Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

ULTra Robo-Taxi 282

Posted by michael from the welcome-to-johnny-cab dept.
irksome writes: "Found a link on msnbc about a driver-less taxi pod. According to the article, the vehicle has begun road tests in the city of Cardiff, Wales. The pod, known as ULTra (Urban Light Transport) could make driver-free transport a reality and not just the stuff of futuristic fantasy."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ULTra Robo-Taxi More

ULTra Robo-Taxi

Comments Filter:

  • NYC (Score:4, Funny)

    by SilentChris ( 452960 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:01PM (#3075278) Homepage
    10 bucks says NYC won't allow it unless it travels at a minimum speed of 45 mph.

  • Oh no (Score:3, Funny)

    by Nick Number ( 447026 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:03PM (#3075291) Homepage Journal
    It's the Mark I version of the Johnny Cab [leoville.com].

  • Impressive (Score:4, Funny)

    by mosch ( 204 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:03PM (#3075293) Homepage
    Wow, a maximum of 25MPH. This thing could change everything. It could be bigger than the Segway!

    And instead of running on inconvenient roads, you just need to build a special 1.5 meter track to your destination. My, this IS cheaper and easier than driving!

    • Re:Impressive (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Jeremi ( 14640 )
      And instead of running on inconvenient roads, you just need to build a special 1.5 meter track to your destination. My, this IS cheaper and easier than driving!


      Actually, it could be... especially if you don't own a car, and/or those roads are traffic-jammed. No parking fees to pay, either. Assuming there are enough pods to go around, it's almost like having your own chauffeur...

    • Re:Impressive (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TekPolitik ( 147802 )
      Wow, a maximum of 25MPH. This thing could change everything. It could be bigger than the Segway!

      There are other related systems that perform at much higher speed. My personal favourite is SkyTran [skytran.net], which is a MagLev system that operates at up to 150MPH, doesn't suffer from congestion, and because it doesn't have to stop at intersections, or to pick up and set down other passengers, it's actually much quicker and more convenient than any other form of transportation, including private cars.

      And instead of running on inconvenient roads, you just need to build a special 1.5 meter track to your destination. My, this IS cheaper and easier than driving!

      The track for these systems costs heaps less than the same distance worth of road, and has less wear-and-tear (especially in the case of SkyTran). A city implementing this instead of just blindly building more roads will actually turn a profit on it within a decade.

      What's more, the absence of drivers means no speeding, running red lights, no pedestrians getting knocked down, no drunk drivers.

      These systems could quite easily replace the automobile, and they bring so many benefits there's no reason why cities shouldn't be planning things this way now.

    • Re:Impressive (Score:4, Funny)

      by Ooblek ( 544753 ) on Wednesday February 27, 2002 @12:04AM (#3075733)
      Actually, I don't know if that is the bad part. A smartcard has to be programmed that tells it the destination. People can't program VCRs....

      And the camera at every stop "to increase passenger safety." Well, I remember these western movies where people in this thing called a stagecoach that moved at about 25mph would get stopped by these bad guys on horses. Just find a place where the pod goes out of sight from the road, put your jacket over the rails (auto-stop if it detects something in the track!), and wait for the prey.

      • Actually, I don't know if that is the bad part. A smartcard has to be programmed that tells it the destination. People can't program VCRs....
        The system is limited, it would be trivial to arrange a touch-screen or even mechanical buttons on a map to select destinations. Indeed I can't imagine why this would need to be done at the platform at all and involve cards unless there's some sort of smart-queuing going on. Otherwise it would be nearly as easy to put a selector inside the vehicle: A wheel to scroll up and down the list of stations, a voice reading them out for the vision-impaired, push the wheel and you've made your selection.

        As to this being difficult, it can't be any more difficult explaining the USA's Washington DC Metro fare system with each station a different cost and peak-pricing and the map is *there* but the fare-card machines are *here* and the turnstyles are back *that* way and the card has to be fed *thus* and used again to exit...

    • My, this IS cheaper and easier than driving!

      So what? That's not what it's for. From the article:

      Advanced Transport Systems estimate that building an ULTra network would cost about one-third to one-half of the amount needed for a light railway.

      It's not positioned as an alternative to cars, but to light rail.

    • 25MPH: Sounds good to me. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hey! ( 33014 )
      Private automobiles can travel at perhaps 80-90mph. Whee! Except that in congested cities, cars don't go nearly as fast as their design max speed, or even the legal max speed of 30-35MPH.

