12 ms·

For $10,000, your car can drive itself – Cruise (YC W14)

252 points by ajaymehta 12y ago

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
debt 12y ago
I thought this was going to be some sort of one-time monthly fee for an actual human driver.
- jisaacks 12y ago
  > monthly fee for an actual human driver. I can find someone to drive me around for a month for way less than 10K
drKarl 12y ago
Mmmm according to the article Cruise is not a driver replacement. It can steer, brake, and avoid objects. I'm sure it can be quite safe on a highway, but what are its limits? Can can and cannot do?
- danielweber 12y ago
  It's clearly an intermediate product for people who want to get closer to driverless vehicles. I doubt this will make strict business sense for anyone right now.
  - jonknee 12y ago
    It seems more like an acquisition play as all the major car makers are going to end up in this space in the near future.
vonsydov 12y ago
This is pretty cool. Getting to market on even a simple product like this is huge.
theklub 12y ago
What happens if a leaf or some other obstruction blocks the cameras?
- jedberg 12y ago
  The human takes over until it can be cleared I assume. This system is not a self driving system -- it's basically a smarter cruise control. You still have to pay attention and be at the wheel. At least for now.
  - Dewie 12y ago
    That just sounds dangerous. A system that takes care of a lot for you, until it doesn't. And then you have to step in at a moments notice, even though you might not be paying enough attention to react fast enough. I think there has been cases of airline pilots' senses being dulled by all the automation, and then them stumbling to fix things when they have to step in and do its job manually. It seems to me that self-driving cars has to be a all-or-nothing deal.
    - danielweber 12y ago
      It doesn't have to slam on the breaks if a leaf gets in the way. It can continue driving its last-known-good-path while gradually slowing down, signalling to the driver that it's lost its data connection and that it's time to take over. I do wonder what it takes to block all the sensors at once, though. It has both cameras as well as radar systems. How independent are those?
    - CamperBob2 12y ago
      Honestly, I tend to agree (despite asking for a similar feature in another comment.) It's easy enough to build an automated vehicle, but, wait, what? It has to coexist with human drivers? Mmmm, I'll get back to you on that.
    - smackfu 12y ago
      OTOH, smart cruise control and obstacle avoidance are actually shipping features on current model year luxury cars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_cruise_control_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_cruise_control_syste... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collision_avoidance_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collision_avoidance_system Oh, and other systems to notice if you start getting drowsy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_drowsiness_detection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_drowsiness_detection
laurentoget 12y ago
so what do they expect will happen the first time someone gets in a serious accident while using one of those?
- yarone 12y ago
  I assume it's an MVP. They're probably hard at work on all of the core challenges of interpreting the road data in real-time and controlling the car. It's technology that I expect a bunch of big industry players want / will need. Lets see where it goes.
  - flatline 12y ago
    I interpreted this as a hilariously myopic SV view of the issue. "Move fast and break things" is not exactly a winning motto for the development of automotive tech, unless you're into the demolition derby scene;) The article states they plan to sell directly to consumers, not "big industry players", so it is a real issue. It also states that this is being released under the aegis of new CA law that goes into effect in the fall. I would imagine this law makes at least some provisions for liability, but the reality will probably be played out in the court systems for the rest of most of our lifetimes.
- SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
  This is an issue for all self-driving car tech. A little Googling uncovers the fact that airbags killed some 158 people in a recent year -- in low-speed accidents where the occupants would have been unharmed without the airbags. But airbags continued to grow in popularity (though now they're mandatory in the US, IIRC); automobile manufacturers just consider a certain amount of money paid out in liability a cost of doing business. To help protect the manufacturers, they should make sure to have a good black-box recording of all the sensor data in the case of an accident. If there was a bug, they need to pay out the damages and fix the bug. If the accident was caused by someone else behaving dangerously, though, they should be protected from liability. Bad press, however, is likely no matter what. The recent "Teslas can catch on fire!" media storm shows that; as I'm sure most HN readers know, a smaller percentage of Teslas caught fire than gasoline cars, and no Tesla owners were harmed, making the Tesla fires a non-story. Or it should have been a non-story, anyway.
CamperBob2 12y ago
I don't want my car to steer itself, at least not just yet, but I do want to add a radar-based aftermarket active cruise control system to it that can maintain a preset following distance to the car ahead by controlling the accelerator and brakes. This was actually available as a factory option in my car, but I didn't order it because I thought (incorrectly) that it didn't work in stop-and-go traffic. I've been kicking myself for that ever since. Perhaps Cruise could consider developing an ACC system for the benefit of customers who would welcome some automation but who aren't quite ready to surrender the steering wheel yet.
- ah- 12y ago
  These systems have been available for several years now, so I don't really see how many people would buy a retrofit option. People don't even upgrade their car stereo systems anymore.
  - caw 12y ago
    That's because the manufacturers tie so much stuff into them. It's been 3 years since I looked into it, but it was my understanding that if I upgraded my stereo I'd lose the nice display just below the windshield line. I think I'd also lose either the steering wheel music controls, or the bluetooth controls for my phone.
- songgao 12y ago
  IIRC, you have to have an ACC (Adaptive/Active Cruise Control) enabled vehicle in order to control the speed over the standard OBD-II port. This is because the vehicle has to have the capability to control the speed already, in order for Cruise to interface with it and adjust the speed. In other words, any car that Cruise can work on, should already have ACC built-in, or at least have optional ACC in that model. Since Cruise works on any Audi A4/S4, I'm guessing Audi uses the same base control component for all 4 series, so that even for a vehicle that does not have ACC or Auto Parking enabled, Cruise can still interface with the vehicle and adjust steering wheel and speed. This suggests that upgrading your car to support ACC might be feasible?
ah- 12y ago
I wonder what the long term goal is? Getting acquired by some auto manufacturer? I don't see many people that own modern enough cars (having the required electronics/mechanics already installed so all that's needed is a sensor and some data processing to send out control signals) investing into a retrofit device instead of just buying the next model which comes with the same thing out of the box. But I have to say that I'm impressed that they have made it this far, and almost certainly without any support from Audi.
- kvogt 12y ago
  We use our own actuators to control your steering wheel, gas pedal, and brake pedal. It's designed to work on any car, regardless of whether it has any drive-by-wire capabilities.
  - WalterSear 12y ago
    My blood runs cold.
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      What, you think you can't overpower a little servo?
      - WalterSear 12y ago
        I'm more worried about having to outrun it. https://www.google.com/search?q=old+person+drives+through+farmers+market https://www.google.com/search?q=old+person+drives+through+fa...
        scintill76 12y ago
        An actuator getting stuck on heavy acceleration? I'm also a skeptic, but you should be more clear about what your concern is, since the proponents will say some kind of automatic radar braking system could have prevented this.
matthewowen 12y ago
