6 ms·

Google Self-Driving Car Project

42 points by cjdulberger 11y ago

nogridbag 11y ago
> Aging or visually impaired loved ones wouldn't have to give up their independence. I know this is simply phase one, but I'm hoping google puts some emphasis on individuals in wheelchairs in future prototypes because this technology can be life changing for some with extremely limited mobility - my mother being one of them. Independence is key here and the the majority of us can't conceive what it's like to to be dependent on others for everything. A user with a wheelchair or power chair needs to able to get in and out of the self driving car with zero assistance.
dylanjermiah 11y ago
FAQ: http://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/faq/#q1 http://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/faq/#q1
return0 11y ago
is this a product, a prototype or are people going to sign up to start driving them? (and how?)
nathanskidmore 11y ago
Don't miss the reports section: http://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/reports/ http://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/reports/ which links to a May 2015 report that gives info about accidents and computer vision
- ufmace 11y ago
  Was just going to post that myself. I think this is the first time they've published a report of all of the accidents their vehicles have been in.
dbecker 11y ago
I'm trying to figure out if I can keep my current car until autonomous vehicles become broadly available. Anyone here have an informed opinion on when that will happen?
- return0 11y ago
  I suppose if they become mainstream, you will be able to convert your car to autonomous.
  - organsnyder 11y ago
    I don't think that a conversion will be easy. In addition to all of the necessary sensors and automated controls, you'd need to find someone willing to either do the conversion for you or sell you the parts needed to do it yourself, including a license for the software. Given the liability issues and low payoff involved, I doubt that any of the players involved will be licensing their software for diy/conversion use.
    - return0 11y ago
      Isn't the long term plan of google to licence the technology to car makers? Also the sensors and manipulators seem like standard components so they 'll probably not cost a lot when they are produced at scale.
      - organsnyder 11y ago
        I believe that is their plan. However, I don't see them going after the aftermarket—too many variables, and given the liability issues involved (for instance, what would happen if a sensor was installed incorrectly?), I think they'll avoid the aftermarket channel entirely.
        jfoutz 11y ago
        At the opening yes. Midgame, is requiring autonomous cars only in certain situations - perhaps highway/freeway lanes. Endgame is, of course, autonomous only - aftermarket is inevitable there. But the tech will be old and reliable by then.
        organsnyder 11y ago
danso 11y ago
From the FAQ: Will Google’s self-driving cars get into accidents? Have they gotten into accidents before? > Safety is our top priority. In the 6 years of our project, we’ve been involved in a small number of accidents in more than 1.8 million miles of autonomous and manual driving combined. Our vehicles have not caused any accidents while in self-driving mode. For more information, view our monthly reports. So no accidents in self-driving mode; a "small number" during "manual driving"...and credit to Google, even though there is only one monthly report, it contains a listing of past accidents: http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en/us/selfdrivingcar/files/reports/report-0515.pdf http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en/... I skimmed over the dozen listed incidents. Several of them were during "autonomous" mode but are incidents in which another car is described as hitting the vehicle. Arguably, none of the "manual" mode accidents were egregiously the fault of Google. However, I think the definition of "caused" will be debate here and for years to come. In one Feb. 2015 incident, the autonomous Google car is struck in the side rear by a car that rolled through a crossbound stop sign. The Google car is described as "Applying the brakes in response to its detection of the other vehicle's speed and trajectory"...since the collision ended up happening anyway, and it hit the rear of the Google car...doesn't that imply that if the Google car hadn't cautiously applied the brakes while going through the intersection, it would have cleared the intersection without getting hit? Also worth noting: the Google human driver tried to take control during the autobrake sequence...so it's possible that his/her reaction and manual braking was what led to the rear collision.
- return0 11y ago
  Even if they do cause rare accidents they ll be successful. I think in the end humans will adjust to drive more rationally when they learn how to spot autonomous cars.
  - fizzbatter 11y ago
    Tbh, i think it will result in more frustration by drivers at large. Eg, think of on the freeway, note the people who drive the actual speed limit. They're driving perfectly, yet people constantly pass them. It's worse on county roads (like in my local area, 50mph) without passing lanes. If you drive the speed limit you can almost guarantee to be passed by many cars, sometimes even dangerously, because it annoys people to go below the speed limit they perceive as correct. I like to go around the speed limit (admittedly, simply to avoid tickets), usually ~3mph over, but it will annoy me to no end if i have to drive 5mph slower because of someone in front of me. On these popular county roads i speak of, i usually go faster than i want (5-10mph over), because i don't like being dangerously and needlessly passed. Now, i'm not saying the self-driving cars are wrong in any way. I'm also aware that the roads i speak of will be among the last to get self driving cars. Nevertheless, i think humans will have to learn to drive far less aggressively. Though, when self-driving outnumber the normal drivers, it may not matter.
peter303 11y ago
I am curious why google dabbles in all these strange projects removed from their core business, which seems to be organizing the worlds information and making some money off that. are these merely hobbies of eccentric, rich founders? On the other hand I am glad somebody is pouring money into fundamental research. The government has limited funds. Many big companies that formally had big R&D cutback during downsizings.
- Hortinstein 11y ago
