Nissan's GPS-enabled cruise control foreshadows robot cars
By Paul Miller 
posted Dec 15th 2007 12:15PM
posted Dec 15th 2007 12:15PM
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
It looks like the car Dt. Del Spooner drives in his robotic overlords about to take over the world movie.
I for one, welcome our self driving, self guided, robotic, automobile overlords.
Only his was an Audi...
Del Spooner, whoever he is, drives an Infiniti M (think it's the Gloria in Japan)?
Is that a brake actuator under your hood, or are you just happy to see me?
GPS is nice and all, but there is no way in hell I'm going to let my car be navigated by itself based solely upon a GPS unit. Now if you pair it up with other sensors, such as sonar, IR, visual, etc., I could better trust that system. The problem with GPS by itself if the lag of the signal, quality of the signal, and quality/implementation of the software. Case in point is a simple GPS unit I had the displeasure of using this past week on a short vacation. The friggin unit was very laggy on fixing the signal, many times placed my car well of the beaten path, had considerable routing problems, and never alerted with enough time to execute the requested turn. All-in-all, it sucked quite bad.
One other things the DMV might do to help move things along a bit quicker would be to implement markers on the road that an automated car could use to resolve a higher level of location awareness; who knows, maybe better reflectors as a marked of interval, or RF markers the unit can use to better determine it's location, especially when moving at speed. Just a few suggestions that I'm sure have already been thought of but not implemented yet.
My Infiniti FX already has a radar sensor up front so when cruise control is on it will slow the car as it approaches a car in front of me and will hit the breaks if a car cuts me off. Also have a lane departure warning system that follows the lines on the road and alerts me if I start moving out of the lane. Both systems work great.
The pieces are there they just need to add GPS and pull it all together.
That sounds pretty cool, guess I hadn't heard of this one yet (I drive a BMW). Now if only the other auto companies would get with the program and start making these things standard in all vehicles... Thanks for the info!
'Sonar' is only good for parking and "Backup warning" systems... its resolution and range are far to low for driving conditions. I believe Mercedes (and maybe Nissan) are using gallium arsenide sensors.
Well that was an exceptionally bad GPS. Which model was it, by the way? The GPS built into my Honda has a little trouble once you get to your destination, but by that time you can usually see where you are going (the destination is in sight). I have never had a problem with it not telling me turns in time or anything.
I too welcome our self driving, self guided, robotic, automobile overlords.
But I can't help but think of those pics on the internet of a small lorry wedged into a dead street.
I join in welcoming our self driving, self guided, robotic, automobile overlords to our narrow dead end streets.
You can find me just past the Bridge Out sign.
How many posts have we seen on here of delivery truck drivers heading off of cliffs by following their GPS? I'll wait for the service pack.
What happens when you are heading in to a tunnel or loose a GPS signal due to inclimate weather?
What about those 30 foot GPS inaccuracies? That could easily put you too over too far to the left or right, in a wall or in another lane. It could also cause you to make that hair pin turn too soon or too late.
I just cannot trust it.
Wait, why would you want to slow down going into a turn?
Do you know how to drive, when you ask that type of question?
because:
1. go fast enough and cut to a turn, car can spin out or worse roll over.
2. Inertia, everyone in the car will be tossed to one side. (think Automan.)
Actually malisp has got a point. But I wonder if the car will know how to properly accelerate through the turn to keep the front end planted. Slowing down can wash out the front end of the car if during mid-turn. But considering this would never be put into a real sports car, I doubt any normal drivers would be in the those situations.
malisp is right - what on earth does slowing down for EVERY curve accomplish? It simply slows down the total flow of traffic on the highway. I mean, most people drive at a reasonable speed on the highway, such that slowing down for curves is not necessary... but now if these Nissans slow down because the GPS tells them to, all it will do is cause traffic to back up behind them.
Secondly, and more importantly, how will they decide what the "proper" speed is for the curve? Speed limits are notoriously low here in the US, so those are useless. And most of the time, the "recommended speeds" on the yellow turn signs are similarly low. The GPS can't calculate the turn's speed, since it won't know the bank-angle or any other features from a map.
This is a useless and annoying feature, if you ask me. Why don't people just learn how to drive properly?
All this automation is just asking for more trouble - people are ALREADY getting bored on the road because we're all driving too slow. So, they make up for it by falling asleep, or doing other nonsense (makeup, reading the newspaper, talking on the phone, etc) instead of paying attention on the road! All this system will do is further separate the driver from driving, and people will get MORE complacent and end up in more accidents.
True.. you always accelerate through a turn. You may slow down on approach but the turn itself should have some gas
Schwinn, accidents happen because people are driving the cars. If they were automated, they would be much more reliable.
Cars don't get distracted, sleepy, drunk. They don't talk on the phone, don't take chances, etc.
In the future, when all cars are automated, speed could double, because their response time will be thousands of time faster than a human, so even if something goes wrong, the results won't be as bad.
Anyway, I do think this is a step in the right direction.
Well that depends Ricardo.. Are the ones who will be working on full automation former Vista programmers?
