plenty of driverless monorails and light rail trains in those applications.
Driverless cars? Maybe when you are on the interstate in the country and you just want to put it on auto pilot and eat a hamburger. Then again, you can't trust people to know when the appropriate time is to use it, just as most people can't seem to figure out their high-beams. I don't see any safety advantages to driverless cars. Then again, if you want to go somewhere and don't want to drive - just take a taxi or a bus or a train. Of course, when they invent the transporter (Star trek) much of the way we think about life will be obsolete!

[RobertInOntario]

I agree with the above -- I could see it working as a high-tech cruise control on highways.

[MountainMan]

Rather than use technology to drive the car for you, I'd rather see technology to keep driver's informed, honest, and focused. In other words, perhaps governors on vehicles that limit speed to 69 MPH... or even better a "tattle tale" system whereas if you get above a certain speed, road side detectors read a wireless tag in your license plate and send your info to the MVA who issues you a Citation. Or in car technology that renders cell phones useless when in the vehicle is shifted into drive. Sensors that can tell how close you are to the car in front of you, and reduce your speed accordingly to prevent tailgating. Sensors that won't let you merge if there isn't space to do so. There are already sensors that will apply the brakes in your car if the car in front of you suddenly applies theirs. Roadside communicators that constantly monitor the conditions of the road surface (icy?), flow of traffic, interruptions ahead, and communicate such info to your car so you can make educated decisions on travel routes, etc.

It all sounds far fetched, in some cases it may seem invasive to your privacy, but in all cases it is better than relying on a computer to drive the vehicle for you.

That might be the ideal...IF human beings were actually that smart...but we are not and we constantly go to great lengths to prove it. The most advanced technology in the world is useless to us if we aren't smart enough to pay attention to it, and we continually prove that we are not smart enough. "Smarter" vehicles like you describe actually make people dumber than they already are. Less and less for them do do, and the since average human does not possess the reflexes of a fighter pilot, the HUD approach is even worse than useless because at critical times demanding the maximum attention and response from the driver it becomes a major distraction.

Either start teaching people to really drive intelligently, responsibly and defensively, lower the speed and create "bumper car" vehicles, or let an electronic brain far smarter and faster than we will ever be do the job for us so that we can resume vegetating in blissful ignorance while racing down the roads.

[MountainMan]

There will be a driverless shuttle train around our airport soon. I am sure there are already plenty of driverless monorails and light rail trains in those applications.
Driverless cars? Maybe when you are on the interstate in the country and you just want to put it on auto pilot and eat a hamburger. Then again, you can't trust people to know when the appropriate time is to use it, just as most people can't seem to figure out their high-beams. I don't see any safety advantages to driverless cars. Then again, if you want to go somewhere and don't want to drive - just take a taxi or a bus or a train. Of course, when they invent the transporter (Star trek) much of the way we think about life will be obsolete!

Actually, the solution could be a computerized, light rail national transportation system, removing the need for people to travel by individual conveyance except to very out-of-the-way places. High speed highways are rapidly making themselves obsolete, as they become impossibly expensive to build, upgrade, expand and maintain, and which are not the most efficient means of long-distance transportation.

[Puddlejumper]

That might be the ideal...IF human beings were actually that smart...but we are not and we constantly go to great lengths to prove it. The most advanced technology in the world is useless to us if we aren't smart enough to pay attention to it, and we continually prove that we are not smart enough. "Smarter" vehicles like you describe actually make people dumber than they already are. Less and less for them do do, and the since average human does not possess the reflexes of a fighter pilot, the HUD approach is even worse than useless because at critical times demanding the maximum attention and response from the driver it becomes a major distraction.

Either start teaching people to really drive intelligently, responsibly and defensively, lower the speed and create "bumper car" vehicles, or let an electronic brain far smarter and faster than we will ever be do the job for us so that we can resume vegetating in blissful ignorance while racing down the roads.

This is what is really needed. People around here don't even know how to use a crossover in a median strip right. Then they will sit there and honk at you even though you are the one following correct traffic procedure. I drive a fire truck for a living... you wouldn't believe the percentage of drivers that are unaware of the most basic maneuver for yeilding to emergency traffic... pull to the right. I ALWAYS go left in the fire truck, because YOU are supposed to go RIGHT. Regardless, I inevitably end up standing still in traffic waiting to see what other drivers will do... defensive driving at it's worst.

[Dave Harris sctchbld]

A number of years ago in Las Vegas the RTC ( County agency that runs the bus system) bought 10 buses from a company in France that were supposed to operate driverless. The deal was that the bus had a laser affair that was supposed to follow a line painted on the street with a special paint.The bus was to be given a dedicated lane and have specially built stops that it would dock in by itself. Before the system ever got up and running it was deterrmined that the special paint would very shortly be degraded by cars running over it to make turns or park or unpark to the point that the bus could not follow it. So the decision was made to try to operate the bus with a driver and let the bus "self drive" only to "dock" because the paint in that area would not be degraded, that too soon ended as about 90 percent of the time the bus either hit the bus stop shelter or the supposed "along for the ride" driver had to manually save the situation. They are still using the 10 buses but with the "star-treck" stuff removed, and a driver firmly belted to the seat.

[Dave Harris sctchbld]

Something I forgot to mention , just before I left las vegas it was announced that Las Vegas would soon be the first or one of the first cities to have a hundred -plus driverless cars being tested on the city streets in 2013. That shold prove interesting !