GM To Introduce Hands-Free Driving In Cadillac Model 185
cold fjord notes that drivers will be able to switch a new Cadillac model to partial auto-pilot. General Motors Co. (GM), the largest U.S. automaker, will introduce a Cadillac model in two years that can travel on the highway without the driver holding the steering wheel or putting a foot on a pedal. The 2017 Cadillac model will feature "Super Cruise" technology that takes control of steering, acceleration and braking at highway speeds of 70 miles per hour or in stop-and-go congested traffic, Chief Executive Officer Mary Barra said yesterday in a speech at the Intelligent Transport System World Congress in Detroit. GM declined to release the name of the model that will carry the feature. Barra also said GM in two years will become the first automaker to equip a model with so-called vehicle-to-vehicle technology that enables the car to communicate with other autos with similar abilities to warn of traffic hazards and improve road safety. GM will make the V2V feature standard on its 2017 Cadillac CTS sedan, debuting in the second half of 2016, she said. The Super Cruise feature will be on a different Cadillac model and goes beyond similar technology available on some Mercedes-Benz models that operates only at low speeds.
Waiting for the second generation hands-free auto. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Waiting for the second generation hands-free au (Score:5, Funny)
Naw, this is GM's top of the line model. It will have a number of features for the hands-free control to match the exclusive habits of the drivers of said vehicle:
1: It will safe gas by pulse/glide on highways, zooming to 75, dropping to 55.
2: It will randomly slam brakes, or flash brake lights.
3: When someone passes, it will automatically pop a turn signal in that car's direction and lurch towards that car.
4: On roads with one lane, it will go 20 miles under the speed limit until someone attempts to overtake, then will stay the same speed as the overtaking car.
5: It will not use turn signals when a turn is actually performed.
6: On highways, it will automatically find its way into the left lane and repeat behavior #1.
7: If in the lane near an exit lane, it will match exactly the speed of cars attempting to come onto the road.
Re:Waiting for the second generation hands-free au (Score:4, Funny)
Re: Waiting for the second generation hands-free a (Score:3)
This is awesome!!! I've been hoping for years that Cadillac would make a car like this. When the driver falls asleep or simply dies behind the wheel, it should get them home or to the morgue. It simply needs a heart rate detector.
The only downside is it will put the yellow pages out of business finally since Q-tips won't need one to see under the wheel.
wow (Score:5, Insightful)
then again, people do have pretty short memories, and are easily distracted by shiny things . either way though, i think this can safely be called either chutzpah, or some kind of weird statement regarding what they think consumer's attention span is.
Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)
...it strikes me as almost surreal that they are floating the idea that consumers should 'trust them' in their ability to produce this technology safely and bug-free.
Please feel free to name any tech company that can produce bug-free systems. I'll wait.
I would be more worried about getting into a car made by a tech company that is used to a constant cycle of development and patching. A car running software by Adobe or Oracle? You couldn't pay me to drive in that. Even the majority of complaints against recent Ford cars is due to bad software for their Sync system... written by Microsoft. What if every bug in software written by Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc. got the media attention of an auto industry recall? We'd be inundated...
You have to remember that 1 recall = 1 bug in the auto industry. What other major industry (besides aerospace) has such a low instance of issues in their products that operate in horrendously harsh environments and temperature ranges are designed to last 10+ years?
It's not just the fact GM has the recalls! (Score:5, Informative)
What scares me (and I just traded in a 2011 Cadillac CTS Coupe that I've owned for several years) is the way GM often decides to rectify the problems they find!
For example? Have you seen the correction they gave Cadillac owners for the ignition switch recall?! Instead of anything you'd assume GM would do (like replacing the lock cylinder with a newer revision that can't accidentally get twisted out of the "run" position while the gear selector is in "Drive"?), the recall involves issuing owners a new set of keyfobs! That's right! GM decided that by changing the way the physical key attaches to the rectangular fob, they'd give you a setup where it's less likely to put as much leverage on the ignition switch with keys hanging from it! Anyone can do this "recall" themselves with 50 cents worth of keyring parts from the local hardware store!
