No autonomous cars are NOT the holy grail for car safety.
You'd think people would be less total suckers from historical evidence but it's now looking as if every technology promised delivers on that promise. Really?
In the meantime we've got a company that can't keep it's "hands" off any data stream it can think of and is going to push this technology in cooperation with the NSA/surveillance/security enablers.
No thank you. A driver's test, realistic traffic laws and enforcement would be better.
You'd think people would be less total suckers from historical evidence but it's now looking as if every technology promised delivers on that promise. Really?
In the meantime we've got a company that can't keep it's "hands" off any data stream it can think of and is going to push this technology in cooperation with the NSA/surveillance/security enablers.
No thank you. A driver's test, realistic traffic laws and enforcement would be better.
9
Cars are evil.
Self-driving cars are not.
Self-driving cars are not.
1
whole new meaning to God is my Copilot.
8
Very soon, we'll be passengers in a country that controls its citizens totally, no steering wheels needed, just spend money to make corporations richer, everything else is useless to a serf (except a cell phone and other electronic gadgets). Now, how to get serfs to produce in an environment with no jobs? That's a real problem for the lords of the manor to solve.
10
Clearly, the World of Tomorrow was always envisioned as a socialist paradise, where the wants and needs of all were met by the few. Without gainful employment, there could be no other choice.
3
Retirement has afforded my wife and I the luxury of cruising the highways and byways of America at our own pace.
From our home Upstate, we have driven from coast-to-coast, border-to-border. The thought of delegating the driving duties to a robot leaves me aghast. As someone who has grown up enjoying road trip films and TV shows (think "Route 66"), the great allure of hitting the open roads of this marvelous country is sheer joy. We skip rush hours (why rush, we're in no hurry), we drive by day, our destination takes a back seat to the journey of getting there.
Recently, I was turned onto Jerry Seinfeld's series, "Comedians In Cars Getting Coffee", and you guessed it, I was turned on. Jerry and his companions are fun, and getting coffee's a treat, but the best part of the show for me? The Car Part. What car will Jerry be driving? Where will they be going to get coffee, at a leisurely pace, without a care in the world? What fun. How American.
An added bonus. As much the as mass media wishes, for ratings sake, to divide US along political and cultural differences, the wisdom one acquires by actually meeting Real Americans along the way, and come to the realization that, as diverse as this country is, we are all so much more alike than we are different.
The American Dream is still out there. If you have the means and the time: Head out on the highway, and look for adventure. You're sure to find it, just around the next curve.
DD
NYC
From our home Upstate, we have driven from coast-to-coast, border-to-border. The thought of delegating the driving duties to a robot leaves me aghast. As someone who has grown up enjoying road trip films and TV shows (think "Route 66"), the great allure of hitting the open roads of this marvelous country is sheer joy. We skip rush hours (why rush, we're in no hurry), we drive by day, our destination takes a back seat to the journey of getting there.
Recently, I was turned onto Jerry Seinfeld's series, "Comedians In Cars Getting Coffee", and you guessed it, I was turned on. Jerry and his companions are fun, and getting coffee's a treat, but the best part of the show for me? The Car Part. What car will Jerry be driving? Where will they be going to get coffee, at a leisurely pace, without a care in the world? What fun. How American.
An added bonus. As much the as mass media wishes, for ratings sake, to divide US along political and cultural differences, the wisdom one acquires by actually meeting Real Americans along the way, and come to the realization that, as diverse as this country is, we are all so much more alike than we are different.
The American Dream is still out there. If you have the means and the time: Head out on the highway, and look for adventure. You're sure to find it, just around the next curve.
DD
NYC
16
I would feel safer with these cars on the roads than with the many distracted/under the influence drivers I deal with every day. With more and more people texting while driving, accidents will only go up. I also think self-driving cars will be a wonderful thing for people with disabilities that prevent them from driving. Think of how much more independence they'll have!
13
As is so often the case, a new technology is introduced to "fix" problems with the old technology in a way that takes the technology itself for granted. "Autonomous" cars make sense only within a frame of reference that includes only cars, notices only cars, remakes the world to suit the needs of cars.
As a frequent pedestrian, this gives me the chills. An autonomous car may "notice" me or not; it may work me into some risk-reduction algorithm to determine whether running me down is the lesser evil in a given circumstance. For me, though, the meaning and experience of the street will change in the process.
Human drivers are flawed, yes, but I put more trust in a person with whom I can make eye contact, who can wave acknowledgement that I'm walking in front of her or his car, and who has skin in the game: they are just as vulnerable as I am, with just as much to lose.
(I write more about this here: http://wp.me/p5Ag0i-m )
As a frequent pedestrian, this gives me the chills. An autonomous car may "notice" me or not; it may work me into some risk-reduction algorithm to determine whether running me down is the lesser evil in a given circumstance. For me, though, the meaning and experience of the street will change in the process.
Human drivers are flawed, yes, but I put more trust in a person with whom I can make eye contact, who can wave acknowledgement that I'm walking in front of her or his car, and who has skin in the game: they are just as vulnerable as I am, with just as much to lose.
(I write more about this here: http://wp.me/p5Ag0i-m )
7
Now, if only google and other car builders would allow the individual "cars" to be hooked together via computer so each would know where the other was going, and maybe even allow a magnetic or mechanical hookup, nd a passageway that would allow driver-passengers to move from car to car to visit one another while the computer got everyone there safely, and maybe one of the cars could serve alcohol since the driver-passengers were not driving-and perhaps show movies and TV--of, the n it would be a train.
Yeah we've already had autonomous driverless cars for almost two hundred years and google is finally getting back to the original idea.
Yeah we've already had autonomous driverless cars for almost two hundred years and google is finally getting back to the original idea.
10
One time I needed to go to a medical center in Hartford. I Googled directions, and was doing just fine until nearly reaching the adjoining parking garage when I was blocked by a new sidewalk that closed off the road.
Will these autonomous cars be able to read and process up-to-the-minute ground truth? I like the idea of a 360 degree radar helping me out, but not a 60 mph metal coffin "helping" me out.
I guess I just need a lot of convincing first.
Will these autonomous cars be able to read and process up-to-the-minute ground truth? I like the idea of a 360 degree radar helping me out, but not a 60 mph metal coffin "helping" me out.
I guess I just need a lot of convincing first.
4
"“People don’t even pay attention to driving when they are driving,” said Teller."
Sadly, this is so true. I used to be opposed to automated cars, but I am sick of getting stuck at traffic lights behind "drivers" who are too busy talking or texting to notice that the light has turned green. Not to mention those having difficulty keeping the car in the correct lane.
An automated car would be a big help for me. I have a progressive eye disease which makes it dangerous for me to drive at night, and although i will eventually have surgery to fix that, I will also continue to get older. At some point I expect to be too old to drive safely.
But I do think we need manual overrides - I have yet to meet a program with no errors - and I am seriously concerned about the privacy issues of letting Google further into my life. Just as I use a different search engine and a different (paid) email provider, I will be looking to buy my automated car from some other company.
Sadly, this is so true. I used to be opposed to automated cars, but I am sick of getting stuck at traffic lights behind "drivers" who are too busy talking or texting to notice that the light has turned green. Not to mention those having difficulty keeping the car in the correct lane.
An automated car would be a big help for me. I have a progressive eye disease which makes it dangerous for me to drive at night, and although i will eventually have surgery to fix that, I will also continue to get older. At some point I expect to be too old to drive safely.
But I do think we need manual overrides - I have yet to meet a program with no errors - and I am seriously concerned about the privacy issues of letting Google further into my life. Just as I use a different search engine and a different (paid) email provider, I will be looking to buy my automated car from some other company.
6
No steering and no brakes? All passengers? And trust that the computers and programs are never hacked, never fail... Wow. Uh, no.
11
Let's at least straighten out one item of silly writing: if the cars don't have brakes, how do they stop?
Clearly(?) there are brakes but no brake pedal or some other driver accessable device for braking. Leading to: this column is a completely waste of time, bandwidth, ink and paper.
Clearly(?) there are brakes but no brake pedal or some other driver accessable device for braking. Leading to: this column is a completely waste of time, bandwidth, ink and paper.
4
Sorry, no computer controlled car is ever going to have me as a passenger.
I work in IT, and have yet to see even one application that doesn't have bugs. In fact, the application I support is from one of the world's largest IT companies, and they release a bunch of patches every couple of weeks.
Plus, there's always hackers and viruses if any internet access is involved.
As for me, I'll just continue to use the meat computer inside my skull, with eye and ear sensors. And, of course, no cellphone or texting...
I work in IT, and have yet to see even one application that doesn't have bugs. In fact, the application I support is from one of the world's largest IT companies, and they release a bunch of patches every couple of weeks.
Plus, there's always hackers and viruses if any internet access is involved.
As for me, I'll just continue to use the meat computer inside my skull, with eye and ear sensors. And, of course, no cellphone or texting...
35
I love the concept. As a legally blind person who can not drive a car at this time it would increase my mobility tremendously. However, I am not sure Colorado would grant me a license which might be a problem for so many states. this reflects a huge transformation in our attitudes about what it means to drive. Technology is great but are we willing to entrust our lives completely to it. How will we feel when a bunch of blind drivers hit the road?
8
The problem with driverless cars is that people love to drive. Getting there is half the fun. Tooling around a corner, accelerating onto a freeway, speeding, pulling over to oogle a pretty girl. It's POWER! A driverless car is like a shooterless gun. The whole idea is that it's an extension of your body. In a car, you become iron man on wheels.
For business purposes, of course, as well as for taxis and busses it seems inevitable, provided it is always cheaper than hiring a driver.
For business purposes, of course, as well as for taxis and busses it seems inevitable, provided it is always cheaper than hiring a driver.
1
Oh, please. Put your excess testosterone in a drawer and lock it.
4
Yep, all those techno-philes who can't wait for technology to create a Garden of Eden here on earth should watch the movie Wall-E.
And that's probably an optimistic vision.
And that's probably an optimistic vision.
3
YA GOT IT ALL WRONG! Joe, ya got it all wrong! The driverless car is google's answer to drivers who cannot give up texting while driving. Recently, I've noticed a few drivers fly up to my rear bumper, lurching to a halt, looking down at their cell phones or computer tablets before coming to a stop. They don't look up to see when the light has change, rather waiting for someone behind them to honk and wake them out of their reverie. We hope! There have been cases where they've just continued texting while moving. I've even had drivers for whom I pulled onto the shoulder to get them to stop riding my bumper, only to have them follow me off the road! A few have even come to a stop before they realized that something was happening in front of them that required their attention! So I've been campaigning to get MADD to change its acronym to MADDD (you know, Mothers Against Drunk and Distracted Drivers). But the response I've gotten is that they think that drunk drivers need their own category and support group for survivors of those whom they have killed on the road. Clearly, I disagree. After all, maybe some drivers are both drunk and distracted by texting!
11
Driver-less cars are already here, folks.
When I look over at some of my fellow motorists behind the wheel (as a passenger of course), especially those far younger than I, with their gazes fixed everywhere but on the road, their hands somewhere else other than on the steering wheel, I assumed they were merely co-pilots in one of those new-fangled driver-less motor cars.
First the horseless carriage, now the driver-less car. It doesn't take a whole lot of horse sense to see something's gone wrong 'round here.
DD
Manhattan
When I look over at some of my fellow motorists behind the wheel (as a passenger of course), especially those far younger than I, with their gazes fixed everywhere but on the road, their hands somewhere else other than on the steering wheel, I assumed they were merely co-pilots in one of those new-fangled driver-less motor cars.
First the horseless carriage, now the driver-less car. It doesn't take a whole lot of horse sense to see something's gone wrong 'round here.
DD
Manhattan
7
Even in the Google car, there's a human doing the driving -- namely the human(s) who wrote the code to eliminate the driver. Who gets sued for an accident -- Google? I guess this could result in full employment for lawyers again, but wouldn't be great for Google's established business. Having worked with some excellent software developers, I always cringed when I heard, "That's an interesting bug!"
9
Self-driving cars can't be any worse than the drivers where I live. Maybe they'll use turn signals and not cut off other drivers. Oh, but wait...these self-driving experimental cars are Lexuses? Toyotas? That means they'll always be going at least 10 mph under the speed limit; will hit the brakes and slow down at green lights; will stop completely before making a turn--which they will do VERY slowly, and of course no turn signal; and they will always be in the left lane, regardless.