I understand why this sort of progress is interesting... but I feel like in this form, this is of minimal value. If I have to pay attention anyway (because of the risk of failure or situations it can't understand), then it isn't that helpful. I mean, it isn't like I can just zone out and read a book: I still have to pay just as much information. Actually, to be more concrete, I definitely see the utility of this as an extra line of safety (a fallback if/when the driver does lose focus). But as something that is "between cruise control and self driving cars"... nope, not convinced. I wish it were pitched more conservatively.
- netcan 12y ago
  It's useful in the same way cruise control is.
  - sukuriant 12y ago
    managing one's speed so as not to get pulled over for speeding?
  - jonknee 12y ago
    I probably wouldn't drill holes into my brand new car's roof and spend $10k just to get something like cruise control. Also FWIW, the Audi in question has adaptive cruise control as an option. That seems to be a much better bang for your buck.
    - namdnay 12y ago
      Lane Assist is also an Audi option (but maybe only in A6+), so I really don't understand the value of their proposition.
danielweber 12y ago
FYI: http://reserve.getcruise.com/join-the-driverless-revolution http://reserve.getcruise.com/join-the-driverless-revolution The font here is illegible. Some weird anti-aliases very-thin white-on-black. Highlighting doesn't help.
- clarkdave 12y ago
  I have this too in Chrome 35 on Windows 7. Here's how it looks: http://imgur.com/SSMV8j6 http://imgur.com/SSMV8j6
dutchbrit 12y ago
Shame that thong looks ugly on the roof if that car. Who's liable if an accident happens when Cruise is turned on?
- jisaacks 12y ago
  Being that this is marketed as a sort of cruise control++, I would suspect the same party who is liable when an accident happens while cruise control is engaged.
  - kylebrown 12y ago
    Legal costs would be very high, in any case. Look at Toyota's gas-pedal settlement.
mtsmith85 12y ago
This "frightens" me a lot more than the Google car does. I trust that automated cars will be safe "enough." I don't think I would necessarily trust an automated car that can find itself in a situation in which a driver needs to intervene. I barely trust other drivers on the road (maybe its the NYC driver in me...). Trusting those drivers' reaction times in a situation where the car needs to disable automation would require a lot of built up good will/trust. That being said, I think this could be a great idea for more closed environments. Honestly, I'm not really sure where they are. Maybe huge airport parking lots (as "drop offs" at specific locations), or in large corporate parks or something of that nature.
- nether 12y ago
  Aside, but can we drop the scare quotes? If something frightens you, just say it. Or choose a better word.
  - mtsmith85 12y ago
    That's probably fair. I, funny enough, used quotes, because I couldn't think of a less serious word than frightens. Concerns is maybe a better word choice.
    - Encosia 12y ago
      Troubles. Bothers. Unnerves.
- biot 12y ago
  It seems like vehicles will have to go through an "unsafe valley"[0] where there's a huge gulf between "does a couple of things really well" and "go to sleep and you'll arrive safely at your destination". [0] Not the same, but it's a bit analogous to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
sheetjs 12y ago
Related technologies that sit somewhere between cruise control and self-driving cars in terms of automation (I only have personal experience with older versions of the BMW and MB systems, and the situation has clearly improved in the last few years): - BMW active cruise control will automatically adjust if you get too close to the car in front of you - Infiniti cars will stop themselves if they detect obstructions in the direction of motion (rear and forward) - Ford cars can perform the motions of parallel parking - Mercedes-Benz cars warn you when you drift into the next lane Other car manufacturers have related technologies.
- Retric 12y ago
  I think most of those are a little more capable than that, it's mostly a question of which aspects of automation their playing up. EX: A high end Acura with adaptive cruse control will also automatically break if it detects an unavoidable collision. Still, I think we are better off focusing on assistive driving systems like blind spot warning, stability assistance, etc than slightly better forms of cruse control.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- marcc 12y ago
  The newer Mercedes-Benz system will actually steer the car to keep it following the car in front, while in slow enough traffic (< 37 MPH).
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - kvogt 12y ago
    Mercedes-Benz has a very nice product, but it's not hands-free. There's a huge difference.
    - marcc 12y ago
hawkharris 12y ago
This reminds me of a Kickstarter campaign I saw a few months ago. The campaign's goal was to build low-cost bouncing balls that cleared mine fields. You could roll the ball into a dangerous, abandoned area and it would cause dormant mines to explode. The problem with that campaign is that it instilled a false sense of confidence. The technology was "an in-between": certainly better than nothing, but not as effective or safe as traditional mine-clearing methods. Cruise is in a similar position. They have a chance to improve people's lives and prevent serious injuries. At the same time, they're toeing a delicate line between improving drivers' safety and causing them to become complacent.
- kvogt 12y ago
  There is a fatal virus in the US that claims 3,000 people every month. And it's a nasty one. It's the #1 cause of death for teenagers. That virus is called a car accident, and the fact we're complacent with that is what scares me. We understand the delicate balance you describe and it's our top priority to make sure our product actually does improve drivers' safety. That's why we're using independent third party testing by the same companies who test products for the major automakers, even though there is no law or regulation requiring us to do so.
  - d23 12y ago
    > even though there is no law or regulation requiring us to do so. Are you honestly saying there's no laws around safety requirements in vehicles? Also, there's the fear of lawsuits.
    - kvogt 12y ago
      We do not make cars, and very few of the NHTSA regulations or FMVSS apply to this kind of product (at least for now). My point is that we recognize our own testing, regardless of its thoroughness, is not enough.
  - adamgravitis 12y ago
    And in what way, exactly, is that a virus? Epidemic, at a stretch. (I'm not typically this pedantic... I just think viruses have particularly interesting information dynamics and it's really weird to me when applied as a metaphor outside of where that would make sense.)
dave_sullivan 12y ago
There's going to be a big business in self driving car retrofits -- convert non-self driving to self driving. But it's going to need to be fully automated for people to bother.
- pdenya 12y ago
  Has there ever been big business in retrofitting cars? More likely a small number of hobbyists will retrofit and for the rest it'll gradually roll out from manufacturers. Cruise might be hoping for a partnership with Audi or something.
agumonkey 12y ago
Self driving cars have to deal with a human centric analog world. Why not add a layer of information to help them ? smart paint to help align, smart milestones and road signs broadcasting local driving constraints. Your car will read these and plan accordingly, instead of relying on heavy computer vision to be interpreted ?
- danielweber 12y ago
  Chicken-and-egg. It's expensive to add a bunch of stuff to the road for computer cars to read, and if there are no computer cars to read them, what's the point? Computer cars will lower the bar on what's valuable to put into the road. I can see the point in 30 years where computer driven cars are even simpler than today, because it made so much sense to add the automatic road markers, which made automating cars easier, which make all cars automatic, which led to roads being updated only electronically, which is now a simpler problem than today (driving on roads with only other computer-driven cars actively broadcasting beacons of their location and position, and road markers/signs/lights being trivial for computers to read).
jqm 12y ago
And....for $1.50 you can put a brick on the gas pedal. Now, this is missing many of the features of autonomous cars like the ones Google is developing and the driver will need to remain at the wheel and ready to take over in case of emergency... (ok, let the down votes commence. I couldn't resist. It's great people are working on things, and I hope something comes of it but this seems like a case of all or nothing to me).
- abruzzi 12y ago
