Share
Anthony Baxendale
Guest blogger
Manager of Advanced Technologies & Research, MIRA
A Chartered Engineer and graduate of Imperial College, Heriot Watt University and Henley Management College, Anthony is responsible for delivering MIRA’s expanding portfolio of strategic research programmes focussed on low carbon and intelligent mobility technologies. He was also formerly a director of innovITS, the UK National Centre of Excellence in Telematics and chairman of the European Car Aerodynamics Research Association.
An insight into driverless car technologies
For many people the prospect of seeing a driverless car on our roads is still science fiction or, at best, one possible scenario that may come about many years into the future. However, in the world of the microprocessor and with reliability of electronic systems at the levels seen in the aerospace industry, the prospect of driverless cars on our roads is not as far off as many think.
(As referenced in the ‘Under the bonnet of MIRA’s network-assisted vehicle’ The Engineer, 6 February 2012) In reality, driverless car technologies are already commonplace on our roads today – albeit that they are more often referred to as driving “assistance” systems.
Adaptive cruise control, emergency braking systems, following distance regulators, lane keeping aids and active park assists are all technologies routinely being incorporated into modern cars. These features effectively turn a driver operated vehicle into an autonomous one, although vehicle manufacturers currently only allow them to be deployed in carefully defined situations – for example ‘auto-park’.
Such systems have put us firmly on the path towards driverless cars and any doubters should look no further than Google’s Driverless Car for proof. To date it has travelled over 140,000 miles on Californian roads, making decisions in a variety of situations (inner-city congestion, motorways, mountain roads, driving at night and pedestrian avoidance) clearly demonstrating the capability, safety and reliability of driverless technologies.
Google’s driverless car has put in over 140,000 miles on California’s roads
However, as is often the case with revolutionary technologies, there are also potential drawbacks. Among the concerns voiced by drivers is that this new technology will impact upon driver enjoyment - a valid argument you may think.
If what is meant by ‘enjoyment’ is (to use the advertising cliché) driving on an empty road taking in a backdrop of outstanding natural beauty, surely it would be more enjoyable and safer for us to either; stop and get out of our cars to enjoy the view or (if that is a step too far) be supported by technologies capable of protecting us if we are distracted from the road whilst behind the wheel?
Tragically 222,146 casualties were recorded on UK roads in 2009, of which 2,222 were fatalities. With more than 80% of road crashes caused by human error, it therefore follows that mitigating this element as far as possible is likely to radically reduce the number of injuries and deaths on our public roads and that driverless cars therefore offer the prospect of huge improvements in road safety.
And, since driving through such deserted Alpine vistas are a rarity, driver ‘enjoyment’ could legitimately be described as removal of the frustration experienced during the daily commute on congested roads.
It is estimated that 7,500km of European roads are blocked by traffic jams each day, with congestion adding an extra 6% to the EU’s fuel bill year. To put this into perspective the combined cost to the UK is between £10bn and £30bn per year (DFT and Automotive Council).
The introduction of driverless cars co-operating with each other and with ITS (Intelligent Transport Systems) could therefore enhance ‘enjoyment’ whilst also easing congestion on our current road infrastructure, reducing fuel bills and potentially negating the need for additional roads to be built – which would be a welcome change in any economic climate.
At present the high cost of building and developing fully driverless cars with the levels of safety and reliability required means that their commercialisation is difficult to justify. However, the automotive industry has a long history of rising to new technical and regulatory challenges – just look at the improvements in automotive safety and emissions over the last ten years.
So, despite this, I’m confident that the automotive industry will overcome this new engineering challenge and - with the help of specialist transport engineering and consultancy companies - be able to develop a commercially viable range of driverless vehicles.
Readers' comments (8)
Anonymous | 17 Feb 2012 12:51 pm
Great article.
In terms of the difficulty of commercialisation, this makes sense when we are talking about private vehicles. However for many other applications the vehicles could cost a lot more than any normal vehicle would and still make commercial sense.
