GM will launch self-driving car in 2008
This will totally give new meaning to the term auto-pilot: GM will be launching a vehicle with an actual
self-driving system in its 2008 Opel Vectra. That's right — think KITT, people, but without the smarmy voice (well, we
assume, anyway). It will be able to pilot itself even in heavy traffic at up to 60 mph, which is more than we can say
for most of our friends, really. It'll be using lasers, a video camera and a sophisticated computer brain to recognize
signs and detect obstacles. Let's hope the OS it uses is, um, extremely stable.
[Thanks, CoreyTheGent]
Filed under: Transportation
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
mardoen @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
What? Are you guys even allowed to use such a thing on your streets? Can't imagine that this would work here in Old Europe.
jazzay @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
You'll lose a little more than your homework when this OS crashes.
Matt M @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
hmm... I wonder how it handles pedestrians
/cough... farmer's market
//it wasn't my fault officer, my car was driving itself
Finished.Law.School @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
Considering GM quality and reputation can this sort of thing be trusted if it comes from them. Maybe they should have Toyota or Honda review it first.
huh? @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
Finally, a company that gets it! We need this more than a car that gets 40 mpg. My only hope is that this self-driving car gets about 10 mpg with the promise of fuel cell incorporation in 30 years. I mean, fuel cells are a realistic technology, right?
kevind @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
haha, i guess computers will now be able to 'crash' literally
Thrasher @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
To #1, this car isn't for the American market. It's for Europe. We don't have Opel here in the US.
Tom @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
Nobody seems to recognize how much self-driving cars would increase national productivity, speaking in both economic terms and quality of life terms. Even if this one isn't the end solution, this should be a national priority to get a system in place that works (I'd have all of the cars on both a system-wide and ad-hoc network, backed up by independent gps data, backed up by built-in camera and laser systems). Surely with those three systems it would be safer than any of us behind the wheel, and imagine commute time no longer being "wasted" time.
positron @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
they'll have massive opposition from police, insurance companies, government, and anyone else who collects taxes/fines/fees or otherwise stands to lose substantial income if the frequency of traffic violations and accidents is dramaticly reduced. those people don't want safer roads and increased quality of life, they want your money.
huh? @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
Hey, funetik, I was being sarcastic. I now realize sarcasm does not translate well in this forum. Gas prices here in the states are at record highs while fuel economy is lower than it was during the 1980s. I don't blame the companies: GM, Chrysler, and Ford are just getting away with what the government will allow them to do. And then people eat up this kind of "gee whiz" tomfoolery. At the same time, everyone is chomping at the bit for fuel cells, but getting cheap H2 gas and then distributing it is non-trivial. www.pbs.org/nova had a nice show about this, and I'm pretty sure you can watch it online.
Who to blame? Government is a nice, big, attractive target, and both parties (hey, Clinton could have done something, too) are all too willing to look the other way - and in other cases are wholly complicit. The newly signed, and much ballyhooed energy bill recently signed by President Bush did not address fuel economy at all! The nice thing is that my two senators are the democratic and republican chairs of the senate energy committee and Bush came to New Mexico to sign the damn bill. And faced with $3.00/gallon, people are just now adjusting their driving patterns.
Jonathan N. @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
Yah and the insurance on their thing will rival a off the showroom floor Porsche because NO insurance company in their right mind would want to be the first to deal with a computer crash or something the manufacturer didnt take into consideration...failure of a camera, laser, etc. And we arent even talking lawsuits yet. Watch GM drop this idea after the first multi billion dollar lawsuit because little Jonny on his electric scooter got run over because the car couldnt detect such a small obstacle or some weird anomaly.
Will self driving cars take over? Someday. For now a manufacture needs to pay a town to take it over and deploy about a dozen of these things for 10+ years.
Chris @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
I suppose that eventually transportation via automobile will reach something akin to what was depicted in "I, Robot". The movie with Will Smith that is.
If all the cars on the road use autopilot, it would surely make it a lot safer than if just one did. I am assuming the cars would be manufactured to communicate with one another so that accidents would be damn near eradicated.