Thankfully, my CTS had electronic push button start, so that recall didn't even apply to me. But only a week after I traded the car in, I received a different recall notice about a problem where vibrations in the driveline (that apparently worsen as some of the lubricating grease disappears) can trick a side airbag sensor into thinking there was a crash and accidentally going off). BTW, *that* recall notice also informed me not to take my car in right away for it, as GM didn't even have the replacement parts in stock yet for that one!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And that is exactly why they fixed it this way. Because it fixes the problem with minimal cost of materials, and minimal labor. Replacing the lock cylinder would not only be a more complex task tin terms of parts, but it would also require a mechanic to install it. By replacing the key fob, they can just mail out the replacement. A really smart engineer would have tried to get away with issuing cust
Re: (Score:3)
BTW, *that* recall notice also informed me not to take my car in right away for it, as GM didn't even have the replacement parts in stock yet for that one!
And if they held off on telling you about the defect as soon as possible you'd be suing. It takes TIME to manufacture and ship 100k+ parts.
As for the lock cylinders, they did eventually end up replacing them by building new lock cylinders built for the VIN of the car being repaired. So there were delays because you had to have the dealer order the part for your VIN, then wait for your order in the queue because even operating 3 shifts it took time for the assembly line to chew through all the parts.
Re: (Score:2)
I received a different recall notice
If it is any consolation, I have two Toyotas and they have been recalled for engine fires, window switch fires, sticking gas pedals, floor mats, spare tires that fall out of the bottom of the car (two times so far), and shift lever malfunction - off the top of my head. I don't think it is an exaggeration for me to say that they do some kind of recall work on at least one of the two cars every time I go in for the 6 month service. I think modern cars are very complicated and the bar for a recall is far lower
Re: (Score:3)
The real concern is not 'autopilot' feature, it is V2V and introducing remote attack surfaces.
Automotive versus aviation (Score:5, Informative)
It isn't about bug free on first compile, it is about a) failure-tolerant design b) multiple redundancies. We generally trust airplane auto-pilot systems, there is no reason why similar approach could not be used here.
I deal in my day job with both automotive and aerospace clients. They couldn't be more different when it comes to reliability and safety in product design and assembly.
For example, when I start a job for an automotive company they typically require what is called a PPAP [wikipedia.org] which is supposed to establish that the part and the manufacturing systems to build it have been adequately reviewed. Sounds great and in theory is a very good idea. In practice however it is a check-the-box document that is generally required to go into production, produced once, generally never looked at and filed somewhere never to be seen again. It is a waste of everyone's time because no one really actually checks this stuff because doing so is too expensive. Audits are rare and formal quality processes are frequently ignored until something breaks.
Aviation is different. They will seriously crawl up your hind end and regularly audit you. I haven't had an automotive company come in to audit a product in over a decade and I won't unless there is some huge screw up. Aviation has gotten things so reliable that even physicians are taking notes on how to improve their quality in the operating rooms. Automotive isn't even close.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So process is in place but is not actually followed.
Close. It is followed only to the extend demanded by the customer. Some are serious about it but most aren't. The process gets followed enough to stand up in court but not enough to actually be useful if that makes sense. ISO-9000 and similar processes can be effective but there are a lot of problems and conflicts of interest.
Absolutely no surprise, but it will be your company's problem when root cause analysis of this or that fiery crash turns out that quality review wasn't actually conducted.
Not really. First off, we're too small for GM or Ford to give a shit about us. The shit rolling downhill usually stops somewhere around the Tier 2 supplier because anyone smaller
Re: (Score:2)
While not always bug-free, automotive embedded software is a hell of a lot better than desktop or phone shit.
You've never read the third-party analysis of Toyota's ECU software, have you?
The exciting part about driverless cars comes when a bug is found. Suddenly you have millions of cars to upgrade, and would be liable for every death the bug causes until they're upgraded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"We'd be inundated..."
we would et better software is what we would get.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to remember that 1 recall = 1 bug in the auto industry.