  Google is a machine learning company. Knowing about how people use their phone (Android), Computer (ChromeOS), etc a self driving car gives them more and more data to refine and expand their algorithms. At the same token it is because they have these vast troves of data and some of the best machine learning scientists in the word, they are suited to do this type of research. Another thing to think about is that if we are not distracted by the commute we will spend more time using Google services.
  - bane 11y ago
    (note: this is supposed to be pseudo-tongue-in-cheek-back-of-the-envelope math) Let's say they invest...I dunno $300m in developing this technology (completely made-up number) - The average commute time in the U.S. is ~30 minutes...or 1 hour per day. I don't know what it is globally, but for fun we'll assume it's the same for everybody on the planet. - Google made $66billion in 2014 (or about $9.43 per person on the planet, assuming 7billion people) - Assume most people are awake 16 hours during a day. - However, if people are stuck driving for 1 hour out of those 16, that's only 15 hours they can build revenue for google. - This means google is generating about $.63 per available waking hour per person. - 1 more available hour is $.63*7billion = a possible "new" market of $4.4billion/year assuming every person This would pay back the R&D costs handsomely + tons of profit in the first year if google can get everybody to switch all at once. Even if it takes a decade or two to switch humanity to self-driving cars, it would still pay for itself quickly.
- rubicon33 11y ago
  Innovation is one way to protect your business from failure. Relying on a single business model, for decades, naively assumes that society will always want, or need, your product or service. I tip my hat to Google, for attempting to stay ahead of the curve.
Animats 11y ago
Google doesn't give out much info about how their system works. It seems to be very much like the technology from the DARPA Urban Challenge in 2007. Most of the improvements since seem to relate to predicting the movements of other street users. That's not surprising, considering Google's focus on "big data". Sensor technology hasn't improved much. It's still mostly cameras, Velodyne rotating LIDAR units and off the shelf centimeter Doppler RADAR units. Flash LIDAR and millimeter RADAR aren't volume products yet. They will be once auto companies get serious about this. The DARPA Humanoid Challenge is live today. Watch: http://www.theroboticschallenge.org/ http://www.theroboticschallenge.org/
michaelmcmillan 11y ago
This is really impressive. However, has any one else thought about the ethical dilemmas these algorithms will have to decide upon? Say for instance that two pedestrians, a young child and an old person, suddenly find themselves in front of a self-driving car. There is not time for the car to brake in time so the algorithm has to make a choice: Which pedestrian gets hit? I think we'll see more questions like these in the coming years as AI progresses and we become more dependent on it.
- Nadya 11y ago
  This assumes a flaw in the cars algorithm to be travelling too quickly at an upcoming intersection - or a pedestrian breaking the law by jay-walking or crossing during a "no cross" time. Let's give it the most realistic scenario of a blind-turn intersection with an obstruction such as a bush make it impossible to see the sidewalk on the right-hand side. The two pedestrians in question are a grandparent and their grandchild crossing without looking both ways for their safety. Is there oncoming traffic? Is there an empty sidewalk to drive on? Can the car make an attempt to brake as safely and quickly as possible and sound the horn to alert the pedestrians to get out of the way? Is it safe enough to perform a handbrake turn? Is it safe enough to perform a bootleg turn? Before asking which pedestrian the car chooses to hit, I would exhaust all other available options to prevent such a scenario from happening in the first place.
  - michaelmcmillan 11y ago
    So your answer to my hypothetical question of what an algorithm should do in a situation where whatever the outcome a life will be lost, is to say that this scenario will never happen without a flaw in the cars algorithm? That seems very narrow minded to me. Let me put it this way: When all your other available options are exhausted what should the choice be?
    - Nadya 11y ago
      There has to be too little room to perform an evasive maneuver. The road has to be too crowded or too small to perform an evasive maneuver. The pedestrians would have to be deaf or suffer from "deer fright". The car would have to be travelling too quickly to brake and would have had to fail to notice the pedestrians about to cross. The scenario is one that requires so many worst-case-scenario events to be happening simultaneously as to say the scenario is likely avoidable altogether in one of numerous ways. So yes, I'm calling your hypothetical scenario a little contrived. To answer the hypothetical with the answer you're expecting; people have already made this choice in the past for disaster scenarios: "Women and children first." The algorithm would choose to hit the elderly person over the child in your scenario. The ethical choice becomes more complex if the pedestrians in question are both children or both women. I don't think humans have made an ethical decision on such a choice.
TheGRS 11y ago
Little surprised to see no comments on the car's aesthetic design. My first thought was "ew". At least with Tesla they tried to go with a design that was very appealing to the eye. This car looks like an ugly, mass-produced POC. My better senses tell me it is a prototype unit that was built for function over form. Just saying, if you want to get the public behind your idea, better put together something that is a little more sexy. Then again, Smart Cars are equally ugly and they have gained some huge traction, at least with car2go, so what do I know.
- teraflop 11y ago
  I'm willing to bet the aesthetic design is a very deliberate choice. Google knows that there's a lot of skepticism toward the idea of autonomous cars, largely based on their unfamiliarity. By limiting the initial version to 25mph and making it shaped like a Cozy Coupe, they're making it seem as non-threatening as they possibly can.
gumby 11y ago
I can't wait until I don't have to drive, but it's hard to see how much of a difference google is making. We're in downtown MV and these cars are continuously driving around, and one is parked every night a couple of houses down from my girlfriend's house. The problem is, they drive the same routes over and over. I always see them in the same places, and nowhere else. They have hyper-mapped a small number of routes (mm resolution). And all that highway driving: MV to SF and back on 280, over and over and over again. I am sure they are making progress, but how much?

