backtop


Print 55 comment(s) - last by Renski.. on Sep 3 at 4:08 PM

The plan is to make them widely available and affordable by that time

Nissan announced that it will offer autonomous vehicles that will have broad availability and an affordable price by 2020.

Nissan's plan is to deliver several vehicle models with its Autonomous Drive technology by the end of this decade, and Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn will push hard to make sure that goal is met. 

“In 2007 I pledged that – by 2010 – Nissan would mass market a zero-emission vehicle,” Ghosn said. “Today, the Nissan LEAF is the best-selling electric vehicle in history. Now I am committing to be ready to introduce a new ground-breaking technology, Autonomous Drive, by 2020, and we are on track to realize it.”

Nissan is hoping for "availability across the model range within two vehicle generations."

Nissan is already working hard toward its goal. The automaker has been working with several colleges such as MIT, UC Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon, Stanford, Oxford, the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Virginia Tech, and almost every major university in Japan to develop the autonomous technology. 

In addition, Nissan is working on an autonomous vehicle testing facility in Japan, which should be completed next year. 

Back in February, Nissan announced its Silicon Valley research center for autonomous vehicles. The new facility is called the Nissan Research Center Silicon Valley (NRC-SV), and it will use partnerships with educational institutions and companies to work on projects for new vehicle technologies.

Nissan's autonomous vehicle technology will be based off of its current Safety Shield tech, which monitors a 360-degree view around a vehicle for risks and offers warnings to the driver. It will even respond to the situation if necessary. 

We may have to wait until 2020 for Nissan's autonomous vehicles, but in the meantime, the automaker is making strides in the electric vehicle industry. For instance, it announced that it will offer a new battery design for the all-electric Leaf in April 2014 if current testing goes well. The new design aims to help the Leaf's battery from depleting under severe weather conditions (mainly heat). 

Nissan has seen a surge in Leaf sales this year, and updating its battery design can only help its cause. In July, it was reported that Nissan is now selling approximately 2,000 Leaf electric vehicles each month (about four times the volume it was selling about a year ago). To meet this new demand, Nissan is slowly ramping up production of the Leaf at its manufacturing facility in Tennessee.

Source: Nissan News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

No thanks
By FITCamaro on 8/28/2013 3:45:46 PM , Rating: 2
Just bought a 2013 Altima 2.5SV. But I'll remain in control of my destiny thank you.




RE: No thanks
By Samus on 8/28/2013 3:52:10 PM , Rating: 2
How do you like the CVT? Been thinking about a Juke as soon as I can get passed the ugly headlights...


RE: No thanks
By FITCamaro on 8/28/2013 4:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
It's not bad. Deceleration near a stop can give you a slight jerk at times but nothing different than most automatics. Is kinda cool at times to have it go to an RPM and stay there despite that you're still accelerating. I drive it pretty easy and the car is telling me my average is around 37 mpg right now. It's supposed to be about 2 mpg off though so that's 35 mpg. Still pretty damn good for a midsize in a mix of city and highway driving.


RE: No thanks
By drycrust3 on 8/28/2013 6:54:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Deceleration near a stop can give you a slight jerk at times but nothing different than most automatics.

Do you notice something here? The car is starting to take control of your destiny. It is choosing which gear to use, how fast the engine should rev, how much torque the wheels need, etc.
Your next car may well have a built in navigation system, so another step in loosing your independence. The car will decide which way you want to go in places you're not familiar with, and as long as it does an okay job you would probably be oblivious to the fact that it might take you on a certain path to avoid speed cameras or such like. See how subtle loosing your independence is?
Now add to this that you're getting older, insurance premiums are always increasing, congestion charges will probably be introduced in most cities in the world, and the police are becoming more active in looking for road infractions, like driving while intoxicated or driving faster than the speed limit (or at least they are in New Zealand, where I live).
So down the track you will find more and more subtle pressures to encourage you to become more and more dependent on the computers inside your car, like getting hit with speed camera fines when you decide to navigate, and then your insurance premiums get higher because the insurance company has a link to the police computer, etc.


RE: No thanks
By Reclaimer77 on 8/28/2013 7:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
SUCH a jackass...


