3 ms·

When Do We Get Robot Cars? Because Driving Really Sucks

4 points by abdophoto 12y ago

rberger 12y ago
I say this everytime I get in my car
dragonbonheur 12y ago
Driving sucks because cars have horrible user interfaces. Car manufacturers should make cars that can be driven with joysticks instead of the current steering-wheel-pedals-and levers-all-over-the-place mess before even thinking about intelligent, driverless cars. Drive-by-wire, even tanks have it now.
- mvid 12y ago
  Tanks are slow moving with a 0 degree turning radius. How would you imagine cars operating with joysticks? You would shred your tires unless they shared control somehow.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Tanks are slow moving with a 0 degree turning radius. How would you imagine cars operating with joysticks? I would assume "not like a tank". A steering wheel is 1 dimensional. Conceptually braking and acceleration can be mapped to a one-dimensional continuum, so you've got two axes that map well to a joystick. With nonlinear response, you could probably replace all three of those controls with one stick.
    - mvid 12y ago
      Still doesn't make much sense to me. A tank, helicopter or fighter jet can all move in 360 degrees, allowing for the full use of a joystick or two. A car would only be able to use about 50% of a joysticks positions, since you can't go sideways, and a car has a non-zero turning radius. We can't use two joysticks like a tank because it would sheer the rubber from your tires, and maintaining independent throttle control for two sides of a car is silly and unneeded. That and it seems confusing and unsafe to have both direction and throttle controls on one device, especially when that device is as sensitive as a joystick. When you slam on brakes in a car, the force pushes your body further into the breaking system. If you were to slam on the brakes with a joystick, the force would push you (and the joystick) forward, disengaging the brakes and applying throttle. Very hard to control. To me, the pedals seem like a good compromise between fine tuned adjustment and rapid, emergency control. The wheel is kind of annoying but I can't think of anything that would work better. A joystick would be too finicky in its controls. Something like a rudder might work, since you are really only ever steering a car different degrees of "forward"
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Still doesn't make much sense to me. A tank, helicopter or fighter jet can all move in 360 degrees, allowing for the full use of a joystick or two. (1) A car can move in 360 degrees too (if you can rotate a full circle in a plane...) (2) All it takes to make full use of a joystick is to have controls with two relevant dimensions (which cars have). (3) A helicopter typically needs a lot more than a joystick, since it usually has about 4-5 relevant dimensions of control (2D cyclic, 1D collective, 1D yaw, 1D throttle, but the last may be managed automatically in normal operation). > We can't use two joysticks like a tank because it would sheer the rubber from your tires You could, with the right control regime (e.g., double forward is drive, double back is reverse, but any other combination is based on relative position), but you probably wouldn't want to. Of course, you know what else often doesn't use "two joysticks like a tank" -- actual tanks. Because two joysticks is overkill for two degrees of freedom . > That and it seems confusing and unsafe to have both direction and throttle controls on one device, especially when that device is as sensitive as a joystick. "As sensitive as a joystick" isn't meaningful. Degree of sensitivity on a joystick can be as little or as much as you want. > When you slam on brakes in a car, the force pushes your body further into the breaking system. If you were to slam on the brakes with a joystick, the force would push you (and the joystick) forward, disengaging the brakes and applying throttle. My first instinct with a joystick based system with a car would be to have brake being forward, not back. (Forward push brakes are a common control element in hand controls for autos, e.g., those that are made for the handicapped.)
    - krapp 12y ago
      I can see how that would be more ergonomically satisfying to the HN crowd but I don't get how it would improve the experience of actually driving a car. A steering wheel and two (maybe three if you're not an American) pedals and a gearshift is not that complicated.

4 points by abdophoto 12y ago

I say this everytime I get in my car

Driving sucks because cars have horrible user interfaces. Car manufacturers should make cars that can be driven with joysticks instead of the current steering-wheel-pedals-and levers-all-over-the-place mess before even thinking about intelligent, driverless cars. Drive-by-wire, even tanks have it now.

mvid 12y ago
Tanks are slow moving with a 0 degree turning radius. How would you imagine cars operating with joysticks? You would shred your tires unless they shared control somehow.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Tanks are slow moving with a 0 degree turning radius. How would you imagine cars operating with joysticks? I would assume "not like a tank". A steering wheel is 1 dimensional. Conceptually braking and acceleration can be mapped to a one-dimensional continuum, so you've got two axes that map well to a joystick. With nonlinear response, you could probably replace all three of those controls with one stick.
  - mvid 12y ago
    Still doesn't make much sense to me. A tank, helicopter or fighter jet can all move in 360 degrees, allowing for the full use of a joystick or two. A car would only be able to use about 50% of a joysticks positions, since you can't go sideways, and a car has a non-zero turning radius. We can't use two joysticks like a tank because it would sheer the rubber from your tires, and maintaining independent throttle control for two sides of a car is silly and unneeded. That and it seems confusing and unsafe to have both direction and throttle controls on one device, especially when that device is as sensitive as a joystick. When you slam on brakes in a car, the force pushes your body further into the breaking system. If you were to slam on the brakes with a joystick, the force would push you (and the joystick) forward, disengaging the brakes and applying throttle. Very hard to control. To me, the pedals seem like a good compromise between fine tuned adjustment and rapid, emergency control. The wheel is kind of annoying but I can't think of anything that would work better. A joystick would be too finicky in its controls. Something like a rudder might work, since you are really only ever steering a car different degrees of "forward"
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Still doesn't make much sense to me. A tank, helicopter or fighter jet can all move in 360 degrees, allowing for the full use of a joystick or two. (1) A car can move in 360 degrees too (if you can rotate a full circle in a plane...) (2) All it takes to make full use of a joystick is to have controls with two relevant dimensions (which cars have). (3) A helicopter typically needs a lot more than a joystick, since it usually has about 4-5 relevant dimensions of control (2D cyclic, 1D collective, 1D yaw, 1D throttle, but the last may be managed automatically in normal operation). > We can't use two joysticks like a tank because it would sheer the rubber from your tires You could, with the right control regime (e.g., double forward is drive, double back is reverse, but any other combination is based on relative position), but you probably wouldn't want to. Of course, you know what else often doesn't use "two joysticks like a tank" -- actual tanks. Because two joysticks is overkill for two degrees of freedom . > That and it seems confusing and unsafe to have both direction and throttle controls on one device, especially when that device is as sensitive as a joystick. "As sensitive as a joystick" isn't meaningful. Degree of sensitivity on a joystick can be as little or as much as you want. > When you slam on brakes in a car, the force pushes your body further into the breaking system. If you were to slam on the brakes with a joystick, the force would push you (and the joystick) forward, disengaging the brakes and applying throttle. My first instinct with a joystick based system with a car would be to have brake being forward, not back. (Forward push brakes are a common control element in hand controls for autos, e.g., those that are made for the handicapped.)
  - krapp 12y ago
    I can see how that would be more ergonomically satisfying to the HN crowd but I don't get how it would improve the experience of actually driving a car. A steering wheel and two (maybe three if you're not an American) pedals and a gearshift is not that complicated.