  I think its the other way. Taking the plunge to 100% self driving is going to take a very long time. Google's systems seems to require elaborate 3d mapping of the entire road. In the poor states like where I live and where many people live on dirt roads that streetview has never seen (and some that don't even show up on Google maps), it is going to be a long time before fully automated driving is a proper 50 state solution. This on the other hand is something that could show up in cars in 5 years, and provide meaningful benefits far before Google is ready.
  - jqm 12y ago
    I suppose maybe incremental progress is the way autonomous driving will happen, so maybe you are right. And, all progress is progress and it is good. At the same time, I simply don't see much benefit and substantial risk in the system as presented. It works on one kind of car in one state. It only works under certain conditions. And it doesn't really do that much. Oh... and it seems a bit risky. I do understand the need to raise capital though, so if they sell some of these and it funds future development, great! I won't be buying one but hopefully someone does. Incidentally, I saw a device similar to the "brick" for sale in a truck-stop once. It was an adjustable pole that pushed down on the gas pedal and locked into place so the truck driver didn't have to use his foot (big trucks don't have cruise control I guess?). It seemed a little iffy to me to and I can't believe it would be legal.
msane 12y ago
Please go public soon so I can buy shares.
akgerber 12y ago
When I lived in San Diego, my route for my bike commute to work included Interstate 5[0], because bikes can legally take the interstate shoulder in California where there's no practical alternative route. Y'all handling that edge case? [0] Here: https://www.google.com/maps/@32.886728,-117.225045,3a,25.3y,309.37h,87.92t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s5mXyWboVy6eWKnGq6mWsvw!2e0 https://www.google.com/maps/@32.886728,-117.225045,3a,25.3y,... (note the bottom of the Bike Route sign says 'use I-5 shoulder')
- jzwinck 12y ago
  It is illegal to drive on the shoulder, so they need to handle this case for a lot of reasons (another being that substantial debris from collisions usually ends up on the shoulder). I do wonder how much space this thing will give cyclists when it passes them if they are near the white line, or if it understands to stay behind sometimes. Making the computer react to a cyclist ahead who is indicating a lane change or turn with his arm will be extra tricky.
  - tempestn 12y ago
    This video shows how the Google self-driving cars react to cyclists, as well as obstacles on the road and such: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk3oc1Hr62g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk3oc1Hr62g No idea how Cruise deals with this, but it does appear to be possible anyway.
ameister14 12y ago
I've been thinking about the applications of auto-driving cars a lot over the last year or so, and I think this kind of consumer use is not likely to be that successful. It seems more likely to me that this kind of highway driving system would be installed and work on tractor-trailers. It's a good compromise; drivers keep their jobs but get less stress, and when these are legalized with less issues, the next stage where driverless trucks are introduced can come into play easier legislatively. Legislation will likely be the biggest issue with these things in the United States. Taxi drivers already oppose Uber and Lyft; what do you think they'd do with an invention that removes their profession entirely? And their legislative pull pales in comparison to the teamsters'. So, this kind of staging is a good idea for introduction to driverless vehicles. It just won't work for an Audi.
mangeletti 12y ago
tl;dr Q.A. The homepage video play button doesn't work in Firefox (latest stable release)... [imagining RP-1 driving me off a cliff the moment I venture onto an unsupported road]
- danielkan 12y ago
  Unfortunately a slight oversight. I thought mp4 was supported. Fixing now. Thanks!
netcan 12y ago
Comments here are fairly negative. Pointing to downsides, insufficient upsides and such. Gimme fully self driving or go home. Here's my perspective: I think that self driving cars are coming and that. Even cars that drive on built-for-human roads are just a bridging technology. Eventually roads will be built for robocars. I think it's a big important technology. All transport revolutions are. To get on that road we need to start getting this tech into consumer land, a beachhead. I don't know if this specific product is it, but it could be. It's got a nice gradual path from cruise control plus to auto-drive for 80% of the ride. There might be other beachheads. Long haul trucking is often mentioned. This seems like a very similar problem. They both need to deal with highway driving only. Maybe robocar friendly road networks will be extended into built up areas. I'm happy to see a company take what's working now and put it in a consumer product. We'll see if people like it. If they do, it seems like a good a place to start developing this stuff outside of research labs. edit: clarity
- dxbydt 12y ago
  Exactly! People fail to factor how yc companies evolve - how fast, and how far. I made this mistake twice in my life. These days I just stfu. 3 years back, I met with the poundpay team. They knew zero about handling fraud, and they said so. They said they'll figure it out over time. The cofounder said he was "reading a bunch of machine learning papers over the weekend" on combating fraud. I found that amateurish & scary. 2 years back, I met with the interviewstreet founder. The founder did not have any technical chops to speak of, and was actually quite misinformed about scalability challenges, algorithms & programming languages. I couldn't see how this guy could take on topcoder. Today, 3 years hence, Balanced has processed over a half billion in payments, & Hackerrank has signed up a half million developers & both are well on their way towards a billion dollar market cap. Both are great companies to work for - in terms of actual tech & the potential for ipo riches. What Cruise is right now is a useless datapoint. Think about what it'll be 2 years from now. Use your imagination. There are tons of low hanging features they could iterate on & completely dominate the space. Enough said.
  - stcredzero 12y ago
    The underlying message I'm getting is that HN applicants tend to find the "actual" problem they can tackle to make their fortunes while initially trying to solve a different problem.
Nitramp 12y ago
Or, you could just buy the already existing product. Is there anything they want to add beyond these? http://www.mercedes-benz-intelligent-drive.com/com/en/1_driver-assistance-and-safety/2_distronic-plus-with-steering-assist http://www.mercedes-benz-intelligent-drive.com/com/en/1_driv... For Mercedes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSXUApikcOk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSXUApikcOk For Audi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8sJwuZyVAY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8sJwuZyVAY Similarly from other high-end car producers.
- callmeed 12y ago
  Cruise goes on an Audi A4, which is roughly half the cost of an A7 ... so you could get an A4+Cruise and still have money left over
  - bri3d 12y ago
    The A4 absolutely offers "active lane assist" (steering) as well as "adaptive cruise control with stop and go" (automatic throttle and braking, all the way down to stopping in traffic). http://www.audiusanews.com/newsrelease.do?id=2747 http://www.audiusanews.com/newsrelease.do?id=2747 I don't think it's quite as autonomous as Cruise - as noted by others in the thread, Cruise seems to be trying to reach a somewhat scary "good enough that you could read a book but please pay attention because it doesn't work just right yet" plateau, while the Audi system is simply supposed to be a gentle helper of sorts. But the Audi system also works on any highway rather than just pre-mapped areas, and is (for better or for worse) integrated with OEM brake and steering actuators and the car's throttle-by-wire system rather than relying on retrofitted physical systems.
semerda 12y ago
This feels like an addition to the future self driving cars more than anything else. Sort of like a adaptive cruise control (ACC) or Active Lane Keeping Assist in Mercedes? I see trust & cost being a major hurdle here. Like trusting a self driving car to take you home. I believe we need to totally remove the driver to really stop the number of deaths on the roads. As indicated below by others, there are plenty of bad drives in the day. When I came to the valley few years ago I was shocked to see the number of drivers failing to use indicators (blinkers). As a pedestrian this was alarming. How do you cross the road not knowing intent of so many cars on the road. As a driver it was tough to gauge the intent of drivers around you. The human behind the steering wheel is the problem and that is where most of the disruption should be focused on. Once we replace the human driver from the machine we will see less deaths on the road, faster commutes and more efficient use of resources.
