Part of me wonders whether or not we're going to see mutual improvement of infrastructure with self driving cars in the future. This seems like something that you could obviously fix by adding in some kind of passive or active flag that, to a self driving car, says "woah, you're /really/ not supposed to be here."
I know we're supposed to be focusing on building systems that are as capable as humans are as drivers. However, if we approached the problem from changing the roads with some kind of guide beacons, it would probably be really trivial to detect them and improve trustworthiness a lot more.
We already have lane markers and chevrons and all sorts of things for humans to interpret and react to. What if self driving systems got guides that were optimized to them? Instead of having really luminescent paint, they would be radio noisey or have some other electronic fingerprint that's just as "loud" as visual and audible markers are for humans.
At some point, if we want self driving cars to be the real future, we should start working the problem from both ends. When properly implemented, self driving technology is safer than normal humans -- and if we can accelerate that by adding stupid easy electronic markers to some roads, then why not?
We should also not allow software that hits a static object, the car should be able to detect solid object, should be able to detect it's speed relative to the car and to the ground, and it should detect a possible collision and take action.
You can put electronics on the roads but if the cars will depend on those then it will fail when those electronics are missing.
Not sure why this point isn't being more widely discussed, especially as it is a known problem[0] of almost all 'auto-pilot' systems based on radar.
To me it would seem to be self-driving 101, namely - don't hit a stationary object.
If the challenge is so great that current technology can't overcome the difficulties of detecting stationary objects in the path of the car (not just those stationary objects to ignore like overhead gantries) then it's time to change the language around 'autonomous' driving to ensure drivers understand the limitations. Obviously this isn't happening well enough right now as people are dying because of it.
From a personal perspective, until Lidar becomes commonplace I think I would eschew the 'autonomous' modes offered in the current generation cars.
> and if we can accelerate that by adding stupid easy electronic markers to some roads, then why not?
It's not so easy.
First, we'd need to agree on a nationwide standard for these electronic markers, since you wouldn't want to have different markers in NY and California. (It would be even nicer if a U.S.-made car would also work safely in Canada, Mexico, etc.)
Second, we'd need to pay for the markers to be purchased, installed and maintained. Interstates, state highways, county roads and city streets are the responsibilities of different levels of government, which have different budgets and different politics. I can't imagine NYC, which can't even keep its major roads free of potholes, finding the funds to add electronic markers to roads.
You'd also have to make sure to reconfigure the markers if a road was under maintenance (e.g., lanes temporarily closed, lanes running in the opposite direction, etc.).
Some early driverless vehicle systems experimented with magnets embedded in the road, so it's definitely an option to install helpers to the current infrastructure to improve the safety of the autonomous vehicles.
But who should do that? Should the government allocate budget for that? If so, which manufacturers systems they should target?
Hmm maybe tech companies should not be developing competing standards or they should form some kind of consortium and agree on some guidelines that the government can use to improve safety.
Anyway, this defeats the purpose of driverless cars though because it will turn cars into trains with personal pods instead of wagons.
Just build a mass transit system with trains then, they can be made driverless easily and probably much more efficient than running each pod with its own systems. It works fine in Europe.
I know we're supposed to be focusing on building systems that are as capable as humans are as drivers. However, if we approached the problem from changing the roads with some kind of guide beacons, it would probably be really trivial to detect them and improve trustworthiness a lot more.
We already have lane markers and chevrons and all sorts of things for humans to interpret and react to. What if self driving systems got guides that were optimized to them? Instead of having really luminescent paint, they would be radio noisey or have some other electronic fingerprint that's just as "loud" as visual and audible markers are for humans.
At some point, if we want self driving cars to be the real future, we should start working the problem from both ends. When properly implemented, self driving technology is safer than normal humans -- and if we can accelerate that by adding stupid easy electronic markers to some roads, then why not?