27 ms·

Just press go: designing a self-driving vehicle

540 points by cloudwalking 12y ago

spankalee 12y ago
So far Google's self-driving cars have been designed to have the driver take over in certain situations. I wonder how that works without a steering wheel and pedals. Are the cars manually drivable at all?
- isaacdl 12y ago
  Looks like they are. "We’re planning to build about a hundred prototype vehicles, and later this summer, our safety drivers will start testing early versions of these vehicles that have manual controls."
  - jpatokal 12y ago
    That implies that the prototypes will have manual controls, but the production versions will not.
- Retric 12y ago
  From a UI perspective if they rarely need manual control you can use a less ergonomic option. Such as a joystick which would be a pain for regular use but would take up less space and still provide plenty of control for situations like parking in a field for a concert and or a quick emergency override in case something goes wrong.
  - erikpukinskis 12y ago
    > control for situations like parking in a field for a concert Or the car just takes a panorama and converts it to an aerial view and you simply drag your car where you want it to be and press Go.
- tyleregeto 12y ago
  Yes, that's is a very interesting point. I would think that, long term, the only manual control a self driving car really needs is a "kill switch." How long will it be after self-driving tech goes mainstream until people simply don't know who to drive? I can see my kids now, "I remember when I was a kid, my mom/dad actually had to control the automobile. Archaic!" Not too long ago my friend's son asked me why my phone was attached to the wall. He had only ever known cordless phones. I image cars will go a similar route.
  - waps 12y ago
    There's a funny mention of this problem in "I, Robot". When will smith takes the wheel he is scolded for taking such a completely irresponsible risk. Given how those robots drive versus how he drives, we likely will have to agree with this at some point. I wonder if real life will play out the same way : will controlling a car the human way become an unacceptable risk, and how fast will this happen ? Because we're likely to see both effects play here : first, humans will become worse at controlling vehicles, and vehicles will become better at it, likely having superior senses and predictive ability. So there should come a point where humans become a risk. So there will come a point where we get to choose between new policies and letting humans drive. If we had self-driving cars and we could eliminate speed limits on interstates entirely, in trade for not allowing human drivers at all, would we do it ?
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      I would not be at all surprised to learn that computers are better at driving now. One interesting (albeit expensive) way to test this out would be to put some computer controlled cars into demolition derby races and see how they fare in artificially hostile driving environments where the human participants are extremely risk-tolerant. I'm very glad that California has legislation in place to allow this already, and think it's going to pay off in spades to be a leader in this area. My bet is that insurance will be baked into the price of the first generation of cars (ie subsidized by the manufacturers), liability rates will be extremely low, and there will be an avalanche of consumer switching over a fairly short period of 10-20 years.
- arebop 12y ago
  This wouldn't be a very interesting story if the answer were "yes." Whether Google or Toyota manufactures a self-driving car with manual override doesn't matter much from the point of view of a typical citizen or someone who's interested in the architectural implications of this technology. As long as there's a manual override and a responsibility to use it, the car requires a capable driver paying attention all the time. It's an interesting beginning and it might improve safety but it doesn't fundamentally change things. But without manual override, the car must be very reliably capable on its own. I suppose there might be a network connection and the ability to dispatch an Uber to pick you up whenever the car decides it is unable to proceed. But nobody will choose to use these cars if that scenario is remotely common. So announcing that this thing could ship in 2 years indicates to me that either Google's tech is doing way better than has been suggested in other recent press, or Google has started talking up vaporware to an unprecedented degree.
- stormbrew 12y ago
  From the stories that go into detail about google's self-driving cars, it really seems like at this point the driver-take-over situation is really more like a breakpoint than an actual safety valve. It's there for when the computer has multiple reasonable options and the driver's judgement and awareness is needed to help resolve the ambiguity not just for that ride, but for future rides as well (as a sort of feedback).
- secabeen 12y ago
  When they drive entirely on Google property (like this parking lot), they don't need controls. If they want to drive on public roads, the law requires manual control.
jpatokal 12y ago
Given that they're capped at 25 mph, these are legally "low-speed vehicles", not cars, which means they're way less regulated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-speed_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-speed_vehicle
- FireBeyond 12y ago
  I think, too, that there's a logical disconnect between "we focused on learning, not luxury", and "we want to hear about what you want in a vehicle where you sit back and enjoy the ride" (probably, to most, -not- a dearth of comforts).
  - 001sky 12y ago
    Think of this as a bike-commute substitute with a roof.
    - btian 12y ago
      If only my bike powers and steers itself
    - newaccountfool 12y ago
      Without the exercise capability.
      - zachkatz 12y ago
        You could remove the seats and install an exercise bike.
    - tonylemesmer 12y ago
      that's a terrible analogy :) ! more like a taxi without having to speak to the driver or a personal bus.
    - greeneggs 12y ago
      An interesting thought. How small can self-driving vehicles be? Would you ride a self-driving motorcycle? A self-driving wheelchair? How about a self-driving Segway? You get on, hold on, and it does the rest. The technology for getting this working at all (let alone safely) is a long way away, but perhaps it could happen.
MichaelMoser123 12y ago
https://maps.google.com/locationhistory https://maps.google.com/locationhistory right now google already knows where we have been; with the car they will know where we are going to; The car as a tracking device, pure genius.
- MichaelMoser123 12y ago
  No Dave, you can't go to that protest; really not possible....
dustinupdyke 12y ago
When the man with glasses gives his perspective, the enablement hits you. If you've any humanity, you feel the potential this technology brings to so many.
- tyleregeto 12y ago
  I can relate to this. Anyone who has ever had to take a family members car away from them as they get older can as well. When someone has driven most of their life, losing the ability to drive can be a very difficult. To them its losing their independence. Self driving technology is very much about enablement.
  - mirsadm 12y ago
    It's exciting to think that for the younger people now those sorts of issues are likely to be "fixed" when they get older.
- agildehaus 12y ago
  The man with the glasses is Steve Mahan, the blind man from their previous video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdgQpa1pUUE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdgQpa1pUUE
- Brakenshire 12y ago
  I think it's interesting, also, to think not only of the freedom this would bring to people with disabilities, but also just to children, and their parents. Kids could have a prepaid card/ticket which takes them only within 5 miles of home, or only to certain preset destinations. It would make it far easier to meet up with friends, go to youth clubs or social clubs, or come back from school, in places where the school buses are not up to scratch. And parents in turn don't have to spend hours joylessly ferrying kids around.
conectorx 12y ago
I bet it's written in GO language... LOL for when the car breaks don't work... just like in TOYOTA
noahl 12y ago
I think the biggest news was this sentence: If all goes well, we’d like to run a small pilot program here in California in the next couple of years. This is the next step in their very slow but, apparently, very steady march towards real self-driving cars that anyone can buy.
- doomlaser 12y ago
  Why buy a self driving car when you could rent one as needed?
  - twerquie 12y ago
    I used public transit, taxis and car sharing services exclusively until I started a family. At which point setting up the carseat every time became prohibitively cumbersome and I bought my own car. Children's car seats are very personal in terms of size and configuration and are required by law. I think things like that will make people want their own self driving car. You want the one that fits your wife and two kids and your dog. Or you're rich and you want to be driven around in a really nice one that hasn't been used by other people. The more I think about it, the more I imagine rich people increasing their car ownership due to self driving cars. Take your fleet with you to the cottage or across the country, why not?
    - secabeen 12y ago
      I fully agree with all of the above. I also feel that people who have the means to purchase a self-driving car will do so. The compromises necessary to make a vehicle appropriate for use by multiple users conflict with the comfort and luxury many people expect in a vehicle they spend hours each day in. Would you like to spend your hour commute each day in a bus or taxi seat when you can afford the comfort of a Mercedes, BMW or even Toyota seat?
    - prawn 12y ago
      (I have a toddler, so I drive a car with a child seat.) I think we'll get over that attachment to specific car seats and instead more versatile seats will come into play. In the future, I imagine your car booking app will recognise your usual bookings (e.g., solo/couple, family with one toddler, moving cargo) and you will tap a preset to book whichever car you need. If your partner and kid are heading to a family engagement, up rolls a car with a baby seat pre-fitted and cleaned. If you're needing to move something large, a van shows up. Those that want a premium service, will book the platinum tier, either all the time or maybe just for date night.
tejaswiy 12y ago
I find it cute how most of the people still are not comfortable taking their eyes off the road.
- kteofanidis 12y ago
  To be fair I'm not comfortable taking my eyes off the road as a passenger with a human driver. I think people underestimate the fear of not having control. This will be a major issue to overcome and for some it will be like the fear of flying on a commercial aircraft. The fact they know it's safe doesn't really help much.
rquantz 12y ago