However, as someone who thoroughly enjoys the thrill/sport of driving...I am not too happy with the prospects of a future in which I will not have control over my automobile.
funetik @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
Opels are known as Vauxhalls here in the UK, it was a British company until GM bought it. Like a few people have said - GM can barely make decent cars, so there's no chance i'm putting my life in the hands of this thing. As for the guy talking about us needing this rather than better fuel economy...find a cliff and jump. We need this like a hole in the head. Very soon (and it's not far off it already) a US gallon of unleaded will cost $6.81 here in the UK. Now, the majority of the UK already use fairly small engined cars and manuals (stick-shifts) at that. I think it's time the US addressed this issue. Kyoto, or no Kyoto, Bush has his head up his arse if he thinks he can get away with 25% of the world's pollution. The west are supposed to set examples to the developing world - e.g. China, India etc. GM should be spending more money on alternative technologies, not ways to make us even more lazy.
funetik @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
Sorry, huh?, you're right about sarcasm on here. I was still half asleep though :)
I'm glad we're thinking along the same lines.
Shaun @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
Does the car also tell you that getting off your fat ass and walking the half a mile to the shop or letting your kids walk to school would be better for everyone in the long run?
Does it overtake cyclists leaving them plenty of room instead of harassing them off the streets?
Does it download traffic conditions and decide NOT to allow the driver to drive to work with less than one person in the car when the roads are full?
If the answer is no to these then Opel have solved what exactly?
Imp @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
I can't imagine the car would be allowed to drive without human interaction. However, if it has self guidance, I can see it being a fantastic safety measure to poor driving.
edavis @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
Communication between cars in the 21st century......Matrix Style
Car 1 : My owner is so freaking lazy....I mean I'm making his coffee and he's watching TV while I'm driving. How about you # 2?
Car 2 : My owner is sitting in his boxers on MY LEATHER SEAT. ......I got an idea......
Newspaper Headline:
Two men killed when automated cars crash into each other.
jeppe @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
I agree #12
John @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
What about a virus spreading from car to car that knocks out the system on the freeway?
Death and destruction would ensue.
sunz @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
umm .. after reading the article .. guys i don't think this is exactly what you're imagining ... This seems to be a step up from the cruise control mechanism. i do not think this car will 'drive you to your destination'. i think you can set it like cruise control and instead of just taking your foot off the pedal you can take your hands off the wheel and the car will continue to drive straight and possibly follow the curves in the road.
and i'm guessin no US version for 5 plus more years.
"The system is to become available on more models by the end of the decade initially other cars on the Epsilon platform, including the next Saab 9-3, Cadillac BLS and Saturn Aura. Whether it will be launched in the U.S. will depend on whether administrators deem it safe product liability laws are different in America."
Rich @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
Hahaha, you guys are all crazy but just remember.
Its kinda confusing but man makes mistakes not machine...hehehe but what really confuses me is man made machine soo uh.
Ok nevermind im crazy, if anyone kinda understands and can run with what i was saying great. But i doubt if we get a good enough system by 2008 with self correcting software we wont have to worry about 'Mistakes' from these supermachines.
Leth @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
"To #1, this car isn't for the American market. It's for Europe. We don't have Opel here in the US."
Actually... This car is the same platform of which the new, updated saturns are built off of.
Though it won't reach our shores due to our insurence and law cultures.
Google Nazi @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
Yeah sadly everybody (*hillary*cough*) will bitch about it if it comes to the states. "It isn't safe", "I won't trust my life to a machine!", "what if somoene starts hacking!", " what if there is a bug/glitch, who do i sue?", "why am i a retard!?"... and so on....
Granted if it were in the states as well i would gladly wait for the 2010 car models from gm such as the one that runs at over 300mpg. I just don't feel I need to be a guinee pig within the first houndred cars sold lol.
steve @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
it would be funny if the car was running windows and crashed. lol. get it. blue screen of death really means it. lol
Matt @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
#26
Assuming that the Traffic Assist computer doesn't have wireless access, this would be next to impossible.
What will likely happen is, if this comes to North America, it will be illegal to NOT pay attention to road, regardless if the car is driving itself.
The typical car today has many computers running in it, what is the failure rate on those? Essentially 0. The design around this computer will obviously have many fail safes.
There will probably be less traffic accidents with this system. Older people that have trouble driving, some of whom shouldn't be on the road to begin with. People who have been drinking. And parents who don't trust their teenagers driving their minivan at 100mph pissing everyone off and putting people in danger.
I for one would be on the buyer's list for one of these cars.