      Remember, this kind of system is not aimed at your small, suburban college town; if you can fly down streets today at 30-40MPH in your private car pretty much any old time, there is little reason for ANY form of public transporation, period. If you work or travel on the streets of a major city, 15 MPH average speed would sound pretty good. In fact, I suspect there is a minimum average speed that people need to travel at before they give up working in the city, and that is probably fairly low. This drives the need to adopt new technologies and to make major infrastructure changes in a city. If you can't guarantee 10MPH with horse-and-buggies, you have to build roads and parking for autos.

      If you do nothing, then transportation becomes a limiting factor in growth, and you may actually contract the size of your city. The question is, if you want to add a 10,000 commuters, what is the best way to accomodate them? There is no general answer to this, it must be answered on a case by case basis.

      If you currently have uncongested roads (where cars travel on average close to the legal maximum speed), the cheapest thing would be to just have people come in their private cars. However, if you have congested roads, then adding 10,000 private automobiles would have a large marginal effect on the average travel speed. In other words you get more congested.

      In that case, the next step would be to move to busses. If you can get high utilization, then the impact on your existing traffic jams is almost eliminated.

      Except that getting high utilization is tough. Travel time on the bus is not so good. The bus moves at the same slow speed as the rest of traffic, but it has to stop to load and unload passengers. This factor is so important in utilization that LA has designed busses for fast load/unload, and given them the ability to change traffic lights as they are approaching intersections.

      IIRC there are several significant design features of the system described which combine to allow cars to travel on average much closer to their design maximum than a bus or even a subway. First, end-to-end travel. You don't have to get off to change lines, which saves time. Second, personal travel. The cars are small and serve just you, so you don't have to wait for the cars to load and unload passengers taking different journeys than you. Third, exclusive track/lane. This means that you are not impeded by other vehicles.

      Ideally, you could build a "real time" travel system, by which I mean a system which could, barring mechanical break down, deliver a passenger from one point to another in completely predictable time. This in itself would have great value, provided that the average speed was over something like 10 MPH. If you know that you can make a meeting across town in fifteen or twenty minutes, guaranteed, this would eliminate slack time that you would normally plan for the various kinds of unexpected delays. If you could deliver somebody across town at 20MPH average speed guaranteed, for around the cost of a taxi ride, then this would be a popular service.

  • there must not be any vandals in whales... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Narcocide ( 102829 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:03PM (#3075294) Homepage
    that thing wouldn't last 10 minutes on the streets of LA.
  • Wherever possible, ULTra will run along the ground, but some routes might require tracks to be raised on pillars above roads, creating a truly futuristic look.

    The same futuristic look that we try to reduce in modern highways after negative reactions to the "futuristic" highways built in the 60's.

    Not that I don't think that it's a cool idea, but I think that underground is better than above ground, it helps the viewshed.

    • Re:Ahh yes (Score:2, Informative)

      by jbailey999 ( 146222 )
      The Skytrain [rapidtransit.bc.ca] in Vancouver, BC runs above ground, and most people didn't mind it. Of course, Vancouver's either on quicksand or bedrock, depending on where you're standing, so underground wasn't exactly an option!

  • Vaporware. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gmplague ( 412185 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:05PM (#3075303) Homepage
    It seems like something like this comes up every few months and seems to be vaporware. What happened to the self-driving cars that are just your old car with a new chip in it that was supposed to correct traffic flow.

    Also, how is this going to be cost effective, I.E., what is the benefit to this? I can guarantee that buying and maintaining the robot costs more than getting a driver and paying him $8/hour for 8 hours a day. Will this be a novelty item or just something useful?
    • It seems like something like this comes up every few months and seems to be vaporware.

      According to the article, the vehicle has begun road tests in the city of Cardiff, Wales.

      Hmm...seems pretty tangible to me. Anyway, your tone suggests that you think it's a car that drives around on normal highways. Not so. The vehicle's web site is worth clicking on.
    • But then the drivers can go on and do something more productive with their lives... Oh. Wait. Won't this just put more people out of jobs?

      -Sara
  • Those things are going to get trashed in no time flat.

  • Has to drive better than the locals (Score:4, Funny)

    by linzeal ( 197905 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:06PM (#3075309) Journal
    Welsh drivers are some of the worst in the world especially when considering the prodigious amount of alchohol in they consume. I doubt that even their livestock could pass a dui.
  • First image I had in my mind was the little car on the web side was the Pod Stewie was using when he got inside Peter to kill all his reproductive system so he wouldn't have a brother, funny episode...

    Hmm.. come to think of it, if that thing ever grows popular, it will really look like sperms and eggs when you'll watch the streets from above :)

  • But not to the common criminal...

