California OKs driverless cars on (a few) public roads

[billvon 2,434]

These will be small scale trials, but they will be good proving grounds for wider approvals.
================
California OKs Self-Driving Vehicles Without Human Backup
Fri, 09/30/2016 - 2:23pm by The Associated Press
A new California law allows self-driving vehicles to be tested on public roads with no human backup.

The San Jose Mercury News reports that under the bill signed into law Thursday by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown, vehicles without steering wheels, brake pedals or accelerators can be tested at two Bay Area sites. The vehicles will be limited to speeds of less than 35 mph.

The trials will take place at Contra Costa Transportation Authority's autonomous-vehicle testing site on a former naval facility and at a business park that contains public roads.

Officials say Google and Apple have expressed interest in using the former naval site. The business park project will involve 12-person worker-transport shuttles.

https://www.ecnmag.com/news/2016/09/california-oks-self-driving-vehicles-without-human-backup
==================

[wan2doit 6]

Seems like local residents should have had a say on that decision along with elected officials.

[Phillbo 11]

Should have done it in Co where half the cars are self driving already....... hey dude... hows my driving?

[AlanS 1]

I actually live very close to Google HQ and have had these cars driving right by my place for several years. Several drive by an hours (the smaller ones have a unique sound) and one time I pulled up to a corner. It was me in my convertible, and a Google car at each of the other corners.

Those cars are very reliable and their path is very predictable, so I honestly look forward to have more of them on the road and less unpredictable humans behind the wheel.

[Stumpy 256]

billvon

These will be small scale trials, but they will be good proving grounds for wider approvals.
================
California OKs Self-Driving Vehicles Without Human Backup
Fri, 09/30/2016 - 2:23pm by The Associated Press
A new California law allows self-driving vehicles to be tested on public roads with no human backup.

The San Jose Mercury News reports that under the bill signed into law Thursday by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown, vehicles without steering wheels, brake pedals or accelerators can be tested at two Bay Area sites. The vehicles will be limited to speeds of less than 35 mph.

The trials will take place at Contra Costa Transportation Authority's autonomous-vehicle testing site on a former naval facility and at a business park that contains public roads.

Officials say Google and Apple have expressed interest in using the former naval site. The business park project will involve 12-person worker-transport shuttles.

https://www.ecnmag.com/news/2016/09/california-oks-self-driving-vehicles-without-human-backup
==================

Interesting stuff. Was listening to the TWIG podcast the other day and apparently the safety record of these things is already better than regular cars, and only going to get better. I'll miss my motorbike, but I expect they will become the predominant form of transport in my lifetime.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[piisfish 135]

we have 2 driverless shuttle buses going on public streets in Sion, Switzerland, since this summer (june 16).
They drive slowly (20km/h), but are apparently a funny and cool public transportation in town.

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[Phillbo 11]

And DUI's will be greatly reduced.

[BillyVance 34]

Iago

***And DUI's will be greatly reduced.

Once we have autonomous cars, we can have flying cars as well. Flying cars have been around since post WWII. What was missing was the airports and the pilot part.

We'll have parallel runways integrated with roads where you drive on one end and take off out the other end. When you land at your destination the car will continue to the end of the runway and simply merge into traffic.

Exponential Technologies in action. Welcome to the future- it will be here before you know it.

The Back To The Future franchise almost got it. We have prototype flying cars already, but barely anybody can afford them. I still think it'll be another 20 years before they start to become mainstream, mainly due to infrastructure to support them.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[billvon 2,434]

>Those cars are very reliable and their path is very predictable, so I honestly look
>forward to have more of them on the road and less unpredictable humans behind
>the wheel.

One drawback - if you get behind two of them you're stuck there; they always go the speed limit, and so stay next to each other. (Happened to me in Palo Alto a few months ago.)

[jclalor 12]

I always thought t was huge mistake getting rid of the horses.

[theonlyski 3]

Iago

Yes, we do have prototype flying cars and have for 70+ years. What we don't have are the qualified pilots to fly them, which is where the 'autonomous' part comes into play. Economies of scale will push the vehicle cost down to be competitive with trucks or SUVs today. You will not own the flying car, you will call it like a taxi to pick you up or take another autonomous car to the 'airport' and board one there. The airport will not be an airport, but a straight stretch of wide road long enough to take off. It's not a jumbo jet, so you don't need the huge beefy runway that can handle a full size plane touching down.

I honestly believe that the FAA nor the public would support aircraft flying with no pilot. Look at how many incidents did not result in the loss of all aboard when the aircraft had an issue. Yes, pilots make errors, but they can think through way more than a box can.

I also don't think that the infrastructure to support flying cars would be incorporated into any current metropolitan area. We already have enough trouble with NIMBYs trying to shut down airports that have existed long before their houses.

