Google says its driverless cars are ready for the urban commute

[Kamil]

I would have preferred they worked on making the system work well for extremely long highway drives instead. It seems easier to do, and I'd much rather have a car that can remove the parts of my life where I drive for a few hundred miles on a highway rather than the parts where I drive 10 minutes to the store.

[Fetzie]

Can't be any worse than some of the drivers on the roads nowadays.

[wpirobotbuilder]

Speaking as a robotics engineer, this means nothing but good things. Robots are superior to humans in many ways, especially when we can build controllers for systems like, say, a self driving car.

 

A robot samples the environment at between 100 and 1000 times per second, updating internal maps, localizing its position, tracking obstacles and planning trajectories. Humans can't react nearly that fast.

 

Robots also aren't impulsive. A properly designed controller will respond to disturbances far faster and in a more controlled manner than a human, who might "freak out".

 

Personally, I would rather see this technology adapted to public transport as it would be easier to deploy across the population.

 

Attached is an interesting paper on collision-free autonomous ground vehicle control.

p51-kim.pdf

[Blade of Grass]

Speaking as a robotics engineer, this means nothing but good things. Robots are superior to humans in many ways, especially when we can build controllers for systems like, say, a self driving car.

A robot samples the environment at between 100 and 1000 times per second, updating internal maps, localizing its position, tracking obstacles and planning trajectories. Humans can't react nearly that fast.

Robots also aren't impulsive. A properly designed controller will respond to disturbances far faster and in a more controlled manner than a human, who might "freak out".

Personally, I would rather see this technology adapted to public transport as it would be easier to deploy across the population.

Attached is an interesting paper on collision-free autonomous ground vehicle control.

Exactly!

The only issue (from what I've heard) is that the sensors don't work very well in the rain and snow, which is a problem for Canada

[Dragonvader]

Was quite cool when it recognized the cyclist's arm.

[Sheldon_King]

I will stick with normal cars, this is just for people who can't drive for shit and think buses are for underdogs. I find driving a car a pleasure.

I think you need to look a little farther though. You seem (based on your post) to be limiting all persons to 3 kinds, those whom don't like public transport, those whom are irresponsible drivers, and those whom are gearheads (no meant in a derogatory manner. I mean it as those whom enjoy driving and enjoy cars).

 

Think about this, what about someone whom has a medical condition that makes driving dangerous not only for their lives, but also the other people in the area (not just other cars, but pedrestrians also)? Now lets ask yourself how they fair if they live in an area that has only 2 public transport potions, a county van that you have to schedule a week ahead of time and a Taxi that is unreliable at best. Need to go somewhere that you did not plan on, on a weekend? How about you need some medicine from the pharmacy that you forgot to get? too bad.  How about those that the state will not allow to drive because of failing sight? Should they be stuck at home, or limited to the unreliable public transport?

 

So, The elderly, the infirm, the disabled?

 

Go for a year without using a car or depending on your mates for lifts and using public transport then you'll really think driving a car is a pleasure, that can not run on time, simply not be there without warning, be awkward to deal with if u have 2 screaming kids and a weeks worth of groceries to carry.

I agree with you 100% on this. There are more people that could use this than just the lazy or drunk, not that it would not be useful for them as well. 

 

I would trust a smartcar like this for distance travel, but the government would limit it to the same people that can drive anyway, making it entirely useless for the people like myself that could really use it.  I would also hope that it would be more courteous that the average human driver and make it safer for those that use human powered transport as their main mode of movement.

[fade]

So when will the first murder occur from someone hacking a car over a cliff.

[daemonowner]

I recall a figure of something like 300,000hours (miles?) of these Google cars driving themselves around, and they suffered 2 accidents. One was under human control in the Google carpark, the other wasn't their fault. These cars are undeniably safe.

 

And updating software and whatever else on your computer is not analogous to on your self-driving car. Failing to update java isn't illegal and doesn't put you and everyone else around you at risk of dying in an accident.

[lachyman]

I think you need to look a little farther though. You seem (based on your post) to be limiting all persons to 3 kinds, those whom don't like public transport, those whom are irresponsible drivers, and those whom are gearheads (no meant in a derogatory manner. I mean it as those whom enjoy driving and enjoy cars).

Think about this, what about someone whom has a medical condition that makes driving dangerous not only for their lives, but also the other people in the area (not just other cars, but pedrestrians also)? Now lets ask yourself how they fair if they live in an area that has only 2 public transport potions, a county van that you have to schedule a week ahead of time and a Taxi that is unreliable at best. Need to go somewhere that you did not plan on, on a weekend? How about you need some medicine from the pharmacy that you forgot to get? too bad. How about those that the state will not allow to drive because of failing sight? Should they be stuck at home, or limited to the unreliable public transport?

I agree with you 100% on this. There are more people that could use this than just the lazy or drunk, not that it would not be useful for them as well.

I would trust a smartcar like this for distance travel, but the government would limit it to the same people that can drive anyway, making it entirely useless for the people like myself that could really use it. I would also hope that it would be more courteous that the average human driver and make it safer for those that use human powered transport as their main mode of movement.