RealCHecK @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
It took better than a decade for ABS to be accepted, then standardized. Side curtain airbags (just the headprotection part), stability control, and traction control will probably have an easier time. Cruise control coupled w/ gm's IR HUD inputs (Remember those), pattern rec, and simple sensors (backup sensors) would be a tried and true basis for this type of project. It does require a rethinking of American roads..like that thing about not passing on the right and how the lanes on the free/motor/way SHOULD work.
As to #'s x-xxx:
A) Corvettes still don't suck. Sure, you can go buy a porsche or even get exotic but it still isn't a Corvette.
B) For the SES group here, the Cobalt SS or the 06 SS-S2 (whatever) is already too much car for you.
C) Silverado #1 ranked fullsize truck across the board this year beating out all competitors inc nissan and toyota.
D) For the SUVers 06 SS Trailblazer...hmnn...take a look
E) is for ecoterrorist. DOD (Displacement on Demand) as shown in the new Malibu not only works exceptionally well, but creates a high level of fuel economy.
F) I'm sorry you might have had a bad experience w/ a GM product, or you don't get that Chevy ends up w/ the best stuff and anything marketed as Saturn Redline or another multiple-moniker is going to come to the Super Sport line of Chevy in a much better format. Ok forgot the Yukon taking first place.
G) Those Taco(ma)s are ut bugly. I'd rather have the Nissan, the Honda MIDSIZE truck is a joke (payload) so get out of my GM355 trucks way.
H) Technology. Through it's partnerships and acquisitions, GM now owns some exceptional technology, for example Duramax. Currently Silverados can be had w/ Quadrasteer ain't parking a truck easier than a prius great. The only thing somewhat lacking is the gyroscopic stability control system. Look what Ford has got from it's acquisitions: Volvo-gyrostab, Jag-AWD compact platform, the rest is already there. GM has all the AWD stuff as well and stability (not to be confused w/ traction control) will probably be out...oh for the 2007 model year w/ the exception of perhaps the colorados (StabiliTrack anyone?).
As for GM 'computers' It's all about the sensors and GM has more of them for inputs and conditions than anyone but NASA (tried and true). As for the computer part. I wouldn't want an automotive computer designed by anyone but VW, however I'll credit this to GM
the PCM's work well and are being standardized. The ETC makes you think the throttle is connected and you can't even tell that it's throttle by sensor.
Sure, as a car company GM makes some bad decisions and they get a little burned by UAW, but let's not underestimate the number one automotive manufacturer in the world because toyota (who send people to observe Americans with their trucks because Toy marketing doesn't 'get it') is closing. Honda and Toyota do not belong in the same sentence. Honda is a very small company that banks on reputation and repeat purchases. Nissan is like a subsidiary that makes good stuff but people are still enamored w/ toyota. Completely forgetting that VAG makes better stuff than all the japanese companies and only loses out b/c they don't market the European stuff in the US.
Get over the 'wah it's GM or American so it sucks'. This is cool, and w/ the sensors GM has it's not difficult for them to get the control inputs to work efficiently. Now how about a fastrack autodrive only lane.
FTR, my first GM vehicle was a dog and I went through 8 different makes (foreign and US domestic) before I went back. So yeah, there were mistakes and bad experiences, but don't laugh so hard b/c you think your prius is hot..the blue led's from your glowing dashboard lights might give you a headache.
Rob_Edmonton @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
Just like the guy said wayyyy up there in the posts, let's just hope it's not Micro$oft that is doing the program or our windshields will turn blue and ask you to re-boot while doing 120km/h down the highway :))
Rob
Edmonton, Canadork
Washu @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
As someone who has done work in embedded systems I really hope they are using redundant computers with self checking as employed in aerospace and example of this would be how the computers on the space shuttle ,or the 777 and newer aircraft will have a vote and the one that disagrees is removed from the loop and the fault shown to the operator.
Of course in this case you do not need something as advanced but maybe have two systems run a self check routine during boot and if there is a fault the system will simply display an error state on the nav display and be deactivated.
In this case they should have this happen when the car is started up and if there is a fault the feature will not engage.
As for the OS lets hope Gm had enough sense to use a real RTOS like QNX,VXworks,itron or RTlinux.
I'm all for new technology but if it's a non redundant system running embedded windows.
Like Will Smith in irobot I too will deactivate the computer take the wheel myself.
On microsoft embedded systems they are neither fault tolerant nor even true RTOSes and would be completely unsuitable for this application.
