Researchers Test Drive Bus With Automated Steering

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."

Sabotage?

[maeka]

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

Robobus vs. stupid drivers

[rah1420]

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.

Robustness?

[polymath69]

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.

Seen it, driven it, didnt bother with the t-shirt

[TheLuggage]

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

[mdmkolbe]

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.

Re:Sabotage?

[TheLink]

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:Whatever...

[CastrTroy]

Get a pair of Myvu [myvu.com] glasses. That way, nobody can tell what you are watching.

Re:Robobus vs. stupid drivers

[TheLink]

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.

Re:Dunno. Who gets sued today when...

[wronskyMan]

+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.

Re:Dunno. Who gets sued today when...

[Free the Cowards]

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.

Re:trams!

[NiceGeek]

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

Re:Robobus vs. stupid drivers

[algerath]

I love that book. If I could only have one reference for working on old VWs that would be it. One of the best parts about that book is the illustrations, it was all illustrations instead of photos. I learned more about my car and engine in that book than all of the others combined.

I know off topic, I just can't resist when someone brings up my favorite book about one of my oddball hobbies.

Re:trams!

[ngg]

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

That's because the cost of repairing damage caused to the road by heavy buses is largely invisible on municipal budgets. To wit: when streetcar tracks need repair, the cost appears on the streetcar budget; but when potholes (caused primarily by heavy vehicles like buses and trucks) need repair, the cost is absorbed by the "street maintenance" budget. Car-driving voters usually like politicians who spend money for pothole repairs. Streetcar operators, having been primarily private companies, also would not have had the same access to a municipality's General Fund as the DOT.

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

I hear this a lot in discussions of public transit, but I think it's a complete non-issue for two reasons.

• First, ask yourself this: Would you prefer to use public transit with a route system that required you to find and learn a new route and schedule every few months or one that let you find a useful route once and rely on it for years? I recently had to ride the bus while my car was in the shop, and finding a time-effective route and schedule was a major PITA (even using the online route-planner).
• Second: How often do you see bus routes change in actual practice? I don't ride the bus regularly in LA, but it seems like Metro hasn't changed the bus routes for decades.

If changing the routes is inconvenient to the riders and the operating agency doesn't change them anyway, then why does it matter whether the routes can be changed?

Re:trams!

[ProfessionalCookie]

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

Ouch.