4 ms·

UK's RobotCar demonstrated

43 points by fraqed 14y ago

ck2 14y ago
This one uses off the shelf parts and looks completely normal: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/02/continental-autonomous-vehicle/ http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/02/continental-autonomous-...
- kilburn 14y ago
  Highway driving and driving everywhere are two very different problems. This car seems to try to solve the former only, so it is not really comparable to google's car or this one.
mratzloff 14y ago
How does an automated car handle a four-way stop sign intersection, out of curiosity?
- VBprogrammer 14y ago
  I believe the Google car has pretty good intelligence for this, such that it will begin to creep forward to indicate that it feels its turn has come, in the same way humans do. That being said, I don't believe that is a type of intersection we have in the UK.
  - ratherbefuddled 14y ago
    And the magic roundabout in Swindon offers a pretty good test bed for any form of vehicular intelligence.
    - VBprogrammer 14y ago
      It is a pretty good test of human intelligence, never mind vehicular intelligence! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_%28Swindon%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_%28Swindon%29
    - DanBC 14y ago
      Google maps link: (http://goo.gl/maps/IjlWz http://goo.gl/maps/IjlWz) Wikipedia: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_(Swindon) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_(Swindon)) This is why I hate using () to delimit URLs instead of <>.
    - robotmay 14y ago
      We have a magic roundabout in Cardiff too, though it's named that way for a slightly different reason: http://i.imgur.com/pmQmg4M.jpg http://i.imgur.com/pmQmg4M.jpg
    - mhandley 14y ago
      Hemel Hempstead also has one: http://goo.gl/maps/zBZWC http://goo.gl/maps/zBZWC Had to go round this on my driving test many years ago. The examiner must have had a death wish.
      - ColinWright 14y ago
        That link does not point to the Hemel Hempstead Magic Roundabout. This does: https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=51.746299,-0.473383&spn=0.00171,0.005686&t=h&z=18 https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=51.746299,-0.473...
  - dabeeeenster 14y ago
    Every now and then you get deadlock on a mini roundabout in London...
Rovanion 14y ago
I was sitting here thinking it didn't work at all until it dawned upon me that it was supposed to drive on the left side of the road.
xedarius 14y ago
This is great and nice to see some competition for Google. One thing I do like when I've seen the Google car, is it seems to bomb down the road at top speed. I've not seen how the Oxford car reacts at high speed. Hats off though, nice work guys.
- kilburn 14y ago
  Also, the human (non)driver here seems _very_ aware during the whole experiment, whereas they've always seemed totally confient in google's car videos.
rplnt 14y ago
> the UK team have concentrated on developing their technology using cheap components such as sensors to dramatically reduce the cost. What is this sentence trying to say?
- adamt 14y ago
  That this team has focussed on using cheap off-the-shelf components (such as their choice of sensors) to make the total cost dramatically lower than most similar projects.
sambeau 14y ago
"scientists hope to be able to reduce the cost to as little as £100 (about 150 USD)" Don't you just hate it when they regurgitate stuff like that. I'm sure the scientists hope for many things. It is a reporter's job to call them out on that kind of crap.
- robotresearcher 14y ago
  Newman's group has demonstrated cross-country SLAM using a single cheap camera and a laptop. He is very well known in robotics for his elegant, cheap approaches that really work. You should take what Paul says very seriously. In a few years it is very likely that the raw hardware cost will be $150. The software is very valuable, no doubt. Their business will be either licensing the software, the IP behind it, or renting access to maps that the software needs to work. This last one is Google's model, I am sure. Historically, Newman's stuff does not rely so much on carefully-tweaked maps. Notice a further lack of crap at http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/ http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/
  - sambeau 14y ago
    I'm not questioning the validity of the research. I'm questioning that one statement (a statement similar to one that appears in so many pop-sci articles). The £5,000 to £100 estimate is based solely on the hope that the raw component costs will come down (through bulk-buying and the natural trend of micro-electronics to get smaller, more powerful and cheaper). Unless I missed something, this is not because they have some groundbreaking method that will reduce the number (or price) or components — it's just because there is an assumption that they will. Any IT researcher can make similar claims so they are essentially meaningless. A comparison between the £5000 and the component cost of a rival system would be more valid and would allow those of us who understand the possibilities for future component cost reduction to extrapolate. However, there is no guarantee that component costs will continue to fall indefinitely. Who knows what wars or shortages may befall us in the future. Prices may even go up. As this system relies on an Apple iPad does this price calculation assume that in a few years Apple will be selling a model for less than $50? I would be extremely cautious about making such an assumption. This cost also doesn't take into account the reliability level of the components that would be required to run such a system on a daily basis. You can put together a working prototype system for £5000 but as soon as suppliers are providing components that are mission (and life) critical there is no way that they will that cheap: the insurance each supplier would need would make a huge difference to the price. Add to that the high quality control & testing and the price is unlikely to fall much over the next 10 years. Common sense also tells us that we'd never be able to buy a system for so little. $150 is around the price of a replacement battery for my car or two cheap tyres. I cannot buy a replacement CD/radio for that much. This is for a car that is 7 years old. Surely over the last 7 years my car parts should have got cheaper? Newman and his group know all of this — and you know this — but you choose to ignore it as it doesn't make a good quote of a Pop-Sci article. Promising excited less-technical readers a self-driving car for £100 is just too tempting. As I said, I don't blame Newman (although I do think it detracts from their real achievements), I blame the reporter who should have gently called them on it and clarified what they really meant.