42 points by cjdulberger 11y ago

> Aging or visually impaired loved ones wouldn't have to give up their independence. I know this is simply phase one, but I'm hoping google puts some emphasis on individuals in wheelchairs in future prototypes because this technology can be life changing for some with extremely limited mobility - my mother being one of them. Independence is key here and the the majority of us can't conceive what it's like to to be dependent on others for everything. A user with a wheelchair or power chair needs to able to get in and out of the self driving car with zero assistance.

dylanjermiah 11y ago

FAQ: http://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/faq/#q1 http://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/faq/#q1

return0 11y ago

is this a product, a prototype or are people going to sign up to start driving them? (and how?)

nathanskidmore 11y ago

Don't miss the reports section: http://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/reports/ http://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/reports/ which links to a May 2015 report that gives info about accidents and computer vision

ufmace 11y ago
Was just going to post that myself. I think this is the first time they've published a report of all of the accidents their vehicles have been in.

dbecker 11y ago

I'm trying to figure out if I can keep my current car until autonomous vehicles become broadly available. Anyone here have an informed opinion on when that will happen?

return0 11y ago
I suppose if they become mainstream, you will be able to convert your car to autonomous.
- organsnyder 11y ago
  I don't think that a conversion will be easy. In addition to all of the necessary sensors and automated controls, you'd need to find someone willing to either do the conversion for you or sell you the parts needed to do it yourself, including a license for the software. Given the liability issues and low payoff involved, I doubt that any of the players involved will be licensing their software for diy/conversion use.
  - return0 11y ago
    Isn't the long term plan of google to licence the technology to car makers? Also the sensors and manipulators seem like standard components so they 'll probably not cost a lot when they are produced at scale.
    - organsnyder 11y ago
      I believe that is their plan. However, I don't see them going after the aftermarket—too many variables, and given the liability issues involved (for instance, what would happen if a sensor was installed incorrectly?), I think they'll avoid the aftermarket channel entirely.
      - jfoutz 11y ago
        At the opening yes. Midgame, is requiring autonomous cars only in certain situations - perhaps highway/freeway lanes. Endgame is, of course, autonomous only - aftermarket is inevitable there. But the tech will be old and reliable by then.
        organsnyder 11y ago