So tell me again, what are the benefits to self-driving cars?
So tell me again, what are the benefits to self-driving cars?
4
Everybody knows that Chicagoland is a turn-signal-optional zone, and that cutting each other off is a time-honored Chicagoland tradition, just like "dibs" on a shoveled-out parking spot with broken chairs has been for nigh on a century now.
1
No thanks. I prefer to drive myself, I predict that cars with drivers will rebel and push these "driverless" cars off the road as soon as they're deployed.
8
While the concept is interesting and would be most useful to those who may be disabled and unable to drive, I don't see this change being adopted en masse as Americans love to drive their own cars too much. It's an extremely personal relationship that mankind has with his cars. Of course supporters can petition to change various laws based on this technology and make it mandatory for all, but unless there is mass buy-in from the American public, we simply won't give up our freedoms to drive our own beloved cars.
The question isn't really about driverless cars, it's about people getting over their fears. FDR made his famous statement "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" way before I was born but its is still absolutely true.
Fear of change affects us all. The worst thing we can do is attempt to preserve the status quo in the face of change. Maybe taxi drivers will be a lost job, but other jobs will still exist and new ones created for those willing to adapt to change.
Google is an amazing company because they have amazing people.
Fear of change affects us all. The worst thing we can do is attempt to preserve the status quo in the face of change. Maybe taxi drivers will be a lost job, but other jobs will still exist and new ones created for those willing to adapt to change.
Google is an amazing company because they have amazing people.
9
Yes, Bob, FDR was discussing fear, but the fear was in regards to a devastating economic depression, not a new car.
In fact, FDR advocated a whole slew of new things. You may have heard about them: the New Deal.
Finally, "amazing people" can sometimes get it wrong, too.
In fact, FDR advocated a whole slew of new things. You may have heard about them: the New Deal.
Finally, "amazing people" can sometimes get it wrong, too.
3
“'People don’t even pay attention to driving when they are driving,' said Teller."
Speak for yourself, Sparky. "Astro Teller," indeed.
Des anyone have any recollection or knowledge of the "vampire car" craze of the 20th Century's 'teens and 'twenties, where supposedly driverless vehicles lurked the streets waiting to run over unsuspecting pedestrians? Googlemobiles (not to be confused with Goggomobils of the past) could be used by the less-scrupulous amongst our business and political population - say, 95% of them these days - to eliminate the old, slow, and underperforming from the general population. If they could only be designed to clean up after themselves, Googlemobiles could become the best friends of the Nu-Perfect American Society the wealthy envision for the future - at least until the wealthy start using them against each other, which would only be a matter of time.
Speak for yourself, Sparky. "Astro Teller," indeed.
Des anyone have any recollection or knowledge of the "vampire car" craze of the 20th Century's 'teens and 'twenties, where supposedly driverless vehicles lurked the streets waiting to run over unsuspecting pedestrians? Googlemobiles (not to be confused with Goggomobils of the past) could be used by the less-scrupulous amongst our business and political population - say, 95% of them these days - to eliminate the old, slow, and underperforming from the general population. If they could only be designed to clean up after themselves, Googlemobiles could become the best friends of the Nu-Perfect American Society the wealthy envision for the future - at least until the wealthy start using them against each other, which would only be a matter of time.
7
Just drove from the DC area to NYC (four hours) and then an hour in NYC to my destination. May I have my self-driving car now, please?
1
take the train for God's sake
Self-driving cars for 12 mind-numbing hours on the Interstate, sure. Self-driving cars wandering about my neighborhood, mingling with human-operated vehicles? No thanks.
I remember my Grammy chatting with her fellow telephone operators about how absurd and dangerous those new horseless carriages were and how they'd never replace old Nellie.
I didn't enter into their conversation because I was too involved trying to tune in my favorite radio program with the cat whisker on my high tech crystal set.
I didn't enter into their conversation because I was too involved trying to tune in my favorite radio program with the cat whisker on my high tech crystal set.
1
I'm sure there'll be a lot of resistance to autonomous cars, but there's one rock solid reason why we should want them: they'll take that half-asleep drunken distracted idiot in the next lane out from behind the wheel. I want an autonomous car, but what I *really* want is for everyone else to have one. You should feel the same way.
4
When fully autonomous cars are available for purchase, early adopters will buy them, but ADAS (advanced driver assistance systems) like lane departure warning and adaptive cruise control are already preparing us for autonomous driving, one new feature at a time.
Um, Joe, has your computer never locked up for no apparent reason? How about your blue tooth headset, always at the ready, never not working when you needed it? how about NASA's computers, the ones built into space vehicles and Mars landers. Lots of high-powered fail-safe tell-me-three-times engineering there, never heard of a lockup or an unexplained shutdown? How about your cell phone, GPS always working, even on a country road in the hills? Now imagine what happens when a self-driving car with no operator controls has a computer glitch in heavy traffic on the Jersey Turnpike. Or loses touch via GPS - and therefore longer knows where the road isn't - while on the winding Pacific Coast Highway.
They'll have to design and build a reliable nationwide broadband infrastructure first. Oh, wait, maybe that's the real prize...
They'll have to design and build a reliable nationwide broadband infrastructure first. Oh, wait, maybe that's the real prize...
7
FYI, privacy died a while back. With mobile phones, ezpass, apps on your phone, credit card transactions, online activity there is very little about you that is not known. If corporations or government don't know much about you, it's probably because you are not worth it. Where you live, what you paid, you'd mortgage amount, you salary range, your court records are easily accessible from my home.
1
Have they tested this cars outside of California? How would they do in a blizzard in Albany NY?
2
We already know how to reduce traffic deaths. Reduce speed limits back to those of the 70's during the gas crisis. We have data that proves we could save many many lives but we don't want to. We want to go fast.
4
Wow, that was an easy one! Case closed! This column seems to have been written in a hurry, almost autonomously.
OK--so Google[s dinged-up cars "were not at fault"? How many accidents has every driver managed to avoid, accidents for which they wouldn't have been charged?
Sounds like we're setting the bar pretty low for these new machines.
OK--so Google[s dinged-up cars "were not at fault"? How many accidents has every driver managed to avoid, accidents for which they wouldn't have been charged?
Sounds like we're setting the bar pretty low for these new machines.
5
What happens if the system shuts down or they upgrade the software & you have no idea how to use the update? I've literally had upgrades to my iPad, laptop, desktop, phone & the slightest change takes a day to figure how to rework when the old one was working perfectly fine for me.
What if we get hacked for the pleasure of some jerk who is simultaneously watching the accidents pan out on CNN. I'm sure there are sadistic weirdos working at google too.
Not only does it promote lack of attention, it makes the "driver" deserve the scorn of the backseat driver.
I have a much better idea. Learn the rules of the road. Don't slam on your brakes to be a nice guy when you're on the main road with the right of way to let a car out of a side street. It causes accidents. Yield doesn't mean slam on your brakes, it means proceed with caution. Getting on a freeway isn't hard. All you need to do is merge at a slower level.
How about big, fat signs saying "nobody actually cares what you're texting" "you most likely will still have your under paid job if you wait until the next red light to read that email" "pay attention"!
And what does that do for man-Ual ( and I mean actual people) training? Drivers Ed actually teaches more safety tips than a computer program. Is google going to virtually change your tire? Is it going to tell you that you need to get out of the line of traffic when you breakdown? How are supposed to steer out of the line of traffic when you have no steering wheel? Bunk!
What if we get hacked for the pleasure of some jerk who is simultaneously watching the accidents pan out on CNN. I'm sure there are sadistic weirdos working at google too.
Not only does it promote lack of attention, it makes the "driver" deserve the scorn of the backseat driver.
I have a much better idea. Learn the rules of the road. Don't slam on your brakes to be a nice guy when you're on the main road with the right of way to let a car out of a side street. It causes accidents. Yield doesn't mean slam on your brakes, it means proceed with caution. Getting on a freeway isn't hard. All you need to do is merge at a slower level.
How about big, fat signs saying "nobody actually cares what you're texting" "you most likely will still have your under paid job if you wait until the next red light to read that email" "pay attention"!
And what does that do for man-Ual ( and I mean actual people) training? Drivers Ed actually teaches more safety tips than a computer program. Is google going to virtually change your tire? Is it going to tell you that you need to get out of the line of traffic when you breakdown? How are supposed to steer out of the line of traffic when you have no steering wheel? Bunk!
4
Horses tend to be careful and know the roads. I think these newfangled horseless carriages are bunk.
You do realized that the federal government was just hacked! In case the relevance of that fact is alluding dome. Imagine a system of driverless cars simply hacked by a nameless faceless hostile or merely arrogant group. Imagine the havoc they could cause. Imagine a computer controlled car with no human intervention backup whose computer has a glitch it's guidance system in the middle of the night and leaves you alone in the middle of no where.
There seems to be a belief by those who wish us to turn our lives completely over to computers that they are perfect. Nothing is perfect. The arrogance of GOOGLE and others will not end well for the rest of us but, of course, they will make a lot of money. That makes it all right.
There seems to be a belief by those who wish us to turn our lives completely over to computers that they are perfect. Nothing is perfect. The arrogance of GOOGLE and others will not end well for the rest of us but, of course, they will make a lot of money. That makes it all right.
6
Um, you're worrying about new problems which loom bigger than the problems self-driving cars would solve. Me, I am quite aware of old glitches -- blowouts in the middle of the night, for example, or engines seizing up or being totally lost without a GPS. They're bad too. What you want are safer
And better systems; of course nothing's perfect but if Google reduces auto deaths (and pollution and traffic and breakdowns) overall. that's a plus.
And better systems; of course nothing's perfect but if Google reduces auto deaths (and pollution and traffic and breakdowns) overall. that's a plus.
Now instead of bad or inattentive drivers there will be the issue of hacking autonomous cars which will create a boon for hyper security systems. Perrone Robotics Inc., a software developer for autonomous vehicles, has already developed technology in anticipation of this new market. Mission Secure Inc., a cyber defense solutions provider & Perrone just announced in March, 2015, the successful completion of a pilot project testing the capability of MSi’s Secure Sentinel platform. The platform consists of two parts: a hardware embedded with the physical system and a cloud-based software. Sen. Markey, D-Mass., released a report titled, “Tracking & Hacking: Security & Privacy Gaps Put American Drivers at Risk.” This report outline the vulnerabilities of autonomous cars. The security app can be installed on a Smart phone for $15. What is troubling is that the world of military defense, cloud computing & driving locations will be stored in the cloud, allowing government, hackers & insurance companies access to all of the driver's info. When this data is combined with complete access to Google's database about their "users" by the government & Corporate interests as they hone in on customers' big data, it is understandable to be concerned about more loss of privacy rights & intrusions into every day life under the guise of auto safety. It is onerous of a hyper spying dystopian future where the fear of accidents is replaced with the fear of being hacked to death.
3
What happens when Chinese hackers take control of your car while you're on the freeway?
5
You will be driven directly to Wal Mart where you will spend all your money on Chinese-made goods.
2
Intersting, but 1.2 million deaths per year is misleading. I don't want to have to sit through a youtube to find out where he got that number but in the U.S. there are about 30,000 fatalities per year, which is about 10 per 100,000.
1
Is Google going to train and hire the millions of newly unemployed cab drivers around the world?
1
Cabs are for people who don't have cars or who are away from their cars. What's the issue in this question?
I, with my nephew, used to imagine coming out of our front door, getting into a car of sorts, more like a gondola or sorts, punching in the coordinates and being zipped away. It will all be fun!
2
well. it's easy to envision a program for highways. but the world is not a highway. in a city or town, can life there be boiled down to a program? programmers and company minds like to think that all things can be quantified. in fact, they believe in it and premise what they create and market on it. it's seductive, and can be convincingly argued, but it's a fallacy in real life. the best computer is still the human mind inside a human being. what with all our creativitiy and senses and all.
3
Wouldn't investing in affordable and extensive public transportation -- i.e., intercity trains, hydrogen powered buses, etc -- make more sense than encouraging the continuation of the crazy car culture we've been the victims of since at least the end of WWII with all the devastation it has wrought on the environment?
