ITU given keys to autonomous car standards process The International Telecommunications Union has communed with the auto industry and agreed “to host a dialogue of senior executives of vehicle manufacturers to identify the activities needed to consider future steps to realize the potential of fully autonomous driving.” That statement, part of a communiqué issued in the wake of …
...The International Telecommunications Union has communed with the auto industry and agreed “to host a dialogue of senior executives of vehicle manufacturers to identify the activities needed to consider future steps to realize the potential of fully autonomous driving.”...
I hope (but do not expect) that the executives will be asked why actually making autonomous cars has been the province of Search companies, military research groups and (rumour) a phone manufacturer rather than the auto industry.
Why should telecom's consult the people with little apparent practical experience in planning future development and defining standards? In the real world human-driven cars do a remarkably reliable job of working together without car to car walkie-talkies and communications other than observation and the occasional gesture.
Shouldn't it be the auto industry consulting with the people who have achieved autonomous driving to see what communications might benefit the development in the future. It sounds to me like a power grab for a facet of autonomous cars we would be better off without.
The ITU (remember it will require comm's) are anarchic, slow and not particularly transparent, but their standards do tend to be that, even when you have US standards vs rest of the world standards, they are pretty good at getting them to work together.
As for
"In the real world human-driven cars do a remarkably reliable job of working together"
I think the road death tolls would say we're pretty shit at it.
I don't know - on UK roads approximately 1 death for every two million miles driven doesn't sound that bad - unless you end up being that "1".
On seconds thoughts, I'm currently covering 30,000 miles per year, so I'm odds on to kill someone (possibly myself) with 20 odd years of driving behind me and 30 ahead of me.
Yeah, you're right.
(That's an Air Ambulance, BTW)
Compared to what? We don't know the autonomous vehicle death stats yet.
Humans are better than machines at so many things. It's just there are idiots (usually in BMWs and 4x4s) who break the rules, speeding and driving too fast in poor conditions.
We can't make a robot that can clean your house as good as a human yet. So why we think a robot driver will be better than a human I've no idea.
Watch out consumers. The industry is dead keen on selling these cars, but wants no responsibility for any accidents you may have. They want you to be legally responsible for accidents caused by bugs in their software.
Ok, so I'm sure the reliability will be quite good, but that kinda makes things worse. It would become very difficult for the individual to prove that a car went wrong when everyone else is convinced that it is reliable.
To protect the consumer there'd have to be a black box recording all aspects of the car's sensors and operation. And that would have to be standardised so that an independent inspector (NOT just the manufacturers) can diagnose what actually happened. That way an owner would be able to prove that the accident was caused autonomously by the car, not them doing something manual.
I doubt the industry would appreciate this. The likes of Google aren't used to actually having to provide warranties on their software; just read almost any EULA from any software company.
The traditional car industry isn't used to it either; most electronic car components are supplementary to something mechanical or human. Even advanced cruise control requires the driver to be sober and to steer.
I expect that there's going to be a huge amount of ugly lobbying over this, and with luck the consumer will come out on top. Don't hold your breath though, at least not in the USA.
Is such a lovely, if antiquated, word.
The gents from the ITU met with the artisans, who you'll recall as the creators of the new-fangled 'automobiles', over an invigorating game of croquet. Afterwards they all indulged in a brisk stroll to the telegraph office whereupon they issued the long-awaited communiqué. Its good news chaps! Soon you and the lady of your life will be able to enjoy a horseless carriage of your own.
That all said, I'll take a communiqué over a fax, text, memo or blog, any day of the week.
Like how all the world drives on the same side of the road and we don't need two separate builds of vehicles which allows them to charge some people more for essentially the same thing? Yeah, right.
I have lived through a couple of major currency changes and everybody managed fine despite rip-offs and con-men. I am certain that I can handle a change to the side of the road I drive on, as could everybody else while we actually standardised car manufacture.
Lots of work for signage, signals and road marking guys and doubtless a brief period of crashes and even deaths, but we could easily put this ridiculous state of affairs behind us once and for all.
The fact that there is neither the gumption or will to do so tells you a bit about what chance standards have vs real world inertia.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
