Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Researchers Test Drive Bus With Automated Steering

Posted by Soulskill on Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:08 AM
from the watch-out-for-the-t-rex dept.
An anonymous reader tips us to news that researchers at University of California, Berkeley, have successfully test driven a 60-foot bus that controlled its own steering. Sensors on the bus detected magnets that had been embedded in a San Leandro road, and it was able to reach stops within one centimeter of its desired position. Acceleration and braking during the test were controlled by a human operator, but the system is capable of handling those as well, and has done so on test courses. "... sensors mounted under the bus measured the magnetic fields created from the roadway magnets, which were placed beneath the pavement surface 1 meter apart along the center of the lane. The information was translated into the bus's lateral and longitudinal position by an on-board computer, which then directed the vehicle to move accordingly. For a vehicle traveling 60 miles per hour, data from 27 meters (88 feet) of roadway can be read and processed in 1 second. Zhang added that the system is robust enough to withstand a wide range of operating conditions, including rain or snow, a significant improvement to other vehicle guidance systems based upon optics."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Hardware: Nissan Adds Robot Helper To Its Concept Car 127 comments
narramissic writes "Nissan has mounted a robot passenger in the dashboard of its Pivo2 concept car whose job is to keep the driver happy, give spot-on directions, and even check your e-mail. 'We have data that happy drivers' accident rates are drastically lower than depressed ones, so this robot stays there to make sure the driver is happy always,' said Masato Inoue, chief designer at Nissan's exploratory design group, in an interview at the Motor Show. 'This guides the driver and sometimes cheers up the driver. For example, if the driver is irritated it might say 'Hey, you look somehow angry. Why? Please calm down.'' Other features of this vehicle include a cabin that can turn through 360 degrees so you never have to worry about looking behind when you back up and wheels that can twist 90 degrees, eliminating the need to parallel park." The article includes a video of the car talking to the driver, which is kind of adorable in a 'future is now' sorta way.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by nathan.fulton (1160807) on Saturday September 13 2008, @11:11AM (#24991013) Homepage Journal
    who gets sued in the event of a crash?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      This is why self driven vehicles are a very very long way off. Even in the event that they bring collisions and other related problems down to 0.01% of their current rate, it still won't be good enough. When a crash happens now, it's almost always the fault of the person behind the wheel (except with mechanical failure, which is rare, and even more rare when you consider it's the fault of the driver for unmaintained vehicles). However, when cars start driving themselves, any crash will automatically be t
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        But it will still be cheaper to kill people than to refit all affected cars.

        The only way to ensure safety is to hold the operator accountable with serious Jail time. It should always be up to the Driver/Operator to keep a check on the mechanical condition of the vehicle.

    • by jeffb (2.718) (1189693) on Saturday September 13 2008, @12:18PM (#24991581)

      ...a car with anti-lock brakes still rear-ends someone?

      "Cars that drive themselves" won't arrive as a new option in model year 20XX. They'll encroach bit by bit, following in the footsteps of automatic spark advance, electric starters, power steering, power brakes, automatic transmission, cruise control, electronic fuel injection, anti-lock brakes, traction control, collision avoidance, self-parking...

      When you finally do get a car that can "drive itself", you'll probably be too busy talking on your cell phone and using your extended navigation/information center to notice.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        +1

        In aviation, planes have had autopilots for years (and recently, autoland systems), yet there is no giant puzzle as to who is responsible if the AP-equipped plane crashes: from the US aviation regulations, "The pilot in command is responsible at all times for the safe operation of the aircraft". Maybe a similar principle for cars is needed.
        • An aircraft autopilot is also ready to be disengaged at any moment by the pilot if he thinks he needs to. Indeed, there has been at least one serious airliner accident caused by the pilot inadvertently disengaging the autopilot but not realizing it until it was too late.

          An automated car which can drive fully independently will be a total game-changer. An automated car which requires the driver to still pay attention and be ready to take over control at all times is much less interesting.

  • trams! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stranger_to_himself (1132241) on Saturday September 13 2008, @11:11AM (#24991015) Journal
    The 19th century called....they want their trams back.
    • The 19th century called....they want their trams back.
      .

