Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Busy intersection, all lights have gone off. 4 way stop procedure. Left turns, pedestrians, cyclists. Can driverless cars handle this?
Probably easier than drivers can. 4 what stops with human drivers is always a gaggle because half everybody doesn't know the "who goes next" drill, then they always forget about the pedestrians. Automated cars always have the rules down and can see everything at once in the dark.
Complicated is the key word. It's a complicated solution to a non-issue. People have been driving cars for over a hundred years, without this technology. We don't need it. The only thing it will accomplish is to make a lot of money for the corporations that develop it, and it will never accomplish what people think it will.
You keep forgetting people suck at driving. In 100 years they seem to get worse. Where I live they had to mow all the trees down in the media because people couldn't figure out how to stay in the road and not hit them. On a holiday weekend, traveling on the interstate means being stuck in traffic every few miles because people can't drive.
But the real reason is because the demand will be there. It's like smartphones. Your flip phone was fine until smartphones came out. Now everybody has a smartphone and the infrastructure has adapted to accept them for everything from boarding passes to depositing checks, to paying with no wallet.
Busy intersection, all lights have gone off. 4 way stop procedure. Left turns, pedestrians, cyclists. Can driverless cars handle this?
If humans would adhere to traffic rules this should not be problem at all. Certainly going to be difficulties in situations like this but that equally applies to when you have all human drivers.
If all the cars were driverless it becomes non issue and they would even be able coordinate their movements so the traffic can easily flow through the intersection. There would be very little or no stopping.
So you are expecting taxpayers to pay for an expensive computerized infrastructure for your self-driving cars? BTW, then they are no longer a SELF-driving car. Then it's a car controlled by a taxpayer paid for central computer system. Now you are acknowledging that these self-driving cars are not really going to be able to drive themselves, so taxpayers will have to come up with a solution. And if taxpayers in some locations don't want to pay for it, then these central computer controlled cars will be useless in those areas.
You guys are skipping a step. Self driving cars are only about 3-4 years away. There's no infrastructure changes that I know of other than Audi and LA experimenting with 2 way communicating redlights to try an optimize light timing and car speed.
Cars will be able to know where all the other cars by simply updating data to the cloud the same way Waze works.
Cars communicating with each other is similar to the way planes do.
I was thinking about this earlier. One day people will be like, "What, people used to drive cars?". You know, kind of like kids today with house phones, etc.
Reminds me of when we have hurricanes down here, a lot of those kids are like "why won't my cell phone work", and the older folks are like "my landline works just fine" .
I can see it being the same way with self driving cars, they'll be all jammed up and confused, and it'll be the people with the manual driven vehicles having to give people rides to the ice lines.
So you are expecting taxpayers to pay for an expensive computerized infrastructure for your self-driving cars?
Taxes are used to pay for lights, signage and other things. Why would you think this is any different? It will be far cheaper than those things.
Quote:
BTW, then they are no longer a SELF-driving car.
You need to read what I'm posting. What I said was this would be an extension of it's autonomous abilities. These cars cannot be reliant on any centralized control, that would just be stupidity for a variety of reasons such as an emergency or catastrophic situations where the centralized control breaks down.
You could have three levels of control. The car itself will be completely autonomous and reliant on nothing but itself. The second level would be local car to car communications at intersections for example. The third level would be centralized control, this would be used to route and control traffic on very busy highways and roads getting people to their destinations faster and more efficiently.
If either of the last two break down the car simply reverts to it's autonomous mode.
Last edited by thecoalman; 07-07-2017 at 04:40 AM..
Reminds me of when we have hurricanes down here, a lot of those kids are like "why won't my cell phone work", and the older folks are like "my landline works just fine" .
I can see it being the same way with self driving cars, they'll be all jammed up and confused, and it'll be the people with the manual driven vehicles having to give people rides to the ice lines.
You can still drive a self driving car just like you can chose to not use cruise control.
The older folks will be the first people completely dependant on them as the younger folks still have their sight, hearing, and reflexes.
How would driverless cars communicate with each other, and with the central control system? GPS? Cell phone towers? Wi-fi signals? Something else? Either way it sounds really complicated.
I would imagine cell phone towers or whatever, this is something that can be used in in very high traffic areas so the movement of cars can be controlled from single entity that can see the big picture. Think NYC for example, if every car in NYC was coordinated you get where you are going much faster and more efficiently. You also expand the capacity of existing infrastructure. This wouldn't be some massive sytem, a desktop or two could probably handle it.
Taxes are used to pay for lights, signage and other things. Why would you think this is any different? It will be far cheaper than those things.
You need to read what I'm posting. What I said was this would be an extension of it's autonomous abilities. These cars cannot be reliant on any centralized control, that would just be stupidity for a variety of reasons such as an emergency or catastrophic situations where the centralized control breaks down.
You would have three levels of control. The car itself will be completely autonomous and reliant on nothing but itself. The second level would be local car to car communications at intersections for example. The third level would be centralized control, this would be used to route and control traffic on very busy highways and roads getting people to their destinations faster and more efficiently.
If either of the last two break down the car simply reverts to it's autonomous mode.
It would be nice for syncing up traffic lights with optimized speeds for the car. I'd rather drive a steady state 40 mph, than go 55mlh just to find myself getting to the light in time to stop.
It may say complicated to you but I can assure you it isn't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
", and the older folks are like "my landline works just fine" 
.