    I can see it now, Robo Taxi pulls a gun on you when you forget to pay him =)

  • Whooo (Score:4, Insightful)

    by delta407 ( 518868 ) <slashdot@nosPAm.lerfjhax.com> on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:08PM (#3075319) Homepage
    Wow, they plant to make thirty pods in two years for a price of $65 million. Great, and they're battery operated. Plus, they move at a whopping 25 miles per hour. I feel like this could easily become the sweeping revolution in mass transit.

    "Passengers will 'hail' the pod from a designated stop, where they select the required destination along a set route." Sort of like a bus. Except buses don't cost $2 million to build, and they seat more than four passengers... additionally, they expect a trip to cost as much as a bus, except buses are cheaper, higher capacity, don't require a renovation of an infrastructure, already available, and in many cases faster than these pods.

    Seriously, though, what if someone swipes the battery, smashes the windshield, or perhaps "disables" the potentially raised rail? Who would get sued? Or would they make you sign a disclaimer (the "you can't touch us if you get killed" variety)?

    Basically, what I'm seeing is that we'd be better off *not* investing in these things: too expensive for too small of a gain.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:32PM (#3075418)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Whooo (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ncc74656 ( 45571 )
        And 25MpH... That's about twice the average speed of a bus in most cities. Seriously - look it up. In Oxford, where I came from, they did a survey in the mid eighties and found that busses there were driving at an average 8-15MpH while in service!

        I outran this bus [clark.nv.us] one day while biking home from work. We started nearly even at timepoint C (Lake Mead and Rainbow) and went south. By the time I had to turn eastward halfway between timepoints G and H (Tropicana and Rainbow), I was barely ahead of the bus. I made all the stops the lights imposed; the bus made the stops it needed to pick up and drop off passengers. I'm not exactly in the best shape (kinda overweight, actually) and my bike isn't a racing bike (it's a six-speed cruiser), but I didn't have to work too hard at keeping up with the bus. I think I did somewhere around 25 km/h (give or take a bit) most of the way, IIRC.

        • That's a fast bus. I live about 5-6km from work. On a clear day, I might get to work in 25-30 minutes. In contrast, I could peacefully bike to work in about half that time. That's an ideal case scenario, add rain/snow/fucking idiots with diplomatic immunity who drive like 3 year olds on shrooms, and that 25-minute ride swells up to an hour or more. Last year one particular bus ride took 3 hours to complete thanks to traffic and an obviously dim driver who refused to stray from the course despite half a dozen accidents (hondas + snow = lots of tow trucks on the road).

          Since that day I haven't contributed a single penny to the bus system. It's a broken service, despite the steep price and pathetic QoS. I'd rather pay gas and parking than invest in those cretins, the added expense of handling my own vehicle is more than made up for by actually getting to work on time everyday (or at least being late, but consistent :). IMHO, the only good bus system would be a 'free' system (purely tax funded), because that's pretty much all it's good for, but we all know that's not going to happen, certainly not here in AmeriCanada.
    • $65 Million... let's say the average taxi driver salary for a year is $30,000. In the same two year period, you could provide the city with 1,000 free taxis for two years and have a cool $5Mil for gas and repairs left over... Brillant.

  • Although... (Score:4, Funny)

    by xfs ( 473411 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:09PM (#3075323)
    For atmosphere, an indian with a turban will be placed in every pod. He/she will be payed to ask random things in a deep foreign accent, and yell at you when you ask him what he/she said.
  • It says it needs tracks to operate, on a circuitous route.

    Well, as long as your destination is near that route, you'll be fine. But this is more like a bus service with a small vehicle than a taxi car.

    A taxi car should be able to get to any point in the city/village/town, and take orders/bribes from passengers who ask it to go faster. =)

    -Cyc

  • Umm. This is a repeat. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SWPadnos ( 191329 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:09PM (#3075326)
    Hmmm. Looks suspiciously like this [slashdot.org].

    I guess it takes a while for MSN to get old news from the BBC.

  • I have been afraid a lot of when there will be cars on the roads but nobodey inside of them driving becouse what happens when there is an accedent involveing one of these running into your car and you are injured. no matter how good these can drive in a strate line or what ever, there will be somthing situation that it will not handel correct and peopel will possebly get hurt or killed. and once that happens once then it will be hard for the companey to stay in bisness.

  • gangway! (Score:5, Funny)

    by pangloss ( 25315 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:10PM (#3075329) Journal
    from the faq:
    "We also plan a detection system that will automatically stop the vehicle if there is an obstacle in the guideway."