It seems like a mistake to remove manual controls entirely, not necessarily because of safety concerns, but because there are a fair number of times when you need the car to go somewhere without having a route. I'm thinking of things like: Moving your car ten feet so somebody else can get out of the driveway; handling double parking during alternate side parking hours; moving the car because you were waiting to pick someone up in a no-standing zone and a cop just pulled up behind you; moving the car to just the right spot so grandma doesn't have to walk any more steps than absolutely necessary; parking on a lawn for a party or concert; backing up to just the right spot so you can hitch up a trailer. The list could go on forever, and that's the point -- you can surely automate away some of these tasks, but there is an infinite multiplicity of things that need to be done with a car, and having to point them out on a map in order to get the car to do them, or even use a joystick to do it, sounds like an obnoxious chore. Edit: to those who disagree with me by pointing to a utopian future of car sharing for everyone and no one even being able to drive, that's fine I guess, but this seems to be suggesting that the very first generation of these will be without a steering wheel, when very few people will have these cars and all of the problems I listed will still exist. Even if your ultimate goal is for passengers to be completely dependent on the AI for navigation, that's just not going to be an option when these things roll off the lot as soon as 2016.
- jackvalentine 12y ago
  I agree with you, perhaps in the context of a personal vehicle there does need to be manual control. However I can see these more as a form of private public transit, a fleet of driverless google cars cruising around and anyone with a subscription a la zipcar can hail them and go. Perhaps in this context, Google could operate parking garages where they can be recharged and cleaned while keeping them off the street and out of people's ways.
  - rquantz 12y ago
    That sounds cool, although most cities already have something similar in the form of buses, which are cheaper and more efficient than what you're talking about. In any case, they will probably not start by having a huge fleet, but by selling them as personal vehicles.
Mister_Snuggles 12y ago
This will eventually make non-automated driving sort of like a manual transmission (in North America) - something you get because you either specifically want one or because it's all you can afford (I'm probably way over-generalizing). Eventually, just like the automatic transmission, the self-driving car will be the default for most people. I don't imagine that we'll get away from people who drive because they find it enjoyable any time soon.
- femto 12y ago
  > I don't imagine that we'll get away from people who drive because they find it enjoyable any time soon. I can see that there will be a rapid change in social attitudes, once automated driving reaches the point where it is generally accepted to kill/maim fewer people than automated driving. Think back 30 years, when it was socially acceptable to light up cigarettes around small children. Now it is socially unacceptable to do so, to the point that it is illegal in many jurisdictions. Where I live, it is illegal to smoke in the vicinity of a school, within 10 metres of a playground or in a car with a child under 16 years [1]. Once a tipping point is reached, where manual driving is widely accepted to be more dangerous that automated driving, manual driving will quickly be banned in the vicinity of schools. There will be resistance and arguments from manual driving aficionados. Eventually, public manual driving will be confined to either remote areas or purpose built facilities, just as public smoking is restricted to open-areas and smoking rooms. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_Austral...
  - femto 12y ago
    -- Edit: On reading other comments, I'd extend the analogy to smoking (and other activities that carry a public risk) by pointing out that there will be a financial penalty for choosing to drive oneself. Just as smoking is a risk factor that increases health/life insurance premiums, manual driving will also be a factor in calculating insurance premiums.
- gramasaurous 12y ago
  Exactly, and the way I see it is that driverless cars will remove the parts of driving that people don't enjoy, things like commuting, dealing with traffic, and parking (and running over pedestrians). But people who enjoy driving, are still free to a leisurely drive up the coast, or to race on the local track.
SilasX 12y ago
Forgive my crankiness, but: Does this say anything that the casual follower of self driving cars doesn't already know? All I got out of this was: - Self driving cars would be awesome, for well known reasons. - We have to use a lot of good sensors to make this work. - It's an interesting problem.
- enneff 12y ago
  It says that Google are building the cars.
- JoshuaJBerk 12y ago
  I'd argue that the entire propose is to expand beyond 'casual followers.' The challenge of self driving cars is ultimately a social (more than a technical) one. Distribution. PR. Legal.
- prawn 12y ago
  Takeaways: - They're working on physical prototypes. - These cars don't have a steering wheel or pedals for human override. - Speed-limited reveals a bit more of their strategy. - Makes clear how useful and empowering these vehicles will be to someone visually or physically impaired, the elderly, etc.
Oculus 12y ago
Tesla (or insert company willing to go big on electric cars) and Google really need to team up on this. Self driving cars have the potential to completely do away with owning personal cars. Imagine a new public/private service that allows people to travel where & when they want without having to deal with the hassles or cost of owning a car. With the added centralization, the headaches that electric cars cause can be eliminated with a bit of logistics planning (cars are interchangeable so low battery cars can go straight to a charging station instead of wait for their owners to take them to one).
- tb 12y ago
  This suggestion comes up whenever the topic of self-driving cars arises, but I wonder if access to a fleet of self-driving cars would be more akin to a cheaper taxi service than a replacement for car ownership. I suspect that many people would still prefer to own their own (self-driving) car rather than rent one from a fleet only when required. However the privately owned self-driving car could still drive itself to the nearest charging station when not in use so I agree with your premise that self-driving and electric car technology has some synergies. Being a high-tech automaker, Tesla would be an obvious licensee for Google's self-driving technology once it matures.
  - Oculus 12y ago
    Fair observation, but I think this sort of centralization will come after maybe 2 or 3 generations (40 - 60 years). With a long enough timetable I believe the sentiment behind private car ownership will dwindle until it becomes a hobby akin to collecting telegraph machines.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  I think Google wants to do a similar thing to Tesla. Maybe have a few of their own vehicles but bet big on the technology. They can then sell it to the big car manufacturers. With Tesla it's their battery technology, with Google it's their sensor technology.
- MattPearce 12y ago
  The video suggests these cars are probably being built in Tesla's factory - the white-painted walls and red-painted machinery are pretty unique to Tesla. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqSDWoAhvLU#t=58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqSDWoAhvLU#t=58 (Also note that "Rotary Lift", the brand seen at that point in the video, is the exclusive supplier of vehicle lifts to Tesla - http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tesla-motors-chooses-fast-battery-powered-rotary-lift-shockwave-lifts-to-service-its-fast-battery-powered-cars-249962221.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tesla-motors-chooses...)
jabelk 12y ago
I wonder whether they will first become available as a product that individual people can buy, or if Google will open some sort of service where you can sign up for a monthly "car plan" for X miles. Or maybe partner with a taxi company/Uber, where you pay per ride but the cars are driverless. I imagine all 3 models will be tried at some point, and it'll be interesting to watch their development and which one eventually dominates. Also, commuting could be done so much more efficiently. Imagine a fleet of 1 person cars that pick you up in the morning, drop you off at a more central location (than your house), at which point you get on a higher capacity (driverless?) vehicle - bus or van maybe - for the trip into the city. And the bus unloads into another central area, with another bunch of small cars taking people to their offices. I'd use the bus if it never stopped, and that system would be almost as fast as driving yourself. Heck, it'd probably be much faster, because the hordes of people people sitting alone in their sedans would be consolidated and eliminate a lot of highway congestion. Not to mention cheaper, and better for the environment (less gas). I haven't heard much about addressing the legal and regulatory issues driverless cars are going to have to overcome, does anyone have more information on that? Obviously something will have to be done for when the car wrecks or malfunctions and damages something.
- slyall 12y ago
  I really think that self-driving buses will be common long before most cars are. * They cover the same routes day after day * They are already centrally owned by large companies or governments * Driver cost is a big reason you can't have 2 small buses running twice as often as a single big bus. Or why buses can't run longer hours. * You still have limited space on roads and you need to use PT to get the person density up. This will always be hard with just one person in each vehicle
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    I think the driver on the bus has more functions than just being a driver. He's also an authority figure and can provide assistance.
    - 12y ago
stephengillie 12y ago
Please hire me!
higherpurpose 12y ago
White one looks better. Overall design not too bad, especially if they want them to be immediately recognizable.
sown 12y ago
It seems like they would eventually have a four-seater version but the bench seats could face each other. What a simple thing but so different. Maybe like suicide-doors used to be common in the US but they're such a novelty now.
- prawn 12y ago
  Yes, one of my first thoughts was about how much I enjoy road trips. But realistically, the bits I don't enjoy are having my attention pegged to the road and my foot to the pedals. A driverless car still leaves that progression through the landscape, the scenery, the togetherness. Taking your family on a road trip where the travel was in a capsule with two bench seats facing each other, and a table between, would be great. Read books, play cards, get some work done. Convert seats to beds and get some sleep while you cruise at 40 kmh to your destination overnight.
  - Theodores 12y ago
    Sounds like you are waiting for the VW Camper Van version to come out. However, if you could sleep and drive there could be a whole new class of commuters cluttering up the roads on 4-8 hour commutes, or a whole new breed of tourists that set the car to drive through the night to the next destination so they wake up somewhere different, outside some cafe for brekkie.
    - sown 12y ago