      The cost of maintaining tracks, switches, overheads, etc., helped kill the streetcar. It's all over and above the expense of maintaining the road.

      There was no simple or economical way to re-route lines or add new ones.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Really? The streetcar is dead? I guess I rode a ghost train in downtown Portland, OR the other day.

      • Re:trams! (Score:5, Informative)

        by jonbryce (703250) on Saturday September 13 2008, @11:31AM (#24991175) Homepage

        Try the Docklands Light Railway then.

        They don't have drivers. They have "train captains" who can hit the emergency stop button if necessary, close the doors when everyone is on/off, and the rest of the time walk up and down checking tickets.

        I think anything that drives where there is other traffic is going to have to have a driver, so like the grandparent poster, I don't see what the advantage of this is over a tramway.

      • I was on a brand new (still smelled like new) bus on my way to the airport a couple of weeks ago and it struck me that they've had 80 years of development of the bus and the thing still vibrates annoyingly. If there was a way to combine the cheap infrastructure of buses with the smooth ride of trams it would be an instant success in most cities worldwide.

        Any kind of electric bus would probably fulfill those criteria.

        • ...not wanting to sit on a smelly bus with the types of people that usually are on public transportation (bums, street people, etc)

          Ouch.

  • Sabotage? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by maeka (518272) on Saturday September 13 2008, @11:11AM (#24991017) Journal

    But can it survive intentional sabotage?
    Placing magnets on the surface of the pavement would not be hard to do.

    • Exactly what I thought - what about other sources of mangentic interference (say the motor of an electric vehicle, etc.)?

      • Re:Sabotage? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Graff (532189) on Saturday September 13 2008, @11:29AM (#24991165)

        what about other sources of mangentic interference (say the motor of an electric vehicle, etc.)?

        This is no different than the head of a hard drive traveling over the disk surface. The magnets can be in a coded pattern that is encrypted a certain way that would be robust enough to overcome possible interference, whether accidental or intentional.

        Yes, there are always risks of sabotage or an accident but this is no different than the risks of our current roadways. What's to stop someone from spreading caltrops across the road and causing a massive accident? How about the accidental interference of an oil spill or a bridge support giving way?

        As with everything, you try to build redundancy and robustness into the system and limit the risks. Just because a system has the possibility of failing doesn't mean the idea is worthless.

        • Re:Sabotage? (Score:5, Informative)

          by maeka (518272) on Saturday September 13 2008, @11:49AM (#24991307) Journal

          This is no different than the head of a hard drive traveling over the disk surface. The magnets can be in a coded pattern that is encrypted a certain way that would be robust enough to overcome possible interference, whether accidental or intentional.

          With a bit-per-meter you simply do not have enough data density to do any sort of robust encryption.

          Yes, there are always risks of sabotage or an accident but this is no different than the risks of our current roadways. What's to stop someone from spreading caltrops across the road and causing a massive accident? How about the accidental interference of an oil spill or a bridge support giving way?

          1 - caltrops in pavement should not cause a massive accident. For evidence see police use of spike-strips to stop fleeing vehicles. Rarely do vehicles lose control under even the more catastrophic tire failure these hollow spikes cause as opposed to caltrops.
          2 - Oil spills and bridge failures are not only more apparent than covert placement of magnets, they are also harder acts of sabotage to achieved w/o being caught.

          But enough of the pedantic replies to your specifics, on your general claim that "this is no different than the risks of our current roadways" I will argue this is completely different than the risks of our current roadways.
          Current roadway systems rely on human drivers. A human driver can react in a much more flexible manner than any automated drive system. Whereas it appears this system would be easy to fake with the high tech equivalent of false road signs, no (few?) human would drive into a lake because a fake road sign told them to. Again, this is not just about new technologies creating security risks which previously didn't exist, but more so the new assumptions which frequently come with the adoption of said technologies creating newly viable attack vectors.

      • Exactly what I thought - what about other sources of mangentic interference (say the motor of an electric vehicle, etc.)?

