New google "car" - no steering wheel

mazdeuce wrote: This is where urban transport is headed. As much as I love driving, this sounds like a great solution to 45 minute 15 mile stop and go commuting.

Clearly. There are tons of upsides - with computer reaction times, they can tailgate safely, reducing congestion. Of course distractions will become a non-issue, so accidents should go down (assuming that hackers can't get in there) gas mileage figures should go up, et cetera. Yet it makes me sad. It's a big step towards the obsolescence of our hobby. It will take a long time, but the day will come when vehicles as the currently exist will be an anachronism. We'll have to go to the sticks, the track or 3rd world countries to drive, because humans with their glacial (in computing terms) responses and inattentiveness will be seen as loose cannons, and too dangerous to share the roads with AI vehicles.

I could see these being great in areas with large populations of retired people. Florida and Arizona could really benefit from google cars

kreb wrote: the day will come when vehicles as the currently exist will be an anachronism. We'll have to go to the sticks, the track or 3rd world countries to drive.

Not really much different from horses then.

kreb wrote: the day will come when horses as the currently exist will be an anachronism. We'll have to go to the sticks, the track or 3rd world countries to ride.

See?

Why does it need mirrors if it drives itself?

Kia_Racer wrote: Why does it need mirrors if it drives itself?

State laws require them.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: The poor police and governments they collect taxes for... what will they do for revenue when the cars don't do anything wrong?

I've already seen mileage taxes being bandied about as a solution to lost revenue from tickets.

http://youtu.be/PjjNvjURS-s

Grtechguy wrote:

Kia_Racer wrote: Why does it need mirrors if it drives itself?

State laws require them.

I understand that. However, as the "driver" has no real control over where the vehicle goes they are superfluous.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Who will all the traffic lawyers blame for accidents? All those poor, poor Ambulance chaser/DUI attorneys having to do handies for cash just makes me sad

The hacker.

dculberson wrote:

failboat wrote: this is a slippery slope

Not like driving a regular car is exactly an aerobic activity.

You clearly haven't driven one of my cars.

Grtechguy wrote:

Kia_Racer wrote: Why does it need mirrors if it drives itself?

State laws require them.

State law requires mirrors but it doesn't give a damn about lack of a steering wheel!

Hell of a day isn't it?

But in all seriousness I have little issue with this. With the lack of driver training and more and more kids not caring about driving, I'll feel safer if I'm surrounded by drones instead of monkeys texting and trying to drive at the same time.

If we could create an embedded power supply in the roads to have these run off electricity paying a mileage fee, I could sure save a lot of money for racing my car instead of using it to ferry me to work in stop and go traffic.

Now if we could just get our rail infrastructure better and provide bullet trains for cross country trips at half the cost of air travel we'd be all set.

Joke time...

How long until Apple responds with the iCar?

I for one welcome the new offerings of our Google overlords.

PHeller wrote:

Grtechguy wrote:

Kia_Racer wrote: Why does it need mirrors if it drives itself?

State laws require them.

State law requires mirrors but it doesn't give a damn about lack of a steering wheel!

These are laws we are talking about here. You expect clarification?

neon4891 wrote: Joke time... How long until Apple responds with the iCar?

It will be two inches thinner and only take you to an Apple approved location.

HiTempguy wrote:

oldsaw wrote: The target group is people who probably shouldn't be driving anyway. There may be an upside after all.

The question is, how does an autonomous vehicle deal with other human based drivers? It's one thing to be able to drive down an empty road, or with other autonomous vehicles. Its another thing to get cut off by some idiot at 90mph who then slams on the brakes.

My 2010 Taurus has adaptative cruise control. It has radar that adjusts the speed to match the car in front of you. Works pretty well. Consider it autonomous driving lite.

If someone jumped in front of me and slammed on the brakes it would start to brake and flash the collision warning lights and alarm at me. I would then be expected to brake to avoid a collision. I thought I saw some sort of emergency brake in the center console of that car. I'd expect you might have to use that just in case.

JAhmed wrote: ...But will it autocross itself?

AHEM!

kreb wrote:

mazdeuce wrote: This is where urban transport is headed. As much as I love driving, this sounds like a great solution to 45 minute 15 mile stop and go commuting.

Clearly. There are tons of upsides - with computer reaction times, they can tailgate safely, reducing congestion. Of course distractions will become a non-issue, so accidents should go down (assuming that hackers can't get in there) gas mileage figures should go up, et cetera. Yet it makes me sad. It's a big step towards the obsolescence of our hobby. It will take a long time, but the day will come when vehicles as the currently exist will be an anachronism. We'll have to go to the sticks, the track or 3rd world countries to drive, because humans with their glacial (in computing terms) responses and inattentiveness will be seen as loose cannons, and too dangerous to share the roads with AI vehicles.

I see that day coming and drivers being seen like guys who still make stuff out of wood. It's a trade and still used but much less than it used to be. So the guys who have that hobby are still out there doing their hobby. Instead of making toys from wood we would be driving cars ourselves.

HiTempguy wrote:

oldsaw wrote: The target group is people who probably shouldn't be driving anyway. There may be an upside after all.

The question is, how does an autonomous vehicle deal with other human based drivers? It's one thing to be able to drive down an empty road, or with other autonomous vehicles. Its another thing to get cut off by some idiot at 90mph who then slams on the brakes.

C'mon. The computer is capable of dealing with vastly more sensory inputs than a human is, faster, and with no distraction or tiredness. It's capable of dealing with things going on around it much more safely than the average driver is, and probably faster and safer than even us good drivers. Talk about situational awareness, it doesn't just glance sideways or use peripheral vision or mirrors, it's CONSTANTLY looking in every direction and computing closing speeds and distances along with knowing preciclely where it is at all times.

You know that feeling of slow motion when something is about to happen in front of you and you can barely respond in time? To the computer it's ALL that slow motion and it does have more than enough time to respond.

As someone else mentioned, I'd trust it more than 90% of drivers already on the road (and 90% of drivers I've had the chance of riding with)

We'll have to go to the sticks, the track or 3rd world countries to drive, because humans with their glacial (in computing terms) responses and inattentiveness will be seen as loose cannons, and too dangerous to share the roads with AI vehicles.

Actually I don't think that will be the case. It'll probably be frowned upon, but I'll bet AI cars will be better able to deal with a few humans driving than real people do now. They'll have the reaction times to be able to avoid any irregularities you might introduce to the system.

In some ways I think it is great as long as it isn't made mandatory. I'd pay out of my own pocket for a self driving car to get my parents around. Mom won't drive on the highway and dad can't see at night anymore. They choose not to drive thank goodness, but it also limits them.