Forums

Maximizing highway lane efficiency

Maximizing highway lane efficiency

I've been wondering about something, and the thread about highway lanes would have been a swell place to bring it up, if it hadn't wandered a bit off topic. So I'll make a new thread.

I agree with others that dedicating a lane or lanes to high speed automated use is a logical extension once there's a critical mass of autonomous vehicles. No brainer. But I think there's a bit of technology missing. Mere autonomy won't be enough to keep everyone safe when running high speed, close proximity, vehicle trains. The vehicles will need to communicate.

I wonder if anyone has heard anything about a car-to-car protocol in development?

DonS | 05. toukokuu 2017

V2V (vehicle-to-vehicle) and V2I (vehicle-to-infrastructure) communications have a ton of investment over the last several years. Lots of small scale proof-of-concept demonstrations have been done. No idea about standards or commercial deployment.

johndoeeyed | 05. toukokuu 2017

@EPluribusUnum
There are V2V protocols being standardised.
However, they are not necessary for autonomous vehicles to be far safer than human driven vehicles.
They are more of an optional, but beneficial, extra rather than a requirement.

SbMD | 05. toukokuu 2017

That is incorrect, @Johndoe. The NHTSA in the US has moved beyond the public comment period on V2V. They feel that this is more beneficial for public good and safety to have this even before autonomous vehicles. A crash reduction of 80% is predicted. Furthermore, authorities on the subject report that V2V is essential for autonomy.

All you have to do is look on Google for a number of articles on this topic.

johndoeeyed | 05. toukokuu 2017

@SbMD
You said "That is incorrect,"
Which sentence do you think is incorrect? They are all correct.

SbMD | 05. toukokuu 2017

You entire assertion is incorrect, @Johndoe.

Just two of the many sources:

https://icsw.nhtsa.gov/safercar/v2v/
http://time.com/4600119/v2v-self-driving-nhtsa/

SbMD | 05. toukokuu 2017

Correction: the statement you made was that V2V is being standardized is true, but the rest are incorrect. The V2V is more necessary for safety. It is going to come before autonomy and it is going to be required for autonomy.

johndoeeyed | 05. toukokuu 2017

@SbMD
Regarding this statement "However, they are not necessary for autonomous vehicles to be far safer than human driven vehicles."
The NHTSA already shows that Tesla's current system reduces accidents by 40% compared to humans. Tesla expect the fully autonomous system to be 10X safer.
Therefore, the statement is correct.

Regarding this statement "They are more of an optional, but beneficial, extra rather than a requirement."
Tesla's current system, and as far as I know all other current systems, do not have V2V communications.
As far as I know, Tesla's Level 5 systems will not have V2V communications.
Therefore, the statement is correct.

SbMD | 05. toukokuu 2017

@johndoe - "However, they [V2V] are not necessary for autonomous vehicles to be far safer than human driven vehicles. They are more of an optional, but beneficial, extra rather than a requirement."

Wrong. V2V alone will lead to a substantial safety improvement. It is not considered optional, @johndoe. Furthermore, the NHTSA has stated that they want V2V developed by 2020, which will also serve as a prerequisite need for full autonomy. See the articles, please.

Excerpt from Readiness of V2V Technology as part of the NHTSA report, page 15, which discusses the safety of V2v alone:

"[discussing V2V technology]... if the crashes they represent could be prevented, could address 81 percent of unimpaired light vehicle crashes, Figure III-1."

This is also discussed in depth in the Time article, which may be more the speed of most people.

RedShift | 05. toukokuu 2017

@sbmd

+1

If a vehicle knows the vehicle ahead of it is going to brake, or turn, it can communicate well in advance and provide a safety net in case there is any issue with the primary system of sensors. It's absolutely necessary to have a SAFETY NET in case some thing goes wrong. IOW, not optional.

johndoeeyed | 05. toukokuu 2017

@SbMD
I stated "rather than a requirement".
None of what you have posted has said V2V is a requirement i.e. compulsory.