Splendid idea, I would say it's ideal for those kind of people.

But let's be more realistic, the people you mentioned are disabled people. Disabled people most likely don't have a job and are dependant on the money from the state which is close to minimal wage here (don't know about social policy in the US). Now this car, with all the sensors it needs, must be much more expensive than a normal car and altleast here, nobody who could benefit from it could buy it.

[lachyman]

I think you need to look a little farther though. You seem (based on your post) to be limiting all persons to 3 kinds, those whom don't like public transport, those whom are irresponsible drivers, and those whom are gearheads (no meant in a derogatory manner. I mean it as those whom enjoy driving and enjoy cars).

Think about this, what about someone whom has a medical condition that makes driving dangerous not only for their lives, but also the other people in the area (not just other cars, but pedrestrians also)? Now lets ask yourself how they fair if they live in an area that has only 2 public transport potions, a county van that you have to schedule a week ahead of time and a Taxi that is unreliable at best. Need to go somewhere that you did not plan on, on a weekend? How about you need some medicine from the pharmacy that you forgot to get? too bad. How about those that the state will not allow to drive because of failing sight? Should they be stuck at home, or limited to the unreliable public transport?

I agree with you 100% on this. There are more people that could use this than just the lazy or drunk, not that it would not be useful for them as well.

I would trust a smartcar like this for distance travel, but the government would limit it to the same people that can drive anyway, making it entirely useless for the people like myself that could really use it. I would also hope that it would be more courteous that the average human driver and make it safer for those that use human powered transport as their main mode of movement.

Splendid idea, I would say it's ideal for those kind of people.

But let's be more realistic, the people you mentioned are disabled people. Disabled people most likely don't have a job and are dependant on the money from the state which is close to minimal wage here (don't know about social policy in the US). Now this car, with all the sensors it needs, must be much more expensive than a normal car and altleast here, nobody who could benefit from it could buy it.

[Sheldon_King]

Splendid idea, I would say it's ideal for those kind of people.

But let's be more realistic, the people you mentioned are disabled people. Disabled people most likely don't have a job and are dependant on the money from the state which is close to minimal wage here (don't know about social policy in the US). Now this car, with all the sensors it needs, must be much more expensive than a normal car and altleast here, nobody who could benefit from it could buy it.

You can't always just limit them to disabled though. It is perfectly possible to be legally blind and hold a job. Or for that matter, think about Diabetics like myself. It is possible to hold a job. It is possible to drive. But ask yourself what happens when we don't notice hypoglycimia approaching? It affects similar to being DUI. Would you also say it is a good idea for these people to have one? Heck, I would be happy with a car that would link to the pump and monitor glucose. It would solve a lot of issues for me. But that is a ways off.

 

Also, you are assuming that just because someone is on disability means that they only have that money coming in. It is fully possible to have more than one person in a home that can earn money. Just because mum is disabled does not mean that I can't work, or that we can't afford nice things. Or for that matter, I doubt that it would be too difficult to get the price of the car down over time. A car that cost $50,000 now will not also cost $50,000 in 2020, will it? Or for that matter, there also may be programs that would help those that can not afford one to get one (maybe the Lions club, or the ADA).

[pixeldensity]

Another problem with self driving cars is that some of the people that go on busses right now will get a self driving car.

That will mean more cars on the road, More cars on the road means more traffic. More traffic means more congestion. 

And before you start pulling the "But if there was only self driving cars on the road traffic would flow more easily" card

Sure the traffic could flow better. But you are not taking the pedestrians into concideration.

It only takes a few jaywalkers to make one or two cars slow down. The cars behind them slow down.

And before long you've got a ripple effect resulting in gridlock.

Not to mention the shortage of parking spaces...

 

And the self driving car won't be able to detect anything behind a wall anymore than you can.

So a child can still run out in front of it and get run over. Only difference is that you would probably be reading the paper while it happens.

 

And i saw someone in this thread say that he hopes you won't need a license to drive one of these. 

I shure hope that will never be the case. If you want to have a car. You get a drivers license. Because if something goes wrong with the computer. (Car.exe has crashed)

Then i fully expect the driver to handle it.

 

And finally there is the issue with how the car will have to be built.

If the car is supposed to be able to steer,brake and accelerate. everything would need to be "Drive by wire" Which means the steering,brakes and accelerator will be controlled digitally.

So in the case of a complete failure of the electronics at highway speeds you will essentially be locked in a rolling Silver,White,Gray or Black coffin (I specified the colours because that's all people get nowadays)

 

I agree with some of the things you say and disagree with others. I agree that people should still be required to abide the current age and driver license laws that exist today. also that there will be some traffic issues. However, there are cars already exist today that can detect when a object runs in front of it and applies brakes as needed.

One of the major benefits I can see this as is that it will reduce traffic accidents greatly b/c if self driving cars were around already, then drunk driving accidents or cellphone accidents would decrease.

 

However, one of the major drawback I can see is loss of jobs in taxi or public transport services.

[Guest]

Well this is a massive argument going on here.... I'll just state my opinion.