RE: No thanks
By MichalT on 8/28/2013 7:37:26 PM , Rating: 2
I'd prefer to be automatically chauffeured around so I can focus on things other than the idiots on the road. However, if it excites you to constantly monitor your engine's RPM level, speed, other drivers, speed cameras, etc. please use your brain power for that.

And before I hear any silly comments, I've been driving a stick sports car for more than 20 years. If I have to pay attention to the driving, I'd rather have full control. But I would opt for a Google style auto driving car if that was an option.


RE: No thanks
By Flunk on 8/29/2013 9:31:24 AM , Rating: 2
Be my guest, no one is saying you can't have one. I don't mind if people who don't care about driving have automated cars, assuming that the cars are competent drivers that is. It might even be better than the current situation.

But I'm with them, if anything my next car is going to be less automatic than my current one. Hyundai Genesis R-Spec is looking quite good right now.


RE: No thanks
By cruisin3style on 8/29/2013 2:21:06 PM , Rating: 3
I'm with them, feel free to drive (or ride) in a automated car but I'm driving myself in a stick shift for as long as they make em


RE: No thanks
By Jeffk464 on 8/29/2013 3:17:46 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure you will also be able to override the automation when you end up on an enjoyable road.


RE: No thanks
By siuol11 on 8/29/2013 9:47:46 AM , Rating: 3
No one who wants a Juke should be allowed to drive.


RE: No thanks
By tayb on 8/28/2013 4:06:55 PM , Rating: 3
You'll remain in control of your destiny... on private roads... maybe. Otherwise this is an absolute inevitability and you'll either have to get used to it or... walk?


RE: No thanks
By FITCamaro on 8/28/2013 4:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
Why? Because you say so? Because you think the government can and should force it? They absolutely should not. It's not any of their business how I drive. Federally funded highways you say? Fine, return control to the states. I think they had the authority to build the highways but if the choice is mandatory autonomous vehicles or no funding, I'll take no funding.


RE: No thanks
By tnicks on 8/28/2013 4:33:26 PM , Rating: 2
Until you see what that does to your taxes and then you won't be such a badass anymore. Everyone talks big until it hits their wallet. The states already struggle to keep up on our infrastructure. Unless you somehow drive the unions out of performing the work, the cost will continue to increase and so will the dependency on federal assistance, just as is the trend with most aspects of our society recently.


RE: No thanks
By Reclaimer77 on 8/28/2013 4:54:42 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The states already struggle to keep up on our infrastructure.


No, just the ones who spend money carelessly.

The only problem with the more than adequate state road funds is that they use it as a slush fund for pork barrel projects and NOT the roads exclusively.

All you're doing is advocating for the status quo! We need to stop just accepting this culture of waste, irresponsibility, and corruption in our local and Federal Governments first. THEN we can worry about who's going to pay for things.


RE: No thanks
By tnicks on 8/28/2013 7:08:08 PM , Rating: 2
Trust me, that's the exact opposite of what I try to advocate. The main problem I see is that the nation is always pitted against each other as red vs blue and no one ever realizes the level of waste that is going on. The feds take in something like $4 trillion in tax dollars a year, yet they somehow claim that is not enough and on top of that, debt is increasing at an exponential rate.


RE: No thanks
By tayb on 8/28/2013 6:53:41 PM , Rating: 2
You have no right to drive anything anywhere. Sorry that you think otherwise.

The majority of people will vote to remove drivers from the roads for safety and economic reasons. It's inevitable. When the technology becomes available it is simply a matter of time. It's not if it is when.


RE: No thanks
By Reclaimer77 on 8/28/13, Rating: 0
RE: No thanks
By tnicks on 8/29/2013 12:17:45 AM , Rating: 2
The courts decisions are that you have the right to freely operate and vehicle for the purpose of transportation. There is nothing that states that you have to be manually operating the vehicle for that right to still be granted.

View this in the context of seat belts. Most states require drivers to wear seat belts while operating a vehicle for passenger safety. Vehicles must be inspected and pass safety standards. Lights need to be used at night and in most states when it is raining as well.

There are tons of laws out there that restrict how you operate your vehicle already. So while you are given the right to transport freely in a vehicle, you are restricted in how that is accomplished. It is not a far stretch to see that applying to autonomous vehicles.