5
There exists a middle ground, a sort of compromise, which was envisioned years ago. I'm puzzled about its disappearance. Individuals would still own their cars, with those characteristics we each cling to, but once they came upon main thoroughfares, they'd turn the driving over to an energy source built into the road. The driver would inter his/her destination, then sit back and relax. All vehicles would move at precisely the same speed, their spaces exactly the same, no one would be able to pass others, speed or stop abruptly. There would be huge savings on energy consumption and accidents would be virtually impossible on these thoroughfares.
The initial investment would be enormous, but the likes of the titans at Google would be wise to consider this alternative.
As for the access to our personal data, no one I know of has come up with anything approaching a viable solution. I doubt there is one short of making such data collection illegal, but even that wouldn't really work. Hackers have proven that. If you're concerned about your personal data being collected, I'm afraid you're living in the wrong century. Maybe you could try bartering in all of your transactions. Seems a little antiquated to me, but it's possible it might work. Otherwise, welcome to 1984, delayed by a few years, which is easily explained. We're still trying to get over the Dark Ages.
The initial investment would be enormous, but the likes of the titans at Google would be wise to consider this alternative.
As for the access to our personal data, no one I know of has come up with anything approaching a viable solution. I doubt there is one short of making such data collection illegal, but even that wouldn't really work. Hackers have proven that. If you're concerned about your personal data being collected, I'm afraid you're living in the wrong century. Maybe you could try bartering in all of your transactions. Seems a little antiquated to me, but it's possible it might work. Otherwise, welcome to 1984, delayed by a few years, which is easily explained. We're still trying to get over the Dark Ages.
Google sees the world as an engineering problem. Creating cars that drive themselves solves some very big problems. But what happens to the many thousands of jobs that depend on truck drivers, especially entire towns that exist for the trucking economy? If Google can solve that problem, they will have my attention. More likely, their wealthy shareholders will look the other way.
3
They won't solve that problem; they have no interest in doing so. Remember the "World of Tomorrow" of 70 years ago? Where everyone would have virtually unlimited leisure time thanks to our automated friends? It HAS happened ... but with the unexpected consequence that the vast majority of those with virtually unlimited leisure time have virtually zero income with which to live their leisure-dominated lives. So now there are complaints that America has become overpopulated by poor people with no ability to support themselves. It will be interesting to see what kind of engineering solution corps like Google come up with for that engineering problem.
16
When I drive I make dozens of steering micro adjustments to the road surface per minute - for a smoother ride and saving wear and tear on the car. I catch pedestrians' and other drivers' eyes on a regular basis, to signal intent. I see and respond to the tiniest motion of cars driving alongside in narrow lanes. It is inconceivable that software can do what our wetware does. The prospect of driving alongside automatons is terrifying to me, and I would rate driving as one of my best skills - drove a taxi in NYC for 5 years back in the day.
Hubris is a good word here. This article simply repeats the same talking points uttered by the Google masters. I dread the day of driver-less cars and a sky full of drones. Get me outta here.
Hubris is a good word here. This article simply repeats the same talking points uttered by the Google masters. I dread the day of driver-less cars and a sky full of drones. Get me outta here.
8
How is it inconceivable that software can be smarter than our brains? Computers can make a gazillion calculations per second.
If accidents and causalities go down it's worth it. If not, not.
We will soon have a generation with no clue as to how to do such basic things as read a map. There are pros and cons to automated processes.
What I see is an attempt to make life completely risk free, rather than have people learn skills that minimize risk.
The response of the younger generation is often to take up high-risk extreme sports, e.g. climbing without a rope, and to idolize those who do such things.
What I see is an attempt to make life completely risk free, rather than have people learn skills that minimize risk.
The response of the younger generation is often to take up high-risk extreme sports, e.g. climbing without a rope, and to idolize those who do such things.
6
Oh honey. Soon? It's here. I have grandkids who cannot read a man (ages 4-14) and I know college students who struggle mightily with it. They have grown up in a world of GPS units and MapQuest. They have no idea how to deal with a folded "thingy" that doesn't talk them through travel, turn by turn.
God forbid the GPS be lost or broken or just can't find a signal! you are totally out of luck!
God forbid the GPS be lost or broken or just can't find a signal! you are totally out of luck!
Curses! that's "read a map" (obviously), not read a man. Darn this auto-spell corrector!
1
So true. You wrote: no clue as to how to do such basic things as read a map.
Am I the only one who has noticed that when I ask someone, Google maps included, how far I am from my destination, I get an answer in minutes. I want to know how many miles I am from my destination, not how many minutes someone or some program estimates it will take to drive there, Give me an accurate number in miles, not an estimate in time. I'll do the calculating myself, thank you very much.
Am I the only one who has noticed that when I ask someone, Google maps included, how far I am from my destination, I get an answer in minutes. I want to know how many miles I am from my destination, not how many minutes someone or some program estimates it will take to drive there, Give me an accurate number in miles, not an estimate in time. I'll do the calculating myself, thank you very much.
1
What happens when the software or hardware malfunctions as some component inevitably will? Google engineers must see the outcomes from the system's failures as acceptable losses to achieve the impossible and to gather more valuable human intelligence about their users.
It intrigues me about how willingly people give up personal privacy for perceived security in an uncertain world.
It intrigues me about how willingly people give up personal privacy for perceived security in an uncertain world.
3
What about when human drivers malfunction? There are countless car accidents per day.
The question is: will the rate of dangerous malfunctions go up or down. If they go down, it's worth it.
I can't for the day I don't have to operate a car. I know there are people who actually enjoy driving and I hope that option remains open to them. But once a couple of generations are raised on driverless cars, most will wonder why we wanted to do something so oddly impractical.
And I might predict that with driverless cars we can put more vehicles on the road and still get places faster and more efficiently. For instance, a driverless car will not slow down and rubberneck at an accident or any other distraction. A driverless car will not throw anxiety into the system and cause other drivers to respond by weaving in and out of traffic to gain some modest advantage. Consistent speeds appropriate to conditions will be maintained and vehicles can be in closer proximity so that everyone is moving more efficiently. And we'll save fuel by more efficient driving.
Right now we have the ability to turn some parts of driving over to the computer by using cruise control. My new car, a Ford Fusion, can display fuel economy in real time. I've discovered that by using cruise control on the highway during my commute, set at a couple mph above the speed limit, increased my mpg significantly. I'm not constantly monitoring my speed and, as a suspect most drivers do, over accelerating when I need to go faster. My car is rated at 36 highway. But I can easily get 40 mpg at 65 mph just by using cruise control. All of that and more will happen when I can just let the car drive itself entirely.
And I might predict that with driverless cars we can put more vehicles on the road and still get places faster and more efficiently. For instance, a driverless car will not slow down and rubberneck at an accident or any other distraction. A driverless car will not throw anxiety into the system and cause other drivers to respond by weaving in and out of traffic to gain some modest advantage. Consistent speeds appropriate to conditions will be maintained and vehicles can be in closer proximity so that everyone is moving more efficiently. And we'll save fuel by more efficient driving.
Right now we have the ability to turn some parts of driving over to the computer by using cruise control. My new car, a Ford Fusion, can display fuel economy in real time. I've discovered that by using cruise control on the highway during my commute, set at a couple mph above the speed limit, increased my mpg significantly. I'm not constantly monitoring my speed and, as a suspect most drivers do, over accelerating when I need to go faster. My car is rated at 36 highway. But I can easily get 40 mpg at 65 mph just by using cruise control. All of that and more will happen when I can just let the car drive itself entirely.
2
Having to face self-driving cars on the road fills me with terror. Most of the problems with technology are created by people who do not know enough to suspect the magnitude of what they don't know.
Yes, under most conditions, Google's masterpiece may get into fewer accidents than a human driver. But at least when the human driver makes a mistake, we know who was at fault.
With Google's car, who was it? Some unknown coder who made a coding mistake in line 625,000 of a million lines of code. And all computer literate people not blinded by hubris know that every program has mistakes. That will always be true, and more so as programs become more complex. But most of them do not kill you.
Airplanes with computerized controls can and have killed people. That is why there will always be a pilot in the cockpit. Let us not make this problem an endemic component of the road system.
Yes, under most conditions, Google's masterpiece may get into fewer accidents than a human driver. But at least when the human driver makes a mistake, we know who was at fault.
With Google's car, who was it? Some unknown coder who made a coding mistake in line 625,000 of a million lines of code. And all computer literate people not blinded by hubris know that every program has mistakes. That will always be true, and more so as programs become more complex. But most of them do not kill you.
Airplanes with computerized controls can and have killed people. That is why there will always be a pilot in the cockpit. Let us not make this problem an endemic component of the road system.
4
I've had the pleasure of driving on the same roadways with driverless cars on a visit to Mountain View. Lots of the Google cars are Priuses (as well as Lexuses). I've seen them out at night and in the day. Not a drop of anxiety. Why? Because they don't make mistakes. They are never chatting on the phone, scolding the kids in the backseat, eating a sandwich or negotiating a yellow light turn in a busy intersection with a cup of coffee sloshing in their hands.
And knowing who is at fault does not help the dead.
A woman yesterday was sentenced to 90 days in jail and 2 years without a cell phone...because she KILLED a cyclist. Oh, she's really sorry. That doesn't do much for the grant-writer for the local police department whose life she took because she just had to look down at the phone in her lap.
And knowing who is at fault does not help the dead.
A woman yesterday was sentenced to 90 days in jail and 2 years without a cell phone...because she KILLED a cyclist. Oh, she's really sorry. That doesn't do much for the grant-writer for the local police department whose life she took because she just had to look down at the phone in her lap.
As I look over the automobile fatalities in my state, I cannot find a single one that would not have been prevented by using Google cars. Google cars don't drink, don't text, feel no road rage, and actually know every driving law. It would take a lot of HUBRIS on Google's part to counter these plain facts.
7
You have no accidents in your state due to blowouts, mechanical failures, or road hazards? Amazing.
@ jb. Hardly amazing. Check the fatality records in OK. A computer recognizes and handles blowouts, road hazards and mechanical failures many thousands of times faster than humans. And, so far, I can find only one fatality ( a fire engine truck!) that might have been due to the causes you mention, although high speed was involved. All the others were falling asleep, drunk driving, driver error, and driving too fast for highways conditions (a big thing in our state).
Think about it, thousands of cars on the road in front of you reporting issues like ice, snow, flooded streets. That would allow your car to reroute or take other actions. Further, because the cars can communicate traffic conditions the total and complete stoppage of traffic can become a thing of the past. Instead of screaming down the highway at 75 mph to a traffic jam, your car slows to 60 and allows the traffic to flow. Instead of people waiting until the last minute to move over a lane to get past construction, the cars will line up and pass at 50 mph instead of 75 mph up to the construction then become a 3 mile long 5 mph crawl.
I like the idea, and I can't wait.
I like the idea, and I can't wait.
8
INFORMATION on road conditions, perhaps through an advanced NAV system would just fine.
A robot driving your car? no.
A robot driving your car? no.
If Google were to manage to make a self sufficient car that solved the problem of hundreds of thousands** of deaths per yr. they would achieve something contrary to claims and desires: no one would want to ride in it, aside from those whose handicaps prevent them from using conventional transportation.
First, the use of streets and roads is based on CONTENTION FOR SPACE. One car waits, another goes. The Google car would have to be trained to always wait in situations where contention were involved. In a day of driving, this would occur 15 to 20 or more times. Unacceptable.
Then there is the little matter of potential hold-ups, robberies and other crimes being committed against those in the vehicles. One person stands in front of the Googlecar, another stands immediately in back, inches way. Result: the Googlecar is immobilized, since it is programmed not to run over civilians. Who wants to ride that car?
There are many ways to reduce deaths on highways and we have taken many of them, lowering the annual death rate in this country dramatically. Smart roads, which would be very expensive to place everywhere, represent the next logical step. Better highway design is another. Roundabouts eliminate 90% of left turn crashes.
This is a false dream.
**I am leaving off the top end of the numbers, because no one assumes that such a vehicle could operate in the most dangerous places in the world, like dirt roads in Africa or South America, or very narrow roads over mountain passes.
First, the use of streets and roads is based on CONTENTION FOR SPACE. One car waits, another goes. The Google car would have to be trained to always wait in situations where contention were involved. In a day of driving, this would occur 15 to 20 or more times. Unacceptable.
Then there is the little matter of potential hold-ups, robberies and other crimes being committed against those in the vehicles. One person stands in front of the Googlecar, another stands immediately in back, inches way. Result: the Googlecar is immobilized, since it is programmed not to run over civilians. Who wants to ride that car?