      > or a whole new breed of tourists that set the car to drive through the night to the next destination so they wake up somewhere different, outside some cafe for brekkie. Or, maybe there'll be a 'random' button; the car surprises you about where it intends on going.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  >> "It seems like they would eventually have a four-seater version but the bench seats could face each other." I can think of two reasons against that. 1. People who get motion sickness get it 100x worse if they are facing the wrong way. There are also people I know who normally don't get motion sickness but get a bit queasy facing the wrong way. 2. If you are in an accident isn't it more dangerous for your neck if you're facing the wrong way. I know several cars currently (mostly people carriers) that have rotating seats but they can't be rotated when driving. I'm guessing that law is in place because rick of injury is higher facing the worn way.
bluthru 12y ago
I can't believe I didn't realize this earlier: When you have nothing in front of you, there's no need for an airbag!
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
c23gooey 12y ago
I feel as though they really havent embraced the driverless concept with their prototype. Why have seats that are fixed and facing forward? What about a couch? Why is there a dash? The people in the video are essentially watching the car drive itself, when they could be doing anything else. There are probably a multitude of reasons why the things above are the way they are. However, the prototype seems like just another car to me. Also, off-topic, but can we have a google/product launch video without the corny piano soundtrack.
- eurleif 12y ago
  >Why have seats that are fixed and facing forward? Seats facing forward means that acceleration pushes you backward into your seat. Any other direction would increase motion sickness. And what would be the advantage of the seats facing a different way? >What about a couch? The seats do look like a couch to me...
  - arjunnarayan 12y ago
    Rear facing seats are safest, since acceleration is not the biggest problem, rapid deceleration is. http://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/are-aft-facing-airplane-seats-safer-146695292/?no-ist http://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/are-aft-facing-airpl...
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      Not when your top speed is 25mph. You're far more likely to get rear-ended than suffer a head-on collision.
  - sirdogealot 12y ago
    >what would be the advantage of the seats facing a different way? When you got into a head on collision, you would (perhaps) be spared the whiplash.
  - abruzzi 12y ago
    >And what would be the advantage of the seats facing a different way? In a four seater, two seats forward and two seats back, for conversations. With only two seats, there is little benefit except for a head on collision.
waterlesscloud 12y ago
It's so cute! Look at it! It's even got a happy face! It's totally not a life-threatening robot of doom! And it promotes family talking time! Just like fast food restaurants in recent episodes of Mad Men! Sorry. It really is a slick ad for a neat product, I just can't resist noticing how they position it.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
petercoolz 12y ago
This warmed my heart. And thinking about it from a business perspective, not everybody needs to own their own self-driving car. Ie. it can self-drive itself home for use by the next person. Which means economically, the car price can be many multiples of the cost of current cars (imagine a $100k car that is shared between five families rather than five families each with their own car).
gdas 12y ago
I'm thinking about this basic idea: We have, in this case, a machine that is doing the job that a human driver would do - A machine replacing a man. My question is: Should we be happy about this? Or should we be sad? This time, we have a machine replacing a driver. In the future we may have machines replacing teachers, doctors, carpenters, artists... even lovers and machine makers. So, my question remains: Should we be happy? Or should we be sad? Normally, in science fiction movies, when the machines become intelectually smarter than humans, they try to destroy humanity. But if, in the real world, they just become smarter than us, and just replace us in every activity. Then, what would we do?
- pirateking 12y ago
  What would we do? Well, we might aspire to be more like our newfound superiors. We might attempt to become cyborgs.
- brc 12y ago
  What we always do - find more time and capital for more interesting projects. What did housewives do when they didn't have to stoke a fire to make dinner or out dirty clothes through a wringer? The relentless increase of technology improves everyone's lives even as it replaces manual labour. It's a non-stop process that shouldn't be messd with.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  I've been thinking about this a lot. I'll answer it two ways. Negative: - As we've automated jobs we've also created new ones, but lots of these new jobs are BS. Inspectors of inspectors etc. to fulfil health and safety regulations. We're also creating a lot of things that improve our lives or entertain us but are really just created so we have something to spend our money on. We don't need them. Positive: - I think the idea of a basic income would fix this. If we can automate everything and reduce the number of people that need to work AND provide them with a basic income, they can live their lives and not have to work. If you aren't anti-government you could even have the government owning factories, producing goods through automation and selling them to other countries in order to finance a good basic income for its citizens. It's going to be interesting and if you are young enough likely something you will see played out in your lifetime. Although the changes in the 20th century were massive and world changing I think the changes this century are going to be ones which change how we actually live on lives on a very basic level. What we do everyday and how we get money. Even if it all goes to hell it'll be interesting!
dave1619 12y ago
Hmmm, will Google go into manufacturing their own cars or will they stick with software and license it to other manufacturers?
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  I think they'll do what Tesla does. They'll do a few of their own but their long game will be selling the tech to big manufacturers.
goutham467 12y ago
I believe manual override is necessary, remember IRobot anyone?
malandrew 12y ago
One question I'm curious about is whether or not we will shift to having seats in a different configuration such as having people sit facing each other. Furthermore I'm curious what factors will contribute to one configuration over another. factors that may matter: (1) safety (2) situational interaction (meeting, road trip with family) (3) social norms (what are we used to. e.g. the french sit next to each other in cafes, but americans sit across from each other) (4) motion sickness (5) ???
beefman 12y ago
Looks like it has no trunk, which is a huge use case for self-driving cars. How many trips do you make just to move things around? How much of what you own would you rather rent if you could have it delivered within 15 minutes? Then there's the economics of prepared meal delivery... I'll be surprised if passengerless cars don't outnumber passenger cars in 20 years. As for moving people, a significant part of city bus fares goes to driver salaries. And other vehicles tend to avoid buses / don't rely on making eye contact with bus drivers. And buses follow predefined routes. So it's surprising to me that Google is going for private cars instead of city buses as a first market.
- skriticos2 12y ago
  Looks like there is a bag compartment for had luggage where the dashboard normally is. The size of the thing does not suggest it's built for heavy lifting, I'm sure there will be models for that too.. maybe even the same with the passenger seats ripped out. When the car self-drives, you don't need the driver anymore to get stuff around. This really opens possibilities. The first prototype might not be the be-all-end-all thing, but it makes me confident that they don't try to design that on the first go.
kamaal 12y ago
It will be good if we can see these cars tested on the streets here in India. India is an amazing test bed for this kind of an application. Narrow roads, haphazard traffic, undisciplined crowd and driver behavior, kids playing on the roads, obstructions, potholes, animals on the roads etc etc. This will make an amazing place to test this set up. Plus India is an amazing business opportunity, given the overall scale of the economy here.
- kyrra 12y ago
  How many drivers in India properly obey driving laws? My understanding is that it can be pretty hectic driving India streets and breaking the law is required to make forward progress. I'm guessing a self driving car as designed for the US roads may be useless in India.
  - kamaal 12y ago
    That's true. Which is why to make a generally intelligent self driving car. You will need a global test bed.
  - aembleton 12y ago
    Yes, I think the car would just stop until there are no hazards or so that it can navigate around them. In India that might just mean that it won't move anywhere.
socrates1998 12y ago
This is going to change the world. No more car insurance. Vastly fewer driving fatalities. Shared cars. Less parking problems. I can't wait. Just take my money already.
- Turing_Machine 12y ago
  I bet you'll still need insurance (or the provider will need it, in a service model). It should be much, much cheaper though. Most vehicle accidents are caused by human error -- the insurance would just need to cover accidents caused by mechanical or software failure.
  - cm127 12y ago
    I think you're both right. It'll probably be fixed into the price, and they'll probably just lease them to avoid legacy issues.
  - 33W 12y ago
    Also comprehensive damages - hail, tornado, vandalism, or vehicular burglary.
tjmc 12y ago
I think Google could reach their goal faster if they started with more controlled environments - such as baggage vehicles at airports or mining trucks. There are plenty of people in my part of the world who are paid six figures to drive a truck up and down the same road of a mine all day.
- nevi-me 12y ago
  I know there are open-cast mines that already use remotely controlled/monitored and self-driving trucks. I think using it in an environment that they're used to, and which I presume would be most practical, makes sense. It is more helpful for them to research and build their technology where it will mostly be used, on the streets. There is more volume of traffic, which makes it possible to deploy 100 small cars cost-wise, and could lead to 'quicker' development as they won't always be slowed down by legal and other negotiations with airport companies and the like. Just my thoughts anyways :)
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
sidcool 12y ago
>They won’t have a steering wheel, accelerator pedal, or brake pedal… because they don’t need them. Our software and sensors do all the work This sounds amazing.
moca 12y ago
It is easy to explain no manual control. Google will include insurance cost into the service itself. If there is any accident, Google's insurance plan will cover it. If there is manual control, the insurance cost will be a mess, since you have to factor in the driving record of the person who is in the car. This alone would be a show stopper.
enscr 12y ago