Heck I hardly would trust XP embedded controlling a refrigerator or HVAC system .
Google Nazi @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
If it would operate under a windows OS, america would be much safer then the average driver, driving. lol seriously!!
I can't wait til cars go 200mph+ like in i.robot!
Rusty Shackleford @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
Robot-controlled cars don't kill people; the Government does.
Petrica @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
The typical car today has many computers running in it, what is the failure rate on those? Essentially 0. The design around this computer will obviously have many fail safes.
frank @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
Did you all have a brain tumor for breakfast? This will never be released in any of our life times. Our petrified remains will be displayed in museums long before a truly self-driving car ever comes to market.
mgleason007 @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
'I hate to say it but some of you are weird... as far as hitting the kid on the bike i bet gm has already programed obsticle avoidance, and how many bikers pull out in front of a car doing 30 anyway? as far as the legality it will be no different than cruise controll, you will still be required to pay attention to the road in all legal aspects... "im sorry officer, i wasnt doing 80 my cruise control was" the law was enforced after the first case as "if you set it your responsible for it and you must still pay attention to the road at all times."'
I hate to say it but, well, you're a little bit of an idiot. You've never had a biker or a pedestrian or anything like that pull out in front of you? How about a Wal-Mart parking lot? This isn't some simple cruise control device controlled by your computer that simply operates the throttle. With cruise control, you still have to steer the car and apply the brake when necessary. It's not mean to keep control of the vehicle. This system is.
"Also THERE IS NO OPERATING SYSTEM ON IT... the computer will be a hardware only lower level programming language, when was the last time you heard of someone putting Windows or OSX Tiger on their Vette? well maybe the only time you hear of Windows even being used in a car is when someone is running a stand alone engine management set up, but still, thats not os driven."
Ummm, then you have no idea what an operating system is. I suppose you think there isn't an Operating System on an F-16? They run an embedded OS, and I'm pretty sure it's VXworks. What does Windows or OSX have to do with a Vette? Your argument makes no sense. I also don't understand what a stand-alone engine management system has to do with Windows. Could you explain that? Yes, you can plug your laptop into the system to program the OS that's on the EMS for fuel curves and such, but I guarantee you that the EMS itself does not run Windows.
"I bet there will be fail safes if say one of the guidence lasers go out it will kick it to manual only and not even allow it to go to auto drive..."
I would hope so. Though this is GM we're talking about here.
"GM already has an edge when it comes to guidence because of their nifty little Onstar system. My guesses are that the car will only go straight on auto drive but there is a chance that it could hook up through Onstars gps nav system and pilot the car through turns and onramps."
What does onStar have to do with anything? OnStar works off of GSM technology. That doesn't have anything to do with a car driving itself. Sorry, try again.
"GM is also a big company and they have had years to research this and they still have 2 more years to work out if there are any bugs in the system..."
Microsoft is a big company and they've had two decades to research and work out any bugs in the system... oh wait.
"People are just scared of new things, like when seat belts came out... Everyone thought the world was going to end, and air bags, abs, cruise control, traction control, fuel injection, displacement on demand all of those were rediculed and scoffed at when they were first revealed, but now most of the new cars made have those or should have them..."
No one is saying that this is a bad idea. I don't see you can go and compare this to those things. It's a good idea and will happen eventually. It just won't happen in 2008. Or 2020 for that matter.
Billy bob @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
Here tis my question... what if someone graffitis the speed sign ("...computer brain to recognize signs...") and makes it 10000mph. Then you'd be in for a ride. I say they need more Hybrid cars, and no hummers. This year gas was supposed to go up to $5 a gallon in the us. lukily it is still $2.80 :(, still very high priced though.
suaveguyc @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
I'm not as concerned about the OS crashing as I am about the whole obstacle issue. Here in Boulder CO, avoiding cyclists is literally something that you are thinking of all the time from sunrise to sunset (heck, even after sunset). Along with that, animals darting in the road is pratically a daily situation as well.
I really think that starting with a car like this for highway use would make more sense as the variables there are primarily in a straight path. But of course there are new issues then such a trucks carrying possibly unstable loads that the car probably wouldn't avoid.
suaveguyc @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
I'm not as concerned about the OS crashing as I am about the whole obstacle issue. Here in Boulder CO, avoiding cyclists is literally something that you are thinking of all the time from sunrise to sunset (heck, even after sunset). Along with that, animals darting in the road is pratically a daily situation as well.