There are many ways to reduce deaths on highways and we have taken many of them, lowering the annual death rate in this country dramatically. Smart roads, which would be very expensive to place everywhere, represent the next logical step. Better highway design is another. Roundabouts eliminate 90% of left turn crashes.
This is a false dream.
**I am leaving off the top end of the numbers, because no one assumes that such a vehicle could operate in the most dangerous places in the world, like dirt roads in Africa or South America, or very narrow roads over mountain passes.
1
Engineers are different than you and me. At base, they don't believe in people. What I mean is they like numbers and systems and, if they can, they would like to take people out of the equation entirely. People are messy, while numbers, equations and systems based on them are, they believe, predictable, reliable and function better.
I have dealt with many engineers in my years in broadcasting and communications technology. Some of my best friends are engineers (joke intentional). Much of my work in technology has been trying to bridge the gap between engineers and human beings (joke intentional). Seriously, engineers can build things, they can make things hum, but they don't know WHAT to build. They often don't know what needs building, that's where Steve Jobs and thousands of others came in: this is what we need, how do we get it?
The engineers role in broadcasting is often to tell the crazy dreamers this: "You can't do that."
"I can't do what?"
"Anything you want to do."
The engineers often look at non-engineers as people (idiots) who will wreck their wonderful systems, causing them to spend weeks putting everything back together. The examples of the clashes between engineers and those trained in other disciplines are too numerous to recount.
It is an engineering/scientific vision that is behind the idea of self driving cars.
Okay, self driving cars are the solution.
What's the problem?
They will not resolve safety issues in a way that is acceptable to people.
I have dealt with many engineers in my years in broadcasting and communications technology. Some of my best friends are engineers (joke intentional). Much of my work in technology has been trying to bridge the gap between engineers and human beings (joke intentional). Seriously, engineers can build things, they can make things hum, but they don't know WHAT to build. They often don't know what needs building, that's where Steve Jobs and thousands of others came in: this is what we need, how do we get it?
The engineers role in broadcasting is often to tell the crazy dreamers this: "You can't do that."
"I can't do what?"
"Anything you want to do."
The engineers often look at non-engineers as people (idiots) who will wreck their wonderful systems, causing them to spend weeks putting everything back together. The examples of the clashes between engineers and those trained in other disciplines are too numerous to recount.
It is an engineering/scientific vision that is behind the idea of self driving cars.
Okay, self driving cars are the solution.
What's the problem?
They will not resolve safety issues in a way that is acceptable to people.
5
People are ornery and unpredictable. Even if, as the columnist and Google say, cars without the ability for the driver to "step in" and take control are safer, that doesn't mean consumers will feel comfortable ceding control to a machine.
The thing I thought of reading this was cake mixes. Originally, all home bakers who bought them had to do was add water and put them in the oven, and cake mixes didn't sell. Although cake mixes were introduced to minimize work for the home cooks -- then mostly "housewives" -- they didn't sell until the manufacturers added a lot of (unnecessary) work into the process: adding milk, fresh eggs, creating frosting and toppings, etc.
I suspect a lot of people will want to be doing more "work" when they are in a car. In buses, trains and light rails, we cede control to another human being. I'm OK with very short rides without a human at the controls -- airport people movers or an aerial tramway -- but it would take a big psychological leap for me to get on a freeway in a car with no driver. I think it would give me a panic attack.
The thing I thought of reading this was cake mixes. Originally, all home bakers who bought them had to do was add water and put them in the oven, and cake mixes didn't sell. Although cake mixes were introduced to minimize work for the home cooks -- then mostly "housewives" -- they didn't sell until the manufacturers added a lot of (unnecessary) work into the process: adding milk, fresh eggs, creating frosting and toppings, etc.
I suspect a lot of people will want to be doing more "work" when they are in a car. In buses, trains and light rails, we cede control to another human being. I'm OK with very short rides without a human at the controls -- airport people movers or an aerial tramway -- but it would take a big psychological leap for me to get on a freeway in a car with no driver. I think it would give me a panic attack.
If one could dial back Time to BC - "Before Cars" - and assemble the world's smartest people to design the quickest, most efficient and safest transport for masses of people simultaneously going from an almost infinite number of places to an almost infinite number of other places, the present system of private automobiles would not have been anyone's idea of a good idea.
Query: Who in their right mind would have proposed a system whereby individual humans, with a wide spectrum of physical, mental and sensory capabilities and in various states of health, sobriety and attention, would independently operate multi-ton vehicles at speeds of 5 to 85 mph, simultaneously going en masse in intertwining and/or intersecting directions on narrow ribbons of concrete bordered by structures and thronged by pedestrians, with said ribbons and pedestrians crisscrossing at countless intersections with dazzling arrays of signal stimulii, and in all weather, would be a smart or cost-effective thing to do?
Google's driverless cars still have legitimate critics and criticisms, but Google deserves credit for one thing: Attempting to time-travel back to BC and 'un-invent' one of humankind's most deadly and environmentally destructive ideas, one that taxes natural resources as well as medical and legal systems. Its redeeming features? It controls overpopulation, and creates jobs to occupy countless millions of excess people who otherwise would have nothing to do.
Query: Who in their right mind would have proposed a system whereby individual humans, with a wide spectrum of physical, mental and sensory capabilities and in various states of health, sobriety and attention, would independently operate multi-ton vehicles at speeds of 5 to 85 mph, simultaneously going en masse in intertwining and/or intersecting directions on narrow ribbons of concrete bordered by structures and thronged by pedestrians, with said ribbons and pedestrians crisscrossing at countless intersections with dazzling arrays of signal stimulii, and in all weather, would be a smart or cost-effective thing to do?
Google's driverless cars still have legitimate critics and criticisms, but Google deserves credit for one thing: Attempting to time-travel back to BC and 'un-invent' one of humankind's most deadly and environmentally destructive ideas, one that taxes natural resources as well as medical and legal systems. Its redeeming features? It controls overpopulation, and creates jobs to occupy countless millions of excess people who otherwise would have nothing to do.
4
The arrival of self-driving cars will bring many benefits. Since they will not require human monitoring much less intervention, they will become mobile offices/entertainment centers. They will conserve energy by operating more smoothly, anticipating control signals like stop lights and drafting the car in front. Once all have converted, the traffic capacity of freeways could even be doubled once lanes are made narrower. This will also reduce congestion and improve transit times. Disabled individuals will regain their independence despite blindness, neuropathy, paralysis and psychosis. There will be no such crime as driving under the influence or speeding and traffic police can be eliminated. In large inner cities, personal cars along with a place to garage them will become a luxury of the highest order -- a driverless system like Uber will suffice.
Those wishing to relive the good old days of driving will do so on a track, selected back-country roads or a simulator.
Those wishing to relive the good old days of driving will do so on a track, selected back-country roads or a simulator.
3
I will still be out on the roads piloting myself - since I won't be able to afford a self-driving car in the future any more than I am able to afford a gadgeted-up mid-sized family sedan of today. I'll still be driving my well-maintained now-13 year old Acura CL, thank you, and it will last forever out here in the desert.
U think a play on Dickens is appropriate: It is the best of cars, it is the worst of cars. This is the age of enlightenment, this is the age of stupidity. In other words it is a year like another year.
I think driverless cars are great in theory, but Google's arrogance in other fields is worrisome. Why won't YouTube allow me to block certain channels that I think are inappropriate for kids? I know, they're geniuses, they know better than everyone else.
1
"too early to say" seems like a reasonable response and not ducking the question as the columnist suggests.
2
generally when ducking a question, the person does not say "i think i'll duck that question." they say, "we're taking it into consideration." if you don't know this, you are, as they say, "ripe fodder."
Dear Mr. Nocera,
Relax; not Google, not Ford, not ANYBODY is going to take our "steering wheels away" (Perhaps they will "pry them from our dead, cold fingers" much like handguns).
For in America, at least, driving is not just getting from point A to point B. For some of us, driving is a challenge and an exhilarating experience. Otherwise why are there so many choices of vehicles to do this?
In the "Google World", shudder, there are no emotions such as "joy" or a "feeling of accomplishment" which are very evident when one is behind the wheel of a high performance car; tell a Ferrari or Subaru STI owner that he/she won't be driving anymore and, indeed, the revolution may actually start!
We are very close to "driverless" vehicles already, at least it appears that way when I drive. The longer a trip one takes, the more "close encounters of the insurance kind" one experiences.
So let Google waste it's time trying to come up with a "driverless' vehicle. Much like the Amazon "drones", they seem doomed to failure.
Relax; not Google, not Ford, not ANYBODY is going to take our "steering wheels away" (Perhaps they will "pry them from our dead, cold fingers" much like handguns).
For in America, at least, driving is not just getting from point A to point B. For some of us, driving is a challenge and an exhilarating experience. Otherwise why are there so many choices of vehicles to do this?
In the "Google World", shudder, there are no emotions such as "joy" or a "feeling of accomplishment" which are very evident when one is behind the wheel of a high performance car; tell a Ferrari or Subaru STI owner that he/she won't be driving anymore and, indeed, the revolution may actually start!
We are very close to "driverless" vehicles already, at least it appears that way when I drive. The longer a trip one takes, the more "close encounters of the insurance kind" one experiences.
So let Google waste it's time trying to come up with a "driverless' vehicle. Much like the Amazon "drones", they seem doomed to failure.
2
Ever time I am stuck on the BQE or forced into a dead stop every 100 yards for somebody to go from the left lane to the right lane to exit, I pray for self-driving cars and smart highways. Driving brings out the worst in human behavior, behind the wheel triggers flight or fight and in traffic there is no where to go but to fight. 10 years of yoga can be undone in five minutes on the cross Bronx.
7
support a better public transportation system
The cars can't make out hand signals from other drivers? I've been driving for 16 years and only driver hand signals I've learned are the wave to say "thanks for letting me merge" and the raised middle finger. Neither one is strictly necessary to know and recognize in order to drive.
11
In many years and miles of driving, I've had my turn signals quit and had to use hand signals till I could get them repaired. But I'm not sure younger drivers even understand what hand signals mean -- other than the raised middle finger.
I have read, many times, that after midnight 35% -50% of people driving cars are either DUI or almost there. If that is true well driverless cars are an obvious answer to that problem.
4
so, before midnight drivers will drive. after midnight, what, they all automatically switch to driverless mode? by radar?
Absolute nonsense. Remember the Toyota that auto-lobotomized its computer a couple of years ago, and rushed its occupants over a cliff? The whole concept of computer-driven cars is a playpen for computer-savvy terrorists. If they can hack into our government systems, think how much fun they'll have hacking into cars in heavy traffic at highway speeds. Then imagine yourself going down the road and accelerating out of control, with no steering or braking response. Our population will be reduced by the infectious HAL syndrome.
4
Can they be programmed to sing "A Bicycle Built For Two"?
Yeah, I remember that case! The guy was parking the car, then it zipped forward and went over the cliff. Terrible. A woman died. The husband survived. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration investigated.
Turns out the driver didn't hit the brakes. He put his foot on the accelerator. It wasn't an electronics issue.
But thanks for playing!
Turns out the driver didn't hit the brakes. He put his foot on the accelerator. It wasn't an electronics issue.
But thanks for playing!
We have gotten ahead of ourselves with self driving cars. Or rather, Google has done it for us.
The solution is self driving cars. What is the problem?
Yes, there would be some safety benefits. We wouldn't have to worry as much about people falling to sleep at the wheel, they would already be taking a nap. Would it be illegal to ride drunk in a autonomous car?
Self piloting cars would be a boon for the blind or those unable to operate a vehicle at all, such as the very elderly. I can't see dads putting their kids in the things unless they were proven to be as safe as staying in a cradle.
We are just now reaching the point where car crashes can be completely, fully understood for cause and effect. With on board cameras and computerized data banks, we can now, for the first time, know beyond a doubt why crashes occur. An awful lot of them, as we have known for decades, occur because of drinking, drugging and sleepiness, but others are a combination of many factors.
Benefits, yes, but major problems, too:
1. Who is responsible when a self driving car kills someone?
2. Will people tolerate their children being struck and killed by a computer?
3. What about hyrdoplaning? Can computers handle the subtlety required to recover?
4. Could robbers block a car from moving, one in front, one in back, hijacking the occupants?
5. A self driving car would be programmed to crash into the one in front of it rather than risk causing a massive pile up with a quick turn. Acceptable? No.
