4 ms·

You can have teleop disengagements that don't require a driver in the vehicle.

• euyyn 10y ago
  I don't reckon you can with the current technology, and I don't think it's a worthy investment.
  • CardenB 10y ago
    Really? Because every single SDV company has a teleop team (except maybe tesla).
    • euyyn 10y ago
      Source?
  • kalleboo 10y ago
    Nissan disagrees that remote operation is not feasible with current tech https://www.wired.com/2017/01/nissans-self-driving-teleoperation/ https://www.wired.com/2017/01/nissans-self-driving-teleopera... But it doesn't sound like anyone is planning on emergency disengagements with remote operators...
    • euyyn 10y ago
      Emphasis mine: > Nissan’s cubicle-based drivers aren’t emergency backups. If the car hits black ice, it’s in charge of staying on the road. There’s no feasible way to get the human into the loop in time to act. That was the first of my concerns. > But they can help out when the car encounters conditions it’s unsure how to handle. If a Nissan happened upon the construction scene from Sierhuis’ photo, it would stop and ping its control center. A human operator would look around using the car’s cameras and other sensors and issue new instructions — direct control would pose latency issues. That was the second. So it's only for "I'm not sure what to do here but it's safe for me to stop and wait" situations. And the operators would just solve the "A.I. question" given to them, not control the wheels and pedals. Thanks for the article!