Do I think this will happen by 2020? No. Will it happen in my lifetime? Doubtful, but I'd be shocked if it did not eventually happen. The world's population continues to increase, traffic congestion continues to increase and impact not only the global economy but also the ecosystem, technological distractions are increasing, deaths are alarmingly frequent, and the technical ability to eliminate almost all of the negative aspects of human operation is quickly becoming reality. You're delusional if you can't see this is an inevitability.


RE: No thanks
By tnicks on 8/29/2013 12:19:35 AM , Rating: 2
I really should proof read before posting around here...


RE: No thanks
By Samus on 8/29/2013 12:33:42 AM , Rating: 2
You have a lot of faith in the automobile if you believe it will still be around in 100 years!

It's amazing they have lasted this long while progressing so slowly. Automobiles went virtually unchanged from 1900-1950, and they are still the most dangerous method of transportation. Safety has improved, as has reliability, quality, features, efficiency and handling, but aesthetics have always been all over the place, they are still incredibly dangerous to occupants and pedestrians, and cost of ownership has increased by orders of magnitude over the past century...not all of these problems will be solved by autonomous vehicles.

In 100 years, who knows how we'll travel, but it likely wont be in anything that resembles a automobile. I'm thinking tubes...


RE: No thanks
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2013 1:16:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You have a lot of faith in the automobile if you believe it will still be around in 100 years!


Of course it will be, in some form.

In your own words transportation technology is progressing slowly. If you believe we'll all be zipped around in tubes in just two generations, you've been watching too much Futurama.

Plus our entire societal and geo-economic framework is based on cities and communities interconnected by interstates and highways and roads. And certainly will be for quite some time.

Perhaps if we weren't heading for a complete economic debt-fueled collapse there would be a chance the massively expensive undertakings you suggest could take place.


RE: No thanks
By Samus on 8/30/2013 2:47:33 AM , Rating: 2
I was kind of joking about the tubes, but realistically I don't see vehicles being used on roads the way they are now in 2113, driver or driverless. It's going to be a completely different type of vehicle. It could be minority report style, futurama style, or star trek style. Who knows. The difference between cars 100 years ago and cars now is technology. Eventually technology will render cars we know now useless in the same way technology has advanced cars to nearly a dead-end (the final technical step for cars is automation, which apparently will be here in 7 years.)

After cars become automated and are as high-tech as possible, newer transport methods will be the focus. Cars can only get so good before they are antiquated.


RE: No thanks
By Samus on 8/29/2013 12:21:57 AM , Rating: 2
Driving is a right, but like most rights, it can be denied if you violate the law...in the same way felons can't vote or carry a firearm. They are rights given to every citizen, but they can be striped.

Driving is a right that can be striped if you are in violation of the laws that must be adhered to in order to maintain that right. If you acquire too many tickets, drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or commit another crime while driving, the right to drive can be striped.

If you obey the law, you will likely always have the right to drive. I don't think society will ever vote to turn over control of a personal vehicle, essentially a piece of private property, away from the owner to a private computer program or network.

And if things got extreme...and I mean really extreme, and that did happen in the sense the government found a way to outlaw non-government controlled vehicles from federally funded roads, or if major interstates became privatized and banned manual-mode driving, there would be a huge market for private driving roads like the Nuremberg ring or just auto-cross track days.


RE: No thanks
By tayb on 8/29/13, Rating: 0
RE: No thanks
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2013 4:39:55 PM , Rating: 2
You obviously didn't even read the entire link. Not surprising, because it destroys your Socialist argument.

We have a Constitutional right to travel, upheld by the courts. The method of travel is irrelevant. We have an absolute RIGHT to operate motor vehicles.

If you bothered to read, you would see these court cases SPECIFICALLY involved motor vehicles, idiot.

"There is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of another."

The fact that we've accepted illegal infringements on this right, doesn't mean it's no longer a right.


RE: No thanks
By sorry dog on 8/29/2013 5:14:26 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how you feel about other modes of transport.

If I get up on a horse and buggy is that a privilege? .... or do I need a stamp on my horse's ass to prove he doesn't fart too much for global warming.

...and if my horse road legal and should I just choose to use my own two feet in that a privilege as well?

Judging from the number of road side walkers getting questioned by the police as I drive by, I guessing that is probably so.