The video shows a rotating camera at the top of the car that's scanning for objects (I guess). What's the advantage of a mechanical rotary movement over an array of cameras that give a continuous 360 degree view (e.g. the street view cars)? Update : Found a link : http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402516,00.asp http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402516,00.asp In an interview last week, Stuart Woods, the executive vice president of Velodyne, which manufactures the LIDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) rotating module that sits atop Google's autonomous vehicles, said that his company has started developing prototype security systems that could be trialed within the next year. The Velodyne LIDAR HDL-64E and HDL-32E modules use an array of either 64 or 32 lasers to electronically "see" the environment, Woods said. On Google's car, the module is set inside a rotating drum. Its lasers complement Google's own mapping software and GPS data, which help orient the car on the road. The LIDAR provides additional positional data, but also identifies other cars, bicycles, pedestrians, and road hazards.
- pikachu_is_cool 12y ago
  If I'm not mistaken, the "camera" at the top sends a very thin, concentrated vertical beam to detect objects. To implement it in the way you described, you'd need quite a few cameras (100+) to get the same precision.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- Sammi 12y ago
  Don't think of it as a camera. Think of it as a radar (that uses laser light instead of radio waves, hence the LI instead of RA in LIDAR).
- serf 12y ago
  I don't know why they chose it, but off the top of my head : 1) possibly less production cost. an individual laser module is likely more costly than the mechanism to rotate a single one. 2) fewer channels of data often means less processing overhead.
rollthehard6 12y ago
Personally, I find it disappointing that this is perpetuating the inherent inefficiencies of the car concept, carrying a small number of people, usually a single person. The ultimate end game where cities are full of autonomous taxi vehicles that aren't owned, but paid for by usage makes sense though. You fire up an app / web link or SMS and a car appears within 5 minutes, drops off someone else and takes you on your way. Provided folk don't leave too many empty beer cans in the back seat...
- masklinn 12y ago
  > Personally, I find it disappointing that this is perpetuating the inherent inefficiencies of the car concept, carrying a small number of people, usually a single person. "Self-driving" systems for carrying big numbers of people have existed for centuries now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
furyg3 12y ago
In Amsterdam, I'm a big user of car2go. These are little electric smart cars which you can rent by the minute. For times when I don't have my bike nearby, or the public transport is not handy. These are basically little smart cars which drive themselves, which would be perfect.
- pwf 12y ago
  I use car2go in Austin, and already love the system. A car2go that could drive itself to my door would make my commute perfect.
artumi-richard 12y ago
Will there come a time when you can just cross the road whenever you choose knowing that all traffic will stop, without fail, automatically? I think the driverless car will actually make more of a difference to the typical pedestrian than the typical car occupier.
- masklinn 12y ago
  > I think the driverless car will actually make more of a difference to the typical pedestrian than the typical car occupier. Depends on the country really: in germany, if a pedestrian gets close to the curb all drivers will pile on the brakes. Gets awkward when you just wanted to take a slightly better look at something on the other side of the road (I've more than once crossed only to cross back a minute later, because a driver had thought I wanted to get to the other side)
jstclair 12y ago
Anyone else wonder why a self-driving car needs side-view mirrors?
- agos 12y ago
  to get out safely avoiding incoming traffic once parked.
abc123xyz 12y ago
Am I the only who actually enjoys driving (good cars)?
- pkorzeniewski 12y ago
  Finally someone! I thought I'm the only one here who loves driving.. Some people go as far as suggesting that manual cars will be banned at some point in the future - to be honest it sounds like some kind of dystopian vision where you have no control over anything.
whyleym 12y ago
The biggest problem I see here is that if all cars on the road were self driving then you have more control. The issue is when you mix human behaviour and error into the mix. The first fatal or near fatal accident with self driving cars could be the end before it's even started.
revelation 12y ago
The comments here are rather disappointing. It doesn't have manual controls? Well thats the point! I want to leave my crap in it and paint it some ugly color? Get with the times, young people already opt to not own cars. I can't double park in the city? Why are you imposing your steel box on people living in cities, many of which do not own cars and want walkable streets? I mean, this is the news website for a startup accelerator. If you are on here, have some appreciation for new ways of doing things. To disrupt the status quo is the very goal. If you ask for perfection from day one, we will never get anywhere. These cars have the potential to massively reduce traffic fatalities (one of the biggest remaining killers) and make cities useful again to the people that actually live in them.
- pc86 12y ago
  Is a car parked on a street really an imposition on you?
  - e98cuenc 12y ago
    It is (indirectly) to me. I often visit the US, and I'm always amazed that I can't seem to go anywhere walking. The distances to go anywhere are huge. It seems to be that way because cities in the US where designed / build with cars in mind. In Europe cities were obviously not build with cars in mind, and as a result I enjoy here a much higher density of amenities (and suffer much worse driving conditions / parking time). Having all this space available for cars is not transparent to pedestrians.
    - Touche 12y ago
      > It is (indirectly) to me. I often visit the US, and I'm always amazed that I can't seem to go anywhere walking. The distances to go anywhere are huge. It seems to be that way because cities in the US where designed / build with cars in mind. Huh, why would you think that? I'm not sure there's a major city in the U.S. that wasn't already a major city pre-car. And cities weren't redesigned post-car, that's why a lot of them have road problems. U.S. cities are spread out because of suburbanization. It's only going to increase as the workforce becomes more remote-based.
doc_holliday 12y ago
Can't wait till these work on country roads! Would really free me up from living in the city I work. Can get work and other things done on the commute to work. Or live miles away and telecommute work most days then travel overnight whilst sleeping for times I need to be in the office. Best yet, I can go on nights out without worrying about driving home / paying taxi. The other maniacs and safety of country roads has always put me off commuting from rural areas, but this really changes that!
josefresco 12y ago
Best part of the embedded video, and a moment sure to bring a smile to the engineer's faces is at 1:45. No amount of data can give you that sort of useful feedback.
bitL 12y ago
One of the few pleasures of modern world is now slowly being removed! :-D I guess I will treasure my memories of driving Lamborghini Murcielago over 200mph forever and will tell my grandchildren there was a time when you actually could drive a car yourself! And to those that argue young people don't want to own the car - it's mostly about not wanting to spend your life commuting, hunting parking spots or in traffic jams, and frankly, daily driving to work in the States is as boring as it can get. I don't own a car, I rely on public transport which is usually faster in European cities than driving your own car, allowing me to work on a lot of stuff while traveling. Whenever I need I rather rent a car - it's newer, serviced, no hassles and I can try different cars at will. From that point of view self-driving vehicle is wonderful (if it becomes eco-nomical/logical), though as a car-geek and F1/CART fan I really love to drive for pleasure.
- jpadkins 12y ago
  in the self driving future, there will be a place for off road trucks and fast cars on race tracks. We probably won't let those type of vehicles on the main roads.
  - bitL 12y ago
    Still, if you think about it, what will be then the difference between having all cars self-driving, and public transport? All cars will be queued automatically, possibly flow-"optimized" at junctions, behaving like a special type of public transport (if we manage to create a proper real-time highly intelligent scheduling). When you look at how Google computes the fastest route in their maps/online navigation, they basically have some precomputed grid of "main" traffic centers, and they route all local traffic to the nearest of those centers. The main centers have pre-computed distances/times/routes between each other, so they can be stored in a distributed hashmap, and the lookup of the fastest route takes nanoseconds. The remaining "local" part is then computed on the fly. I am curious if a similar algorithm will be used in our self-driving future - you'd have local part of the route where you'll board a self-driving car and that will lead you to one of those "main" centers where a super-fast transport will move you to another "main" center, either by having you to board an express-train like device, or putting the whole car or just its interior there. What do you think? I think Chinese can probably experiment with such approach in one of their experimental cities ;-)
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
dba7dba 12y ago
I think many people against Google self-driving vehicle are worried about privacy issue. Well I say please bring out the self-driving cars asap. IMHO, big part of the first wave of customers to buy self-driving cars will be older drivers who are not allowed (or choose to) drive on their own. My parents are able to drive on their around now but are already getting worried about the day when they can't drive around on their own. They would appreciate a self-driving car. Only issue for google would be that they won't be providing any useful data to google with their destinations and they are not really online but oh well...
- path411 12y ago
  They don't really add any extra privacy issues than carrying around an android device in your pocket. Also even if you dislike Google, they are fairly transparent and would likely tell us if they are tracking the data, how do you know GM/Ford aren't already tracking vehicle routes and using this data?
allochthon 12y ago
They won’t have a steering wheel, accelerator pedal, or brake pedal… because they don’t need them. I like the self-driving prototype. But this comment brings to my mind a situation where police operators or organized crime override the car's controls and reroute it to an alternative destination. A manual override, perhaps no more than an emergency brake, would be really nice if you thought something weird was going on.
- cm127 12y ago
  Technically, our current cab drivers could do the same thing.
kibwen 12y ago
Without manual controls, what mechanism do they use to drive it into and out of the trailer as seen at the beginning of the video?
nether 12y ago
I wonder if they'll ever get the vehicle below $200k with the 64-beam 360-degree FOV LIDAR.
WalterBright 12y ago
I'm going to be sorry the day they outlaw manually driving a car.