    Oh that's a nice feature to plan for ;)
    I suppose the original plan was to add big nerf-style bumpers instead so that at 25mph the unobservant kiddies would just bounce off gently :P

    heh, i just noticed this one:
    "What about vandalism?
    We hope that the system will be a source of pride to the community it serves so that vandalism incidents will be limited."

    In _some_ communities, *vandalism* is a source of pride, so "vandalism incidents will be frequent, persistent and guaranteed" :P There's a reason why this is debuting in wales and not nyc, eh?
    • from the faq:
      "We also plan a detection system that will automatically stop the vehicle if there is an obstacle in the guideway."

      Oh that's a nice feature to plan for ;)
      I suppose the original plan was to add big nerf-style bumpers instead so that at 25mph the unobservant kiddies would just bounce off gently :P

      Nope. This [fas.org] was the original idea for keeping the way clear. It may still be implemented in less civilized parts of the world, like nyc.

      .

  • It's stupid, but... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gartogg ( 317481 ) <<DavidsFullName> <at> <google.email>> on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:13PM (#3075341) Homepage Journal
    it's setting the pace for the important stuff. As soon as people get used to trusting these glorified mass transit devices, computer run cars won't be dismissed as a pipe dream.

    Since the technology is already here, the important advances in travel will come as soon as there is a market. When I say the technology is already here, I mean that no scientific discovery is needed to pull this off, just some clever engineers and bit pushers.

    We should applaud the invention becasue of what it will lead to, instead of ridiculing the present "state of the art."
  • Will they have AI algorithms to ensure that annoying music is played to matter what passenger steps in?

    How about artificial smell generators to simulate that real taxi cab experience?
  • This is a start to driver less cars, but what how many people would trust there lives to a computer, I might, if it did not run windows, but when my car bule screens I do not want to be in it.

  • Technical Article (Score:4, Informative)

    by jbennetto ( 41159 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:17PM (#3075361)
    For a more technical description of the ULTra, try

    Personal Public Transport [bris.ac.uk]

    Lots of discussion of transportation systems, network layout, engineering, control, etc.

  • Electric Eye... (Score:5, Funny)

    by rufusdufus ( 450462 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:20PM (#3075366)
    I met a guy at CMU working on vision technology for Mercedes. Ostensibly, the technology would identify pedestrians and make a warning sound.

    It sort of worked too, at least from video tapes from a car driving down the street. It could identify human shape and draw a little box around it.

    The guy seemed a little distressed when I pointed out to him that his technology looked a LOT more useful as a robotic machine-gun targetting system.

    Funny how people can fool themselves.
    • It could identify human shape and draw a little box around it.


      Okay, well what about midgets and motorized paraplegics ? "It's a bike, it's a moose, it's a Geo Tracker!.. oh crap, it's a >splat< ok, *WAS* a cripple, now it's a stain on my driveshaft."

      Be it Mercedes or NASA, no machine can possibly know how to handle all the wide-ranging things it might encounter. Until we all have GPS chips in our necks that are polled by every electronic device at every millisecond, these automated wet dreams will remain vapor.
  • We also plan a detection system that will automatically stop the vehicle if there is an obstacle in the guideway.

    I just hope it doesn't run on embedded windows [slashdot.org]!
  • This is far from the technology of a futuristic fantasy. There is very little artifical intelligence required to operate these objects. The device runs on a track, which means it doesn't need to know how to follow a path (it only knows how to stop if something jumps in front of it). It can't "drive" to your destination; instead, it runs in a circular path, making regular stops. I would bet that existing subway stations could probably automate their trains as well, but they actually care about the safety of their passengers enough to hire at least one person per car that knows what to do if something goes wrong.

  • As long as it's privately built, who cares? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bob_Robertson ( 454888 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:21PM (#3075373) Homepage
    Go ahead and build it, but build it privately. That way, if it fails to provide the service people want, it will simply go away.

    The article says it costs "only half as much as Light Rail", but so what? One Light Rail sytem of my acquaintence, San Jose CA, costs 8 times more to operate than it brings in through ticket sales.

    The taxpayers are stuck with this bloated wart-hog of a white elephant, a political monstrosity that cannot be allowed to go away.

    So maybe this ULTra really is the next GreatThing(tm, us pat off). If so it will pay for itself, and investors will be happy to build it in order to profit from it.

    At least that way no one is forced to pay for something they don't want.

    Bob-

    • The taxpayers are stuck with this bloated wart-hog of a white elephant, a political monstrosity that cannot be allowed to go away.

      Ummmm - you do you realize that "taxpayers" (also called Citizens or Residents...) are stuck with bloated wart-hog white elephant that is the SURFACE STREETS. Every resident pays his own insurance and vehicle. then we all dump a TONNE of cash together to build roadways.