@RedShift
You said "If a vehicle knows the vehicle ahead of it is going to brake, or turn, it can communicate well in advance"
That's what brake lights and indicators are for. It is what humans use.

johndoeeyed | 06. toukokuu 2017

It can be seen that V2G is not a requirement for fully autonomous vehicles because:
1) The vehicle will need to be able to drive where there are no other vehicles about
2) In the beginning, most other vehicles about will not have V2G

SbMD | 06. toukokuu 2017

@johndoe - I've provided references for my points. Feel free to read the materials for additional background.

Feel free to post supportive data from a source as opposed to an opinion that might support your counterpoint.

Back to the topic: @redshift is correct. That is what industry and government experts say as well.

Bighorn | 06. toukokuu 2017

Interesting that the OP sought to have a reasoned debate because it had degenerated elsewhere and doeeyed insisted on mud wrestling like the pig he is. How many times must we prove he is a mental midget? The word is mightier than the sword, but less so than the flag. Puerile word battles stifle intelligent discourse. Of course Sb et al are correct, but yet again the topic has been derailed. Operation Whack-A-Mole. It's our civic duty.

johndoeeyed | 06. toukokuu 2017

@SbMD
Please quote from your sources where it says that V2V is REQUIRED. Not nice to have, not beneficial, not advantageous, but REQUIRED.

I will repeat my statement for you, which is correct:
"They are more of an optional, but beneficial, extra rather than a requirement."

johndoeeyed | 06. toukokuu 2017

@SbMD
If you still claim that v2V is required, then please post this statement so I can record it:
"Tesla will not release level 5 autonomous cars unless it has V2V communications"

SbMD | 06. toukokuu 2017

@johndoe - @BH is right. Don't hijack this thread. Rather, show us where your claim that it is not required is valid with references. This s a chance to learn.

SbMD | 06. toukokuu 2017

@EPluribus - From the NHTSA:

https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/Automated_Vehicles_Poli...

"Accordingly, three distinct but related streams of technological change and development are occurring simultaneously: (1) in-vehicle crash avoidance systems that provide warnings and/or limited automated control of safety functions; (2) V2V communications that support various crash avoidance applications; and (3) self-driving vehicles.

Given the confluence of these three streams of innovation, a fair amount of confusion has developed in making distinctions between different concepts and in finding commonly understood descriptions of categories. NHTSA finds that it is helpful to think of these emerging technologies as part of a continuum of vehicle control automation. The continuum, discussed below, runs from vehicles with no active control systems all the way to full automation and self- driving. While the agency is conducting research along the entire automation continuum, our emphasis initially is on determining whether those crash avoidance and mitigation technologies that are currently available (or soon to be available) are not only safe, but effective.

However, because these same technologies are the building blocks for what may one day lead to a driverless vehicle, we have also begun research focused on safety principles that may apply to even higher levels of automation, such as driver behavior in the context of highly automated vehicle safety systems. At this point, it is too soon to reach conclusions about the feasibility of producing a vehicle that can safely operate in a fully automated (or “driverless”) mode in all driving environments and traffic scenarios. However, by ensuring that our research plan includes the entire automation continuum, the agency strives to remain knowledgeable about the full range of potential benefits and risks of increasing vehicle automation."

The takeaway is as I summarized. The development of V2V and requirement to include this as a phase-in starting in 2020 (although it may be sooner) will precede and hence will be a requirement for autonomous cars. V2V offers a significant safety advantage, (counter to what @johndoe has opined without their having any substantive information). It is a technology which will act separate at first, but then in tandem with autonomous functions. This is why V2V and V2I are being pushed harder right now: it is a building block, as the NHTSA has put it.

Interesting times, no doubt.

mntlvr23 | 06. toukokuu 2017

SbMD +1
Thanks for posting this

SbMD | 06. toukokuu 2017

Gladly, @mntlvr!