1 recall = 1 bug that the manufacturer cannot afford to ignore. Take any car or even car component out there and someone familiar with it can name a litany of failures in the design, even the supposedly "best" vehicles. I can name several in the Mercedes-Benz OM617.951A engine alone, and that's one of the best-loved motors of all time. OF ALL TIME. (Imma let you finish...)
Bug Free (Score:3)
Please feel free to name any tech company that can produce bug-free systems.
Oracle.
(They call them 'features'.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is why GM is advertising it as a more advanced form of Cruse Control... Vs. Autonomous driving. In short it is a feature to make your drive easier. but not as a way for you to just not pay attention to the road.
I would love that feature on my car, when taking a long drive. It would prevent driving exhaustion.
Re: (Score:3)
That is why GM is advertising it as a more advanced form of Cruse Control... Vs. Autonomous driving. In short it is a feature to make your drive easier. but not as a way for you to just not pay attention to the road.
Problem is, the USAF has discovered that higher amounts of automation result in less attention paid when it comes to UAVs, which I'm certain will translate to the road.
Re: (Score:2)
That is why GM is advertising it as a more advanced form of Cruse Control... Vs. Autonomous driving. In short it is a feature to make your drive easier. but not as a way for you to just not pay attention to the road.
I would love that feature on my car, when taking a long drive. It would prevent driving exhaustion.
Well, common sense tells me that people will see it as some sort of autonomous driving and not pay attention to the road if given this feature, and so therefore if the feature is not fit for autonomous driving, then it should not be released as advanced cruise control either. It is irresponsible.
Re: (Score:3)
it strikes me as almost surreal that they are floating the idea that consumers should 'trust them' in their ability to produce this technology safely and bug-free.
No, the really terrifying thing is that even a bug-ridden GM auto-driver is probably far more reliable than a human driver. And yet we have zero GM auto-drivers on the road and millions of the even more bug-ridden humans.
But it only kills 30,000 per year in the US, so I'm probably over-reacting.
Re: (Score:2)
Where it will get sticky is if drivers of similar cars have more accidents than the Cadillacs, yet for the Cadillac, the accidents will definitely be attributable to a defect. The lawyers are probably already planning their yachts and vacation homes.
yikes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they crossed that bridge already with complex nav systems that may distract you. You may be able to sign away your rights, but you still cannot sign away the rights of people you may cream.. They can still aue the company.
Sleepy time? (Score:2)
Re:Sleepy time? (Score:5, Insightful)
And I'd LOVE to see the specs for the car to car communication. Because I'll lay even money that security was one of the last thoughts of the engineers and that the C2C interface will have direct access to the cars CAN bus or whatever it is GM uses these days. Fun times!
Re: (Score:2)
Because only people on /. consider security.
Re:Sleepy time? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sleepy time? (Score:5, Funny)
On the contrary (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Favorite old joke: "When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather... not wide awake and screaming, like the 4 passengers in the car he was driving."
I'm not sure I want to know (Score:5, Funny)
GM To Introduce Hands-Free Driving In Cadillac Model
Genetic Modification has definitely gone too far.
User Errors (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:User Errors (Score:5, Funny)
Irregardless of grammatical errors, I agree with you 100%.
It doesn't have to work perfectly. (Score:3)
Automated driving systems DO NOT need to be foolproof.
Near 100% of highway accidents are the result of humans. The amount due to equipment failure is so small as to be statistically insignificant. Even if the automated system is only 95% foolproof, it would still reduce the number of traffic accidents by a huge margin by removing fallible humans from the equation.
Depends on the oversight/fallback systems (Score:3)
Automated driving systems DO NOT need to be foolproof.
True but they do require reliable oversight and/or fail safe systems if they are not including most a well trained, alert and competent driver. The less competent the driver(s) the more competent the automated system needs to be.