      If so it will pay for itself, and investors will be happy to build it in order to profit from it.

      Except when the present system is already completely supported by tax dollars - see above note about the car infrastructure.

      At least that way no one is forced to pay for something they don't want

      Umm - if i ride the bus and ride a bike, can i get my road-tax-money back?

      • Good Subtle, I wish more people would open their minds as you have and reconsider these "one size fits all" tax funded horrors.

        At least back before government took over building roads, the only people who paid for them were the ones that used them.

        At least it's still legal to home school, even though they won't give you back the taxes they already extracted for that schooling.

        Bob-

        • Maybe you could just build a hermetic bubble and have your own little economy of one inside, completely isolated from any other annoying people. You could print your own personal money and pay yourself 100% tax free. Without taxes to put a friction on your economy, you could be a billionaire!

      • You must realize that the roadway system is currently supported by taxpayers because all taxpayers and non-taxpayers benefit from it. Since you live in Canada, a developed country, you can't even think that you don't benefit from public roadway systems.

        Anyone living in any first-world country greatly benefits from roadway development! How much would it cost to buy your food, clothes, medicine, or other goods and services if there was no way for them to economically arrive at your local vendors?

        Taxpayers, and not all citizens pay taxes, fund the construction and maintenance of these roads for the benefit of the local and national economy. The roadway ifrastructure is an engine of commerce!

        Light rail, mass transit, etc. are not fair to taxpayers, as not all taxpayers (most) don't use them, and only marginal economic benefit is provided to the local area by them. In the San Jose example sited at the beginning of this thread, the riders (beneficiaries) of the rail system provide revenue of only 1/8 the cost of operation, which is not profitable in any length of time. If the fares were calculated to be break-even, then the ridership is too low. If the fares were increased to make this operation economically feasible, the ridership will fall even lower. The light rail is limited to pedestrian and bike ridership, with no possibility of commercial utility, so there is no benefit to the local economy derrived from it. It simply doesn't work, so the taxpayers get hosed.

        The only exceptions, where mass transit is viable, are where large transient populations exist. Primarily, this would be college towns where the local population doubles when school is in session, and tourist traps. In college towns, you have a large "transportationally challenged" subset of the population, and the local economy does derrive substantial benefit from the public transit ridership. In heavy tourism areas, you will find privatized mass transit that can operate successfully while turning a profit.

        The roadway system, while not perfect, does provide wealth by making inexpensive commerce possible. It is a worthy enterprise to be funded by the public.

        -- Len

  • ...make car stealing available to techies. Just sit in, install new software w/ your own routes and THERE we go.

  • Damnit, they're just not intelligent ways to get around. Even if we eliminate the use of fossil fuels with the vehicles, the costs of building and maintaining the roadways, not to mention the fossil fuel consumption THAT involves, is a waste of our resources and unintelligent.

    What about trains?? It seems obvious - safer, carry more people with less resource cost, eliminate the nasty roads all over the U.S. (being U.S. centric here as I'm an American, apologize to all non-USians)..I know other countries take trains more seriously, why do the auto manufactures have so much damn influence here? It's just stupid!!! I saw a show on PBS the other night about advances in intelligent cars, and it involved spending tremendous amount in research, investing in new roadways that are prepared for these new cars, etc...why not invest this time and energy in a long term solution?

    More public transportation! More incentives to use public transportation! Let's start being intelligent about our future infrastructure...oh, I'm just wasting my breath...*sigh*

    • Duh. Is a train going to be able to pull up to the curb of whatever place you want to go? What about when you have to carry groceries or packages home? And what about dates? Do you think everyone will want to take their girlfriend/wife out on a date somewhere on the friggin train or bus? What about making out in the back seat? How do you do that on public transportation?

      We already *know* that cars are inefficient and polluting but they so fit our lifestyle. No matter how good a public transit system is it can never take you "exactly" where you want to go 100% of the time. Then you factor in weather, who wants to wait for a bus or train in the snow? Cars do more than just get someone from point A to point B. Try to include the rest of us in your little world next time.

  • Am I the only one? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SaturnTim ( 445813 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:35PM (#3075438) Homepage
    Am I the only person who actually LIKES to drive? My commute is the best part of my day. Everyone talkes about the idea of cars that drive themselves as something great... Personally It is something I dread. Do you think this will make cars safer? Do you trust the software that much?

    By god, I don't see the wonder in it.

    --T
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • You're not the only one. I'd much rather prefer to own my personal transportation. I'm not in the automotive industry, but I do hope my peers keep working on making personal cars safer and more efficient. Driving is very relaxing to me, it gives me a break from the constant work.

