Following news that California has legalized autonomous cars, the legendary ex-BMW design chief Chris Bangle shares his thoughts on what's next for auto design.
Posted 09.27.2012 at 8:00 am
22 Comments
Chris Bangle
Wikimedia Commons/Jean-Baptiste LABRUNE
Car designer Chris Bangle has spent years designing forward-thinking vehicles, so now, with self-driving cars just legalized in California, we decided to pick his brain on what's next for the automobile that no longer needs its master.
Today's self-driving cars mostly look like the human-commanded variety; they just act automatically. But as they become more viable for mass consumption--by 2020, Bangle believes--they'll need to be streamlined. Here are some thoughts assembled from Chris Bangle Associates S.R.L. about what the car--if there is a "car"--might look like when it's ubiquitous, in 2050.
Personal Emotional Mobilty in 2050 from Chris Bangle Associates S.R.L. on Vimeo.
There are three main categories that a discussion about self-driving cars can fit into, Bangle says.
YOU INSIDE OF CARS
It's the future. All that stuff in your car's cabin? You'd think we wouldn't need it, freeing us from the tyranny of the steering wheel forever. Theoretically, Bangle says, seating position could change several ways, making it closer to the way a bus is designed, for instance. But that doesn't necessarily mean everything we associate with driving will be done away with. As an example: "Do you have to wear seatbelts in a taxi? Yes. Do you drive the taxi? No."
There's also the matter of how far into the future we're talking about. A still-drivable self-driving car--in other words, one that functions both ways--might act as a stopgap toward a full-fledged driverless vehicle, but in the meantime, designers won't be taking anything out that's necessary for traditional driving.
CARS RELATIVE TO CARS
Self-driving cars (fully self-driving ones, since we've made that distinction) might not rely as heavily on "optical signals," Bangle says. Headlights, brake lights, other forms of automatic communication--those were created for humans, and if the humans deem them unnecessary, we might go without.
Bangle also points to the so-called "invisible Mercedes," which uses LED lights to blend into its environment. If we're not there to cause the accidents between cars, and if the cars can handle the driving on their own, why not put the cars out of our vision entirely?
CARS AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Some of this category ties into our already-changing attitudes about cars. Younger demographics are less interested in cars, Bangle points out. If we make those cars self-driving, they might be seen by consumers as the same as an automated taxi, even if they own the deeds to those taxis. If that happens, we might want something else out of our cars: we don't care what a taxi looks like, after all, so maybe a point-a-to-point-b machine would be enough. Ownership in general gets "put into question" with self-driving cars, he says: what does a parking space mean when the car parks itself?
As Bangle sees it, that mindset might also have effects in advertising. Maybe car owners could earn money for featuring a company's logo. When we're not in control of cars, our sense of ownership could dwindle, at least psychologically. If that happens, we might be more open to using them for advertisements.
Those shifting attitudes don't make Bangle particular upset. The field could use "some new references," he says. "I think self-driving cars can do that. They'll make us think again."
Want to keep track of the latest concept cars, automotive innovations, and more? Subscribe to Popular Science today, for less than $1 per issue!
22 Comments
To comment, please Login.
Popular Tags
Cars on Popular Science
140 years of Popular Science at your fingertips.
Innovation Challenges
Popular Science+ For iPad
Each issue has been completely reimagined for your iPad. See our amazing new vision for magazines that goes far beyond the printed page
Download Our App
Stay up to date on the latest news of the future of science and technology from your iPhone or Android phone with full articles, images and offline viewing
Follow Us On Twitter
Featuring every article from the magazine and website, plus links from around the Web. Also see our PopSci DIY feed
February 2013: How To Build A Hero
Engineers are racing to build robots that can take the place of rescuers. That story, plus a city that storms can't break and how having fun could lead to breakthrough science.
Also! A leech detective, the solution to America's train-crash problems, the world's fastest baby carriage, and more.