danso 11y ago

From the FAQ: Will Google’s self-driving cars get into accidents? Have they gotten into accidents before? > Safety is our top priority. In the 6 years of our project, we’ve been involved in a small number of accidents in more than 1.8 million miles of autonomous and manual driving combined. Our vehicles have not caused any accidents while in self-driving mode. For more information, view our monthly reports. So no accidents in self-driving mode; a "small number" during "manual driving"...and credit to Google, even though there is only one monthly report, it contains a listing of past accidents: http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en/us/selfdrivingcar/files/reports/report-0515.pdf http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en/... I skimmed over the dozen listed incidents. Several of them were during "autonomous" mode but are incidents in which another car is described as hitting the vehicle. Arguably, none of the "manual" mode accidents were egregiously the fault of Google. However, I think the definition of "caused" will be debate here and for years to come. In one Feb. 2015 incident, the autonomous Google car is struck in the side rear by a car that rolled through a crossbound stop sign. The Google car is described as "Applying the brakes in response to its detection of the other vehicle's speed and trajectory"...since the collision ended up happening anyway, and it hit the rear of the Google car...doesn't that imply that if the Google car hadn't cautiously applied the brakes while going through the intersection, it would have cleared the intersection without getting hit? Also worth noting: the Google human driver tried to take control during the autobrake sequence...so it's possible that his/her reaction and manual braking was what led to the rear collision.

return0 11y ago
Even if they do cause rare accidents they ll be successful. I think in the end humans will adjust to drive more rationally when they learn how to spot autonomous cars.
- fizzbatter 11y ago
  Tbh, i think it will result in more frustration by drivers at large. Eg, think of on the freeway, note the people who drive the actual speed limit. They're driving perfectly, yet people constantly pass them. It's worse on county roads (like in my local area, 50mph) without passing lanes. If you drive the speed limit you can almost guarantee to be passed by many cars, sometimes even dangerously, because it annoys people to go below the speed limit they perceive as correct. I like to go around the speed limit (admittedly, simply to avoid tickets), usually ~3mph over, but it will annoy me to no end if i have to drive 5mph slower because of someone in front of me. On these popular county roads i speak of, i usually go faster than i want (5-10mph over), because i don't like being dangerously and needlessly passed. Now, i'm not saying the self-driving cars are wrong in any way. I'm also aware that the roads i speak of will be among the last to get self driving cars. Nevertheless, i think humans will have to learn to drive far less aggressively. Though, when self-driving outnumber the normal drivers, it may not matter.

peter303 11y ago

I am curious why google dabbles in all these strange projects removed from their core business, which seems to be organizing the worlds information and making some money off that. are these merely hobbies of eccentric, rich founders? On the other hand I am glad somebody is pouring money into fundamental research. The government has limited funds. Many big companies that formally had big R&D cutback during downsizings.

Hortinstein 11y ago
Google is a machine learning company. Knowing about how people use their phone (Android), Computer (ChromeOS), etc a self driving car gives them more and more data to refine and expand their algorithms. At the same token it is because they have these vast troves of data and some of the best machine learning scientists in the word, they are suited to do this type of research. Another thing to think about is that if we are not distracted by the commute we will spend more time using Google services.
- bane 11y ago
  (note: this is supposed to be pseudo-tongue-in-cheek-back-of-the-envelope math) Let's say they invest...I dunno $300m in developing this technology (completely made-up number) - The average commute time in the U.S. is ~30 minutes...or 1 hour per day. I don't know what it is globally, but for fun we'll assume it's the same for everybody on the planet. - Google made $66billion in 2014 (or about $9.43 per person on the planet, assuming 7billion people) - Assume most people are awake 16 hours during a day. - However, if people are stuck driving for 1 hour out of those 16, that's only 15 hours they can build revenue for google. - This means google is generating about $.63 per available waking hour per person. - 1 more available hour is $.63*7billion = a possible "new" market of $4.4billion/year assuming every person This would pay back the R&D costs handsomely + tons of profit in the first year if google can get everybody to switch all at once. Even if it takes a decade or two to switch humanity to self-driving cars, it would still pay for itself quickly.
rubicon33 11y ago
Innovation is one way to protect your business from failure. Relying on a single business model, for decades, naively assumes that society will always want, or need, your product or service. I tip my hat to Google, for attempting to stay ahead of the curve.

