I don't see substantial congestion relief until the day that robocars can
escape the limitations imposed by mixing with manually operated cars. That's
a long way off.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Brad Templeton" <bra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 5:10 PM
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [t-i] On robocars, congestion and road capacity
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "transport-innovators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
>
If it's 100% driverless than I still say it's a very long way off.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Brad Templeton" <bra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 8:13 PM
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [t-i] Re: On robocars, congestion and road capacity
Jack Slade
--- On Tue, 11/16/10, Brad Templeton <bra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Brad Templeton <bra...@gmail.com>
> Subject: [t-i] On robocars, congestion and road capacity
Given enough time AT&T could probably morph the old copper network. Given
enough time railroads could morph into cars. It's just that the intermediate
steps aren't worth the time and effort.
PRT is delivering the advantages now, not decades from now.
You of all people should grasp the dynamics of a disruptive technology. From
your early posts and your turning away from being a PRT enthusiast to
robocars I'm surprised that you have chosen the slow evolutionary approach
versus the small disruptive technology that can grow rapidly.
I have to conclude that you think robocars can get there first. I'm in
profound disagreement, but of course only time will tell.
Dennis
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Brad Templeton" <bra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 9:25 PM
Considering that most community leaders are on balance anti-automobile,(aka
coerce people out of cars), how will consideration of the PRT and Robocar
approaches compare?
Walt Brewer
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Brad Templeton" <bra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 11:46 PM
>> read more �
--
> ...
>
> read more »
----- Original Message -----From: Jerry Roane
<Driving is not a trivial problem, but nor is it one of the great and
completely incomprehensible mysteries. It's mostly two problems,
"find your way" and "don't hit stuff." and do a better job than people
do at this.
I'd add a third "don't let stuff hit you". It might be the most difficult
one.
Is it wise to always tag LRT as being PRT's main
competitor? Isn't it a better strategy
to market PRT as a way to assist LRT (existing or
proposed) to be more attractive and
hence more heavily used? The same should be true for Express BRT service.
But, as long as conventional transit people
perceive (or are told) that PRT is going to diminish or
make them obsolete, is their any chance that they
could become advocates for PRT?
Is there any chance that PRT will be built without their advocacy?
Overpriced LRT systems are extremely popular with
cities as shown by the fact that
cities (pushed by their consultants) keep asking
the FTA for 50% cost-sharing support (i.e.
demand is much greater than the supply of federal
funds -- and has been since the FTA's New
Starts program has been in place (something like 20-30 years now).
>--
>You received this message because you are
>subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
>To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
>For more options, visit this group at
>http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Brad Templeton" <bra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 7:24 PM
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [t-i] Re: On robocars, congestion and road capacity
> There are always people who feel threatened by any new technology
> (even PRT) but there are lots of people who will sell it to you if
> it's truly valuable. That's what a disruptive technology is. The
> big boys don't understand it, and don't lead it out of fear of eating
> their young. So they try to buy some government to stop it, and they
> do succeed in slowing it down sometimes. But computer tech and
> robotics are going to be different, I predict. If GM and Ford get the
> U.S. governments to slow the robocars, other countries will embrace
> them, and then we start seeing public perception that the US is
> lagging the world in robotics, and as more people declare that
> robotics is the new new thing for the coming decade, the harder it is
> for GM and Ford to own the government on it.
Were people threatened by digital watches? I'd say only those a with stake
in mechanical watches. Lot's of people will sell them to you if it's
valuable? Not usually. Those pushing a disruptive technology are often
confined to relatively few producers? Good remark about the big boys. In
some cases they don't understand the new technology, but I think more often
it's because because it threatens what they do best, or where they are
making the most profit. It's all explained rather well in the "Innovator's
Dilemma". AT&T and the TV industry have clearly used the gov't to slow the
onslaught of the Internet. They are losing. De ja vu. The telegraph people
did the same thing to the infant phone industry.
>
> At least for now though, many major car companies have active robocar
> labs. Cars like Boss and Junior were sponsored by GM and Volkswagon.
> At least some parts of these companies know it's coming, and they can
> either lead it or become irrelevant. Amazingly, some of the big car
> companies have realized that their last efforts to use the government
> to protect themselves from competition didn't help them in the long
> run.
More than robocars the GMs are coming late to the electric car party.