43 points by fraqed 14y ago

ck2 14y ago

This one uses off the shelf parts and looks completely normal: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/02/continental-autonomous-vehicle/ http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/02/continental-autonomous-...

kilburn 14y ago
Highway driving and driving everywhere are two very different problems. This car seems to try to solve the former only, so it is not really comparable to google's car or this one.

mratzloff 14y ago

How does an automated car handle a four-way stop sign intersection, out of curiosity?

VBprogrammer 14y ago
I believe the Google car has pretty good intelligence for this, such that it will begin to creep forward to indicate that it feels its turn has come, in the same way humans do. That being said, I don't believe that is a type of intersection we have in the UK.
- ratherbefuddled 14y ago
  And the magic roundabout in Swindon offers a pretty good test bed for any form of vehicular intelligence.
  - VBprogrammer 14y ago
    It is a pretty good test of human intelligence, never mind vehicular intelligence! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_%28Swindon%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_%28Swindon%29
  - DanBC 14y ago
    Google maps link: (http://goo.gl/maps/IjlWz http://goo.gl/maps/IjlWz) Wikipedia: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_(Swindon) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_(Swindon)) This is why I hate using () to delimit URLs instead of <>.
  - robotmay 14y ago
    We have a magic roundabout in Cardiff too, though it's named that way for a slightly different reason: http://i.imgur.com/pmQmg4M.jpg http://i.imgur.com/pmQmg4M.jpg
  - mhandley 14y ago
    Hemel Hempstead also has one: http://goo.gl/maps/zBZWC http://goo.gl/maps/zBZWC Had to go round this on my driving test many years ago. The examiner must have had a death wish.
    - ColinWright 14y ago
      That link does not point to the Hemel Hempstead Magic Roundabout. This does: https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=51.746299,-0.473383&spn=0.00171,0.005686&t=h&z=18 https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=51.746299,-0.473...
- dabeeeenster 14y ago
  Every now and then you get deadlock on a mini roundabout in London...

Rovanion 14y ago

I was sitting here thinking it didn't work at all until it dawned upon me that it was supposed to drive on the left side of the road.

xedarius 14y ago

This is great and nice to see some competition for Google. One thing I do like when I've seen the Google car, is it seems to bomb down the road at top speed. I've not seen how the Oxford car reacts at high speed. Hats off though, nice work guys.

kilburn 14y ago
Also, the human (non)driver here seems _very_ aware during the whole experiment, whereas they've always seemed totally confient in google's car videos.

rplnt 14y ago

> the UK team have concentrated on developing their technology using cheap components such as sensors to dramatically reduce the cost. What is this sentence trying to say?

adamt 14y ago
That this team has focussed on using cheap off-the-shelf components (such as their choice of sensors) to make the total cost dramatically lower than most similar projects.

sambeau 14y ago

"scientists hope to be able to reduce the cost to as little as £100 (about 150 USD)" Don't you just hate it when they regurgitate stuff like that. I'm sure the scientists hope for many things. It is a reporter's job to call them out on that kind of crap.

robotresearcher 14y ago
Newman's group has demonstrated cross-country SLAM using a single cheap camera and a laptop. He is very well known in robotics for his elegant, cheap approaches that really work. You should take what Paul says very seriously. In a few years it is very likely that the raw hardware cost will be $150. The software is very valuable, no doubt. Their business will be either licensing the software, the IP behind it, or renting access to maps that the software needs to work. This last one is Google's model, I am sure. Historically, Newman's stuff does not rely so much on carefully-tweaked maps. Notice a further lack of crap at http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/ http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/
- sambeau 14y ago
  I'm not questioning the validity of the research. I'm questioning that one statement (a statement similar to one that appears in so many pop-sci articles). The £5,000 to £100 estimate is based solely on the hope that the raw component costs will come down (through bulk-buying and the natural trend of micro-electronics to get smaller, more powerful and cheaper). Unless I missed something, this is not because they have some groundbreaking method that will reduce the number (or price) or components — it's just because there is an assumption that they will. Any IT researcher can make similar claims so they are essentially meaningless. A comparison between the £5000 and the component cost of a rival system would be more valid and would allow those of us who understand the possibilities for future component cost reduction to extrapolate. However, there is no guarantee that component costs will continue to fall indefinitely. Who knows what wars or shortages may befall us in the future. Prices may even go up. As this system relies on an Apple iPad does this price calculation assume that in a few years Apple will be selling a model for less than $50? I would be extremely cautious about making such an assumption. This cost also doesn't take into account the reliability level of the components that would be required to run such a system on a daily basis. You can put together a working prototype system for £5000 but as soon as suppliers are providing components that are mission (and life) critical there is no way that they will that cheap: the insurance each supplier would need would make a huge difference to the price. Add to that the high quality control & testing and the price is unlikely to fall much over the next 10 years. Common sense also tells us that we'd never be able to buy a system for so little. $150 is around the price of a replacement battery for my car or two cheap tyres. I cannot buy a replacement CD/radio for that much. This is for a car that is 7 years old. Surely over the last 7 years my car parts should have got cheaper? Newman and his group know all of this — and you know this — but you choose to ignore it as it doesn't make a good quote of a Pop-Sci article. Promising excited less-technical readers a self-driving car for £100 is just too tempting. As I said, I don't blame Newman (although I do think it detracts from their real achievements), I blame the reporter who should have gently called them on it and clarified what they really meant.