Near 100% of highway accidents are the result of humans. The amount due to equipment failure is so small as to be statistically insignificant
Not true. While you are correct that the vast majority are a result of human error, the NTHSA has done studies [dot.gov] which show that equipment failure does account for a statistically important percentage of accidents. Blown tires, failed brakes, failed steering, deficient equipment et
Re:Depends on the oversight/fallback systems (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Near 100% of highway accidents are the result of humans. The amount due to equipment failure is so small as to be statistically insignificant
Not true. While you are correct that the vast majority are a result of human error, the NTHSA has done studies which show that equipment failure does account for a statistically important percentage of accidents. Blown tires, failed brakes, failed steering, deficient equipment etc
There's a substantial grey area there. Most blown tires, failed brakes, and failed steering could have been prevented with some owner attention; checking tire pressures and looking for sidewall bulges while you're there, maintaining brake fluid and either performing inspections or taking the vehicle in for them regularly (brake inspections are typically free) and taking the car in to the shop when the steering gets sloppy, or replacing the rag joint or ball joints or whatever has gone off. Failure to follow
Re: (Score:2)
I completely disagree with you. I certainly DO NOT want automated driving systems to be supervised by a human, because compared to machines humans make horrible decisions and are slow to react to stimuli. In fact, I don't want a a human to be able to control the vehicle at all. Such is my nirvana.
Re: (Score:2)
All three of your citation neededs are asinine. Anyone who has been remotely paying attention to these things over the years and decades knows them the same way they know New York is on the east coast. Repeated references to same.
Go do your own homework, see that he is right, and come back and apologize.
Re: (Score:2)
No they aren't.
5% to 10%* of accident are due to mechanical failure. That's the problem with common knowledge, it's often wrong.
If we are talking just about accident cause by manufacturer defect, then yes, it's a fraction of a percent.
Don't forget that incident due to improper maintenance also counts under mechanical failure. Under inflated tires, worn brakes, etc.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/240/... [gao.gov]
"Repeated references to same."
Doesn't mean it's true. There are may repeated reference to think that aren't true
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget that incident due to improper maintenance also counts as human error. Under inflated tyres, worn brakes, etc.
Pointing out driver error (Score:2)
I don't doubt GM and others can make this work.
I do, at least given the time frame quoted. I work in the industry. I think they will figure it out in due time but I'd be startled if were were really ready to roll out that kind of technology in a production vehicle that soon. Strikes me as a lawsuit just waiting to happen...
But we'll never know how many of the "sudden acceleration" Toyota accidents were actually user errors blamed via "Oh yeah, me too. That's the ticket!" excuse.
A pretty good approximation of 100% would be my guess. The NHTSA has looked into this twice without finding ANY evidence of mechanical or electrical malfunction. Some "expert witnesses" have looked into it and come up with some th
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Are you trolling? Did you watch Rhonda Smith's testimony on YouTube? Did you read the transcript of the testifying expert's testimony from the Oklahoma Bookout trial?
Look, I will agree that a certain percentage - maybe 20%, maybe 50%, hell maybe even 90%, of the incidents are pedal mis-application. But when you consider that every vehicle brand has elderly drivers, and every brand has people who mis-apply pedals, why is the incident rate (by /percentage/, not actual number, i.e. normalizing for sales vol
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that document is scary. It implies that the accelerator control task could crash, and the rest of the software wouldn't even notice. If the throttle is open at the time... oops.
Not scary (Score:2)
Yeah, that document is scary. It implies that the accelerator control task could crash, and the rest of the software wouldn't even notice.
The document does not at any point establish a causal link between any failure mode and any accident. It merely points out potential bugs which in theory might cause problems. That is HUGELY different from being shown to be the cause of any accident. Frankly it's only scary if you don't actually think it. Toyota recalled a bunch of vehicles to address mechanical pedal sticking issues but to my knowledge there was never once any recall related to any accelerator pedal software failure.
Furthermore most To
Pedal misapplication and copycat crime (Score:2)
Are you trolling?
Asks the Anonymous Coward...
Look, I will agree that a certain percentage - maybe 20%, maybe 50%, hell maybe even 90%, of the incidents are pedal mis-application.
So you admit you have no idea but you think that qualifies you to declare me wrong. Interesting argument tactic you have there...
