20 ms·
Google lobbies Nevada to allow driverless cars
- jarin 15y agoI anticipate a lot of luddite rage and probably a good number of accidents (and maybe even a few deaths), but we're not going to get to The Future by just wishing it so.
- jpr 15y agoWhat makes you think machines would be even deadlier drivers than humans?
- 3dFlatLander 15y agoLike airplanes, they would be safer than driving. But, each incident will receive so much more coverage that the statistical safety will be largely ignored by the terrified public.
- rimantas 15y agoAirplanes still have pilots. I guess busses are safer than cars too.
- Natsu 15y agoI read that comment as saying that people would get upset about the driverless cars and there would be bad PR for every accident, not that the driverless cars would actually be less safe. They won't be perfect, and every single failure will place the blame on the manufacturer, similar to the difference between public perception of airplane safety vs. car safety. Most people feel safer in cars, because they're in control. But people are safer in airplanes. Honestly, I predict that people will hate the way driverless cars drive, as well. For many reasons, including liability, such cars will have to drive in a nicer (more defensive) way than most people do. A driverless car won't tailgate and so it let people in, even if they're "cheating" in heavy traffic. Some people will absolutely hate that, even if it helps traffic flow better.
- snprbob86 15y agoHopefully, people will be too busy surfing the web to notice that their cars are politely improving traffic flow.
- paganel 15y ago> Hopefully, people will be too busy surfing the web to notice that their cars are politely improving traffic flow. I actually did that while traveling to work this very morning :) No need to dive into the future for that. It's called public transportation.
- nkassis 15y agoI drove to work today because my wife ankle was sore. I have a book I've been trying to finish and the 30 minute drive sorta annoyed me. I could have been so much more productive during that time. I also drive from Canada to Florida multiple times a year. 24 hours wasted but it's better than flying, more freedom to stop and relax, better food and less stress overall and more space to carry stuff. With these cars I'd be in heaven (not literally).
- dpatru 15y agoThe people complaining will be those who drive their own cars and are paying attention to how the computers drive.
- noodle 15y agoi don't think its about them being deadlier. i mean, just look at the toyota "runaway" car issue. all it takes is 1 car out of millions to cast doubt on the whole concept, or one person to do something stupid and blame it on the car to cause a PR firestorm.
- killerswan 15y agoHuman drivers kill ~260,000 children a year. The bar for robots is low.
- waterlesscloud 15y agoThat sounds like an awfully high number. Is there a source for it?
- xyzzyz 15y agoIt is not very high if you consider that people drive cars everywhere, not only in the US. The fatality rate in the US is around 30k-40k every year[1]. [1] - http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeopleAllVictims.aspx http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeopleAllVictims.aspx
- guruz 15y agoI wonder if making robots drive would bring the traffic death rate down to the one of other industrialized countries. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=deaths+in+traffic+per+capita+USA+vs+Germany+vs+EU+vs+Canada http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=deaths+in+traffic+per+c...
- VMG 15y agoWhy is the rate so much higher in the US?
- waterlesscloud 15y agoFirst thought would be to graph it against miles driven per person per year.
- killerswan 15y agoYes: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7776127.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7776127.stm
- piyush_ranjan 15y agoand why is self driving car the future ?
- yuhong 15y agoI have thought of driverless buses for a while now. These may be even better than driverless cars because buses always follow a defined route.
- pyre 15y agoI would be more inclined to try out automated light rail/subways first, seeing as they don't need to navigate traffic.
- kristiandupont 15y agoThe Copenhagen Metro is driverless (and there are probably many others around the world). Works like a charm.
- writetoalok 15y agoThe [London Docklands Light Railway](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Railway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Railway) is also driver-less. However travelling everyday on it, the journey is not smooth. Especially when it starts or stops, the acceleration and deceleration is very jerky. And also the train lurches forwards quite a few times. Not what one would expect on any train especially an automated train.
- dodo53 15y agoCould this not be the same thing you sometimes get on the human-driven tubes - for some reason (bizarre safety?) apparently if people lean on the doors they brake suddenly (have heard drivers say that over PA, googled for some kinda explanation but couldn't see anything except speculation).
- metageek 15y agoYou'd think it'd be cheaper and more reliable to make the doors sturdier.
- xnerdr 15y agoWho would be responsible if an accident happens?
- ugh 15y agoWhoever is liable now when an accident happens because of a technical failure. My guess is that insurances will love driverless cars, so it's really not a big deal.
- ordinary 15y agoI'm awaiting the first autonomous car to get its driver license. I imagine the day is not far off.
- dodo53 15y agoI bet the first time robots are legally recognised as sentient (not saying they are now!) will be in court for a liability claim :oP
- nchlswu 15y agowho is liable now, though? I recall learning about technical errors leading to some devastating, or potentially devastating problems, but the builders weren't necessarily held liable to the full degree? I imagine there would have to be some sort of blackbox device like airplanes in for safety, learning and obviously insurance purposes...