iandanforth 12y ago
Mad props to the Cruise guys for taking this on. This kind of life and death programming is not something I'm willing to do. Just too freakin scary.
fallingmeat 12y ago
I'm very curious about the procedures and paradigms followed to develop the safety critical software inside the system, as well as the engineering pedigree of the developers. I don't mean this in a rude, finger pointing way, just proposing that some background and a slightly deeper technical description of the precautions would make a huge difference in confidence level. For example, are the redundancy systems space and time separated? What kind of methods were used to ensure that? Are there any overall hardware, software, communications development standards used and audited? Does anyone on the team have demonstrated experience in these areas? If this system were to be audited, what organization would be responsible? Thanks guys, great work so far and excellent vision!
kimonos 12y ago
Cool! But I still prefer driving myself..
justin 12y ago
No car on the market offers a driving assist at this level (both lane tracking and distance keeping). I personally drive hundreds of freeway miles a week and would pay much more than 10k to avoid doing that. It has been super impressive to watch the Cruise team of just 4 built a car that can drive down the freeway in just 7 months.
- tobithiel 12y ago
  As far as I understand their technology this is not true. My understanding is that the system keeps a distance to a vehicle in front and corrects the steering should the vehicle leave the lane. Even Audi themselves offers active lane keeping assist and adaptive cruise control systems. I'm not sure if this is available in the A4, but they offer it in their more expensive models. Mercedes-Benz also has both systems available in the S-Class. I couldn't find any detailed information on their site as to what they cover, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see their additional value right now.
- abstractbill 12y ago
  I had a drive in one of Cruise's prototypes a few days ago. This technology works. About a year ago, my family had a car crash that shook up my 3-year-old daughter so much that she still talks about how scary it was. This technology is important. Congrats to Kyle and the Cruise crew. I'm very impressed, and you guys should be very proud.
- sunsu 12y ago
  My 2010 Lexus had "lane keep assist" and adaptive cruise control (which used radar). It would bring you from 60mph to stop if needed without you ever needing to press the brake.
- namdnay 12y ago
  Adaptive Cruise Control + Lane Assist is in fact quite common. You can get it on the big Audis, JLR have it as standard and even Ford do it (I worked on it for the Kuga, but it will trickle down eventually)
- henrikschroder 12y ago
tempestn 12y ago
The problem I see is, if you still have to be fully attentive, supervising the computer and ready to take over, but not actually do anything... driving will be mind-numbingly boring. (That's assuming people are even capable of maintaining that attention, which many other comments address.) I mean, driving is usually already kind of boring, but at least the task keeps some part of your mind occupied. If the computer can take over completely - Google style - then you can do something else entirely. But this sounds like some kind of intermediate purgatory.
- saraid216 12y ago
  It's also worth noting that Google hires test drivers specifically for ability to maintain full attention during mind-numbing boredom.
userbinator 12y ago
Reading through all the safety concerns reminds me of this: http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/automated-to-death http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/automated-to-dea...
prawn 12y ago
What about exterior cameras combined with interior projection to provide an AR experience? Show optimum trailing distance, highlight hazards, display useful information in the field of view. Is that illegal to do, perhaps?
Datsundere 12y ago
For $10k I'd get either e46 m3, s2k, rx8, or mx5 or a cobra.
- tim333 12y ago
  My mx5's worth about $2000 so for $12k you could have a self driving one. Though there's not much roof space to bolt the thing on in an mx5.
aidenn0 12y ago
Self-driving cars will not be able to catch on without legislation limiting damages to manufacturers. Proponents of self-driving cars predict ~90% reduction in fatalities. What this means is that over 3000 people per year will be killed by self-driving cars. This is way better than what we have now, but in fatal car crashes, often the driver at fault is killed, and juries tend to assess much lower damages against dead people than against large corporations. Combine that with the fact that there typically aren't any damages at all awarded for single-occupant single-car collisions where the driver is at fault, and it seems entirely possible that the total damages awarded for traffic fatalities could stay at the current level, or even go up, leaving the manufacturers of self-driving cars to foot the bill. Now, I generally think that laws to cap damages are not good policy, as it does make it harder to discourage negligence or even malfeasance.
- tim333 12y ago
  Although the limited self driving systems we have already on Audis and the like are catching on already. I guess the driver has overall control so it's treated legally like a cruise control or similar. I think the main barrier at the moment to the adoption of the current limited systems is cost. If it became a $500 option I think basically all new cars would have it.
- danielweber 12y ago
  What this means is that over 3000 people per year will be killed by self-driving cars I appreciate this point, but there are two big assumptions hidden in there. 1. That number turns 30,000 accidents into 3,000 accidents, but that's assuming all cars are self-driving. 2. It assumes that in those 3,000 accidents, the self-driving cars are "at fault." But those last 10% of accidents are things in which driver error is not a factor. If a cinderblock falls off a bridge onto my self-driving car, it would take an incredibly aggressive jury[1] to blame that on the car. What is the cause of those last 10% of accidents? Is it things like manufacturing faults, in which case the manufacturer is already absorbing the risk? (And a computer-driven car could handle a blowout better than a human could.) Oh, I found an NHTSA paper[2] that gives that "90% due to human error" figure, and puts 4 to 13% on "vehicle factors (brake failure, tire problems, etc.)." So I think my point in the preceding paragraph holds: a big company is already on the line, the automatic car could do better health checks to prevent them, and it could have a better way of dealing with mechanical failure. [1] Not that such a thing is impossible. [2] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0B5GzBWLCrcJ:www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/UDAshortrpt/UDAsummtechrept.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0B5GzBW...
things 12y ago
Can this be removed easily? It looks like it would be a beacon for vandalism unless you spent your time in secure parking.
mellisarob 12y ago
seems like a fairly good bargain, life is far more precious than money. Spending on it will be worthwhile if it ensures safety
Marcus10110 12y ago
This is exactly the sort of thing I want to do next. Good luck guys! It's perfect. A real world problem with world changing impact. It's hard. Its orders of magnitude harder than anything else startups are doing around here! The opportunity is almost infinite, and there are potentially billions of dollars to be made. I wish I was working on it! I really hope these guys go all the way – although I'm sure there will be a ton of offers along the road. I wouldn't be surprised if Google X hadn't already made an offer, but if it comes down to it, I hope they go with Tesla over Google X. I got an inside look at their autopilot project a few months ago, and I'm really excited about it! Honestly though, there are probably a lot of other big players who could be interested – Amazon especially. Again though, I really hope they take this all the way to a mass market consumer product, preferably with multiple iterations, while expanding the capabilities toward what Elon described as the 99% Autonomous autopilot.

