3 ms·
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 proo
by 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 agoAre 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...