6 ms·

"Ford said it had instead programmed the Lidar sensors to detect landmarks above the ground, such as buildings and road signs." So, in order to work, it needs

"Ford said it had instead programmed the Lidar sensors to detect landmarks above the ground, such as buildings and road signs." So, in order to work, it needs a mapped area. They skipped the actual problems with driving in snowy conditions. I guess I'll have to wait a while longer for an actual solution. At least the didn't go the full GPS route since I've been on roads that are marked 10 yards away from their actual location.

lern_too_spel 11y ago
This is just a one-time precompute step, something that is very common in software engineering.
- protomyth 11y ago
  It better not be a one-time precomputed step since the roads changes constantly. I'm pretty sure I've never tried to precompute placement of items in a dynamic system.
  - lern_too_spel 11y ago
    Nonsense. Roads change very rarely compared to the number of trips taken on them. This precompute needs to be done just once per change, just like building an index that will be used for many searches. The road changes themselves almost always happen in less inclement weather. This is pretty much exactly the same thing that humans do. I drive much better on a road with missing lane markings if I have driven on it before, and just like me, these systems will have degraded performance without the precompute.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - manicdee 11y ago
    On the other hand, I have been confused by fairly simple changes to roads such as a two way street being made one-way (which a decent satnav would have been updated to know about as soon as the change was gazettes) or roadworks closing off a road that i regularly use (again, autonomous system would have been updared based on gazetted road closures).
ocdtrekkie 11y ago
From my understanding, this is required of nearly all 'self-driving cars'. A Slate article from 2014 stated that Google's cars wouldn't know a stoplight existed, and would simply run it, if it wasn't in Google Maps. And that a Google engineer said the level of mapping required by their cars at the time would be 'impractical' to do at a nationwide level. These cars require a lot more detail than traditional Google Maps data provides. And there's a huge concern about how they'd adapt to changes in the roadway which may have not made it to Google's servers yet.
- protomyth 11y ago
  Its one thing, and expected, for the car to look for signs, but if self-driving cars all need perfect maps which I didn't know was a necessity then I don't see them being practical.
  - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
    My understanding is that it 'looks for signs', if it expects them to be there. Obviously, it has to look at the stoplight to see what color it is. But it won't look at arbitrary space for a stoplight it isn't told exists. Source, by the way: slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/google_self_driving_car_it_may_never_actually_happen.html FWIW, a Googler has done a TED talk about having the car recognize police officers holding signs and temporary things like that, more recently, so they may have made strides in solving this problem. But at it's core, the Self-Driving Car Project seems way too reliant on Google's cloud servers for my taste. I'd love to have a self-driving car, but it needs to be self-driving, not Google-driving.
    - Someone 11y ago
      Give it ten years, and that traffic light problem may solve itself. I would not surprise me if we would eventually see every traffic light broadcast its GPS location, cycle pattern, and phase, either using radio or by modulating their light source. That still is risky (hackers could hack the logic in a traffic light), but less risky than relying on one central authority to know what he whole world looks like. Also, I don't think it is a good idea, but chances are police officers will have ways to stop self-driving car without giving visual signs.
mikeyouse 11y ago
Every time a Google / Tesla / Ford / GM / Toyota self-driving car passes down a road in normal conditions, it will be mapping the surroundings in fairly intricate detail. Based on GPS + Lidar + other sensors, the roadway and surroundings will be mapped to within centimeters -- which should make navigating during inclement conditions fairly straight-forward. These systems might fail on snowy roads that have never been traversed previously, but what percentage of driving is performed on roads with hundreds/thousands of cars passing every day? 99.9%? 99.99%?
- akerro 11y ago
  In 5 years I never had an accident, crash or any semi-dangerous or dangerous situtation during hard rains, snows, snowstorms. I'm not ok with 99.99%
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    The comparison to make is not with yourself, it's with the worst drivers that are already legally allowed to drive. Getting them replaced with a superior autonomous system makes you safer regardless of how your skill level compares to the system. (The only crash I've been in involved someone else losing control of their vehicle and crossing the center line on a major highway, which probably informs this perspective a little bit)
    - serge2k 11y ago
      Except the system will also replace safe drivers. So overall the safety level may be decreased.
      - maxerickson 11y ago
        I think you are right about that being a possibility, but my personal judgment is that a lot of bad driving is rooted in poor decision making and concentrated, so I don't think an overall decrease in safety is a likely outcome.
  - 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jobu 11y ago
It (potentially) solves one challenging problem - how to navigate when the roads are not clear or clearly marked. Unfortunately it's a fairly limited solution - "Falling rain and snow can interfere with LIDAR and cameras" (http://www.wired.com/2016/01/the-clever-way-fords-self-driving-cars-navigate-in-snow/ http://www.wired.com/2016/01/the-clever-way-fords-self-drivi...)