252 points by ajaymehta 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

debt 12y ago

I thought this was going to be some sort of one-time monthly fee for an actual human driver.

jisaacks 12y ago
> monthly fee for an actual human driver. I can find someone to drive me around for a month for way less than 10K

drKarl 12y ago

Mmmm according to the article Cruise is not a driver replacement. It can steer, brake, and avoid objects. I'm sure it can be quite safe on a highway, but what are its limits? Can can and cannot do?

danielweber 12y ago
It's clearly an intermediate product for people who want to get closer to driverless vehicles. I doubt this will make strict business sense for anyone right now.
- jonknee 12y ago
  It seems more like an acquisition play as all the major car makers are going to end up in this space in the near future.

vonsydov 12y ago

This is pretty cool. Getting to market on even a simple product like this is huge.

theklub 12y ago

What happens if a leaf or some other obstruction blocks the cameras?

jedberg 12y ago
The human takes over until it can be cleared I assume. This system is not a self driving system -- it's basically a smarter cruise control. You still have to pay attention and be at the wheel. At least for now.
- Dewie 12y ago
  That just sounds dangerous. A system that takes care of a lot for you, until it doesn't. And then you have to step in at a moments notice, even though you might not be paying enough attention to react fast enough. I think there has been cases of airline pilots' senses being dulled by all the automation, and then them stumbling to fix things when they have to step in and do its job manually. It seems to me that self-driving cars has to be a all-or-nothing deal.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    It doesn't have to slam on the breaks if a leaf gets in the way. It can continue driving its last-known-good-path while gradually slowing down, signalling to the driver that it's lost its data connection and that it's time to take over. I do wonder what it takes to block all the sensors at once, though. It has both cameras as well as radar systems. How independent are those?
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    Honestly, I tend to agree (despite asking for a similar feature in another comment.) It's easy enough to build an automated vehicle, but, wait, what? It has to coexist with human drivers? Mmmm, I'll get back to you on that.
  - smackfu 12y ago
    OTOH, smart cruise control and obstacle avoidance are actually shipping features on current model year luxury cars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_cruise_control_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_cruise_control_syste... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collision_avoidance_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collision_avoidance_system Oh, and other systems to notice if you start getting drowsy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_drowsiness_detection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_drowsiness_detection

laurentoget 12y ago

so what do they expect will happen the first time someone gets in a serious accident while using one of those?

yarone 12y ago
I assume it's an MVP. They're probably hard at work on all of the core challenges of interpreting the road data in real-time and controlling the car. It's technology that I expect a bunch of big industry players want / will need. Lets see where it goes.
- flatline 12y ago
  I interpreted this as a hilariously myopic SV view of the issue. "Move fast and break things" is not exactly a winning motto for the development of automotive tech, unless you're into the demolition derby scene;) The article states they plan to sell directly to consumers, not "big industry players", so it is a real issue. It also states that this is being released under the aegis of new CA law that goes into effect in the fall. I would imagine this law makes at least some provisions for liability, but the reality will probably be played out in the court systems for the rest of most of our lifetimes.
SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
This is an issue for all self-driving car tech. A little Googling uncovers the fact that airbags killed some 158 people in a recent year -- in low-speed accidents where the occupants would have been unharmed without the airbags. But airbags continued to grow in popularity (though now they're mandatory in the US, IIRC); automobile manufacturers just consider a certain amount of money paid out in liability a cost of doing business. To help protect the manufacturers, they should make sure to have a good black-box recording of all the sensor data in the case of an accident. If there was a bug, they need to pay out the damages and fix the bug. If the accident was caused by someone else behaving dangerously, though, they should be protected from liability. Bad press, however, is likely no matter what. The recent "Teslas can catch on fire!" media storm shows that; as I'm sure most HN readers know, a smaller percentage of Teslas caught fire than gasoline cars, and no Tesla owners were harmed, making the Tesla fires a non-story. Or it should have been a non-story, anyway.

CamperBob2 12y ago

I don't want my car to steer itself, at least not just yet, but I do want to add a radar-based aftermarket active cruise control system to it that can maintain a preset following distance to the car ahead by controlling the accelerator and brakes. This was actually available as a factory option in my car, but I didn't order it because I thought (incorrectly) that it didn't work in stop-and-go traffic. I've been kicking myself for that ever since. Perhaps Cruise could consider developing an ACC system for the benefit of customers who would welcome some automation but who aren't quite ready to surrender the steering wheel yet.

ah- 12y ago
These systems have been available for several years now, so I don't really see how many people would buy a retrofit option. People don't even upgrade their car stereo systems anymore.
- caw 12y ago
  That's because the manufacturers tie so much stuff into them. It's been 3 years since I looked into it, but it was my understanding that if I upgraded my stereo I'd lose the nice display just below the windshield line. I think I'd also lose either the steering wheel music controls, or the bluetooth controls for my phone.
songgao 12y ago
IIRC, you have to have an ACC (Adaptive/Active Cruise Control) enabled vehicle in order to control the speed over the standard OBD-II port. This is because the vehicle has to have the capability to control the speed already, in order for Cruise to interface with it and adjust the speed. In other words, any car that Cruise can work on, should already have ACC built-in, or at least have optional ACC in that model. Since Cruise works on any Audi A4/S4, I'm guessing Audi uses the same base control component for all 4 series, so that even for a vehicle that does not have ACC or Auto Parking enabled, Cruise can still interface with the vehicle and adjust steering wheel and speed. This suggests that upgrading your car to support ACC might be feasible?

ah- 12y ago

I wonder what the long term goal is? Getting acquired by some auto manufacturer? I don't see many people that own modern enough cars (having the required electronics/mechanics already installed so all that's needed is a sensor and some data processing to send out control signals) investing into a retrofit device instead of just buying the next model which comes with the same thing out of the box. But I have to say that I'm impressed that they have made it this far, and almost certainly without any support from Audi.

kvogt 12y ago
We use our own actuators to control your steering wheel, gas pedal, and brake pedal. It's designed to work on any car, regardless of whether it has any drive-by-wire capabilities.
- WalterSear 12y ago
  My blood runs cold.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    What, you think you can't overpower a little servo?
    - WalterSear 12y ago
      I'm more worried about having to outrun it. https://www.google.com/search?q=old+person+drives+through+farmers+market https://www.google.com/search?q=old+person+drives+through+fa...
      - scintill76 12y ago
        An actuator getting stuck on heavy acceleration? I'm also a skeptic, but you should be more clear about what your concern is, since the proponents will say some kind of automatic radar braking system could have prevented this.

matthewowen 12y ago

I understand why this sort of progress is interesting... but I feel like in this form, this is of minimal value. If I have to pay attention anyway (because of the risk of failure or situations it can't understand), then it isn't that helpful. I mean, it isn't like I can just zone out and read a book: I still have to pay just as much information. Actually, to be more concrete, I definitely see the utility of this as an extra line of safety (a fallback if/when the driver does lose focus). But as something that is "between cruise control and self driving cars"... nope, not convinced. I wish it were pitched more conservatively.

