Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Animats 3888 days ago
The Tesla "autopilot" is comparable to what BMW[1] and Mercedes[2] have been shipping for years.

Self-driving is much harder. The first-order problems of driving on a empty road were solved by the DARPA Grand Challenge, ten years ago. The second-order problems involve dealing with other road users. That's hard, and that's what Google is working on, with considerable success. So is the CMU/Cadillac consortium, which has demonstrated their self driving car to politicians in Washington traffic.[3] Nobody seems to pay much attention to that effort, although they may be closer to a production product than anyone else. (Or not; Uber hired some of the people involved away from CMU.)

Self-driving cars need and have a lot more sensors than semi-auto cars. There's a lot more sensing to the sides and rear, and more forward sensing than just being able to detect the next obstacle ahead. Vision processing is far more elaborate. Google's vision system explicitly recognizes humans and bicycles.

Google's little 25MPH driverless car is a way for them to enter the market. At 25MPH, slamming on the brakes is a good solution to situations the system can't handle. Those things are going to be all over senior communities in a few years. Google already has higher-performance cars on the road; they can be seen all over Mountain View most days.

[1] http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/technology/connecteddrive... [2] http://www.mercedes-benz-intelligent-drive.com/com/en/1_driv... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/dri...

3 comments

Reminds me that we didn't hear about Google SDV for a while (the last news was the 'View from the seat ..'). I expected a little increase in progress reports.

I just youtubed 25mph frontal crashes and it doesn't look pretty...

I'm surprised the article didn't mention Mercedes' history with drive assist systems especially. This is very old tech for them. For instance, I recall seeing a Mercedes S class with dynamic cruise control in 2002.
Because Mercedes isn't making absurd claims about autopilot systems and because "everyone knows" that innovation only comes from Silicon Valley. OK, that was a bit snarky but assistive driving systems, however useful and safety-enhancing, don't get people all wide-eyed and excited the way promises of autonomy in "just five years" does.
I agree that Teslas system is nothing special and more of a marketing win. But Google desperately needs to ship something that isn't a cool video or a swell PDF if they want to be relevant in this space.
Based both on what I've read and discussions with people who have some personal familiarity with the space, the issue is that, to date, Google is apparently not interested in anything incremental. (Which is also the reason that they haven't been able to work with the auto makers.) However,that means that Google won't have anything commercial for a long time--like decades--if their criterion remains robo-taxi levels of autonomy.
Almost-automatic driving is dangerous. There's a "deadly valley" which begins at the point where the driver starts to no longer pay attention. It ends when the automation is good enough that the driver doesn't need to pay attention. Between those two limits lies trouble.

The major vehicle manufacturers which have shipped driver assistant systems have put in controls that insist the driver pay attention. Mercedes, BMW, Tesla, and Ford check for hands-on-wheel.[1] They're desperately trying to stay out of the deadly valley.

Here's the problem with that.[2]

Volvo, and maybe BMW, have a second problem - too many modes and too many options. There are lots of semi-auto options available, and they may or may not be installed on any given vehicle. Here's what happened with someone who ordered self-parking without buying the "pedestrian detection" option.[3] Bad idea selling that option combination. It's been a learning experience for Volvo.

[1] http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/07/20150713-eclass.html [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2903692/Warning-reck... [3] http://fusion.net/story/139703/self-parking-car-accident-no-...

What's the problem with [2]? The driver knows he's bypassing safety interlocks. There many dumb things you can intentionally do in a car; adding one more is not necessarily a significant problem.