Popular on Popsci
Most Commented
Most Emailed
Online Content Director: Suzanne LaBarre | Email
Senior Editor: Paul Adams | Email
Associate Editor: Dan Nosowitz | Email
Contributing Writers:
Clay Dillow | Email
Rebecca Boyle | Email
Colin Lecher | Email
Emily Elert | Email
Intern:
Shaunacy Ferro | Email
Today on PopSci.com
Copyright © 2012 Popular Science
A Bonnier Corporation Company. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
This would be great... for cities. THink of functionality OFF-road. This would suck if you are a working type. A driverless pickup isn't exactly useful in the sense that the driver is able to get WORK done.
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
Mark Twain
Idiotic statement about brake lights which if even ONE car is on the road that's not driven by itself then brake lights are necessary to avoid THAT car from hitting the cars in front controlled by computers. Silly idea that would be a century or more off in the future.
"If we're not there to cause the accidents between cars, and if the cars can handle the driving on their own, why not put the cars out of our vision entirely?"
Really? This guy is an expert? What if a pedestrian needs to cross the road? Besides, there will always be people who want to drive manually or take their motorcycle for a spin, and we know motorcycles aren't going away. The insurance companies would have a fit.
What a nut. We aren't ever going to allow fully-automated cars to totally exclude all non-automated forms of travel. Everyone on bicycles or motorcycles or even pedestrians will need to be able to see all cars' brake lights and turn signals and backup lights and headlights at night. And of course we need to be able to see the cars themselves, an invisible car would be constantly having to slow down and avoid people and animals that didn't see it.
The next question is: If you had an invisible car, would you let it drive you to work and park like normal, or would you have it drop you off at the office front door and then drive itself home so you could avoid having to park at all? You could just call it up on your cell phone when you wanted to be picked up. Would parking spaces become obsolete? Of course then traffic congestion during rush hour would become multiplied by passengerless cars, and the offloading and reloading process would be like the long line of taxis at the airport.
I must have invisibility on the brain. I meant "If you had an automated car". Der
Hey, we don't blame you, invisibility is epic
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
Mark Twain
(1) Cars that don't need drivers will still need to be driveable - off road (like parking it on the lawn to wash). There will always need to be a way to manually tell a car where to be (even if it looks more like an Xbox controller than a steering wheel).
(2) Clearly, cities need these more than the country, and the country won't be adopting them swiftly (I still regularly see cars from the 80's on the road and I only own vehicles from the 90's). It will take even a complete adoption decades before older vehicles leave the roads.
Who wouldn't want invisibility? Invisibility would be nice if you were doing something illegal or wanting to avoid someone but, not a good idea while driving. A little too dangerous to pedestrians, bicyclers, and animals. That goes for the brake lights too.
Obviously these cars would not be suited to every scenario.
Obviously an invisible fleet of automated cars with no optical signals (wouldn't be very invisible otherwise) cannot operate in the same space as pedestrians.
So it depends on how and where you use them.
Quite frankly, I think the movie I, Robot got autonomous/futuristic cars right. The cars were built much like today but with a few exceptions:
1. Autonomous city driving. When in Chicago (and presumably elsewhere), the cars were able to drive themselves at high-speed without incident. If someone wanted to drive manually however, you just press a button and the steering wheel slides out.
2. Ball wheels. While normal cars have issues with doing anything more than going in a straight line, the cars in the movie had spherical wheels which would allow the car to among other things, drive sideways.
Cars weren't invisible, they still had lights, etc.
In the future, people will still need to manually operate vehicles at times so even decades from now, to "drive" a car, you'll still probably need a license to operate a vehicle. Electronics are finicky to say the least and while thus far we haven't had incident with them, consider machines are dumb and there will be times where people need to drive manually, let alone if you drive off-road or wish to make some sort of custom maneuver.
Now in another century will you need a license? I don't know. At that point, technology may have just advanced to be better at driving under all circumstances than humans and if that's the case then there shouldn't be any need for a license provided you are driving an autonomous car (there will ALWAYS be manually-enabled vehicles so you'd still need a license for those depending on the circumstances).