Think about any use of a vehicle where the company in question has to pay a driver - taxis, airport shuttles, trucks, mail vans and the like all come to mind. It would make that much more sense to use driverless cars in these scenarios!
Matthew N
Driverless Car HQ
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jeremy | 17 Feb 2012 12:58 pm
If driverless car systems are as reliable as satnavs then I can see a major increase in the casualties. In major aircraft incidents where people escape it can be because of pilot involvment - the Hudson River crash landing to name but one. If you take much more from the acquired manual skills that humans hold precious you will end up without any enjoyment in life - yes that does mean some innocent poeple will die on our roads but perhaps that is the price, some people smoke, some jump off bridges attached to bits of elastic ...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17 Feb 2012 1:09 pm
Why do we keep developing these systems for what is obviously an operator controlled system ?
If a small fraction of this technology was aimed at new railway architecture it could make a massive difference.
Railways are currently well over 90% empty. Automated systems could probably bring this up to 90% full!
It would need major re-designs of junctions and additional sideings for stations, but multiple smaller autonomous carages could run on the existing systems with only minor re-development. Travel from Birmingham to London could be on carriages which leave every ten minutes - no need for HS2, the waiting time would far outweigh the shorter travelling time. we could also have carriages to take cars over long distances, with the driver then taking over for the local parts which they are best at completing.
I am sure there are many more advantages. We led the world in the last railway revolution, we have a great opportunity to lead it in the second. We should abandon the Victorian idea of trains and move into the future to give massive advantages to road and rail transport.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Murray Sinclair | 17 Feb 2012 2:15 pm
Reading this article, I think Dr Baxendale is falling into two traps; firstly, because it can be engineered we should engineer it, and secondly, the "the user will love this" syndrome, also known as technology-push. I would be a lot happier about this if there was more attention to the user's state of mind when getting into the car and during the journey, for all the different kinds of journeys and different people that would be exposed to this technology. There's also the problems of what happens when the car stars to skid, for example (it will, sometime)? How many 'drivers' won't make a grab for the steering wheel, for example?
There's lots of human-centred problems in this concept. Then there are the legal/insurance issues too... Does anybody think the insurance companies won't try to dump all the blame on the auto engineers when there's a claim?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17 Feb 2012 9:03 pm
Missing a big one: liability. If a car does crash, who pays damages? Not the user, and if the manufacture tried to claim it holds no liability, no one would buy one.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris P | 18 Feb 2012 3:41 am
I have driven over 1 million miles. I can think of many cases where one has to quickly recognise objects and what s going on around you. How can the system differentiate between an aluminum ladder on the road and a cardboard box? How does it know that puddle ahead is really a giant pothole. I know that Google knows where the road is but what happens when you have to avoid an accident and drive off on the verge can it figure out what is safe to drive through? There's an accident and a child and clothing fall out on the road - can it instantly distinguish between the two?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
sujith kuriakose | 18 Feb 2012 5:34 pm
Great theme for the future of electronic development. Actually, as a part of my project for my post-graduation a opted an option for doing the same. Since there were no firm to support my view, i have to drop it. But by using the ACC technology is not enough, it must use small digital camera to be used below the bumper of a car, so as to recognize even the smallest thing. It should also have 2 camera's on each side of the headlamp, so as to detect the sign board and cross overs. It must be connected to an efficient GPS system so as to direct the vehicle. The system must also use sensor on the side body panels to detect the safest distance while the vehicle is overtaking. To promote a safe drive, the system must made efficient to check the temperature & other related criterion's. By the introduction of a black box similar to that used in aircrafts, it will help as to determine the cause of an accident, when the driving standard is handed back to the driver, rather than the microprocessor controlled.
It is a upcoming new technology. I'm sure that now those who are blaming this technology will also stand for this recently.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
mathias hulse | 20 Feb 2012 9:58 am
Great idea. I will have one of these. The many times when you are stuck in traffic or do boring motorway journeys. I can think of a thousand things to do whilst the car drives me and my family from A to B. And why stop there? I actually don't really need to own and maintain a car. If there was a cheap and reliable way to get me to a certain destination at any time I want, I am all for it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment