This is an important step, although I must say they appear to be far behind Google. My money is on Google getting to an acceptable deployment phase far earlier.
I'm excited to see more "in the wild" units - more competition and innovation is always a good thing.
"The self-driving algorithms do not work because there has been some breakthrough in artificial intelligence; they run on maps. Every road that Google’s robo-cars drive on was first surveyed by a human-driven pilot car outfitted with sensors accurate enough to measure the thickness of the painted lines in the middle of the road. Every detail of the road has been mapped beforehand. According to Peter Norvig, Google’s head of research, it’s a hard problem for computer vision and artificial intelligence to pick a traffic light out of a scene and determine if it is red, yellow or green. But it is trivially easy to recognize the color of a traffic light that you already know is there."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/magazine/googles-plan-for-...
I may be reading too much into this, but when I read "test route" in the article, it gave me the impression that the Volvo approach is sort of like a train without the tracks -- only able to follow a pre-programmed route from point A to point B.
The quote ghaff posted https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7698610 it seems like you are describing Google more than Volvo.
That's not an explanation, it's speculation just like my speculation is.
note the:
Our aim is for the car to be able to handle all possible traffic scenarios by itself, including leaving the traffic flow and finding a safe ‘harbour’ if the driver for any reason is unable to regain control,” explains Erik Coelingh, Technical Specialist at Volvo Car Group.
Plus the goals listed.
Volvo did do a land-train style project called SARTRE http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1072088_sartre-self-drivi...
Plus, every time the automatic car goes over the road, it's presumably checking its prior maps and flagging any anomalies from its preset mission. It still needs to recognize a new stop sign, but if a stop sign disappears, it will stop anyway while waiting for an answer on "was it was taken out on purpose, or did some kids steal it?".
So basically they're testing under the 'worst' circumstances, making it likely that it will perform well on 'easy' routes as well. This approach makes sense - what good is it to clock 1000's of kms of test drives on straight roads with no traffic and in broad daylight?
However, one major traffic simplification in Europe is that there is no such insanity as "go ahead and turn right even when the light is red -- and run over crossing pedestrians unless they back off."
Google appears to be making an advanced and expensive solution to "full" autonomous driving. The limitation will not be in where it can go, but it is initially limited in weather/environmental conditions. The target audience is likely not production cars in the short term, but a system like theirs can for example make their street view photography cars autonomous: they can work in summer, stop if it rains, and it doesn't matter too much if they cost twice as much as a regular car. It will of course be a regulation nightmare to allow the driverless cars out in the street though.
Volvo on the other hand will probably try to make a simpler and much less expensive solution that will have to work in rain/darkness/snow, and not add a significant amount to the cost of the car. Clearly that means having other restrictions, presumably in the overall intelligence or in which roads it works on. Volvo's system is likely intended for making day-to-day travel more secure at the lowest cost possible, not for creating completely autonomous navigation and problem solving (e.g. 4 way stop turn-taking). It must work in almost any environmental conditions, but it will probably require a driver at all times, and will almost certainly not work everywhere.
Street View is hopelessly out of date in many places (4 years in some parts of Sydney for example) and it has to be super expensive to keep thousands of people continuously driving around the world. And Street View will likely be a vital and profitable data source if VR/AR (in all its forms) is ever used en masse.
Sounds like too much expense for just that. If the problem of street view was it's cost you could just pay people to add a StreetView system to the roof of their cars and get the data much cheaper than having your own car. They may very well want to start by using Street View to validate the technology but the end-game must be larger.
I think you're underestimating the number of people you'd have to pay to get full coverage of cities. Most people do not drive around on every street in a systematic way; they have a small number of destinations and they usually take the same routes between them every time.
That doesn't mean that once you do have self-driving cars you wouldn't use them for that. Or even that StreetView wouldn't be the first thing you'd use them for, since that's a good way to get more training data for your algorithms. But to suggest they'd go to all the expense of creating self-driving cars to then use them just as a cost saving measure for StreetView sounds strange.
Not unlike the experience for drivers on Lyft and UberX it would be trivial for Google to create a rig and an app. You set the magnetic camera rig on your roof and sign in. It shows you available routes and how much they'll pay for them. The offer increases every so often if nobody selects the route. Done.
Unless I misunderstood the problem.
I've driven a bit around Europe, but I have never seen a single such intersection in my life - if they exist, they must be rare.
Of course, "if you have an intersection of non-priority roads and a car from each direction" then it's the same, but in practice it seems that 'they' make sure that such intersections are only in extremely low-traffic places where you'll very rarely see another car at the same time.
In the countryside you'll often see this warning sign to remind you that "just because your road is bigger and faster than the one you're about to cross doesn't mean you have priority" http://www.transportstyrelsen.se/Vagmarken/Varningsmarken/A2...
In Europe you can have ambiguous situations with the priority to the right, where you are supposed to be courteous and wave the driver if both (or more) have the right of way.
> Vissa korsningar har en stoppskylt vid varje väg, ett så kallat flervägsstopp. Det innebär att alla som kommer till korsningen måste stanna, oavsett vilken väg man kommer på. Tanken är att man vid flervägsstopp ska ta ögonkontakt med medtrafikanter för att på så sätt komma överens om vem som ska köra först.
Or my translation "Certain intersections have a stop sign at every way, a so-called multi-way stop. This means that everyone who comes to the intersection must stop, despite which way they come from. The thought is that people at the multi-way stop will make eye contact with their fellow drivers in order to come to an agreement on who shall drive first.
(Apparently the actual law says "ömsesidig hänsyn" - "mutual consideration.")
That said, they aren't anywhere near as common as the US.
If you're more curious, see http://www.trafikverket.se/PageFiles/3038/komplett_slutrappo... , among others. That one talks about how they were tested out during the 1980s, and by 2007 there were a few hundred in the country.
Given the court system, I don't think you could do that in the US.
It's a science experiment.
Well, that's better than most human Volvo drivers can do, by my experience. Whenever I see a car make a bone-headed move in traffic, chances are it's a Volvo.