I wish to automate and upgrade my life style in such a matter, I just stay home, no car necessary. If I must leave, I will wear my 3D glasses and go their virtually. Now that is safety.
Oh Matrix, where are though and how do I get plugged in?
I wish to automate and upgrade my life style in such a matter, I just stay home, no car necessary. If I must leave, I will wear my 3D glasses and go their virtually. Now that is safety.
Oh Matrix, where are though and how do I get plugged in?
Must of mouse click stuttered..... sorry.
Volt, I am in complete agreement. I say that this full automatic driving would be great for taxi services and bus services, while actual cars should have a more complex version of cruise control. Especially on highways, think of the congestion solutions this would bring on I-95 or such. Way better for cities and for highways, and have the partial to nil autonomy in the working fields.
And Oakspar, did you even read my first post...?
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
Mark Twain
You can keep the invisible cars the hell out of my way in the passing lane, please. California is a bunch of freaking idiots for pulling this UNPROVEN technology out on the public, especially in our current glut of new and used cars and trashed economy. They justify by saying that they have 300,000 miles of road test data. I dispute the veracity of their bs fact with the submission that most of those miles are on unused roads, with planted traffic by informed test drivers, and with very limited obstacles or conditions present. The Governor, a Senator, and a Google exec rode in to announce their bs with 'proof' of their autonomous control requirement being the ability to slalom a bit and brake and shut down in an expansive empty parking lot. When this is instituted now, it IS saying that ALL OTHERS will be paying higher rates for insurance and damages, to cover for unproven technology being operated by people who are more wealthy. IF I'm lying, then why don't those 3 executives try the run from North Highlands into Sacramento on an average day's evening rush peak? THAT is proof, all else is BS.
One problem that I see that is enormous is hacking. Will there be protection against hackers gaining control of your car? If it has a connection via satellite, internet, etc it IS at risk for hacking.
lol, yeah.
Hacked auto-drive = HAL + Maximum Overdrive
..and that's all I have to say about that.....
You cant think of this in the mindset of our human limitations. Autonomous vehicles (AVs) would have the advantage of computer controlled everything. Meaning congestion would be nil since every AV would be tracked by the traffic control portion of the system. When you tell the AV where you wanna go and when you need to be there, it knows where every other AV in the system already is. Even the ones that are parked. It will select the appropriate route with that data in "mind". Think of it as a internet with each AV being a packet of data that needs to reach a destination. For example if i tell the AV i want to reach a certain destination thats 15 miles away in ten minutes, there will be countless less urgent AVs along my route that can be redirected so that my AV can reach its destination on time. AVs can be routed and rerouted as the situation calls. But... If your the type of person that always needs to be somewhere asap well... thats where the AV autonet cops come in lol! Think "the boy who cried wolf!" As for avoiding pedestrians and other forms of human controlled vehicles (HCVs), a whole new infrastructure would need to be created so that the two simply would not mix. Such as special lanes inaccessible to HCVs in the same way that railroad tracks are not usually accessed by bikes and pedestrians. There are many safe ways i can think of to cross these AV only lanes or "throughways" even if the AVs were completely invisible. It would definately clean up the look of a city and yes, you can still drive a conventional "car" on conventional roads and streets if you wish. Its just that there wouldnt be nearly as many out there since only "classic" enthusiasts and those who would rather drive their own would be left. The AVs can simply turn off stealth (invisiblitly) mode when it needs to interact with HCVs. Otherwise, they could be zooming along at many times speeds we wouldnt dream of today further reducing travel time and congestion. I think a comprehensive, well thought out system would relieve congestion, enhance appearance, and make the roads much safer for both AVs and HCVs. Can't wait!
Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.
Self driving cars will always be idiotic if you ask me.
Why?
Who do you blame if your computer ends up speeding and the cop pulls you over? Does your car get the ticket? The laws says the driver does. But the computer program is the driver--so do we ticket the software riders?