540 points by cloudwalking 12y ago

So far Google's self-driving cars have been designed to have the driver take over in certain situations. I wonder how that works without a steering wheel and pedals. Are the cars manually drivable at all?

isaacdl 12y ago
Looks like they are. "We’re planning to build about a hundred prototype vehicles, and later this summer, our safety drivers will start testing early versions of these vehicles that have manual controls."
- jpatokal 12y ago
  That implies that the prototypes will have manual controls, but the production versions will not.
Retric 12y ago
From a UI perspective if they rarely need manual control you can use a less ergonomic option. Such as a joystick which would be a pain for regular use but would take up less space and still provide plenty of control for situations like parking in a field for a concert and or a quick emergency override in case something goes wrong.
- erikpukinskis 12y ago
  > control for situations like parking in a field for a concert Or the car just takes a panorama and converts it to an aerial view and you simply drag your car where you want it to be and press Go.
tyleregeto 12y ago
Yes, that's is a very interesting point. I would think that, long term, the only manual control a self driving car really needs is a "kill switch." How long will it be after self-driving tech goes mainstream until people simply don't know who to drive? I can see my kids now, "I remember when I was a kid, my mom/dad actually had to control the automobile. Archaic!" Not too long ago my friend's son asked me why my phone was attached to the wall. He had only ever known cordless phones. I image cars will go a similar route.
- waps 12y ago
  There's a funny mention of this problem in "I, Robot". When will smith takes the wheel he is scolded for taking such a completely irresponsible risk. Given how those robots drive versus how he drives, we likely will have to agree with this at some point. I wonder if real life will play out the same way : will controlling a car the human way become an unacceptable risk, and how fast will this happen ? Because we're likely to see both effects play here : first, humans will become worse at controlling vehicles, and vehicles will become better at it, likely having superior senses and predictive ability. So there should come a point where humans become a risk. So there will come a point where we get to choose between new policies and letting humans drive. If we had self-driving cars and we could eliminate speed limits on interstates entirely, in trade for not allowing human drivers at all, would we do it ?
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    I would not be at all surprised to learn that computers are better at driving now. One interesting (albeit expensive) way to test this out would be to put some computer controlled cars into demolition derby races and see how they fare in artificially hostile driving environments where the human participants are extremely risk-tolerant. I'm very glad that California has legislation in place to allow this already, and think it's going to pay off in spades to be a leader in this area. My bet is that insurance will be baked into the price of the first generation of cars (ie subsidized by the manufacturers), liability rates will be extremely low, and there will be an avalanche of consumer switching over a fairly short period of 10-20 years.
arebop 12y ago
This wouldn't be a very interesting story if the answer were "yes." Whether Google or Toyota manufactures a self-driving car with manual override doesn't matter much from the point of view of a typical citizen or someone who's interested in the architectural implications of this technology. As long as there's a manual override and a responsibility to use it, the car requires a capable driver paying attention all the time. It's an interesting beginning and it might improve safety but it doesn't fundamentally change things. But without manual override, the car must be very reliably capable on its own. I suppose there might be a network connection and the ability to dispatch an Uber to pick you up whenever the car decides it is unable to proceed. But nobody will choose to use these cars if that scenario is remotely common. So announcing that this thing could ship in 2 years indicates to me that either Google's tech is doing way better than has been suggested in other recent press, or Google has started talking up vaporware to an unprecedented degree.
stormbrew 12y ago
From the stories that go into detail about google's self-driving cars, it really seems like at this point the driver-take-over situation is really more like a breakpoint than an actual safety valve. It's there for when the computer has multiple reasonable options and the driver's judgement and awareness is needed to help resolve the ambiguity not just for that ride, but for future rides as well (as a sort of feedback).
secabeen 12y ago
When they drive entirely on Google property (like this parking lot), they don't need controls. If they want to drive on public roads, the law requires manual control.

jpatokal 12y ago

Given that they're capped at 25 mph, these are legally "low-speed vehicles", not cars, which means they're way less regulated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-speed_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-speed_vehicle

FireBeyond 12y ago
I think, too, that there's a logical disconnect between "we focused on learning, not luxury", and "we want to hear about what you want in a vehicle where you sit back and enjoy the ride" (probably, to most, -not- a dearth of comforts).
- 001sky 12y ago
  Think of this as a bike-commute substitute with a roof.
  - btian 12y ago
    If only my bike powers and steers itself
  - newaccountfool 12y ago
    Without the exercise capability.
    - zachkatz 12y ago
      You could remove the seats and install an exercise bike.
  - tonylemesmer 12y ago
    that's a terrible analogy :) ! more like a taxi without having to speak to the driver or a personal bus.
  - greeneggs 12y ago
    An interesting thought. How small can self-driving vehicles be? Would you ride a self-driving motorcycle? A self-driving wheelchair? How about a self-driving Segway? You get on, hold on, and it does the rest. The technology for getting this working at all (let alone safely) is a long way away, but perhaps it could happen.

MichaelMoser123 12y ago

https://maps.google.com/locationhistory https://maps.google.com/locationhistory right now google already knows where we have been; with the car they will know where we are going to; The car as a tracking device, pure genius.

MichaelMoser123 12y ago
No Dave, you can't go to that protest; really not possible....

dustinupdyke 12y ago

When the man with glasses gives his perspective, the enablement hits you. If you've any humanity, you feel the potential this technology brings to so many.

tyleregeto 12y ago
I can relate to this. Anyone who has ever had to take a family members car away from them as they get older can as well. When someone has driven most of their life, losing the ability to drive can be a very difficult. To them its losing their independence. Self driving technology is very much about enablement.
- mirsadm 12y ago
  It's exciting to think that for the younger people now those sorts of issues are likely to be "fixed" when they get older.
agildehaus 12y ago
The man with the glasses is Steve Mahan, the blind man from their previous video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdgQpa1pUUE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdgQpa1pUUE
Brakenshire 12y ago
I think it's interesting, also, to think not only of the freedom this would bring to people with disabilities, but also just to children, and their parents. Kids could have a prepaid card/ticket which takes them only within 5 miles of home, or only to certain preset destinations. It would make it far easier to meet up with friends, go to youth clubs or social clubs, or come back from school, in places where the school buses are not up to scratch. And parents in turn don't have to spend hours joylessly ferrying kids around.

conectorx 12y ago

I bet it's written in GO language... LOL for when the car breaks don't work... just like in TOYOTA

noahl 12y ago

I think the biggest news was this sentence: If all goes well, we’d like to run a small pilot program here in California in the next couple of years. This is the next step in their very slow but, apparently, very steady march towards real self-driving cars that anyone can buy.

doomlaser 12y ago
Why buy a self driving car when you could rent one as needed?
- twerquie 12y ago
  I used public transit, taxis and car sharing services exclusively until I started a family. At which point setting up the carseat every time became prohibitively cumbersome and I bought my own car. Children's car seats are very personal in terms of size and configuration and are required by law. I think things like that will make people want their own self driving car. You want the one that fits your wife and two kids and your dog. Or you're rich and you want to be driven around in a really nice one that hasn't been used by other people. The more I think about it, the more I imagine rich people increasing their car ownership due to self driving cars. Take your fleet with you to the cottage or across the country, why not?
  - secabeen 12y ago
    I fully agree with all of the above. I also feel that people who have the means to purchase a self-driving car will do so. The compromises necessary to make a vehicle appropriate for use by multiple users conflict with the comfort and luxury many people expect in a vehicle they spend hours each day in. Would you like to spend your hour commute each day in a bus or taxi seat when you can afford the comfort of a Mercedes, BMW or even Toyota seat?
  - prawn 12y ago
    (I have a toddler, so I drive a car with a child seat.) I think we'll get over that attachment to specific car seats and instead more versatile seats will come into play. In the future, I imagine your car booking app will recognise your usual bookings (e.g., solo/couple, family with one toddler, moving cargo) and you will tap a preset to book whichever car you need. If your partner and kid are heading to a family engagement, up rolls a car with a baby seat pre-fitted and cleaned. If you're needing to move something large, a van shows up. Those that want a premium service, will book the platinum tier, either all the time or maybe just for date night.

tejaswiy 12y ago

I find it cute how most of the people still are not comfortable taking their eyes off the road.

kteofanidis 12y ago
To be fair I'm not comfortable taking my eyes off the road as a passenger with a human driver. I think people underestimate the fear of not having control. This will be a major issue to overcome and for some it will be like the fear of flying on a commercial aircraft. The fact they know it's safe doesn't really help much.