Schwilnn,
thanks you, couldnt have said it better myself....
thats the most intelligent comment ive seen on here in days
Sorry for the doublepost of this text - for whatever reason it didn't go to the right root-message!?
@Ricardo: Yes, accidents happen because of people being imperfect. However, the assumption that computers are more infallible is simply wrong.
First off, let's assume that this auto-driving capability would only be used on the highway. So, let's look at highway statistics - what is the current accident rate for vehicles? Well, my quick search didn't show me a national number, but I did find that around St. Louis, Maryland, they have found an accident rate of about 165 per 100-million-miles travelled. Assuming the average driver drives 15000 miles per year, that means you will have a 2.5% chance of getting in an accident per year. Or, put another way, the average driver will have an accident once every 40 years.
Now, I know the article mentions up to 900 per 100-million-miles... which is about 5x the rate. Still, that's 12.5% per year... or one accident every 8 years.
Let's go with this crazy-conservative number. Do you expect a computer to manage this low of an error rate? Really? Put it this way, how often have you crashed ANY computer you have used? Cellphones "crash" more often that this, even, and they are VERY simple devices (for the most part).
The reality of highway driving is that there are too many people who are inattentive or bored, and there is too much variance in people's speeds. Think of it this way - if everyone travelled at the same EXACT speed, would there be any accidents on the highway? Only those due to vehicle failure, and only those due to inattention (sideswiping).
Just to jump on my soapbox for a second: Now, considering that... in theory, it wouldn't matter WHAT speed anyone travelled at (as long as the road conditions could support it). People who drive the speed limit in the left lane while everyone is driving faster should think about that next time they act too righteous to get over to the right. Is a slow driver in the left lane any less dangerous than a faster one? The reality is, no, they are not.
Anyway, I'll trust MY driving ability (where I have avoided at least 2 accidents through my better judgement) over that of a dumb computer. Sure, someday it could work... and we should certainly develop in the right direction. However, blindly "slowing down for a turn" is just idiotic regurgitation of the "speed kills" mantra which has been proven wrong every year since the national speed limit was repealed. That's what irritates me the most.
Again, just learn how to drive, people... and pay some f-ing attention to the ROAD.
im going with Schwinn and Malisp on this one. you dont have to slow down on any bend on the highway. you usually just keep the cruise control on all the way through (if cruise control is what you're into)
what i dont understand is how this automation helps in city driving. is this thing actually going to be able to gauge the speed and distance of other cars at an intersection? or what about light changes? like when it turns yellow does it instantly slam on the brakes or what? if this system is only used on the highway what is the point? most collisions occur at intersections while turning not just cruising down the highway. people don't just get in collisions, inattentive drivers get in collisions.
@Schwinn, if you have a car that's 5 years old or newer, it probably has a lot of electronic stuff.
And beyond that, if drive a high-end sports car, you can only go through turns at insane speeds because there is a computer behind it. If you had to do it manually, you would need a pedal for each wheel, at least 6 legs, and months of training.
Not to mention automatic gear shifts, ABS, and things like that.
Could you ever break as efficiently as an ABS in an emergency situation? I seriously doubt it.
Anyway, I don't think roads are the problem. Most serious accidents happen on city streets. But roads are easier, so they are a good start for automated cars.
Yeah! Cars don't kill people...people kill people...
malisp and Schwinn are right. Unless the driver has set the cruise control to 120 MPH or something, the car doesn't really need to slow down (only on approach, I hope) to make a highway (banked, wide) turn.
The cruise control features that slows the car as the car in front slows or that stops the car if cut off are good and useful. This particular "feature" is pretty pointless if you ask me. I'm all for automation, but wake me when there is a self-regulating network of cars driving themselves along error-free and safely at 200 MPH.
Top gear!! If there's still people that dont watch it go out and be ashamed =)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv6HSQ7YoE4
"Mum, there's water coming through the door!"
Or:
"Mum, I think there's a train coming..."
Can't wait until driving is fully automated. I mean, it's nice being able to travel without standing up, but I'm not training for the damn Olympics, why the hell should I have to move my foot?
More sensors and such.. sooner or later drunk driving won't be illegal anymore ;)
Maybe one day cars can have a nice big "I'm Drunk, take me home." button beside the keys or something :P
there's already fully automated cars - they're called buses. too bad america let gm, big oil and tire, and the highway lobby destroy our public transportation infrastructure in the early 20th century...
I dunno a recent trip to LA showed me how good a bus service could be, and only 75 cents per ride!
How weird is that, I just read this this morning in Scientific America. Same picture and everything.
fully automated cars? screw that! fully automated transmissions are lame enough! what ever happened to the fun of driving?
I agree with you Kojo. Unfortunately, laziness is what happened. The marching masses would rather steer than drive, and because there are more of them than us they're dragging everyone down into their ghastly automatic transmission ruled mediocrity.