Really cool stuff going on, and we are just scratching the surface. It stands to reason, though, that we are already doing some limited V2V and V2I through smartphone apps, based on how they define those concepts.

johndoeeyed | 06. toukokuu 2017

@SbMD
Your supplied quote says nothing about a requirement at all. You made that up in your 'takeaway'.
1) Please supply a quote which says V2V is a REQUIREMENT
2) Please post "Tesla will not release level 5 autonomous cars unless it has V2V communications"
PS:
I note that you did not post "Tesla will not release level 5 autonomous cars unless it has V2V communications" as requested. It seems you do not actually believe V2V is a requirement at all.

RedShift | 06. toukokuu 2017

@doe

"That's what brake lights and indicators are for. It is what humans use."

Dickhead, read what I wrote again. I call v2v a 'safety net'. It's a system that is used as a safety net should a brake light or indicator not be seen or malfunction. Besides, it can be used to communicate the intent ahead of time, potentially making for safer and smoother driving.

johndoeeyed | 06. toukokuu 2017

@RedShift
Brake lights and indicators should be used ahead of time. It is how I use them.

I repeat:
1) Please supply a quote which says V2V is a REQUIREMENT
2) Please post "Tesla will not release level 5 autonomous cars unless it has V2V communications"
PS:
I note that you did not post "Tesla will not release level 5 autonomous cars unless it has V2V communications" as requested. It seems you do not actually believe V2V is a requirement at all.

johndoeeyed | 06. toukokuu 2017

PS:
A safety net may, or may not, be required.
A requirement is required.

SbMD | 06. toukokuu 2017

@johndoe - It's all in black and white. Just read. Can't spoon feed you any more. Maybe its time for you to move on to something easier and thus more your speed. Not trying to flame you, but just being forthcoming. It is just going to be frustrating for you to try and keep up.

johndoeeyed | 06. toukokuu 2017

@SbMD
I have read your quote. There is nothing at all about any requirement in it.
Nothing at all.
You simply made it up.

PS:
It would be really easy for you to quote a word, or a sentence, which does say there is a requirement. Simple as. You don't do it because there is no such thing in your quote.

PPS:
I note that you still have not posted:
"Tesla will not release level 5 autonomous cars unless it has V2V communications"
i.e. you do not believe yourself that there is a requirement.

My original sentence, which you said was incorrect, remains correct, and you are wrong:
"They are more of an optional, but beneficial, extra rather than a requirement."

RedShift | 06. toukokuu 2017

@johndoe

Dumbo,

You cannot use brake lights without actually braking. If you let another car know you are going to brake or slow down ahead of time, the other cars can adjust accordingly. Slowing down can be communicated ahead of time especially since it might not involve braking. Turning can be indicated the same way, ahead of time when you put on the blinker. It's a no brainer. When turning to avpod a car that's indicated it is turning, another car in an adjacent lane can also adjust accordingly to make room for the car that's trying to avoid a car that was slowing down to turn, ahead of it. A mesh network that emerges and disappears as required.

You just want to argue to show you are more intelligent than me? Go ahead, make yourself look more and more sorry!

Bighorn | 06. toukokuu 2017

jd needs to get up to speed on:

effect vs affect
It's vs Its
less vs fewer

Doesn't realize you need the basics before you can move on to high school level stuff.

johndoeeyed | 06. toukokuu 2017

@RedShift
You said "You cannot use brake lights without actually braking."
Yes you can. The activation of the brake lights can be independent of the brakes.
In fact, this is what Tesla already does with their regenerative braking.

Why did you talk about turning indicators as if I didn't understand?
It is exacty what I said when I posted:
"That's what brake lights and indicators are for. It is what humans use."

In summary:
Brake lights and turning indicators can be used BEFORE braking and turning, to tell another vehicles of your intent, without V2V communications.