4
"What is the problem?" 32,719.
That is the number killed in motor vehicle crashes on American roads in 2013 (the last year for which we have numbers).
Answers to your questions:
1. The company that built the system, of course, will have to have that system insured against crashes if the vehicle is in autonomous mode.
2. People tolerate their children being struck and killed by cars driven by humans. They put their kids on commercial planes which are almost always landed by computer these days. But since the odds of their kids being struck and killed by a self-driving car will be much, much lower than being hit by a human-driven car, this will not be a major issue.
3. Hydroplaning? Yeah. The computer can handle that much better than a human.
4. Uh, robbers can block a car from moving now. They rarely do, but they can.
5. Self-driving cars are programed not to crash at all.
Wow, the paranoia in your post is amazing.
That is the number killed in motor vehicle crashes on American roads in 2013 (the last year for which we have numbers).
Answers to your questions:
1. The company that built the system, of course, will have to have that system insured against crashes if the vehicle is in autonomous mode.
2. People tolerate their children being struck and killed by cars driven by humans. They put their kids on commercial planes which are almost always landed by computer these days. But since the odds of their kids being struck and killed by a self-driving car will be much, much lower than being hit by a human-driven car, this will not be a major issue.
3. Hydroplaning? Yeah. The computer can handle that much better than a human.
4. Uh, robbers can block a car from moving now. They rarely do, but they can.
5. Self-driving cars are programed not to crash at all.
Wow, the paranoia in your post is amazing.
"Resistance is futile."
-- The Borg
-- The Borg
5
Driverless cars are what cars convertible to small airplanes were in the 1950's. Ain't gonna fly.
1
You don't realize how this works. More and more cars are employing automated safety controls. Your braking system is not you, but a combination of you and a computer that is working to keep your car from going into an uncontrolled skid by alternating the friction coefficient on your brakes in a way that you never could. You likely have cruise control. Well, new cars have cruise control that allows the car to slow when it gets too close to another vehicle. Many new cars have lane control that resists drifting across lanes. More and more have automated braking systems that "see" slowing vehicles.
Yeah, you're still driving. But these are on the road NOW. More and more it will be the car giving you the illusion of driving. And more and more, drivers will want a car that allow you to do something else while you are along for the ride.
Yeah, you're still driving. But these are on the road NOW. More and more it will be the car giving you the illusion of driving. And more and more, drivers will want a car that allow you to do something else while you are along for the ride.
1
Ah yes the driverless car con!
Ten million articles, all written by paid promoters or useful idiots, designed to bring about a highly inefficient, unnecessary, privately owned but heavily government subsidized, form of public transit featuring private modules for the wealthy, a stinking standing-room bus for the masses and another control methodology for the masters.
Ten million articles, all written by paid promoters or useful idiots, designed to bring about a highly inefficient, unnecessary, privately owned but heavily government subsidized, form of public transit featuring private modules for the wealthy, a stinking standing-room bus for the masses and another control methodology for the masters.
8
Some day in the future, you will get to call your insurance company to get a quote on your human-driven car. You will be horrified at the cost increase. The insurance agent will try to calmly explain that the number of folks who choose to drive non-autonomous vehicles (or at least ones that basically take over when road conditions are dangerous) has plummeted, and that judgements against drivers who refuse to embrace safer technology has jumped, and that as a result, it costs a lot more to insure highly inefficient useless idiots who purposefully avoid making our roads safer.
"The sooner they are a reality, the safer we’ll all be." Unless, of course, you're a truck or taxi driver whose jobs will be eliminated.
2
I'll take safety.
I remember when you wanted phone service, you had to call a human at the phone company, set an appointment, have them come out to your new house and turn on your phone. That's not really right. The phone company actually owned any phones in your home, and if you had a new house, they had to come out and install the phones themselves. There were often about five or six colors to choose from, but inevitably, the installer did not have all the colors. You could wait for the next shipment, of course, but that could be a week.
I wonder what all those guys (they were all men, of course) are doing now?
I'll think on it while I type this on my iPhone.
I wonder what all those guys (they were all men, of course) are doing now?
I'll think on it while I type this on my iPhone.
I'll believe that the driverless car is ready for prime time when it drives safely in downtown Manhattan and any place in Boston.
7
Google cars are constantly driving around San Francisco, San Jose and all the freeways in-between. Mercedes has had its driverless car rolling around S.F. Delphi just recently tested a highway driverless system that drove an SUV from San Francisco to New York (via El Paso and Washington D.C.).
Driverless cars are best suited to those who are afraid of driving. For the rest of us, cars tend to be an expression of ourselves - from the make and design of the vehicle to the particular style of driving replete with lane changes, sudden accelerations, and challenges to amber traffic lights. These actions may not involve the best of motives, but they nevertheless conflict too strongly with the passive (and passionless) experience of a driverless environment to make that world a reality.
1
I just leased a Subaru Impreza with every fancy safety feature available. It's taken me some getting used to but I do love the avert front collision function. In theory: feeling it in action is really eerie as if a ghost had taken over my car.
Frankly I don't want a self driving car unless every car on the road is also self driving. Computer or no computer, I don't trust the other guys on the road or the feeling of helplessness should things go awry and my car systems fail.
Hey I don't even use cruise control because I find taking my foot off the pedals totally disconcerting. It may be a woman thing, but I don't want to use my car to relax. It's hard to shed vigilance after a lifetime of defensive driving--letting down my guard will never be something this old dog counts as a cool new trick to learn.
Frankly I don't want a self driving car unless every car on the road is also self driving. Computer or no computer, I don't trust the other guys on the road or the feeling of helplessness should things go awry and my car systems fail.
Hey I don't even use cruise control because I find taking my foot off the pedals totally disconcerting. It may be a woman thing, but I don't want to use my car to relax. It's hard to shed vigilance after a lifetime of defensive driving--letting down my guard will never be something this old dog counts as a cool new trick to learn.
5
You probably do very little long distance driving, then. On a very long road trip, cruise control is a huge blessing. It lets you stretch your legs and not have to concentrate on keeping the speed consistent. And it prevents speeding tickets!
Self-driving cars can be no better than the algorithms they run by, which means they cannot take into account situations not anticipated by the programmer.
Just how will the algorithm be written to judge whether you should hit the kid on the bike, who suddenly veers in front of you, or hit hit head on the old lady coming at you? Will the algorithm take into account whether you have an expected three months to live and, if so, how ill it weigh that against the life of the kid on the bike? Who gets to decide the ethics in that situation?
Probably the best-known example of why you want someone live and capable in charge can be summarized by one incident: Sully Sullenberger and a flock of geese. If you were on that plane, would you have preferred Sullenberger running the show or an algorithm written by some kids in Bangalore, Riga, or Cupertino. Or even the top programmers at Google?
Unanticipated events are just that, unanticipated and, thus, cannot be anticipated by a computer program. We'll all be a lot safer if, instead of wallowing in a self-driving car fantasy, we enforce driving laws pervasively and strictly.
Just how will the algorithm be written to judge whether you should hit the kid on the bike, who suddenly veers in front of you, or hit hit head on the old lady coming at you? Will the algorithm take into account whether you have an expected three months to live and, if so, how ill it weigh that against the life of the kid on the bike? Who gets to decide the ethics in that situation?
Probably the best-known example of why you want someone live and capable in charge can be summarized by one incident: Sully Sullenberger and a flock of geese. If you were on that plane, would you have preferred Sullenberger running the show or an algorithm written by some kids in Bangalore, Riga, or Cupertino. Or even the top programmers at Google?
Unanticipated events are just that, unanticipated and, thus, cannot be anticipated by a computer program. We'll all be a lot safer if, instead of wallowing in a self-driving car fantasy, we enforce driving laws pervasively and strictly.
32
Oh please, that's a false argument. To argue about the rare situation against the most common is nonsensical. I'd say 99.99999% of accidents don't match your criteria. I'm not sure why the NYTimes.com picked this one.
And I'm sure Sullenberger, as all pilots, used autopilot on a regular basis to avoid fatigue and to use the advantages of computer controlled flight. In no way does that diminish his amazing feat.
And I'm sure Sullenberger, as all pilots, used autopilot on a regular basis to avoid fatigue and to use the advantages of computer controlled flight. In no way does that diminish his amazing feat.
4
Yet again, the argument that if i can think of one scenario that is negative, it wipes out all the positives. Using your example, as isolated and noon relatable as it is, would you propose removing auto pilot from all planes just because of the Sullenberger example example?
150 would be alive today if proposed flight automation had been implemented to prevent a Germanwings pilot from flying into a mountain. Is that a fair argument to eliminate human pilots?
.PS - how in the world did NYT's board think this should be one of their top comments for this article?
150 would be alive today if proposed flight automation had been implemented to prevent a Germanwings pilot from flying into a mountain. Is that a fair argument to eliminate human pilots?
.PS - how in the world did NYT's board think this should be one of their top comments for this article?
2
Is Captain Sullenberger riding shotgun with the kid who's texting in the next lane, with the drunk who's weaving towards the exit, or for that matter in your car?
1
Of course they want to take the driver out of the equation. These cars aren't designed to compete with the long haul driver-complemented systems, at least in the near term. This is a more "watch out über!" business application.
Besides, do you really want a driver at the wheel actively waiting to take control if the machine messes up? I wouldnt be able to pay attention for long. Any implementation would need to be passive.
Oops.. The car stopped for a downed tree and can't figure out it needs to turn around. Driver sets down their tablet and takes the wheel.
Besides, do you really want a driver at the wheel actively waiting to take control if the machine messes up? I wouldnt be able to pay attention for long. Any implementation would need to be passive.
Oops.. The car stopped for a downed tree and can't figure out it needs to turn around. Driver sets down their tablet and takes the wheel.
1
It seems that one of the big problems we humans have is that we ask the question, "Can we do it?" instead of "Should we do it?". Or we ask in the wrong order and the cans are running away with the technology and the shoulds get let behind in the dust because everybody is gaga over the new exciting technology.
For example, one of the first comments I read, pjs said that people will be trying to get into an accident with a self-driving car so they can sue for damages. I hadn't even thought of that! There is so much conversation to be had about it - including what Google will do with our information.
I personally like the idea of a car that can drive itself. But there is so much to consider and I wonder if us 'every day' people will be able to shape the conversation at all or whether the technology geeks will just forge ahead.
Here's one prediction: people will spend more time in the back seat than the front!
For example, one of the first comments I read, pjs said that people will be trying to get into an accident with a self-driving car so they can sue for damages. I hadn't even thought of that! There is so much conversation to be had about it - including what Google will do with our information.
I personally like the idea of a car that can drive itself. But there is so much to consider and I wonder if us 'every day' people will be able to shape the conversation at all or whether the technology geeks will just forge ahead.
Here's one prediction: people will spend more time in the back seat than the front!
1
Driverless cars are becoming reality, and, to our chagrin, seem safer than humans driving the car, careless as we sometimes are, 'texting' and the use of drugs/alcohol notwithstanding. Its is O.K. to ask questions and hopefully with constructive criticism (of Google), but I suspect Simpson is trying to make a name for himself, muddying the field of a promising technology.
Usually I agree with Nocera, but the legal and safety issues that are generated when someone is behind the wheel boggle the mind, particularly those involving other vehicles, which for one reason or another malfunction. Blown tires, faulty electrical systems, weather related effects, etc may prove to be the downfall of driverless cars, as least for the foreseeable future.
If something like this occurs in our society over the next 20 years, it would be surprising.
If something like this occurs in our society over the next 20 years, it would be surprising.
1
Now think back 20 years. Who would have imagined that everyone would walk around with tiny computers in their pockets that could connect to a global "web" of information and that could also make phone calls? Technology and its adoption have a way of surprising us all time.
The unspoken issue here is liability. We have not heard much from lawyers and product safety folks yet. When we do, that will surely make the self driving car more expensive.
2
A great idea for all the children who long have wanted to drive. "Mommy, I'm going to my play date, I'll be using the car." While self-driving cars may be popular with those who want to put on their make-up or surf the net, they will never be acceptable to those who want to gun the engine and travel, as most Americans do now, at speeds of ten to twenty miles per hour over the posted speed limit. Unless speed control can be overridden, that issue makes them mostly of engineering interest with limited market value.
