You've pointed out that the problem (actually, a somewhat different problem than the one we started off with) is much more complex than it appears at first glance, but you still haven't shown that it requires information not attainable from car-mounted sensors. In fact, my ability to safely and smoothly operate a car in traffic without listening to advice radioed from a spotter or looking at a display showing the view from other locations refutes your assertion that the task requires information not available from the driver's POV. (Not that the additional inputs couldn't be useful; just that they're not required.)
Furthermore, I'm not talking about an autopilot; I'm talking about an assist for an alert and attentive driver. This may not make the problem trivial, no, but it does make it a different size of problem than what the folks trying to design automated driving systems were trying to solve.
Penultimately, I didn't envision this for stop and go traffic (though I was not explicit about that); more for "too heavy to just set a speed and go, but moving well" situations.
And finally, please note that I labelled the entry "driving daydream" and said, "I'd like to have"; not "why isn't there...?" or "it should be trivial to design" or "I think I'll go build".
>In fact, my ability to safely and smoothly operate a car in traffic >without listening to advice radioed from a spotter or looking at a >display showing the view from other locations refutes your assertion that >the task requires information not available from the driver's POV.
I wouldn't claim a refutation touchdown just yet. There *is* the small matter of a five yard penalty for logical fallacy ("Extension", I believe).
My claim had nothing to do with needing "spotters" to drive. That is a rather nonsensical extension of what I actually said. I actually spoke of empathetic synthesis of these other drivers' future decisions performed at a distance on the part of the driver, based on behaviour and signals that they percieve at a distance. I claim and still claim that these mental simulations of other drivers are an essential part of traffic behaviour and the data that is gathered to generate these simulations is not only HUGE, but is beyond the range and scope of anything one can mount on a car today. FI: There are NOT sensors current that can analyse an entire LINE of cars ahead of you for patterns in the info being given to you by the brake lights. I'll bet that there are not sensors available that can correctly read traffic lights while a vehicle is in motion. And that's just a minute FRACTION of the data that one uses to drive, even in a "just follow everyone else" scenario. The amount of data one uses just for that is astonishingly complex, no matter how much you protest otherwise.
Tell you what tho, design for me a sensor and a program that can either:
- correctly collect and analyse brake light behaviour patterns - OR read a traffic light in daylight from an automobile in motion
at 1 kilometer ahead of you. Do that, and you can claim to refute me and I'll not only agree publickly that I've been refuted, but also perform the "Glenn Was Right" dance with wardrobe and music of YOUR choice!
In the meantime, I stand by my claim that this kind of assist, on the scale that you originally proposed proved to be impractical because the engineers involved had not anticipated how mind-bogglingly big and complex the data set they needed for implementation actually is.
You could also attempt a rather feeble cop-out and try to claim that this info is not needed for a safe and accurate driver assist. But that is going to be an even harder sell, because you'd have to convince me that YOU don't use this info in traffic to make or streamline your braking decisions.
(no subject)
Furthermore, I'm not talking about an autopilot; I'm talking about an assist for an alert and attentive driver. This may not make the problem trivial, no, but it does make it a different size of problem than what the folks trying to design automated driving systems were trying to solve.
Penultimately, I didn't envision this for stop and go traffic (though I was not explicit about that); more for "too heavy to just set a speed and go, but moving well" situations.
And finally, please note that I labelled the entry "driving daydream" and said, "I'd like to have"; not "why isn't there...?" or "it should be trivial to design" or "I think I'll go build".
(no subject)
>without listening to advice radioed from a spotter or looking at a
>display showing the view from other locations refutes your assertion that
>the task requires information not available from the driver's POV.
I wouldn't claim a refutation touchdown just yet. There *is* the small matter of a five yard penalty for logical fallacy ("Extension", I believe).
My claim had nothing to do with needing "spotters" to drive. That is a rather nonsensical extension of what I actually said. I actually spoke of empathetic synthesis of these other drivers' future decisions performed at a distance on the part of the driver, based on behaviour and signals that they percieve at a distance.
I claim and still claim that these mental simulations of other drivers are an essential part of traffic behaviour and the data that is gathered to generate these simulations is not only HUGE, but is beyond the range and scope of anything one can mount on a car today.
FI: There are NOT sensors current that can analyse an entire LINE of cars ahead of you for patterns in the info being given to you by the brake lights. I'll bet that there are not sensors available that can correctly read traffic lights while a vehicle is in motion. And that's just a minute FRACTION of the data that one uses to drive, even in a "just follow everyone else" scenario. The amount of data one uses just for that is astonishingly complex, no matter how much you protest otherwise.
Tell you what tho, design for me a sensor and a program that can either:
- correctly collect and analyse brake light behaviour patterns
- OR read a traffic light in daylight from an automobile in motion
at 1 kilometer ahead of you. Do that, and you can claim to refute me and I'll not only agree publickly that I've been refuted, but also perform the "Glenn Was Right" dance with wardrobe and music of YOUR choice!
In the meantime, I stand by my claim that this kind of assist, on the scale that you originally proposed proved to be impractical because the engineers involved had not anticipated how mind-bogglingly big and complex the data set they needed for implementation actually is.
You could also attempt a rather feeble cop-out and try to claim that this info is not needed for a safe and accurate driver assist. But that is going to be an even harder sell, because you'd have to convince me that YOU don't use this info in traffic to make or streamline your braking decisions.