        Most magnetic fields are very weak, unless designed not to be. Most sources of magnetic fields, like transformers and solenoids bleed very little outside their surface, and commonly decay very quickly.

        Depending on how this technology works, it may also be possible to effectively filter out any magnetic field not emanating from below (or above) the bus. The induced current in a loop of wire in the same plane as the floor of the bus will have a factor sin(theta), where theta is the angle between the loop and

    • Yes. 1. TFA: "In the system demonstrated today, sensors mounted under the bus measured the magnetic fields created from the roadway magnets, which were placed beneath the pavement surface 1 meter apart along the center of the lane." I'm assuming (but probably a safe one, UC Berkley is full of smart people) that the system has some pretty specific levels of acceptable differential in the magnetic field. Otherwise, any large magnet -- of which there are many in a large city -- would be able to modify its d
      • Re:Sabotage? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by CastrTroy (595695) on Saturday September 13 2008, @11:55AM (#24991371) Homepage
        Why would it simply supplement a driver? If you still have to pay some guy $60,000 a year to sit in the bus, you might as well save the money on the magnetic navigation, and just have the guy drive the bus. Using a system like this only makes sense (and cents) if you can actually remove the driver from the bus. Since you'll always need somebody on the bus (for the foreseeable future), to ensure fares are paid, and to answer the questions of riders on which route to take, and about why the guy on the back of the bus has his pet pig on the bus, and to tell the able bodied people to get out of the priority seating on the bus so the guy with the wheelchair can get on the bus, you aren't going to get much advantage from a system like this.
    • Re:Sabotage? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TheLink (130905) on Saturday September 13 2008, @11:49AM (#24991311) Journal
      Yeah it does sound unsafe to me.

      I've been thinking how about "just don't do that then"?

      After all, placing stuff on railway tracks can derail a train and kill people. Doesn't even have to be anything fancy.

      Someone could just as easily pour motor oil on a dangerous bend and get people killed.

      As a species we really have to start growing up.

      If technology continues improving, the amount of power the average individual is able to wield is likely to increase dramatically.

      So the alternatives are grow up, or lose freedoms (not good), or experience "some random idiot thinks it's funny to kill everybody" (also not good).

      The odds are we're doomed, but who knows we might get lucky.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Use redundant sensor systems:
      * magnets in road
      * GPS
      * inertial guidance
      * collision detection sensors
      * inspection vehicles
      * encoded/encrypted magnets as per Graff's suggestion
      * combinations of the above: if magnet #1234 isn't at GPS coordinates X,Y,Z then shutdown. If the inertial guidance, GPS and magnets do not agree then shutdown.
      * tamper resistant magnets: every Nth magnet is too big to easily move
      * lots of magnets: there are too many small magnets to easily move or sabotage
      * video image analysis: if

  • I'll be impressed when I can sit back in rush hour, bring up a movie, and pop a old one and watch.

    That can be a couple of hours here in Metro Atlanta.

    • 'article'.

      Ah hem! Press releases are not news.

      I can release a press release that say, "ButterOldGuy has invented a process of vetting the most perfect VP and how any geek can get laid by a super model or better yet, a porn star."

    • You can now. It's called public transportation.
      • You can now. It's called public transportation.

        Ah yes. Touche. BUT, public transport also gets caught in traffic. I'm assuming with these controlled buses, traffic would be controlled so that even the buses wouldn't get bogged down in a traffic pile up.

        Besides, my movies star Jenna Jamison. I can't watch them on public transport!

  • by rah1420 (234198) <rah1420@gmail.com> on Saturday September 13 2008, @11:14AM (#24991031)

    I would've liked to have been on a Robobus back in July. An idiot driver in an SUV cut our bus off, and the driver firewalled the brake to avoid hitting him. My 3 year old daughter planted her face in the fiberglass seat ahead of us, I was in a side-facing seat and almost went through the windshield and my wife got thrown into a stairwell.

    My guess is that Robobus would've kept going right into the SUV. Would've served him right.

    (No, he didn't stop and we didn't get the plate number. He took off into the night.)

    Hey SUV driver; if you cut a bus off at 100th St. in Ocean City, MD on August 2nd, you're a bastard.