I really think that starting with a car like this for highway use would make more sense as the variables there are primarily in a straight path. But of course there are new issues then such a trucks carrying possibly unstable loads that the car probably wouldn't avoid.
Marian @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
They might have the technology, but I doubt that they will sell this kind of car in the next 10 years.
David @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
I think we'd all better face the facts that in the not so distant future motoring will be moving in this direction. Most people in here sound like the guys who said "I'm not leaving my horse and buggy for that mechanical contraption" don't fear the change people imagine the day when speed limits are abolished because computers will be able to drive for us. Hey DUI will be a thing of the past. I can't wait for the day that we can all play Gran Tourismo on the television windshield as we are driven to work by our computer cars.
Psycho @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
I think this will never happen.
Who would be responsible in a crash? GM or the driver?
imPHOreal @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
Well, this thing is a step towards the future. Now how would parallel parking work for this? lol
imPHOreal @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
and I can't imagine how messed up it'd be when your car gets hacked. Who would steer it then? lol
jeremy @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
2. Posted Aug 27, 2005, 2:35 PM ET by funetik
"Opels are known as Vauxhalls here in the UK, it was a British company until GM bought it. Like a few people have said - GM can barely make decent cars, so there's no chance i'm putting my life in the hands of this thing. As for the guy talking about us needing this rather than better fuel economy...find a cliff and jump. We need this like a hole in the head. Very soon (and it's not far off it already) a US gallon of unleaded will cost $6.81 here in the UK. Now, the majority of the UK already use fairly small engined cars and manuals (stick-shifts) at that. I think it's time the US addressed this issue. Kyoto, or no Kyoto, Bush has his head up his arse if he thinks he can get away with 25% of the world's pollution. The west are supposed to set examples to the developing world - e.g. China, India etc. GM should be spending more money on alternative technologies, not ways to make us even more lazy."
What is the government suppose to do? Mandate that people should buy no more cars. Research in hydrogen cars (which Bush is already throwing government money into.)
Oh right, I forgot, Bush is Hitler, an idiot, dumb, retarded, stupid end of story.
MRWSM @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
This shows the negative thinkers on this thread the technology GM has, I bet GM is the first manufacturer to sell 1,000,000 fuel cell vehicles. They are the only car company doing most of the fuel cell research in house rather then farming it out for help like other company's. There's a lot of negative thoughts here on GM but let me tell you, every single GM I ever owned made it over 300,000 miles before I sold them in good condition. I currently have a 2000 Bonneville with 130,000 miles and I get 28-30 MPG on average. Some of those tiny cars barely get more than this.
Jeff @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
This brings back the late 90s jokes about the Microsoft/GM fued over "If GM had developed technology like Microsoft..."
"1) for no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice per day.
2) Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car...."
http://www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/autos.asp
Nobuyuki Idei @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
"I can't imagine the car would be allowed to drive without human interaction."
Why not, so long as it passes the DMV driving test?
Azizul @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
If you ever watch I-Robot, this type of car might set a new standard in the future - driving your car manually is considered not safe.
Anonymous @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
It's probably not going to take off unless it's voice controlled or if it has to be pre-programmed to drive, or if you pre-program it with a VERY simple language, or a program, and then when you use it you might be able to take a computer out of it, load the programmed directions and then use them.
Matt @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
Hope it's OS is not windows. haha
everrette powell @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
i for one am not buying one of those when they come out lets see if GM could get non technical things to work first before i trust a GM made computer with my life. they have more recalls than any other company out there so i will definately pass
funetik @ Dec 19th 2005 1:25AM
Opels are known as Vauxhalls here in the UK, it was a British company until GM bought it. Like a few people have said - GM can barely make decent cars, so there's no chance i'm putting my life in the hands of this thing. As for the guy talking about us needing this rather than better fuel economy...find a cliff and jump. We need this like a hole in the head. Very soon (and it's not far off it already) a US gallon of unleaded will cost $6.81 here in the UK. Now, the majority of the UK already use fairly small engined cars and manuals (stick-shifts) at that. I think it's time the US addressed this issue. Kyoto, or no Kyoto, Bush has his head up his arse if he thinks he can get away with 25% of the world's pollution. The west are supposed to set examples to the developing world - e.g. China, India etc. GM should be spending more money on alternative technologies, not ways to make us even more lazy.