rquantz 12y ago

It seems like a mistake to remove manual controls entirely, not necessarily because of safety concerns, but because there are a fair number of times when you need the car to go somewhere without having a route. I'm thinking of things like: Moving your car ten feet so somebody else can get out of the driveway; handling double parking during alternate side parking hours; moving the car because you were waiting to pick someone up in a no-standing zone and a cop just pulled up behind you; moving the car to just the right spot so grandma doesn't have to walk any more steps than absolutely necessary; parking on a lawn for a party or concert; backing up to just the right spot so you can hitch up a trailer. The list could go on forever, and that's the point -- you can surely automate away some of these tasks, but there is an infinite multiplicity of things that need to be done with a car, and having to point them out on a map in order to get the car to do them, or even use a joystick to do it, sounds like an obnoxious chore. Edit: to those who disagree with me by pointing to a utopian future of car sharing for everyone and no one even being able to drive, that's fine I guess, but this seems to be suggesting that the very first generation of these will be without a steering wheel, when very few people will have these cars and all of the problems I listed will still exist. Even if your ultimate goal is for passengers to be completely dependent on the AI for navigation, that's just not going to be an option when these things roll off the lot as soon as 2016.

jackvalentine 12y ago
I agree with you, perhaps in the context of a personal vehicle there does need to be manual control. However I can see these more as a form of private public transit, a fleet of driverless google cars cruising around and anyone with a subscription a la zipcar can hail them and go. Perhaps in this context, Google could operate parking garages where they can be recharged and cleaned while keeping them off the street and out of people's ways.
- rquantz 12y ago
  That sounds cool, although most cities already have something similar in the form of buses, which are cheaper and more efficient than what you're talking about. In any case, they will probably not start by having a huge fleet, but by selling them as personal vehicles.

Mister_Snuggles 12y ago

This will eventually make non-automated driving sort of like a manual transmission (in North America) - something you get because you either specifically want one or because it's all you can afford (I'm probably way over-generalizing). Eventually, just like the automatic transmission, the self-driving car will be the default for most people. I don't imagine that we'll get away from people who drive because they find it enjoyable any time soon.

femto 12y ago
> I don't imagine that we'll get away from people who drive because they find it enjoyable any time soon. I can see that there will be a rapid change in social attitudes, once automated driving reaches the point where it is generally accepted to kill/maim fewer people than automated driving. Think back 30 years, when it was socially acceptable to light up cigarettes around small children. Now it is socially unacceptable to do so, to the point that it is illegal in many jurisdictions. Where I live, it is illegal to smoke in the vicinity of a school, within 10 metres of a playground or in a car with a child under 16 years [1]. Once a tipping point is reached, where manual driving is widely accepted to be more dangerous that automated driving, manual driving will quickly be banned in the vicinity of schools. There will be resistance and arguments from manual driving aficionados. Eventually, public manual driving will be confined to either remote areas or purpose built facilities, just as public smoking is restricted to open-areas and smoking rooms. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_Austral...
- femto 12y ago
  -- Edit: On reading other comments, I'd extend the analogy to smoking (and other activities that carry a public risk) by pointing out that there will be a financial penalty for choosing to drive oneself. Just as smoking is a risk factor that increases health/life insurance premiums, manual driving will also be a factor in calculating insurance premiums.
gramasaurous 12y ago
Exactly, and the way I see it is that driverless cars will remove the parts of driving that people don't enjoy, things like commuting, dealing with traffic, and parking (and running over pedestrians). But people who enjoy driving, are still free to a leisurely drive up the coast, or to race on the local track.

SilasX 12y ago

Forgive my crankiness, but: Does this say anything that the casual follower of self driving cars doesn't already know? All I got out of this was: - Self driving cars would be awesome, for well known reasons. - We have to use a lot of good sensors to make this work. - It's an interesting problem.

enneff 12y ago
It says that Google are building the cars.
JoshuaJBerk 12y ago
I'd argue that the entire propose is to expand beyond 'casual followers.' The challenge of self driving cars is ultimately a social (more than a technical) one. Distribution. PR. Legal.
prawn 12y ago
Takeaways: - They're working on physical prototypes. - These cars don't have a steering wheel or pedals for human override. - Speed-limited reveals a bit more of their strategy. - Makes clear how useful and empowering these vehicles will be to someone visually or physically impaired, the elderly, etc.

Oculus 12y ago

Tesla (or insert company willing to go big on electric cars) and Google really need to team up on this. Self driving cars have the potential to completely do away with owning personal cars. Imagine a new public/private service that allows people to travel where & when they want without having to deal with the hassles or cost of owning a car. With the added centralization, the headaches that electric cars cause can be eliminated with a bit of logistics planning (cars are interchangeable so low battery cars can go straight to a charging station instead of wait for their owners to take them to one).

tb 12y ago
This suggestion comes up whenever the topic of self-driving cars arises, but I wonder if access to a fleet of self-driving cars would be more akin to a cheaper taxi service than a replacement for car ownership. I suspect that many people would still prefer to own their own (self-driving) car rather than rent one from a fleet only when required. However the privately owned self-driving car could still drive itself to the nearest charging station when not in use so I agree with your premise that self-driving and electric car technology has some synergies. Being a high-tech automaker, Tesla would be an obvious licensee for Google's self-driving technology once it matures.
- Oculus 12y ago
  Fair observation, but I think this sort of centralization will come after maybe 2 or 3 generations (40 - 60 years). With a long enough timetable I believe the sentiment behind private car ownership will dwindle until it becomes a hobby akin to collecting telegraph machines.
k-mcgrady 12y ago
I think Google wants to do a similar thing to Tesla. Maybe have a few of their own vehicles but bet big on the technology. They can then sell it to the big car manufacturers. With Tesla it's their battery technology, with Google it's their sensor technology.
MattPearce 12y ago
The video suggests these cars are probably being built in Tesla's factory - the white-painted walls and red-painted machinery are pretty unique to Tesla. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqSDWoAhvLU#t=58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqSDWoAhvLU#t=58 (Also note that "Rotary Lift", the brand seen at that point in the video, is the exclusive supplier of vehicle lifts to Tesla - http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tesla-motors-chooses-fast-battery-powered-rotary-lift-shockwave-lifts-to-service-its-fast-battery-powered-cars-249962221.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tesla-motors-chooses...)

jabelk 12y ago

I wonder whether they will first become available as a product that individual people can buy, or if Google will open some sort of service where you can sign up for a monthly "car plan" for X miles. Or maybe partner with a taxi company/Uber, where you pay per ride but the cars are driverless. I imagine all 3 models will be tried at some point, and it'll be interesting to watch their development and which one eventually dominates. Also, commuting could be done so much more efficiently. Imagine a fleet of 1 person cars that pick you up in the morning, drop you off at a more central location (than your house), at which point you get on a higher capacity (driverless?) vehicle - bus or van maybe - for the trip into the city. And the bus unloads into another central area, with another bunch of small cars taking people to their offices. I'd use the bus if it never stopped, and that system would be almost as fast as driving yourself. Heck, it'd probably be much faster, because the hordes of people people sitting alone in their sedans would be consolidated and eliminate a lot of highway congestion. Not to mention cheaper, and better for the environment (less gas). I haven't heard much about addressing the legal and regulatory issues driverless cars are going to have to overcome, does anyone have more information on that? Obviously something will have to be done for when the car wrecks or malfunctions and damages something.

slyall 12y ago
I really think that self-driving buses will be common long before most cars are. * They cover the same routes day after day * They are already centrally owned by large companies or governments * Driver cost is a big reason you can't have 2 small buses running twice as often as a single big bus. Or why buses can't run longer hours. * You still have limited space on roads and you need to use PT to get the person density up. This will always be hard with just one person in each vehicle
- jacquesm 12y ago
  I think the driver on the bus has more functions than just being a driver. He's also an authority figure and can provide assistance.
  - 12y ago

stephengillie 12y ago

Please hire me!

higherpurpose 12y ago

White one looks better. Overall design not too bad, especially if they want them to be immediately recognizable.

sown 12y ago

It seems like they would eventually have a four-seater version but the bench seats could face each other. What a simple thing but so different. Maybe like suicide-doors used to be common in the US but they're such a novelty now.

prawn 12y ago
Yes, one of my first thoughts was about how much I enjoy road trips. But realistically, the bits I don't enjoy are having my attention pegged to the road and my foot to the pedals. A driverless car still leaves that progression through the landscape, the scenery, the togetherness. Taking your family on a road trip where the travel was in a capsule with two bench seats facing each other, and a table between, would be great. Read books, play cards, get some work done. Convert seats to beds and get some sleep while you cruise at 40 kmh to your destination overnight.
- Theodores 12y ago
  Sounds like you are waiting for the VW Camper Van version to come out. However, if you could sleep and drive there could be a whole new class of commuters cluttering up the roads on 4-8 hour commutes, or a whole new breed of tourists that set the car to drive through the night to the next destination so they wake up somewhere different, outside some cafe for brekkie.
  - sown 12y ago
    > or a whole new breed of tourists that set the car to drive through the night to the next destination so they wake up somewhere different, outside some cafe for brekkie. Or, maybe there'll be a 'random' button; the car surprises you about where it intends on going.
k-mcgrady 12y ago
>> "It seems like they would eventually have a four-seater version but the bench seats could face each other." I can think of two reasons against that. 1. People who get motion sickness get it 100x worse if they are facing the wrong way. There are also people I know who normally don't get motion sickness but get a bit queasy facing the wrong way. 2. If you are in an accident isn't it more dangerous for your neck if you're facing the wrong way. I know several cars currently (mostly people carriers) that have rotating seats but they can't be rotated when driving. I'm guessing that law is in place because rick of injury is higher facing the worn way.

bluthru 12y ago

I can't believe I didn't realize this earlier: When you have nothing in front of you, there's no need for an airbag!

