Robots Do Things Better:An Exploration of Autonomous Vehicle Technology
Introduction
Imagine a world
without traffic jams, terrifying vehicular death statistics, and even the
stress of sharing the road with impaired (or simply unskilled) humans operating
two-ton machines at high speeds. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers can be
disbanded, global resources like fossil fuel and aluminum can be conserved, CO2
emissions will drop rapidly, and the world will be a safer place. Welcome to
the future: the autonomous vehicle is here.
An autonomous vehicle, also referred
to as a driverless or self-driving car, is operationally defined as a vehicle
that meets the same objectives of travel, transport, and sport as a traditional
human-operated vehicle, except without human intervention. This autonomous
operation is achieved by assimilating technologies such as radar, lidar, gps,
and saccadic computer imaging into a system that allows the vehicle to
interpret relevant information from its environment, avoid obstacles, adapt to
changing conditions, and maintain constant communication with all of the other
vehicles in its vicinity (Markoff). The question at hand is, how does this
impact the global society?
Background
Autonomous
vehicles completely redefine the parameters of efficiency, productivity, speed,
and safety. Computer processors do not get tired or distracted; they have
faster reaction times and the capacity for a much larger perceptual awareness
than do human drivers. Engineers claim that the ability to decrease the
following distance could double the capacity of our existing road systems;
because of the reduced probability of crashes, cars would likely be much
lighter and therefore more fuel efficient (Markoff).
Potential
Benefits
From the
perspective of both government and individual consumer, it is far more logical
to maximize the use of precious resources by integrating an automated public
taxi system where the vehicles are in almost constant use. Congestion in urban
areas such as the District of Columbia or New York City may be
completely eliminated, while cutting costs to the individual driver almost
completely.
For
the individual, a private vehicle may be a source of pride, but it is still a
huge financial burden. As an example, consider the cost of acquiring a license
to operate a motor vehicle, the initial investment in the purchase of a private
vehicle, mandatory insurance, fuel, parking, maintaining the physical
components, registration, inspection, collision repair, and customization. Even
still, private cars remain parked 90% of the time (Neil). In addition to the financial investment in
commuting via private vehicle is the time spent locked in commute, often due to
gridlocked traffic in urban or suburban areas. The average person spends
approximately 48 hours a year in traffic, which translates to about 500 billion
dollars in wasted fuel (Gruber).
Expert software
system architects at the University of
Texas , Austin , are already preparing for the dawn of
the unmanned vehicle by developing new traffic pattern software that eliminates
the need for stop lights and signage on roadways. Integrating technology that
already exists, Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC), they have developed
a system that allows all vehicles traveling through intersections to safely
maintain speed, eliminating unnecessary acceleration, deceleration, and the
need to wait for stop signals (Gruber).
Not only is
conventional driving expensive, it is also extremely treacherous. In 2004, the
World Health Organization (WHO) reported on the staggering impact of traffic on
the human population:
Currently, it is
estimated that at least 95% of all reported accidents are caused by human error
(Gruber). However, a study by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration approximates that improving vehicle communication systems alone
may cut traffic accident rates by 81 percent. By automating all vehicles,
theoretically avoiding opportunity for human error, those rates should again
drop dramatically. Technology will continue to improve over the first several
generations of self-driving vehicles; this trend infers accident occurrence may
all but be eliminated in the near future.
In March 2012, Nevada was the first of the United
States to enact a law geared toward autonomous vehicle
operation, and was quickly followed by Florida
and California
(Markoff). The recipient of the first unmanned vehicle license was issued to
Google, Inc., a company who has pioneered many of the technological advances in
the past decade. The founders of Google, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, state that
a primary objective for their company is to solve real-world problems using
technology.
Sebastian Thrun is
the man responsible for Google’s unmanned vehicle project. He is a high-ranking
software engineer at Google, co-inventor of GoogleMap’s innovative Street View
service, and director of the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. In a
2010 Google Blog post concerning the development of self-driving cars, Thrun
disclosed, “One of the big problems we’re working on today is car safety and
efficiency. Our goal is to help prevent traffic accidents, free up people’s
time and reduce carbon emissions by fundamentally changing car use”. If
successful, the self-driving car project would absolutely improve quality of
life and productivity by the daily commuter population, increase mobility for
disabled citizens, remove age and certification restrictions for the occupants
of the vehicles, and take large steps toward removing the human contribution to
global warming.
Legal and Ethical Concerns
The dawning of the unmanned car does bring
several important questions: if an accident does occur, where does the
responsibility fall? There is also the question of world-wide approval of
driverless vehicles: will the statistical standard for ‘safe’ performance be
developed in comparison to human operation, or will this technology require
entirely new criteria?
Bryant Walker Smith, a member of Stanford University ’s
Cyber Law program, began to analyze what data would need to be collected if
Google, Inc. wanted to be statistically sure that the autonomous vehicle crash
rate is less than the human crash rate. He stated that the vehicles would need
to travel, without human intervention, “more than 725,000 representative miles
without incident for us to say with 99 percent confidence that they crash less
frequently than conventional cars. If we look only at fatal crashes, this minimum skyrockets to 300 million miles.” Regardless of how infallible a technology
appears, the undeniable fact is that all systems have been developed by humans-
logic infers that some human error is unavoidable. Almost every system produced
has, at some point, failed.
Security
Another component that remains unclear is the
susceptibility of the on-board system to hackers, whether the individual compromising
the system desires modification to their personal technological capacity
(similar to ‘jail-breaking’ a smartphone), or much worse, the modification is motivated
by moral, monetary, or political reasons. Currently, little data exists on the
potential security risks.
Conclusion
The autonomous vehicle technology has not existed long
enough to fully understand the weaknesses of the on-board software, the
communication hardware, or even adaptability to sudden changes in terrain,
weather, or dangerous environments. Like most new technologies, it will take time
to collect enough data to truly assess the vulnerabilities implicit in the
system. If the technology is released before it is refined, there is risk of a
rapid series of failures and huge public mistrust. However, if companies like
Google, Inc. take the time to rigorously test their product before releasing it
for public consumption, the self-driving car may realize a safer, more
sustainable world. It gives the high-risk youth the chance to change the
face of the future, and for our strong working forces to support the previous
generations and contribute to the global economy.
REFERENCES
Gruber,
B., (n.d.) Autonomous intersection management. University of Texas
at Austin . Retrieved
from http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~aim/.
Accessed (2012, October 7).
Markoff,
J., (2010, October 9), Smarter Than You Think. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/science/10google.html?_r=0.
Accessed (2012, October 8).
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (2010 October). Frequency
of Target Crashes for IntelliDrive Safety Systems. U.S. Department of Transportation. DOT HS 811 381
Neil,
Dan. (2012, September 24), Who's
Behind the Wheel? Nobody. Wall Street
Journal Online. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443524904577651552635911824.html.
Accessed (2012, October 7).
Smith,
B. W., (2012, March 11), Driving at Perfection. Stanford University Cyber-Law. Retrieved from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/comment/28006#comment-28006
. Accessed (2012, October 7).
Thrun,
S., (2010, October 9) What we’re driving at. Google Official Blog. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/what-were-driving-at.html.
Accessed (2012, October 6).
World
Health Organization. (2004). World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention:
Summary. Geneva .