      Another ten years, and public transportation will be a thing of the past -- outside of extremely dense urban areas at least.

    • I totally agree with you, the only time I *really* wish my car could drive is if I want to get totally drunk at some bar and have a safe ride, the rest of the time, I'll drive thanks! :)
      If driving wasn't enjoyable, people wouldn't buy nice/fast cars.

  • It's been a long time coming. . . (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bagheera ( 71311 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:36PM (#3075440) Homepage Journal
    This looks like another take on the Ultra-Light Rail Vehicle concept that's been around for a long time now. Basically replacing the "light" rails and trollies we're used to from a lot of cities with really light vehicles running on even lighter rails. Removing something the size and mass of a locomotive and replacing it with something the size of a Honda Civic with even lower mass.

    From a pure engineering standpoint, these things are a great idea and are a much better solution to the "public" transit (as opposed to "Mass" transit as we're saddled with now) problem. The rails are relatively inexpensive to fabricate. They're much less intrusive. They can be switched easily to give better coverage. And the vehicles are light, quiet, and cheap.

    The vandalism problem is probably the hardest to solve. And the obvious problem of pulling "unusable" vehicles out of service. Still, it's nice to see a city willing to try a project like this.

  • What's the big deal about driver-less transportation? I see this every day - solitary passengers putting on makeup, chatting on the phone, reading the paper, pretty much anything and everything except driving. Real world proof that you don't need a very good robot to run a car.

  • But... (Score:3, Funny)

    by sean23007 ( 143364 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:46PM (#3075480) Homepage Journal
    Will the driver-less cabs understand the line: "Follow that car!"

    If not, the private investigator business is going to get much more difficult... :)
    • Will the driver-less cabs understand the line: "Follow that car!"

      No. But it's on rails, so it'll have no problems understanding the line "follow that cab!"
  • the orgasmatron [cnn.com]. giant vegetables, everyone still driving vw bugs. hmm, perhaps woody allen will be considered the next nostradamus.
  • I had with my mom may come true. It went something like this:
    Me: Stupid fscking old people can't drive worth a damn!
    Mom: You'll be old someday too you know.
    Me: Maybe, but I won't drive like that guy.
    Mom: You may once you're old!
    Me: People won't drive themselves anymore when I'm old.

  • AI hype here - why this won't work (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Seth Finkelstein ( 90154 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:58PM (#3075523) Homepage Journal
    Hmm ...
    ... the vehicles will be designed to stop automatically if they sense an object in their path.
    Umm, how large an object? A child? A dog? A cat?

    Think about it. Either:

    1) The "object" threshold is high, which means the first time this kills a toddler, there will be a massive lawsuit

    or

    2) The "object" threshold is low, which means these will be out of commision the moment a piece of trash crosses their path

    Neither setting is workable in a city.

    Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

  • What makes everyone so sure that cars are going to be the primary transportation method in the future?

    Cars are, quite frankly, a dumb idea. Carting a ton or more of metal around to get usually one, but sometimes up to 4 people around is absurd. The vehicles use more energy to propel themselves than their cargo. Add to this the fact that most people can't even drive properly.

    I hope we're all smart enough to live without traffic jams in the future. Who knows? Perhaps we'll have Segway Jams (yeah right) or people just won't need to travel as much, as often.