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

c23gooey 12y ago

I feel as though they really havent embraced the driverless concept with their prototype. Why have seats that are fixed and facing forward? What about a couch? Why is there a dash? The people in the video are essentially watching the car drive itself, when they could be doing anything else. There are probably a multitude of reasons why the things above are the way they are. However, the prototype seems like just another car to me. Also, off-topic, but can we have a google/product launch video without the corny piano soundtrack.

eurleif 12y ago
>Why have seats that are fixed and facing forward? Seats facing forward means that acceleration pushes you backward into your seat. Any other direction would increase motion sickness. And what would be the advantage of the seats facing a different way? >What about a couch? The seats do look like a couch to me...
- arjunnarayan 12y ago
  Rear facing seats are safest, since acceleration is not the biggest problem, rapid deceleration is. http://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/are-aft-facing-airplane-seats-safer-146695292/?no-ist http://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/are-aft-facing-airpl...
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Not when your top speed is 25mph. You're far more likely to get rear-ended than suffer a head-on collision.
- sirdogealot 12y ago
  >what would be the advantage of the seats facing a different way? When you got into a head on collision, you would (perhaps) be spared the whiplash.
- abruzzi 12y ago
  >And what would be the advantage of the seats facing a different way? In a four seater, two seats forward and two seats back, for conversations. With only two seats, there is little benefit except for a head on collision.

waterlesscloud 12y ago

It's so cute! Look at it! It's even got a happy face! It's totally not a life-threatening robot of doom! And it promotes family talking time! Just like fast food restaurants in recent episodes of Mad Men! Sorry. It really is a slick ad for a neat product, I just can't resist noticing how they position it.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

petercoolz 12y ago

This warmed my heart. And thinking about it from a business perspective, not everybody needs to own their own self-driving car. Ie. it can self-drive itself home for use by the next person. Which means economically, the car price can be many multiples of the cost of current cars (imagine a $100k car that is shared between five families rather than five families each with their own car).

gdas 12y ago

I'm thinking about this basic idea: We have, in this case, a machine that is doing the job that a human driver would do - A machine replacing a man. My question is: Should we be happy about this? Or should we be sad? This time, we have a machine replacing a driver. In the future we may have machines replacing teachers, doctors, carpenters, artists... even lovers and machine makers. So, my question remains: Should we be happy? Or should we be sad? Normally, in science fiction movies, when the machines become intelectually smarter than humans, they try to destroy humanity. But if, in the real world, they just become smarter than us, and just replace us in every activity. Then, what would we do?

pirateking 12y ago
What would we do? Well, we might aspire to be more like our newfound superiors. We might attempt to become cyborgs.
brc 12y ago
What we always do - find more time and capital for more interesting projects. What did housewives do when they didn't have to stoke a fire to make dinner or out dirty clothes through a wringer? The relentless increase of technology improves everyone's lives even as it replaces manual labour. It's a non-stop process that shouldn't be messd with.
k-mcgrady 12y ago
I've been thinking about this a lot. I'll answer it two ways. Negative: - As we've automated jobs we've also created new ones, but lots of these new jobs are BS. Inspectors of inspectors etc. to fulfil health and safety regulations. We're also creating a lot of things that improve our lives or entertain us but are really just created so we have something to spend our money on. We don't need them. Positive: - I think the idea of a basic income would fix this. If we can automate everything and reduce the number of people that need to work AND provide them with a basic income, they can live their lives and not have to work. If you aren't anti-government you could even have the government owning factories, producing goods through automation and selling them to other countries in order to finance a good basic income for its citizens. It's going to be interesting and if you are young enough likely something you will see played out in your lifetime. Although the changes in the 20th century were massive and world changing I think the changes this century are going to be ones which change how we actually live on lives on a very basic level. What we do everyday and how we get money. Even if it all goes to hell it'll be interesting!

dave1619 12y ago

Hmmm, will Google go into manufacturing their own cars or will they stick with software and license it to other manufacturers?

k-mcgrady 12y ago
I think they'll do what Tesla does. They'll do a few of their own but their long game will be selling the tech to big manufacturers.

goutham467 12y ago

I believe manual override is necessary, remember IRobot anyone?

malandrew 12y ago

One question I'm curious about is whether or not we will shift to having seats in a different configuration such as having people sit facing each other. Furthermore I'm curious what factors will contribute to one configuration over another. factors that may matter: (1) safety (2) situational interaction (meeting, road trip with family) (3) social norms (what are we used to. e.g. the french sit next to each other in cafes, but americans sit across from each other) (4) motion sickness (5) ???

beefman 12y ago

Looks like it has no trunk, which is a huge use case for self-driving cars. How many trips do you make just to move things around? How much of what you own would you rather rent if you could have it delivered within 15 minutes? Then there's the economics of prepared meal delivery... I'll be surprised if passengerless cars don't outnumber passenger cars in 20 years. As for moving people, a significant part of city bus fares goes to driver salaries. And other vehicles tend to avoid buses / don't rely on making eye contact with bus drivers. And buses follow predefined routes. So it's surprising to me that Google is going for private cars instead of city buses as a first market.

skriticos2 12y ago
Looks like there is a bag compartment for had luggage where the dashboard normally is. The size of the thing does not suggest it's built for heavy lifting, I'm sure there will be models for that too.. maybe even the same with the passenger seats ripped out. When the car self-drives, you don't need the driver anymore to get stuff around. This really opens possibilities. The first prototype might not be the be-all-end-all thing, but it makes me confident that they don't try to design that on the first go.

kamaal 12y ago

It will be good if we can see these cars tested on the streets here in India. India is an amazing test bed for this kind of an application. Narrow roads, haphazard traffic, undisciplined crowd and driver behavior, kids playing on the roads, obstructions, potholes, animals on the roads etc etc. This will make an amazing place to test this set up. Plus India is an amazing business opportunity, given the overall scale of the economy here.

kyrra 12y ago
How many drivers in India properly obey driving laws? My understanding is that it can be pretty hectic driving India streets and breaking the law is required to make forward progress. I'm guessing a self driving car as designed for the US roads may be useless in India.
- kamaal 12y ago
  That's true. Which is why to make a generally intelligent self driving car. You will need a global test bed.
- aembleton 12y ago
  Yes, I think the car would just stop until there are no hazards or so that it can navigate around them. In India that might just mean that it won't move anywhere.

socrates1998 12y ago

This is going to change the world. No more car insurance. Vastly fewer driving fatalities. Shared cars. Less parking problems. I can't wait. Just take my money already.

Turing_Machine 12y ago
I bet you'll still need insurance (or the provider will need it, in a service model). It should be much, much cheaper though. Most vehicle accidents are caused by human error -- the insurance would just need to cover accidents caused by mechanical or software failure.
- cm127 12y ago
  I think you're both right. It'll probably be fixed into the price, and they'll probably just lease them to avoid legacy issues.
- 33W 12y ago
  Also comprehensive damages - hail, tornado, vandalism, or vehicular burglary.

tjmc 12y ago

I think Google could reach their goal faster if they started with more controlled environments - such as baggage vehicles at airports or mining trucks. There are plenty of people in my part of the world who are paid six figures to drive a truck up and down the same road of a mine all day.

nevi-me 12y ago
I know there are open-cast mines that already use remotely controlled/monitored and self-driving trucks. I think using it in an environment that they're used to, and which I presume would be most practical, makes sense. It is more helpful for them to research and build their technology where it will mostly be used, on the streets. There is more volume of traffic, which makes it possible to deploy 100 small cars cost-wise, and could lead to 'quicker' development as they won't always be slowed down by legal and other negotiations with airport companies and the like. Just my thoughts anyways :)

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

sidcool 12y ago

>They won’t have a steering wheel, accelerator pedal, or brake pedal… because they don’t need them. Our software and sensors do all the work This sounds amazing.

moca 12y ago

It is easy to explain no manual control. Google will include insurance cost into the service itself. If there is any accident, Google's insurance plan will cover it. If there is manual control, the insurance cost will be a mess, since you have to factor in the driving record of the person who is in the car. This alone would be a show stopper.

