Sandology May 28, 2012 06:41 PM So if the lead car has a head on collision , there will be an autonomous pile up! snoo May 28, 2012 08:11 PM This is cool, but what about the SARTRE vs Kangaroo scenario? How does it avoid kangaroos in the Aussie outback? The roos here just jump out from behind trees at dusk & dawn and stare at you in the middle of the road thinking they're tough.. 0.5 seconds later there's bits of kangaroo & car every where. I'd be amazed if the collision avoidance is that quick at highway speeds. And then what happens in a crash, does SARTRE just keep going because its more fuel efficient. Reason May 28, 2012 11:46 PM One would have thought this system (requiring a professional lead driver) will be superseded by driverless cars generally, but it is still useful research into organising driverless convoys into road trains that will save fuel at highway speeds and also maximising traffic movement in congested areas. Martin Huiber May 29, 2012 08:42 AM Well, if I am not mistaken such built in things like radar are easily capable of identifying potential threat much faster and with higher accuracy then any human being on earth. It brakes hard before you hit your skippy down under. So the rest is braking hard as well. I know that such systems can identify children standing between cars. That was around 5 years ago. The problem was that within urban streets very much information has to be processed. On the freeway it is a piece of cake for a quad-core to calculate and re-check before you even get any finger moved. Those systems are not robotic and one-way trains. Conclusion: asking if it can prevent skippy-accidents or what if leader is crashing are valid, but just calling that stupid not knowing what the system is capable of is ignorant. Sorry to use such harsh words, but QUESTIONS are the key, it is part of the communication. BLAMING is just an effort to try not to think about it deeply. There is one big thing valid for all concepts all over the world: STANDARDS!!!! Without them we have a multi-choice and no-one is taking anything in the end. All together in the same direction and we will move on fast. With my very best regards from Austria, Martin JPAR May 29, 2012 09:58 AM I can guarentee this will happen sooner than you think - and yes, most likely in Australia first! Reason - simple, it's all about saving money and cutting margins, and the place where that matters most is commerical haulage. Imagine any transport company who can replace half a dozen drivers with just one, who can then drive across large open cross country journeys at a fraction of the cost (driver and fuel efficient in all one go!). Once you arrive at a city based destination, have local drivers who can do the last leg of smaller localised deliveries.So business will drive this forward far quicker than us 'punters' Mel Tisdale May 29, 2012 10:48 AM It is a bit like pilotless commercial passenger aircraft. They can be flown remotely by some deskbound pilot today in much the same way drones are. But will it ever become the norm. Not in a million years! It might lead to the loss of the first officer position, but there will always be a captain on the aircraft ready to take over.Five minutes spent looking at YouTube car accidents should be sufficient to convince anyone that there are so many weird crash scenarios that no amount of prevention measures can eliminate completely it will be impossible to dispose of the need for a driver unless the car can be made to run on rails of some kind. The first accident that could remotely be blamed on the system will be and there it will cease.Cars can be made a lot easier to drive and thus a lot safer, demanding far less driver skills than is currently the case. Some of us are competent drivers, some are simply incapable of being competent drivers (take my third wife - please!). If we can reduce the level of competence required, then car use will be open to more and safer for all. The technology exists to make it impossible to go faster than the safe speed for the location and conditions, such as fog, or exceed 5 mph in a supermarket carpark with children on the loose; never run a red light except when safe to do so such as when all the traffic has slowed due to an accident or emergency, say; never pull out into oncoming traffic, or exit from a side road onto a main road unless it is safe to do so; etc. etc.It might be possible to automate a lot of the driver functions when on a motorway, but never to the point where the driver does not have responsibility for maintaining the set speed and correct lane position. The biggest problem then will be falling asleep at the wheel. As for reading a newspaper, no way! MQ May 29, 2012 12:32 PM Australians Love to think that they have a monopoly on things that spring out onto the road...Most countries have things to hit, other than kangaroos... Deer are just as "Unpredictable" to the Driver who isn't looking for them...I agree with comment (Martin) Trust the computer more than trust the Driver who may as well be asleep... (Long boring drives lulls most people into idiocy.) Mr E May 29, 2012 02:23 PM Ahh, the economy of a train. The railroads have been telling us that for years.I've even conjectured about personal automobiles that could ride the rails with headway clearance systems to maintain a safe distance. The rails these days are very smooth and don't go clickety-clack. Just lean back and enjoy the scenery while it lasts. It wouldn't take long for billboards to spring up to hide the scenery. Of course there could be problems if a car broke down or ran out of gas. You would need a quick "ejection system" to put the car off to the side and out of the way. What a nightmare this could turn into. Miles from anything, a carload of kids etc.Mr E Burnerjack May 29, 2012 03:14 PM Call me "old fashioned" if you will, but I still believe it's simpler and more reliable to just LOOK WHERE YOU'RE GOING! We need to stop treating "texting while driving", looking off to the side etc. as "distracted driving" instead of what it is. It IS NEGLIGENCE. Distracted is like, say, somebody shooting at you from the side of the road. Not paying attention because one chooses to apply focus to something else, such as texting is just an irresponsible, negligent lapse of judgement and utterly selfish, all too often with predictably tragic results. If it were up to me text inputting would be disabled on any phone travelling at vehicular speed and ALWAYS in a dash mounted device when the vehicle is not at zero speed as indicated by the ABS system. After the first automobile manufacturer is held liable for NOT interlocking access, common sense will be applied. Smashing your car is OK with me as long as no innocents suffer, but,alas, all too often this is not the case. Alexander Lowe May 29, 2012 03:41 PM For the most part, this sort of technology is a complicated way of reinventing the railway - a piece of old tech which we know works. I'd say that was definitely the case for heavy freight haulage, while acknowledging that countries like Australia present climatic difficulties for railway lines (expansion/contraction of rails).Self-driving cars make private transport obsolete. The logical next step is a dial-a-ride automated taxi. That, or (whisper it) ... an effective public transport service?