netcan 12y ago
It's useful in the same way cruise control is.
- sukuriant 12y ago
  managing one's speed so as not to get pulled over for speeding?
- jonknee 12y ago
  I probably wouldn't drill holes into my brand new car's roof and spend $10k just to get something like cruise control. Also FWIW, the Audi in question has adaptive cruise control as an option. That seems to be a much better bang for your buck.
  - namdnay 12y ago
    Lane Assist is also an Audi option (but maybe only in A6+), so I really don't understand the value of their proposition.

danielweber 12y ago

FYI: http://reserve.getcruise.com/join-the-driverless-revolution http://reserve.getcruise.com/join-the-driverless-revolution The font here is illegible. Some weird anti-aliases very-thin white-on-black. Highlighting doesn't help.

clarkdave 12y ago
I have this too in Chrome 35 on Windows 7. Here's how it looks: http://imgur.com/SSMV8j6 http://imgur.com/SSMV8j6

dutchbrit 12y ago

Shame that thong looks ugly on the roof if that car. Who's liable if an accident happens when Cruise is turned on?

jisaacks 12y ago
Being that this is marketed as a sort of cruise control++, I would suspect the same party who is liable when an accident happens while cruise control is engaged.
- kylebrown 12y ago
  Legal costs would be very high, in any case. Look at Toyota's gas-pedal settlement.

mtsmith85 12y ago

This "frightens" me a lot more than the Google car does. I trust that automated cars will be safe "enough." I don't think I would necessarily trust an automated car that can find itself in a situation in which a driver needs to intervene. I barely trust other drivers on the road (maybe its the NYC driver in me...). Trusting those drivers' reaction times in a situation where the car needs to disable automation would require a lot of built up good will/trust. That being said, I think this could be a great idea for more closed environments. Honestly, I'm not really sure where they are. Maybe huge airport parking lots (as "drop offs" at specific locations), or in large corporate parks or something of that nature.

nether 12y ago
Aside, but can we drop the scare quotes? If something frightens you, just say it. Or choose a better word.
- mtsmith85 12y ago
  That's probably fair. I, funny enough, used quotes, because I couldn't think of a less serious word than frightens. Concerns is maybe a better word choice.
  - Encosia 12y ago
    Troubles. Bothers. Unnerves.
biot 12y ago
It seems like vehicles will have to go through an "unsafe valley"[0] where there's a huge gulf between "does a couple of things really well" and "go to sleep and you'll arrive safely at your destination". [0] Not the same, but it's a bit analogous to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

sheetjs 12y ago

Related technologies that sit somewhere between cruise control and self-driving cars in terms of automation (I only have personal experience with older versions of the BMW and MB systems, and the situation has clearly improved in the last few years): - BMW active cruise control will automatically adjust if you get too close to the car in front of you - Infiniti cars will stop themselves if they detect obstructions in the direction of motion (rear and forward) - Ford cars can perform the motions of parallel parking - Mercedes-Benz cars warn you when you drift into the next lane Other car manufacturers have related technologies.

Retric 12y ago
I think most of those are a little more capable than that, it's mostly a question of which aspects of automation their playing up. EX: A high end Acura with adaptive cruse control will also automatically break if it detects an unavoidable collision. Still, I think we are better off focusing on assistive driving systems like blind spot warning, stability assistance, etc than slightly better forms of cruse control.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
marcc 12y ago
The newer Mercedes-Benz system will actually steer the car to keep it following the car in front, while in slow enough traffic (< 37 MPH).
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- kvogt 12y ago
  Mercedes-Benz has a very nice product, but it's not hands-free. There's a huge difference.
  - marcc 12y ago

hawkharris 12y ago

This reminds me of a Kickstarter campaign I saw a few months ago. The campaign's goal was to build low-cost bouncing balls that cleared mine fields. You could roll the ball into a dangerous, abandoned area and it would cause dormant mines to explode. The problem with that campaign is that it instilled a false sense of confidence. The technology was "an in-between": certainly better than nothing, but not as effective or safe as traditional mine-clearing methods. Cruise is in a similar position. They have a chance to improve people's lives and prevent serious injuries. At the same time, they're toeing a delicate line between improving drivers' safety and causing them to become complacent.

kvogt 12y ago
There is a fatal virus in the US that claims 3,000 people every month. And it's a nasty one. It's the #1 cause of death for teenagers. That virus is called a car accident, and the fact we're complacent with that is what scares me. We understand the delicate balance you describe and it's our top priority to make sure our product actually does improve drivers' safety. That's why we're using independent third party testing by the same companies who test products for the major automakers, even though there is no law or regulation requiring us to do so.
- d23 12y ago
  > even though there is no law or regulation requiring us to do so. Are you honestly saying there's no laws around safety requirements in vehicles? Also, there's the fear of lawsuits.
  - kvogt 12y ago
    We do not make cars, and very few of the NHTSA regulations or FMVSS apply to this kind of product (at least for now). My point is that we recognize our own testing, regardless of its thoroughness, is not enough.
- adamgravitis 12y ago
  And in what way, exactly, is that a virus? Epidemic, at a stretch. (I'm not typically this pedantic... I just think viruses have particularly interesting information dynamics and it's really weird to me when applied as a metaphor outside of where that would make sense.)

dave_sullivan 12y ago

There's going to be a big business in self driving car retrofits -- convert non-self driving to self driving. But it's going to need to be fully automated for people to bother.

pdenya 12y ago
Has there ever been big business in retrofitting cars? More likely a small number of hobbyists will retrofit and for the rest it'll gradually roll out from manufacturers. Cruise might be hoping for a partnership with Audi or something.

agumonkey 12y ago

Self driving cars have to deal with a human centric analog world. Why not add a layer of information to help them ? smart paint to help align, smart milestones and road signs broadcasting local driving constraints. Your car will read these and plan accordingly, instead of relying on heavy computer vision to be interpreted ?

danielweber 12y ago
Chicken-and-egg. It's expensive to add a bunch of stuff to the road for computer cars to read, and if there are no computer cars to read them, what's the point? Computer cars will lower the bar on what's valuable to put into the road. I can see the point in 30 years where computer driven cars are even simpler than today, because it made so much sense to add the automatic road markers, which made automating cars easier, which make all cars automatic, which led to roads being updated only electronically, which is now a simpler problem than today (driving on roads with only other computer-driven cars actively broadcasting beacons of their location and position, and road markers/signs/lights being trivial for computers to read).

jqm 12y ago

And....for $1.50 you can put a brick on the gas pedal. Now, this is missing many of the features of autonomous cars like the ones Google is developing and the driver will need to remain at the wheel and ready to take over in case of emergency... (ok, let the down votes commence. I couldn't resist. It's great people are working on things, and I hope something comes of it but this seems like a case of all or nothing to me).