1
Predictably self-driving cars will make mistakes because of unanticipated situations. Meanwhile humans driving will make all-too-predictable mistakes - falling asleep, texting, etc. The self-driving technology, if not individual cars, has the capability of learning from mistakes, that is adding situations to their programming. Humans can't or don't profit nearly as much from experience - they will continue to fall asleep, will probably text even after being in an accident, and so on.
2
The technology may be ready, but the legal system is not. The first accidents will produce a litigation storm. Has anyone considered that some people will deliberately find a way to have a collision with an autonomous vehicle simply to cash in? The technology is running well-ahead of society's ability to deal with the consequences.
6
Good grief. If there is a crash, there should be a law suit. Why should driverless cars be given immunity if they harm humans or property?
As Mort Sahl once put it, "the future lies ahead." Modern cars are expensive to buy, and expensive to insure because they're increasingly expensive to repair as they gain more complex electronics systems that get all smashed up in accidents, even minor ones. The upside is that they are also more reliable than ever which gives them better resale value and a longer life after the initial purchase. This means that turning over the vehicle fleet to an entirely or even largely self driving version is going to happen incrementally and take decades. A car, unlike a cell phone, is a durable good and they're growing more durable every year.
3
a. Google has 2 particular interests in self-driving cars: (1) Selling them should be profitable, and (2) it will enable the passengers who were formerly drivers to spend more time and attention on their hand-held devices which use other Google products.
b. I crossed a street the other day with my 5-year-old grandson. A car was coming, and I told him to wait until the car actually stops at the stop sign. Then I told him, in about 10 years, that won't be necessary.
b. I crossed a street the other day with my 5-year-old grandson. A car was coming, and I told him to wait until the car actually stops at the stop sign. Then I told him, in about 10 years, that won't be necessary.
1
All I want in this sort of system is the assurance of one thing: that I can still drive my own car if I want to. I take such pleasure in driving around that it would be a huge loss to not be able to do it myself. I have no problem with the technology, and it is inevitable that it will come. However, those of us who like to drive and are responsible behind the wheel should not be made to give up driving in the future if it is something that we choose to do.
1
But, but computers are so much better than people. Why should any one pander to you. And computers never crash, they never break and when updated they never lose your pictures, or the ability to function. Please computers are perfect.
even if "1.2 million people who die every year in car accidents" ?
Unfortunately you are one of the very few of our species who is responsible behind the wheel. I commute most days on 2 wheels via bicycle, and nearly every single day, I confront a driver who puts my life in danger if I don't take extra precautions to keep safe. In the past few weeks I've had to get out of the way of: someone speeding because they're late for work, someone talking on a cell phone with a dog in their lap, someone putting on their makeup, someone using their phone as a GPS, someone eating a big fat burrito with two hands, someone who looked one way, not two so I had to stop to not get crushed. I personally can't wait for the day that every single car is autonomous so that the rules of the road are respected and that people can focus on other things.
1
How will software updates be handled on autonomous cars? (Anyone whose Android phone didn't quite work right after an overnight update might be interested to hear that.) How will they prevent autonomous cars from being hacked? Google does have occasional major outages in their system due to software bugs. Up to now, those have not been life-threatening. The point is that even if Google cars succeed in overcoming the limitations of human drivers, they will bring a whole new set of weaknesses of their own.
4
Self-driving vehicles seem to be the wave of the near future. Uber just stole the entire robotics department of Carnegie Mellon University to develop such a car to replace the drivers of its "taxi" fleets. And Volvo just announced a car that is now available that can drive itself under more limited circumstances. The downside of this next high-tech advance is that, even as we reduce fatalities from auto and truck crashes, there will still be human casualties as many taxi and truck drivers join the unemployment lines. Is society and its tech wizards prepared to handle intended consequences of this innovation?
6
Why doesn't Google put its money into better mass transit? Safer, uses less fossil fuel and allows people more time to use Google products.
61
Great suggestion re mass transit. Not only would we achieve the benefits you've mentioned, but Google also wouldn't be able to track where all the passengers went.
Multi-passenger, driverless cars ARE mass transit for the suburbs medium-density (4-5 floor housing) cities.
Flight decks of the old airliners had as many as five crew members. Along came both new technology and better reliability, now it can be argued the modern airline flight deck requires no aircrew.
I saw the same in military fighters. From stumbling through mountain passes at low altitude in the night, to terrain following systems that allowed very low altitude and high speed. Now we have drones. All along the way, the number of accident deaths plummeted.
Next, will be the big trucks running set routes. Drivers will not be required. Trains would do the job better at lower cost but... I love technology but a smart society plans ahead
I saw the same in military fighters. From stumbling through mountain passes at low altitude in the night, to terrain following systems that allowed very low altitude and high speed. Now we have drones. All along the way, the number of accident deaths plummeted.
Next, will be the big trucks running set routes. Drivers will not be required. Trains would do the job better at lower cost but... I love technology but a smart society plans ahead
1
I couldn't agree more. There are always some Luddites and people ignorant of technology, but anyone familiar with current capabilities and the history of technical innovation knows that driverless cars aren't very far in the future -- and anyone who has dealt with drunk drivers, insane speeders, and texters thinks the sooner, the better.
By the way, it would be more accurate to say that automakers see partially automated cars as an interim step on the way to fully driverless cars. However, unlike with the real thing, there are real questions about the safety of partially autonomous vehicles, because of the driver attention factor to which you referred.
By the way, it would be more accurate to say that automakers see partially automated cars as an interim step on the way to fully driverless cars. However, unlike with the real thing, there are real questions about the safety of partially autonomous vehicles, because of the driver attention factor to which you referred.
4
Driverless car, connected homes and many things in many science fictions are easily achievable. However, the real fork in the road is how will the story of humanity evolve. Forget about philosophers asking the grand meaning of life, think what people like Lewis Mumford and Arthur C Clarke. If money, and money only, continues to be the driving force, dystopia is almost inevitable
10
@Bos: "If money, and money only, continues to be the driving force, dystopia is almost inevitable". Look on the bright side. We're doing nothing much about climate change. We probably won't last long enough to become a true dystopia. We're on our way now, but, really. The human race might be gone in a couple hundred years. So...yea! (Sad Snark).
The car, which isolates individuals from one another and the world at large, is the problem not the solution, regardless of how it is driven or who's driving. And the very idea that there will be generation after generation that doesn't know how to operate the machines depended on for survival is a true dystopia. Don't be such an apologist.
4
J, your comment brought to mind images from the movie "Wall-E" in which people passively lie back in their Barcalounger-style chairs, eating and drinking and growing ever fatter in their spaceship environment.
We can only hope that computer-controlled vehicles will not be mandatory anytime soon...and given Americans' "love affair with the automobile," I think that's a pretty safe bet.
We can only hope that computer-controlled vehicles will not be mandatory anytime soon...and given Americans' "love affair with the automobile," I think that's a pretty safe bet.
I did a brief experiment while a passenger in our car, going to the grocery store. Roughly 40% of the drivers I could see were driving distracted. On cellphones, texted, reading, putting on make-up. Add to this the invisible distractions of dangerously sleep-deprived driving, drunk driving, driving while impaired by visual problems, illness, etc and I welcome computer driven cars. The computers cannot do a worse job than we humans do. Control the privacy issues, but do not throw out an excellent idea because of a secondary problem.
22
But the secondary problems warrant attention before the fact not after which is our usual practice. What are the insurance industry impacts? How will this technology impact NTSB investigation and response. Will software developers in this field bare special responsibilities and require certifications since the quality of their work can now have life or death consequences? Just some starter questions.
2
Perhaps Google should just skip automobiles entirely, and focus on teletransport or, better yet, virtual travel. By the way, what fuel powers these driverless autos? If fossil based, none of this will much matter, will it?
As an aside, for me at least, there goes one more of life's little pleasures - driving a well designed and well made car on the open road. I suppose most would prefer to be texting. Passive, it seems, trumps active yet again. Oh, well, as the saying goes, "To err is human". Quite.
As an aside, for me at least, there goes one more of life's little pleasures - driving a well designed and well made car on the open road. I suppose most would prefer to be texting. Passive, it seems, trumps active yet again. Oh, well, as the saying goes, "To err is human". Quite.
1
@Michael: Yes! Teleportation is what I want. Zippety-zip and you're there! No cars (except for fun trips and you want to go slowly and see things), no planes and all of that. But...could we trust corporations to de-assembling and re-assembling our neurons and synapses? That's kind of a scary thought. Corporations are people, too, but sometimes corporations do really bad things so....it's a whole trust issue, isn't it?
Sorry, Michael, but I don't agree that a person driving a car is active. A person walking or bicycling is active. And I'm a little old lady who still drives a stick shift because I prefer the sense of control and engagement with the car that shifting gears gives me.
The driverless car would be a wonderful answer for all the elderly people that cannot or should not continue to drive. One very great fear elderly face is the isolation of no longer being free to come and go easily-what a great solution to a problem that doesn't seem to get much attention.
70
Driverless cars represent the commercialization of advanced artificial intelligence. They will usher in the age of autonomous robots. Tell the robot what to do and it will take you to the store, cut your grass, clean the house, and take your job.
The technology produced from driverless cars is transferable to many other applications. When we drive, we have to process a lot of information and then make many rapid decisions. Developing a machine that can do that will make the futuristic Jetsons cartoon come to life.
The robot car could take your kid to school while you are at work. It could provide the elderly or visually impaired safe transport. These are useful things.
Automation of processes requires three basic components. They are sensors, actuators, and decision processors. We already have sensors and actuators. We have the processing hardware which is magnified with cloud computing. The missing part is the software. Software is expensive to create but cheap to produce. Once the code is developed, it costs next to nothing to install it. The code that Google is developing for cars can be formed into a universal robot instruction operator, the core of an artificial intelligence machine, an operating system for robots.
Commercialization of this technology will know no bounds. It will free humanity of mundane tasks. It will also eliminate countless numbers of jobs. Very exciting and very scary.
The technology produced from driverless cars is transferable to many other applications. When we drive, we have to process a lot of information and then make many rapid decisions. Developing a machine that can do that will make the futuristic Jetsons cartoon come to life.
The robot car could take your kid to school while you are at work. It could provide the elderly or visually impaired safe transport. These are useful things.
Automation of processes requires three basic components. They are sensors, actuators, and decision processors. We already have sensors and actuators. We have the processing hardware which is magnified with cloud computing. The missing part is the software. Software is expensive to create but cheap to produce. Once the code is developed, it costs next to nothing to install it. The code that Google is developing for cars can be formed into a universal robot instruction operator, the core of an artificial intelligence machine, an operating system for robots.
Commercialization of this technology will know no bounds. It will free humanity of mundane tasks. It will also eliminate countless numbers of jobs. Very exciting and very scary.
37
"Commercialization of this technology will know no bounds. It will free humanity of mundane tasks. It will also eliminate countless numbers of jobs. Very exciting and very scary."
Well said. In the past, employment has stayed relatively constant as technology has improved -- people become more productive. That's still true, despite what some people claim. But at some point -- a few decades? -- it won't be: human labor will become obsolete. And then we'll need a fundamental reordering of society because within our current economic system, that would lead to a massive depression as the newly unemployed are unable to afford the products the robots can make for less.
Well said. In the past, employment has stayed relatively constant as technology has improved -- people become more productive. That's still true, despite what some people claim. But at some point -- a few decades? -- it won't be: human labor will become obsolete. And then we'll need a fundamental reordering of society because within our current economic system, that would lead to a massive depression as the newly unemployed are unable to afford the products the robots can make for less.
8
Josh, human labor kept up for a few decades because the type of work simply shifted from farming to factory work to office work. But today, it takes fewer and fewer laborers (human) to produce all the goods and services we consume. Ergo, we need fewer and fewer workers. It is THAT, not the lack of labor unions, that drives lack of participation in the labor force which is at the highest levels in history.
And it's going to get much, much worse. So far we have coped by vastly expanding welfare, EITC, food stamps, and most of all: fakers on SSDI (*I do not refer here to actual disabled people, but otherwise healthy people who claim SSDI when they find themselves incapable or undesirous of being employed). Fully 7% of the adult population is now on SSDI, and that's a system that was NEVER designed to support so many. It's affecting the ability of Social Security to fulfill its mission over the next few decades, which is critical.