But when you consider that every vehicle brand has elderly drivers, and every brand has people who mis-apply pedals, why is the incident rate (by /percentage/, not actual number, i.e. normalizing for sales volume) for Toyota so much higher.
It's called a copycat crime [wikipedia.org]. Same thing happened to Audi about 20+ years ago. Someone reported (falsely - look it up) that Audi's were accelerating uncontrollably and suddenly there were tons of "reports" of that "failure" where none had existed before. People start to believe it and report it even when it isn't true or occurs for reasons unrelated
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, he did show reasonable causal relationship.
http://www.sddt.com/Commentary... [sddt.com]
http://www.sddt.com/files/Book... [sddt.com]
http://www.sddt.com/files/BARR... [sddt.com]
I do no give a shit about Audi history, and bringing it up is a non sequitur.
"the brakes still will stop the vehicle if operating properly"
not, they won't. IN many vehicles, they will prevent the car from starting to roll, but once you're doing 55+ they will not stop the car if the throttle is open.
.
Re: (Score:3)
But we'll never know how many of the "sudden acceleration" Toyota accidents were actually user errors blamed via "Oh yeah, me too. That's the ticket!" excuse.
A pretty good approximation of 100% would be my guess. The NHTSA has looked into this twice without finding ANY evidence of mechanical or electrical malfunction
But they did find a bug which could cause sudden unintended acceleration, and there is not any logging in the system which can rule that occasion out. And therefore, even if there were zero actual cases of unasked-for acceleration, we still know that the industry is not yet sufficiently responsible to perform this task.
Since the brakes in any car are powerful enough to overcome the engine at full throttle,
If you're already moving at speed and the throttle stays on and the electric motors which have full torque even at zero RPM and are supposed to cancel when you hit the brake pedal don't do th
Re: (Score:2)
Other manufactures already have this tech at the consumer vehicle.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... [bloomberg.com]
"A pretty good approximation of 100% would be my guess. "
nope. errors were found. Does it apply to every case? can't say.
The code in Toyota's systems are bad.
http://www.sddt.com/files/Book... [sddt.com]
http://www.sddt.com/files/BARR... [sddt.com]
" The NHTSA has looked into this twice without finding ANY evidence of mechanical or electrical malfunction."
Note: that doesn't include software.
" I work in the industry."
Based on the fact
Never thought I'd see it in my lifetime (Score:2)
I don't get it (Score:5, Funny)
Why is this new? I see people driving Cadillacs with no hands on the wheel all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
It just turns the combination of auto-follow/auto-brake and auto-lane-hold that negligent jackasses have been using like an autonomous driving system into a proper, integrated feature.
Why do they think this is a good idea? (Score:3)
Multiple companies have started annoucing these "enhanced" cruise controls. I don't like them at all.
Regular cruise control is sedating enough. You don't need more reasons to not pay attention to the
road unless it's 100% completely autonomous. This is just an accident waiting to happen. Do they
want to erode people's confidence and get autonomous cars outlawed before they even really exists?
I realise this is supposably an "incremental improvement" towards automation but I don't think autonomous
cars work that way. An "incremental improvement" that won't get someone killed would be a car/truck/RV
that can safely drive on just interstates and/or safely pull over. This seems like a much lower bar than
the city driving that google is trying to do and would be a useful "incremental improvement". You could
map out which interstates it works on and only engage at speeds over 60 when the GPS says you are
on a designated safe highway. This would be a useful feature that is truly hands free and allows a
company to slowly start adding roads as the technology improves but the important part is that it would
be a cruise control that you didn't have to babysit and more important it would be a cruise control
where it was safe to take a nap not one where it's tempting to take a nap so people will do it and get
killed (and kill other people in the process).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You also have the right to go 25 down a 35MPH single-lane road, never pulling to the side to let faster traffic overtake you. That does make you a bit of a dick, though.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Having to look at the speedo just to keep your car going at a certain speed is a distraction. I'd much more likely be looking out the windshield while I drive, instead of on the instrument cluster. Cars aren't planes. I use cruise control down to 20mph in the school zones and consider the "wisdom" not to use it at low speeds or in city traffic to be at odds with reality. There's nothing sedating about regular cruise control. It lets me focus on the road ahead and on the other cars instead of pre
Re: (Score:3)
Having to look at the speedo just to keep your car going at a certain speed is a distraction. I'd much more likely be looking out the windshield while I drive, instead of on the instrument cluster
OK, we can solve that with a HUD. How does that relate to cruise control?