 

I agree with some of you saying that driving is a passion, and I can't imagine that the guys at Top Gear are liking this. However, a lot of people today find driving as a mere chore. It is simply a way of getting from one place to another. They don't use a bus because it usually doesn't go exactly where they want to go and they want their own private vehicle, and Taxi's have outrageous charges. A car that can drive itself is seen as a relief from a chore, just like those little Roomba vacuums that clean your house. If it means less work, people will want it. I think the main challenge for Google now is to implement this to those who want it, and change the opinions for those who don't. 

[ericlee30]

I like the idea of self driving smart cars

[techswede]

Well this is a massive argument going on here.... I'll just state my opinion.

 

I agree with some of you saying that driving is a passion, and I can't imagine that the guys at Top Gear are liking this. However, a lot of people today find driving as a mere chore. It is simply a way of getting from one place to another. They don't use a bus because it usually doesn't go exactly where they want to go and they want their own private vehicle, and Taxi's have outrageous charges. A car that can drive itself is seen as a relief from a chore, just like those little Roomba vacuums that clean your house. If it means less work, people will want it. I think the main challenge for Google now is to implement this to those who want it, and change the opinions for those who don't. 

They won't change my opinion though I'll keep driving.

And since the self driving cars will detect my old benz as it whizzes past them in traffic my commute will be much much easier

I own a roomba though.. But that's because i despise hoovering. And dust. 

[Tea1337]

This could mean that elderly people can get around without causing accident's. So far in my town there has been 12 accidents in the past 3 weeks all caused by elderly people.

[techswede]

I'll bet there will be quite a lot more of these running around aswell...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVdMySWfAIQ

 

But the other ones would of course be nagging the people without self driving cars. 

[dizmo]

No offense, but this is an illogical opinion. It's like how people think airplanes are more dangerous than cars. This will reduce the number of accidents, not increase them. Humans are pretty bad drivers.

Perhaps, if they were all changed over at once. I don't see it decreasing the amounts of accidents that much at the offset.

However I can see it greatly reducing insurance premiums, which may push more people towards them.

 

techswede

What makes google think that a person that can't be arsed to drive his own car will bother to maintain it? 

And the software in these cars will surely need to be updated?. Will the owner bother? Nope. It'll be just like javaupdate.

 

I imagine that the updates would not be voluntary. Want a self driving car? The updates are getting pushed and updated without your involvement. Problem solved.

 

That's why we don't get to drive until we're 18 here in sweden. And our drivers ed covers what you're supposed to do if the tire blows. 

Show me conclusive proof that the computer can do it. And i'll happily demonstrate that i can do it.

Considering this isn't even close to being released to the public, that's kind of an irrational request. It's probably something they're working on.

A computer can, and will do it. It's not that complex of a situation to handle.

 

As long as I have the option to take over, It's cool, I don't want to brag about driving a BMW (this will expand to other car soon) and the ladies tell me to go 100 mph and I'm like, ummmmmm it could hit a prefect turn..

Haha, not many ladies are impressed with fast driving, and to be honest there are few places you should be going over 100 mph anyway. It's irresponsible.

 

I will stick with normal cars, this is just for people who can't drive for shit and think buses are for underdogs. I find driving a car a pleasure.

That's not true, at all. A lot of people see cars merely as a tool, a way to get from point A to point B quickly. A lot of places it's the only way to get around.

That's a very narrow, incorrect view on what a car is.

 

Another problem with self driving cars is that some of the people that go on busses right now will get a self driving car.

That will mean more cars on the road, More cars on the road means more traffic. More traffic means more congestion. 

And before you start pulling the "But if there was only self driving cars on the road traffic would flow more easily" card

Sure the traffic could flow better. But you are not taking the pedestrians into concideration.

It only takes a few jaywalkers to make one or two cars slow down. The cars behind them slow down.

And before long you've got a ripple effect resulting in gridlock.

Not to mention the shortage of parking spaces...

So you're saying that currently cars don't slow down for those jaywalkers, and just drive right over them?

That makes perfect sense...

Not all people take public transit because they don't want to drive. There's the cost factor, as well as the speed factor.

It's MUCH faster for me to take the train to work, than to drive. I also don't have to pay for more expensive insurance, parking, the additional gas, etc.

 

And the self driving car won't be able to detect anything behind a wall anymore than you can.

So a child can still run out in front of it and get run over. Only difference is that you would probably be reading the paper while it happens.

Not true. The sensor on these vehicles is the same used by the US Military in their autonomous vehicles and it scans the area far more often than a human can ever hope to.

You'd only be limited to the power of the brakes. Which is also true for a human driver.

 

And finally there is the issue with how the car will have to be built.

If the car is supposed to be able to steer,brake and accelerate. everything would need to be "Drive by wire" Which means the steering,brakes and accelerator will be controlled digitally.

So in the case of a complete failure of the electronics at highway speeds you will essentially be locked in a rolling Silver,White,Gray or Black coffin (I specified the colours because that's all people get nowadays)

I'm not sure how up to speed you are on todays cars, but a lot of them already have drive by wire on most of their movements.

 

. 

Replies in bold.