So far, I see absolutely ZERO ideas (let alone action) from the right or the left to deal with this coming (and existing) massive unemployment. The right wants wishful "job creation" and the left thinks that "more unions and high minimum wage" will solve everything. They are both not only wrong, but absolutely naive and ignorant of the size and complexity of the problem.
And it's going to get much, much worse. So far we have coped by vastly expanding welfare, EITC, food stamps, and most of all: fakers on SSDI (*I do not refer here to actual disabled people, but otherwise healthy people who claim SSDI when they find themselves incapable or undesirous of being employed). Fully 7% of the adult population is now on SSDI, and that's a system that was NEVER designed to support so many. It's affecting the ability of Social Security to fulfill its mission over the next few decades, which is critical.
So far, I see absolutely ZERO ideas (let alone action) from the right or the left to deal with this coming (and existing) massive unemployment. The right wants wishful "job creation" and the left thinks that "more unions and high minimum wage" will solve everything. They are both not only wrong, but absolutely naive and ignorant of the size and complexity of the problem.
I realize we are all at the mercy of our economic system and the innovation / creative destruction that drives it. Resistance, as they say, is futile. Those of us with the skills and abilities to compete and prosper in this rat race will be fine regardless. Others, though, are never be able to find their way out of poverty because this technological age is too much for them. I do wonder when we will finally begin to address that problem.
37
But Neildsmith, it's technology that brought the working class out of poverty for the first time. Look at Africa if you want to see what life is like without (much) technology. Not that it can't have negative side effects, but it's hardly the villain you make it out to be, and those side effects often have more to do with human greed and stupidity than technology per se.
I don't think the technology is the problem. It's our unwillingness to confront the consequences, especially the negative ones, that is the problem. It seems like those who raise the social issues of unbridled technology change are dismissed as Luddites (see comment above) and laughed out of the room.
3
I hated the idea of driverless cars - until I realized that I will need one.
Where I live, like a lot of places in this country, a car is a necessity. Transportation becomes a real issue for senior citizens, who often depend on county senior transportation and volunteers more than anything else to navigate the wide sprawling area.
I know that a driverless car would be a boon to my 83 year old mother right now, and I suspect that if I live long enough, it will be a boon to me. So go, Google, or auto industry or whomever. I am counting on you for my independence.
Where I live, like a lot of places in this country, a car is a necessity. Transportation becomes a real issue for senior citizens, who often depend on county senior transportation and volunteers more than anything else to navigate the wide sprawling area.
I know that a driverless car would be a boon to my 83 year old mother right now, and I suspect that if I live long enough, it will be a boon to me. So go, Google, or auto industry or whomever. I am counting on you for my independence.
79
Public transportation works for much of the world, and can work here--and at a fraction of the cost, which is a huge issue for many senior citizens. Why should we travel as passengers in little cells, when the technology for good, fast public transportation already exists?
1
Would a driverless car really be better for your mom than Uber? or a community "short bus"? or a taxi? or you driving her?
I don't know, I'm just saying it is more complex than that. Even a driverless car needs programming and directions, and decision making. If your mom cannot drive, can she make those decisions and plug in those directions? I know the seniors in my own family could NEVER have dealt with that, anymore than they could program a VCR or deal with 250 channels on cable TV.
I don't know, I'm just saying it is more complex than that. Even a driverless car needs programming and directions, and decision making. If your mom cannot drive, can she make those decisions and plug in those directions? I know the seniors in my own family could NEVER have dealt with that, anymore than they could program a VCR or deal with 250 channels on cable TV.
Google would doing the world a service by putting some of its vast resources and talent into bringing forth a truly cost effective, convenient and practical dial-a-ride system, like the demonstration project back in 1964 in Haddenfield, New Jersey that was much beloved by its residents and so effective as to enable some two-car families to dispense with ownership of a second vehicle! Back then, GPS and robust computing power were simply not available then. It is hope that current taxicab business can evolve into a much more affordable dial-a-ride systems. Current taxicab systems are mostly unaffordable by those needing it, and for the drivers, pay, benefits and safety are abysmal! For major cities, like Washington, D.C. on Connecticut Avenue and K Street, as well as Manhattan Island, midday driving presents an obstacle course of double parked trade and commercial vehicles, a special version of dial-a-ride system of specialty vehicles with single wide and double wide roll-in compartments for, say, plumbers, electricians, and some express delivery companies (in that trucks typically festooned with a confetti of ignored parking violation notices) for specialty roll about carts to eliminate fuel wasting double parked trucks. Such systems, hopefully convenient enough to satisfy that "Big Mac Attack" would be a Godsend for small towns and rural areas and allow senior citizens not forced to move out.
9
I agree that I'm not comfortable with Google having all of my information..not that it doesn't already. I fantasize about getting out of the mad world of information collecting by not being part of it period. Robo calls are making me reconsidering even having a land line. I wonder if I would just be a little inconvenieced by not having a computer and an email. How freeing to not feel as if my life is wide open to the NSA or hackers. I think I'd rather take a train than a self driving car…especially if we had some nice new up to date rails available! I wonder how the technology of solar powered cars and rails are going. I've read the whole outer skin of cars, buildings, trains, and planes could be energy producers. I am hanging in there for now, in the modern world. I'm hoping to see Bernie Sanders elected and see our country once again head in a truly democratic direction. Maybe then I wouldn't feel quite so threatened by my own government who are now so obviously owned by big corporate owners.
19
@Carolyn Egeli: Carolyn, I appreciate your thoughtful comment and I want you to know you are not alone in thinking about giving up the technology and just 'be' more. You're not alone!
1
Yeah, yeah -- Bernie Sanders will somehow magically give you an inexpensive rail system that connects every city and state and small podunk town, and it will be "free' as it will be made entirely of magic pixie dust.
BTW: if you cannot drive, how are you going to get to the train station?
BTW: if you cannot drive, how are you going to get to the train station?
Simpson's approach to the driverless car is a good one but misses by a wide margin in order succeed in his ultimate and honorable goal - data privacy. As a shareholder Simpson idea is brilliant, submit his question at the shareholder meeting or just voice it if he can. But my approach would directly strike at the driverless car project funding, why is Google funding a non-internet, search project building driverless cars in the first place? It seems Google is squandering funds when it could be used to fund core projects that it currently expert at or even return profits to shareholders in 1 time dividends or raise the annual dividend in the first place! In fact Mr Simpson will surely question Google executives on it's data privacy policy and question what safeguards are they maintaining for the data and if they are anonymously converting that data so that individual PC IP address are unable to be indexed to what individual users are doing? Mr Simpson is certainly on the right track and data privacy/security is at the top of the wish list of all of us operating in cyber space.
Self-driving cars will make the roads safer, but will probably destroy the auto industry where product differentiation will change from horsepower to what color Barco Lounger do you prefer in your self-driving cocoon? For car guys and girls, it was a fun 150 years, but it's about over.
2
I'd as soon travel in a robot car as date a robot woman. This is an idiot fantasy that will benefit only the funeral industry.
Driving accidents as the real problem Google is trying to solve? How noble.
And fake.
No, the real problem that is being solved is the wages being payed to the 3 to 6 million US delivery men, truckers, mail carriers, bus drivers etc.
And fake.
No, the real problem that is being solved is the wages being payed to the 3 to 6 million US delivery men, truckers, mail carriers, bus drivers etc.
46
Not really, you're just making that up. For one thing, Google, after all, doesn't pay those wages. It's an advertising company.
However, the real problem with your argument is that you would end efficiency improvements, and keep us from developing economically. The history of economic advancement has been one of improving productivity. Go back a bit more than 100 years, and most workers were on the farm, only the rich could afford a car, and the working man lived in poverty.
The man on the assembly line can produce more cars per day. Historically, as productivity has improved, unemployment has not gone up. Rather, workers produce more and everyone becomes wealthier.
However, the real problem with your argument is that you would end efficiency improvements, and keep us from developing economically. The history of economic advancement has been one of improving productivity. Go back a bit more than 100 years, and most workers were on the farm, only the rich could afford a car, and the working man lived in poverty.
The man on the assembly line can produce more cars per day. Historically, as productivity has improved, unemployment has not gone up. Rather, workers produce more and everyone becomes wealthier.
"Historically, as productivity has improved, unemployment has not gone up. Rather, workers produce more and everyone becomes wealthier."
Except for today where workers produce more and become poor. .
Except for today where workers produce more and become poor. .
12
The word Luddite comers to mind.
1
I read Joe Nocera for the entertainment value. It's amusing to watch the acrobatics he performs to promote corporate initiatives. "...and on Friday began issuing monthly reports that include descriptions of accidents." Notice the vagueness at the end. Are these the kind of reports the critic was asking for? Are they including descriptions of all accidents, or only "descriptions of accidents." Joe won't dig any deeper.
3
And driverless motorcycles? Ain't gonna happen. For one, few motorcycles now even have anti-lock brakes, even though braking errors that cause loss of control are very common. Second, no place to put the technology. Third, motorcycle riders will never agree to give up control to a computer. Fourth, what about lane-splitting, which has long been allowed in California, where the legislature is moving toward making it specifically legal. Finally, in developing nations, a small motorcycle is usually a family's first purchase of motorized transportation and the whole family may ride it at the same time. How are they going to afford it?
4
Would Google, a private company, then be able to track exactly when and where the cars would be driven?
Seems like the next logical data base for Google to make. The purpose eludes me, but so does most of the other things Google keeps track of.
I think I will stick to not having a cell phone, taking the bus, and walking. In my backwater we don't yet have ubiquitous cameras, except in the stores I don't go into.
I still use Google as a search engine, I hope my searches give them joy. The last one was about when the Salk vaccine was invented to jog my aging cohorts memory of the polio cases we remember in our neighbourhoods as children.
Seems like the next logical data base for Google to make. The purpose eludes me, but so does most of the other things Google keeps track of.
I think I will stick to not having a cell phone, taking the bus, and walking. In my backwater we don't yet have ubiquitous cameras, except in the stores I don't go into.
I still use Google as a search engine, I hope my searches give them joy. The last one was about when the Salk vaccine was invented to jog my aging cohorts memory of the polio cases we remember in our neighbourhoods as children.
1
Let us be very blunt on the question of the safety of autonomous cars: they do not have to be perfectly safe, they just have to be safer than humans.
That's a pretty low bar.
That's a pretty low bar.
98
Yes, and for autonomous cars to bring us significantly safer road travel, they will have to become a significant percentage of cars on the road. I leave it to the statisticians to figure those numbers out.
It's only my opinion but I think the stats on distracted driving offer support: Assertion-no normally skilled human being who has not actively been driving their car can 1) detect that the car has made or is making an error and 2) switch into accurate and relevant emergency action in time to avert an imminent accident.
Any of the majors offering automation with human override tested this?
Any of the majors offering automation with human override tested this?
6
Well, they could potentially in the event of a major system failure. These are after all prototypes. But I think the main reason they're there is so that people don't freak out.
Google save us from the Neo-Luddites like Simpson.
I am hopeful that in my lifetime (the next 30-40 years, actuarially speaking) it will become illegal for humans to operate automobiles in most countries of the world.
I am hopeful that in my lifetime (the next 30-40 years, actuarially speaking) it will become illegal for humans to operate automobiles in most countries of the world.
1
Drunk drivers, fatigued drivers, distracted drivers!
I can hardly wait.
I can hardly wait.
16
How about a checklist.
Icy roads
Electrical storm
Driving through a wildfire to escape.
Snowstorm.
The streets of Rome (including parking).
Get back to us when you have checked a few boxes, or have a long string of exceptions.
Icy roads
Electrical storm
Driving through a wildfire to escape.
Snowstorm.
The streets of Rome (including parking).
Get back to us when you have checked a few boxes, or have a long string of exceptions.
4
Nocera and Google are right: cars with human drivers are dangerous. Some humans are drunk; others are tired; other are bored; some are drunk, tired, and bored. Some are young men with too much testosterone. Others are women talking or texting on their cell-phones.
And I'm much more concerned about my private information being stolen by hackers from IT-incompetent corporations or governments than I am about Google or other IT-competent corporations knowing what I might buy and when.
And I'm much more concerned about my private information being stolen by hackers from IT-incompetent corporations or governments than I am about Google or other IT-competent corporations knowing what I might buy and when.
35
Kevin, what about men taking or texting on their cell phones? Or do you maintain that men don't do that?
