There鈥檚 an enormous amount of talk these days about driverless cars. Uber, the company that seeks to put taxis out of business around the world, launched its driverless car fleet in Pittsburgh recently.
Pittsburgh, one of North America鈥檚 oldest cities, has a road network that apparently is 鈥渙rganic鈥� in nature, similar to European cities. Straight lines that make sense aren鈥檛 that common, so the thinking is that if an Uber driverless car can make it in Pittsburgh, it can make it anywhere.
I took a good look at one of these cars online, a converted Ford Fusion whose roof is festooned with more sensors than either the USS Enterprise of Star Trek fame (fantasy), or a main battle tank like the M1A2 Abrams (reality).
The purpose of these sensors in the driverless car is to ensure the car does not go splat, or cause any humans around it (and their vehicles) to go splat, either. I count at least six forward facing lenses, a LIDAR (laser radar) spinning on the top and numerous radar sensors. The robotic brain of this car has more knowledge of its immediate surroundings than any tank commander could ever dream of.
That鈥檚 all well and good, but there鈥檚 obviously a reason for this. No one sensor system is infallible, and thus the combination is required for safe operation.
I don鈥檛 know what Baltimore鈥檚 bug situation is like. Perhaps they don鈥檛 have a lot of mosquitoes and dragonflies eating them. But it鈥檚 evident the designers have never been to Manitoba.
Ah, yes, Manitoba, the province where humans exist to feed bugs. The capital, Winnipeg, puts out mosquito counts like Alberta follows the price of oil. Some evenings while driving Manitoba highways, I鈥檝e had to pull over and use a squeegee to scrub, and I mean SCRUB, the windshield. That鈥檚 because no amount of spitter juice and windshield wiper action will clean my primary sensor device 鈥� the forward-looking windshield through which my Mark I eyeball scans.
I鈥檝e heard of entomologists who have studied bugs by examining their splattered remains on the bumpers of semis at truck stops. Oh, look, Mary! There鈥檚 a juicy one! I wonder what genus it is?
The Uber cars don鈥檛 appear to have integrated windshield wipers on their numerous forward lenses. Perhaps they have a spraying apparatus that is supposed to wash the bugs away. No matter what it is, you can rest assured, it won鈥檛 work.
As a photographer, I have to keep constant vigil to ensure my lenses are clean at all times. One speck of dust, at high aperture settings, will show up like globules floating in space, or on a wedding dress. That鈥檚 just physics, and there鈥檚 not much you can do about that. My application is just making nice pictures, not integral to the decision making process of driving into a deer or child on their tricycle.
So what good are optical sensors if bug splatter will defeat them in short order? If you are operating a driverless semi, who cleans the lenses of the optical sensors for bugs? If it is a human, why don鈥檛 you just let them drive? How often are you going to do it? And if their sole purpose is to clean bugs, that seems like a bit of overkill, wouldn鈥檛 you say? Hi, my name is Bubba, and I don鈥檛 drive the truck, I just clean the bugs.
But it won鈥檛 take total coverage of bug guts to defeat an optical sensor. It just takes one. A bumblebee or dragonfly will give that sensor huge blind spots. Multiple sensors, meant to provide the robotic brain with depth perception via stereoscopic imaging, are useless as soon as one has a black eye, or should I say bug eye. Similarly, LIDAR, a spectacular technology, is a pathetic lump if a beetle blocks its laser.
I didn鈥檛 even get into bad weather 鈥� fog, rain, freezing rain, ice pellets and snow.
Until they鈥檝e solved the bug problem, don鈥檛 expect too much of driverless cars.
Brian Zinchuk is editor of Pipeline News. He can be reached at [email protected].