I use cruise control down to 20mph in the school zones and consider the "wisdom" not to use it at low speeds or in city traffic to be at odds with reality.
Unless you then rest your foot on the brake pedal that's extremely stupid of you, because your car starts decelerating as soon as you lift off of the accelerator pedal, but it doesn't start decelerating as soon as you lift your foot off of the floor next to the pedals. So you've now got to find the cruise control cancel, possibly in an unforeseen emergency.
There's nothing sedating about regular cruise control.
False [nih.gov]. Learn to internet, bro.
It lets me focus on the road ahead and on the other cars instead of pretending to be a fucking speed servo.
If being a speed servo is a challenging job for y
Re: (Score:3)
If being a speed servo is a challenging job for you, I suggest that driving is right out.
Great suggestion. How exactly would one do that? I'm the first to admit. I suck at driving. I'm pretty good on a racetrack
but everyday driving I am a hazard to myself and others. I live 5 miles outside of town. There is no public transportation.
A taxi might be willing to take me into town but it would cost a fortune and a taxi isn't really practical for running errands.
Luckily I work from home and I'm also a much better motorcycle driver than I am a car driver so I try to use my motorcycle
as often as
Re: (Score:2)
If being a speed servo is a challenging job for you, I suggest that driving is right out.
Great suggestion. How exactly would one do that? I'm the first to admit. I suck at driving. I'm pretty good on a racetrack
but everyday driving I am a hazard to myself and others. I live 5 miles outside of town. There is no public transportation.
Either move closer, learn to concentrate, or embrace the self-driving auto when it arrives, I guess. At least you've got options.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never really liked cruise control anyway. I would much prefer a throttle control than a cruise control. I don't want my car to downshift three gears just to try to keep the car going the same speed up a large hill. Just to keep the same throttle setting and let the speed fluctuate. Much better for the gas mileage and saves wear and tear on the engine and transmission.
Re: (Score:2)
To play devil's advocate, highway driving (at least in North America) is rather simple tasks that does not require extensive computational and sensory demand that city driving would require.
I think the key is to clearly map system limitations and have it fail to engage when it isn't up to the task. (e.g. construction or bad weather).
Assuming nothing unusual ever happens (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that the best option for surprise wildlife is 'drive straight'. Many will reflexively attempt to turn to avoid the animal and end up rolling.
A car that doesn't need the human's 1/2 second to slam on the brakes can cut stopping distance almost in half.
Re:Assuming nothing unusual ever happens (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention that the best option for surprise wildlife is 'drive straight'. Many will reflexively attempt to turn to avoid the animal and end up rolling.
Although I mostly agree with this in theory and also, in theory, people should never be on the interstate if you go this direction then
you better make sure your "is this an animal or a person" algorithm is rock solid.
Re: (Score:2)
The correct solution for an "unusual event" is almost always either "stop or pull over". If there is something on the highway
that's not suppose to be there then you should avoid it and/or stop. A decent camera should be able to spot an accident,
weather, or road construction a long ways off and find a safe spot to pull over and disengage.
For sudden events like a tire blowout, the correct solution is almost always to immediately stop the vehicle and/or safely pull over.
Basically, you don't have to plan for
Fail *safe* (Score:2)
Regular cruise control is sedating enough. You don't need more reasons to not pay attention to the
road unless it's 100% completely autonomous. This is just an accident waiting to happen.
The failure mode is entirely different.
- Regular cruise control keeps the speed, completely ignoring what is in front of the car: it will *blindly* keep the accelerator down and stay at the same speed. If the driver gets distracted, the car will continue straight ahead no-matter-what and can hit something and cause an accident. Leaving a regular cruise control unattended will certainly lead to accidents.