    • maybe it was a roboSUV.....powered by Vista (I know, I know, cheap shot...)
    • As unhappy as you were getting bounced around, an actual collision would've been much worse for you. Bad drivers should be punished by fining them and taking away their licenses, not by crashing into them.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDTLo-nDsUQ

      Crazy car driver.

      I think the bus driver in that accident should have just braked in a straight line and not swerved, even if he hits the car - if he slows down enough the people in the car should be ok.

      If not well too bad - esp if the driver had died I'd have called it suicide ;).

      It's also likely there are fewer people in the car than in the bus.
  • Robustness? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by polymath69 (94161) <9k3k3xw02NO@SPAMsneakemail.com> on Saturday September 13 2008, @11:15AM (#24991043) Homepage

    robust enough to withstand a wide range of operating conditions, including rain or snow

    Nice, but does it drive in random directions if someone has set loose a bag of magnetic marbles on the road? I'd have a hard time trusting this.

    • Re:Robustness? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by JustinOpinion (1246824) on Saturday September 13 2008, @12:15PM (#24991537)

      It's interesting that new technology is always held to a higher standard than established technology.

      We trust trains even though someone could put some rubble on the tracks. We trust human drivers even though someone could shine a laser pointer into their eyes. We trust bikes even though someone could string up a tripwire. We trust buffet restaurants even though someone could put crushed glass into the food.

      Newsflash: if someone wants to sabotage a piece of infrastructure, they'll find a way! Obviously autonomous driving vehicles need to be able to continue functioning despite normal interference (weather, traffic accidents, etc.), and even some forms of sabotage. But ultimately it will be possible for someone to mess with the system. Just as it is with everything else.

      Tossing a bag of magnetic marbles in front of robo-busses is no different than dropping bricks on cars from an overpass: the main deterrent is that most people are not sadistic assholes trying to kill other people.

  • by TheLuggage (651315) on Saturday September 13 2008, @11:25AM (#24991133)
    wow, i'm almost impressed except we have those already for a while. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phileas_(public_transport) [wikipedia.org] They were supposed to be driverless, but dutch laws reuires a driver to be behind the wheel of a vehicle... Don't know where they got that idea ;-)
  • Empty vs. Full Roads (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mdmkolbe (944892) on Saturday September 13 2008, @11:31AM (#24991183)

    Sure it can navigate an empty road, but what about once there are other cars on it or pot holes or what if the bus service needs a temporary detour?

    Cool from a technology perspective, but I doubt it will ever be applied to actual street driving. Most likely it will end up with some alternative use like controlling the office mail cart or something.

    • Cars are giant and fairly solid. Ultrasonic sensors are very good at picking them out. Even much smaller objects -- like people and traffic cones -- are pretty easy to detect and avoid. Likewise visual systems can generally differential between "road surface", "other surface", and "obstacle" with very high reliability.

      As for detours, it's a little more complicated. An obvious solution is "use humans for detours." Busses typically run bi-directional routes along the same roadway, so a driver could simply shu

  • Why would anybody investigate this goofy plan? [ An oversupply of government and foundation grants from brain-dead administrators? ]

    Why would we automate the driving of vehicles when there is a serious unemployment problem? Automating the driving would greatly reduce the jobs for drivers. Isn't the Teamsters Union rather strong?

    What does putting hundreds of thousands of expensive magnets in the road systems do to solve the problem of oil depletion?(which leads to fuel costs that exceed the value of the

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Why would we automate the driving of vehicles when there is a serious unemployment problem?

      The economy will see no lost jobs. Saving the cost of "busdriver" jobs will allow for the creation of other jobs elsewhere. The money normally spent on drivers will go toward increasing demand for other goods or services. That increased demand will create more jobs, and because inefficiency was removed the jobs that replace "busdriver" jobs will be more numerous and better paying. So, if unemployment is a problem, ma

  • by TheNetAvenger (624455) on Saturday September 13 2008, @11:52AM (#24991337)

    1995 Called... San Diego Anyone?

    The Carpool lanes in San Diego I15 had magnets put in them over 10 years ago and fully autonomous GM cars navigated the roads effortlessly.

