I would suggest that such convoys have special purple lights to indicate to human drivers to not try to butt in, along with very clear signs indicating what they are.
I would venture to guess that they could have robo-convoys on the highways within 5 years pending government approval with no added dangers for human drivers. One problem to iron out is how to proceed once off the freeway. I suggested special parking lots near freeway on ramps and off ramps. You would want locking gates so that only robo-vehicles and their handlers could enter, both for security and to make sure that no one was using them as park'n'ride lots.
P.S. I uploaded a PDF file of the the article you posted. BTW I've been using these Samsung Tab 4 7.0 tablets for 3+ years and only recently figured out that they can create PDF files of practically any web page in Chrome - I am using the original version of Chrome (40.0.2214.109) that came with the tablet. I believe that later versions dropped that capability.
I mention that because I have tried all sorts of apps and plugins to avoid paying Adobe $10 or $12 a month to do that. Greedy bastards!
P.P.S. Within the PDF file there is a note from the Wired site that I only have 3 free articles remaining this month. One way to get around those darned limited access paywalls is to open the link in an incognito tab or browser. Once you close the tab or window your monthly limit is replenished. Shhh... keep it a secret so that they won't catch on!
.Self-Driving Trucks Are Now Running Between Texas and California | WIRED.pdf
EDIT: Here is a link to the article about the self-driving convoys led by a human along with a PDF file of it in case you do not want to waste your 4 free articles this month. (Another way to get around limited access paywalls is to use a VPN.)
.The Army’s Self-Driving Trucks Hit the Highway to Prepare for Battle | WIRED.pdf
Last edited by Steve A.; 04-14-2018 at 02:23 PM.
“Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.”
Thanks for the link.
Uber had a problem with their obstacle detection software triggering too often, generating false positive warnings about obstacles that "unnecessarily" stopped their cars.
Tesla had a problem where a similar system would interpret signs hanging over the highway as solid obstacles that "unnecessarily" stopped their cars.
Both companies found the expedient solution was to turn off or tune down the safety feature because it was a nuisance.
In each case the Uber and Tesla had software that was sensitive enough to recognize "obstacles." The software worked. It triggered the safety protocols whenever it recognized something in the way and stopped the cars like it was supposed to. But the engineers didn't like that, because they wanted their cars cruising down the road, not stopping all the time. Because of all of the "false positive" warnings they turned off / tuned down the safety system until people got killed because the system could no longer recognize a "true positive" event. Tesla killed their passenger by driving into the side of a semi that Tessie thought was a road sign. Uber ran over Elaine Herzberg as she crossed the street.
In both cases, the companies decided to turn off safety features because they triggered "nuisance warnings." People died as a result.
I wish there were no settlements in these cases. Turning off the safety systems was willful wanton negligence. I'd like to see these negligence cases go to court. It could bankrupt the companies.
"Stand back, I'm holding a calculator." - chinrest
"I happen to have an original 1955 Stratocaster! The neck and body have been replaced with top quality Warmoth parts, I upgraded the hardware and put in custom, hand wound pickups. It's fabulous. There's nothing like that vintage tone or owning an original." - Chuck H
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)