- ugh 15y agoI have no clue about the legal situation in the US. I do know that in my native Germany, the driver is always liable (even if not guilty). Since anyone who owns a car (and wants to drive with the same on a public road) has to have insurance this really is no big deal. Currently accidents can result in you having to pay more for your insurance and different people have to pay different amounts of money (an 18-year-old with a Golf GTI has to pay more) but there really is no rational reason for insurances to do that when someone is driven by a robot car. Insurances are interested in statistics, not fear mongering. I really don't see the big problem. Compulsory insurances solved the problem of liability without guilt a long time ago (1940 in Germany – hey, it's a Nazi law). You might argue that the manufacturer of the robot car should pay for the insurance but I don't think such a change would even be necessary. Even if, it wouldn't be a big deal.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- drivebyacct2 15y agoThe last bit at the end makes me think that Google must have laughed at the Kinect.
- iwwr 15y agoOne interesting aspect about driverless cars is that they can be used for traffic optimization. http://trafficwaves.org/trafexp.html http://trafficwaves.org/trafexp.html tl;dr driving smoothly and leaving traffic gaps ahead can prevent traffic jams or slowdowns Having just a small percentage of automated cars with traffic optimizing behavior may actually increase road capacity.
- masklinn 15y ago> tl;dr driving smoothly and leaving traffic gaps ahead can prevent traffic jams or slowdowns An other traffic optimization (which doubles down as a gas optimization) is "car trains": cars following one another very closely (much more closely than human drivers would handle)
- themrbluesky 15y agoThis won't be high on the feature list, as it's still really dangerous.
- jrockway 15y agoIf you're adding laser rangefinders and a trunk full of computer equipment, you might as well weld on a few mechanical couplers, too. They work well enough for trains, anyway.
- masklinn 15y ago> This won't be high on the feature list You could hardly be any less correct. This is by far the most major and interesting feature enabled by auto-driven and cooperative cars: http://www.sartre-project.eu/en/Sidor/default.aspx http://www.sartre-project.eu/en/Sidor/default.aspx > as it's still really dangerous. Not really.
- dodo53 15y agoI think it could help solve congestion as a problem too. Maybe cars could book their routes, and the road brokers will maximise for #cars/destination instead of allowing people to keep piling in even after the useful capacity is exceeded.
- shrikant 15y agoI think it's sign of our technologically advanced times that the commentary here is so level-headed. I, for one, can't help having the mind boggled. Cars that drive themselves coming finally coming out of the domain of Knight Rider, and onto actual roads?! That's just frickin awesome! (or maybe I've just been watching this Louis CK clip too often - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk)
- Poiesis 15y agoI am always impressed by this when I read it--not because of the cars but the motivation. Here's a company that is so desperate to increase its ad revenue that it's willing to build robot cars so that it has that many more eyeballs to serve up advertisements to.
- sien 15y agoHere's a company that is smart enough to know that they could have a major part of a market though could explode. Google don't just have to sell ads. They have loads of very smart people. They could wind up being the major provide for driverless cars. Sebastian Thrun works for Google now. He's one of the world's foremost experts in the field.
- larrik 15y ago"They could wind up being the major provide for driverless cars." I'd say they could be the major provider for driverless car technology. I don't think they should get into actual car manufacturing.
- MatthewPhillips 15y agoBingo, this is going to be a big field in the future. AI is outside the core competency of car manufacturers; they'll have to buy that tech from some one. Google's ad revenue could look puny by comparison some day.
- axylone 15y agoThis sounds like the history of a company out of a Stephenson or Gibson book. I want to believe...
- sien 15y agoIndeed. This is what I meant.
- StavrosK 15y ago
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- arthurgibson 15y agoSounds like Vegas would be a good starting point, no one remembers what happens there (zing). In all seriousness, Google is going to drop a ton of money into Nevada to make this happen and drive more people to Vegas again. I call this a stimulation package, hope it passes.
- ktsmith 15y agoI don't think Vegas would be the starting point. Nevada is in the midst of massive unemployment numbers and a massive budget crises. There are a lot of people employed in Vegas as drivers of cabs, limos and other private services. Launching driverless car services in Vegas would likely meet with massive public resistance. I could see it as another tourist attraction for the strip I suppose but I wouldn't want to test autonomous vehicles there given the crappy traffic and idiotic/distracted drivers there. I would probably start testing in the Carson City, Reno, Sparks area. You can get a flight from the bay to Reno that takes 45 minutes. If you need to take cars back and forth to Mountain View it is only a 3-4 hour drive. The capital is Carson City so if you need access to the legislature you have it. There's also very diverse geography and lots of public roads available for testing. If you need populated areas or unpopulated areas everything is here all while being a lot closer to Google than Las Vegas is.
- gkelly 15y agoCalifornia's budget deficit is larger, but a large sum of money from Google can probably buy much more legislation in Nevada.