abruzzi 12y ago
I think its the other way. Taking the plunge to 100% self driving is going to take a very long time. Google's systems seems to require elaborate 3d mapping of the entire road. In the poor states like where I live and where many people live on dirt roads that streetview has never seen (and some that don't even show up on Google maps), it is going to be a long time before fully automated driving is a proper 50 state solution. This on the other hand is something that could show up in cars in 5 years, and provide meaningful benefits far before Google is ready.
- jqm 12y ago
  I suppose maybe incremental progress is the way autonomous driving will happen, so maybe you are right. And, all progress is progress and it is good. At the same time, I simply don't see much benefit and substantial risk in the system as presented. It works on one kind of car in one state. It only works under certain conditions. And it doesn't really do that much. Oh... and it seems a bit risky. I do understand the need to raise capital though, so if they sell some of these and it funds future development, great! I won't be buying one but hopefully someone does. Incidentally, I saw a device similar to the "brick" for sale in a truck-stop once. It was an adjustable pole that pushed down on the gas pedal and locked into place so the truck driver didn't have to use his foot (big trucks don't have cruise control I guess?). It seemed a little iffy to me to and I can't believe it would be legal.

msane 12y ago

Please go public soon so I can buy shares.

akgerber 12y ago

When I lived in San Diego, my route for my bike commute to work included Interstate 5[0], because bikes can legally take the interstate shoulder in California where there's no practical alternative route. Y'all handling that edge case? [0] Here: https://www.google.com/maps/@32.886728,-117.225045,3a,25.3y,309.37h,87.92t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s5mXyWboVy6eWKnGq6mWsvw!2e0 https://www.google.com/maps/@32.886728,-117.225045,3a,25.3y,... (note the bottom of the Bike Route sign says 'use I-5 shoulder')

jzwinck 12y ago
It is illegal to drive on the shoulder, so they need to handle this case for a lot of reasons (another being that substantial debris from collisions usually ends up on the shoulder). I do wonder how much space this thing will give cyclists when it passes them if they are near the white line, or if it understands to stay behind sometimes. Making the computer react to a cyclist ahead who is indicating a lane change or turn with his arm will be extra tricky.
- tempestn 12y ago
  This video shows how the Google self-driving cars react to cyclists, as well as obstacles on the road and such: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk3oc1Hr62g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk3oc1Hr62g No idea how Cruise deals with this, but it does appear to be possible anyway.

ameister14 12y ago

I've been thinking about the applications of auto-driving cars a lot over the last year or so, and I think this kind of consumer use is not likely to be that successful. It seems more likely to me that this kind of highway driving system would be installed and work on tractor-trailers. It's a good compromise; drivers keep their jobs but get less stress, and when these are legalized with less issues, the next stage where driverless trucks are introduced can come into play easier legislatively. Legislation will likely be the biggest issue with these things in the United States. Taxi drivers already oppose Uber and Lyft; what do you think they'd do with an invention that removes their profession entirely? And their legislative pull pales in comparison to the teamsters'. So, this kind of staging is a good idea for introduction to driverless vehicles. It just won't work for an Audi.

mangeletti 12y ago

tl;dr Q.A. The homepage video play button doesn't work in Firefox (latest stable release)... [imagining RP-1 driving me off a cliff the moment I venture onto an unsupported road]

danielkan 12y ago
Unfortunately a slight oversight. I thought mp4 was supported. Fixing now. Thanks!

netcan 12y ago

Comments here are fairly negative. Pointing to downsides, insufficient upsides and such. Gimme fully self driving or go home. Here's my perspective: I think that self driving cars are coming and that. Even cars that drive on built-for-human roads are just a bridging technology. Eventually roads will be built for robocars. I think it's a big important technology. All transport revolutions are. To get on that road we need to start getting this tech into consumer land, a beachhead. I don't know if this specific product is it, but it could be. It's got a nice gradual path from cruise control plus to auto-drive for 80% of the ride. There might be other beachheads. Long haul trucking is often mentioned. This seems like a very similar problem. They both need to deal with highway driving only. Maybe robocar friendly road networks will be extended into built up areas. I'm happy to see a company take what's working now and put it in a consumer product. We'll see if people like it. If they do, it seems like a good a place to start developing this stuff outside of research labs. edit: clarity

dxbydt 12y ago
Exactly! People fail to factor how yc companies evolve - how fast, and how far. I made this mistake twice in my life. These days I just stfu. 3 years back, I met with the poundpay team. They knew zero about handling fraud, and they said so. They said they'll figure it out over time. The cofounder said he was "reading a bunch of machine learning papers over the weekend" on combating fraud. I found that amateurish & scary. 2 years back, I met with the interviewstreet founder. The founder did not have any technical chops to speak of, and was actually quite misinformed about scalability challenges, algorithms & programming languages. I couldn't see how this guy could take on topcoder. Today, 3 years hence, Balanced has processed over a half billion in payments, & Hackerrank has signed up a half million developers & both are well on their way towards a billion dollar market cap. Both are great companies to work for - in terms of actual tech & the potential for ipo riches. What Cruise is right now is a useless datapoint. Think about what it'll be 2 years from now. Use your imagination. There are tons of low hanging features they could iterate on & completely dominate the space. Enough said.
- stcredzero 12y ago
  The underlying message I'm getting is that HN applicants tend to find the "actual" problem they can tackle to make their fortunes while initially trying to solve a different problem.

Nitramp 12y ago

Or, you could just buy the already existing product. Is there anything they want to add beyond these? http://www.mercedes-benz-intelligent-drive.com/com/en/1_driver-assistance-and-safety/2_distronic-plus-with-steering-assist http://www.mercedes-benz-intelligent-drive.com/com/en/1_driv... For Mercedes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSXUApikcOk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSXUApikcOk For Audi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8sJwuZyVAY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8sJwuZyVAY Similarly from other high-end car producers.

callmeed 12y ago
Cruise goes on an Audi A4, which is roughly half the cost of an A7 ... so you could get an A4+Cruise and still have money left over
- bri3d 12y ago
  The A4 absolutely offers "active lane assist" (steering) as well as "adaptive cruise control with stop and go" (automatic throttle and braking, all the way down to stopping in traffic). http://www.audiusanews.com/newsrelease.do?id=2747 http://www.audiusanews.com/newsrelease.do?id=2747 I don't think it's quite as autonomous as Cruise - as noted by others in the thread, Cruise seems to be trying to reach a somewhat scary "good enough that you could read a book but please pay attention because it doesn't work just right yet" plateau, while the Audi system is simply supposed to be a gentle helper of sorts. But the Audi system also works on any highway rather than just pre-mapped areas, and is (for better or for worse) integrated with OEM brake and steering actuators and the car's throttle-by-wire system rather than relying on retrofitted physical systems.