Who do you blame in a mutli-car pileup that is caused by a driver less vehicle? Does everyone sue the owner or the computer chip or the occupants which might be all children since the car drives itself and dad programmed it to go to the swimming meet (as an example). Do you ticket dad? Is dad in trouble for violating laws for children occupying a car without an adult? Is the computer considere and adult since it's the driver?
You can play a lot of mind game with this and the ultimate result is that lawyers will richer and drivers will get poorer.
Excuse me, that's owners will get poorer.
Who gets thrown in jail when a driver less car hits a pedestrian because there was snow on the sensors and it couldn't 'see or sense' the pedestrian? Is the owner liable or the driver less car programmer? Or the manufacturer of the sensor?
On and on this goes and the trouble it causes knows no ends.
I've been a reader for a long time and followed many articles. Almost always, I've been able to agree with the comments... but I feel like most of the replies have been from the standpoint of those unwilling and stubborn to change. The autonomous vehicle will be one of the most significant developments in technology to happen in our time! Sure, vehicles have grown and changed over the years to reach the point we're at now, but it seems like a plateau of development and ideas. Taking the next big step into the evolution of transport is one of few options we have. I'd like to try and break down the changes society will have to embrace and accept in order for a better tomorrow.
First, automated travel. Link into the network, become part of the system. GGenua nailed it, basically. Once everyone begins to transition (whether through necessity, incentives, or enticing deals), then the system will grow and flourish. Travel will become faster and more efficient. A way to stop automated "pick-me-up" calls should be similar to HOV lanes. Specify a lane for driverless cars to stack up in.
Second, the invisibility idea. We could adopt the LED invisibility plan and make cars less noticeable. During this rehaul of the vehicle industry, make it a point to close off roadways and interstates to pedestrians. Seal these in with barriers or large walls. Create bridges, tunnels, or alternate routes for pedestrians and bicyclists. There are tons of ways to solve this problem without the need for burning a good idea at the stake. If you are so worried about sensors and automated systems not registering a person, then change the pedestrian laws. In Alaska, pedestrians do not have the right of way simply because it is easier for someone to stop walking than it is for a car to brake on ice. There are ways to make this a possibility! Also, for a potential other method, we could try monitors in place of windshields and windows. A way for us to mask the exterior as whatever we so choose, or to simply act as a HUD. The possibilities are endless.
I like GGenua's idea for speeding. Allow emergency trips as an option, but at the risk of being pulled over. If it was truly an emergency, reason should suffice for the law enforcement to assist you without penalty. If you were cheating the system, as many probably will, then let there be punishment.
I agree with the idea of a controller for the vehicle for non-standard purposes, such as parking on the lawn or whatever. The controls should be limited by range or speed so nobody attempts RC racing at ludicrous levels.
To touch on the most sensitive subject, I'll hit on non-automated travel. It's not fair. Placing user error into the equation will never coincide well with the computer. Users will dominate like a match of Counterstrike versus bots. If you know the quirks of the system, you can brutally punish them. There would need to be specific lanes for driver-operated vehicles, with special guidelines near intersections or exits and entrances that allow drivers to cooperate with autonomous vehicles. Maybe even separate roadways to allow for a full transition decade. Eventually, everyone should have affordable and rewarded access to these autonomous vehicles. To ensure driver dependent vehicles don't enter autonomous systems, they could instate a toll booth that acts solely to allow or deny entry based off system inclusion. A non-autonomous car will not be in the system, so no entry allowed.
In the meantime, all our previous and unused roads could be free for motorcyclists and classic car drivers to enjoy!
I'm sure there are flaws in my understanding of this, but I firmly believe it's a change that has to be accepted. If we, the intellectually driven and inspired people of our world, do not take interest or action in this... it may well become similar to Mars. A dream so distant that we've let progress come to a near halt. Don't shoot down ideas, improve them and help make them a reality so we aren't stuck in the same old place 20-50-100 years from now.
Oh, I see. This is an old article... stumbled across it on the front page of the Cars section and deemed it new! Forgive my resurrection :P