XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science
From: bap@shrdlu.com
On 16/01/14 18:30, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> In article ,
> Bernard Peek wrote:
>
>> I could probably put together a design for self-driving cars that could
>> be built with today's technology. What I can't see is a transition state
>> where some cars are self-driving and others aren't.
>
> What are the problems you see? Whether it's done with software or with
> rails, it doesn't seem that hard to imagine multiple scenarios that
> allow you to phase in the changes.
>
> For example, Phase 1 might just be having smarter cruise controls. I
> think this is already happening. You might even dedicate a lane (e.g.,
> make it an HOV requirement) to vehicles that all do this so they can
> travel in a closer "train" formation.
That's fine for long-distance travel on roads wide enough to have a
dedicated lane. Self-driving cars would allow you to dramatically
increase traffic density and average speeds. But every time a manual and
automatic traffic stream cross you lose the advantage of automated
traffic. Automated vehicles can cross a junction without either stream
needing to stop. When you throw manual drivers into the mix you need to
go back to having traffic lights.
>
> From there, it shouldn't be hard to add assisted steering into the mix
> for Phase 2. I'm still not sure what that gets you that actual rails
> don't, but if it's just about continuing to use the crumbling highway
> infrastructure, have at it.
I do see rails, or at least separate roadways, as part of the solution
if we have both automatic and manually driven vehicles. But a large part
of the advantage of automated driving is the ability to make better use
of even minor roads.
--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