    This was almost 15 freaking yeats ago...

    Anyone so NOT impressed by this?

    • by pvera (250260) <pedro.vera@gmail.com> on Saturday September 13 2008, @12:24PM (#24991621) Homepage Journal

      Yup, and as early as 2002 Siemens was demonstrating a bus in Arlington, Virginia that uses the same principle. It was basically a track-less tram with a driver override. The vehicle (which btw, was amazing) drove by itself and auto-detected its stops, red lights, hazards, but it had a driver. If the driver touched the controls it would override the automatic operationg.

  • Yeah, but can its new-fangled computer brain defy the laws of physics and jump the bus over an incomplete highway overpass at 70 mph? I didn't think so. Until we can make an artificial replacement for Keanu Reeves, I won't trust it. It's gotta be able to say, "I know kung-fu" too.

  • Why? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PPH (736903) on Saturday September 13 2008, @12:50PM (#24991847)

    The human driver performs many critical tasks other than steering. Braking for vehicles or pedestrians moving into its path, making judgments about pulling over to the curb among illegally parked vehicles, arguing with fare cheats, crackheads and the homeless, etc.

    Its not likely that these other requirements for a driver's presence will be eliminated any time soon. Meanwhile, keeping the driver in charge of steering keeps him paying attention to road conditions. Note how many pilots take naps while on autopilot (both at the same time, sadly).

    The systems in which an automated steering system could work safely are essentially identical to elevated railways, monorails, or subways. In other words, grade separated transit systems.

    • Or dodge bassinets placed as a bait for a trap by super villains?
    • If you RTFS, acceleration and braking are controlled by a human operator. So I'm not really sure whether being in traffic would make a difference to this test.

      Although I imagine it wasn't.
    • Re:traffic (Score:5, Funny)

      by SEWilco (27983) on Saturday September 13 2008, @12:10PM (#24991491) Homepage Journal
      Ahem... any bus without any driver, and only the intelligence of a brick on the accelerator, is able to travel through traffic. It's generally better if it goes around the traffic.
    • Telecommuting aside, there's a one-bedroom apartment that I checked out right down the street from my office. Bottom floor in a 4-unit multiplex, right next door to a McDonald's, around the corner from a very noisy major road. And it has a freakishly ineffective kitchen. Other than that, an okay, if smallish, apartment.

      And at $1300 USD/mo, I passed.

      And that's not even in the expensive part of town.

      Get realistic about your expectations there, bud.

      I don't have bus-reliability issues. I don't even have b

    • "Live closer to their workplaces."
      "Ride bikes to work."

      Of course; the holy grail of all of us who work outside the house for a living. Except that:

      1) The cost of living near where we work is dramatically higher, which cuts into our net income.
      2) We drive a considerable distance, which makes riding a bicycle an unrealistic option.

      I worked 12 miles from my house about 7 years ago. Got laid off. Nothing else in the area. Now my commute is 60 miles. I have three children in school and roots in this town for

    • If more people would simply live closer to their workplaces (or telecommute) and ride bikes to work, we wouldn't have to worry about these hulking masses lumbering down the road.
      .

      not every worker is a twenty-something geek, not every job puts you in a sleek glass tower and not every city has a climate as benign as southern California.

    • We use the SI system in the United States, not the antiquated metric system (of which some definitions were translated in the creation of SI). The "standard" units are proxies for SI units, and are all exact, linear conversions.

      We use lbf as a proxy for weight (N), and lb (or lbm) as a proxy for mass (kg). They are not the same. We are therefore, very, very confused by European insistence on continuing the mass-force confusion by incorporating kgf into their commerce system.

    • Both optical and magnetic guidance systems typically use ultrasonic sensors for nearby (less than ~100 feet) obstacle detection. At highway speeds that's not enough to stop before hitting something that's at a dead stop, but it is enough to tell when someone cuts you off, or if there are construction barrels in the road, or if there is a pedestrian crossing in front of the bus.

      Not that it couldn't also be combined with an optical system -- I think that's a good idea -- I just doubt the system is intended to