Animats 11y ago

Google doesn't give out much info about how their system works. It seems to be very much like the technology from the DARPA Urban Challenge in 2007. Most of the improvements since seem to relate to predicting the movements of other street users. That's not surprising, considering Google's focus on "big data". Sensor technology hasn't improved much. It's still mostly cameras, Velodyne rotating LIDAR units and off the shelf centimeter Doppler RADAR units. Flash LIDAR and millimeter RADAR aren't volume products yet. They will be once auto companies get serious about this. The DARPA Humanoid Challenge is live today. Watch: http://www.theroboticschallenge.org/ http://www.theroboticschallenge.org/

michaelmcmillan 11y ago

This is really impressive. However, has any one else thought about the ethical dilemmas these algorithms will have to decide upon? Say for instance that two pedestrians, a young child and an old person, suddenly find themselves in front of a self-driving car. There is not time for the car to brake in time so the algorithm has to make a choice: Which pedestrian gets hit? I think we'll see more questions like these in the coming years as AI progresses and we become more dependent on it.

Nadya 11y ago
This assumes a flaw in the cars algorithm to be travelling too quickly at an upcoming intersection - or a pedestrian breaking the law by jay-walking or crossing during a "no cross" time. Let's give it the most realistic scenario of a blind-turn intersection with an obstruction such as a bush make it impossible to see the sidewalk on the right-hand side. The two pedestrians in question are a grandparent and their grandchild crossing without looking both ways for their safety. Is there oncoming traffic? Is there an empty sidewalk to drive on? Can the car make an attempt to brake as safely and quickly as possible and sound the horn to alert the pedestrians to get out of the way? Is it safe enough to perform a handbrake turn? Is it safe enough to perform a bootleg turn? Before asking which pedestrian the car chooses to hit, I would exhaust all other available options to prevent such a scenario from happening in the first place.
- michaelmcmillan 11y ago
  So your answer to my hypothetical question of what an algorithm should do in a situation where whatever the outcome a life will be lost, is to say that this scenario will never happen without a flaw in the cars algorithm? That seems very narrow minded to me. Let me put it this way: When all your other available options are exhausted what should the choice be?
  - Nadya 11y ago
    There has to be too little room to perform an evasive maneuver. The road has to be too crowded or too small to perform an evasive maneuver. The pedestrians would have to be deaf or suffer from "deer fright". The car would have to be travelling too quickly to brake and would have had to fail to notice the pedestrians about to cross. The scenario is one that requires so many worst-case-scenario events to be happening simultaneously as to say the scenario is likely avoidable altogether in one of numerous ways. So yes, I'm calling your hypothetical scenario a little contrived. To answer the hypothetical with the answer you're expecting; people have already made this choice in the past for disaster scenarios: "Women and children first." The algorithm would choose to hit the elderly person over the child in your scenario. The ethical choice becomes more complex if the pedestrians in question are both children or both women. I don't think humans have made an ethical decision on such a choice.

TheGRS 11y ago

Little surprised to see no comments on the car's aesthetic design. My first thought was "ew". At least with Tesla they tried to go with a design that was very appealing to the eye. This car looks like an ugly, mass-produced POC. My better senses tell me it is a prototype unit that was built for function over form. Just saying, if you want to get the public behind your idea, better put together something that is a little more sexy. Then again, Smart Cars are equally ugly and they have gained some huge traction, at least with car2go, so what do I know.

teraflop 11y ago
I'm willing to bet the aesthetic design is a very deliberate choice. Google knows that there's a lot of skepticism toward the idea of autonomous cars, largely based on their unfamiliarity. By limiting the initial version to 25mph and making it shaped like a Cozy Coupe, they're making it seem as non-threatening as they possibly can.

gumby 11y ago

I can't wait until I don't have to drive, but it's hard to see how much of a difference google is making. We're in downtown MV and these cars are continuously driving around, and one is parked every night a couple of houses down from my girlfriend's house. The problem is, they drive the same routes over and over. I always see them in the same places, and nowhere else. They have hyper-mapped a small number of routes (mm resolution). And all that highway driving: MV to SF and back on 280, over and over and over again. I am sure they are making progress, but how much?