1
A driverless car should be able to both drive and text at the same time.
Try doing that with a cola nut!
Try doing that with a cola nut!
What happens when the computer is hacked?
6
And what happens when someone hacks the computer of one of these self-driving cars? It will certainly happen.
I also wonder what insurance companies think about self-driving cars.
As for me - no thanks!
I also wonder what insurance companies think about self-driving cars.
As for me - no thanks!
3
This isn't your iPhone, they won't be easily hackable unless they're badly designed. (Of course, they could be hacked if someone had physical access to the vehicle, but then someone could cut your brake line or put a bomb in your car.)
Insurance companies are probably delighted because while there are legal questions, they'll have fewer accidents. Actually it probably doesn't make much of a difference to them, they'll earn their profits no matter what.
Insurance companies are probably delighted because while there are legal questions, they'll have fewer accidents. Actually it probably doesn't make much of a difference to them, they'll earn their profits no matter what.
There’s a feature on a Lexus suburban assault vehicle that I bought my wife, a pretty common one that’s supposed to prevent locking of brakes – I have the same thing on my car (an American car, of course), but you can turn it off. I can’t turn it off on the Lexus and when I try to brake on ice, the brakes don’t respond as expected and I can easily slide beyond a stop sign into an active intersection. I keep my wife off ice and the next car I buy her likely won’t be a Lexus.
Now, there’s an example of an automated feature overriding human judgment, and doing it badly. I’m quite sure that Lexus has done lots of studies on anti-lock braking mechanisms, but I’ve been driving between 30,000 and 50,000 miles per year in all weather over all terrain on several continents over 44 years with an unrestricted license, and I don’t need a second-guess. I certainly don’t need a computer telling me that a vehicle whose brakes don’t lock is preferable to an uncontrolled slide into an intersection athwart opposing traffic. Have these bananas ever heard of pumping brakes?
Google’s confidence notwithstanding, it will be many years before technology can fully take the place of a human driver.
Now, there’s an example of an automated feature overriding human judgment, and doing it badly. I’m quite sure that Lexus has done lots of studies on anti-lock braking mechanisms, but I’ve been driving between 30,000 and 50,000 miles per year in all weather over all terrain on several continents over 44 years with an unrestricted license, and I don’t need a second-guess. I certainly don’t need a computer telling me that a vehicle whose brakes don’t lock is preferable to an uncontrolled slide into an intersection athwart opposing traffic. Have these bananas ever heard of pumping brakes?
Google’s confidence notwithstanding, it will be many years before technology can fully take the place of a human driver.
12
Can't agree with your conclusion. On balance, self-driving cars are probably safer than human driven cars already. You've given an example not of a self-driving car, but of an old-fashioned anti-lock breaking system -- which, by the way, save lives, since not all drivers have your skill. In technology time, the technology in your car is medieval.
Richard, during the 1970s I maintained and used a national racing license. I successfully competed in SCCA and other nationally-sanctioned amateur and professional races including races on frozen lakes. Yes, like you, I can outperform an anti-lock brake system when driving on icy surfaces -- but I believe the general public cannot.
"Have these bananas ever heard of pumping brakes?" They probably have, but it takes practice and skill to do a better job (and stop in shorter distance) than the anti-lock system (that also does its job by pumping brakes). In my opinion this technology does in fact outperform the average driver.
"Have these bananas ever heard of pumping brakes?" They probably have, but it takes practice and skill to do a better job (and stop in shorter distance) than the anti-lock system (that also does its job by pumping brakes). In my opinion this technology does in fact outperform the average driver.
Richard,
You sound like my computer guy talking about how so much software thinks it knows better than the operator and tries to prevent the operator from doing something that actually makes sense.
You sound like my computer guy talking about how so much software thinks it knows better than the operator and tries to prevent the operator from doing something that actually makes sense.
1
The world is going to change beyond recognition in many more ways than just the advent of driverless cars: Longevity increased to 150 years or even technical 'immortality', our bodies converted to interactive transmitters/receivers, the gap between 'organic' and 'mechanical' so blurred as to be meaningless, and so on.
Glad I won't be around.
Glad I won't be around.
2
I'd much prefer a Goggle operated autonomous car drive a drunk home from the bar instead of having the drunk drive himself.
14
I'll accept the viability of self-driving cars when I see one negotiate the evening rush hour traffic at Queens Plaza.
3
Joe Nocera wrote, "More recently, it has built several dozen small cars without steering wheels and brakes and is ready to test them in the streets of Mountain View, Calif." The cars have brakes. They may not have brake pedals, but they have brakes.
16
Yeah, if Google can bring a speeding car to a sudden stop without brakes, I will be REALLY impressed.
2
"Astro" Teller is a nickname. He is also the grandson of Edward Teller.
5
Hasn't Mercedes already worked out some of these issues with its F 015 vehicle? I'd like to see a comparison of Google/Benz chariot systems. No doubt there will be flaws, tragic ones, as these vehicles come to market. Last time I checked - trains also allow you to kick back, read, work, and otherwise not busy oneself with the faculty of steering a fast moving block of steel about the road.Still: an even better solution to human transportation in urban areas would be comfortable, efficient and dependable public transportation as already exists in Europe and some parts of Asia.
18
One wonders will there be an option for the sadistic sickos who intentionally run over snakes, cats and other defenceless creatures?
An app for the deviants who intentionally drive into standing water to drench pedestrians?
An app for the deviants who intentionally drive into standing water to drench pedestrians?
25
One supposes that Google et al will figure out how to deal with snow covered roads, patches of black ice, etc. One does wonder how well the radar would work in a sudden summer thunderstorm downpour but they will figure that out as well. And although collisions may be greatly reduced, they won't be eliminated, so the lawyers and insurance companies will haggle out issues of liability. ("I wasn't driving so it can't be my fault. Sue Google.")
One does wonder as well, or maybe especially, what will be done with the people like myself who love to drive for the sake of driving. I love to drive my little sports car, zipping around curves on twisty rural roads, shifting up and down through the gears, absorbed in the sensory/mental zen of it all. Maybe there could be real driving knowledge/skill requirements, as opposed to the minimal skills and knowledge currently required, for drivers' licenses for people who choose not to give up control. In fact, maybe if we had those more rigorous requirements now, we wouldn't need robo cars.
One does wonder as well, or maybe especially, what will be done with the people like myself who love to drive for the sake of driving. I love to drive my little sports car, zipping around curves on twisty rural roads, shifting up and down through the gears, absorbed in the sensory/mental zen of it all. Maybe there could be real driving knowledge/skill requirements, as opposed to the minimal skills and knowledge currently required, for drivers' licenses for people who choose not to give up control. In fact, maybe if we had those more rigorous requirements now, we wouldn't need robo cars.
7
You'll be a member of the classic car community. You'll keep your sports car in a climate controlled garage, take it out on the roads a few times a year, and all of those people passively sitting in their auto-piloted autos will drool on the windows as they watch you go by.
1
Recall Kurt Vonnegut's novel "Player Piano" in which a minor character, viewing Americans performing menial "make work projects," asks the existential question in a futuristic American of fully autonomous machines, "What are people for?" Owning, driving, and repairing a car that reflected a mobile image maker of American freedom and individuality shall become an artifact of the past, just as automated manufacturing functions have reduced the percentage of humans involved to a measly 9%. It's a brave new world, and many folks are don't like it.
14
I think part of that image of freedom and individuality is already an artifact of the past. Owning and driving I can still do, but repairing my 2012 Ford Escape? I don't have a computer and a garage full of specialized tools. I miss my 1972 Chevy Nova with the 250 Turbo-thrift engine. Cap and rotor, adjust the rich/lean, pop in a set of new plugs and wires and set it all with a timing light - man that was cool!
3
The idea of Google, a company that cannot build a single component in a car, building cars that it calls their own is ridiculous. The only thing that Google adds to the car is the self driving technology. This technology is already in the hands of all the huge auto companies who are designing their own vehicles. The sole difference between Google and the car companies, according to this piece, is that auto manufacturers see the technology as a complement to the driver and not a replacement, while Google envisions cars that have no steering wheels or brakes.
However the laws that currently allow self driving cars require that a driver be at the controls at all times, so for the near future it will be vehicles of those other companies which will be ones that are sold and used in the real world, while Google's cars will have no practical use.
And the law, in addition to driver's adapting and getting used to the new cars, is the reason the car companies currently have steering wheels in those vehicles that are capable of fully automatic driving. Mercedes released a video recently of a car in which the driver's seat turns to face the passengers once its in motion.
Therefore the car companies have no use for Goggle's technology and there is also no need or use for a car in which Google installed their technology when the same vehicle with that technology can be bought from the manufacturer. As such Google's self driving cars serve no purpose and are already obsolete as we speak.
However the laws that currently allow self driving cars require that a driver be at the controls at all times, so for the near future it will be vehicles of those other companies which will be ones that are sold and used in the real world, while Google's cars will have no practical use.
And the law, in addition to driver's adapting and getting used to the new cars, is the reason the car companies currently have steering wheels in those vehicles that are capable of fully automatic driving. Mercedes released a video recently of a car in which the driver's seat turns to face the passengers once its in motion.
Therefore the car companies have no use for Goggle's technology and there is also no need or use for a car in which Google installed their technology when the same vehicle with that technology can be bought from the manufacturer. As such Google's self driving cars serve no purpose and are already obsolete as we speak.
3
Well, these are experimental vehicles and demonstration projects. Google does that. Traditionally, so have other companies, including the auto companies -- what use are those "concept cars" that never go into production?
1
I really don't understand what this hype around Google's autonomous cars is. They are saying themselves that they are a decade away from going commercial with this concept. At the same time, literally every big car manufacturer has similar technology developed in addition to at least one car parts company doing the same (Delphi). In general, even Google's description of the issue as a "moonshot" doesn't make sense - as not radical changes are required but many incremental steps.
If you want to look at something with real world relevance that could be on the street in a few years - look at the Daimler Freightliner Inspiration truck. A truck that can do autonomous highway driving. This is safe and feasible *now*.
Also going forward - building cars as Google did that don't have a steering wheel seems nothing other than a marketing gimmick. From a practical perspective, the first really useful autnomous feature appearing in cars in a few years will be an autonomous driving assistant restricted to highways. This is the ideal setting - a highly controlled road, with few or no participants other than cars, with a very high return for the user if it works (as so many people spend so much time on highways).
For Europe the implications would be even bigger - autonomous highway driving in an electric car takes away most reasons there are to use a long-distance train ...
If you want to look at something with real world relevance that could be on the street in a few years - look at the Daimler Freightliner Inspiration truck. A truck that can do autonomous highway driving. This is safe and feasible *now*.
Also going forward - building cars as Google did that don't have a steering wheel seems nothing other than a marketing gimmick. From a practical perspective, the first really useful autnomous feature appearing in cars in a few years will be an autonomous driving assistant restricted to highways. This is the ideal setting - a highly controlled road, with few or no participants other than cars, with a very high return for the user if it works (as so many people spend so much time on highways).
For Europe the implications would be even bigger - autonomous highway driving in an electric car takes away most reasons there are to use a long-distance train ...
2
Well cars that can drive on the highway are already here. Google is pushing for something more. The technology has to be tested and refined and Google is doing some of it, earning publicity in the meantime.
The main reason Europeans use the train is that gas taxes are sky high. Electric cars would reduce the cost of travel, but we don't yet have economical electric cars that have sufficient range for long trips. That's still a few years away, either fuel cells or batteries, depending on which becomes economical first.
The main reason Europeans use the train is that gas taxes are sky high. Electric cars would reduce the cost of travel, but we don't yet have economical electric cars that have sufficient range for long trips. That's still a few years away, either fuel cells or batteries, depending on which becomes economical first.
@HH
"autonomous highway driving in an electric car takes away most reasons there are to use a long-distance train …"
There are still a couple of reasons to take the train. They're faster (unless you envision driverless cars traveling at 300kph). And uh, you don't need to own a car. Yeah, there's that.
"autonomous highway driving in an electric car takes away most reasons there are to use a long-distance train …"
There are still a couple of reasons to take the train. They're faster (unless you envision driverless cars traveling at 300kph). And uh, you don't need to own a car. Yeah, there's that.
1
I'll be watching Google's progress on the self-driving cars with keen interest. Additional data will be interesting.
2
"Are we not men?"
Not really.