SbMD | 07. toukokuu 2017

@redshift + 1
@BH + 1

J.T. | 07. toukokuu 2017

@jd>>>>You said "You cannot use brake lights without actually braking."
Yes you can. The activation of the brake lights can be independent of the brakes.
In fact, this is what Tesla already does with their regenerative braking.

Here's one of your problems: you are so wrapped up in being pedantic you stop yourself from understanding.

When RS sid that you cannot use the brake lights without braking it's clear to everyone but you that every time the brake lights come on it's because the car is slowing down. EVERY TIME. There is no way to have the brake lights illuminate without the car slowing down.

bp | 07. toukokuu 2017

If V2V/V2I is required to received FSD approval and Tesla hasn't provided for an upgrade to add that capability to AP2 cars, then Tesla's claim that "all Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability" will not be fulfilled.

While the ability to have 360 degree cameras and front-facing radar should provide improved visual data over human vision, humans don't relay 100% on vision while driving - there are also audio queues, such as sirens, police whistles, train/vehicle horns, ... that provide additional information that won't be detected by Tesla Vision. V2V/V2I would help replace some, but not all of these.

Is the internal microphone sensitive enough to detect outside audio signals for alerting the software on potential issues? Or in addition to adding V2V/V2I to AP2 cars (if needed for FSD regulatory approval), will Tesla also need to add an external microphone?

SbMD | 07. toukokuu 2017

According to the documents which outline different means and hardware for communication, it would appear that the hardware for communication is present in the cars already. Software can be pushed to use the hardware for V2V/V2I.
Tesla has also maintained that they have developed cars to be a connected fleet, so it would follow that appropriate V2V/V2I hardware is already present.

johndoeeyed | 07. toukokuu 2017

@J.T.
You said "...every time the brake lights come on it's because the car is slowing down. EVERY TIME."
Nope.
I apply my brake lights without using them to brake, in order to cause the brake lights to come on and warn the driver behind. Try it on your own car.
Besides that, there is no reason why an autonomous car cannot light the brake lights without barking.

johndoeeyed | 07. toukokuu 2017

@SbMD
You still have not posted "Tesla will not release level 5 autonomous cars unless it has V2V communications"
i.e. you are arguing a position you do not actually believe in

johndoeeyed | 07. toukokuu 2017

@J.T.
Try this experiment.
At night, reverse down a slope, without using the accelerator.
Slowly apply the brakes, until you see the brake lights come on.
If your car is like cars I have owned, it WILL NOT slow down.
I do this all the time when reversing my trailer down my driveway at night.
I also do it when I see a potential situation requiring braking ahead, in order to warn the following driver BEFORE I actually need to brake.

Bighorn | 07. toukokuu 2017

I don't tow a boat with my Model S, so have never tried coasting backwards down a slope to a trailer trying to illuminate my brake lights without slowing down. If that's not the craziest "exception to the rule" ever--an unproved possibility, since apparently nobody has done it in a Tesla. In any event, if you have your foot on the brake of a Tesla with forward momentum, you are slowing down. Probably rather quickly since it's additive to the regenerative braking. When is pedantry trollism?

RedShift | 07. toukokuu 2017

@bh

'Why the pedantry trollism'?

To prove he is an intellectual to the forum members. That's the core of all his problems.

@doe

Another use case (among many) is the car that is entering a freeway from an on ramp below the freeway. If it can warn other cars, they might get out of its way before it appears visually, just about to enter the freeway.

Regarding braking argument : whether it is regenerative braking, or normal, is irrelevant. If you can have a *safety net* (again, repeated for the nth time, for your thick skull to comprehend) that works as a second layer of warning system, you'd think it would be a good thing to have. Especially since FSD is a new technology with many unforeseen conditions for which the hardware and software aren't yet fully primed and tested.

johndoeeyed | 07. toukokuu 2017

@Bighorn
Since you accept it is an '"exception to the rule" then J.T.s "EVERY TIME." was false.
PS: It was not an exception. I also described how I do it in normal driving as well.
PPS: Not only do you not know if "nobody has done it in a Tesla", it is irrelevant.
PPPS: Whether it happens now does not preclude it being done in the future.