In most extreme situation, if you fall asleep behind the wheel, the car will hit whatever ends-up in fron
Re: (Score:2)
You'll be awaken by the car beeping to tell you that it has stoped to avoid something in front, and by the horn of other driver, angry that you've stopped in the middle of nowhere.
Or by the car behind smashing into you, because they weren't looking where they were going, and your car is stopped on the highway.
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like every old person when cruise control was introduced.
more excited about V2V (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
3 miles ahead is already reported via GPS phone home to Google/online navigation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Partial auto-pilot" (Score:5, Insightful)
Now *there's* a phrase to fill you with confidence. "Works right up to the point where you need to be paying attention, except you won't be because the car is driving itself."
Commercial Vehicles (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"In two years" (Score:2)
I predict that 'in two years' they'll announce that they 'still have a few details to work out' and that it will be released 'in (the) next year's model'.. and so on..
Driverless Indy 500 / LeMans (Score:2)
Pff! (Score:2)
Hell, I was doing hands-free driving when I was 17. Can of beer in one hand, joint in the other, steering with my knees... driving a stickshift. On the Kennedy Expressway, Monday morning 11am. If they'd invented cell phones at the time, I'd have been texting or playing Dungeon Defender, too.
All that auto-assist stuff is for wussies. I don't know why we need that stuff. You just need to be a responsible driver like me.
Uh oh... (Score:3)
Hillarity ensues...
Wow (Score:2)
The same company that sends out millions of recall notices detailing the things that can happen if the part fails but also tells owners "Don't bring your cars in for repairs, we don't have the parts for it yet."
Yeah, I'll be trusting this anytime soon.
Re: (Score:2)
The same company that sends out millions of recall notices detailing the things that can happen if the part fails but also tells owners "Don't bring your cars in for repairs, we don't have the parts for it yet."
As I told somebody else, it's a legal thing. By TELLING you what the problem is they're no longer likely to get slapped with punitive damages in a lawsuit. Manufacturing replacement parts takes time.
Usually, buried in the recall notice is how YOU can keep yourself safe despite the defect. From 'Don't use the heater when it's hot out because part X could melt' to 'don't drive the vehicle, we'll send a tow truck when it's time'.
Re: (Score:2)
And that is BS!
They need to fix THEIR problem rather than keeping your money that you paid for the car and telling you not to drive it.
They should be banned from selling new cars until they fix the old ones
Mercedes Benz (Score:2)
How is this different from the driver assistance package you can get in Benzes now? They cruise down to a stop-start situation and steer to keep you in your lane. Am I missing something?
Re: (Score:2)
yes, also infinity Q50 (as in the infamous
http://www.motorauthority.com/... [motorauthority.com])
I'd bet on it to go in to the ATS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
similar to a href="http://www.abevigoda.com">abevigoda.com).
Did you design the custom webpage?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The car is going to choose to follow the traffic laws. That means it's not going to swerve into oncoming traffic, even if you're going to die. It will nail the ABS and perhaps there will even be a prayer for you in one line of code. You never know about the motivations of the developers. You may even have time enough to kiss your arse goodbye.
Part of choosing to follow the traffic laws, however, is that your car will have taken that minivan into account in advance. It won't pass it at a speed which might re
Re: (Score:2)
what decision will the car make?
will i be happy to allow it to make that decision?
- will i still be happy for it to make that decision if my 2 kids are in the backseat?
All very good questions that no decision-makers are allowing themselves to be seen asking.
To the government none of this will matter, its already a done deal that In a few years this technology will become 24/7 mandatory. Google are already trying hard to get driving controls out of cars totally.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/goog... [kurzweilai.net]
Regardless of
Re: (Score:2)
IT's cool, it will save lives, it will improve traffic conditions.
YOu do knwo the technology is already being sold by other car manufacturers, right? no? shut up.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, if you are 50 or younger. Nothing says old and out of touch like a Cadillac.
Caddies are pretty popular among lower income minorities as well, especially the Escalade.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)