Nobody is talking about forcing this tech on anyone. Last time I checked, they haven't stopped making cars with manual transmissions, I doubt this will be any different. There are people that welcome this tech, and can see the potential benefit of cars that can drive themselves on long trips or even daily commutes.
In this season, I wonder what snow collecting on the sensor will do? I come back from snowboarding in the mountains and the front of the car is a sheet of black ice from the conditions. It has nothing to do with following too close.. that just how it goes up here in Colorado.
I dreamed about self driving cars about 15 years ago. Great to see its becoming a reality.
Nissan is a great company. They are truly innovators. Remember there Camera systems in cars. This company seizes to impress me.
Yes, accidents happen because of people being imperfect. However, the assumption that computers are more infallible is simply wrong.
First off, let's assume that this auto-driving capability would only be used on the highway. So, let's look at highway statistics - what is the current accident rate for vehicles? Well, my quick search didn't show me a national number, but I did find that around St. Louis, Maryland, they have found an accident rate of about 165 per 100-million-miles travelled. Assuming the average driver drives 15000 miles per year, that means you will have a 2.5% chance of getting in an accident per year. Or, put another way, the average driver will have an accident once every 40 years.
Now, I know the article mentions up to 900 per 100-million-miles... which is about 5x the rate. Still, that's 12.5% per year... or one accident every 8 years.
Let's go with this crazy-conservative number. Do you expect a computer to manage this low of an error rate? Really? Put it this way, how often have you crashed ANY computer you have used? Cellphones "crash" more often that this, even, and they are VERY simple devices (for the most part).
The reality of highway driving is that there are too many people who are inattentive or bored, and there is too much variance in people's speeds. Think of it this way - if everyone travelled at the same EXACT speed, would there be any accidents on the highway? Only those due to vehicle failure, and only those due to inattention (sideswiping).
Just to jump on my soapbox for a second: Now, considering that... in theory, it wouldn't matter WHAT speed anyone travelled at (as long as the road conditions could support it). People who drive the speed limit in the left lane while everyone is driving faster should think about that next time they act too righteous to get over to the right. Is a slow driver in the left lane any less dangerous than a faster one? The reality is, no, they are not.
Anyway, I'll trust MY driving ability (where I have avoided at least 2 accidents through my better judgement) over that of a dumb computer. Sure, someday it could work... and we should certainly develop in the right direction. However, blindly "slowing down for a turn" is just idiotic regurgitation of the "speed kills" mantra which has been proven wrong every year since the national speed limit was repealed. That's what irritates me the most.
Again, just learn how to drive, people... and pay some f-ing attention to the ROAD.
I Assume this is a map based system, how else are the computers going to know when the bends are coming? So what happens when the maps are out dated?
http://www.dpccars.com/car-videos/12-07-07page-Self-Racing-BMW-330i.htm
BMW is way ahead of Nissan..
And is on track for what you guys are looking for
That was awesome, Jeremy was terrified until after the first few corners. I really need to catch up on my Top Gear, I've only seen one episode since Hamster came back from his accident.
Am I the only one who doesn't want a self-driving car? Sure, on a early morning commute it would let you catch a little extra sleep (if you trust it enough to sleep in a car being driven by space clocks)
I quite like the feel of driving. Sometimes while I'm driving I'm just absolutely staggered that human beings can be so clever as to make something like this. Sure, it's smarter to have technology do it, but you do sort of have a personal connection to it when you're driving yourself. I don't know, maybe I should be watching the road more.
BMW done this already. Anyone see Clarkson got round a test track as a passenger to the robot 3 series? Wow..
There are a few people here that are muddying the waters by comparing all computers to cell phones and personal computers. This is trying to compare "time to market" software and hardware (rushed designs and development with minimal testing) for non-critical use against hardware and software designed in life threatening situations (medical computers/embedded devices, air plane control systems, etc) which are usually tested to a very high degree of reliability. Please, tone down to rhetoric about "I don't trust my laptop/cellphone".
Now, I'm a computer scientist who has some stake in this technology as my wife was in a fatal accident 6 months ago - just sitting at a red light. In order for technology like this to replace a driver, it has to work in all normal situations for car driving (highway / city). To be successful I believe there are some key points that have to be addressed:
1) Information form multiple sensors are combined to form a real time, 360degree map.
2) The computer(s) must have assisitive control over steering, breaking, and acceleration (human override at anytime).
3) This information should be published (in a simi-anonymous fashion) to a "car area network" (CAN) and used by the local car to extend said 360 map. Published information can come from static devices installed by local governments, or other 'smart' cars.
4) Everything be open-source and tested to the same degree of failure as medical devices.
5) (very important) The technology needs to be "back ported" to older cars already on the road as an affordable package. The more cars you have, the more detailed a map you can generate.
Some day this will happen, and I hope to lend my services to the cause. On that day, I believe one of these cars will take emergency maneuvers to avoid an erratic/unsafe "bogey" from having a fatal accident with your loved ones.
(I love you, Erin)
Great a car that will drive itself into rivers and lakes.
one word: tunnels.
...and parking garages, large overpasses, over-under bridges, etc...
YIKES!