  • CHECK OUT THIS weeeeeeee (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Please wait for a site operator to respond.
    You are now chatting with 'Chris S.'
    Chris S.: Allow me to introduce myself as your chat representative...
    Chris S.: My name is Chris
    Chris S.: How may I help you today?
    uce@ftc.gov: can i register someone else's name for a .name?
    Chris S.: Yes, as long as it is in the format of firstname.lastname.name
    Chris S.: However some people may have an intellctual property claim on a certain name
    uce@ftc.gov: so like I can do chris.s.name/sucks?
    uce@ftc.gov: haha, jk
    uce@ftc.gov: no i mean like dubya.bush.nate
    uce@ftc.gov: name
    Chris S.: Yes, however if you register a name that is slanderous or if you use the name for slanerous purposes Register.com cannot guarantee there will not be a legal dispute
    Chris S.: We do not take responsibility for any legal disputes that may result from such things
    uce@ftc.gov: ok that is cool, I just want to verify that I could register it
    uce@ftc.gov: is there a dispute policy like if someone tries to get their name?
    Chris S.: Is there anything else I can help you with?
    uce@ftc.gov: say someone registered my name and I want it
    uce@ftc.gov: and their name isn't have my name
    uce@ftc.gov: I MEAN WE ARE NOT THE SAME NAME
    uce@ftc.gov: oh sory
    uce@ftc.gov: anyways do you get the idea?
    Chris S.: Well you can check our dispute policy at the bottom of our home page
    Chris S.: It is a very small link at the very bottom of the page
    Chris S.: Or just go to http://www.register.com/dispute-policy.cgi?
    uce@f tc.gov: UDRPP??
    uce@ftc.gov: oh
    Chris S.: For specifics on the .name dispute policy information you would have to check with the .name registry
    uce@ftc.gov: so that is through ICANN?
    Chris S.: ICANN regulates these things, yes
    uce@ftc.gov: so it's the same resolution people as for .com
    Chris S.: The registry home page for .name is www.name
    Chris S.: ICANN regulates all registrars on the internet
    uce@ftc.gov: is there special consideration for a .name or is it free for all slanderville?
    uce@ftc.gov: i'm kidding, i just want to see if i can register a .name of someone else, throw up a parody site and get away with it.
    Chris S.: The .name does have different regulations but the basics still apply
    uce@ftc.gov: i dunno if the person who was born with the name can come and post-claim the site because it's their name
    Chris S.: You would have to check the dispute policies for more detailed information
    uce@ftc.gov: how about hybrid names?
    uce@ftc.gov: like court cases?
    uce@ftc.gov: roe.wade.name
    Chris S.: Im not sure what you mean
    Chris S.: I cant say specifically, however if someone was named roe wade they would be entitled to that name
    uce@ftc.gov: ok thank you !!!!!11
    uce@ftc.gov: l;sad
    uce@ftc.gov: asdl;dkeru
    uce@ftc.gov: man i'm high
    Chris S.: Thank you for visiting. Please contact us if you have any further questions.
  • I found their choice of powertrains interesting.
    Typically Electric Powertrains are not economically feasible for automobiles. Although The motors are relatively cheap, it's the batteries and motor controllers that create most of the cost.

    Why not use an inexpensive proven diesel or gas engine solution? Heck, even Propane or an alternative fuel? My guess is that an electric powertrain controller is more easily controlled via a computer than an I.C. engine. With "throttle by wire" becoming standard on engines, even the control is relatively negligible.

    I am not arguing that they are wrong in their decision, I'm just curious to see what influenced it.
    • Typically Electric Powertrains are not economically feasible for automobiles.
      Re-read the article. The cars are to be recharged (at least somewhat) at every station. Thus they'll rarely ever go more then a few kilometers withoutout at least a few meters of rail to top them off and can expect a minute or two of recharge every time some boards or disembarks as well.

      In short there's no need for a large quantity of stored energy or even particularly high energy densities. I'm sure the simplicities and efficiencies of an electrical motor as well as lack of local effluent more then cliched any discussion.

      My only question would be if they'd considered a fly-wheel. They'd also be suitable for storing the requisite energy as well as providing a nice bit of stabilization, not require any nasty-for-the-environment materials. As long as the wheel were encased in some sort of GLARE-type safety cage it would be as safe or safer and likely last longer.

  • Repeat! (Score:4, Informative)

    by CaptainCarrot ( 84625 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @11:02PM (#3075546)
    Sheesh, don't the editors read /. themselves? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/17/131721 8&mode=thread
  • The best short distance public transport I've ever seen is Disney World's parking lot shuttle. It costs almost nothing to run and moves more people per unit time than anything else. They could be funded out of general tax revenues so the ridership would be free.
    Block off all the down-town streets and just run shuttles in loops from parking garages and around town.
    Why? Consider how much of the cost of running a public transportation is tied up in getting and accounting for individual fares.
    Thye could probably buy a city-full of Disney shuttles for the salaries are of all the staff involved in fare collection.

    • One problem: most people would be embarrased to ride one of those shuttles. At the University of Utah in the Fall of 1997, everyone was fairly about the coming olympics. [of course the olympics were coming four years from then, but anyways]. The U decided that a short range disney-like shuttle tractor+four trailers would greatly augment the perfectly fine university shuttle bus system. It operated on the sidewalks, and was called something like the 'olympic trolley' or something stupid.

      This thing drove in an endless loop all day, and I never saw more than 0-2 people on board. People were generally embarrassed to ride the thing. THe driver would usually slow down as one was walking on the sidewalk and practically beg for you to jump on.

      It was a mess, and it never even ran during the recent olympics. So much for that idea. I imagine that closing a bunch of inner-city streets and instituting a transportation system people are used to seeing in amusement parks will be a very bad move. No matter how much good publicity you give it, people will still be pissed about the closed streets, plus they will feel like an ass for riding such a clownish mode of transport.

