3 ms·

Then any asshole could mix up their own magnetic bead paint and cause havoc. Probably no more than someone painting their own road lines or putting up fake sig

Then any asshole could mix up their own magnetic bead paint and cause havoc. Probably no more than someone painting their own road lines or putting up fake signage does now [1], but if you want something that's better than what we currently have it would need to not only be both machine and human readable, but also authenticated. I always thought it would be quite neat to have those portable roadside displays you see for roadworks and so on also communicate map and driving data (cryptographically signed by your local council or dept of transport). So you might get a sign that says "roadworks ahead, please slow down" for human drivers, and the radio beacon would communicate a change of speed limits inside a certain geo-bounded area that would cause self-driving vehicles to slow down. Or similar stuff for "bridge out ahead, turn around now" causing navigation to reroute. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/17/laying-a-trap-for-self-driving-cars/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/17/laying-a-trap-for-self-dri...

sgtnoodle 4y ago
Just have the human readable signs be reasonably standardized, and the self driving car computer can then read them too. It's a lot easier and more future proof to side-channel map updates to cars through a cell network, and allows for some curation. Also, improved cell network coverage seems like a more worthwhile capital expenditure for a local government than a bunch of smart signs that only help 0.001% of drivers. Cynically, I'm sure some politician's spouse's cousin would be happy to win the contract to slap a BLE beacon into a box and bolt it onto a sign for $150k a unit, though... There is an ongoing effort to introduce infrastructure free direct communication for vehicles, using 5.9ghz spectrum. The spectrum was previously allocated to DSRC radio technology the automotive industry pushed for, but it's been 15 years and it hasn't gone anywhere. The FCC is now letting the cell network folk take a crack at solving the problem instead.
- kwhitefoot 4y ago
  > Just have the human readable signs be reasonably standardized, and the self driving car computer can then read them too. This is already the case in Europe.
  - andrewflnr 4y ago
    Are there self-driving car tests in Europe, and are they doing any differently? Seems like a potential way to test the hypothesis. OTOH I bet they could still have a lot more signs that would help. The Europe/America difference might be pretty marginal...

sgtnoodle 4y ago

Just have the human readable signs be reasonably standardized, and the self driving car computer can then read them too. It's a lot easier and more future proof to side-channel map updates to cars through a cell network, and allows for some curation. Also, improved cell network coverage seems like a more worthwhile capital expenditure for a local government than a bunch of smart signs that only help 0.001% of drivers. Cynically, I'm sure some politician's spouse's cousin would be happy to win the contract to slap a BLE beacon into a box and bolt it onto a sign for $150k a unit, though... There is an ongoing effort to introduce infrastructure free direct communication for vehicles, using 5.9ghz spectrum. The spectrum was previously allocated to DSRC radio technology the automotive industry pushed for, but it's been 15 years and it hasn't gone anywhere. The FCC is now letting the cell network folk take a crack at solving the problem instead.

kwhitefoot 4y ago
> Just have the human readable signs be reasonably standardized, and the self driving car computer can then read them too. This is already the case in Europe.
- andrewflnr 4y ago
  Are there self-driving car tests in Europe, and are they doing any differently? Seems like a potential way to test the hypothesis. OTOH I bet they could still have a lot more signs that would help. The Europe/America difference might be pretty marginal...