enscr 12y ago

The video shows a rotating camera at the top of the car that's scanning for objects (I guess). What's the advantage of a mechanical rotary movement over an array of cameras that give a continuous 360 degree view (e.g. the street view cars)? Update : Found a link : http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402516,00.asp http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402516,00.asp In an interview last week, Stuart Woods, the executive vice president of Velodyne, which manufactures the LIDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) rotating module that sits atop Google's autonomous vehicles, said that his company has started developing prototype security systems that could be trialed within the next year. The Velodyne LIDAR HDL-64E and HDL-32E modules use an array of either 64 or 32 lasers to electronically "see" the environment, Woods said. On Google's car, the module is set inside a rotating drum. Its lasers complement Google's own mapping software and GPS data, which help orient the car on the road. The LIDAR provides additional positional data, but also identifies other cars, bicycles, pedestrians, and road hazards.

pikachu_is_cool 12y ago
If I'm not mistaken, the "camera" at the top sends a very thin, concentrated vertical beam to detect objects. To implement it in the way you described, you'd need quite a few cameras (100+) to get the same precision.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
Sammi 12y ago
Don't think of it as a camera. Think of it as a radar (that uses laser light instead of radio waves, hence the LI instead of RA in LIDAR).
serf 12y ago
I don't know why they chose it, but off the top of my head : 1) possibly less production cost. an individual laser module is likely more costly than the mechanism to rotate a single one. 2) fewer channels of data often means less processing overhead.

rollthehard6 12y ago

Personally, I find it disappointing that this is perpetuating the inherent inefficiencies of the car concept, carrying a small number of people, usually a single person. The ultimate end game where cities are full of autonomous taxi vehicles that aren't owned, but paid for by usage makes sense though. You fire up an app / web link or SMS and a car appears within 5 minutes, drops off someone else and takes you on your way. Provided folk don't leave too many empty beer cans in the back seat...

masklinn 12y ago
> Personally, I find it disappointing that this is perpetuating the inherent inefficiencies of the car concept, carrying a small number of people, usually a single person. "Self-driving" systems for carrying big numbers of people have existed for centuries now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

furyg3 12y ago

In Amsterdam, I'm a big user of car2go. These are little electric smart cars which you can rent by the minute. For times when I don't have my bike nearby, or the public transport is not handy. These are basically little smart cars which drive themselves, which would be perfect.

pwf 12y ago
I use car2go in Austin, and already love the system. A car2go that could drive itself to my door would make my commute perfect.

artumi-richard 12y ago

Will there come a time when you can just cross the road whenever you choose knowing that all traffic will stop, without fail, automatically? I think the driverless car will actually make more of a difference to the typical pedestrian than the typical car occupier.

masklinn 12y ago
> I think the driverless car will actually make more of a difference to the typical pedestrian than the typical car occupier. Depends on the country really: in germany, if a pedestrian gets close to the curb all drivers will pile on the brakes. Gets awkward when you just wanted to take a slightly better look at something on the other side of the road (I've more than once crossed only to cross back a minute later, because a driver had thought I wanted to get to the other side)

jstclair 12y ago

Anyone else wonder why a self-driving car needs side-view mirrors?

agos 12y ago
to get out safely avoiding incoming traffic once parked.

abc123xyz 12y ago

Am I the only who actually enjoys driving (good cars)?

pkorzeniewski 12y ago
Finally someone! I thought I'm the only one here who loves driving.. Some people go as far as suggesting that manual cars will be banned at some point in the future - to be honest it sounds like some kind of dystopian vision where you have no control over anything.

whyleym 12y ago

The biggest problem I see here is that if all cars on the road were self driving then you have more control. The issue is when you mix human behaviour and error into the mix. The first fatal or near fatal accident with self driving cars could be the end before it's even started.

revelation 12y ago

The comments here are rather disappointing. It doesn't have manual controls? Well thats the point! I want to leave my crap in it and paint it some ugly color? Get with the times, young people already opt to not own cars. I can't double park in the city? Why are you imposing your steel box on people living in cities, many of which do not own cars and want walkable streets? I mean, this is the news website for a startup accelerator. If you are on here, have some appreciation for new ways of doing things. To disrupt the status quo is the very goal. If you ask for perfection from day one, we will never get anywhere. These cars have the potential to massively reduce traffic fatalities (one of the biggest remaining killers) and make cities useful again to the people that actually live in them.

pc86 12y ago
Is a car parked on a street really an imposition on you?
- e98cuenc 12y ago
  It is (indirectly) to me. I often visit the US, and I'm always amazed that I can't seem to go anywhere walking. The distances to go anywhere are huge. It seems to be that way because cities in the US where designed / build with cars in mind. In Europe cities were obviously not build with cars in mind, and as a result I enjoy here a much higher density of amenities (and suffer much worse driving conditions / parking time). Having all this space available for cars is not transparent to pedestrians.
  - Touche 12y ago
    > It is (indirectly) to me. I often visit the US, and I'm always amazed that I can't seem to go anywhere walking. The distances to go anywhere are huge. It seems to be that way because cities in the US where designed / build with cars in mind. Huh, why would you think that? I'm not sure there's a major city in the U.S. that wasn't already a major city pre-car. And cities weren't redesigned post-car, that's why a lot of them have road problems. U.S. cities are spread out because of suburbanization. It's only going to increase as the workforce becomes more remote-based.

doc_holliday 12y ago

Can't wait till these work on country roads! Would really free me up from living in the city I work. Can get work and other things done on the commute to work. Or live miles away and telecommute work most days then travel overnight whilst sleeping for times I need to be in the office. Best yet, I can go on nights out without worrying about driving home / paying taxi. The other maniacs and safety of country roads has always put me off commuting from rural areas, but this really changes that!

josefresco 12y ago

Best part of the embedded video, and a moment sure to bring a smile to the engineer's faces is at 1:45. No amount of data can give you that sort of useful feedback.

bitL 12y ago

One of the few pleasures of modern world is now slowly being removed! :-D I guess I will treasure my memories of driving Lamborghini Murcielago over 200mph forever and will tell my grandchildren there was a time when you actually could drive a car yourself! And to those that argue young people don't want to own the car - it's mostly about not wanting to spend your life commuting, hunting parking spots or in traffic jams, and frankly, daily driving to work in the States is as boring as it can get. I don't own a car, I rely on public transport which is usually faster in European cities than driving your own car, allowing me to work on a lot of stuff while traveling. Whenever I need I rather rent a car - it's newer, serviced, no hassles and I can try different cars at will. From that point of view self-driving vehicle is wonderful (if it becomes eco-nomical/logical), though as a car-geek and F1/CART fan I really love to drive for pleasure.

jpadkins 12y ago
in the self driving future, there will be a place for off road trucks and fast cars on race tracks. We probably won't let those type of vehicles on the main roads.
- bitL 12y ago
  Still, if you think about it, what will be then the difference between having all cars self-driving, and public transport? All cars will be queued automatically, possibly flow-"optimized" at junctions, behaving like a special type of public transport (if we manage to create a proper real-time highly intelligent scheduling). When you look at how Google computes the fastest route in their maps/online navigation, they basically have some precomputed grid of "main" traffic centers, and they route all local traffic to the nearest of those centers. The main centers have pre-computed distances/times/routes between each other, so they can be stored in a distributed hashmap, and the lookup of the fastest route takes nanoseconds. The remaining "local" part is then computed on the fly. I am curious if a similar algorithm will be used in our self-driving future - you'd have local part of the route where you'll board a self-driving car and that will lead you to one of those "main" centers where a super-fast transport will move you to another "main" center, either by having you to board an express-train like device, or putting the whole car or just its interior there. What do you think? I think Chinese can probably experiment with such approach in one of their experimental cities ;-)

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

dba7dba 12y ago

I think many people against Google self-driving vehicle are worried about privacy issue. Well I say please bring out the self-driving cars asap. IMHO, big part of the first wave of customers to buy self-driving cars will be older drivers who are not allowed (or choose to) drive on their own. My parents are able to drive on their around now but are already getting worried about the day when they can't drive around on their own. They would appreciate a self-driving car. Only issue for google would be that they won't be providing any useful data to google with their destinations and they are not really online but oh well...

path411 12y ago
They don't really add any extra privacy issues than carrying around an android device in your pocket. Also even if you dislike Google, they are fairly transparent and would likely tell us if they are tracking the data, how do you know GM/Ford aren't already tracking vehicle routes and using this data?

allochthon 12y ago

They won’t have a steering wheel, accelerator pedal, or brake pedal… because they don’t need them. I like the self-driving prototype. But this comment brings to my mind a situation where police operators or organized crime override the car's controls and reroute it to an alternative destination. A manual override, perhaps no more than an emergency brake, would be really nice if you thought something weird was going on.

cm127 12y ago
Technically, our current cab drivers could do the same thing.

kibwen 12y ago

Without manual controls, what mechanism do they use to drive it into and out of the trailer as seen at the beginning of the video?

nether 12y ago

I wonder if they'll ever get the vehicle below $200k with the 64-beam 360-degree FOV LIDAR.

WalterBright 12y ago

I'm going to be sorry the day they outlaw manually driving a car.