Google Reveals Its Electric Self-Driving Car Prototype

[Verlander]

Unless they plan on replacing every car at once, this won't work. The human element is flawed, but it works better than an automatic element against other humans. Auto cars are only going to be safe against other auto cars, and even then I'm dubious. Small scale testing is not the same as large scale reality.

Also, as the world is largely market driven (forgive the pun) it won't happen. People like cars, they like them enough to spend ridiculous amounts of money on them, all over the world. You won't get people to give them up

 

[Raziel]

And here's the damn question I have been asking since I first heard about this years ago, and which NO NEWS STORY HAS AS YET EVEN BOTHERED TO ADDRESS: if one of these cars does get in an accident who the fuck is legally at fault? The manufacturer? The idiot taking a nap inside?

It could only possibly be the manufacturer or the owner's fault. Like now when there is an accident, passengers are not the ones sued.




I'm more interested in what this would do to the economy. Cab drivers, truck drivers, bus drivers, etc... Just what we don't need is 10 million more unemployed people.

 

[theSteamSupported]

To all of those of you who are concerned over the stability of the driving automation, do you REALLY believe that the engineers at Google are so stupid they're not taking that into consideration?

 

[synobal]

I love it. Its cute and not frightening and totally approachable. I think this is a fantastic way to get people to try something they might otherwise be scared of. I mean look at it? you going to be too scared to ride in that?

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

Limited to 25mph huh? I guess we'll have to wait awhile before we get an epic race across Europe between the Google car and the guys from Top Gear

I wouldn't mind been driven around by one of these. I do like driving myself so I hope these don't end completely replacing manual cars in the future. But for getting around busy city centres and long monotonous motorway trips I'd happily let this thing do the driving while I watch a film or something; plus it would mean I could avoid stopping at God awful motorway services as well.

 

[DrOswald]

Limited to 25mph huh? I guess we'll have to wait awhile before we get an epic race across Europe between the Google car and the guys from Top Gear

I wouldn't mind been driven around by one of these. I do like driving myself so I hope these don't end completely replacing manual cars in the future. But for getting around busy city centres and long monotonous motorway trips I'd happily let this thing do the driving while I watch a film or something; plus it would mean I could avoid stopping at God awful motorway services as well.

I would bet real money the 25mph thing is a legal and cultural thing. They need to get people used to the idea so people accept it and all car crashes are not automatically blamed on the auto car.

 

[Heathcliff84]

I'm Really afraid of a "free to drive version" Forcing you to Watch ads before you may leave the car: Add Red Dragon reference here.
DO YOU SEE?
Be nickeled and dimed to go faster than 10 KM/h.
Drive past 10 drive-through fastfood places or pay to take the direct route.

 

[Scrythe]

Living in the Buffalo area for the past three years taught me a valuable lesson in just how awful drivers can be.

I'm all for this.

 

[TKretts3]

That thing looks ****ing ridiculous. It LITERALLY looks like a clown car.

Also, no steering wheel or pedals whatsoever? A self driving feature in a car is definitely a good idea, but one that cannot be driven manually at all is not. There are obvious problems, such as the self-driving system getting broken, or being in conditions wherein the self driving system cannot properly function, that make the inclusion of manual driving a necessity. In addition, there's just the plain fact that some people will still prefer to drive manually, just not in every single situation (Driving in traffic, while tired, intoxicated). All in all this seems like a great system to include in regular cars, but to have it be the only way of using a car seems like a very bad idea.

Also, that thing looks ****ing ridiculous. Did I mention that already? I'll do it again for good measure. Clown car.

 

[Pyrian]

People like cars, they like them enough to spend ridiculous amounts of money on them, all over the world. You won't get people to give them up

People love horses. They love them far more than they love cars. They spend much more ridiculous amounts of money all over the world. But by and large, they do not ride them to work.

Convenience wins markets. Handily.

 

[Grayjack]

I would not trust that thing. What if something happens and it gets out of control? I wouldn't get in unless it had a manual override.

 

[truckspond]

Since computers are capable of reacting much quicker to changing road conditions than a human ever could hope to this is a logical move. I am quite impressed that they have already reached the stage where they can remove the controls and let the computer handle it

 

[lacktheknack]

No freaking way I'm getting in that.

As someone who's done AI before, I wouldn't trust it to hand me my hat, let alone drive me anywhere.

 

[Ragnar47183]

There are a lot of issues this brings up.

1) For this to even be a viable option there is going to have to be Billions upon Billions of dollars spent in infrastructure for these things. They cant just use the roads we use for manual cars. Considering there are still parts of the U.S. that dont have internet, computer cars are a long freaking ways away.

2)For this to be useful as a normal travel vehicle it would have to cover EVERYWHERE. As it stands, at most it would be useful for drunk people to get home, basically just replacing taxis. And if thats it then whats the point? There is already trains and buses and taxies, why do we need this if thats all its going to be used for?

3) How would it handle things like tolls or tickets at parking decks?

4)In my case, My truck goes into places that arent normally accessed by cars. How could I do this with a computer car?

5)What happens to recreational vehicles like 4 wheelers or motorcycles?

6)If you have to call this thing every time you need to go somewhere, how long would it take to get to your house? Otherwise you would have to buy a personal one. How would that work? How expensive would that be?

7)What happens to all the manual cars?

This is highly impractical and I don't see robot cars happening Outside of taxi services in metro cities and I just dont see the point.

I vote we actually educate people on driving skills instead of the laughable system we have now.