>
> Features in cars get adopted pretty quickly, especially in the luxury
> end cars. How many years did it take before every car had a CD
> player instead of a tape, or a bluetooth speakerphone, or a nav
> system, at least as an option. Or Onstar or an mp3 player jack or
> ABS. Or adaptive cruise. These techs are not universal, but they
> went from minor to common in fairly short periods of time
Adopted fairly quickly??? It's easy to name a lot of improvements that were
very slow. Detroit drug it's feet on a lot of things - radial tires, fuel
injection, front wheel drive, etc. There's a lot of time of adoption
differences for different improvements. Some are fast. Some take a long
time.
>
> But now consider a tech that can be improved with a firmware download,
> or a motherboard or sensor replacement, rather than getting a new
> car? I hope that the early vehicles deliberately try to be modular so
> that it's easy to add new sensors if new sensors must be added, so
> older vehicles can keep up.
Talk about time consuming!
>
> I won't deny that many unconscious mental activities are not well
> understood. The question is, do you have to solve them all like a
> human does, and are there ones which we have no grasp of? As I go
> down the risk of skills we're looking for, most of them are ones we
> are getting better and better handles on (due to other market forces.)
Better handles? Perhaps, but what a long way to go.
>
> Google has shown what you can do with excellent road data. As they
> do this an interesting potential develops, which is cities embracing
> the robocars. That means that they don't put up new signs or change
> rules without updating the databases used by the robots. The robots
> no longer have to be able to read and understand signs or at least
> they don't have to ask a human very often. (Since our roads are
> routinely driven by both foreign tourists and illiterates,
> understanding all new signs is not a crucial safety thing in any
> event. Yes, "bridge out" sounds scary but that is done with a
> barrier, not just a sign.
What can you do with road data? What difference has it made so far? The bulk
of drivers don't get any road data other than a few changeable message signs
on major freeways. Telling me there's a wreck ahead on the freeway isn't
useful unless I get it in time and there is a better alternate and knowing
how to use the alternate.
>
> So again, I hope to see people's lists of what they think are the big
> hard problems. Particularly problems where you think a robot would
> not know to stop and ask a human. I can think of silly ones -- two
> men in mylar mirror suits carrying a plate glass window, a staple of
> slapstick films -- but they are not real.
The list would be so long it wouldn't be worth my time. Let alone the time
to figure out the software to mitigate the circumstance.
>
> Not being hit is an important problem, though again the goal is just
> to be better than people at it, and they have their issues. In most
> cases, faster reaction times can give machines the edge. Right now I
> would give humans the edge at understanding things like a deer at the
> side of the road tensing to jump out. But there are only so many
> species of megafauna and I think that teams dedicated to making
> algorithms to work on specific problems can solve specific problems.
> The hard thing, the thing humans do better, is solving general
> problems. A robot might not know what everything that comes to the
> side of the road is, but it can know that there is something that came
> up to the side of the road. There will obviously be special purpose
> systems for all types of people, all known vehicles and all major
> animals, plus all sorts of classes of debris and blowing stuff. It's
> a finite set, and not an AGI problem.
No, you have to be much better than humans as we have learned when safety
concerns are raised about PRT. Bashing cars like LRT does isn't anywhere
near acceptable for PRT. To be accepted PRT will have to be many times safer
than LRT or human controlled cars, and so will robocars. As far as reacting
properly to a pedestrian or animal or whatever is near the streets edge
about the only robocar response to the unpredictable action is to go very
slow or stop thereby inviting to be rear ended. If the robocar senses the
car to the rear is close perhaps the best decision is to take the chance
that the pedestrian/animal will stay put. That's not a great prospect for
robocar safety requirements. Lot's of car wrecks have taken place when
people hit the brakes or swerve to avoid animals. Robocars might be able to
make a quicker more odds on safe decision like go ahead and whack Fifi. I
wonder if the Robocar would stop or do a hit and run? In a brief stretch a
few years ago between the wife and I we had 4 accidents where were hit and
we weren't even moving. The point is that in a road environment even a
perfect driver can't avoid accidents traveling in mixed traffic. So I ask -
why subject near perfect driving machines to a very imperfect road
situation. I think separating them from existing manual drivers is more
important than trying to make use of existing roads. In other words a really
disruptive approach rather an incremental one.
Just thought I'd present another difficulty for robocars. When you are on a
one lane each way highway and the oncoming car is drifting your way at what
point does the robocar decide the oncoming car is presenting a danger? and
how does it react? It might move to a shoulder, but what if there's little
shoulder? or if the shoulder condition is changing abruptly a few feet
ahead. What if? What if? What if? Too damn many what ifs?