semerda 12y ago

This feels like an addition to the future self driving cars more than anything else. Sort of like a adaptive cruise control (ACC) or Active Lane Keeping Assist in Mercedes? I see trust & cost being a major hurdle here. Like trusting a self driving car to take you home. I believe we need to totally remove the driver to really stop the number of deaths on the roads. As indicated below by others, there are plenty of bad drives in the day. When I came to the valley few years ago I was shocked to see the number of drivers failing to use indicators (blinkers). As a pedestrian this was alarming. How do you cross the road not knowing intent of so many cars on the road. As a driver it was tough to gauge the intent of drivers around you. The human behind the steering wheel is the problem and that is where most of the disruption should be focused on. Once we replace the human driver from the machine we will see less deaths on the road, faster commutes and more efficient use of resources.

iandanforth 12y ago

Mad props to the Cruise guys for taking this on. This kind of life and death programming is not something I'm willing to do. Just too freakin scary.

fallingmeat 12y ago

I'm very curious about the procedures and paradigms followed to develop the safety critical software inside the system, as well as the engineering pedigree of the developers. I don't mean this in a rude, finger pointing way, just proposing that some background and a slightly deeper technical description of the precautions would make a huge difference in confidence level. For example, are the redundancy systems space and time separated? What kind of methods were used to ensure that? Are there any overall hardware, software, communications development standards used and audited? Does anyone on the team have demonstrated experience in these areas? If this system were to be audited, what organization would be responsible? Thanks guys, great work so far and excellent vision!

kimonos 12y ago

Cool! But I still prefer driving myself..

justin 12y ago

No car on the market offers a driving assist at this level (both lane tracking and distance keeping). I personally drive hundreds of freeway miles a week and would pay much more than 10k to avoid doing that. It has been super impressive to watch the Cruise team of just 4 built a car that can drive down the freeway in just 7 months.

tobithiel 12y ago
As far as I understand their technology this is not true. My understanding is that the system keeps a distance to a vehicle in front and corrects the steering should the vehicle leave the lane. Even Audi themselves offers active lane keeping assist and adaptive cruise control systems. I'm not sure if this is available in the A4, but they offer it in their more expensive models. Mercedes-Benz also has both systems available in the S-Class. I couldn't find any detailed information on their site as to what they cover, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see their additional value right now.
abstractbill 12y ago
I had a drive in one of Cruise's prototypes a few days ago. This technology works. About a year ago, my family had a car crash that shook up my 3-year-old daughter so much that she still talks about how scary it was. This technology is important. Congrats to Kyle and the Cruise crew. I'm very impressed, and you guys should be very proud.
sunsu 12y ago
My 2010 Lexus had "lane keep assist" and adaptive cruise control (which used radar). It would bring you from 60mph to stop if needed without you ever needing to press the brake.
namdnay 12y ago
Adaptive Cruise Control + Lane Assist is in fact quite common. You can get it on the big Audis, JLR have it as standard and even Ford do it (I worked on it for the Kuga, but it will trickle down eventually)
henrikschroder 12y ago

tempestn 12y ago

The problem I see is, if you still have to be fully attentive, supervising the computer and ready to take over, but not actually do anything... driving will be mind-numbingly boring. (That's assuming people are even capable of maintaining that attention, which many other comments address.) I mean, driving is usually already kind of boring, but at least the task keeps some part of your mind occupied. If the computer can take over completely - Google style - then you can do something else entirely. But this sounds like some kind of intermediate purgatory.

saraid216 12y ago
It's also worth noting that Google hires test drivers specifically for ability to maintain full attention during mind-numbing boredom.

userbinator 12y ago

Reading through all the safety concerns reminds me of this: http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/automated-to-death http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/automated-to-dea...

prawn 12y ago

What about exterior cameras combined with interior projection to provide an AR experience? Show optimum trailing distance, highlight hazards, display useful information in the field of view. Is that illegal to do, perhaps?

Datsundere 12y ago

For $10k I'd get either e46 m3, s2k, rx8, or mx5 or a cobra.

tim333 12y ago
My mx5's worth about $2000 so for $12k you could have a self driving one. Though there's not much roof space to bolt the thing on in an mx5.

aidenn0 12y ago

Self-driving cars will not be able to catch on without legislation limiting damages to manufacturers. Proponents of self-driving cars predict ~90% reduction in fatalities. What this means is that over 3000 people per year will be killed by self-driving cars. This is way better than what we have now, but in fatal car crashes, often the driver at fault is killed, and juries tend to assess much lower damages against dead people than against large corporations. Combine that with the fact that there typically aren't any damages at all awarded for single-occupant single-car collisions where the driver is at fault, and it seems entirely possible that the total damages awarded for traffic fatalities could stay at the current level, or even go up, leaving the manufacturers of self-driving cars to foot the bill. Now, I generally think that laws to cap damages are not good policy, as it does make it harder to discourage negligence or even malfeasance.

tim333 12y ago
Although the limited self driving systems we have already on Audis and the like are catching on already. I guess the driver has overall control so it's treated legally like a cruise control or similar. I think the main barrier at the moment to the adoption of the current limited systems is cost. If it became a $500 option I think basically all new cars would have it.
danielweber 12y ago
What this means is that over 3000 people per year will be killed by self-driving cars I appreciate this point, but there are two big assumptions hidden in there. 1. That number turns 30,000 accidents into 3,000 accidents, but that's assuming all cars are self-driving. 2. It assumes that in those 3,000 accidents, the self-driving cars are "at fault." But those last 10% of accidents are things in which driver error is not a factor. If a cinderblock falls off a bridge onto my self-driving car, it would take an incredibly aggressive jury[1] to blame that on the car. What is the cause of those last 10% of accidents? Is it things like manufacturing faults, in which case the manufacturer is already absorbing the risk? (And a computer-driven car could handle a blowout better than a human could.) Oh, I found an NHTSA paper[2] that gives that "90% due to human error" figure, and puts 4 to 13% on "vehicle factors (brake failure, tire problems, etc.)." So I think my point in the preceding paragraph holds: a big company is already on the line, the automatic car could do better health checks to prevent them, and it could have a better way of dealing with mechanical failure. [1] Not that such a thing is impossible. [2] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0B5GzBWLCrcJ:www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/UDAshortrpt/UDAsummtechrept.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0B5GzBW...

things 12y ago

Can this be removed easily? It looks like it would be a beacon for vandalism unless you spent your time in secure parking.

mellisarob 12y ago

seems like a fairly good bargain, life is far more precious than money. Spending on it will be worthwhile if it ensures safety

Marcus10110 12y ago

This is exactly the sort of thing I want to do next. Good luck guys! It's perfect. A real world problem with world changing impact. It's hard. Its orders of magnitude harder than anything else startups are doing around here! The opportunity is almost infinite, and there are potentially billions of dollars to be made. I wish I was working on it! I really hope these guys go all the way – although I'm sure there will be a ton of offers along the road. I wouldn't be surprised if Google X hadn't already made an offer, but if it comes down to it, I hope they go with Tesla over Google X. I got an inside look at their autopilot project a few months ago, and I'm really excited about it! Honestly though, there are probably a lot of other big players who could be interested – Amazon especially. Again though, I really hope they take this all the way to a mass market consumer product, preferably with multiple iterations, while expanding the capabilities toward what Elon described as the 99% Autonomous autopilot.