 

[Maxtro]

Hopefully I'm dead before self-driving cars become the only choice.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Interesting... I wonder if they're operating on wireless to get data updates, and if so that means they're hackable. A part of me feels that there should always be a manual override on things like that just in case. Planes are a different matter as it is a self-containted system, and I'd hope they're running these cars the same way.

 

[Shdwrnr]

Will it take me to the presidium? I have an appointment with the asari consort.

 

[Strazdas]

I would want a manual ovveride just because of other drivers. a robot can anticipate traffic, it cant anticipate lunatics controlling other vehicles. sometimes you have to break the rules to avoid some idiot crashing into you and killing you. a robot does not have such cognition.

of course there will be the dirty hipster who will get one ironically because driving is too mainstream.

Or me. I think driving is a chore and is necessary to go from point A to B. if possible, i prefer train or bus, that way at least i can spend that time productively, like reading a book. if my car drove itself i would be enjoying driving much more. Or, rather, not driving but being driven. the comfort of personal car without the chore of having to actually drive it.

ahem...you could, one supposes, crawl into this thing completely rat arsed after a night out and say "[small]hoooome[/small]" and it would drive you home...legally...and without giving you a hard time for making a mess of the upholstery and/or waking it up at 4am...i predict widespread alcoholism as a societal result

so i guess i will stop getting free rides then. you know, when we organize an out of town party i always get a free ride there because i dont drink so im able to drive the person home when hes shitfaced after the party, thus i end up spending nothing on travel.

I question how these'll be paid for, since I doubt Google's doing this for free. Cities buy them, then raise taxes? Or what?

who pays for your car? thats right, you guessed it, YOU DO.

Also, as the world is largely market driven (forgive the pun) it won't happen. People like cars, they like them enough to spend ridiculous amounts of money on them, all over the world. You won't get people to give them up

if i could exchange my current car into self driving one now i would do it without a second thought (assuming the self driving one is fully functional of course).

I'm more interested in what this would do to the economy. Cab drivers, truck drivers, bus drivers, etc... Just what we don't need is 10 million more unemployed people.

lets bash these assembly lines because they are better and more people would have work if we did everything by hand
-workers at the turn of industrial revolution

Except that logic is flawed as it does not allow progress. no, we dont need 10 million people being cab drivers. very much rather we had them working something more useful. Oh and yeah we can easily lower working hours per month AND keep same pay per month. they 1% would get less rich, yes, but thats not a problem at all.

And I know it's a prototype but Google has how many designers in it's employ? They still would have paid someone with a design degree to come up with that initial look. The only way I can make sense of this is by assuming the marketing department got involved and decided to make it look as ridiculous as possible to grab everyone's attention.

a prototype is supposed to be functional, not to be good looking. thats why many prototypes you see are bare bones most of the time. prototype often does not reflect final looks at all.

I would not trust that thing. What if something happens and it gets out of control? I wouldn't get in unless it had a manual override.

what if a person gets angry and gets out of control? a machine is less likely to get out of control than a human.

 

[lunavixen]

yyyyyyeah... I wouldn't get in it, I'd much rather drive myself. Especially since there are no manual overrides or backup controls, I mean, it's not a bad idea and certainly has potential, but I can't really see it going into widespread use yet.

ever been on a plane ? or a train ? or a ship ? you've probably already been conveyed somewhere by "a robot".

They have manual overrides and backup controls, all of those vehicles also have pilots/drivers who maintain control of the vehicle, automatic control is mostly (and pretty much only) used in emergency situations.

 

[Strazdas]

There are a lot of issues this brings up.

lets try to resolve them then.

1) For this to even be a viable option there is going to have to be Billions upon Billions of dollars spent in infrastructure for these things. They cant just use the roads we use for manual cars. Considering there are still parts of the U.S. that dont have internet, computer cars are a long freaking ways away.

this is prototype proof of concept. duh, of course its a long way off. as far as billions upon billions, we already spend that in current road infrastructure, and US spends FAR FAR more on military than that. its not like you lack money, what you lack is will.
And these cars can use existing roads if they are using sattelite signals to see where they are. and there is always sattelite signals on the roads. your phone has a reciever strong enough to contact them, car is certainly going to.

2)For this to be useful as a normal travel vehicle it would have to cover EVERYWHERE. As it stands, at most it would be useful for drunk people to get home, basically just replacing taxis. And if thats it then whats the point? There is already trains and buses and taxies, why do we need this if thats all its going to be used for?

coverage is going to be a problem, but just like GPS, navigation is almost everywhere now. true coverage in rural areas can be a problem however this is going to be more than buses and taxis. its also going to be much cheaper than overpriced taxis we got now.

3) How would it handle things like tolls or tickets at parking decks?

Wifi?

[qoute]4)In my case, My truck goes into places that arent normally accessed by cars. How could I do this with a computer car?[/qoute]
That is a fair concern and would need a solution such as setting manual route.

5)What happens to recreational vehicles like 4 wheelers or motorcycles?

Nothing, i guess. there is going to continue being stupid people who are going to risk their lives driving these.

6)If you have to call this thing every time you need to go somewhere, how long would it take to get to your house? Otherwise you would have to buy a personal one. How would that work? How expensive would that be?

you have to call a taxi if you wnat to go home now as well. or buy a personal car. that is expensive. its really not much of a difference.

7)What happens to all the manual cars?

they would become obsolete for daily use and only enthusiasts continue using them?

I vote we actually educate people on driving skills instead of the laughable system we have now.

100 years of driving history has proven to us that its impossible to both educate people on driving skills and allowing acess to cars to more than a chosen few. as long as we got a "anyone can get a license" system this is not possible. because "Anyone" cant drive.