johndoeeyed | 07. toukokuu 2017

@RedShift
You said "To prove he is an intellectual to the forum members."
Nope. To show that my original statement was correct. If you have not noticed, I made the original statement "They are more of an optional, but beneficial, extra rather than a requirement." which SbMD said was incorrect. I also originally said "That's what brake lights and indicators are for. It is what humans use." which J.T. and Bighorn have contradicted. My statements are correct. If you are going to chastise anyone for debating, then chastise SbMD, J.T. and Bighorn.

johndoeeyed | 07. toukokuu 2017

@RedShift
Please refer to my original statement:
"They are more of an OPTIONAL, but BENEFICIAL, extra rather than a REQUIREMENT."
Nothing you posted says that it is a requirement.
PS:
Please bother to read the entire thread.
Your point about a safety net has already been specifically addressed, and debunked.

Bighorn | 07. toukokuu 2017

I don't accept it as an exception to the rule. Nobody has provided any evidence that it happens the way you postulate. Arguing the exception to the rule, rather than the facts of the matter, constitutes pedantry. That is all.

johndoeeyed | 07. toukokuu 2017

@Bighorn
Try it for yourself and you will likely have the evidence.
Once again, it is not an exception since I also stated that I do it in normal driving as well.
PS: Please read my posts properly.

Bighorn | 07. toukokuu 2017

I may well do that experiment, but since you purportedly own a Model X, your evidence should suffice. Why don't you have any supporting evidence? It's an exception for anyone with a Tesla who doesn't pull a trailer which Is the norm. Even you apparently haven't done it and you are several standard deviations from the norm.

johndoeeyed | 07. toukokuu 2017

@Bighorn
I tow a trailer with a Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV.
As I previously posted "I do this all the time when reversing my trailer down my driveway at night."
PS: I repeat, please read my posts properly.

mntlvr23 | 07. toukokuu 2017

@bbOtin -
How many hours do you spend each day on the Tesla forums - on average ?
Just curious

RedShift | 07. toukokuu 2017

@doe

Have you proven that v2v communication is not a safety net? No, all you have done is provide a wild argument that YOU (and you are a complete outlier) use YOIR brakes in such a manner as to warn others that you are going to brake.

I have provided many examples of lane changes, other cars accommodating a maneuver, on ramp car entry, and there could be many more examples given. Your bleating repeatedly that we should try some cockamamie experiment backing down a slope to test your theory is frankly psychobabble.

johndoeeyed | 07. toukokuu 2017

@RedShift
Please read all my posts on this thread, since it appears you still have not bothered.
But in case you still will not do so, I earlier posted:
A safety net may, or may not, be required.
A requirement is required.
PS:
Once again:
"They are more of an OPTIONAL, but BENEFICIAL, extra rather than a REQUIREMENT."
Nothing you posted says that it is a requirement.

RedShift | 07. toukokuu 2017

It might be a deal breaker for many not to have this feature. It is a natural extension of the FSD. It provides an additional layer of protection. IOW, in your mind it is not a requirement, but from automakers' POV, it might as well be mandatory. Like knee airbags. Or emergency braking. While I have said the same thing : it's a safety net. You tried to argue that it isn't required because brake lights are sufficient to be lit ahead of time to show slowing down. I provided several more examples where v2v might be very useful. All building up to my case why this could be considered a must-have type of feature. You failed to provide any arguments to the contrary, other than that backing down a slope whacky scenario.

Do you understand now, or do I have to repeat this again, like you do with your trolls thread. Is emergency braking REQUIRED? Is a knee airbag REQUIRED? No, but in order to compete, they are required, and not optional for a vehicle nowadays. Same is the case for v2v, otherwise there wouldn't be the kind of investment into it.

I feel like I'm arguing fruitlessly here, but this was my last try. Continue denial as per usual mr doe.

Pages