- ktsmith 15y agoNevada is much less hostile to corporate interests than California so the amount of legislation they can buy with via lobbying is only part of the issue. I only mention the budget and employment issues because I believe they are relevant to the use of autonomous vehicles in Las Vegas which I believe the parent poster was implying. That would be seen as killing jobs (even if not true) by the local population and could end up being very bad for the legislators that approved the legislation allowing autonomous vehicles. As far as Nevada's budget deficit goes, the issue could be resolved relatively simply however no one in the legislature is even willing to talk about the steps necessary to do so.
- mousa 15y agoI hope some smart people are trying to figure out how our economy is going to work when transportation is outsourced to robots. Obviously it'd be great but the idea that everyone needs a job is going to start unravelling.
- cma 15y agoIts been that way for decades. Carpet used to be the most luxurious thing in the world; as soon at it got cheap, the old, undesirable hardwood became the preferred sign of wealth. If robots start taking over a lot of the work, people will start wearing coats made out of solved captchas or something.
- nchlswu 15y agoI wonder how they're getting over any stigma culture shock. In their own products, they're careful to reduce any "creep factor" by not using our information in ways that provide too much immediate feedback, like ads that are too highly targeted. Unlike ads, a "robot car" is a significant jump. In the public's eye, I think Google's driverless cars last year seemed like a sudden leap. There are obviously safety measures that will be in place, but I want to know how robust they're going to be and how much PR they're gonna put into this.
- webXL 15y agoWe already have cars that parallel park themselves. I just saw an SUV do it in a commercial last night. I think it was a Ford Exploder. We also have adaptive cruise control on a lot of cars. You combine those technologies, plus with something that keeps you in a lane, you got a car that can drive itself. Autopilot. That "keeps you in your lane" technology is the last piece of the puzzle, and shouldn't be a tremendous legal hurdle if the other two pieces are already legal.
- spenrose 15y ago“What if I could take out my phone and say, ‘Zipcar, come here,’ ” he asked an industry conference last year, “and a moment later the Zipcar came around the corner?” So nice to see an organization with so much wealth and power spending it on important problems.
- zasz 15y agoDriverless cars could: 1. Save lives by eliminating drunk, distracted, and sleepy drivers. 2. Greatly increase fuel efficiency. 3. Permit commutes where people can work, sleep, or watch movies, enabling greater freedom to live where they wish. This is more economically efficient by allowing more people to take jobs they otherwise would not have. Yes, I'm very glad to see Google working on problems that save lives, save the environment, and make everyone happier. I'm glad you're glad too!
- baconserker 15y agoDoes Nevada have stop lights?
- ktsmith 15y agoIs that supposed to be a serious question? Of course Nevada has stoplights. There are nearly two million people in the Las Vegas area and around two hundred fifty thousand people in the Reno/Sparks area. Then there are LOTS of smaller towns with populations as low as twenty five up to fifty thousand. Sure there are huge amounts of unpopulated or sparsely populated areas but that's not much different than the central valley in California as an example.
- baconserker 15y agoBoom - it wasn't serious! It was meant to spark discussion on how on earth do these cars handle trickier aspects of driving on unmodified grids, such as traffic lights.
- ktsmith 15y agoI would assume since they've already logged lots of hours driving around CA that the various sensors and cameras can already detect traffic lights. On that same line of thought I'd love to know how they adjust for speed in construction zones with non standard speed limit signs, the randomness of other drivers etc.
- andrewcanis 15y agoThis technology has the potential to save so many lives. Does anyone know how much these cars cost? I would expect the radar system and servers to be pretty expensive. Presumably the higher cost could be offset by lower insurance rates.
- Apocryphon 15y agoGoogle's research into driverless cars really boosts their perception of "info hegemon having their hands in everything" and either "rock star company trying to save the world with bleeding edge technology" or "Orwellian nightmare come to life doling out Trojan horses so the masses fail to see the inevitable robot holocaust", depending on your personal bias. That said, why is Google the only high-profile company looking into this? I've heard about the DARPA Grand Challenge, but that always seemed to be about hobbyists and university teams. I see there are quite a few groups interested in the concept, but it seems like only GM is the other company who bothered looking into it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driverless_car#Key_players http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driverless_car#Key_players I suppose car companies are set in their ways and don't want to create a future that takes drivers out of the equation (though it's not as if people won't be flocking to buy driverless cars anyways), but why not any other tech companies?
- arjunnarayan 15y agoThe head of the Stanford DARPA Grand Challenge (Sebastian Thrun) left his tenured professorship at Stanford to work at Google. The hobbyist/university teams are an excellent staging ground to get started; but any other company could have put in the investment that Google did. I would have loved to have seen a CMU/Red Whittaker/GM collaboration. It would have made for a poetic little "revive the rust belt with the robot car industry" story too. Given the response to the Detroit Superbowl Chrysler ad, looks like the public love that sort of story...
- nasmorn 15y agoBMW is not going to like this, but it sounds good for Audi. At least based on their company slogans.
- ktsmith 15y agoAudi/VW are actively investing in driverless car technology including the lab at Stanford.