lern_too_spel 11y ago

This is just a one-time precompute step, something that is very common in software engineering.

protomyth 11y ago
It better not be a one-time precomputed step since the roads changes constantly. I'm pretty sure I've never tried to precompute placement of items in a dynamic system.
- lern_too_spel 11y ago
  Nonsense. Roads change very rarely compared to the number of trips taken on them. This precompute needs to be done just once per change, just like building an index that will be used for many searches. The road changes themselves almost always happen in less inclement weather. This is pretty much exactly the same thing that humans do. I drive much better on a road with missing lane markings if I have driven on it before, and just like me, these systems will have degraded performance without the precompute.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- manicdee 11y ago
  On the other hand, I have been confused by fairly simple changes to roads such as a two way street being made one-way (which a decent satnav would have been updated to know about as soon as the change was gazettes) or roadworks closing off a road that i regularly use (again, autonomous system would have been updared based on gazetted road closures).

ocdtrekkie 11y ago

From my understanding, this is required of nearly all 'self-driving cars'. A Slate article from 2014 stated that Google's cars wouldn't know a stoplight existed, and would simply run it, if it wasn't in Google Maps. And that a Google engineer said the level of mapping required by their cars at the time would be 'impractical' to do at a nationwide level. These cars require a lot more detail than traditional Google Maps data provides. And there's a huge concern about how they'd adapt to changes in the roadway which may have not made it to Google's servers yet.

protomyth 11y ago
Its one thing, and expected, for the car to look for signs, but if self-driving cars all need perfect maps which I didn't know was a necessity then I don't see them being practical.
- ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  My understanding is that it 'looks for signs', if it expects them to be there. Obviously, it has to look at the stoplight to see what color it is. But it won't look at arbitrary space for a stoplight it isn't told exists. Source, by the way: slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/google_self_driving_car_it_may_never_actually_happen.html FWIW, a Googler has done a TED talk about having the car recognize police officers holding signs and temporary things like that, more recently, so they may have made strides in solving this problem. But at it's core, the Self-Driving Car Project seems way too reliant on Google's cloud servers for my taste. I'd love to have a self-driving car, but it needs to be self-driving, not Google-driving.
  - Someone 11y ago
    Give it ten years, and that traffic light problem may solve itself. I would not surprise me if we would eventually see every traffic light broadcast its GPS location, cycle pattern, and phase, either using radio or by modulating their light source. That still is risky (hackers could hack the logic in a traffic light), but less risky than relying on one central authority to know what he whole world looks like. Also, I don't think it is a good idea, but chances are police officers will have ways to stop self-driving car without giving visual signs.

mikeyouse 11y ago

Every time a Google / Tesla / Ford / GM / Toyota self-driving car passes down a road in normal conditions, it will be mapping the surroundings in fairly intricate detail. Based on GPS + Lidar + other sensors, the roadway and surroundings will be mapped to within centimeters -- which should make navigating during inclement conditions fairly straight-forward. These systems might fail on snowy roads that have never been traversed previously, but what percentage of driving is performed on roads with hundreds/thousands of cars passing every day? 99.9%? 99.99%?

akerro 11y ago
In 5 years I never had an accident, crash or any semi-dangerous or dangerous situtation during hard rains, snows, snowstorms. I'm not ok with 99.99%
- maxerickson 11y ago
  The comparison to make is not with yourself, it's with the worst drivers that are already legally allowed to drive. Getting them replaced with a superior autonomous system makes you safer regardless of how your skill level compares to the system. (The only crash I've been in involved someone else losing control of their vehicle and crossing the center line on a major highway, which probably informs this perspective a little bit)
  - serge2k 11y ago
    Except the system will also replace safe drivers. So overall the safety level may be decreased.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      I think you are right about that being a possibility, but my personal judgment is that a lot of bad driving is rooted in poor decision making and concentrated, so I don't think an overall decrease in safety is a likely outcome.
- 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

jobu 11y ago

It (potentially) solves one challenging problem - how to navigate when the roads are not clear or clearly marked. Unfortunately it's a fairly limited solution - "Falling rain and snow can interfere with LIDAR and cameras" (http://www.wired.com/2016/01/the-clever-way-fords-self-driving-cars-navigate-in-snow/ http://www.wired.com/2016/01/the-clever-way-fords-self-drivi...)