  • This would be the perfect transportation solution for a city like Pheonix AZ since the population concentration is very high spread, therefor buses and any other transportation systems are inefficient.

    Walking in the crazy summer heat at 120 F from the bus station, home even for short distances would be very annoying if not impossible.
    • Look at what we could have had, had our politicians not had their heads up their arses:

      Douglas J. Malewicki's SkyTran System [skytran.net]

      That's right! That was the competitor to what we got, which is a normal, everyday, light rail system (which is somehow supposed to sit adjacent in some fashion to I-17 in some manner, as well as along 19th Avenue - where they plan to find the space, is anybody's guess) - the dollar value of one car (of light rail) could have funded a lot of work on SkyTran - think about that come tax time.

      Another thing to think about: Supposedly construction is supposed to start in 2003 - but I have yet to hear anything more on this boondoggle, which I think merely went to line corrupt politician pockets...
    • I'm not so sure about that. The same thing that makes buses inefficient makes almost any public transportation system inefficient. You want to foot the bill to build 700 miles of track, or whatever insane amount it would take to give decent coverage to Phoenix? Plus, with the city so spread out, unless the thing can manage an average speed of about 45 mph, it's still going to take forever to get anywhere.
  • "...could make driver-free transport a reality and not just the stuff of futuristic fantasy..."

    Just when I thought my futuristic fantasies were at their peak, this thing comes along. Now what do I do for fantasy?

  • what? and I thought that the world's transportation problems have already been solved by the "Segway".
  • What happens when you hail one of these things after it has just dropped off a bunch of college freshmen at 3am on a Saturday morning?
  • ...because I hear they have lots of road rage.
  • I'm just looking forward to not having some cab-driver make you clean up when you puke 17 beers and half a kebab in the back of one at 3:00 AM....
  • While ULTra can be deployed more easily for demonstrations, for city-wide deployment, Personal Rapid Transit, a wheel based monorail, seems better: it requires much less space on the ground and is probably overall cheaper. For more info, see CPRT [cprt.org] and U. Washington [washington.edu].
  • It's another personal rapid transit system that runs on tracks, or "guideways". Systems like that have been proposed for decades now, going back to MIT's Project Metran in the 1960s. Nobody has ever built one that's useful, except for airport inter-terminal shuttle cars and such.

    Current technology isn't up to driving in heavy traffic, but some kind of system that uses narrow dedicated roadways, low speeds, and automated low-speed maneuvering in station areas is within reach. Automated materials-handling vehicles in industrial plants have been doing that for almost 20 years now.

    A reasonable modern design might look something like this:

    • 2 and 4 seat vehicles. Top speed around 25MPH.
    • Vehicle can either run on a guideway, drawing power from the guideway, or for short distances off the guideway on battery power, following buried guide wires or other navigational system. Vehicles seldom go more than a block from a guideway, though.
    • Guideways are usually two lanes wide. Vehicles normally hug the right edge of the guideway and draw power from the guideway. But provision is made for failures. Stalled vehicles can be passed, a backup vehicle can stop alongside a stalled one and let the occupants transfer, and a tow vehicle can haul stalled vehicles off the system. In these backup modes, operation slows to 5MPH or so in the trouble area for safety reasons.
    • At stations, vehicles can leave the guideway and park.
  • What's this 21st century hippy thing about buses ? I no longer bus, I _drive_ my own car to work, despite the greater cash expense (parking, gas, maintenance).

    Now when I get to work I find myself fully awake and in a great mood. Much better than reading/sleeping on a slow, always late, overcramped bus with a bunch of loud teens.

    I like it so much, that sometimes I leave home 20-30 minutes early and just drive around for the joy of it, with my little subwoofer kicking hard and fast. Driving is like the hormonal impact of watching girls make out, it's a gentle tingly feeling you'd want to hold forever (at least until you run out of gas).
  • Which is scarier? artificial intelligence or a NYC cab driver?

  • From the What is ULTra [atsltd.co.uk] page:

    maximum speed 25mph (40kph)

    But from the Fact File [atsltd.co.uk]:

    ULTra average speed is about 40 kph

    So which is it, maximum speed or average?
  • The thing ain't a taxi, it's a "on-demand Personal Rapid Transit", or rather, an "horizontal elevator", or for you trekkies, a "turbolift" (there was one also in "Space 1999").

    And it's hardly anything new, there is one that has been running for 30 years [washington.edu] at the West-Virginia University, in Morgantown (WV - duh?). (Better pics here [presby.edu]).


  • "Where the hell am I?"

    "You're in a Johnny-Cab!"

Slashdot Top Deals

So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of money? -- Ayn Rand

Close