>> read more �
By the way, the task of automating a guideway vehicle is much less
complex because you are automating only a single axis and have far
fewer things to sense than if you attempt to build a robocar.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail® Transportation Systems, Inc.
--- On Wed, 11/17/10, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
>
> Is it wise to always tag LRT as being PRT's main
> competitor? Isn't it a better strategy
> to market PRT as a way to assist LRT (existing or proposed)
> to be more attractive and
> hence more heavily used? The same should be true for
> Express BRT service.<<<<
You are probably right about that, Jerry. It is just that, on this list, we sometimes forget that wen are not just talking to each other. There are lots of people monitoring who do not join in and make postings, and a search will turn up postings we did 5 years ago or more. We just forget.
Personally, I think a system serving as a feeder for a train or LRT system would be a great start. I would even like to provide service for passengers when they are leaving the ststions, all I want is the chance.
What John Q Public might think of this is just conjecture, better left unpublished.
Jack Slade
When you can show me how you will avoid deer without killing the passengers of the vehicle then there may be something to talk about. |
--- On Tue, 11/16/10, Brad Templeton <bra...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
|
|
If GM and Ford think robocars are bad for business, why wouldn't overseas car makers think in a similar fashion? |
--- On Tue, 11/16/10, Brad Templeton <bra...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
I want one which vibrates!!!!! --- On Tue, 11/16/10, WALTER BREWER <catc...@verizon.net> wrote: |
>Deer present a problem for human drivers and robotic driving.
>Strategies are similar, though the robot has several advantages in
>spotting and dealing with the deer:
An additional scenario: A friend of mine was killed by a collision
with a large deer
that tried to jump over his moving auto and crashed directly into the
windshield.
----- Original Message -----From: Jerry Roane
Jack Slade
Deer wind up in windshields all the time. Usually it is because they are flipped up there by the impact. Judging by your response to this and other posts, you apparently have not had much experience with deer. As I have stated before, most anything you do to avoid the deer is going to cause harm to the passengers. |
--- On Thu, 11/18/10, Brad Templeton <bra...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
|
Unfortunately, those sensors never seem to reset themselves, so they are always "on". |
--- On Thu, 11/18/10, WALTER BREWER <catc...@verizon.net> wrote: |
32 miles from Marengo to Pearsons near the Cedar Rapids Airport. Divide by . 6 to get km. Multiply by 1000 to get meters. Divide again by 100 to account for 100m range. And that's 533 units or $533,000 for just ONE SIDE of ONE ROAD. Not to mention, it does not stop the deer. It just let's you know that one is about to run into you!! Furthermore, if the beam does more than just provide an optical fence - for instance scans into the field or woods - then the alarm will be going off continually. If you interface this system with robocars, what happens to me when my robo chauffeur slams on the brakes because it's seeing deer everywhere? |
--- On Thu, 11/18/10, Brad Templeton <bra...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
|
|
|
|
Brad, Here is an experiment for you to try. Have your spouse (or someone) drive down the road at 60mph and randomly spike the brakes while your eyes are closed. The closed eyes simulates darkness. Now if that doesn't convince you that robocars are a bad idea, try the follow up experiment. Run the car into a few bales of hay at 60mph (eyes closed again) to simulate actually hitting a deer at night. What you can not seem to grasp is that when you are driving you are presumably paying attention to what is going on. You are aware that something is about to happen. If you are being chauffeured by robo car, you are NOT PAYING ATTENTION to what is happening around you. After all, that is the whole purpose of robo car. Therefore, you are not likely to be ready for any sudden stops or evasive maneuvers. BTW, frightening deer is just as likely to make them bolt into you as make them run away. |
--- On Fri, 11/19/10, Brad Templeton <bra...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
|
|
May have been experimental.
Yes I can see other significant size animals might trigger. I seem to
remember seeing a fence also.
Ohio DOT should know about it.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
But a properly designed airbag sounds more reasonable and practical. It
would be more multipurpose; small collisions, failure of electronic
tailgating on freeways, etc, etc.
Steve Raney territory.
Driven in deer country a lot, but been lucky. A good friend and wife had one
come through their windshield and land in laps.
Deer killed. They were pretty well cut up.
Walt Brewer
Nope. They just jump a lot higher. Almost every field around here is fenced. Unfortunately, fences need to be 7 or 8 feet tall to contain deer. That gets real expensive real quick. |