Finally, I hope that if it does come to fruition that any ol Joe can hop in a flying car and go somewhere without having to be a pilot... that the aircraft are limited to a low enough altitude to not cause any conflicts with the aircraft flying above (say limit them to Class G operations only). Really I think that at some point, there will be a loss of life for a simple malfunction or issue and everyone will start saying that it was a horrible idea.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[gowlerk 1,926]

Unless something can be done about the basic physics of providing power for propulsion, flying cars will never.....fly. The power to weight ratio needed for flight is not compatible with the weight needed to provide safety, durability, and range on the road.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[theonlyski 3]

gowlerk

Unless something can be done about the basic physics of providing power for propulsion, flying cars will never.....fly. The power to weight ratio needed for flight is not compatible with the weight needed to provide safety, durability, and range on the road.

Not to mention all repairs needing an A&P to sign off since they may impact the airworthiness.

It's an industry that will never "get off the ground" outside of a couple of pet projects. There are a whole mess of problems out there ranging from aircraft design, weight and lift, where to take off and land (while keeping the convenience that they're supposed to be providing), airspace deconfliction, instrument conditions, drinking and flying... all kinds of things that will each be death blows, all stacked against it happening.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[DanG 1]

Helicopter cars are more likely to be successful that airplane cars. They solve a lot of the infrastructure problems, and the public is in love with helicopter style drones.

Autolanding a malfunctioning helicopter by computer is also safer for those on the ground.

- Dan G

[gowlerk 1,926]

How wide would the roads have to be to accommodate them? (Speaking of infrastructure problems)

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[DanG 1]

Quote

How wide would the roads have to be to accommodate them? (Speaking of infrastructure problems)

If it were a conventional helicopter, the rotor blades could fold up and be stored along the long axis of the car. For a quadcopter type design the rotor housings could also fold up.

I don't see any fundamental problem making the vehicle the same width as a regular car.

- Dan G

[gowlerk 1,926]

Sure, those solutions could be done. At the cost of strength, weight and durability. Engineering is a series of compromises. Nothing comes free and some problems while possibly solvable are not practical to do so.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Sure, those solutions could be done. At the cost of strength, weight and durability. Engineering is a series of compromises. Nothing comes free and some problems while possibly solvable are not practical to do so.

Of course. I didn't say it was right around the corner, or that it would be easy. I just said that a helicopter or quadcopter type of flying car was more likely to be successful than an airplane type car.

BTW I'm an aerospace engineer.

- Dan G

[gowlerk 1,926]

Actually an autonomous quadcopter type vehicle would seem slightly more practical. But not one that doubles as a car. Roadworthiness and airworthiness seem mutually exclusive to me. And why would it need to? Other than possibly taxiing to the hangar/garage.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,434]

>The power to weight ratio needed for flight is not compatible with the weight
>needed to provide safety, durability, and range on the road.

We are close to that point now with conventional batteries. There are now electric light aircraft and electric helicopters, and that's with conventional Li-ion (cobalt) batteries.

Li-ion/silicon anode will improve things significantly (between 20% and 1100% percent improvement in energy density) and are very close to market. (Batteries available now.) Solid electrolyte/metallic Li batteries can get even higher energy densities, but are probably ten years away. And with electric you get the benefits of easy redundancy, small/lightweight/very controllable motors and no altitude vs performance issues.

[gowlerk 1,926]

Wonder batteries have been just around the corner for so long now that I almost am ready to group them with fusion power. I can see battery powered flight coming, but the need for lightweight components will still leave the vehicle not suitable for the road. I don't see "flying cars" meaning vehicles that are good for both road and sky as a real possibility. For the same reasons that flying birds are not primarily land creatures, and land birds can't fly.

Are you old enough to remember the "Super Car" TV show? Now there was a dream car!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTW3sEOaPqU

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,434]

>Wonder batteries have been just around the corner for so long now that I almost
>am ready to group them with fusion power.

Well, I'd say that some of them are here already. We have cars with 300 mile ranges (Tesla model S) electric airplanes that have flown around the world (Solar Impulse) electric trainers (Sun Flyer) and electrically powered helicopters (Sikorsky Firefly.) You can even get electric paramotor systems now.

The big question now is how fast they'll progress. Energy density (the hardest metric to hit in batteries) has been going up 5% a year for about a decade now. Thus if this continues with no big breakthroughs, just gradual improvements in packaging, separators, anode formation, electrolyte etc then all those applications get gradually cheaper/lighter.

So there's not much question they will get there. The only question is how fast. Doubling the density (which makes things like human-capable quadrotors relatively easy from a propulsion standpoint) will take up to 15 years - and the 15 years assumes no new technologies like solid electrolyte, just the same development we've been seeing for the past 15 years or so. More likely it will be considerably faster.