|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
CES 2016 TomTom launch Highly Automated Driving HAD maps
Article by: Darren Griffin
Date: 7 Jan 2016
TomTom yesterday announced the launch of Highly Automated Driving (HAD) maps for all Californian interstate roads and for all interstates and freeways in Michigan.
The two states are already being used as testing grounds for driverless cars and TomTom believe the release of this map data for the two states will bring driverless cars closer to reality.
Harold Goddijn, CEO at TomTom said "TomTom is more excited than ever about the prospect of partnering with members of the HAD ecosystem to expedite the innovation that will transform the automotive industry and the way we drive."
HAD maps provide a high accuracy 3D road edge to road edge model of the road. Coupled with TomTom RoadDNA data which delivers a pattern based localisation solution a vehicle will know its precise position even whilst travelling at high speed or when changes occur to the road.
The TomTom HAD map of California covers 12,000 kilometres of interstate and the Michigan HAD map covers 13,000 kilometres or interstate and highway.
Source: TomTom.com
| | |  |
| Comments
|
 Posted by IanS100 on Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:34 pm |
 |
From my experience of TomTom products over the last 10 years, and their TomTom Go app in particular, I'm not sure I'd want to entrust a driverless car to their data 
Galaxy Note 4 / TomTom GO : CamerAlert : CoPilot |
|
| Posted by Snudge on Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:22 pm |
|
Driverless cars are not going to happen just as pilotless planes didn't happen - just because the technology exists doesn't mean people want it.
|
|
| Posted by taits on Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:57 pm |
|
Should any type of some accident happen and in reality no matter who who actually be the blame, Attorneys will have a field day going for ehomever has the deep pockets. New area of law brings about many blunders in law.
Personally I wouldn't trust them, & would prefer my own skills over a 'computer'.
|
|
| Posted by JimmyTheHand on Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:19 pm |
|
| taits Wrote: | | Personally I wouldn't trust them, & would prefer my own skills over a 'computer'. |
It isn't the computer I don't trust - it is the companies that build cars and if they are going to be too cheap to fix an ignition switch ( gm ignition nightmare ) they aren't going to do software properly
Personally I'd be very happy for the car, once it is capable of it, to take over driving during the stop go traffic during tke commute to work
J. |
|
| Posted by taits on Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:33 pm |
|
Yea those switches are still a prob. Airbags is a big one too.
But thiose flaws have cropped up form most at one time or another somewhere.
Computers=GIGO, garbage in garbage out. I don't think the programmers can or will think of every 'what if'.
|
|
| Posted by K13ehr on Sat Jan 09, 2016 6:08 am |
|
The only use I can see for this tech is in military vehicles, where in the event of a total terrorist or other invasion, the military could just set it up and let it go, and kill anything it sees.
I wonder what map data they have for ISIS controlled areas.
|
|
| Posted by M8TJT on Sat Jan 09, 2016 8:30 am |
|
| K13ehr Wrote: | | I wonder what map data they have for ISIS controlled areas. |
Probably better than the GB ones.
|
|
| Posted by taits on Sat Jan 09, 2016 12:46 pm |
|
I agree on the Military use aspect, as with drones. Yet they (govt) say they want to win that war, yet the US needs to ask before they shoot in many incidents ...you can't win doing that.
They know there they are, so take them out, lock stock and barrel as it were. Yet thay do not.
Clean house.
Those convoys they always show. Why are they there, alive?
Remotes, unmanned & self driving vehicles have a place, just not on the city streets, highways and byways.
|
|
| Posted by JimmyTheHand on Sat Jan 09, 2016 2:45 pm |
|
| taits Wrote: | Yea those switches are still a prob. Airbags is a big one too.
But thiose flaws have cropped up form most at one time or another somewhere. |
It is more the management response I worry about than the initial problems
| taits Wrote: | | Computers=GIGO, garbage in garbage out. I don't think the programmers can or will think of every 'what if'. |
Control system for cars is going to be very much different to that of more traditional software - you are moving into more machine learning/AI and while there will be flaws there are huge flaws in humans for driving - .e.g. Our eyes were not designed for driving and impatience as most self driving car accidents appear other drivers rear ending them, probably because the cars tend to act safe and go slow when they are unsure what is happening.
Seeing how things have changed in last few decades - I have no doubt, if things keep progressing, most cars will be driving themselves sometime in the next few decades and no one will think twice about it
J. |
|
| Posted by taits on Sat Jan 09, 2016 3:24 pm |
|
With that in mind, some interesting items at CES about all this.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