RE: No thanks
By M'n'M on 8/30/2013 1:20:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I don't need to prove something isn't a right you need to prove it is.

Exactly the type of thinking that worried Madison and why the 9'th Amendment was written.

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.


RE: No thanks
By Jeffk464 on 8/29/2013 3:20:55 PM , Rating: 2
Should do a lot to improve fuel economy to. The only reason we have overpowered cars is for the thrill of the driver.


RE: No thanks
By Reclaimer77 on 8/28/2013 4:24:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You'll remain in control of your destiny... on private roads... maybe. Otherwise this is an absolute inevitability and you'll either have to get used to it or... walk?


Hitler, is that you?


RE: No thanks
By Jeffk464 on 8/29/2013 3:27:35 PM , Rating: 1
The modern highway system was designed under Hitler. Might want to choose another example.


RE: No thanks
By russki on 8/28/2013 4:08:50 PM , Rating: 3
I have a one hour commute one way.
I'd love a car like this as there are so many other things I could do with my time like... make random status updates on facebook that nobody cares about or playing candy crush WITHOUT encroaching on other traffic lanes.


RE: No thanks
By FITCamaro on 8/28/2013 4:10:20 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed. I'm saying I'll never buy one. If you want one though, those who do should have to pay all the costs of implementing them on existing roads. Not the rest of us.


RE: No thanks
By xti on 8/28/2013 4:26:45 PM , Rating: 2
until someone says "automated cars aren't causing safety rails on roads to be dented and is less accident prone, thus we should pay less inspection, taxes, etc"

1 thing is for sure, stick this stuff on big rigs and whatnot. people already know they sleep minimal hours to maximize pay.


RE: No thanks
By bah12 on 8/28/2013 4:44:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
people already know they sleep minimal hours to maximize pay.
That could be the dumbest point of view I've ever heard. There is no driver class more regulated that these guys. Are there bad apples..sure..is it the norm..not by a LOOOOOONG shot. If normal drivers faced 1/2 the regulation or consequences that a CDL driver does the streets would be far safer. And I'd point out everyone would be up in arms at the ridiculous amount of regulation and compliance that would be necessary.

Face it if you hop in your car and drive for 12 hours then hit someone, you get what a ticket? Big Whoop, your insurance rate goes up a bit. The same offense will probably cost a CDL driver his job, maybe his license, and most likely prevent him from getting a job for a good while with most top tier companies. There is a very real threat to their earning potential by be as reckless as your ignorant comment suggests.


RE: No thanks
By xti on 8/28/2013 7:11:34 PM , Rating: 2
nah its true bro. i saw it on the internet.

/bonjour


RE: No thanks
By YearOfTheDingo on 8/29/2013 12:07:38 PM , Rating: 2
Not even for parking? I don't think most people like parking much so that's were automated driving can have a big impact. The fact that you're not in the car when it's driving itself should make it more palatable too. Imagine being able to step out of your car right in front of your destination not having to worry about where to park it. Your car will just go off on its own to a nearby lot somewhere. When you need it again, just tap on your phone and your car will show up right where you are. That's an exciting prospect, I would say. It'd eliminate the need for curb-side parking. Suddenly we'll have space to put bike lanes that actually get you to where you need to go in a city. The technology can potentially transform our urban landscape.

There is also potential in long-distance travel. When the controls of all cars on a motorway are centrally controlled by a computer, you can run them at higher speed and space them closer together so they take advantage of each other's slipstream. Three hours from SF to LA point to point in your own car is whole lot more compelling than the stupid train they're building.


RE: No thanks
By Jeffk464 on 8/29/2013 3:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just bought a 2013 Altima 2.5SV


What, I thought you believed in burning as much fuel as possible? That altima gets really good mileage for its class.


RE: No thanks
By sorry dog on 8/29/2013 4:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
I have the 2.5 CVT combo in a 2010 rogue, and I find it sort of disappointing. It will something give some herky jerky when pulling off from a stop at light throttle. It's also a bit lazy at giving full grunt when you need it. The other CVT I've driven a lot of was in a Jeep Compass. The car itself wasn't so great, but the CVT or at least the GEMA engine combo in it was much more responsive.


“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki